Grass Valley City Council
September 10, 2024

Item # 11.

Comment Letter H
From: Geraldine Kothe
To: Amy Kesler-Wolfson
Subject: dorseymarketplaceprojectSFEIR
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 1:12:43 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important My name is Geraldine Kothe , I live at 321 Dorsey Dr. I am expressing my disagreement with this marketplace project.It will require leveling that entire woodland area. The noise during construction will be heard by people living nearby. I also think the traffic going in and coming will cause problems.There is a lot of wildlife and birds that call those woods home. I think this will be a monstrous project that will greatly alter the look and feel of Grass Valley.Not to mention the fact that they are building a housing project on the other end of Dorsey Dr. that is going to affect traffic and noise also. I hope people will voice their dislike for this project.Mr. Jeter can do his dirty work somewhere else. This town needs to have some green spaces that unable to be developed . Thank you for letting me express my opinion.

H-1

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 34
Response to Comment Letter H
Geraldine Kothe
March 18th, 2024
H-1 The comment identifies the commenter’s opposition to the project and discusses specific concerns regarding loss of woodland, noise during construction, traffic, wildlife and bird habitat, and aesthetics.

The comment mentions a nearby housing project that could also affect traffic and noise.

This comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Dorsey Marketplace Project Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report because the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report is not required to address the project’s potential effects related to loss of woodland, noise during construction, traffic, wildlife and bird habitat, and aesthetics. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. The petitioners in the litigation against the City of Grass Valley’s April 2020 project approval raised arguments relating to the EIR’s adequacy with respect to biological resources, noise, and traffic but did not prevail on those arguments. Additionally, no legal challenge to the Final EIR’s aesthetics analysis was brought within the time to challenge the City’s certification of that document. The original Final EIR is therefore legally adequate with respect to analysis that was unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged in those arguments. The only directive from the courts was for the City to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects from project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The 2019 EIR included a thorough analysis of the project’s potential impacts related to the topics identified in this comment. The following list identifies the sections of the 2019 EIR sections where each topic mentioned in this comment were evaluated and the key findings of that analysis:
 Loss of woodland was addressed in Chapter 6, Biological Resources. The analysis found that the project would result in the loss of McNabb Cypress woodland and cottonwood forest, which are both considered to be sensitive natural communities, as defined by the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. In Impact 6-2, the 2019 EIR found that the project would result in the loss of all 3.15 acres of McNab cypress woodland and the majority of the 0.62 acres of cottonwood forest currently existing within the project site and found that this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 6e, which requires that the project applicant provide compensation for the loss of McNab cypress woodland and cottonwood forest from the project site through a combination of on-site replanting and off-site restoration sufficient to ensure no net loss of habitat functions or values.  Noise during construction was addressed in Chapter 9, Noise. Specifically, Impact 9-4 addresses the potential for the project to create substantial temporary increases in noise levels during project construction. This analysis found that the noise levels during construction would exceed the applicable thresholds but implementation of Mitigation Measure 9d, which includes constructionrelated noise requirements, would reduce annoyance impacts and ensure that this impact remains less than significant. The petitioners who challenged the 2019 EIR in court raised noise issues, but their arguments were rejected. The Court of Appeal explained as follows:

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 35
The EIR includes extensive background information to help readers assess the significance of the project’s expected noise impacts, including a discussion of typical sound levels measured in the environment, existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, applicable noise level performance standards, and general guidelines for noise sensitivity. Among other things, the EIR explains that normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 decibels (dB), that a noisy urban daytime area is about 70 dB, that a diesel truck traveling 50 miles per hour from 50 feet away is about 80 dB, that a gas lawn mower from three feet is about 90 dB, and that physical discomfort to humans begins at above approximately 120 dB. Applying the information in the EIR, a reader reasonably could assess the significance of the project’s noise impacts. (Mission Bay Alliance, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 195-196.)
***
Here, the EIR projected the increase in ambient noise levels from construction at both the nearest noise receptor (30 feet from the site) and the distance of typical noise receptors (100 feet). The EIR disclosed that the average construction noise levels from the project would be from 68 dBA (A-weighted decibels) to 82 dBA Lea (equivalent continuous sound level), which are up to 27 dB above the ambient daytime noise level restriction for fixed source noise levels, and that the maximum noise levels from the project would be from 78 to 92 dBA lea, up to 37 dB above the daytime noise level restriction. Applying the threshold of significance, the EIR concluded that the construction noise impacts were potentially significant. Thus, the City did not use an inappropriate threshold of significance to avoid a finding of potential significance.

To mitigate the potentially significant impacts, the EIR proposed mitigation measure 9d, which includes construction-related noise requirements, such as requiring stationary equipment to be at least 150 feet from construction zone boundaries, “and/or other measures that are demonstrated to be sufficient to ensure that the maximum noise level at the property boundary would remain at or below 90 dB and increases in hourly noise levels at the property boundary would not exceed 10 dBA above the ambient noise level for two or more hours per day.” In essence, the City translated the qualitative threshold into a quantitative maximum threshold of 90 dB, with a two-hour incremental threshold of 10 dBA.

Substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce construction noise to a less-than-significant level.

