In a partially published opinion, the First District Court of Appeal in Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority (2026) __Cal.App.5th__ (No. A174642), upheld dismissal of a CEQA challenge to the Bay Area Toll Authority’s decision exempting the San Francisco Bay Bridge’s “Bay Lights 360” art installation on statute of limitations and issue preclusion grounds.
Key Takeaways
- CEQA’s 35-day statute of limitations begins when the lead agency files a notice of exemption, and the 180-day limitations period begins when the agency approves the project.
- A subsequent permit issued by a different agency to implement the project does not restart either statutory clock.
- Issue preclusion bars petitioners from relitigating statute of limitations issues that were conclusively resolved against them in an earlier action involving the same facts.
Background
In 2012, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) approved the “Bay Lights” LED art installation on the San Francisco Bay Bridge and filed notices of exemption (NOE) for the project. In 2023, BATA approved an upgraded version—”Bay Lights 360”—that would replace the existing lights with 48,000 new LED lights and extend the installation’s life by another decade. BATA filed a new NOE in August 2023, and Caltrans later issued an encroachment permit requiring additional safety testing.
Petitioner filed a CEQA challenge in December 2024, but the trial court dismissed the petition as untimely. Rather than appeal, petitioner filed a second action, arguing that the Caltrans permit constituted a separate CEQA project that restarted the statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed that action as well.
In December 2024, Mark Baker, President of the “Soft Lights Foundation,” filed a CEQA petition in pro per challenging BATA’s NOE. Baker alleged the NOE was “unjustified” because the Project had not received “formal approval,” while BATA and other agencies failed to prepare a full EIR. BATA demurred, including on the ground that Baker’s CEQA claim was time-barred. In April 2025, the trial court agreed and sustained BATA’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court found that Baker’s claim against the NOE was barred by CEQA’s 35-day statute of limitations, while the claim generally challenging BATA’s approval was barred by CEQA’s 180-day statute of limitations. The court entered judgment in May 2025. Baker did not appeal.
Appellate Decision
Statute of Limitations
The court held that petitioner’s second lawsuit was untimely because it was not filed within 35 days of BATA’s August 2023 NOE. In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the court explained that Caltrans’s encroachment permit and required safety testing were implementation steps—not a separate project under CEQA—and therefore did not restart CEQA’s statute of limitations.
Issue Preclusion
The court also held that petitioner’s claims were barred by issue preclusion. The second action raised the same statute of limitations issues that had already been decided in the first lawsuit, which became final when petitioner failed to appeal the trial court’s decision. Rejecting petitioner’s argument that a dismissal on limitations grounds not “on the merits,” the court reaffirmed that a prior dismissal has preclusive effect when it rests on the same facts alleged in a later action. Finally, the court concluded that applying issue preclusion furthered the policies underlying both CEQA and the issue preclusion doctrine itself by promoting judicial economy, protecting litigants from repetitive lawsuits, preserving the integrity of the judicial system, and enforcing CEQA’s deliberately short statute of limitations.