The Bay Lights 360 project involves an astonishing number of unlawful and deceitful actions and skipped steps.
Unapproved Project
The Bay Area Toll Authority discussed the Bay Lights 360 proposal at a BATA meeting in October, 2022, and in January, 2023. However, none of the following meetings discussed the project, the project was never voted on by the BATA Commissioners, and the Bay Lights 360 project has never been approved.
The California Brown Act states, “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.” This transparency and open deliberations have not taken place for the Bay Lights 360 project.
Despite the lack of project approval, Caltrans began construction of the Bay Lights 360 project on December 9, 2024.
Due to the start of construction without formal approval, Mark Baker, President of the Soft Lights Foundation, filed a CEQA lawsuit on December 16, 2024.
On March 15, 2025, Caltrans halted construction on the project because of Bay Bridge suspension cable work by American Bridge.
Lead Agency
For the first iteration of the Bay Lights project in 2012, BATA filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption which designated Caltrans as the Agency Approving the Project, and Illuminate as the Agency Carrying Out the Project. There is no explanation as to how a private entity such as Illuminate could be designated as the Agency Carrying Out the Project.
For the second iteration of the Bay Lights project in 2016, BATA filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption which again designated Caltrans as the Agency Approving the Project, and Illuminate as the Agency Carrying Out the Project. There is no explanation as to how a private entity such as Illuminate could be designated as the Agency Carrying Out the Project.
However, for the third iteration called Bay Lights 360, BATA filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption which designated BATA as the Agency Approving the Project and BATA as the Agency Carrying Out the Project. There is no explanation or documentation for this change. For CEQA, these designations are critical, because California Code of Regulations Section 15051 states that the Lead Agency is the public agency that carries out the project or has the greatest responsibility for the project. Neither BATA nor Illuminate qualify for the Lead Agency role for the Bay Lights 360 project, and yet BATA assigned itself as the Lead Agency for unspecified reasons.
Notice of Exemption Filing Requirement
California Code of Regulations Section 15062(a) states that a CEQA Notice of Exemption all not be filed until AFTER the project is approved. However, BATA filed the CEQA NOE on August 15, 2023, without ever having voted to approve the Bay Lights 360 project. Since the Bay Lights 360 project was never approved, the NOE filing is void.
In the demurrer filing against Mr. Baker’s lawsuit, BATA and Caltrans both falsely claim that the lawsuit should be dismissed because CEQA statutes allow only a 35-day window after the filing of the NOE to file a CEQA lawsuit. However, since the NOE was filed BEFORE the project was approved, the NOE is void, and thus the window for filing a lawsuit is 180 days after start of construction. Since construction started on December 9, 2024 and Mr. Baker filed the lawsuit on December 16, 2024, the demurrer claim by BATA and Caltrans fails.
Minor Alteration
The Bay Area Toll Authority and the media coverage describes the Bay Lights project with vocabulary such as “sheer size”, “monumental”, “world’s largest”, and visible throughout the entire Bay Area.
“While the sheer size of ‘The Bay Lights’ installation is a first for San Francisco…” – New York Times, March 4, 2013
“This ‘360-degree’ approach will allow the lights to be seen throughout San Francisco, on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, and in many East Bay communities, including Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville.” – Illuminate.org
“The Bay Lights is a monumental light sculpture made of 25,000 LEDs…” – Metropolitan Transportation Commission
“The Bay Lights is … the world’s largest light-emitting diode (LED) light sculpture.” – Bay Area Toll Authority
Meanwhile, the Bay Area Toll Authority simultaneously describes the Bay Lights 360 project as a “minor alteration” involving “negligible” expansion and would “not result in significant effects on the environment” in its CEQA Notice of Exemption.
Cumulative Impact
Exemption from CEQA requirements are inapplicable when the cumulative impacts are significant. “Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” – California Code of Regulations Section 15300.2(b)
cumulative: increasing or growing by accumulation or successive additions.
The quantity and intensity of the lights on the Bay Bridge has been growing with each iteration of the project.
1960s – 0 decorative lights and limited light pollution.
1986 – 50th Anniversary – 848 decorative lights and moderate light pollution.
2012 – 75th Anniversary – 25,000 animated LED lights with significant light pollution.
2016 – Bay Lights – 25,000 high-intensity animated LED lights with severe light pollution.
2025 – Bay Lights 360 – 50,000 high-intensity animated LED lights will double the light pollution from the previous iteration.
