city

Upon remand of Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson, 193 Ariz. 314, the trial court found that plaintiff had failed to establish its substantive due process or equal protection rights were violated by the City of Tucson's Outdoor Lighting Code provision, which banned light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards.

Organization of school spending activists objected to the installation of high school stadium field lighting and other renovations on grounds of waste of funds, violation of zoning laws, and environmental concerns (including light trespass, glare, and sleep disruption). A consultant group stated that the sky glow and glare caused by the project would have a less than significant impact. Trial Court ruled in favor of the school district.

Plaintiffs alleged that the approval by the defendant United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) application violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Plaintiffs sought an order holding unlawful and setting aside the FWS’ decision to enter into the land exchange and transfer the corridor to JPPHA. The plaintiffs' concerns about the highway include "increased noise and artificial light" which could negatively impact wildlife by "interfering with the ability to avoid danger, locate food, reproduce, migrate, avoid collisions, and evade predators."

The City of Chula Vista formulated a development plan for its bayfront. The California Coastal Commission found the City's plan to be in conflict with the California Coastal Act, which required local governments within coastal zones to develop plans that would protect coastal resource areas. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission found that excessive light pollution from the city's proposed development would adversely impact native species in the costal zone.

Individuals applied for a permit for a bed and breakfast on their property in a residential neighborhood. The City Planning Commission approved the permit subject to conditions in spite of neighbors' concerns over the impact on the neighborhood. The permit was later denied by the City Council; the denial was reversed by the district court.

Company applied to lease land from individuals for the purpose of building and operating a natural gas well. The township Board of Supervisors granted the conditional use permit after holding a hearing at which neighboring property owners expressed concerns over the adverse effects of the project, including traffic, noise, light pollution, potential well employees with criminal records, and property values. The permit was denied by the trial court.

Plaintiff company sought to develop a tract it owned which bordered a local creek. The City's Board of Adjustment denied the development because it determined that it was located in a "Conservation Overlay District" and subject to certain "performance controls" intended to protect important environmental resources within the city. After plaintiff filed an appeal of the Board's decision in court, adjacent property owners filed for intervention claiming that the development would result in increase traffic, light pollution, noise, and loss of value to their properties. Plaintiff objected that the intervenors lacked standing.

The City's Board of Standards and Appeals granted a variance of its Zone Resolution, permitting the erection of an illuminated sign "one hundred feet long and twelve feet high on the roof of the premises of stores" in "a district zoned for residence purposes." The owners of adjacent apartment houses filed a suit against the City's Board of Standards and Appeals decision, claiming "that this enormous illuminated sign, burning throughout the night in the rear of their apartments, would have a most serious effect on their property, causing tenants to vacate."

The City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment ("Board") granted a use permit to American Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("American Outdoor") to operate an electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17. Plaintiff non-profits brought suit to enjoin the electronic billboard, alleging the billboard would violate Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-7903 (1998),[3] a provision of the Arizona Highway Beautification Act ("AHBA"), in part due to its intermittent lighting.

Plaintiff residents of Philadelphia objected to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting a variance to permit the Applicant, the Franklin Institute, to change its sign from vinyl to digital. The Franklin Institute had informed the ZBA it would agree to, among other things, reduce the sign’s brightness and equip the sign with automatic dimming control, which adjusts the sign’s light levels to changing conditions.