Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/52/531.html
Timestamp: 2019-02-17 21:46:52
Document Index: 407717387

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 65302', '§ 65860', '§ 65356', '§ 65352', '§ 65353', '§ 65355', '§ 11', '§ 65860', '§ 3501', '§ 65300', '§ 1859', '§ 9611', '§ 65300', '§ 65358', '§ 65302', '§ 7', '§ 65302', '§ 4013', '§ 4013', '§ 65358', '§ 1021']

Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 3d › Volume 52 › Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990)
Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990)
David Benjamin and Thomas Haas, City Attorneys, John Truxaw, Deputy City Attorney, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Mark I. Weinberger, Marc B. Mihaly, Wendy S. Strimling and Rachel B. Cooper for Defendant and Appellant. [52 Cal. 3d 535]
A general plan must set out a statement of the city's development policies and objectives, and include specific elements among which are land use and [52 Cal. 3d 536] circulation elements. (§ 65302, subds. (a) & (b).)fn. 3 Once the city has adopted a general plan, all zoning ordinances must be consistent with that plan, and to be consistent must be "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan." (§ 65860, subd. (a)(ii).)
"No buildings or structures shall be built in the City of Walnut Creek unless (1) the AM and PM Peak Hour Volume to Capacity Ratio of all intersections on Ygnacio Valley Road and all intersections within the Core Area along Main Street, Broadway, California Blvd., Mt. Diablo Blvd., Civic Drive and Parkside Drive is .85 or less, and (2) the traffic generated by the proposed building or structure when such traffic is added to the existing [52 Cal. 3d 537] and expected traffic volumes, will not increase the AM or PM Peak Hour Volume to Capacity Ratio at any of those intersections above .85."
The trial court concluded that Measure H was not an amendment of the general plan, observing that it was not described as such in the ballot [52 Cal. 3d 538] measure, the analysis of the city attorney, or any of the arguments in favor of or in opposition to the measure. Further support for that conclusion was found in the detailed scope and the self-executing nature of Measure H, features not common to general plan provisions which are the basis for future development to be implemented by additional detailed measures. The court found it unnecessary to determine if Measure H was a zoning ordinance, because the effect of inconsistency with the general plan was the same regardless of whether Measure H was a zoning ordinance or a measure other than a general plan amendment affecting land use.
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for adoption or amendment (§ 65356.1) of a general plan, following notice and at least one hearing, by resolution of the local planning commission (§ 65352) and endorsement reflecting its approval by resolution of the legislative body. (§§ 65353, 65357.) The legislative body's approval must also follow at least one noticed [52 Cal. 3d 539] public hearing. (§ 65355.) Nevertheless, because adoption of a general plan is a legislative act, the people's reserved power of referendum (art. II, § 11) has been held to be applicable (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 561, 570-571 [205 Cal. Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152]) and both the initiative and referendum powers have been held applicable to zoning ordinances (Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal. 3d 511, 516-517 [169 Cal. Rptr. 904, 620 P.2d 565]; Friedman v. City of Fairfax (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 667, 672, fn. 5 [146 Cal.Rptr. 687]) notwithstanding similar procedural requirements which apply to the legislative body.
The Court of Appeal recognized that the courts must resolve all doubts in favor of the people's exercise of the initiative power and uphold the validity of an initiative wherever it is possible to do so. (See Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 591 [135 Cal. Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473, 92 A.L.R.3d 1038].) It found no significance in the fact that Measure H was not described in its title or in other ballot measures as an amendment to the general plan, but agreed with the trial court that the specificity and self-executing nature of Measure H resembled a zoning ordinance rather than a general plan provision. The court then considered whether those features would have rendered Measure H invalid as part of a general plan, concluding that notwithstanding the purpose of [52 Cal. 3d 540] the general plan as a "constitution" for future development, a specific and self-executing provision would be permissible in a general plan.
[3] "Although the initiative power must be construed liberally to promote the democratic process [citation] when utilized to enact statutes, those statutes are subject to the same constitutional limitations and rules of construction as are other statutes." (Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 658, 675 [194 Cal. Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17].) The same is true when a local initiative is at issue.