Despite increasing from 848 incandescent lights in 1986 to 50,000 high-intensity LED lights in 2025, and despite the project never having established a baseline environmental assessment, the Bay Area Toll Authority states, “The project…will not result in a cumulative impact.” – Bay Area Toll Authority CEQA NOE
Fill
The first iteration of the Bay Lights project was issued a permit by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission on August 7, 2012.
The permit states, “On behalf of the Commission, I find and declare that: A. Minor Repair or Improvement. The project authorized by this permit involves the temporary installation of a light sculpture on the Bay Bridge, a structure in the Bay. The project therefore, involves minor fill in the Bay for improving shoreline appearance that complies with section 10700 that does not exceed 1,000 square feet, as defined by Commission Regulation 10601(a)(7), and therefore, is a “minor repair or improvement” for which the Executive Director may issue a permit, pursuant to Government Code Section 66632(f) and Regulation Section 10622(a).” – Permit M2012.009 was thus issued by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
California Code of Regulations § 10700 Minor Fill for Improving Shoreline Appearance states, “The [BCDC] Commission may approve the placement of minor fill to improve shoreline appearance… only if … the Commission finds and declares that: (a) the fill is necessary…”
For the original iteration of the Bay Lights project in 2012, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Acting Director Steven Goldbeck declared that “The project therefore, involves minor fill in the Bay for improving shoreline appearance…and therefore, is a “minor repair or improvement” for which the Executive Director may issue a permit, pursuant to Government Code Section 66632(f) and Regulation Section 10622(a).” This is a falsification of the Findings and Declarations by BCDC which was then used to issue a permit for the project.
The ‘fill’ fraud continues into the Bay Lights 360 project:
——————
III. Findings and Declarations
On behalf of the Commission, I find and declare that:
Amendment No. Four. Amendment No. Four authorizes the removal of the “Bay Lights” sculpture, installation of the “Bay Lights 360” sculpture, and illumination of the new sculpture for a 10-year period through December 31, 2033. Whereas the originally authorized “Bay Lights” sculpture included lights only on the outward-facing side of the Bay Bridge, the “Bay Lights 360” sculpture will also include lights on the inward- (roadway-) facing side of the cables. As a result, the new sculpture will have 48,000 lights, as opposed to the 25,000 lights that comprise the original sculpture. While there will be an increase in the number of lights, the project is located fully within the footprint of the Bay Bridge and will not expand the footprint of existing fill. Further, the project is intended to improve the appearance of the shoreline and the public’s enjoyment of the Bay. The project therefore involves minor fill in the Bay for improving shoreline appearance that complies with section 10700 and does not exceed 1,000 square feet, as defined by Commission Regulation 10601(a)(7), and thus, is a “minor repair or improvement” for which the Executive Director may issue a permit, pursuant to Government Code Section 66632(f) and Regulation Section 10810.
————————
This declaration is signed by Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
The declaration statement, “The project therefore involves minor fill in the Bay for improving shoreline appearance…” by Mr. Goldzband is false, and therefore the declaration is fraudulent.
Temporary Installation
The NOE filing by BATA on August 15, 2023, states, “recommissioned in February 2016 as a permanent installation.”
The BCDC permit for the project was issued on September 7, 2023, but was issued AFTER the NOE filing by BATA. The permit states, “Amendment No. Four authorizes the removal of the “Bay Lights” sculpture, and the temporary installation and maintenance of the “Bay Lights 360” sculpture for an approximately 10-year period through December 2033.”
Thus, BATA filed a NOE with false information because the project is only approved as a temporary installation, not a permanent installation as claimed by BATA.
CalTrans Transportation Art
Among other things, CalTrans Transportation Art prohibits simulated motion. The Bay Lights is an animated display which simulates motion. Allowing the the Bay Lights 360 project to operate would be a violation of CalTrans rules which are designed to protect public safety.
As of February 16, 2025, CalTrans has not issued a Transportation Art permit for the Bay Lights 360 project.
Ben Davis – Founder, Illuminate
“If you want to stop the sale and public use of all LEDs, I would suggest you continue making your case at the federal level.” – Ben Davis email to Mark Baker, March 26, 2024.
“Illuminate would undoubtedly comply if you successfully enact a national ban on LEDs.” – Ben Davis email to Mark Baker, March 26, 2024.
“If a person were extremely sensitive to LED light, they could never reach the western span of the Bay Bridge.” – Ben Davis email to Mark Baker, December 12, 2024.
There is no legitimate ADA issue related to The Bay Lights art installation. – Ben Davis email to Mark Baker, December 12, 2024.
