In Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, city voters enacted an ordinance by initiative. The plaintiff sued the city, seeking to invalidate the initiative on multiple grounds. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the city. It ruled that, under Evidence Code section 669.5, the plaintiff had the burden of proof; it also rejected the plaintiff's challenges, to the extent that they were premised on certain specified statutes. (Building Industry Assn., at p. 815.) The plaintiff then stipulated to judgment. However, the stipulation expressly recited that the only remaining issue was whether it was fairly debatable that the ordinance bore a reasonable relation to the general welfare and that the plaintiff "could not prevail on the remaining issue if it had the burden of proof ... ." (Id. at pp. 815-816.) Thus, even though the court did not discuss prejudice, it was essentially stipulated that the trial court's rulings had a dispositive effect on the ultimate outcome. The California Supreme Court rejected an argument that an initiative growth control measure was invalid because it was adopted without making findings required by Government Code section 65863.6. That section requires a city or county to consider the effect of ordinances on local housing needs and balance those needs against public service needs and available fiscal and environmental services. The statute requires that an ordinance must contain findings as to the public health, safety and welfare which justify restricting housing opportunities. The Supreme Court held that the initiative measure was valid even though such findings could not be made. The court reasoned: "In Associated Homebuilders, etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 596, the Court concluded that the statutory notice and hearing provisions of Government Code sections 65853 through 65857 govern only ordinances enacted by city council action and do not limit the power of municipal electors to enact legislation by initiative. 'Procedural requirements which govern council action ... generally do not apply to initiatives, any more than the provisions of the initiative law govern the enactment of ordinances in council. ...' ... An analysis of section 65863.6 yields a similar conclusion. When the Legislature wrote that 'each county and city shall consider the effect of ordinances adopted pursuant to this chapter on the housing needs of the region ... and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources,' it could not have intended the electorate to undertake this process when enacting legislation by initiative. How can one prove that the voters weighed and balanced the regional housing needs against the public service, fiscal, and environmental needs? We agree with Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330, that 'what was in the minds of the electorate in adopting the initiative is ... immaterial.' It is simply not logical or feasible to place this balancing requirement on the voters." (Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 823-824.)