[4] We cannot at once accept the function of a general plan as a "constitution," or perhaps more accurately a charter for future development, and the proposition that it can be amended without notice to the electorate that such amendment is the purpose of an initiative.fn. 8 Implied amendments or [52 Cal. 3d 541] repeals by implication are disfavored in any case (Flores v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 171, 176 [113 Cal. Rptr. 217, 520 P.2d 1033]), and the doctrine may not be applied here. The Planning and Zoning Law itself precludes consideration of a zoning ordinance which conflicts with a general plan as a pro tanto repeal or implied amendment of the general plan. The general plan stands. A zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the general plan is invalid when passed (deBottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1212 [217 Cal. Rptr. 790]; Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704 [179 Cal.Rptr. 261]) and one that was originally consistent but has become inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the general plan. (§ 65860.) The Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform.
Whether adopted by the legislative body or the electorate, an ordinance that is not understood by that body as a general plan amendment does not become such retroactively by judicial fiat. Indulging in a presumption that, by the enactment of what appears to be a zoning ordinance, the voters intend to amend a general plan, would violate the clear legislative intent underlying the Planning and Zoning Law. "Unrestricted amendments of the general plan to conform to zoning changes would destroy the general plan as a tool for the comprehensive development of the community as a whole." (deBottari v. City Council, supra, 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1212.)
The dispositive question, therefore, is whether a basis exists for concluding that the voters of Walnut Creek intended to amend the general plan by [52 Cal. 3d 542] adopting Measure H. Since we cannot presume the existence of such intent, it must be found, if it exists, in the ballot measure itself or the explanatory material in the ballot pamphlet.
Similar provisions apply to statutory initiatives. (Elec. Code, §§ 3501, 3503, 3507.) [5] Their purpose, like that of the predecessor requirements of the Constitution and the Political Code (see Vandeleur v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal. 2d 71 [82 P.2d 455]), is to inform the voters "in order to protect the electorate from imposition" by disclosing "the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure." (Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal. 2d 61, 70 [82 P.2d 445].)fn. 9
Adequate notice is crucial in this context if the purpose of the Planning and Zoning Law is to be achieved by creating and maintaining a general plan that is an "integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies" (§ 65300.5) and a "basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use" in the city. (City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal. App. 3d 521, 532 [160 Cal. Rptr. 907]. See also, Wallace v. Zinman (1927) 200 Cal. 585, 593 [254 P. 946, 62 A.L.R. 1341]: "If an amendment of the constitution were intended, [former section l of article IV] requires steps to be taken that will apprise the voters thereof so that they may intelligently judge of the fitness of such measure as a constituent part of the organic law.") [6] As the Court of Appeal recognized, far from becoming part of an "integrated, internally consistent [52 Cal. 3d 543] and compatible statement of policies," the addition of Measure H to the Walnut Creek general plan would have created impermissible inconsisten- cies in that plan.fn. 10
[2c] The title and ballot summary are relevant to construction of Measure H since they did not inform the voters that the purpose and effect of Measure H would be amendment of the general plan. Measure H imposed a building moratorium, a matter that is properly the subject of a zoning ordinance. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal. 3d 582.) Its provisions gave no notice to the voters that the measure was anything more than an ordinance limiting development. The title, "Traffic Control Initiative," was even less informative than the text of the measure since "traffic control" was nothing more than a potential by-product of the building moratorium for which the measure actually provided.
[7] We agree with the Court of Appeal that the court must, wherever possible, construe an initiative measure to ensure its validity. Basic to all statutory construction, however, is ascertaining and implementing the intent of the adopting body. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1859; Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 744, 764 [799 P.2d 1220]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672].) Absent ambiguity, we presume that the voters intend the meaning apparent on the face of an initiative measure (Burger v. Employees' Retirement System (1951) 101 Cal. App. 2d 700 [226 P.2d 38]) and the court may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to an assumed intent that is not apparent in its language. (People v. One 1940 Ford V-8 Coupe (1950) 36 Cal. 2d 471 [224 P.2d 677].) [52 Cal. 3d 544]
A zoning ordinance that conflicts with a general plan is invalid at the time it is passed. (deBottari v. City Council, supra, 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1212; Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704.) The court does not invalidate the ordinance. It does no more than determine the existence of the conflict. It is the preemptive effect of the controlling state statute, the Planning and Zoning Law, which invalidates the ordinance.
