Filed 1/18/22; on rehearing

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

AARON STARR,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ROSE CHAPARRO, as City 

Clerk, etc., et al.,

 Defendants and 

Respondents.

2d Civ. No. B307585

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2020-

00541757-CU-WM-VTA)

(Ventura County)

OPINION ON REHEARING

A city ordinance adopted by the voters may be repealed or 

amended only by a vote of the people. (Elec. Code, § 9217.)1 A 

city council enacted an ordinance that served to deny voters their 

rights guaranteed by the Election Code. Here, we restore their 

rights.

Plaintiff presented a valid initiative petition adopted by the 

voters to amend a city ordinance to add term limits for council 

members. The city adopted the amended ordinance as its own

instead of placing it on the ballot. But it did so in a manner that

1 All statutory references are to the Elections Code unless 

otherwise stated.
2.

rendered the ordinance a nullity, depriving the voters of the 

opportunity to decide the issue of term limits. The trial court 

denied plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandate to compel the city 

to place the initiative on the ballot. We reverse.

FACTS

1973 Ordinance

Prior to 1973, the mayor of the City of Oxnard (City) was 

appointed by the city council. In June 1973, the city council 

received an initiative petition seeking to place before the voters 

the questions whether the mayor should be directly elected and, 

if so, whether the term should be two or four years.

After the city council received the petition, the city attorney 

ruled the petition invalid because it did not attach an ordinance. 

Instead of proceeding on the initiative petition, the City, on its 

own, pursuant to its authority under Government Code section 

34900, ordered the questions placed on the ballot. In a November

1973 election, the majority of voters voted to have an elected 

mayor with a two-year term of office.

Measure B

In October 2019, the city council adopted a resolution 

placing Measure B on the ballot for an election to be held in 

March 2020. Measure B sought to amend section 2-3 of the 

Oxnard City Code to extend the mayor’s term to four years and to 

add section 2-4 to establish a limit of three terms for city council 

members.

Starr’s Initiative Petition

Two weeks after the city council resolution placing Measure

B on the ballot, Aaron Starr delivered an initiative petition to the 

city council. Like Measure B, the initiative would amend section 

2-3 to extend the mayor’s term to four years. Unlike Measure B, 
3.

however, Starr’s initiative would not allow a person to

indefinitely alternate between mayor and council member 

without a break. Starr’s initiative would establish a combined 

two-term limit for mayor and council member. Thus, a person 

who served two terms as mayor could not immediately run for 

council member. Instead, a person who served two terms as 

mayor or council member or a combination of the two would be 

required to wait two years before running again. The Ventura 

County Elections Division certified the signatures on Starr’s 

initiative petition.

Instead of placing Starr’s initiative on the ballot, in 

January 2020, the City exercised its option under section 9215, 

subdivision (a) to adopt the initiative as an ordinance without

alteration.2 As we shall explain, this action is a nullity under 

section 9217. The City did not, however, remove Measure B from 

2 Section 9215 reads as follows: “If the initiative petition is 

signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, 

according to the last report of registration by the county elections 

official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, 

effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was 

published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters, by 25 

percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the 

lesser number, the legislative body shall do one of the following: 

[¶] (a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular

meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or

within 10 days after it is presented. [¶] (b) Submit the ordinance,

without alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405. [¶] (c)

Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting

at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the

report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body

shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an

election pursuant to subdivision (b).”
4.

the ballot. The voters adopted Measure B in the March 3, 2020, 

election. Thus, the terms of Measure B prevailed over the terms 

of Starr’s initiative previously adopted as an ordinance, and the 

term limits provided in Starr’s initiative did not take effect.

Starr’s Writ Petition

On June 9, 2020, Starr filed the instant petition for writ of 

mandate seeking to order the city clerk to place his term limits 

initiative on the November 3, 2020, ballot. The trial court denied 

the petition. The court rejected Starr’s argument that section 

9217 requires his initiative to be placed on the ballot. The court 

also denied Starr leave to amend his petition to allege breach of 

Government Code section 34900 because it was raised for the 

first time in his reply brief.

DISCUSSION

I

The City Erred in Failing to Place

Starr’s Initiative on the Ballot

Section 9215 provides in part that when a city receives an 

initiative petition with a sufficient number of signatures, the city 

must do one of the following: (a) Adopt the ordinance, without 

alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the 

petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented; (b) 

submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant 

to section 1405.

The City argues that when it adopted the ordinance in 

Starr’s petition without amendment, the City gave him the entire 

remedy to which he is entitled. It did the opposite. The City 

deprived Starr and the citizens who signed his initiative of the 

remedy they sought and to which they were entitled, term limits 

for council members. 
5.

Starr relies on section 9217. That section provides in part: 

“No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and 

adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without 

submission to the voters, or 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.”

Starr points out that section 9217 prohibits repeal or 

amendment of an ordinance adopted by the voters except by a 

vote of the people. He argues that because the 1973 ordinance 

was adopted by the voters, the city council’s adoption of his 

initiative ordinance rendered his initiative nugatory. He 

concludes the City was required to place his initiative on the 

ballot. Not doing so defeats the initiative.

The City replies that section 9217 only applies to

ordinances adopted by the voters through the initiative process

and that the 1973 ordinance was not adopted through the 

initiative process. Instead, it was placed on the ballot by the City 

pursuant to Government Code section 34900.

It is true that section 9217 is found in the part of the 

Elections Code governing initiatives and it certainly applies to 

initiatives. The City overlooks that the plain language of section 

9217 is not limited to adoption by the voters through the 

initiative process. It simply governs ordinances “adopted by the 

voters.” That applies to all such ordinances, including the 1973 

ordinance.

The City argues that the phrase “proposed by initiative” 

found in section 9217 also governs “adopted by the voters.” But 

the section reads: “No ordinance that is either proposed by 

initiative . . . or adopted by the voters . . . . ” (Ibid.) “[A]dopted by 
6.

the voters” follows the disjunctive “or.” It states a separate 

category from “proposed by initiative.”

The City cites recent cases it claims confirm that measures 

placed on the ballot by a city and measures placed on the ballot 

by initiative are frequently subject to different standards. (City 

& County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in Matter of 

Proposition C (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 703, 723-724; City of Fresno 

v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 

220, 239.) Those cases hold specific constitutional provisions 

requiring a two-thirds vote to approve taxes proposed by the City 

do not apply to such taxes proposed by initiative.

The City points to no such specific constitutional provisions

applicable here. Had the Legislature in enacting section 9217 

intended to distinguish between ordinances adopted by the voters 

through the initiative process and ordinances adopted by the 

voters following some other process, it would have said so. It did 

not. In fact, the City fails to suggest any reason why the 

Legislature would make such a distinction.

The City’s action in adopting Starr’s initiative ordinance 

could not have amended the 1973 ordinance. Only a vote by the 

people could accomplish this. Section 9215 requires the City to 

place Starr’s initiative on the ballot.

II

Remedy

We asked the parties for further briefing on the appropriate 

remedy for the City’s failure to place Starr’s initiative on the 

ballot. The parties conferred and stipulated that the City will 

place the initiative on the November 8, 2022, ballot without 

alteration. That will be the order.
7.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed. The City is ordered to place 

Starr’s initiative on the November 8, 2022, ballot. Costs are 

awarded to appellant.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.
8.

Henry J. Walsh, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Law Office of Chad D. Morgan and Chad D. Morgan for 

Plaintiff and Appellant Aaron Starr.

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Holly O. Whatley, and 

Liliane M. Wyckoff for Defendants and Respondents Rose 

Chaparro and City of Oxnard.