Edmonds residents explore pros and cons of city’s Landmark 99 proposal

The meeting drew an estimated 60 people to Edmonds-Woodway High School Oct. 21.

Residents had a chance to share their thoughts Saturday regarding Landmark 99, a 10-acre property along Highway 99 that the City of Edmonds has proposed as a possible site for housing, parks and public and community spaces.

An estimated 60 Edmonds residents – half from the Highway 99/Lake Ballinger neighborhood and half from other parts of the city – attended the city-sponsored event Oct. 21 at Edmonds-Woodway High School. 

Edmonds Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin welcomes attendees.

Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin opened the meeting with an overview of the timeline regarding a possible Landmark 99 purchase. After city officials and the consultant planning team from Perkins Eastman Studio review the residents’ Oct. 21 input, they will present site alternatives at a future open house.

“We have until the end of December to explore what could happen on this site. How can we purchase this site?” McLaughlin said. “Do we want to purchase this site? What will it look like? No decision has been made yet on this site. We’re all here to talk about what is possible.”

Edmonds Mayor Mike Nelson said that he has heard from residents along Highway 99 that they don’t get the same infrastructure, services and attention as the Edmonds Bowl receives. Earlier this year, Nelson said that the city was looking to acquire more parkland near Lake Ballinger and “discovered” 3 acres of undeveloped land behind Burlington Coat Factory. They reached out to the landowner to buy the land, but the landowner wanted to sell the whole 10 acres instead of 3.

Edmonds Mayor Mike Nelson talks about the history of the project.

“The owner of the property is going to sell this land,” Nelson said. “This land will be developed. If this is going to be developed, would you like to have a say what is going to be developed there? Would you like to have some sort of control over the possibilities of services and ideas and things that can happen there — or not? If the city doesn’t take this on, it will be developed to whatever the zone is allowed there, and you’ll have no say beyond that. We have a long way to go before the actual purchase. You’re at the shaping moment.” 

In June, the Edmonds City Council voted to authorize Nelson to enter into an option agreement for the possible future purchase of Landmark 99. With the option agreement, the owner is agreeing to not place the property on the commercial market, giving the city time to conduct community engagement and explore funding and partnership opportunities. 

The agreement entails a $100,000 deposit, which is refundable during the  six-month period that ends in December. Following the initial six months, if the Edmonds City Council agreed, the city would have another year to determine whether to finalize the purchase. If a decision was made not to buy the property, the city would lose its $100,000.

During a presentation to attendees Saturday, Vaughan Davies, architect and urban designer at Perkins Eastman, explained that the current Burlington Northern property has “inhospitable roadways,” making it a “difficult site to get into” for both vehicles and pedestrians.

“There are no great pedestrian crossings here,” Davies said. “We’re going to make sure whatever development does happen here fosters that pedestrian orientation and some traffic calming. If we can bring some landscaping and soft edges, it would be a win for everybody.”

He also described some of the issues – including the traffic noise from Edmonds Way/Highway 104 – and potential solutions to them, such as a buffer zone between the site and residents on the east side.

Matte Roewe, architect and urban planner, talks about the case studies.

Architect Matte Roewe compared the sizes of the existing town centers in Tukwila, Federal Way, Woodinville and Burien to the Landmark 99 site and highlighted what these case studies have in common. These include having a “centerpiece” like a community center or a city hall, pilot catalyst projects, increased housing and retail, and a pedestrian-oriented infrastructure.

“How much public investment goes into and how much private?” Roewe asked. “You’re buying a large property, but in this process, you’re going to sell a great deal there to a private developer and get that back. And then the city will do their part. Working in collaboration, you can create a substantial project that will have a multiplier effect on everything around it.”

A display board of case studies from various cities.

After staff and consultant presentations and a question-and-answer session, attendees gathered in groups of about eight people and discussed what they would like to have at the Landmark 99 site, what problems developers may face and what would be the ideal percentage for f a public-private partnership investment (for example, 25-75, 50-50, 75-25).

