1 Community Compact v. City of Fresno

Filed 8/21/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 1 COMMUNITY COMPACT, F089737 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23CECG02740) v. CITY OF FRESNO, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge. Law Offices of Brian C. Leighton and Brian C. Leighton for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aleshire & Wynder, Anthony R. Taylor and Michael R. Linden for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- SEE DISSENTING OPINION  Emphasizing the “profound impact” of Mexican-American labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez “on the people of Fresno” and concluding the renaming of a downtown thoroughfare in his honor would “provide a source of pride and community recognition,” the Fresno City Council (City Council) adopted Resolution No. 2023-056, which facilitated the renaming of the “East Kings Canyon Road, East Ventura Avenue, and West California Avenue alignment” (collectively, the Alignment) 1 to Cesar Chavez Boulevard. Plaintiff 1 Community Compact, an unincorporated association, filed a lawsuit against defendant City of Fresno (City). Plaintiff’s operative complaint raised five causes of action: (1) City’s invalid exercise of police power under article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution; (2) denial of due process under the federal and state Constitutions; (3) deprivation of free speech rights under the federal and state Constitutions and City’s liability therefor (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (4) waste of public funds (Code Civ. Proc., 2 § 526a); and (5) denial of equal protection under the federal and state Constitutions. The superior court sustained City’s demurrer as to the due process, free speech, and equal protection claims and then granted City’s motion for summary judgment as to the police power and waste claims. On April 30, 2025, plaintiff filed this appeal. It presented the following arguments in its opening brief: First, the superior court erroneously sustained City’s demurrer as to the free speech claim because the renaming of the Alignment compelled plaintiff’s members who reside or run a business on or near the Alignment “to carry or convey [City’s] preferred ideological message.” 1 In this opinion, we use “East Kings Canyon Road,” “East Ventura Avenue,” or “West California Avenue” when referring to a particular segment of the Alignment. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory citations refer to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2.  Second, the superior court erroneously granted summary judgment as to the cause of action for City’s invalid exercise of police power because (1) the renaming of the Alignment “had no real or substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare” (boldface & capitalization omitted); (2) assuming, arguendo, pride and community recognition constitute legitimate governmental objectives, the renaming did not achieve these objectives; (3) the renaming substantially burdened only the residents and business owners on or near the Alignment; and (4) City’s renaming procedure was unfair. Finally, the superior court erroneously granted summary judgment as to the cause of action for waste of public funds because City “violated its police power and/or violated the free speech rights of [plaintiff’s] members.” On March 19, 2026, approximately three years after it adopted Resolution No. 2023-056, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-42 “to begin the process to remove the ‘Cesar Chavez Boulevard’ street signs” (some capitalization omitted) in light of “credible historical sources and public statements [that] have brought renewed attention to serious allegations regarding Cesar Chavez’s personal conduct, including accusations of sexual misconduct and abusive behavior toward colleagues and members of the farmworker community.” On April 23, 2026, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-61 reverting Cesar Chavez Boulevard back to the original street names. In a letter brief, City contended the appeal should be dismissed as moot given these resolutions. In another letter brief, plaintiff asserted this court has the discretion to decide the appeal under the public interest exception. For the reasons set forth below, we exercise our discretion under the public interest exception to consider this appeal on the merits. (See In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23.) We conclude the superior court properly sustained City’s demurrer as to plaintiff’s free speech claim because the renaming of the Alignment did not infringe on plaintiff’s members’ free speech. We also conclude the court properly granted City’s 3. summary judgment motion because (1) the renaming of the Alignment constituted a valid exercise of City’s police power; and (2) section 526a was inapplicable. Therefore, we affirm the judgments. BACKGROUND I. Context of the August 1, 2024 judgment of dismissal after the order sustaining City’s demurrer in part a. Contents of the operative complaint 3 The operative complaint alleges the following. The Alignment is composed of three streets “decidedly historical to [City]’s rich history.” East Ventura Avenue, which was named in 1873, “has always been the heart of [City’s] Armenian Community” and “was known as Armenian Town.” West California Avenue, which was