Court Opinion

ID: 9595378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:39:38.23251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:35.987053
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
In my view, this case is moot because it is undisputed that in August 1989 defendant City of Walnut Creek amended its general plan, to bring it either substantially (as acknowledged by plaintiffs) or entirely (as claimed by defendant) into conformity with Measure H, the 1985 ordinance challenged in this case. Plaintiffs, assertedly barred from expanding certain facilities by Measure H, have filed yet another suit, apparently to challenge the 1989 general plan as amended. The majority’s decision today cannot address that pending suit, the outcome of which will be virtually unaffected by the majority’s holding. We should therefore dismiss this appeal.1
I.
“[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 *548enable 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.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.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 *549use 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.”
Our grant of review dashed any such hopes that the Court of Appeal may have entertained, and has merely wasted judicial resources. Further legal battles are a foregone conclusion given the collision between plaintiffs’ interests, the voters’ desires, and the city’s acquiesence to those desires. We should have allowed the Court of Appeal decision to stand, thus letting the parties travel the same long road as will the majority’s largely ineffectual decision: i.e., to a comprehensive challenge to the 1989 plan. There plaintiffs can present their views on why the 1989 amendment is illegal.4 To permit a comprehensive challenge to the 1989 plan to proceed would have served judicial economy and the law of abstention handsomely. Instead, the majority arrive at a holding that will be relegated to a footnote in future decisions involving the validity of the 1989 plan.5
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.
*550II.
The only arguably defensible alternative to dismissing the case would be to construe the 1989 general plan. But to do so would be premature, for this case is a pure consistency challenge, leaving critical constitutional and statutory issues for future consideration. Thus ripeness forbids us from engaging in such a construction.
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.] . . . [j[] 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 *551permit 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].)
III.
I also regret the undemocratic tenor of today’s decision, which runs athwart the will of the citizens of Walnut Creek. Tired of the then-existing general plan’s willingness to tolerate ever worse traffic congestion, the voters enacted Measure H on November 5, 1985. Plaintiffs filed suit January 31, 1986, attacking Measure H as inconsistent with the existing general plan. The city apparently was reluctant to enforce the ordinance in full, for it acknowledges that in both 1986 and 1989 the city council asked the voters to weaken Measure H, without success. The city concedes that the voters’ rejection of the latter attempt amounted to a popular reaffirmation of Measure H. Only then did the city council accede fully to the voters’ desire to reduce congestion: it voted in August 1989 to incorporate wholly or in large part Measure H’s provisions into the new general plan.
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] (cone, 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.6
*552As mootness places the challenge to Measure H beyond our grasp and lack of ripeness stymies our ability to evaluate the 1989 plan, I would dismiss the appeal on abstention grounds.

 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, Watson-ville, and Woodside, the Counties of Mariposa, Mono, and Plumas, and the City and County of San Francisco.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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 reimbursement 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.