Accordingly, we find no prejudicial abuse of discretion in the EIR’s analysis of noise impacts.
 The project’s impacts associated with traffic and transportation were evaluated in Chapter 8, Transportation. The 2019 EIR found that the project would not result in substantial increases in traffic volumes or congestion on SR 20/49 or City roadways and intersections under existing plus project conditions, and would not create traffic safety hazards, inadequate emergency access, or barriers to pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit modes of transportation. The 2019 EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measures 8a, 8b, 8e, and 8h to ensure that the project would not result in substantial increases in traffic volumes or congestion on SR 20/49 or City roadways and intersections under cumulative plus project conditions.

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 36
 Impacts to wildlife and bird habitat were addressed in Chapter 6, Biological Resources. The analysis found that the project would have less than significant impacts on special status wildlife species as well as sensitive natural communities and wetlands (which often provided habitat for wildlife).  The project’s impacts associated with aesthetics and community character were evaluated in Chapter 5, Aesthetics. The analysis found that the project could result in potentially significant impacts due to changes in views of the project site, but these impacts would be reduced to lessthan-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a and that impacts to the visual character of the project area in the cumulative scenario would remain less than significant.

Item # 11.

Comment Letter I
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
200 Litton Drive, Suite 320
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 274-9360 / FAX: (530) 274-7546
email: [email protected]
NSAQMD – Planning Dept. Date: March 18, 2024
To: City of GV, Amy Wolfson – City Planner
530-274-4711 / [email protected]
Dorsey Marketplace Comments: APN’s: 035-260-062, 035-260-077, and 035-260-064 This document acknowledges that the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) has reviewed the Supplement to the Final EIR for the Dorsey Marketplace project located south of Dorsey Drive, east of SR 20/49, in Grass Valley, CA.

The NSAQMD is providing the following information in the interest of compliance assistance.

Since this project encompasses 26.8 acres, and is located on mapped ultramafic soils, an NSAQMD approved Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan (ADMP) is required before soil disturbance commences. CCR Title 17, §93105 (e.2.A) of the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations applies in this case. “No person shall engage in any construc�on or grading opera�on on property where the area to be disturbed is greater than one (1.0) acre unless: (A) An Asbestos Dust Mi�ga�on Plan for the opera�on has been: 1. Submi�ed to and approved by the district before the start of any construc�on or grading ac�vity…”
It appears that an ADMP has been prepared as part of the Remediation Action Workplan (RAW) but was not part of the currently available project materials on the Grass Valley Active Project webpage. Please submit the ADMP to NSAQMD for approval before any grading permits are issued. The ADMP negates the need for a Dust Control Plan, which would otherwise be required under NSAQMD Rule 226, as an ADMP is more stringent.

As normal residential activities on the site could easily cause naturally occurring asbestos fibers to become airborne if ultramafic material is on the surface, it is appropriate (and widely precedented) for the ADMP to include post construction stabilization methods to be maintained in perpetuity. This is particularly important for the “tot lot” and the dog park areas, where the contact between users and the soil will be more intensive.

Please note that under regulations of the California Department of Real Estate, the presence of environmental hazards, including asbestos, must be disclosed by a property seller during the real estate transaction process. In the interest of public health, the District recommends that all prospective residents (buyers and renters) shall be clearly made aware that the property is located on serpentinite which has been tested and found to contain naturally occurring asbestos. The NSAQMD feels that with this knowledge, site users will tend to be careful to minimize dust emissions from daily activities.

Additionally, if any ultramafic material or material containing serpentinite is being used in surfacing applications, the Asbestos ATCM for Surfacing Applications (CCR Title 17, §93106) shall be consulted for applicability. Also, if any material containing 1% or more friable asbestos (technically a “hazardous material”) is to be transported, CCR Title 22 applies, and proper I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4

Item # 11.

Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
200 Litton Drive, Suite 320
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 274-9360 / FAX: (530) 274-7546
email: [email protected]
handling procedures must be followed. Furthermore, Cal-OSHA regulations require hazard communication plans including signage and postings at job sites. The District requires compliance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Contact Cal-OSHA at (800)963-9424 for information.

For future reference, the air quality mitigation measure on page 1-5 to 1-6 “two apartment buildings separated by a drive aisle and parking spaces” which “creates an open area between the buildings that allows for air flow to disperse pollutants” is not valid. The quoted mitigation measures, from the CARB document Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near HighVolume Roadways, are intended for pollutant dispersion in urban street canyons, which is not applicable in this case. The buildings on either side of Highway 20/49 do not constitute an urban street canyon. Additionally, the creation of a street canyon perpendicular to the “street canyon” in question would simply move the problem to an adjacent set of residences. A more effective air quality mitigation measure would be to eliminate one or more of the three drive through facilities at the property. Drive throughs encourage additional car use, discourage pedestrian connectivity, promote idling, and exacerbate traffic congestion, all of which are detrimental to air quality.

If future retail or commercial tenants require the use of diesel generators greater than 49 hp, NSAQMD permits will be required. And finally, if any commercial tenants will use toxic air contaminant substances, there will be supplementary NSAQMD reporting and permitting requirements.

Sincerely,
Julie Hunter
Air Pollution Control Officer
Submitted by Suzie Tarnay APCS I / NSAQMD – (530) 274-9360 x505 I-4 Cont.

