Are design requirements in a municipal building code that lack specific, measurable standards unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause?

M. Bruce Anderson, Gary D. LaChance, and M. Bruce Anderson, Inc. sought a land use certification to develop a 6,800-square-foot commercial building for retail tenants in Issaquah. The Issaquah Development Commission denied their application, citing building design concerns under IMC 16.16.060. Anderson appealed this decision to the Issaquah City Council, which upheld the Development Commission's ruling.

Following the City Council's affirmation, Anderson filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court. The legal action challenged the constitutionality of the building design requirements outlined in IMC 16.16.060, which had been the basis for the denial of their land use certification application.

Anderson filed a complaint in King County Superior Court on April 18, 1989, shortly after receiving notice of the City Council's decision. The complaint was subsequently amended to include M. Bruce Anderson, Inc. as a co-plaintiff. The City raised affirmative defenses, which were stricken when Anderson moved for summary judgment. The trial court dismissed Anderson's complaint, rejecting the claims that would later form the basis of the appeal. Anderson then appealed the decision to the Washington Court of Appeals.

(Kennedy, J.)

Yes. Design requirements in a municipal building code that lack specific, measurable standards are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. The code sections in question fail to provide effective or meaningful guidance to applicants, design professionals, or public officials, violating fundamental principles of due process. Vague laws offend several important values - they trap the innocent by not providing fair warning, they lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by delegating basic policy matters to low-level officials for resolution on an ad hoc basis, and they inhibit the exercise of constitutional freedoms. Here, the building design requirements leave commissioners to enforce their own arbitrary concepts rather than clear, objective standards. This lack of specificity allows for inconsistent application and fails to put citizens on notice of what is required, hallmarks of unconstitutional vagueness. The presence of procedural safeguards does not cure these fundamental constitutional defects. When laws regulating property use lack sufficient definiteness and specificity, they deprive owners of the ability to know what is prohibited and what is permitted. This uncertainty chills the exercise of property rights and opens the door to discriminatory enforcement. By failing to articulate clear standards, the code impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to officials for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis. Such standardless delegation of authority violates core due process principles of fair notice and non-arbitrary application of the law. Accordingly, the building design requirements are void for vagueness both facially and as applied.

Concurrence (Scholfield, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Grosse, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.