Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,295 chars

A.     Measure H Did Not Impermissibly Revise the Charter
       Petitioners argue Measure H constituted an impermissible
“revision,” as opposed to a permissible “amendment,” to the
Charter, in violation of article XI, section 3, subdivision (b) of the
California Constitution. Respondents contend Measure H
amended, but did not revise, the Charter, and thus did not run
afoul of the Constitution. We review de novo these questions
requiring interpretation of the Constitution and Measure H. (See
City of San Jose v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. (2024)
101 Cal.App.5th 777, 794; Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water
Resources Control Bd. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 230, 264.) Our task
is to give effect to the constitutional provisions governing changes
to local government charters as well as the intended purpose of
Measure H. (See California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 933 (California Cannabis Coalition);
Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo
(2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 357, 366.)
       In construing constitutional provisions, we start with the
text in its relevant context and ascribe to words their ordinary
meaning, considering related provisions and the structure of the
relevant constitutional scheme. (California Cannabis Coalition,

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text