## Facts

- Livermore voters adopted a 1972 initiative ordinance barring issuance of new residential building permits until specified standards were met for sewage disposal, water supply, and educational facilities.
- The ordinance stated purposes of protecting public health, safety, and welfare and contributing to solutions for air-pollution-related problems.
- A residential developers’ association sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the ordinance effectively barred newcomers and violated constitutional protections, including a right to migrate.
- The trial court invalidated the ordinance and permanently enjoined enforcement.
- The court of appeal affirmed on the ground that zoning-type regulation could not be enacted by initiative.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to address justiciability/standing and the ordinance’s validity as a growth-control measure.

## Issues

1. Whether the developers’ association had standing and presented a ripe, justiciable controversy to challenge the ordinance.
2. Whether California law permits land-use or zoning-type regulations to be enacted through the municipal initiative process.
3. Whether a citywide suspension of residential building permits tied to infrastructure standards is facially constitutional as a reasonable exercise of municipal police power, including in light of asserted rights to travel/migrate and equal protection.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the dispute justiciable and found the association had standing to sue.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule barring zoning or land-use controls adopted by initiative and treated the ordinance as validly enacted through that process.
- The Court upheld the ordinance as facially valid under the police power because it was reasonably related to public welfare objectives involving infrastructure capacity and environmental concerns.
- The Court reversed the judgment invalidating the ordinance and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, while leaving open potential future as-applied challenges.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal land-use ordinance is a valid exercise of police power if it is reasonably related to the public welfare.
- Review of growth-control land-use measures generally applies a reasonableness inquiry rather than a compelling-interest test unless the law directly penalizes or discriminates against travel or residency.
- In evaluating growth restrictions, courts should: (1) identify whose welfare is implicated (local and potentially regional/statewide), (2) identify competing interests affected (existing residents, prospective residents, neighboring communities), and (3) determine whether the ordinance reasonably accommodates those interests without arbitrariness or discrimination.
- Local electorates may use the initiative power to enact land-use controls, notwithstanding earlier decisions treating zoning statutes’ procedural requirements as incompatible with initiatives.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a voter-enacted residential permit moratorium tied to infrastructure and service standards, holding that municipal growth-control regulations are permissible when they bear a reasonable relationship to public welfare and reasonably accommodate affected local and regional interests.


Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (Cal. 1976)