Richland council approves vacation of portion of Gay Road right-of-way; pedestrian easement required

The Richland City Council on Feb. 4 voted to vacate a former portion of Gay Road right-of-way between SR 240 and Snyder Street, approving first reading of ordinance 2025-06. The ordinance passed on a roll call vote with all members present voting aye.

Carlo DeLisandro, public works director, told the council the right-of-way is a historic county road alignment now sitting on vacant land and that the strip measures 60 feet wide (30 feet on each side of the property line) along the parcel in question. City staff recommended vacating the right-of-way but required the property owner to grant a pedestrian access easement on the eastern boundary of the property, where a pathway would connect the existing Vantage Pathway to recreational facilities in Horn Rapids.

At the hearing, Jonathan Bond, who said he is a co‑founder of a development company and a resident of Camas, Washington, told council representatives he opposes placing a pedestrian pathway along the eastern edge of the parcel abutting the railroad. Bond raised safety and liability concerns, saying the proximity to the railroad could create potential hazards if train equipment were to fail, and expressed concern that the path would invite vandalism or other undesirable activity. "We just think that that creates, potentially a, just a dangerous environment next to the railroad," Bond said, and asked the council to reject the proposed pedestrian easement location.

Council members debated the request. Council member Kurt Meyer said he strongly supported vacating the right-of-way only if the pedestrian access easement is required because it would provide a safer bicycle and pedestrian route to the BMX track and other recreational sites than riding along SR 240. "I would feel a heck of a lot better about my kids riding their bike to the BMX track if they could do it away from the gigantic state road," Meyer said. Council member Witten expressed concern that a pathway next to the railroad and an adjacent opaque wall could create law-enforcement or visibility issues but did not oppose the vacation if staff retained the easement contingency. Council member Jones noted the city would maintain the trail once built, addressing Bond's liability question; DeLisandro confirmed city maintenance responsibility.

The ordinance, as presented, makes the vacation contingent on the grant of a pedestrian access easement and staff recommended keeping that contingency despite public testimony. Council approved first reading with the easement condition; next steps include finalizing the easement language with the property owner and moving the ordinance to second reading.