named in 1881, is “the heart” of City’s African-American community. East Kings Canyon Road, which “is over 70 years old,” “has always been known to residents and tourists alike as the gateway to the Sierras and Kings Canyon National Park.” Cesar Chavez, who was “not a Fresno native and never lived in Fresno,” “has never been integral to nor associated with any of these [three] historical streets.” He was also a “divisive” and “objectionable political figure” who “alienated many farmers, packing houses and grocery stores and retaliated against those who did not join his union.” Plaintiff “is an unincorporated grass roots association with [more than 1,000] members who live, own, or operate a business on the historic … streets of [East] Kings Canyon Rd., [East] Ventura Ave., or [West] California Ave., and/or who reside or have 3 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 5, 2023, and a second amended complaint, i.e., the operative complaint, on April 18, 2024. The record does not contain the original complaint. Since this appeal in part “arises from a dismissal following a demurrer, we rely on [the operative] complaint … for a summary of the factual background” with respect to the affected claims. (Gordon v. Law Offices of Aguirre & Meyer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 972, 975, fn. 2.) “We accept as true all properly pleaded allegations without concern for proof problems.” (Ibid.) 4. businesses in the immediate vicinity of said streets.” Plaintiff’s members viewed the renaming of the Alignment as City’s attempt to “erase or rewrite” “their personal or business history”; lamented “the enormous costs to each business or property owner, operator, tenant, and residents when the street name is changed”; and stressed only they were required to bear the “cultural and financial burden and impact in renaming [the Alignment]” and “propagate, echo, and spread … City’s message [about Cesar Chavez].” Many members who reside on or near the Alignment “intentionally purchased their homes specifically because they were on those [three] streets and have lived there most of their lives.” “Those street names are part of their identity, tradition, and everyday lives” and members “had every reason to believe those street names would remain the same, and never change.” As a result of the renaming, these members were “uprooted and forever changed.” Furthermore, they needed to devote “substantial” “time and expense” to change their addresses on “trusts, wills, insurances (vehicle, homeowner, automobile etc.), social security checks, State or federal assistance income, medical or education/school mailings or notices, bank and credit union accounts, credit card companies, utilities, delivery services, property deeds, passports, driver licenses, property tax statements, or legal descriptions, any professional licenses, loan documents, mortgages, [Internal Revenue Service], Franchise Tax Board, Medi-Care, social security data, stocks and bonds, data registrations, vehicle registrations, and other documents and services requiring a correct address.” Many members who own and/or operate businesses and property on the Alignment “built their businesses specifically on one of those [three] streets, because of its location, street name and the street’s reputation.” “The street name became part of their identity and goodwill and were advantageous to their businesses, were part of their sense of pride, and were proudly identifiable with them.” These members “had every expectation that when they moved their business, or opened, or built their businesses on one of those [three] streets, that the name would never change.” “The concept of, and 5. identification with, Cesar Chavez [Boulevard] substantially impairs their goodwill and identity, and business model, and will have the tendency to make the public and customers believe they desired to have their business on Cesar Chavez [Boulevard] and consented to it.” Moreover, “[f]or business owners a change of address is a very costly and time-consuming project.” (Boldface omitted.) “Many will be required to remove exterior or street-front signage, which costs thousands of dollars and will have a greater impact if the street name is a part of the business name.” Addresses must be changed on “bank accounts, loan documents, lease agreements, business licenses, business Articles of Incorporation, Deeds and Titles to property, franchise agreements, business insurance, both liability and property, California Secretary of State, [Internal Revenue Service] file form 8822-B, U.S. post office changes, advertising and social media accounts, notification to all vendors, employees and insurance carriers, data [terms of service] lines and bank services, credit card companies, banking institutions, credit union, utility service providers, including power and internet/data, any and all state licenses, payroll, [human resources], retirement, [F]ranchise [T]ax [B]oard, Chamber of Commerce, water, sewer, and electricity providers, vehicle registration, website domain information, lengthy and uncontrolled updates with software mapping sites … , all landlord/business and property owner or operator tenant contract agreements, and changes of address with all vendors and other delivery operators,” which necessitated “pay[ing] for attorneys[] and[/]or [certified public accountant]s.” “In addition, if the business address is listed on the driver licenses, California IDs, Real California IDs, and passports those would have to be changed, and the business owners would have to expect longer response time of emergency service[s].” Plaintiff questioned the renaming process. Under its rules and procedures for meetings, City Council “permits items to be placed on the ‘consent calendar’ but only if the items are ‘considered routine’ and ‘not controversial.’ ” However, in February 2022, City Council placed on its consent calendar Resolution No. 2022-053, which endeavored 6. to “change [East] Kings Canyon [Road] and [East] Ventura Ave[nue] to Cesar Chavez Boulevard.” City Council purposely did this because the renaming “was very controversial” and “driven by ideology and politics” and councilmembers “did not wish to debate it, did not want the opposition to know about it, and already knew it would pass it.” When it adopted the resolution, City Council agreed to form an advisory committee “ ‘comprised of business owners and residents who will be affected by this Resolution’ ” that “ ‘shall meet as needed.’ ” Yet, “no committee was ever formed,” “no meetings ever occurred,” and City Council never explained this “course-reversal.” City Council also did not “discuss or consider any alternative ways to ‘honor’ [Cesar] Chavez, or why it … was necessary to rename a street, or an historical street, or two historical streets as was the case here.” In July 2022, a PowerPoint presentation “regarding the procedures for street name changes” was “buried” within City Council’s meeting agenda. The presentation, prepared by City’s public works department, “was directed at all [three] streets” even though West California Avenue “was not even included in the February 2022 resolution”; detailed “the street name changes would affect 775 parcels and 3,150 addresses”; estimated the cost for “labor and materials to replace 260 signs would be $135,000.00”; “mentioned as a process to engage in public outreach, public hearings before the Planning Commission to consider a staff report and environmental documentation … , Public Safety Review and ceremonial street naming options”; and “recommended to give notice to all property owners and tenants located within a thousand feet” of the Alignment. However, “[n]o notice was provided to the residents, its business and property owners and operators impacted by the street name change” and City never engaged in the other aforementioned actions. In March 2023, City Council “buried” on its consent calendar Resolution No. 2023-056, which directed City’s administration “to proceed with the renaming of [the Alignment], which runs east to west between Marks Avenue and Temperance Avenue to 7. ‘Cesar Chavez Boulevard.’ ” City Council “never discussed nor considered alternative forms to ‘honor’ [Cesar] Chavez, nor ever stated why it decided to add [West] California Ave[nue] to the Renaming Project,” and “did not consult with police, fire or ambulance services for their input and concerns for emergency service responses.” The resolution “stated that notices would be sent to all property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the affected areas via U.S. mail and[/]or by publication in the Fresno Bee,” but “[n]one of the property owners, business owners, operators or tenants with businesses located on [the Alignment] were notified by U.S. mail” and “City did not notify anyone by publication in the Fresno Bee.” The resolution also “identified and allocated $1 million dollars in the fiscal year 2022–2023 budget in conjunction with the Renaming Project ‘to cover the application fees, labor and materials, replacement of existing street signs, replacement of [California Department of Transportation] freeway signage,’ and ‘reimburse businesses whose addresses are impacted by the street name change for actual and reasonable costs associated with the Renaming Project,” but “[t]here was no allocation by … City for reimbursing residents, property owners, or other business operators or tenants also affected” and “City provided no criteria for business reimbursement, nor any statement as to who with … City would make that determination, or any appeal process or hearing process for anyone who objected.” Under the heading “First Cause of Action” (some capitalization omitted), plaintiff alleged City invalidly exercised its police power because (1) “Cesar Chavez has been honored already” (e.g., City’s Cesar Chavez Adult Education Center, a downtown mural, and a statue at California State University, Fresno) and “any further recognition [via the renaming of the Alignment] had no real or substantial relation to the public . . . health, welfare, public safety, morals nor for any other valid Municipal purpose, and was arbitrary, unreasonable, costly and capricious”; (2) “[e]ven if further honoring [Cesar] Chavez was rationally in furtherance of a municipal power,” the renaming of the Alignment significantly burdened plaintiff’s members and “less drastic measures were 8. not even considered”; and (3) City “violate[d] [the] Due Process [and/]or the Free Speech/Association clauses of the California and/or U.S. Constitutions.” Under the heading “Second Cause of Action” (some capitalization omitted), plaintiff alleged “Due Process requires that … City’s action be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly so that the people have confidence that the