A void statute or ordinance cannot be given effect. This self-evident proposition is necessary if a governmental entity and its citizens are to know how to govern their affairs. Thus, persons who seek to develop their land are entitled to know what the applicable law is at the time they apply for a building permit. City officials must be able to act pursuant to the law, and courts must be able to ascertain a law's validity and to enforce it. The validity of the ordinance under which permits are granted, or pursuant to which development is regulated, may not turn on possible future action by the legislative body or electorate. [52 Cal. 3d 545]
An amendment to an invalid statute may itself constitute a valid enactment operative from its effective date (see Brown v. Superior Court (1982) 33 Cal. 3d 242, 252 [188 Cal. Rptr. 425, 655 P.2d 1260]; County of Los Angeles v. Jones (1936) 6 Cal. 2d 695, 708 [59 P.2d 489]), but neither such amendment nor an amendment of the general plan revives an invalid zoning ordinance. (Cf. Gov. Code, § 9611; Corning Hospital Dist. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 488, 494 [20 Cal. Rptr. 621, 370 P.2d 325] [revival after temporary suspension of law].)
In Building Industry Assn. v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 277, 297 [259 Cal. Rptr. 325], the Court of Appeal stated in dictum that application of section 65860 to a municipal ordinance limiting growth by a numerical formula, an ordinance which was inconsistent with the city's general plan, could result in a compliance decree rather than a finding of invalidity. The court distinguished Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, as involving an internally inconsistent general plan with which no zoning ordinance could be consistent.
We do not agree. Subdivision (c) of section 65860 does not permit a court to rescue a zoning ordinance that is invalid ab initio. As its language makes [52 Cal. 3d 546] clear, the subdivision applies only to zoning ordinances which were valid when enacted, but are not consistent with a subsequently enacted or amended general plan. It mandates that such ordinances be conformed to the new general plan, but does not permit adoption of ordinances which are inconsistent with the general plan. [9a] The obvious purpose of subdivision (c) is to ensure an orderly process of bringing the regulatory law into conformity with a new or amended general plan, not to permit development that is inconsistent with that plan.
[8c] The construction proposed by Walnut Creek is at odds with the Legislature's concern that general plans provide "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development" of a city (§ 65300), a plan whose mandatory elements may be amended no more frequently than four times a year. (§ 65358.) Conforming a general plan to an inconsistent growth-control ordinance might also be inconsistent with the legislative policy that each city and each county provide in the general plan for its appropriate share of the regional need for housing. (§ 65302.8.) Under that section, amendment of a general plan to limit the number of housing units to be built annually must be accompanied by findings that justify reduction of housing opportunities in the region. This requirement may not be avoided [52 Cal. 3d 547] by the adoption of a growth control ordinance through the initiative process. A city may not adopt ordinances and regulations which conflict with the state Planning and Zoning Law. (Art. XI, § 7; Hurst v. City of Burlingame (1929) 207 Cal. 134, 140 [277 P. 308], overruled on other grounds in Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal. 3d 582, 596.) To the extent that Building Industry Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 211 Cal. App. 3d 277, suggests otherwise, it is disapproved.
"[J]udicial decisionmaking is best conducted in the context of an actual set of facts so that the issues will be framed with sufficient definiteness to [52 Cal. 3d 548] enable the court to make a decree finally disposing of the controversy." (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal. 3d 158, 170 [188 Cal. Rptr. 104, 655 P.2d 306], italics added.) It appears that this controversy will continue for years; the decision today will not and cannot put an end to it.fn. 2 Hence, today the majority contravene the rule that we should strive whenever possible to bring matters to a legal conclusion, at most asking the trial and appellate courts to grapple with the consequences of factual matters to be determined on remand.
