H. O. M. E. S. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1979
• Citation: 69 A.D.2d 222,418 N.Y.S.2d 827
• Parties: H.O.M.E.S. et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 827

418 N.Y.S.2d 827

69 A.D.2d 222

H.O.M.E.S. et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 13, 1979.

Richard A. Schechter, Syracuse, for appellants.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse, for respondents N. Y. S. Urban Development Corp. (John A. Beach, Syracuse, of counsel).

David M. Garber, Syracuse, for respondent City of Syracuse Planning Commission (Eleanor Theodore, Syracuse, of counsel).

Before DILLON, P. J., and SCHNEPP, CALLAHAN, WITMER and MOULE, JJ.

OPINION

WITMER, Justice.

Appellants are landowners in the City of Syracuse and reside therein in close proximity to the former Archbold Stadium on the campus of Syracuse University. They seek reversal of a judgment at Special Term which dismissed their petition and supplemental petition in an Article 78 proceeding for the review and annulment of determinations by several respondents herein which gave Syracuse University approval for the destruction of Archbold Stadium and the construction on its site of a new year-around sports facility, referred to as a domed stadium. The basic ground for the objection to the project and for instituting the Article 78 proceeding is the alleged failure of respondent to comply with the legal requirements with respect to the environmental impact which the new facility will have on the area. Upon review of the record we feel compelled to modify the judgment and grant the petition and supplemental petition in substantial part.

For some time prior to the fall of 1978 Syracuse University made extensive efforts to find a suitable location for a new sports facility. At every turn it met with objections, and it later reported that it had been denied the privilege of erecting such structure on approximately 40 different sites. In September 1978 the New York State Legislature appropriated "(t)he sum of fifteen million two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars * * * from the capital construction fund to the New York state urban development corporation" (UDC) and provided that "fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) of which shall be used as a supplement to funds of Syracuse University for the purpose of construction of a domed athletic facility to be located on the present site of Archbold Stadium", and "two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of which shall be used * * * for construction supervision expenses of the corporation" (L.1978, Ch. 776, § 4). The Legislature further provided that UDC furnish technical assistance to the State in the form of general supervision of the construction and administration of the grant of the State monies appropriated therefor; and the Director of the Budget was directed not to issue "a certificate of the approval of the availability" of the funds until UDC had entered into an agreement with Syracuse University that the University would pay all construction costs above the State's appropriation and that the New York State Office of Parks and Recreation could use the facility up to 20 days per year without charge.

With miraculous speed the necessary steps were taken to advance the project thus supported by the Legislature. On October 5, 1978 the UDC authorized the specified contract with Syracuse University. On the next day the attorneys for the University forwarded to UDC a memorandum which they had prepared concerning the impact of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) upon the proposed new facility on the site of Archbold Stadium. They concluded therein that such statute does not apply to this project because it is being started before November 1, 1978 and this is not a Type I action within the compass of that Act (Art. 8-Environmental Quality Review; ECL, §§ 8-0101, et seq.) and the Regulations (6 NYCRR 617).

On November 2, 1978 Impact Consultants of Syracuse submitted to Syracuse University a study entitled "Environmental Assessment" of the new stadium. They concluded that action to be taken outside the scope of the stadium project would adequately mitigate the transportation and parking problems which the stadium was expected to generate.

On November 14, 1978 Syracuse City Planning Commission deferred to UDC as "the lead agency for the purpose of conducting the environmental review of the proposed domed athletic facility" under SEQRA. On November 15, 1978 the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency wrote a letter to the University, with copies to the City Planning Commission and the County Planning Board, expressing its concern for the "increased traffic flows and the need for parking" to avoid massive traffic congestion in the city and immediate neighborhood of the stadium, and it suggested that a plan approved by "key governmental agencies" should be developed, including adequate vehicular access and parking for Crouse-Irving Memorial, Veterans and Upstate Medical Center complexes.

On November 21, 1978 Syracuse University applied to the City Planning Commission for approval of its project for replacing Archbold Stadium with a new domed stadium in the existing Planned Institutional District (PID). It estimated the cost of the project at $41,000,000, of which it would pay $26,000,000. It would have a seating capacity of 50,000 persons, an increase of 24,000 over the existing capacity of Archbold Stadium. The University estimated that only about ten events annually would fill the new facility to capacity, and that its average attendance would run between 15,000 and 20,000 for another 45 events. It stated that it had already received bids for the demolition of the Archbold Stadium and that it "is satisfied (that the increase in traffic and parking demand to arise from the new facility) can be effectively resolved over the next two years * * *". In some detail it discussed the traffic and parking problems and disclosed that no plan had been proposed to solve them; but it expressed confidence that "with the improved utilization of public transportation, a traffic plan acceptable to both the University and the community can be developed * * * ".

On November 27, 1978 the City Planning Commission held a special meeting for a formal detailed presentation of the domed stadium proposal. It was openly recognized that no plan to handle traffic had been devised. Fire Chief Hanlon spoke critically of the project, foreseeing traffic congestion, even riots, and no excess for emergency vehicles. A witness from the Department of Transportation foresaw "a horrendous problem" with parking and said, "We're just not going to be able to get through". The new facility, he stated, has 15 exits whereas Archbold Stadium has only 6; and nearly twice as many people will pour out, twice as fast, into streets which cannot accommodate the present traffic. Counsel for the University responded that although they have no precise solution for these problems, "we have been advised by expert traffic planners that there is a feasible solution".

On that same date, November 27, 1978, UDC's expert, Mr. Freidberg, sent a memorandum to Mr. Jacobs, UDC's Vice President of Construction, stating that at meetings of the University's representatives it was agreed that if possible UDC should issue (1) a finding that the stadium is an excluded action under SEQRA and (2) a negative declaration on its environmental impact, thus avoiding the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS). He added that to do this it must be established that the stadium is not a Type I action and that UDC's Chief Fiscal Officer must certify that the application for funding preceded November 1, 1978.

Mr. Freidberg acknowledged the lack of traffic surveys to show the expected hourly traffic flow in the area and that in the absence of data on traffic and parking, "it is difficult to issue a negative declaration". He added, "I believe that before we can issue the conditional negative declaration we should obtain adequate assurance from the University of their intent and financial ability to carry out recommendations from the forthcoming traffic studies".

On November 28, 1978 the councilman for the District in which the stadium is located wrote to the City Planning Commission that before the project were approved, a specific plan should be required to solve the "already critical parking problems that exist in the University area during stadium events". On the next day the University's engineers advised UDC that acceptable traffic plans would be developed; and on November 30, 1978 Dr. Kaiser, a Vice President of the University, wrote a letter to UDC advising that "within the next six months we expect that the (University's advisory) group will have produced a definitive plan for the management of the stadium generated traffic and parking".

Also on November 30, 1978 the Chief Financial Officer of the UDC certified the stadium project as approved before November 1, 1978; and on December 1, 1978 UDC issued a Determination of Non-Significance (i. e., negative declaration) in accordance with Regulation 6 NYCRR 617. UDC recognized that the project could have a significant effect upon the environment, but determined that such effect would be avoided by mitigating measures to be included in the project.

On December 5, 1978 the Onondaga County Planning Board approved the domed facility, based in part on the University's assurance that the traffic problems will be solved, and on the cooperative intentions of the UDC and the City of Syracuse in the University's plans and efforts; but the County Planning Board suggested that the City Planning Commission condition its approval of the project on the submission to both Planning Agencies of final plans for traffic, for emergency access and for parking. Also on December 5, 1978 the City Planning Commission, by resolution, approved the University's application to construct the stadium in the University's Planned Institutional District, relying on UDC's determination that the project was not...