COMMENTARY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PARKWAY CENTER SHOPPING MALL URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 A. INTRODUCTION COMMENTARY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PARKWAY CENTER SHOPPING MALL URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA The Environmental Assessment for the Parkway Center Shopping Mall, dated November, 1980 is very comprehensive in several subjects. Conflicting and erroneous statements are made in several sections of the Assessment and analyses on other issues are obvious by their absence. We note that the comments tend to be provincial in nature and lack accuracy on subjects outside of the City limits. The Assessment does not include the plans or sketches for most on-site and off-site improvements which would be invaluable in evaluating the narrative discussions. Also, many of the exhibits conflict with each other as to the location or alignment of existing and proposed facilities. The second paragraph on page 1 mentions alternatives to the project that are evaluated. Little of such analysis is presented, but only justification for the preconceived project. As critiqued by David E. Wooster and Associates, all of the effects of the project were not evaluated. Planning for this Mall appears to be reactionary rather than visionary. B. TRAFFIC COMMENTS In the last paragraph on page 7, the forty-eight foot long turn lane from Greentree Road northbound onto Parkway Center Drive South is mentioned as an additional traffic improvement. Such a short decelleration lane will have no effect other than providing an enlarged curb radius return.

2 No consideration is given to the effects of the Parkway Center Inn driveway to the indoor garage and the main entrance which are in close proximity to Greentree Road. These driveways are shown on Exhibit 3, but omitted on the GAI Consultants' Figure 3. On page 17, the Penn-Lincoln Parkway (1-279) is stated as extending from the Fort Pitt Bridge to 1-79, and also that it interchanges with U.S. 22/30 and PA 60 which are many miles west of Discussion about Greentree Road on page 18 identifies the road as PA 60. All maps and physical signing designate the road as PA 121. The proposed Westwood Village is mentioned on page 24 as being partly within Green Tree Borough. The Borough Zoning Map, attached as Exhibit 4, indicates this development in the Borough. The outlined area includes a row of very good private dwellings along Elmdale Drive as well as a cemetery. A proposed plan for this development was never presented to Green Tree Borough for official reviews, rezoning or other approvals. GAI Consultants considered only the City portion in their traffic studies. When this question was raised at a work session with the City and their consultant, it was clearly stated that they could not include the Borough portion of the development in their projected traffic volumes as the Borough portion was not properly zoned and no Borough approvals had been given. The beginning of construction in 1981 is extremely optimistic. A proposed West Pointe development is mentioned on page 25. This high density development is proposed for an area north of McKinney Lane in the City with the only access being to Greentree Road. The potential effects of such a major development can be ascertained with some reasonable accuracy at this time and factored into the extensive Mall analyses. It should not be deferred until such time as the project becomes viable. Improvements

3 contemplated for the proposed Mall will greatly enhance the viability of this development as well as other lands in the immediate vicinity. The discussion of Generated Traffic Volumes on page 27 is in conflict with previous statements: 1. The Warrior Hills (Westwood Village) is totally within the City of Pittsburgh. 2. The West Pointe development could become viable by the design year of The two office buildings having a combined floor area of 100,000 square feet appears to be an additional item not previously studied. The GAI study mentions one additional office building (see Table 2 of their report). 4. Still unmentioned and not evaluated are the two office buildings in Parkway Center within the Borough that have received preliminary approval via the plan of subdivision along Parkway Center Drive North. The Plan of Subdivision was approved by Green Tree Borough on February 26, 1979 and is recorded in the Recorder of Deeds Office of Allegheny County on March 9, 1979 in Plan Book Volume 108, page 198. McKinney Lane within the City is a very narrow and poorly maintained roadway. The Environmental Assessment does not indicate that any improvements will be made to this road which is only a few feet away from the proposed Mall structure. Exhibit 3 indicates that some trees may be planted to hide it. This road is also mentioned as being the access to the proposed West Pointe development. Discussion of the Mitigating Measures on pages 30 to 33 inclusive do not mention that many of the items, as traffic control devices, are the exclusive responsibility of the Borough of Green Tree, albeit State and County permits are necessary.