City Council members are acting only for good and altruistic reasons and have no hidden agendas,” but City “made no effort to notify the residents, property, and business owners of what [it] proposed to do.” Plaintiff also alleged its members had “significant property interests and goodwill and reputation in their businesses remaining on the street names and community they specifically chose on which to live and conduct their businesses”; “significant property and liberty interest[s] in residing in their homes they have lived in for decades”; and “significant liberty interest[s] in remaining free from being forced to be an everyday courier and mouthpiece for … City’s objectionable ideological and political message of honoring [Cesar] Chavez.” Under the heading “Third Cause of Action” (some capitalization omitted), plaintiff alleged the renaming of the Alignment “denied Plaintiff the right to identify and speak with the street address they chose” and “compel[led] Plaintiff’s members to speak and write with a particular message by identifying themselves, their homes, and businesses with a street name they did not choose and a name to which they adamantly object, or with whom they do not wish to be associated.” Under the heading “Fourth Cause of Action” (some capitalization omitted), plaintiff alleged “City’s resolutions to spend substantial amounts of public money to rename [the Alignment] to honor one of their icons [are] a waste of public funds” that should be enjoined pursuant to section 526a. Under the heading “Fifth Cause of Action” (some capitalization omitted), plaintiff alleged the renaming of the Alignment “has singled out for disparate and unequal protection and impact the residents and business owners/operators on those 9. [three historic] streets which is a violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions ….” b. City’s demurrer On May 20, 2024, City filed a demurrer. Among other things, it contended: (1) with respect to the due process claim, plaintiff’s members “did not have a material right that could only be removed by due process of law in an adjudicatory proceeding”; (2) with respect to the free speech claim, City was “unaware of any authority standing for the proposition that changing a street name forces a property or business owner to ‘adopt’ a political message”; and (3) with respect to the equal protection claim, “Plaintiff does not have a right or interest in a street name,” “this matter does not involve a protected class such as race or religion,” and “[t]here was clearly a rational basis to honor Cesar Chavez.” c. Ruling On July 31, 2024, the superior court issued a tentative ruling sustaining City’s demurrer as to the due process, free speech, and equal protection claims without leave to amend. The court concluded “these causes of action fail to identify how a right has been impinged to constitute an actual controversy.” On the other hand, the tentative ruling overruled City’s demurrer as to the police power and waste claims. On August 1, 2024, following a hearing, the court adopted its tentative ruling. II. Context of the February 26, 2025 judgment after the order granting City’s summary judgment motion a. City’s summary judgment motion On November 19, 2024, City filed a motion for summary judgment as to the remaining causes of action. City contended: “The First Cause of Action for a violation of … City’s police powers is without merit because … City had the power to rename the streets in question and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that there is no basis to conclude that … City violated its police powers in renaming [West] California Avenue, [East] 10.  Ventura [Avenue], and [East] Kings Canyon Road within the city limits to Cesar Chavez Boulevard. State law provides that a city may rename a street by resolution,[ 4] and there is nothing in the record that would lead to the conclusion that this process was arbitrary, capricious, or not allowed by law. “The Fourth Cause of Action for a violation of … section 526a is without merit because the street renaming was a political act that involved a discretionary use of public funds. An action pursuant to Section 526a for an alleged waste of public funds cannot be based on a politically-based decision within a governing body’s discretion, and the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the street renaming project was a political decision with a discretionary outlay of budgeted funds.” b. Undisputed material facts The parties agreed on the following material facts: On February 11, 2022, City’s clerk posted the agenda for City Council’s February 17, 2022 regular meeting. Listed under the heading “Consent Calendar” (boldface, underscoring & some capitalization omitted) was item 1.-AA.: Resolution No. 2022-053 “[d]irecting [City’s] administration to present the processes to change [East] Kings Canyon [Road]/[East] Ventura [Avenue] to ‘Cesar Chavez Boulevard’ and directing the formation of a[] resident, business owner and stakeholder committee to engage the public and receive input, recommendations (Subject to Mayor’s Veto).” The resolution recited, among other things: “Cesar Chavez was a Mexican[-]American labor leader and civil rights activist who dedicated his life’s work to improving the living and working conditions of farm workers in the United States”; “Cesar Chavez’s life and work had a profound impact on the people of Fresno”; and “[City Council] from time to time may determine that the renaming of a City Street after individuals, events, or businesses will provide a source of pride and community recognition.” 