I-5
I-6

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 39
Response to Comment Letter I
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
Julie Hunter
March 18th, 2024
I-1 The comment notes that ultramafic soils have been mapped within the project site and thus an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan (ADMP) must be approved by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) prior to any soil disturbance on the site. The comment also notes that it appears an ADMP was prepared as part of the Remediation Action Workplan (RAW) prepared for the site, but the ADMP was not available online. The comment states that the ADMP must be provided to NSAQMD prior to issuance of any grading permits and notes that a Dust Control Plan would not be required.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Dorsey Marketplace Project Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report (SFEIR) analysis of the potential for the project to cause or exacerbate the risks for adverse health effects on project residents and occupants due to exposure to air pollutants associated with project-generated traffic. The SFEIR is not required to address issues related to asbestos and dust management. The petitioners in the litigation against the City of Grass Valley’s April 2020 project approval raised arguments relating to the EIR’s adequacy with respect to asbestos and dust management during project construction but did not prevail on those arguments. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The Final EIR, on pages 2-294 and 2-295, explained that the presence of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) “has been confirmed as reflected in the Remediation Action Workplan (RAW, Draft EIR Appendix J-3A) that was prepared for the project site and has been approved by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),” the ADMP “reflects the NSAQMD’s standard approach and conditions for construction activity where NOA is likely to occur.” and that the project would be required to implement the ADMP that is included in the RAW. The RAW, on page 18, states that the Dust Mitigation Plan included in the RAW addresses NSAQMD Rule 226, which requires that a dust control plan be prepared for construction activity disturbing over one acre of land. The RAW also identifies that implementation of an ADMP is required under the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board Regulation 93105, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Construction ATCM). Section (e) of the Construction ATCM requires air district approval of the ADMP.

The Draft EIR, on page 15-18, explains that mechanical soil disturbance, such as site clearing, excavation, grading, underground utility work, transportation, and disposal activities, could disrupt asbestos-containing soil, and health hazards could occur if NOA becomes airborne. The potential for NOA to become airborne would be controlled through implementation of the ADMP included in the RAW, consistent with the requirements of NSAQMD and the Construction ATCM. The Draft EIR explains that the ADMP “outlines engineering controls that must be used on site to reduce the risk of release of metals and NOA fibers into the environment during site clearing, excavation, grading, underground utility work, transportation, and disposal activities.”

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 40
The RAW acknowledges section 93105 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, which, as the commenter notes, requires air district approvals of ADMPs. As required by Section 25356.1 of the California Health and Safety Code, DTSC circulated the RAW for a 30-day public comment period from August 8, 2013, to September 9, 2013. At that time, NSAQMD would have had an opportunity for input on the Dust Mitigation Plan included in the RAW.

Pursuant to approved Mitigation Measures 10a and 15a and the accompanying provisions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, the City may not approve grading permits for the project until, among many other things, the applicant has implemented the RAW as approved by DTSC. Each of these measures further provide that “[t]hroughout all activities conducted in implementation of the RAW, contractors must adhere to each component of the RAW, including, but not limited to the Site Safety Plan and the Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan.” Pursuant to the Construction ATCM Section (e), the City will not issue any grading permits without verification that NSAQMD has approved the ADMP. As discussed in the 2019 EIR, Chapter 15, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, if NOA is identified during earthwork, NSAQMD must be notified no later than the following business day and compliance with the Construction ATCM would be required.

I-2 The comment states that the ADMP should include post construction stabilization methods that would be maintained in perpetuity to ensure that ultramafic material is not present at the surface level, particularly for the “tot lot” and the dog park area.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR analysis because the SFEIR is not required to address issues related to asbestos and dust management. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As discussed in Response to Comment I-1, the project is subject to the requirements of the ATCM.

Section (4)(G) of the Construction ATCM requires that the ADMP include one or more of the post construction stabilization methods identified in the Construction ATCM. Regarding surfacing materials, the project is also required to comply with the statewide Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Surfacing Applications (Surfacing ATCM, found in California Code of Regulations Title 17), which prohibits the use of material containing 0.25% asbestos or greater for surfacing of areas such as trails, pedestrian walkways, and roads.

I-3 The comment states that regulations of the California Department of Real Estate require disclosure of environmental hazards, including the presence of asbestos, during the real estate transaction process.

The comment recommends that all site occupants, including renters, be “clearly made aware that the property is located on serpentinite which has been tested and found to contain naturally-occurring asbestos.” The comment suggests that such knowledge will encourage site users to be careful to minimize dust emissions.

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 41
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to address issues related to asbestos and disclosures during real estate transactions. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As noted in the comment, state law requires that property owners receive disclosure notice of the potential for NOA to be present.

I-4 The comment states that use of any ultramafic material or material containing serpentinite may require compliance with the Surfacing ATCM. The comment notes that any material containing 1% or more friable asbestos meets the definition of a hazardous material and California Code of Regulations Title 22 applies to the transport and handling of such material. The comment also identifies that Cal-OSHA regulations require that hazard communication plans be prepared and implemented at a project site where such materials are used and that NSAQMD requires compliance with Cal-OSHA regulations.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR analysis because SFEIR is not required to address issues related to asbestos. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The project would comply with current state and local environmental regulations. As discussed in Response to Comment I-1, the RAW confirms the presence of NOA at the project site and thus the project is subject to the Construction ATCM, which requires air district approval of the ADMP.