4 C. GENERAL COMMENTS The "Utilities and Public Services" section on page 25 states that all utilities are available in the immediate area is not substantiated. UDAG funds are to be used by the developer for on-site waterlines, sanitary sewers and storm sewers, as well as provide better water service and fire hydrants for residents of McKinney Lane in the City. No mention is made of the existing 18" Western Pennsylvania Water Company transmission line parallel to the Penn-Lincoln Parkway which may need protective treatment or relocation to accommodate the large fill required for the proposed Parkway Ramps. This tract is, and will be commonly identified as Green Tree, so that the Borough will generally receive first calls for police, fire and other emergency services. The "Community Facilities" statement on page 26 does not mention Suella Park, the Borough library or available amenities which will aid in identifying the Mall with Green Tree Borough. The " Population" and "Socioeconomics" comments on pages 26,27 and elsewhere should be amplified with available 1980 data. In these rapidly changing times, the 1960 and 1970 data is ancient history. Discussion of the "Ground Stability/Landfill Site" on page 42 is incomplete. It is known that the Pittsburgh Coal seam, which is less than 150 feet below the finished grade of the Mall site, was mined out and was also the scene of mine fires in the 1930's. Their statement on the cause of the landslide onto Greentree Road at Hamburg Street appears to be derived from a casual observation rather than from an investigation and is incorrect. No discussion or comment is noted on Storm Water Management. Storm water run-off has already been increased because of the landfill and will be further increased by construction of buildings and parking lots. Certainly,

5 the proposed off-site culvert construction will eliminate one existing off-site problem. The total development and culvert improvement will accellerate the volume and flow rate of water to the West End which now experiences flooding. In the last paragraph on page 14, mention is made of flood control and sanitary sewer work which is to be completed in 1981 and Assurances must be obtained that these projects are funded and can be completed in the next two years as stated. D. SANITARY SEWERS The brief discussion of Sanitary Sewage on page 35 mentions the insignificant additional flows into the Saw Mill Run interceptor where plans have been developed to construct a relief sewer. Exhibit 2 indicates the location of this sewer in relation to the site. However, no discussion ensues on the location, condition or capacity of the sewers between the site and the interceptor sewer. There are no sanitary sewers in McKinney Lane within the City of Pittsburgh. The existing Borough sewer system consists of a Sanitary Sewer beginning at a point about 350 feet west of the City line on Parkway Center Drive North (McKinney Lane) flowing westwardly to Greentree Road, thence along Greentree Road northwardly to the City line where it discharges into the City combined sewer which flows northwardly to the Saw Mill Run sewer in the West End. The Borough sewer on Parkway Center Drive North was designed to carry gravity flows from development abutting the street. It is on a very flat grade and may be inadequate to receive pumped flows from another watershed.

6 The natural gravity flow of sewage from the Mall site would be toward Little Saw Mill Run as indicated by the "Offsite Sewer Improvement" on Exhibit 2. A sewer in this location would better serve the Mall and other development in the area without an irreversable committment to use of energy for pumping purposes. The estimate of sanitary sewage flow from the site of 40,000 gallons per day from this mall site appears reasonable. However, the normal design practice is to run off the flows from commercial and business users during the period of their operation. Hence, the 40,000 gallons per day would result in a flow rate of 120,000 gallons per day. Sewage pumping stations are designed for intermittent operation and for surge flows. Hence, the pumping would be at the rate of about 300,000 gallons per day (200 gpm). A pumping station with this capacity is not an insignificant item of cost. The Saw Mill Run Combined Sewer Study (Green Engineering Co., 1974) as prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the County of Allegheny presents data on the Greentree Road Sewer. This report recommends corrective work be done on the City and Borough portions of this sewer. It is doubtful if Green Engineering considered this proposed pumped flow in their analysis of the Greentree Road Sewer System. Concern about sewage disposal was stated to the Pittsburgh City Council on September 25, 1979 (see page 50). We also raised this question with the City Planning Department at a work session on July 28, 1980, but the issue was not mentioned in the GAI Consultants' report on the progress meeting. As of December 8, 1980 a Planning Module has not been submitted to the Allegheny County Health Department as agent for Department of Environmental Resources, to obtain approval of their sewage disposal proposal. The Borough has not been contacted for permission to connect and utilize a Borough sewer.

7 This major environmental problem of sewage disposal must be given analysis similar to that given to the air quality and noise issues.