4 “The legislative body of a county, city or city and county, … may by resolution change the name of any street, boulevard, park or place heretofore established ….” (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 5026.) 11.  At City Council’s February 17, 2022 regular meeting, 12 individuals publicly commented on Resolution No. 2022-053. For instance, one person opposed the resolution and advocated for renaming 2500 East Stanislaus Street—the address for Fresno Adult School—for Cesar Chavez. Afterward, City Council adopted the resolution, which instructed City’s administration “to pursue the process to change the name[s] of [East] Kings Canyon [Road] and [East] Ventura [Avenue] to Avenida Cesar Chavez.” On July 18, 2022, City’s clerk posted the agenda for City Council’s July 21, 2022 regular meeting. Listed under the heading “General Administration” (boldface, underscoring & some capitalization omitted) was item 3.-D.: a workshop concerning “Procedures for Street Name Changes.” The agenda included a PowerPoint presentation for item 3.-D., which addressed the prospect of renaming West California Avenue along with East Kings Canyon Road and East Ventura Avenue as well as the option of ceremonial street naming, which would leave the original street names intact. City’s public works department submitted the PowerPoint presentation at the July 21, 2022 regular meeting. On March 3, 2023, City’s clerk posted the agenda for City Council’s March 9, 2023 regular meeting. Listed under the heading “Consent Calendar” (boldface, underscoring & some capitalization omitted) was item 1.-S.: Resolution No. 2023-056 “[t]o begin the process to change [East] Kings Canyon [Road]/[East] Ventura [Avenue] to ‘Cesar Chavez Boulevard’ (Subject to Mayor’s veto)” (some capitalization omitted). As before, the resolution recited: “Cesar Chavez was a Mexican[-]American labor leader and civil rights leader … who dedicated his life’s work to improving the living and working conditions of farm workers in the United States”; “Cesar Chavez’s life and work had a profound impact on the people of Fresno”; and “[City Council] from time to time may determine that the renaming of a City Street after individuals, events, or businesses will provide a source of pride and community recognition.” The resolution also recited: 12. “on February 17, 2022, [City] Council passed Resolution No. 2022-053 directing [City’s] Administration to pursue a name change for … [East] Kings Canyon [Road]/[East] Ventura [Avenue] … to ‘Avenida Cesar Chavez’ ”; “[City] Council now desires to begin the process to change the name of [the Alignment], which runs east to west between Marks Avenue and Temperance Avenue to ‘Cesar Chavez Boulevard’ (the Renaming Project)”; and “City Council identified and allocated $1 million dollars in the Fiscal Year 2022–23 budget in conjunction with the Renaming Project to cover the application fee, labor and materials, replacement of existing City street signs, [and] replacement of [California Department of Transportation] freeway signage.” On March 8, 2023, City Council received written public comments regarding Resolution No. 2023-056, which were compiled in a supplemental packet. In one letter, the Sunnyside Property Owners Association provided a history of East Kings Canyon Road and maintained “there will be numerous opportunities to appropriately recognize local community leaders and historic individuals on streets and public places” “[w]ith unprecedented growth and the [Southeast Development Area] Plan update.” At City Council’s March 9, 2023 regular meeting, Councilmember Luis Chavez moved item 1.-S. to the “Contested Consent Calendar” (boldface, underscoring & some capitalization omitted). Thereafter, 25 individuals publicly commented on Resolution No. 2023-056. Opponents of the resolution proposed several alternatives to honor Cesar Chavez, including renaming 2500 East Stanislaus Street, renaming a trailway, and renaming a planned community. Others suggested omitting West California Avenue from consideration. Following public comments, City Council discussed the matter further. Councilmember Chavez noted he received feedback both in favor of and against the resolution and outlined his reasons for supporting its passage. He made a motion to approve item 1.-S., which was seconded by Councilmember Miguel Arias. Council Vice- President Annalisa Perea asked and received answers from councilmembers Chavez and Arias about West California Avenue’s recent inclusion in the renaming. Councilmember 13. Arias expressed his support for the resolution while Councilmember Garry Bredefeld expressed his opposition thereto. By a vote of six to one, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-056. 