Opinion ID: 329593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of the Project.

Text: 12 For purposes of federal funding approvals, the Kidwell Interchange was originally made part of a construction project encompassing the widening of a 2.4 mile segment of I-80.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