Moreover, because the majority cannot afford plaintiffs any effective relief, the case should be dismissed for want of a live controversy. (See Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 859, 863 [167 P.2d 725].) As I shall explain below, although the majority's rejection of an enactment plaintiffs oppose may provide them some moral support, their legal cause is not advanced by the majority's decision, which amounts to an impermissible advisory opinion.fn. 3 (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 910, 912 [83 Cal. Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126].)
Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698 [179 Cal. Rptr. 261] (hereafter Sierra Club), which held that a change in a general plan mooted a consistency challenge, teaches us that dismissal as moot is the best course. The Sierra Club had challenged an ordinance that rezoned a parcel on the ground that it was inconsistent with the county's general plan. The trial court had found the ordinance consistent. In a parenthetical discussion, the Court of Appeal disagreed with that finding and commented that the ordinance thus was void ab initio. But it held that the case was moot because while the appeal was pending the county had adopted a new plan and map that cured the inconsistency. (Id. at p. 705.)
Calling the mootness issue "troublesome indeed," the Court of Appeal herein acknowledged that Sierra Club stood for a "rule that if disputed legislation is repealed during the pendency of an appeal concerning its validity, the appeal will be dismissed as moot." Harmonizing Sierra Club with deBottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204 [217 Cal. Rptr. 790], the Court of Appeal distilled the following rule: "An inconsistent land [52 Cal. 3d 549] use regulation is invalid at the time it is passed, but if the general plan is amended or a new general plan adopted to eliminate the inconsistency while an appeal is pending on that issue, the appeal will be dismissed as moot." But, perhaps hoping its decision would be final, the Court of Appeal then retrenched, agreeing to decide the case because plaintiffs were already asserting "a host of reasons why the [1989] amendment is 'illegal' ..., the validity of the mooting event is in hot dispute, ... [and we] are already on the brink of appellate litigation ad infinitum in this case."
The majority declare that the section 4013 issue justifies a decision at this time. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 538.) I am not persuaded. True, section 4013 provides in part that, "No ordinance ... adopted by the voters ... shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance." But it is obvious that the drafters intended to bar amendments that would thwart the voters' will. In this case, the general plan amendment-adopting wholesale the enactment that the voters favored-would be wholly consonant with the electorate's wishes. [52 Cal. 3d 550]
Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oxnard (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 1 [218 Cal. Rptr. 672, 706 P.2d 285] is instructive. There the plaintiff sought a declaration that an ordinance requiring builders to pay certain capital costs associated with urban growth was invalid. The trial court upheld the ordinance. The plaintiff appealed, and while the appeal was pending the defendant amended the ordinance. We wrote that when "injunctive relief against a legislative enactment is sought[,] the relevant provision for purposes of the appeal is the measure ... in effect at the time the appeal is decided. [Citations.] ... [¶] Plaintiff nevertheless urges us to determine the validity of the old ordinance for the benefit of developers who paid the fee pursuant to its terms and who might be entitled to a refund if it is invalid." (Id. at p. 3.) We refused: "Plaintiff is an association which merely sought to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. No specific fee is at issue, and thus there is no aggrieved party with regard to the old ordinance." (Ibid., fn. omitted.) The case at bar is also an action in equity in essence seeking injunctive relief via a writ of mandate, although the words "injunction" or "injunctive relief" do not appear in the prayer for relief. And as in Building Industry, "there is no aggrieved party with regard to the old ordinance." (Ibid.)
