Remarks by Jesse Patterson
46 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
- Play at 29:04
“Thank you, Chair. I want to go back, circle back and try and close the loop on the conversation we just had about the deviation variance code. Because I think the missing link that we're still not quite at, and maybe you two can give me a head nod, is that we talked about deviation variance, but I think your question was more about do we actually put code in for that specific scenario of the multi street-street natural context, is that correct? It wouldn't be a deviation or a variance, it would actually be code specifically addressing, is kind of what you were getting at, correct? Or at least…”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 30:06
“I made a back pocket going to the appendix.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 31:26
“Perfect. Is that helpful? A little bit. Okay, thank you.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 55:37
“Vice Chair Patterson. I'll get the party started. I would like to move to recommend the approval of the Title 18 Land Use Code Amendment regarding natural context areas in Central Issaquah as presented.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 58:37
“No, Chair, I think we've said what we need to say on this one. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:00:09
“So I think I alluded to this as showing our homework.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:01:38
“This is new to me too. Vice Chair Patterson. Absolutely. Personally speaking on, I think the reason to not maintain the current code is that this process has allowed us to accept feedback from many stakeholders in the process, whether it be builders, and developers, us as a commission and the city staff and the public. And I think it was apparent that a change was needed. And I think that while still maintaining the community expectation that we have, we found kind of a happy medium, if you will, that gave some flexibility. So it didn't make sense to maintain the current code because it…”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:11:02
“Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think I've weaved through this thought process throughout this meeting. I commend Commissioner Holmstrom for kind of addressing it and the staff for explaining it, but I think ultimately what I've understood is that the deviation as it's documented currently in the amended amendments, amended code, actually provides flexibility while also providing clarity of what they can do. So I think it's saying like we understand that there is a scenario that exists where you could run into having multiple you know, facades that require this, but we're giving you these options.…”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:29:12
“Just make sure we do our homework here. Yeah. Option one, I think for a lot of reasons it conflicts with the energy code. Obviously the measurement of the wrong zone of the facade was a big one. And I think staff's analysis showed us, you know, why it's unachievable in a lot of ways. Option two is I think what we landed on with the amendment and then option three, I think we saw and agreed that there was no true identified benefit, maybe a little bit of cost savings for developers, but overall I think it would have traded away the pedestrian experience that we were trying to maintain by not…”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:35:57
“Vice Chair Patterson. Yeah, just to once again address our three options. We land on option two. I think the reason option one or three wouldn't work is because it would put us out of compliance, as Chair Boyce called out. We do have a little bit of time to do it, but I think it's a why wait situation. So choosing option two put us in compliance and the amendment looked great to me, to us.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:44:00
“Yeah, I'm gonna make a point of order here. Uh, this is all great discussion. Very important. I think it would be best at this point to make an amendment if that's okay.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:44:15
“Yeah, so I'd like to make an amendment to this motion for city staff and council to explore townhome standards in the future. I think at this point, may I deliberate now?”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:44:33
“Yeah, so we'll make the recommendation then. But the reason why... But you do need agreement. Okay, right now. Would you like me to state my case?”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:44:45
“It's so hard to go between formal and formal. I know, right? Like, oh, I didn't need to be that formal. Okay. No, ultimately, because I think we're all making great points here, but this conversation is going to go in a deep place that I don't think we're ready to go yet, and this particular topic is too far gone to go back. I think that we need to take the townhouse standards seriously. through this process from the beginning and incorporate it more formally in the future. I just don't think, I think we're opening up a can of worms that maybe we hadn't considered up to this point. So I think…”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:54:53
“Vice Chair Patterson. I'm kind of in the same boat. I think I accept the idea of this, but I think right now I need to understand what's changing the most. Didn't we just all say that it's happening today? Like they are building two car garages? Is it just that that's a market change, not a requirement? I'm just trying to understand it the right way.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:55:22
“Gotcha. And now it's down to one, and we want to put it back to two. OK.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:55:29
“I just want to make sure we're all discussing the right thing. You know he asks a good question when they're all on their computers.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 2:01:59
“Vice Chair Patterson? Yeah, general, yeah. Okay, I'll put this out to the Commission. I'm considering making an amendment to this motion to divide it into two, like an A and a B, three A, three B. And the reason why is because I think part of this amendment is a requirement for compliance with state laws. I think there's a big section of it that we basically have to do. But there also is a section about removing parking minimums in the UC and MUCI zones. And I think that should be considered almost like two separate recommendations. Because I think that there's different reasons why we might…”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 2:07:28
“Motion 3A, the amendments required for compliance with SB 5184 and HB 1183. And then motion 3B, regarding elimination of parking minimums in UC and MUCI zones. You get that okay?”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 2:08:08
“Okay, I'll argue my own case here. I don't know that I'm necessarily against minimums. I just don't know enough to make a decision for now. And so I guess that does mean I'm against it for now. So if it makes sense, we can move forward with approving the state requirement ones and recommending further discussion.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 2:09:41
“Pretend I never said anything. So yeah, I would like to amend motion three to move forward with the amendments reviewed for compliance with State Bill 5184. in House Bill 1183 and remove the elimination of parking minimums. That's good, that's good, that's enough? That works. Okay.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026