"The concept of the public welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold .

The quotation reflects a case where a community’s desire to control growth was upheld as a legitimate exercise of police power for public welfare. This matchesConstruction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma(1975), where the Supreme Court upheld Petaluma’s growth management plan limiting housing permits to preserve small-town character and open spaces. The APA’sAICP Certification Exam Content Outline(2022), under “Fundamental Planning Knowledge,” citesPetalumaas a landmark case, noting the court’s ruling: “The concept of public welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold Petaluma’s desire to preserve its small-town character, open spaces, and low density.” Option A (Livermore, 1976) dealt with a building moratorium but not this specific rationale. Option B (Mount Laurel, 1975) addressed exclusionary zoning, not growth control. Option C (Euclid, 1926) established zoning’s constitutionality but didn’t focus on growth management. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms the quote fromPetaluma, supporting option D.