All groups shared similar visions, including senior and low-income housing, new retail, coffee shops, a community center, a “flexible” center and a police substation. One group recommended an aquatic center, while another suggested low-income housing or a Boys and Girls Club.

In terms of infrastructure, most groups suggested there should be more connections to the Interurban Trail, which runs from Shoreline through Lynnwood and also connects Lake Ballinger to Mathay-Ballinger Park, and stormwater drainage improvements on 240th and 242nd Streets Southwest. 

Groups share their ideas during breakout sessions.

All groups repeated “sidewalks” as a major priority in neighborhoods near the Landmark 99 site. “There was skepticism expressed about the value (of the Landmark 99 site) to the overall community, and whether or not that’s the type of investment the public has been crying out for,” said Judi Gladstone, who lives in Edmonds’ Gateway neighborhood near Highway 99. “Is there a potential of diverting the city’s attention to this one space rather than what the community has been asking for?” 

Jonathan Gerodias, who lives near Lake Ballinger, said his group agreed that there should be no vehicle access to Highway 99 via 242nd Street, which is now closed to through traffic. “If we insist we open that, we want sidewalks ‘cause none exists right now,” he said. “They need to be concrete, street lights are necessary and speed bumps to control the speed.”

Some residents were open to a more “centralized” Highway 99 location for the project that would be accessible to more residents. “We want a community to have the things we talked about to be more centrally located to town,” Edmonds resident Darrol Haug said. “Whatever we do, we definitely need to generate more revenue.” One suggestion from Haug’s group included possibly having a car delivery center at the site to “bump up” sales tax revenue.

Barb Brister, who lives in Westgate, suggested the possibility of “workforce housing” for service workers, paraeducators and various other occupations where people can’t afford a home that is close to where they work. She and her group added priorities that included disabled, bike and underground parking at Landmark 99 as well as more accessibility across Highway 99, such as an overpass for pedestrians. 

Kevin Harris gives a report from his group.

Kevin Harris, who serves as vice chair of the Edmonds Economic Development Commission, said that his breakout group had talked about security and safety as a “top priority” in the area. “Those who have lived there all their lives felt that it was developed into a ‘if you leave your car open, that it’s going to get broken into,’ that kind of perspective,” he said. 

Harris also shared similar concerns with Geradias about traffic and too many cars. “Are we here for the cars or are we here for the people?” he said. “[Residents] don’t want another park and ride.” 

To ease traffic and reduce noise pollution, Harris also suggested that there should be a transit system that takes people to light rail stations, along with a sound buffer built in the area, reduction of asphalt, maximization of  green space, and hidden parking areas.

Harris said his group has  another concern about the public-private partnership. “The value proposition, [the group] felt there’s a lot of missing information, such as total cost,” he said. “Even a 25% of the public side of the spectrum could amount to a lot of money.” And, he added, “This type of percentage in discussion doesn’t happen in projects in the Bowl.”

The city plans to hold a Landmark 99 open house in November, with the date still to be determined. You can see the My Edmonds News video of the meeting here.

— Story and photos by Nick Ng

  1. What I don’t get is the hard sell from the city this is backwards of how these things should work I know this area wants needs the city to better serve them they have asked for sidewalks, streetlights, public safety, parks among their top priorities and instead of the city working on those things they push this it really doesn’t make sense. My advice to those living in the area is to just say no and advocate for the improvements that would benefit you most. I talked with Rosen about this very thing helping improving”underserved areas” he even took a written note of it.

  2. The city council should not be in the business of property development. The city can zone the property to influence its development. Our taxes should be spent on schools, police and fire protection.

    1). The city government lacks experience in property development. Hiring consultants does not provide experience.
    2). The city government lacks the funds necessary. Raising our taxes, when we are already suffering from inflation is not looking after you constituents.
    3). The city government lacks the support of your constituents for the purchase (take note of comments made to news articles posted on “My Edmonds News”) 4). On top of all of the above, the value of the property in the current economic situation has fallen. With interest rates the highest they have been in a while, and banks cutting back on commercial loans, the value of the property has decreased.

