Richland council vacates portion of Gay Road right-of-way; pedestrian easement required as contingency

The Richland City Council voted unanimously to approve first reading of ordinance 2025-06 to vacate a portion of Gay Road right-of-way between SR 240 and Snyder Street. City staff recommended the vacation but made it contingent on the property owner providing a pedestrian access easement along the eastern edge of the parcel to connect to the existing Vantage Pathway.

At the public hearing Jonathan Bond, a Camas-based developer and co-founder of the company planning a storage facility at 2015 Snyder Street, urged the council to oppose locating a pedestrian pathway along the railroad edge of the site. "We would like to oppose the, the pedestrian pathway in that location," Bond said, citing concerns about proximity to the railroad, potential for vandalism and theft, duplication of a nearby pathway and uncertainty about owner liability for an easement on privately owned land.

Public works director Carlo DeLisandro told council staff saw the vacation as appropriate because the right-of-way is no longer needed for the street system and that "the pathway or agreement for the path or agreement for vacating the right of way is contingent on getting a a pedestrian access easement on the property as well." DeLisandro and other staff described the city's Vantage Pathway extension and a safe pedestrian crossing that already connects much of the area; staff said the proposed easement along the eastern property edge would have the least impact on the developer's plans while providing a safer route to the Rapids Athletic Complex and BMX track.

Council members debated the tradeoffs. Council member Kurt Meyer said he strongly supported vacating the right-of-way only if the pedestrian easement was provided: "I'd 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," he said. Council member Witten acknowledged the access benefits but raised concerns that a narrow pathway next to a railroad and high wall could create policing and visibility issues.

Council member Jones asked who would maintain the path; staff replied, "When the pathway gets built, it will be the city maintaining the trail." The ordinance record indicates the right-of-way in question is 60 feet wide (30 feet on each side of the centerline) along the referenced property line; staff recommended vacating the 60-foot strip while securing a pedestrian easement at the site's eastern edge.

The council approved the motion to vacate the right-of-way on a roll-call vote with all members present voting aye. The recorded action preserves the staff contingency that the pedestrian access easement be secured as part of the vacation process.