Council set to decide Dec. 5 whether to continue pursuing Landmark property

The Landmark Site is located just east of Highway 99 and includes Burlington Coat Factory.

A pivotal decision is before the Edmonds City Council Tuesday, Dec. 5: Whether to continue pursuing acquisition of the Landmark 99 property in 2024 or back away from the $37 million property purchase.

The council in June voted to authorize Mayor Mike Nelson to sign an option agreement for the Landmark site, located at the southern edge of Edmonds’ Highway 99 neighborhood. The agreement included a refundable deposit of $100,000 to hold the property — which includes the Burlington Coat Factory and Antique Mall businesses — for six months, giving the city time to conduct public engagement and further study the idea.

The council will vote whether to spend the next year studying whether to complete the purchase. However, if the city in 2024 decided to walk away from the project, the city would forfeit its $100,000 deposit.

According to the council agenda, approval Tuesday night means the city would do the following:

1. Advertise a request for proposals (RFP) to the development community seeking a partner in the purchase and construction of the site.

2. Select a partner, or partners.

3. Continue to master plan the site.

4. Negotiate a development agreement that outlines the terms of the agreement and the public benefits to be provided through development.

5. Negotiate the assignment of a portion of the city’s right to purchase to the developer or developers.

6. Develop, and secure approval for, a financing plan based off the items negotiated in the development agreement and any net costs.

Other agenda items on the Dec. 5 agenda include:

– Adoption of the 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program.

– Continuation of 2024 budget deliberations.

The council will also hold a special meeting Monday, Dec. 4 to talk about budget amendments.

The Dec. 5 meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N., downtown Edmond. You can also view or comment using the following Zoom meeting link: Or comment by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261.

Regular council meetings beginning at 7 p.m. are streamed live on the council meeting webpage (where you can also see the complete agenda), Comcast channel 21 and Ziply channel 39.

  1. Given we are already in a fiscal crisis any vote to continue with this project would be suicidal. We will know soon who wants what’s best for our city at heart.

  2. Vote no. The project does not make financial or economic sense. There are better ways to improve the quality of life in this neighborhood. Council members should represent the whole city, not a partisan party, one neighborhood, or even a childhood memory. The city should move on from this project and start the real work of building and creating positive improvements to the Highway 99 neighborhood.

  3. This property should be left to private investors. The city of Edmonds needs to stick to its knitting.
    I vote no on the purchase.

    1. This proposal smells of a set up , Consider the appointment Jenna Nand the two time loser to the council then gets appointed ? then she runs unopposed . I am a Lake Ballinger resident and back in 1987 the current owners proposed 180 apartments that needed access to 242nd to get approval 242nd is dead end currently and has been since the construction of state hwy 104 . It was the Lake Ballinger community club that filed suit with the leadership of the late Ray Van Hollebeke the suit stopped the development and access to 242nd my neighborhood . Currently we are in contact with neighbors that want to stop this plan. We will rise up and stop this plan once again.

      1. The story behind the Landmark deal just isn’t right. The proposed project would destroy the back end neighborhood on 242nd. Inevitably personal agenda of certain council members will eventually collapse.

  4. Tom, unfortunately the people you have to convince to vote no on this project on this round are CMs Chen, Nand, Paine and Eck or at least one of them. There is great pressure on them (from an external to the city source) to continue this boondoggle. Good Luck with getting that no vote because it probably isn’t going to happen.

    1. Who or what is the “external to the city source”? This vote is strictly about our city and no external entity should have an effect on what our CC members think or how they vote. I hope our CC members remember this. Edmonds citizens voted for these CC members in good faith that they would take the entire city into consideration before any vote. I just hope these mentioned CC members have a conscience and their caring is for all of Edmonds not some outside or inside influence. Those influences will not help anyone in the end.

    2. Clint- that reference to ‘great pressure’ is very intriguing. You’ll have to say more. I can attest that there is great pressure on city council persons from within the city limits also on the Landmark 99 project. I was frustrated that the city never asked the residents their opinion, so ran an online opinion poll for about 5 1/2 days and submitted the results report to City Council members last night, with a copy to the city directors and mayor. I am submitting the ‘executive summary’ of that 12 page report to MEN and The Beacon today so that they can publish it for their readers. Nine individuals thought this poll was so important ( but I’m not convinced council will use it to inform their vote on Dec 5th) that they stuffed the ballot box. It was easy to find those votes, and I removed them from the data set. So those nervous fraudsters didn’t even have one of their votes counted. Public discourse takes all form in this small town. For a $20 license fee, you too can run an online opinion poll. I’ll teach you how to do the system configurations if you’re interested.

  5. I haven’t heard from city staff how much steps 1-6 in this article will cost us? Cost us in either consultants or staff time. You would think that should be part of the discussion since we’re in the middle of creating a budget for 2024. Oh, that’s right, we don’t worry about budgets in this city.

  6. Edmonds is in a fiscal crisis. We cannot afford the Landmark purchase. Private developers will create businesses here that increase tax revenues. I live near Hwy 99. We need sidewalks and policing, not a park. There are loads of parks nearby.

  7. Come now folks. You all didn’t notice that Strom Peterson made a rather grandiose appearance at CM Eck’s welcome to the club party Council Meeting a couple weeks ago? All four of our CM’s, that I mentioned above, are avowed Democrats and have asked for party support at one time or another in their various political pursuits. I’ll believe the Snohomish County Democratic Party isn’t pulling their strings on this Landmark deal, when I see one of them give a no vote tonight; if the matter actually gets voted on again. Our Senator (Lias) and Rep./County Councilman (Peterson) were big proponents of the up zoning that just passed for the entire state (unless you live in a rich; protected HOA community); and this is just the sort of project that compliments their approach to density management and social engineering.

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.