As discussed in Response to Comment I-2, the project is also subject to the Surfacing ATCM, which prohibits the use of material containing 0.25% asbestos or greater for surfacing of areas such as trails, pedestrian walkways, and roads.

I-5 The comment advises the City that, for future reference, the statement on pages 1-5 and 1-6 regarding separation between apartment buildings allowing for dispersal of air pollutants is not valid because there are no urban street canyons in the project vicinity and the project would not create such conditions. The comment states that eliminating one or more of the drive-through restaurants would be a more effective air quality mitigation measure.

The statement referenced in this comment was not identified in the SFEIR or the 2019 EIR as a mitigation measure. The 2019 EIR found that project operation, including the drive-through restaurants, would results in less-than-significant air quality impacts because emissions would remain below NSAQMD’s adopted thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measures 10a and 10b which would reduce emissions from construction and operations. Mitigation Measure 10b requires several design features that would serve to reduce operational air pollutant emissions, including providing adequate pedestrian and transit improvements to encourage reduced reliance on automobiles. There is no significant impact that could be reduced or avoided with elimination of one or more of the drivethrough restaurants.

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 42
Nor does the SFEIR, to which the comment is addressed, find a significant environmental effect that would trigger mitigation under CEQA. Regardless of the effectiveness of the apartment buildings in creating open space allowing for air flow to disperse pollutants, the SFEIR did not propose any additional mitigation measures, as none was required. There is no need under CEQA to disallow drivethrough restaurants within the project site. Impacts will remain less-than-significant even with drivethrough restaurants.

I-6 The comment states that if future tenants require use of diesel generators greater than 49 horsepower and/or use of toxic air contaminant substances, additional NSAQMD permitting and reporting requirements will be applicable.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to address issues related to air quality impacts associated with the potential use of diesel generators. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

No specific future tenants have been identified and the City will not be party to any tenant agreements.

Future NSAQMD permitting and reporting requirements will be the responsibility of individual businesses that may occupy the project site. The City assumes that any business that requires the use of generators greater than 49 horsepower will comply with the adopted regulations by submitting to NSAQMD the appropriate applications such as the Permit Application Form and/or the Internal Combustion Engine Supplemental form.

Item # 11.

Comment Letter J
From: Steve Smith
To: Amy Kesler-Wolfson
Subject: Dorsey Marketplace Project SFEIR
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024 9:39:03 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Amy,
Thank You for being open for communication to support or voice concerns regarding the Dorsey Marketplace Project. I realize there may be some sales tax / employment benefits to the commercial side however the larger box sized space may only take sales tax / employment from one local business to another. Currently with Target, Big 5 and many grocery store options this seems to not bring much value to the community. Amazon has really impacted the brick and mortar stores and those sales tax revenues will continue to support Nevada County
The value of this project is the residential units which are much needed along with the smaller professional office spaces. I would support this project if additional residential spaces were added in lieu of the larger box footprint.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve Smith
13654 Forest Park Circle
Penn Valley, CA 95946
--
Steve
J-1
J-2

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 44
Response to Comment Letter J
Steve Smith
March 7th, 2024
J-1 The comment identifies concern regarding effects on local businesses and the community from potential tenants of the project’s largest commercial space.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Dorsey Marketplace Project Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report because the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report is not required to evaluate potential effects on existing retail businesses or the local economy. As discussed in Response to Comment D-7, the procedural remedy resulting from the litigation over the City’s April 2020 project approvals does not require the City Council to reconsider the merits of the project. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The 2019 EIR included analysis of the project’s potential to draw customers from other retail areas around the city, such as downtown, which could result in a degradation of visual character in the older retail areas. The Urban Decay analysis presented in 2019 EIR Chapter 5, Aesthetics, was based on the Dorsey Marketplace Economic Analysis included in the 2019 EIR as Appendix D. The economic analysis and EIR found that “roughly $150 million in existing retail spending is spent outside of the western Nevada County market area (in the combined comparison and eating and drinking out categories)” and the project “could recapture some of that retail leakage spent outside of the county and would not depend on taking business from existing retail establishments in Grass Valley. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to decrease economic activity in downtown or other parts of Grass Valley and thus would not lead to urban decay associated with commercial buildings becoming vacant and owners deferring maintenance on such buildings.”
J-2 The comment identifies support for the residential and professional office spaces within the project and states that the commenter would support the project if it included more residential space.

This comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR or the project’s environmental effects. No response is required.

Item # 11.

Comment Letter K
From: Leslie Warren
To: Amy Kesler-Wolfson
Subject: Dorsey Marketplace
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:44:20 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Thank you for sharing my comments on the supplemental EIR for the Dorsey Marketplace project with members of the CIty Council.

I feel that the Supplemental EIR is inadequate because it fails to address three things:

1.Big Box Stores
The developer proposes to provide several commercial "pads" of sufficient size to accommodate big box stores which tend to undercut price points of smaller merchants and lead to the loss of small merchants which are so important to the tourist economy that in large part supports employment and economic stability in Grass Valley. Additionally, big box stores will diminish the unique character of Grass Valley , characteristics that make it a wonderful place to live and raise a family (or retire) and further push us toward "everywhere'sville". The parking that bix box stores require in order to sign a lease is typically far in excess of the building code - because these stores want believe excess parking attracts shoppers.

