II. Equal Protection

Appellant's equal protection argument is based on the assertion that the challenged ordinance improperly infringes on Appellant's right to travel. The California Supreme Court in Tobe analyzed this issue at length, and concluded that the ordinance in question there, which prohibited camping and storage of certain items in particular public places, did not impermissibly *432 infringe on the right of the homeless, or others, to travel. ( Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4 th at pp. 1096-1104, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 , 892 P.2d 1145 .) The Court cited Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 1994) 846 F.Supp. 843 , in which that Court rejected the argument that the city must show a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny standard, noting that the law was not facially discriminatory as it did not distinguish between residents of the city and other persons.

The California Supreme Court in Tobe reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment that the Santa Ana ordinance impermissibly infringes on the right of homeless to travel and declared:

( Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4 th at pp. 1103-1104, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 , 892 P.2d 1145 ; see also, Allen, supra, 234 Cal.App.4 th at p. 55, fn.1, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 654 [rejecting a similar claim].) We similarly conclude that the San Diego ordinance at issue does not impermissibly restrict the right to travel.

The Tobe Court noted that it was not insensitive to the importance of the larger issues raised by petitioners and amici curiae, but explained:

( Tobe, supra , 9 Cal.4 th at p. 1092, fn. 12, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 , 892 P.2d 1145 .)

This court is not insensitive to the struggles faced by the homeless population in San Diego or the serious collateral issues caused by homelessness within the San Diego community. However, our function is limited to judicial review of the validity of the ordinance being challenged as a result of the judgment in the trial department. As the Supreme Court in Tobe advised, broader policy considerations should be addressed by the appropriate legislative bodies.

The judgment is affirmed.