    1. Excellent point!

      Everyone is acting like it’s business as usual and ignoring the budget and the near term fiscal emergency we have looking at documented in our projections!

      More importantly, look at the continued costs and hours accumulating with all the staff and Council time devoted to this project and the property has never been tested on the open market?

      We must get back to basics and working on the tremendous workload of the comp plan and its elements; multi-family design standards so we don’t look densified like Shoreline on 99; code updates; environmental impact statement; our watershed and our short and long term plan for financial stability.

      I say … Walk away as I can guarantee you no one will be buying that property at that price.

  3. I’m really excited about the possibilities here. We want more attractive areas to walk and ride our bikes too, without having to come up a massive hill to get home. Park lands, a community center, and space for small retail and restaurant businesses (prioritizing local over major chains) and affordable housing would all be a boon to the area, especially if the area is designed in a way that is pedestrian-focused (but still has some parking for people with mobility issues or out of the area visitors). This is about ensuring our city has multiple robust neighborhoods, and continuing to then improve the connection between the foci of our city to one another.

  4. Sasha, I’m really excited about the possibilities too; but that’s not the real issue here. The real issue is should city employees, both hired and elected along with high paid (by the city taxpayers) consultants be putting on what amounts to a sales pitch for mixing public funds into private development projects. They aren’t just advocating spending the tax money from residents who live in the immediate area, they are advocating spending the tax money from everyone who lives in our town on this project. I attended the meeting and felt like I was at a high pressure time share complimentary dinner/sales meeting; without the complimentary dinner.

  5. Agreed. Like the wastewater treatment plant. I’d like it if the water coming from my upstairs faucet didn’t smell like rotten eggs.

  6. I did not attend the meeting so cannot comment on whether or not it was run in the style of a high-pressure timeshare meeting. But I would like to counter Clinton’s concern that the entire city would have to pay for this project. A thoughtful, responsive-to-community-needs kind of project benefits the entire city. City-wide taxes support city projects. Period. I also hear Diane’s concern about other pressing needs in the city, from critical shorelines multi-family design standard. And Chad is right to urge more paving in areas that lack it (and more sidewalks). However, this opportunity strikes me a one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. A ten acre parcel at the county line, fronting on Highway 99, offers the ability to upgrade the south entrance to Edmonds, provide park land to benefit future generations of residents, and provide an upgraded police presence to an area in need of it. I hope that Edmonds has the foresight and fortitude to go for this purchase and balance it with competing needs throughout the city. The present owner may not have great options for a private sale right now, but the economy always cycles. If the city doesn’t move forward, eventually a completely private development will. And it probably won’t offer what residents need or want.

    1. Enlighten me Carol, where is the city going get the 100 plus million dollars or more depending on the amenities to buy and develop this property?

      1. Brian, this has been the most vague part of the story the it’s has been telling us. What I’ve been able to gleen from the meetings and presentations is 1) the City signs the purchase and sale agreement that mandates public use to at least 35% (read this as ‘not revenue generating’ ) 2) the city issues an RFP to a developer to buy the other 65% from the city 3) the developer and city debate and agree on what buildings the developer builds (hotel, 75ft tall apartment buildings, etc) 4) the city gets bids on the cost of the plaza, playground, community center, etc that they will build 5) the city issues bonds. What really, really concerns me is that the city would do tax increment financing – a type bond that is new in Wash State. We have a horrible track record on doing things that are new. (Want to buy some bio char? Director Antillon is now hoping someone will buy it from us for a dollar. The advocates for the new sewage incinerator told us just a few years ago they’d sell it for a good price). This deal is structured to favor the seller. When I sell my place, I want him to negotiate that deal- he’s good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.