That may be the case but it also create heat islands, visual blights and a diminution of character that is so important to Grass Valley's economic health. I believe the SEIR is inadequate because it fails to consider these important issues.

2. Remote work
The developer proposes many thousands of sq. ft. of office space. The SEIR fails to consider how a glut of new office space will affect leasing rates at existing offices spaces - many if which will be unable to compete with a new space by virtue of the fact that they are older. The new office space will drive existing office spaces into obsolescence, create financial duress for owners and create blight in Grass Valley which will affect adjoining businesses and neighborhoods. Syphoning off is likely the only way that the new office space will be filled as remote work for office workers is the overwhelming trend today and for the future. The SEIR fails to adequately evaluate - and a private independent economics consultant with a regional business perspective would likely be the appropriate firm to evaluate these marketplace realities in a rapidly changing office rental environment.

3. Growth Inducement and the jobs housing balance
In general the SEIR is inadequate because it fails to consider the growth inducing K-1
K-2
K-3
K-4

Item # 11.

impacts of the commercial, residential, and office aspects individually and collectively.

Additionally the SEIR fails to consider the impacts of the project's jobs-housing imbalance. The project aims to provide an abundance of entry level jobs without providing housing at a price point affordable to entry level workers. This will create a demand for lower cost housing which because of its scarcity in Grass Valley will become more costly - simply by virtue of supply and demand.

A smart growth project provides housing stock for a jobs-housing balance. This refers to how many jobs there are per dwelling unit within a given area. If the jobshousing balance is too high, there are many more jobs than housing units. As a result, adequate housing may be unaffordable or unavailable to workers in an area, leading to issues such as housing unaffordability and traffic congestion from incommuting workers. If the housing-jbs balance is too low, this may indicate too few jobs locally and a housing oversupply. Over time housing in this environment is left vacant and turns derelict. The ideal ratio for the greater Sacramento Area, of which Grass Valley is a part, is 1 dwelling unit for every 2 jobs. The SEIR fails to provide any data regarding the jobs housing balance, nor is the project itself planned within smart growth principles .

For the jobs housing balance to function properly, the types of houses must be appropriate for the income of workers in the local area. These issues were not considered adequately in the SEIR. Further,
growth inducement in and of itself will have wide impacts. The growth inducing aspects of the project should be considered in light of the City's General Plan and policies - including its consistency with quality of character, school facilities, child care, environmental , traffic, air quality,and social factors; in additon to the potential loss of Grass Valley's unique small town character and the implications for existing residents and the tourist economy.

The SEIR must consider if the Dorsey Marketplace project has an acceptable jobshousing ratio by considering:

Nevada County average wages
Grass Valley average wages
Affordable housing price by wage sector
Project sector job count
Affordable for sale and rental home price for the project Dorsey Marketplace jobs and dwelling units by income group The SEIR does not provide supported statistical and economic data necessary to determine if the Dorsey Marketplace will be a vibrant, walkable, mixed use project meeting the needs of workers or a growth traffic inducing project that is K-4
Cont.

K-5
K-6
K-7
K-8
K-9

Item # 11.

K-9
Cont.
incompatible with Grass Valley's vision for itself. Now is the time to work toward climate resilience and to meet housing affordability measures for workers so that they need not commute.

I hope that the CIty Council will direct the developer to redesign the Dorsey Marketplace project in light of these important issues and most importantly to ensure that housing types relate to the spectrum of jobs anticipated to avoid disadvantaging particular income groups. It is also important that decision makers consider the impacts of the project on quality of life and climate.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Leslie Warren

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 48
Response to Comment Letter K
Leslie Warren
March 7th, 2024
K-1 The comment states that the SFEIR is inadequate because it fails to address the potential for retail businesses that occupy the project’s larger commercial spaces to lead to closure of smaller local retail stores, which are important to the local economy.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Dorsey Marketplace Project Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report (SFEIR) because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate potential effects on existing retail businesses or the local economy. As discussed in Response to Comment D-7, the procedural remedy resulting from the litigation over the City’s April 2020 project approvals does not require the City Council to reconsider the merits of the project. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of projectrelated traffic on future project residents and occupants. No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As discussed in Response to Comments D-7 and J-1, the 2019 EIR included analysis of the project’s potential to cause urban decay by leading to decreased economic activity in existing commercial areas and found that the project could capture some of the retail spending that currently occurs outside of the western Nevada County market area such that the project “would not depend on taking business from existing retail establishments in Grass Valley” and “would not lead to urban decay associated with commercial buildings becoming vacant and owners deferring maintenance on such buildings.” K-2 The comment states that the SFEIR is inadequate because it fails to address the aesthetic impacts of ‘big box stores’ which diminish the community character and require extensive parking that causes heat island effects and blight.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate the community character, aesthetics, and heat island concerns raised in this comment. No legal challenges to the Final EIR’s analysis regarding community character and aesthetics or the lack of analysis regarding heat islands were brought within the time to challenge the City’s certification of that document. The original Final EIR is therefore legally adequate with respect to analysis that was unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged in those arguments. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of projectrelated traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