Other cases support the view that only the 1989 plan would be available for review if considerations of ripeness did not preclude evaluation of that plan. "It is settled law that the rights of the parties in an action in equity will be determined on the basis of the law as it exists at the time of the determination, rather than at the time the complaint was filed, and this rule applies to judgments on appeal as well as to judgments in the trial court." (City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, Inc. (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 633, 640 [197 Cal. Rptr. 127] [holding that reviewing court would decide validity of adult-bookstore regulatory ordinance to take effect by reason of decision on appeal, not the ordinance the trial court invalidated]; see also, for the general rule, White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 757, 773 & fn. 8 [120 Cal. Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222] [new constitutional provision controlling on appeal because " 'Relief by injunction operates in futuro, and the right to it must be determined as of the date of decision by an appellate court.' "].) Thus, ordinarily a reviewing court must evaluate a denial of a building [52 Cal. 3d 551] permit on the basis of the law at the time of its decision. (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 110, 125-126 [109 Cal. Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111].)
Thus, the Court of Appeal's holding that Measure H was a permissible amendment to the general plan vindicated the public interest. The majority's holding instead favors the apparent view of the city council, a five-member body, over the views that the electorate has expressed repeatedly. The holding flies in the face of the rule that our overarching duty is to effectuate the intent of the lawmakers, who in the case of an initiative are the voters. (Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 744, 771 [274 Cal. Rptr. 787, 799 P.2d 1220] (conc. and dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) The majority acknowledge that we must resolve all doubts in favor of the people's exercise of the initiative power. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 539.) But they then resolve their doubts in a diametrically different direction.fn. 6 [52 Cal. 3d 552]
FN 1. All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. References to constitutional provisions are to the California Constitution.
FN 2. Section 65300: "Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302."
FN 3. The land use element must designate "the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land use elements shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. ..." (§ 65302, subd. (a).)
FN 4. In the remaining causes of action plaintiffs claimed that Measure H: (second cause of action) was arbitrary, capricious and violated due process; (third cause of action) was arbitrary, discriminatory and violated equal protection; (fourth cause of action) failed to comply with section 65863.6 in that it did not include findings addressing its impact on regional housing opportunities; and (fifth cause of action) failed to comply with Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., the California Environmental Quality Act, in that an environmental impact report or negative declaration requirements had not been fulfilled.
FN 5. The Court of Appeal questioned whether there could be an appealable judgment since no judgment had then been entered on the fourth and fifth causes of action, but concluded that the trial court had intended a complete disposition. Therefore, the Court of Appeal could amend the judgment appealed from to include the intended, but omitted, rulings. (See Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 916, 920-921, 933 [167 Cal. Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813, 16 A.L.R.4th 518]; Tenhet v. Boswell (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 150, 153-155, 161 [133 Cal. Rptr. 10, 554 P.2d 330].)
FN 6. Walnut Creek did not challenge this conclusion in its petition for review or brief on the merits in this court. Counsel acknowledged at oral argument before this court that the city no longer disputes the conclusion that Measure H is inconsistent with the general plan as it existed when Measure H was adopted.
FN 7. Amici curiae Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc., and ARVIDA/ JMB Partners note, in particular, section 65358, which provides that the "legislative body" may amend all or part of a general plan when deemed to be in the public interest, a power that might be limited by the restriction on repeal or amendment of local initiatives by legislative bodies. (Elec. Code, § 4013.)
FN 8. One not inconsequential impact of the enactment of a municipal initiative is the statutory requirement that any future amendment of the initiative ordinance be submitted to the voters for approval. (Elec. Code, § 4013.) As the Court of Appeal recognized, that statute may apply to limit the power to amend a general plan given the legislative body by section 65358. If so, an initiative amendment might impermissibly limit the authority and responsibility of the legislative body to periodically review and amend the general plan. (See § 65358; Simpson v. Hite (1950) 36 Cal. 2d 125, 134 [222 P.2d 225]; L.I.F.E. Committee v. City of Lodi (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1139, 1148-1149 [262 Cal. Rptr. 166].)
FN 9. Notice of purpose is routinely included in both statewide and local initiatve measures which use strikeout type to designate deletions, italics to designate additions, and/or state, for example, "______________________ is added to," "______________________ is repealed," or "______________________ is amended, to read ______________________." (See, e.g., Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 1990) passim; S.F. Voter Information Pamp. (Nov. 6, 1990) pp. 126, 142, 152.)
