Opinion ID: 329593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 5
6 The segment of I-80 on which the Kidwell Interchange is being built traverses from the southwest to the northeast a large tract of producing agricultural acreage (the Kidwell area) that lies between Dixon and Davis. Dixon, the project site, and the entire Kidwell area are in Solano County; Davis and most of the Davis campus of the University of California (U.C. Davis), which lies between the Kidwell area and Davis proper, are in Yolo County. Separating U.C. Davis from the Kidwell area, and roughly perpendicular to I-80, is the South Fork of Putah Creek. 7 To reach Davis and other points north and east from the Kidwell area, motorists must cross Putah Creek on I-80. At present there is no access to I-80 between the Pedrick Road Interchange, one and one-half miles southwest of the Kidwell project, and Putah Creek, slightly more than a mile to the northeast of the project. State Route 113 diverges from I-80 right at the creek and leads into Davis, but there is no access to this exit exceptfrom I-80. Thus, the only present means of getting to I-80 from the Kidwell area, other than Pedrick Road, is via a temporary access opening at grade, slightly northeast of the Kidwell project site. High speed traffic and the absence of conventional ramps makes exit and entry via this opening quite hazardous. 8 The avowed purpose of the Kidwell Interchange and its network of frontage roads is to replace this temporary access, which soon must be closed to meet Interstate System safety standards. If the interchange is not completed, additional frontage roads will have to be constructed to connect property adjacent to I-80 with the Pedrick Road Interchange. This alternative would require some property owners to drive south to the Pedrick Road Interchange, turn around, and drive back to reach Davis. Understandably the circuity of this route upsets some of these people. Yet the number of people that would be so affected is very small, for almost all of the Kidwell area is lightly populated agricultural land. There are so few people that Solano County has not yet seen fit to build the road to be called Kidwell Road, which the interchange is supposed to connect to I-80. Thus, the Kidwell Interchange, to be built, say the defendants, at a cost of $519,000, will upon completion serve only one avowed purpose: providing slightly more convenient freeway access to a handful of local motorists. 4 9 The explanation for this curious state of affairs is unmistakable and rather simple: the Kidwell Interchange is not being built to meet the existing demand for freeway access but to stimulate and service future industrial development in the Kidwell area which Solano County and the City of Dixon are now planning. 5 Although the entire area is now zoned agricultural, the 1963 Dixon Area General Plan shows a narrow 2120 acre tract between I-80 and the nearly parallel tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad to the southeast as a General Industrial Reserve. This tract borders I-80 for almost five miles and extends from the current Dixon City limits to Putah Creek. On the northwest side of I-80 is a 1320 acre tract, triangular in shape, shown on the Dixon General Plan as a Limited Industrial Reserve. This tract is bounded by Putah Creek and U.C. Davis on the north and Pedrick Road on the west. As far as we know there are no immediate plans to rezone, but the Solano County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) has already begun to promote a 150 acre University Research Park to be located in the Limited Industrial Reserve and very near the proposed interchange. 10 Obviously the major attraction for the research and high technology concerns that SCIDA hopes to attract is the park's proximity to U.C. Davis. Unless the Kidwell Interchange is completed, the only access to the park will be by frontage road and the Pedrick Road Interchange; thus, the travel distance to the University would be approximately doubled. Also, affidavits submitted by Davis suggest that the absence of an interchange would substantially increase accessibility costs for potential tenants, thereby making the Kidwell area significantly less attractive as an industrial site. Lack of nearby freeway access would probably also dampen SCIDA's plans for the other side of I-80. These plans, apparently not so far along as the University Research Park, call for encouraging the location of canneries and other food processing plants in the General Industrial Reserve. The importance of trucking in the food processing industry suggests that accessibility costs would be an important factor in plant site selection. 11
12 For purposes of federal funding approvals, the Kidwell Interchange was originally made part of a construction project encompassing the widening of a 2.4 mile segment of I-80. The widening, which has now been completed, was necessary to upgrade the segment to full freeway status. CDHW secured federal approval for the basic design features 6 of this freeway segment on February 18, 1958, but at that time the plans did not include the interchange. Eight months later, on October 21, 1958, CDHW and Solano County executed a freeway agreement, required by state law because the project necessitated elimination of property owners' at-grade access to the then U.S. 40. The agreement only obligated the state to replace the existing access with parallel frontage roads connecting adjacent land with the Pedrick Road Interchange. 13 Owners of some of this property were disturbed by the proposed elimination of their access and complained to the county, which agreed to reopen the access question with CDHW. The outcome of renewed negotiations, say the defendants, was an agreement in principle in 1962 between FHWA, CDHW and Solano County that an interchange would be built somewhere between Pedrick Road and Putah Creek. If indeed there was such an agreement it was shortlived, for when FHWA advised CDHW that full federal funding would not be provided for the additional work, CDHW refused to execute a revised freeway agreement obligating it to construct the interchange. Thus, despite the fact that the 1963 Dixon General Plan clearly contemplated an interchange in the Kidwell area, it was not until July 7, 1970, that the county and CDHW signed a revised freeway agreement providing for the Kidwell project. FHWA had evidently changed its position on federal money by that time, but neither the exact date nor the reasons for this reversal are clear from the record. We do know that FHWA granted basic design approval to the project in the middle of 1969, but quickly withdrew it when it became clear that the state and county did not plan to create Kidwell Road before or contemporaneously with construction of the interchange. The stated reason for the withdrawal was that unless Kidwell Road was built traffic would be insufficient to justify the project. 7 14 In any event, is seems clear that FHWA did agree to provide federal funds sometime before July 16, 1971, for on that date it concurred in CDHW's three-page Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact covering both the widening and the proposed interchange. The Negative Declaration, which can fairly be described as cursory, concluded that neither the interchange nor the widening would have any significant adverse environmental effects, 8 thereby announcing, albeit implicitly, that no Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared. 9 Marked for your information, the Negative Declaration was circulated to a wide variety of organizations, individuals and governmental bodies, including Davis, but no adverse comments were received by CDHW. 15 Thereafter, instead of holding design public hearings and seeking design approval, as then required by PPM 20-8, CDHW sought PS&E approval, 10 which FHWA granted on April 18, 1972. Following PS&E approval the project progressed rapidly. CDHW was authorized to advertise for bids on May 30, 1972, and the contract was awarded on September 28, 1972. Site preparation began three days later, and by the time Davis filed its complaint, October 24, 1972, a substantial amount of work had been completed. 11 16