Chapter 5, of the 2019 EIR included a thorough analysis of the project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics and community character. The analysis found that the project would result in potentially significant impacts due to the loss of vegetation on the site. The EIR notes that many of the onsite trees would need to be removed in order to complete the excavation and soil remediation that is necessary to address soil contamination from the prior mining activities at the site. The EIR notes that in compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the project would be required to plant a replacement tree onsite for each tree removed. The project’s landscaping plans include the required

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 49
replacement trees. They also incorporate a variety of plant types and sizes to provide year-round color and screening. The EIR found that “Once matured, the perimeter landscaping would help screen views of the proposed development, while trees planted within the parking lots and along circulation routes would be visible between and over the tops of the proposed buildings.” Further, the EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a, which establishes standards for the project site landscaping, including use of landscaping to “providing visual screening of large walls, loading docks, and parking areas.”
K-3 The comment states that the SFEIR does not consider how more office space will affect leasing prices at existing office spaces and anticipates that older existing office spaces will be left vacant, which could lead to blight that may affect other nearby businesses and neighborhoods. The comment notes that remote work is the “overwhelming trend today and for the future” and thus the new office space developed as part of the project would draw tenants away from existing office space.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate the demand for office space or the project’s potential economic effects on existing office space. As explained above in the Response to Comment K-1, the courts have not required the City Council to reconsider the merits of its decision to approve the project in April 2020. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The project would develop 8,500 square feet of office space within a mixed-use community that would also include 104,350 square feet of commercial space and 171 residences. The comment is correct that there has been an increase in the number of people who work remotely for all or a portion of their work hours, and this has reduced the overall demand for office space. However, there are many individuals and businesses that continue to require office space. The Grass Valley General Plan found that there would be ongoing demand for new office space to meet increased demands for “medical services, professional services (engineering, legal) and business support services” and for “small officespace leasing, to accommodate numerous small business operations,” while recognizing that some of the demand for small office spaces would be “somewhat tempered by in-home business boom” (City of Grass Valley 1999). Although this analysis was prepared prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and the current trend towards remote work, the demand for medical and professional services is still present.

The additional of 8,500 square feet of office space along with the increased local economic activity that the new commercial space is expected to substantially alter the office real estate market in the City. Regardless of the General Plan and zoning designations on the project site, investors will not make the expenditures needed to construct office space in the absence of any perceived demand for such a use. If, in the future, the property owner seeks changes in these designations, a public process with public input will ensue.

K-4 The comment states that the SFEIR is inadequate because it does not evaluate the project’s potential effects related to growth inducement and the jobs-housing balance.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate growth inducement or the jobs-housing balance. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 50
future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

Growth inducement and the jobs-housing balance was evaluated in the 2019 EIR Chapter 4, Population, Employment, and Housing. The analysis found that the project would increase the City’s population by approximately 2.7% and that this growth “would not result in the City exceeding historic average growth rate or reaching a total population that is greater than the estimated population range in the City’s General Plan.” The Dorsey Marketplace Economic Analysis provided as Appendix D to the 2019 EIR projected that the project could generate between 170 and 190 jobs within the commercial, retail and office uses within the project site. The EIR also found that the infrastructure improvements constructed as part of the project “would only support the project and would not support additional development or growth outside of the city boundary.”
The 2019 EIR concluded that the residential and employment growth supported by the project “would be consistent with the growth anticipated by and accounted for in the General Plan. The project would support the City’s growth and economic development goals by generating new employment, shopping, and housing opportunities.”
K-5 The comment states that the project would provide entry level jobs without providing housing that is affordable to entry level workers, which will increase demand and costs for the limited amount of lower cost housing that is available in the community.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate jobs-housing balance and housing affordability. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

Housing affordability is evaluated in the 2019 EIR as Impact 4-3. The analysis found that the project “could satisfy a portion of the City’s need for 100 moderate and 220 above-moderate income housing units and may contribute to meeting the City’s need for low-income units but would not contribute to filling the City’s need for very low-income units.” It also found that “while some of the individuals that work in the lower pay range jobs available at the project site may have incomes at the moderate and low ranges, it is not expected that the majority of the jobs generated on site would add to the City’s demand for affordable housing.”
K-6 The comment states a “smart growth project provides housing stock for a jobs-housing balance” and identifies adverse conditions that may arise when there is not a good balance between jobs and housing, including increased housing costs when there are more jobs than housing units and increased commuting time and distances if there are too few jobs locally. The comment asserts that the ideal ratio is one dwelling unit for every two jobs. The comment states that the SFEIR does not address or provide any data on the balance of housing and jobs and that the project was not planned with smart growth principles in mind.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate jobs-housing balance and housing affordability. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 51
future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As noted in Responses to Comments K-4 and K-5, the 2019 EIR Chapter 4 addresses the project’s contribution to employment and housing within the City. The analysis in Impact 4-1 finds that the project would generate between 170 and 190 jobs. The project includes 171 dwelling units; thus Impact 4-3 identifies that the project would result in a 1:1 jobs-housing ratio. The 2019 EIR found that the project “would support the City’s growth and economic development goals by generating new employment, shopping, and housing opportunities.”
Further, development of both residential and non-residential land uses on this infill site is consistent with the General Plan, which states “It is realistic to expect infill development to accommodate about one-third of new housing in the Planning Area, including the City in the next 20 years. Depending on market factors, infill may be able to provide a larger percentage of non-residential development, but by no means will it be able to meet the total commercial and industrial land demand” (City of Grass Valley 1999). The 2019 EIR found that the project would provide commercial, residential and office infill development, “consistent with the policies included in the City’s General Plan, such as LUP-8, -9, and - 23, which encourage and facilitate mixed-use development on fill sites and provide for higher residential densities on infill sites.

