ELR Citation: ELR 20454
No(s). C-73 663 LHB (N.D. Cal. Apr 26, 1974)

A California city ordinance limiting growth to 500 units per year (a figure substantially below the estimated demand for new housing in the community) is struck down as a violation of the constitutional right to travel, since no compelling governmental interest was shown. Defendants' arguments that such exclusionary zoning measures were necessary to deal with sewage problems, assure an adequate water supply, and preserve the "small town character" of Petaluma are rejected as an invalid use of the local police power; such a plan merely shifts the burden of providing housing to other cities within the San Francisco region. Rather, the court holds that a municipality capable of supporting a natural population expansion may not limit growth simply because it does not see fit to grow at the rate that would be determined by the prevailing market demand. The court also retains continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action to assure complete relief to the plaintiffs.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Malcolm A. Misuraca
James L. Beyers
Craig M. Thomas
Joseph Joiner
Arata, Misuraca and Clement
717 College Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 23604

Counsel for Defendant
Robert Anderson
Edouard E. Robert
Sturgis, Den-Dulk, Douglass and Anderson
133 1/2 Kentucky
Petaluma, CA 94952