Dorsey Marketplace revised shopping center plan “submitted to The Union”

Wednesday afternoon’s has a screaming BREAKING NEWS headline: “Dorsey Marketplace resubmits shopping center plan to City of Grass Valley.”

It quoted from the owner and developer’s cover letter proposing “commercial, residential and community uses.” Renderings of the project, containing rental apartments, a dog park, local art and more — were labeled “submitted to The Union.”

I found this “leak” interesting. No information about the revised project was on the City of Grass Valley’s website, YubaNet or KNCO. Needless to say, the previous project had created a community uproar.

One of the possible anchor tenants, BriarPatch Co-op, decided to stay put at its current location.

UPDATE: Hours later, I received an email from a marketing person. Other documents are here: Cover Letter from Russell D Jeter and Dorsey Marketplace Narrative, Project Description and Justification December 9 2015.

One highlight: The Dorsey Marketplace will feature the return of the Del Oro Theater “Grass Valley Heart” mural. The “Grass Valley Heart” mural will be recreated on the southern building along Highway 49, on the building’s architectural corner tower.

Well, OK then. Dueling murals in downtown Grass Valley and at the proposed Dorsey Marketplace. That doesn’t seem too collaborative.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for years, was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News, and was Editor of The Union, a 145-year-old newspaper in Grass Valley. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing and trout fishing.

10 thoughts on “Dorsey Marketplace revised shopping center plan “submitted to The Union””

  1. Many hours later, after this “leak” to The Union, I received this press release. I have attached the “cover letter” and brochure for readers to peruse. The message here is that in 2015, the people who propose multimillion-dollar shopping centers still are rather clueless about social media. It’s ironic for someone like myself who covered Silicon Valley for the Chronicle and helped launch CNET on the web, which was sold to CBS. A “step back in time.” And podunk.

    Attached is the application cover letter and narrative for the revised Dorsey Marketplace project in Grass Valley. The redesigned project application has just been submitted to the City of Grass Valley. The attached cover letter functions as an “Executive Summary” for the application, covering the basics about the project. The application narrative provides greater detail regarding the site history, legacy mine clean up, smart growth, economics, the Dorsey dog park, the residential component of the project, local art and history.
    The application narrative also includes photos, renderings and images of the project elements, site plan, and architecture that can be copied and used. Feel free to post the attached documents with your coverage of the application submittal of the redesigned project.
    We will very soon be launching an informational website for the project ( and a companion Facebook page. We will notify you when the sites go active.
    Thank you,
    Katy Schardt
    Dorsey Marketplace Representative

  2. So what started as a “multi use” local business friendly development, is now a large scale apartment project. 90 proposed units, 1,2, and 3 bedrooms adding 200 to 300 new toilets plus a large community swimming pool. (get the memo NID?) The developer says it will create 400 new jobs and bring $100,000,000 in taxable sales a year. This guy could be one of the salesmen from the XL Keystone Pipeline with those kinds of “facts”. The dog park will be behind the Arco , less somehow the oil companies let an off ramp go unmolested.

  3. Hmm….respectfully Chip I must point out that IF a community is going to add commercial space at this scale, then residential should be included, and that I have little doubt there is both a market and need for multi-family residential in the community. Looking at the plan, if I had one critique, once the basic decision about should this site be developed by the community is made, it would be that the housing and the commercial is not integrated enough. There could be multi-family above the commercial and perhaps even some live/work units mixed throughout to make more of a true mixed use project.

  4. By the way, this could be a really good place for affordable housing mixed into the community as well. It is on transit with adjacent services.

    Here is an example of an affordable community organized around the arts.!aboutwal/c1h6a

    In Grass Valley perhaps the focus is different, perhaps around arts and tech, including a makers space, or organized to attract a younger start up community with a mix of affordable, live work, market arts and public space that can attract cultural creatives.

    1. Hi Steve- I respect your “wish List”, but part of my point is that this is all profit driven and other than a token dog park and a mural, (in my opinion so far) this has nothing to do with affordable anything. As far as live work business’, I think that will be the new normal. Small shops here have a difficult time and live work spaces are long long overdue. We’ll see if they take your great idea. BUT- They couldn’t whore up Brunswick Basin any more than it already is, they blew it with Walgreen’s, now we get a revised plan for Dorsey Dr. Can a General Contractor who isn’t vetted be far behind? Can the City of Grass Valley spell “Completion Bond”? Will they consider water usage at all in restricting how many units can be built in the first place? Will Grass Valley step up and require affordable housing, now that it is mostly a housing project?

  5. Chip, I am not really commenting on the specific project but rather talking generally about projects like this: urban infill projects on transit corridors. It’s really up to the people who live in the community to decide what they want to see there.

    But in general, density is good, we need more live work in the region, and lets hope we can start to get some more affordable housing, whether multi-family residential mixed in with market rate housing or through rehabilitation of existing housing.

    By the way I recently saw a report that showed that for every 50 units of multi-family housing adding 5 spots for shared automobiles (through a service like zip car or a local equivalent) would reduce car ownership in those 50 units by 25% (reducing parking need by 20 spaces) and VMT by 40%.

  6. There is no doubt that GV needs to “feed the beast” of city services, thanks to its annexations. I hope it can work with the private developers to come up with a plan that “feeds the beast” but also keeps the area unique. We do not need another Sonora.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s