Mill Creek council adopts code amendments to comply with new state housing laws over lone dissent

The Mill Creek City Council voted 6-1 June 3 to amend the city—s municipal code to comply with recent Washington state housing legislation, including provisions from multiple bills referenced by staff.

Council considered a motion to amend the Mill Creek Municipal Code "to comply with state housing regulations in HB 1042, HB 110, HB 1337, HB 1998, and SB 5258 and establishing an effective date." The ordinance as presented was described by staff as the minimum changes necessary to meet state requirements; staff recommended final technical adjustments during the city—s annual code update this fall.

Councilmember Justin Cavalieri voiced the lone "no" vote and delivered a substantive statement opposing the state—s approach. "The continued assault on the city's rights to govern itself...is forcing cities like us to absorb the recoil of really the bad policy making of cities around us," Cavalieri said, arguing the state mandates undermined local discretion and could force population growth Mill Creek is ill suited to absorb. Cavalieri said he would vote against the ordinance and suggested the council consider showing capacity without formally adopting the amendments as a way to preserve legal options.

Other councilmembers urged a narrower approach. Councilmember Steckler and others noted the city—s comprehensive plan already concentrates most new density in South Town Center and that the city—s homeowners association covenant changes had protected much of the single-family fabric, limiting immediate impacts to most neighborhoods. A staff presentation explained that commerce guidance had reviewed the proposed amendments and found them "sufficient for now," though some sections (for example, unit subdivision language) would be adjusted after final state rules were clarified.

The motion passed with six "ayes," one "no" (Cavalieri) and no abstentions. The council did not adopt additional measures beyond the minimum changes proposed; staff said they would return with technical updates during the fall annual code update to ensure full compliance with recently enacted statutes.

Context: Staff cited the state Growth Management Act implementation and recent legislative packages that require cities to allow additional housing types, update definitions (for example, changing how co‑living or "boarding house" terms align with the RCW), and adopt anti‑displacement policies. City staff recommended proceeding with the ordinance now and making minor cleanup amendments in the fall when state guidance is finalized.