Seminar on Curtis Park Village
explores 'smart growth' issues

By Jennifer Jennings
Special to the Viewpoint

The SCNA-sponsored seminar series on Curtis Park Village got off to a great start when over 60 neighbors gathered in Curtis Hall on May 15 to hear two local advocates of "smart growth." Speakers David Mogavero, a local architect and planning activist, and Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, presented their thoughts on why dense infill projects are important to the health of the Sacramento region.

McKeever began with an overview of the Sacramento Blueprint Project sponsored previously by SACOG, a regional discussion that concluded that if growth patterns in the region continue as they have for the next 50 years, the region will be in what he termed "a world of hurt."

SACOG's main goal is to ensure that the region's transportation system works. In that regard, Curtis Park Village is well located with access to bus and light rail lines in McKeever's view.

Mogavero presented the audience with a variety of statistics ranging from the fact that urban residents weigh on average seven pounds less than suburban residents (presumably because they walk more than car-oriented suburbanites), that an increasing proportion of household money must by necessity be devoted to transportation these days, and that a declining proportion of public transportation's operating revenue is coming from the fare box, necessitating greater public subsidies.

Both speakers thought that the mix of uses proposed for Curtis Park Village was generally good and that maximizing connections for both pedestrians and vehicles would be a key element to making the project successful.

They also agreed that the commercial area at the southern end of the project warranted design changes to improve its compatibility with Curtis Park, and that more creative design was needed to avoid turning the commercial area into another generic big-box retail center. McKeever cited projects in other cities with residential units located above grocery store chains that create more of an active streetscape.

Both thought that a pedestrian crossing to the Sacramento City College light rail station was important. McKeever stated that he could see SACOG participating in funding a crossing, but he thought that a variety of funding sources would have to be tapped. Mogavero raised the possibility of establishing a benefit assessment district, which would include the existing Curtis Park area, to help fund the crossing.

Questions from audience members ran the gamut. Tom Spaulding of Fifth Avenue expressed the view that the street design of Curtis Park Village did not resemble the grid street pattern favored by urban planners but looked more like what that found in Elk Grove. Mogavero stated that the street layout could be explained by site constraints.

A couple of neighbors, including Sam Morishima and Jeff Hunts of Donner Way, questioned how the project would fit with the neighborhood residents cherish. Mogavero and McKeever stated that the residential development is becoming more profitable for developers as compared to retail than it was a few years ago.

They cited as a good sign that the Curtis Park Village developer has committed to selling no more than 10 lots to a single builder. It was pointed out by another audience member that such a commitment is laudable but not enforceable.

Several audience members had questions about the commercial area and how much it would draw shoppers from outside Curtis Park, causing traffic increases on Sutterville Road and in the neighborhood. Mogavero suggested that available shopping in Curtis Park Village, even though it would attract shoppers from out of the area, could be expected to make it easier for Curtis Park residents to pick up a quart of milk, creating a shorter distance for the 25% of vehicle trips, and that should be seen as a benefit.

Return to Viewpoint Index