K-7 The comment states that to support a jobs-housing balance, the available housing options must be applicable to the income earned by local workers, and that the SFEIR does not address this topic.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate jobs-housing balance and housing affordability. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The 2019 EIR states that the project would “provide 171 dwelling units consisting of 38 three-bedroom units, 95 two-bedroom units, and 38 one-bedroom units. All units would be market-rate and would range in size from 1,013 to 1,600 square feet.” As noted in Response to Comment K-5, the 2019 EIR found that the project would provide a portion of the moderate and above-moderate income housing units needed in the City and that the commercial jobs available at the project site are expected to provide incomes at the moderate and low ranges. The EIR also found that “the office jobs would be likely to be at higher pay ranges than the commercial and retail jobs.” The residences at the project site would contribute to the City’s housing stock and would provide housing options that are expected to be affordable for a large portion of the employment base that would be supported by the project.

K-8 The comment states that the growth inducing aspects of the Project should be considered in relation to the City's General Plan policies, such as “quality of character, school facilities, childcare, environmental, traffic, air quality, and social factors”. The comment also states that Grass Valley’s unique character, the tourist economy, and the current residents should be further considered.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate growth inducement, community character, schools and childcare, traffic, and social factors. It is also not required to evaluate the project’s effects on local and regional air quality

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 52
associated with operational air pollutant emissions outside of the Health Risk Assessment presented in the SFEIR. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As stated in Response to Comment K-4, the 2019 EIR evaluated growth inducement Chapter 4, Population, Employment, and Housing. The analysis found that the project is not considered growth inducing because the residential and employment growth supported by the project “would be consistent with the growth anticipated by and accounted for in the General Plan. The project would support the City’s growth and economic development goals by generating new employment, shopping, and housing opportunities.”
The 2019 EIR also addresses the other environmental topics raised in this comment. Community character is addressed in Chapter 5, Aesthetics; schools are addressed in Chapter 14, Public Services and Utilities, traffic is addressed in Chapter 8, Transportation, and air quality is addressed in Chapter 10, Air Quality. As noted in chapter 4, social and economic effects and are not considered physical effects on the environment.

K-9 The comment states that the SFEIR should evaluate the project’s jobs housing ratio by analyzing the average wages in Nevada County and in Grass Valley, the affordable housing price by wage sector, the job count in the Project area, the prices of the project’s residential units, and the project’s “jobs and dwelling units by income group.” The comment notes that the SFEIR does not provide the statistical and economic data necessary to determine if the Project would be a “vibrant, walkable, mixed-use project” that meets the needs of workers or a “growth traffic inducing project that is incompatible with Grass Valley's vision for itself.” The comment advocates working towards climate resilience and affordable housing for workers to limit commuting. The comment suggests the project should be redesigned to provide a better jobs-housing balance, and that decision makers should consider the impacts of the Project on quality of life and climate.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to evaluate the project’s jobs-housing ratio or growth inducement. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As stated in Response to Comment K-4, the 2019 EIR evaluated growth inducement Chapter 4, Population, Employment, and Housing. The analysis found that the project is not considered growth inducing because the residential and employment growth supported by the project “would be consistent with the growth anticipated by and accounted for in the General Plan. The project would support the City’s growth and economic development goals by generating new employment, shopping, and housing opportunities.” As discussed in Responses to Comments K-5 and K-7, the project is expected to contribute positively towards the overall jobs-housing balance in the City because residences at the project site would provide housing options that are expected to be affordable for a large portion of the employment base that would be supported by the project.

Item # 11.

Comment Letter L
1 Amy Kesler-Wolfson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 6:51 AM
To: Amy Kesler-Wolfson
Subject: Dorsey Development
Attachments: PUBLIC HAS TWO WEEKS.docx
Please don’t okay this development. If you do, you will have to come back to us to raise taxes for a future sewerage treatment plant. And Bullards Bar Reservoir will not be enough to support  the water it will need.

Charles Wilder
Grass Valley
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important L-1

Item # 11.

