## Facts

- Anderson owned commercially zoned property in Issaquah, Washington, and applied for a land use certification to build a 6,800-square-foot commercial building for retail tenants.
- The proposed design included an off-white stucco face, a blue roof, a modern style, a warehouse-like rear, and large side retail windows.
- The Issaquah Development Commission denied the application under Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) 16.16.060 “building design objectives,” which required concepts such as compatibility, “harmony in texture, lines, and masses,” and avoidance of monotony.
- Commissioners’ comments and the ordinance’s language relied on subjective aesthetic judgments (e.g., “interest,” “harmony,” “feeling of the street,” and the City’s “image”).
- Anderson revised the design multiple times over several Commission meetings, but approval was repeatedly denied as not meeting the City’s design objectives.
- The City Council upheld the Commission’s denial.
- The superior court affirmed the City’s decision and rejected Anderson’s constitutional vagueness challenge.
- The City’s affirmative defenses were summarily dismissed; the City cross-appealed that dismissal, and Anderson sought attorney’s fees claiming the cross-appeal was frivolous.

## Issues

1. Whether IMC 16.16.060’s aesthetic “building design objectives” were unconstitutionally vague under due process because they lacked ascertainable standards and permitted arbitrary enforcement.
2. Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the City’s affirmative defenses, and whether the City’s cross-appeal was frivolous such that attorney’s fees should be awarded.

## Decision

- The court held IMC 16.16.060’s building design provisions unconstitutionally vague as applied in the land use certification process.
- The court reversed the superior court and directed that Anderson’s land use certification be issued.
- The court affirmed summary dismissal of the City’s affirmative defenses.
- The court denied Anderson’s request for attorney’s fees, holding the City’s cross-appeal was not frivolous.

## Legal Principles

- A regulation is void for vagueness if it fails to give fair notice or, most relevant here, if it lacks ascertainable standards that constrain decision makers and thereby invites arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- Municipalities may regulate aesthetics in land-use controls, but aesthetic goals must be implemented through reasonably specific standards that provide meaningful guidance to applicants and reviewing bodies.
- Procedural safeguards (hearings, administrative appeals, judicial review) do not cure a lack of substantive standards where the governing criteria are indeterminate.
- Broad, impressionistic aesthetic criteria (e.g., “harmony,” “interest,” “avoid monotony”) without objective benchmarks can be unconstitutional when they leave applicants to guess what will satisfy the decision maker.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Issaquah’s design-review ordinance because its subjective aesthetic objectives provided no meaningful standards, enabling ad hoc decisions that violated due process, and it ordered issuance of the requested land use certification while rejecting fees and sustaining dismissal of the City’s affirmative defenses.


Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64, 851 P.2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)