No Public input & closed-door meetings for 2 years.
By Alan Hirsch, Yolo Mobility
I-80 Yolo was always going to be a controversial project. So why did those in power not plan for a robust public engagement process instead of waiting until the last minute at the risk of losing federal money? And it seems to force concerned community members into raising tens of thousands of dollars for a lawsuit to address the project deficiencies when they should have been addressed in the CEQA process.
The Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) has a deadline to be finished, now 3 ½ years ago, so YoloTD/Caltrans does not lose the $86mil federal starter grant. (It times out 
September 2024.) As a result, there are now clear signs Caltrans is cutting corners on the EIR as it only has left itself 1 ½ months to address public DEIR comments — when most projects allow 6 months for this. As a result, this corner-cutting will likely lead to an environmental lawsuit.*
The public should also note the Yolo Transportation District blacked out public input on the project for 2½ years while it held closed-door “ad hoc” meetings on I-80 instead of discussing them in open board meetings.
Attached is the project plan presented to the YoloTD board in March 2021. It shows the “Environmental Documents” (DEIR/DED) would be completed by Mid-2022. However, it now looks like the EIR process now looks like it will finally be completed February 2024—20 months later. In fact, between 2022 and December 2023 the EIR process seemed publicly grind to a halt. There were no public hearings or input from the public on alternatives to be studied in the EIR. Instead, YoloTD Board formed a sequence of ad hoc subcommittees to discuss the project out of the public eye**.
Above is the I-80 Schedule from March of 2021. Compare with the plan as of October 2023. There was not public processes or public input take for these 2 1/2 years—and now the project may run out of time to use the federal grant. There is a high likelihood of corner cutting taking place behind closed doors at the Marysville Caltrans district office where most DEIR decisions will occur- unless the YoloTD board intervenes.
Even the October 2023 schedule has slipped –
- the EIR (aka DED) release for public input was delayed an additional few weeks.
- There was no time for the YCTD Citizen Advisory Committee to review the DEIR.
- By the January YoloTD board meeting, Caltrans was supposed to have a firm agreement for Yolo county agencies to take responsibility for funding and operating a $50 mil/ year VMT/GHG EIR Mitigation plan. This did not happen.
Given the federal “starter” money for the project time out in September, It is likely the Final EIR (aka DED draft environmental document) will likely be incomplete when it is released and certified in the next two months—in an attempt to “save” the money.
Seeing as there is no public hearing to review Caltrans action—it will occur behind closed doors in Maryville—this will likely lead to a public interest lawsuit being filed- and further project delay.
We will see if elected officials and Caltrans will blame environmentalists or own up to their own institutional failures.
Footnotes:
* The YoloTD board knew the EIR crisis was coming 6 months ago. You can listen to the June 12, 2023, YoloTD Board meeting- when they expect the DIER to be released June 30, and see that the board and YoloTD staff even then were already concerned lack of time for Caltrans to to address DEIR public comment adequately. Around this time, they set aside money to hire a lawyer to defend the DEIR. with the release of DEIR 5 months later, Caltrans’s time to address the Draft EIR issue raised by the public dramatically reduced, setting themselves up for a lawsuit.
**YoloTD Board held 2 ½ years of closed-door meetings on I-80 while DEIR was publicly stalled. There is some controversy these closed-door YoloTD Board ad hoc committees violated the Brown Act. The law states you cannot form a behind-closed-door ad hoc subcommittee on “of subjects of continuing jurisdiction” (i.e. beyond 12 months) IN 2021 when the first ad hoc subcommittee I-80 clearly failed the test as the project was going to extend into 2024. YoloTD Board addressed the continued need to address policy decisions by dissolving and reforming another ad hoc on I-80 supposedly with a different charter on a different part of the I-80 project. The public has of course no way of knowing what was talked about behind closed doors, or if YoloTD staff shared privately with another member of the board on what happened at those meetings, making it an illegal circular meeting under the Brown Act. It is all on the “honor” system. The YoloTD board chair was not part of the close door subcommittee so one wonders how they planned the agenda without knowing progress. The lack of any robust discussion of I-80 and policy choices at the YoloTD board also feels strange: In just 16 ½ minutes Board both approved DEIR and selected an Alternative at their 12/11/23 meeting: in contrast with the Davis council spending 90 minutes on just DEIR alone. One can note the culture of the YoloTD board: fired their previous Executive Director Terry Bassett in a series of unnoticed meetings in the summer of 2021- even closed legal and personnel meetings of the board must be publicly noticed. Reference: Page 5: California code § 54952(b).) The (ad hoc) exception does not apply if the advisory committee is a standing committee. (§ 54952(b).) A standing committee is a committee that has continuing jurisdiction over a particular subject matter.
It would help to have names, especially of any people on the YoloTD Board or staff who were elected by Davis voters for another office, or who have worked here. But we only have one name in this article, of someone who was fired.