<< Previous   of   Next >> Suzanne Schmid / The Herald  (click to enlarge) Joe Gaddy of Edmonds hikes up 136th Street SW last week. The road has a grade of nearly 30 percent, about twice the county standard.

ADVERTISEMENT

How steep? Joe Gaddy's street is one of the steepest in Snohomish County. The street - 136th Street SW in Edmonds - has a 27 percent to 30 percent grade, according to Snohomish County engineers. That means for every 100 feet, it rises or descends 27 to 30 feet. It rivals the steepest street in the world: Baldwin Street, Dunedin, New Zealand, which has a 35 percent grade. Standard county arterials have a 10 percent grade. Other roads have up to a 15 percent grade.

CONTACT THE HERALD

Robert Frank, City Editor frank@heraldnet.com

Edmonds man wins a long, uphill safety battle

By Jeff Switzer, Herald Writer

EDMONDS - Carved by glaciers and paved by man, the road might as well be an Olympic ski jump.

If a car loses it here, it could be a ticket straight over a cliff into Puget Sound.

Some have come close. For years, drivers on 136th Street SW have ditched their cars in people's yards to avoid careening over the edge.

So when a property owner asked Snohomish County if he could split his property in half to build another home on the street, Joe Gaddy began his long battle.

"The whole issue is about public safety. My safety," Gaddy told Snohomish County Superior Court Judge James Allendoerfer.

On Friday, after years of fighting the county and losing, the tides turned toward Gaddy.

Allendoerfer sided with him, throwing out county approval of development on his street.

"I'm vindicated," Gaddy said. "His rulings went right along with everything I've been saying since day one."

And as a result, the county might change how it reviews permits.

Twice too steep

All of the fuss is over a controversial 3.5 acres near Picnic Point with gorgeous views of Puget Sound. Trouble is, the roughly 300-foot road to the property has up to a 30 percent grade.

That's more than twice the county's maximum standard for roads, and it's considered too steep for fire trucks.

Other big rigs don't do well, either. A log truck rolled on the road in the 1990s, dumping its load harvested from the hill. Another time, a cement truck blew its engine trying to climb the hill delivering concrete for a new house.

Gaddy watched as a flatbed truck slid hundreds of feet down the hill with its brakes locked, dragging a loading ramp. It stopped short of a steel guardrail on the cliff's edge.

"It's too steep, too dangerous," Gaddy said. "Every single additional car up here increases the odds of an accident."

Gaddy bought his land on the steep street in 1985 when he was 25 years old. Through a county error, he was allowed to build his dream house there in 1989.

Today, there are four homes on the street. Now, older and wiser, Gaddy said he couldn't imagine another home being built on the steep road.

'Hazardous road'

For decades, Snohomish County officials agreed. As early as 1983, public works officials called the road hazardous and turned down proposals for building lots and access to the road.

A property owner sued the county in 1993, pressing to allow one more building lot on the road. The County Council said yes, even though county staff were still opposed.A decade later, the new owner - John Marasco - asked the county if he could instead have two houses on the still-vacant land.

Marasco bought the land in the late 1990s and is a senior development manager for Security Properties Inc., a Seattle-based development company with $2.5 billion in holdings across the country.

Marascowon exceptions from the county rules and was allowed a second building lot.

For years, Gaddy said he tried to persuade county staff of the danger of the steep road. He said his concerns were ignored.

In December, Gaddy tried to overturn the decision through the county hearing examiner.

His last hope was superior court.

On the case

Gaddy isn't your typical not-in-my-back-yard opponent of development. He's a 24-year veteran detective of the King County Sheriff's Office who knows his way around courtrooms.

He worked 11 years as a narcotics detective and now oversees evictions by the sheriff's office.

He said what he lacked in the polish of an attorney he made up for in research in building the case.

"I've got the records, documents from the county saying, 'You can't do this,' and now they're saying you can," Gaddy said.

He dug through 1,600 pages of memos and staff reports about the property, including declarations on Snohomish County letterhead that his road was hazardous to drivers.

In 1983, permit coordinator Nancy Monson wrote: "the road poses a potential hazard to the motoring public due to the excessive grade."

In 1992, county engineer David Evans said the steep road "is particularly unsafe given the short distance to the edge of the cliff face. Failure to negotiate this turn would have disastrous results."

Fast forward to 2006, when county reviewers said the property deserves to be developed, in part to help meet the state's goals of building more housing in the urban area.

Traffic engineers said one more house on the street wouldn't cause congestion. The fire marshal said having an additional house on the steep road met standards.

Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Allendoerfer said the reviewers missed the most important issue: public safety.

Scathing ruling

On Friday, Allendoerfer reversed all county approvals, including that of the county hearing examiner, public works and planning staff.

County staff failed to sufficiently investigate the danger posed by the steep road, he said.

"There's no explanation why the Department of Public Works finds this road to be a safety hazard in the '90s and then in 2006 reverses itself and decides it isn't a problem," Allendoerfer said.

"There has been inadequate consideration of public safety."

He questioned the competency of several county departments and consultants.

The court's deference to the county and developer's technical experts "has not been earned in this case," Allendoerfer said.

He called the fire marshal's approval "arbitrary and clearly erroneous." It's unclear "why he thinks a fire truck can get up a 27 percent grade when 15 percent is the standard."

Gaddy won a few hundred dollars for copying fees.Marasco, in court for the ruling, said he was disappointed and would be considering whether to reapply.

Changes at the county

The county is reviewing the judge's ruling, said Greg Morgan, deputy director of Planning and Development Services.

The county is taking a hard look at the situation, and reviewing our procedures "to ensure this doesn't happen again," Morgan said.

"There's very, very strong potential that some procedures will be reviewed and revised."

As the judge rebuked county officials in his ruling Friday, Gaddy said he felt like Michael Jordan in his prime, floating toward the hoop.

"Up until the judge makes that ruling, it makes me sound like the average nut job screaming and yelling about something that doesn't have any grounds, or any logical argument," Gaddy said.

"When it was all said and done, I was very pleased with the outcome. At the same time, I'm frustrated. (To me) it was so obvious, such a slam dunk."

Reporter Jeff Switzer: 425-339-3452 or jswitzer@heraldnet.com.