Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority

── Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MARK BAKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, A174642 v. BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CPF25519079) Defendant and Respondent; ILLUMINATE THE ARTS, Real Party in Interest. The Bay Lights 360 is the third iteration of an LED light art installation on the San Francisco Bay Bridge funded by real party in interest Illuminate the Arts (Illuminate). And this is the second iteration of litigation by Mark Baker challenging Bay Area Toll Authority’s (BATA) approval of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; see Pub. Resources Code, § 21050).1 In Baker’s first lawsuit, the trial court entered judgment after sustaining BATA’s demurrer based on the statute of limitations. Baker did not appeal, but filed this action founded on new allegations about a permit issued to implement the Bay Lights 360 project. BATA again demurred, and * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II(A) and II(C). 1 Undesignated section references are to CEQA provisions codified in Public Resources Code sections 21000–21177. 1 the trial court sustained its demurrer without leave to amend, finding the new allegations did not restart the statute of limitations and Baker was precluded from relitigating the arguments resolved against him in the first action. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND As alleged by Baker, the Bay Lights art installation began in 2012. In earlier versions of the project, LEDs were installed on the exterior of the Bay Bridge’s suspension cables. Bay Lights 360 adds inward, driver-facing lights, approximately doubling the number of LEDs. BATA is the CEQA lead agency for Bay Lights 360, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is a responsible agency.2 Beginning in 2012, BATA filed notices of exemption declaring each iteration of the Bay Lights exempt from the requirements of CEQA. It filed a notice of exemption as to Bay Lights 360 in August 2023. In October 2024, Caltrans issued an encroachment permit conditionally approving BATA’s plan to install Bay Lights 360 and requiring a “conditional study and evaluation” of the inward-facing lights to determine whether they would adversely affect motorists. The encroachment permit stated that the interior lights must not be activated until a comprehensive safety test was developed and completed, and those lights must not be activated for testing 2 “The lead agency is the ‘public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a [CEQA] project . . . .’ (§ 21067.)” (Marina Coast Water Dist. v. County of Monterey (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 46, 59, fn. 10.) A “responsible agency” is another agency with responsibility for those functions. (§ 21069.) “The lead agency has a primary role in assessing whether an [environmental impact report] is required and in preparing and certifying the” report. (Marina Coast Water Dist., supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at p. 59, fn. 10.) “A responsible agency bears ‘responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the . . . environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to carry out, finance, or approve.’ ” (Ibid., citations omitted.) 2 or display unless approved via a rider to the permit, which had not issued at the time Baker filed this action. A. Baker’s First CEQA Action Baker is “the President of the Soft Lights