5 Section 15-6204 of City’s Municipal Code, which took effect January 9, 2016, provides: “Street name changes shall comply with adopted City policies regarding Street Name Procedures.” At no point before or during the process of renaming the Alignment did City Council “formally adopt[] any specific policies or procedures for street name changes.” c. Ruling On February 3, 2025, the superior court issued a tentative ruling granting City’s summary judgment motion. With respect to the first cause of action, the court found “no triable issues of material fact” “as Plaintiff fails to overcome its burden to rebut” the “factual contention that the changing of the street names was an exercise of police power” and “the presumption” the renaming of the Alignment was valid. With respect to the fourth cause of action, the court found “no triable issues as to the issue of public waste” given “there is no identification of any duty imposed on [City] to refrain from changing street names” and “the purpose of the renaming was to honor [Cesar Chavez],” a “political issue, which is not subject to a waste action.” On February 4, 2025, following a hearing, the court adopted its tentative ruling. Judgment was entered February 26, 2025. 5 As noted, Resolution No. 2023-056 called for the renaming of the Alignment “between Marks Avenue and Temperance Avenue,” a 10.25-mile stretch. The resolution also “encouraged” the Fresno County Board of Supervisors “to effectuate the change within County jurisdiction.” However, on April 11, 2023, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution “preserving the historic naming of [West] California Ave[nue] and [East] Kings Canyon Road through county jurisdictions.” (Some capitalization omitted.) As a result, only approximately seven miles of the Alignment between South Marks Avenue and South Peach Avenue were renamed. 14.  DISCUSSION I. Notwithstanding subsequent acts or events that have rendered this appeal moot, we exercise our discretion under the public interest exception to consider the appeal on the merits As noted, pending this appeal, City adopted resolutions that reverted Cesar Chavez Boulevard back to the original street names. In its letter brief, City contended “[t]his appeal is clearly moot” and should be dismissed since “[t]he situation now is exactly how it existed prior to the street re[nam]ing.” (See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [“ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.’ ”].) In its letter brief, plaintiff appeared to concede City’s latest resolutions rendered the appeal moot but asserted this court still has the discretion to decide the appeal under the public interest exception. (See In re William M., supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 23 [“[I]f a pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot.”].) This court recently applied the public interest exception to mootness in Ghost Golf, Inc. v. Newsom (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 88 (Ghost Golf). In that case, Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Department of Public Health—pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act (Gov. Code, § 8550 et seq.) and Health and Safety Code section 120140, respectively—issued in August 2020 the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” (Blueprint), “which implemented a color-coded, risk-based framework for tightening and loosening restrictions on activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Ghost Golf, supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 94; accord, id. at p. 96.) The plaintiffs—two businesses affected by the Blueprint—filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, (1) the Governor lacked statutory authority to implement the Blueprint; and (2) a broad interpretation of the 15. California Emergency Services Act violated the California Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine. (Ghost Golf, at pp. 94, 96.) They then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was denied by the superior court. (Id. at p. 95; accord, id. at pp. 96– 97.) Pending the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order denying injunctive relief, the Governor signed a June 11, 2021 executive order rescinding the Blueprint. (Id. at pp. 95, 97.) In a nonpublished opinion, this court “dismissed the appeal as moot because we could no longer grant [the] plaintiffs effective relief on their motion for a preliminary injunction.” (Id. at p. 95; accord, id. at p. 97.) Thereafter, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment in the underlying lawsuit. (Ghost Golf, supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at pp. 95, 97.) The superior court granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds the California Emergency Services Act (1) authorized the Governor to enact the Blueprint; and (2) was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Governor. (Ghost Golf, at p. 97.) The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment. (Id. at p. 98.) The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis “the rescission of the Blueprint renders plaintiffs’ challenges to the Blueprint moot.” (Id. at p. 99.) Although we agreed “the appeal is moot” (ibid.) since “there is no longer anything to enjoin under [the] plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction, and a judgment as to the Blueprint’s validity would have no effect” (id. at p. 100), we nevertheless held “the public interest exception to mootness applies in this case” (id. at p. 99). We explained: “[T]he issues presented here are not ‘essentially factual.’ [The p]laintiffs’ action challenges both the scope and constitutionality of the Governor’s emergency police power. As to its scope, [the] plaintiffs contend the [California Emergency Services Act] authorizes the Governor only to enforce existing laws, not to make new laws. They base this argument on a narrow interpretation of the term ‘police power’ as used in [Government Code] section 8627. As to the [California Emergency Services Act]’s constitutionality, [the] plaintiffs contend an interpretation of the [California Emergency Services Act] as authorizing the Governor to ‘make law’ would be 16.  an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power…. The question of whether the [California Emergency Services Act] allows the Governor to ‘make law’ in a state of emergency is an evergreen question that could arise in the context of any type of emergency. The same is true with whether the [California Emergency Services Act] unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the Governor. Thus, were we to agree with [the] plaintiffs on either the scope or constitutionality of the [California Emergency Services Act], such a decision could foreseeably affect the Governor’s exercise of authority in other types of emergencies, not just emergencies involving diseases. For these reasons, the precise questions plaintiffs raise could be raised in the context of any state of emergency where the Governor seeks to ‘make law’ under the [California Emergency Services Act]. We therefore conclude that this case raises questions of broad public interest that are likely to recur.” (Ghost Golf, supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 101.) We also find instructive Downtown Palo Alto Com. for Fair Assessment v. City Council (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 384 (Downtown Palo Alto). There, the city enacted an ordinance creating a downtown parking and business improvement area pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Act of 1979 (Sts. & Hy. Code, former § 36500 et seq.). (Downtown Palo Alto, supra, at p. 391.) The plaintiffs—a coalition of business operators affected by the ordinance—petitioned for writ relief. (Id. at p. 389.) Among other things, they argued the ordinance was invalid because the city failed to strictly comply with the notice provisions set forth in Streets and Highways Code former section 36522. (See Downtown Palo Alto, at pp. 389, 391–392.) The superior court found the ordinance valid and denied the petition. (Id. at p. 389.) It then denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and for a new trial. (Ibid.) While the appeal was pending, the city dissolved the downtown parking and business improvement area. (Id. at p. 391.) Division One of the First Appellate District recognized the dissolution “rendered moot the issues presented on appeal,” “[t]he validity of the ordinance is no longer of consequence to the parties before this court,” and “[a]ny ruling by this court can have no practical impact or provide [the] appellants effectual relief.” (Ibid.) Yet, invoking the public interest exception (ibid.), the appellate court exercised its discretion to address the 17. plaintiffs’ “strict compliance” claim (see id. at pp. 391–393), which necessitated interpretation of Streets and Highways Code former section 36522 (see Downtown Palo Alto, at pp. 394–396). It reasoned: “There is nothing in the record to indicate that the [c]ity intends to reenact the ordinance or otherwise attempt to establish a business and parking improvement area. But there was adduced testimony by Lee Strong, Mayor of Whittier, California, to the Palo Alto City Council prior to enactment of the ordinance, that ‘about fifty cities in California’ have enacted similar ordinances under authority of the Parking and Business Improvement Act of 1979 …. Hence, the question of whether strict or merely substantial compliance with the directive of [Streets and Highways Code former] section 36522 that ‘each business’ in the proposed improvement area be mailed notice of hearing and the intention to establish an improvement area is required, presents an issue of public concern which may recur in Palo Alto, or more likely in a number of other cities.” (Downtown Palo Alto, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at pp. 391–392, fn. omitted.) In the instant case, the overarching question of whether City may rename one of its streets after a polarizing figure necessitates an examination of both (1) the scope of a local government’s police power; and (2) the constitutionality of that entity’s exercise of that power with respect to state and federal free speech rights. (Cf. Ghost Golf, supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 101.) The proper resolution of such legal issues is of sufficient import to the general public. (See ibid.; cf. Leenay v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 553, 573 [“The proper interpretation of a statute presents a matter of public interest.”].) As per City’s filings, the renaming of streets is commonly carried out not only by City but also other municipalities throughout the state and even nationwide. (Cf. Downtown Palo Alto, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at pp. 391–392, fn. omitted.) It is thus conceivable the foregoing issues could be raised again here or elsewhere. That no published case currently addresses them further militates in favor of a decision on the merits. (See In re Sodersten (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1218 [“ ‘Even when moot, a 18. novel question of continuing public interest is often deserving of consideration by an appellat