Light sensitivity is considered a disability under the ADA – ADAcompliancefirm.com
Illuminate has taken no steps to provide accommodation for individuals with light sensitivity in violation of the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Deliberate Indifference
Mark Baker made multiple ADA requests for accommodation in regards to the Bay lights 360 project.
“This is a formal Americans with Disabilities Act request for accommodation for myself, and all those individuals similarly situated who cannot neurologically process the intense, spatially non-uniform light emitted by LEDs.” – Email from Mark Baker to MTC, December 31, 2023.
“I am requesting accommodation. The accommodation I request is the denial of the permit to Illuminate to install the LED lights on the Bay Bridge.” – Email from Mark Baker to CalTrans, Jan. 2, 2024.
Deliberate indifference requires both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood. – Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 2001.
Despite knowing that the Bay Lights 360 project is substantially likely to harm a federally protected right, neither CalTrans nor MTC acted on Mr. Baker’s accommodation request. This is an act of deliberate indifference and thus a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Hamilton Biological
In January, 2025, the Soft Lights Foundation commissioned Hamilton Biological to evaluate the permitting process and environmental impacts of the Bay Lights 360 project. Hamilton Biological President Robert Hamilton concluded in the report, “I conclude that your ongoing legal action to require The Bay Lights 360 project to undergo CEQA review is fully warranted. Furthermore, Dr. Travis Longcore reviewed the final draft of this letter and explicitly endorses the conclusions drawn herein.”
In February, 2025, Hamilton Biological submitted a second letter to the Soft Lights Foundation which demonstrates how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Toll Authority, and CalTrans (along with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission), cooperated to evade CEQA requirements.
David J. Powers & Associates
Visual Assessment.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
For the Bay Lights 360 project, CDFW is a Trustee Agency. CDFW was notified about the Bay Lights project by BCDC and CDFW responded by providing a link to a report commissioned by CalTrans.
The Travis Loncore report on the impacts of LED lights on wildlife commissioned by CalTrans and published in April, 2023 clearly shows that LED lights have an adverse impact on wildlife. This report consists of 189 pages and Mr. Loncore is a professor at UCLA and well-respected expert on the topic. However, instead of requiring an EIR for the Bay Lights 360 project, BCDC issued a non-material amendment permit, by deferring to the 11-page memo from H.T. Harvey & Associates which was dismissive of the impacts of light pollution on birds.
Timeline
1936 – Bay Bridge opens to traffic.
1986 – 848 incandescent lights temporarily added to the span for the 50th anniversary. Even though the display was temporary, the lights continued to be turned on from dusk to dawn until June, 2001, when they were turned off to save energy. There is no known environmental review for this project.
2010 – Bay Lights conceived by Ben Davis.
August 7, 2012 – BCDC issues permit number M2012.009.00 to CalTrans using the “minor fill” exemption.
March 5, 2013 – Bay Lights 75th Anniversary opening ceremony.
March 5, 2015 – Bay Lights 75th Anniversary project closes.
October 19, 2022: Initial meeting held with Illuminate and BATA
December 6, 2022: David J. Powers issues Visual Assessment memo.
January, 2023: A presentation is made to the BATA Commissioners, proposing the Bay Lights 360 project.
February 22, 2023: CalTrans submits permit application to BCDC.
March 4, 2023: Soft Lights Foundation notifies Illuminate and City and County of SF that LED lights are an environmental hazard.
March 24, 2023: HT Harvey Memo issued.
April 7, 2023: Jessica Finkel at BCDC sends letter to CalTrans asking if CDFW should be involved and asks about the lights causing distractions for drivers.
June 5, 2023: Jessica Finkel at BCDC writes to CalTrans, “I’m still thinking about the possibility that having lights on the inward-facing side of the bridge could cause issues for drivers or passengers who are sensitive to visual stimuli, and I have one additional follow-up question. Is there a mechanism for individuals/communities to submit feedback about the lights (e.g., a way to provide comments through Caltrans’ or another agency’s website)?”
June 9, 2023: Robert Soltar of CalTrans writes to BCDC, “Regarding visual stimuli causing a negative reaction among drivers or passengers, there is no indication or studies that suggest the type of light that we use causes such a reaction.” There is no mention of the CalTrans Transportation Art Department prohibition of simulated movement.
June 29, 2023: David J. Powers second Visual Assessment memo and Lead Hazard memos issued.
August 15, 2023: BATA determination of “NOE” secretly filed with the SF City Clerk with a “finding” by the BATA Commissioners and without project approval by the BATA Commissioners.
August 15, 2023: BATA filed the NOE with the CDFW.
