Does an ordinance restricting weight limits need to specify an alternate route within the city?

But such is not the true rule. One opinion (Neary v. Town of Los Altos Hills, 172 Cal.App.2d 721, 343 P.2d 155, 159) does contain the statement that an ordinance restricting weight limits 'must in fact designate an alternate route within the city.' But this language is unnecessary to the decision. In Neary, a newly incorporated city bounded upon three sides a quarry which had been in operation for some 50 years. On the fourth side, the quarry was adjoined by a mountain over which no road ran and the grade of which was 40%. By this route, the nearest road was some three miles from the quarry, and the intermediate property was not owned by the quarry owner. The city adopted an ordinance barring all of its streets to all vehicles having a gross weight in excess of 12 tons. The ordinance was not within the legislative grant to cities of power to restrict vehicle weight upon [198 Cal.App.2d 454] 'a street to be described in the ordinance' (Veh. Code 713, now 35701) because it applied to all streets in the city (Neary v. Town of Los Altos Hills, supra, p. 728, 343 P.2d 155). Further, the ordinance clearly was confiscatory in wholly isolating the long-established quarry from all access to any business, in or out of the city.