FN 10. Walnut Creek argues that incorporation of Measure H into the general plan is the only "remedy" that complies with the Planning and Zoning Law and preserves the right of initiative. Exercise of the local initiative power, like the legislative power, is subject to constitutional and statutory limitation, however. (Legislature v. Deukmejian, supra, 34 Cal. 3d 658, 674; Wallace v. Zinman, supra, 200 Cal. 585, 593-595.) Enforcing compliance with those overriding limitations on the exercise of the power in no way denies the right of initiative.
FN 11. The necessity for this rule would be more readily apparent had this litigation arisen in the context of a petition for mandate to compel issuance of a building permit. The courts could not postpone deciding the validity of a newly adopted zoning ordinance which precluded issuance of the permit, but conflicted with the general plan, until such indefinite future time that the city might act to conform its general plan to the ordinance.
FN 12. Section 65754 is to the same effect. It provides that if the court finds inconsistencies in a general plan, the city must amend the general plan to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Law. After that, it must make its zoning ordinances consistent with the amended plan.
FN 1. The city correctly argued before us that this case is moot. Similar views were expressed by numerous amici curiae, including the Cities of Belvedere, Benicia, Chico, Cloverdale, Colma, Commerce, Corte Madera, Cotati, Danville, Delano, Dunsmuir, El Cajon, Half Moon Bay, Hayward, Healdsburg, Indio, Industry, Livermore, Lompoc, Los Altos, Maricopa, Martinez, McFarland, Merced, Milpitas, Modesto, Monrovia, Monterey, Morgan Hill, Nevada City, Oceanside, Oroville, Oxnard, Pacifica, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Paradise, Paris, Pasadena, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rancho Mirage, Rialto, Riverside, Roseville, San Carlos, San Diego, San Juan Bautista, San Leandro, San Luis Obispo, San Rafael, Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Saratoga, Seaside, Sonoma, Tehachapi, Turlock, Vacaville, Vallejo, Ventura, Watsonville, and Woodside, the Counties of Mariposa, Mono, and Plumas, and the City and County of San Francisco.
FN 2. Plaintiffs concede this point when they argue that we "can leave to subsequent litigation, as did the court of appeal, the separate question whether the Measure H amendment to the new [1989] General Plan was valid." But they err in suggesting that the subsequent litigation necessarily involves a separate question. As I shall show, the entire matter can and should be resolved in a challenge to the 1989 plan.
FN 3. Plaintiffs' victory is Pyrrhic because the effect of our decision is to confirm provisionally the 1989 plan's validity: Election Code section 4013 (hereafter section 4013) is no longer a procedural bar to the new plan, and hence that plan will have to be evaluated on its merits if, as seems likely, a challenge to it reaches the appellate courts.
FN 4. Of course the inevitable appeal from the 1989 plan will now lack one item-whether section 4013 made the 1989 general plan invalid. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 538.) But that is a trifle-it is the constitutional and statutory validity of the policies and plans underlying Measure H and the 1989 plan that will be at issue no matter what the court decides today.
FN 5. There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, but none applies. As this case is relatively fact-specific, it does not "resolve an issue of continuing public interest that is likely to recur in other cases [citations] ...." (Daly v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 132, 141 [137 Cal. Rptr. 14, 560 P.2d 1193].) Nor is this dispute "capable of repetition, yet evading review" (Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, 125 [35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 161, 93 S.Ct. 705]). Rather, review seems to come to this case all too easily, and the parties face the Sisyphean labor of several future appeals.
FN 6. The complaint declares that, "City and its citizens will substantially gain from this cause" and that plaintiffs "seek to enforce important public rights and confer significant and widespread benefits ... on the general public ...." While, as I have explained, today's decision confers no meaningful benefit on anyone, the quoted language in the complaint and the nature of the judgment raise the specter that plaintiffs could conceivably seek reim- bursement for their attorney fees under a private attorney general theory. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.) Understandable resistance by the city will generate still more purposeless litigation.