construction lighting

City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court

Full Case Name
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Real Party in Interest
Description

The Court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the California Coastal Commission to disapprove the City's plan, which would have allowed excessive light pollution from economic development to endanger native species in the coastal zone.

Cite
133 Cal. App. 3d 472
Date
07-02-1982
Court
Court of Appeals of the State of California
Jurisdiction
California
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2157934/city-of-chula-vista-v-superior-co…
Plaintiffs
city
Defendants
Other Governmental Entity
Incident Location
Chula Vista, CA
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The Court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the California Coastal Commission to disapprove the City's plan to comply with the California Coastal Act, and denied the City's petition for writ of mandamus. This left in place the Superior Court's decision entering judgment in favor of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Comission had refused approval of the City's plan that would have allowed excessive light pollution from economic development to endanger native species in the coastal zone.
Disposition
affirmed
outdoor lighting
construction lighting
artificial light at night

Bitterrooters for Planning, Inc. v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Full Case Name
BITTERROOTERS FOR PLANNING, INC., and BITTERROOT RIVER PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, an agency of the State of Montana, Defendant and Appellant, STEPHEN WANDERER and GEORGIA FILCHER, Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants
Description

The Court found that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it only considered the environmental impacts to water quality of the construction and operation of the wastewater discharging permit issued to the facility.

Cite
388 Mont. 453
Date
09-05-2017
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Montana
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4424012/bitterrooters-for-planning-inc-v-…
Plaintiffs
Non-governmental organization
Defendants
state
Incident Location
Ravalli County, Montana
Disputed Act

The plaintiffs alleged that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's wastewater discharge permitting process for an unnamed retail store facility violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. Public comments organized by the Department of Environmental Quality included light pollution, noise pollution, and soil pollution, as well as others.

Holding
The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's summary judgment that Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. The Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment that the Department of Environmental Quality must identify and disclose the actual contemplated owner or operator of the retail store facility whose wasterwater discharge permitting was issued by the Department.
Disposition
reversed in part
affirmed in part
general illumination
construction lighting

Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

Full Case Name
FRIENDS OF THE BLACK FOREST PRESERVATION PLAN, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation; Richard Babcock; Jennifer Babcock; Brenda S. Baldry; Karen R. Coppeak; Remi Y. Gagne; Charlotte R. Gagne; Leif Garrison; James C. Kesser; Sharon Kesser; James A. Orban; Patricia E. Orban; Laura N. Spear; Timothy J. Spear; Wallace J. Stenhaug; Sandra A. Stenhaug; and Margaret J. Whitley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EL PASO COUNTY, Colorado; and Black Forest Mission, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees
Description

The Board of County Commissioners granted a special use permit to a company to build a greenhouse in a preservation area. There were initial concerns by residents about light pollution and other effects from the construction. However, the company re-submitted a plan that addressed these concerns. The Board made findings that the re-submitted plan was consistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area, and the Court concluded the Board was allowed to make this finding.

Cite
381 P.3d 396
Date
04-07-2016
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Colorado
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5345359/friends-of-black-forest-preservat…
Plaintiffs
Non-governmental organization
Defendants
county
Incident Location
El Paso County, CO
Disputed Act

The Board of County Commissioners approved a special use permit for Black Forest Mission, LLC (BFM) to build a greenhouse or set of them in the Black Forest preservation area. Some residents initially objected to BFM's plan for the building of the greenhouse because of concerns related to light pollution, obstruction of views, and traffic congestion, however, BFM revised its plan to address these concerns and resubmitted its plan to the Board of County Comissioners. The plaintiff, Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc., objected to the Board of County Comissioners approving BFM's updated plan by arguing it was inconsistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area.

Holding
The Court concluded that the Board of County Commissioners' finding that BFM’s special use application was “consistent with the applicable Master Plan” was supported by competent evidence. Moreover, the Court found that the Master Plan for the preservation area was advisory so the Board of County Commissioners was allowed to exercise its discretion in its findings.
Disposition
affirmed
general illumination
construction lighting

Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Bernhardt

Full Case Name
DINE CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT; San Juan Citizens Alliance; WildEarth Guardians; Natural Resources Defense Council, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David BERNHARDT, in His Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Land Management, an Agency Within the United States Department of the Interior; Neil Kornze, in His Official Capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendants-Appellees, and DJR Energy Holdings, LLC; BP America Production Company; American Petroleum Institute; Anschutz Exploration Corporation; Enduring Resources IV, LLC, Intervenor Defendants-Appellees, and ConocoPhillips Company; Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP, Intervenor Defendants. All Pueblo Council of Governors; National Trust for Historic Preservation; Navajo Allottees; Alice Benally; Lilly Comanche; Virginia Harrison ; Samuel Harrison; Dolora Hesuse; Verna Martinez; Loyce Phoenix, Amici Curiae.
Description

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill fracked wells on public lands, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nationa Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). District Court judged in favor of BLM; activists appealed. Activists had standing to bring action; environmental assessments adequately analyzed cumulative effects of granting drill applications as required by NEPA; activists failed to show BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Cite
923 F.3d 831
Date
05-07-2019
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4617344/dine-citizens-against-ruining-our…
Plaintiffs
Indigenous
Non-governmental organization
Defendants
Other Governmental Entity
Incident Location
San Juan County, NM; McKinley County, NM
Disputed Act

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill fracked wells on public lands, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nationa Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). District Court judged in favor of BLM; activists appealed.

Holding
Activists had standing to bring action; environmental assessments adequately analyzed cumulative effects of granting drill applications as required by NEPA; activists failed to show BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
Disposition
affirmed in part
reversed in part
remanded
general illumination
artificial light
construction lighting

Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley

Full Case Name
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Michael W. Behrens, Robert L. Nichols, John W. Johnson, and Ric Williamson, Petitioners, v. CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY, Terrance R. Cowan, and Donald Hurwitz, Respondents
Description

City and city officials filed action against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) concerning highway expansion. The Court ruled that TxDOT's alleged failure to erect signage and decision to install high-mast floodlights did not give City officials standing to bring claim.

Cite
146 S.W.3d 637
Date
09-24-2004
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction
Texas
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/894609/texas-department-of-transportation…
Plaintiffs
state
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Sunset Valley, TX
Disputed Act

City and city officials filed action against Texas Dept. of Transportation (TxDOT) concerning highway expansion. District Court awarded city damages and fees; declared TxDOT violated administrative regulations regarding noise and lighting, enjoined private nuisance, and enjoined equal protection violations from use of flood lights and failure to erect city limit signs.

Holding
TxDOT's alleged failure to erect signage and decision to install high-mast floodlights did not give City officials standing to bring claim; nuisance created by floodlights did not amount to unconstitutional taking of mayor's property.
Disposition
reversed
rendered
enforcement
residential neighborhood
obtrusive light
roadway lighting
construction lighting
Subscribe to construction lighting