September 5, 2023: Shannon Skalos of CDFW wrote to Jessica Finkel at BCDC, “For the lights themselves, I would encourage Bay lights 360 to carefully consider the impact of lights on migrating birds (and bats and insects) when choosing lights, as well. I know this is probably beyond the scope of this request. Too many and too bright of lights (like 100% brightness LEDS) can be greatly disruptive to migration!”
September 7, 2023: BCDC Amended Permit Number Four was issued to CalTrans and at the bottom of that permit, the CDFW as CCed.
December 31, 2023: Soft Lights Foundation submits ADA Request for Accommodation to MTC and City and County of SF.
January 2, 2024: Soft Lights Foundation submits ADA Request for Accommodation to CalTrans.
March 26, 2024: Ben Davis of Illuminate sends letter to Soft Lights Foundation asserting that the project is unstoppable.
April 29. 2024: CalTrans sends letter to Soft Lights Foundation stating that the project is in the review phase and that safety and environmental concerns are a priority.
April 29, 2024: Soft Lights Foundation sends letter to CalTrans repeating requests for CEQA, NEPA, and ADA analysis.
December 9, 2024: CalTrans starts construction despite no project approval.
December 11, 2024: BATA Oversight Committee holds a meeting noting that a CalTrans Transportation Art permit is required.
December 15, 2024: Mark Baker files CEQA lawsuit.
March 18, 2025: BATA outside counsel for Baker v. BATA lawsuit, Amy Higuera, either quits or is fired from Downey Brand, possibly due to an ethics dispute related to this lawsuit.
Mark Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority, et al.
On December 16, 2024, Mark Baker, President of the Soft Lights Foundation, filed a CEQA and ADA lawsuit against MTC, BATA, and CalTrans.
February 21, 2025: MTC/BATA files a Demurrer: Demurrer, Declaration, Exhibits
February 28, 2025: Mark Baker files Response to Demurrer:
March 3, 2025 – Caltrans files a Demurrer and Motion to Strike: Demurrer, MPA in Support of Demurrer, Joinder, Declaration for Demurrer, Motion to Strike, Declaration for Motion to Strike.
March 5, 2025 – Mark Baker files Opposition to Caltrans Demurrer and Opposition to Caltrans Motion to Strike.
March 17, 2025 – Case Management Conference held in Department 606.
March 18, 2025 – Outside counsel Amy Higuera of Downey Brand either quits or is fired.
Statutes
California Code of Regulations Section 15051 – The Lead Agency is the agency that is carrying out the project or has the most responsibility for the project.
California Code of Regulations Section 15062(a) – “The [NOE] notice shall be filed, if at all, after approval of the project.”
Brown Act – Government Code Section 54950 – “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
Case Law
SAINT IGNATIUS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (2022) – The court ruled that a CEQA review is required for increasing the number of nights that lights would be used in a San Francisco neighborhood and that a categorical exemption is not valid for such a project.
TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT v CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES – Testing procedures that begin prior to the approval of a Project are included in the CEQA action and thus a preliminary injunction can be issued to halt the pre-approval testing procedures.
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
List of Commissioners and Staff
News Articles and Videos
December 18, 2024 – Controversy erupts over Bay Bridge LED light installation – SFGate
December 18, 2024 – Calif. man sues over Bay Lights installation, alleging light pollution and discrimination – San Francisco Chronicle
December 18, 2024 – Sacramento man sues over ‘discriminatory’ Bay Bridge lights, says they cause suicidal thoughts – The San Francisco Standard
December 17, 2024 – Anti-Radiation Group Sues to Halt the Reinstallation of the Bay Bridge’s Bay Lights – SFist
December 16, 2024 – ‘Neurologic hazard’: Group sues over Bay Bridge lights – KRON4
October 27, 2022 – Bay Lights 360 promotional video. – This video contains a simulation of how the LED lights on the interior of the cables will impact driver vision.
June 14, 2001 – Bay, Gate bridges dim lights / Conservation tactic mostly symbolic — mere pennies are saved – 848 incandescent lights were added to the bridge cables in 1986 as a temporary display for the 50th anniversary, but were turned off in 2001 to save energy.
2019 – This Is What It Takes to Keep San Francisco’s Bay Lights On – Smithsonian Channel Video
February 1, 2016 – 25,000 LEDs Light Up the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge – Architect Magazine
2014 – Art show lights up San Francisco’s Bay Bridge – CBS News – “The lights moving poetically…”, “It changes constantly…”, “All the motion…”
March 4, 2013 – Long Stuck in Obscurity, Bay Bridge Will Go From Drab Gray to Glowing – New York Times