From the Union article 3/6/24: Public has less than two weeks to review environmental studies for mixed-use development. (LTE or Other Voices?) The saying “like a bad penny” here comes the developer again telling us the merits of turning the Dorsey interchange into another “opportunity” for our community. There will be 172 multi-family dwelling units, 8,500 square feet of office space, and 104,350 square feet of commercial uses. 3 additional drive through slabs for more fast food “In addition to the $200-plus million in local sales being lost ‘down the hill’ each year, local job opportunities are also being lost…It’s estimated 400 to 450 new local jobs will be generated at the Dorsey Marketplace.”
Taking the language about “sales being lost down the hill”, and “400 to 450 new jobs will be created” according to the developer. What? At least half of those jobs will disappear when the construction of this development is complete. With the cost of fuel, less and less foothills shoppers go “down the hill”. More and more that means their money stays here!
But the main concern should be where our city engineers stand. Where are those guys? With the Loma Rica development going full throttle, and now this, where does the water come from and where does the sewage go? Shouldn’t one or more city engineers in Grass Valley and Nevada City have a say in the impact it could mean for the town’s infrastructure? Wouldn’t adding 1000 new toilets and sinks dramatically impact the already fragile balance regarding our precious resources? Or---- a few years from now will we be faced with enlarging the existing sewage treatment plant? And revisiting water distribution and the cost of serving folks who are already facing higher and higher costs for electricity.

At this point wouldn’t it be cheaper to just buy the developer a yacht, and send him “down the hill”?
Charles Wilder
Grass Valley
L-2
L-3

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 55
Response to Comment Letter L
Charles Wilder
March 12th, 2024
L-1 The comment states that if the proposed development is approved, then the public will be taxed for a future sewerage treatment plant and that Bullards Bar Reservoir will not be sufficient to meet the project’s water demands.

This comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Dorsey Marketplace Project Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report (SFEIR) because the SFEIR is not required to address the project’s water and wastewater treatment demands. The petitioners in the litigation against the City of Grass Valley’s April 2020 project approval raised arguments relating to the EIR’s adequacy with respect to water supply and wastewater treatment demand but did not prevail on those arguments. The only directive from the courts was for the City to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects from project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants.

No changes or additions to the project description or environmental document are required in response to this comment. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

The 2019 EIR included a thorough analysis of the project’s potential impacts related to water supply and wastewater treatment in Chapter 14, Public Services and Utilities. The project site is within the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) service area for water supply. The EIR found that the project’s water demand would not exceed NID’s projected water supplies as identified in NID’s Urban Water Management Plan, and that “NID has sufficient water supplies to meet the anticipated future water demands in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions” through 2040. As noted above, the petitioners who challenged the City’s April 2020 project approvals argued in court that the water supply analysis in the EIR was inadequate, but those arguments were unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal reasoned in part as follows:

Plaintiffs argue that the EIR’s water supply analysis is inadequate because it (1) fails to demonstrate there is adequate supply to meet future demand; and (2) fails to analyze the likely environmental effects of securing additional water supplies to meet future demand. We disagree.

The EIR relied on existing and recently adopted water conservation plans and standards to conclude that water demand would be reduced adequately to avoid water shortages in future dry years. The EIR also noted that the anticipated water demand from the proposed project would not substantially exceed that assumed under the NID’s urban water management plan. There is substantial evidence to support the EIR’s conclusion.

The present situation is unlike that in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 721-722, where the lead agency relied on illusory “paper water.” Here, the EIR properly concluded that, with conservation efforts, there is a reliable water supply, and the proposed project would not alter the water supply and demand projections or make a substantial contribution to any potential water shortages in the cumulative scenario. As a result, there was no requirement for the EIR to discuss possible alternative sources and their impacts. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 56
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432; see Ocean Street, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1019- 1021 [upholding conclusion that project’s contribution was not cumulatively considerable because the project implemented and funded system improvements and conservation measures to reduce water supply demand].) The EIR’s water supply analysis was adequate.

The project would be served by the Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The EIR found that the WWTP has sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated at the project site. The Sewer Capacity Assessment for the project, which was provided as Appendix L to the 2019 EIR, found that “the addition of the proposed project is not expected to cause any new sewer segments to exceed capacity of the infrastructure.” The EIR concluded that the project’s impacts related to wastewater generation would be less than significant because the “project would not exceed existing treatment, collection, and disposal facilities, resulting in the need for expansion or new wastewater infrastructure.” L-2 The comment quotes an article published in The Union on March 6, 2024. The comment summarizes the project components and references a 2015 quote from the project developer regarding the loss of local sales and job opportunities and the project’s anticipated ability to create 400 to 450 new local jobs. The comment states that half of these new jobs would end once construction is complete and that fuel prices have reduced the extent to which retail sales occur outside of the City.

This comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to address the project’s effects on the local economy. The procedural remedy resulting from the litigation over the City’s April 2020 project approvals does not require the City Council to reconsider the merits of the project. The only directive from the courts was for the City to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects from project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As noted in Response to Comment K-4, the Dorsey Marketplace Economic Analysis provided as Appendix D to the 2019 EIR projected that the project could generate between 170 and 190 permanent jobs within the commercial, retail and office uses within the project site.

As discussed in Response to Comment D-7, the Dorsey Marketplace Economic Analysis found that there was “roughly $150 million in existing retail spending leakage from the western Nevada County market area” while the project would generate approximately $32 to $36 million in sales, representing about 23% of existing retail leakage. Thus, despite recent changes in retail and commercial sales conditions, it is expected that there is sufficient retail sales activity in the western Nevada County market area to support the proposed project without putting substantial additional pressure on existing local businesses.

Although the amount of spending outside of the region may have decreased due to increased fuel prices, it is expected that there is sufficient retail sales activity that occurs outside of the western Nevada County market area that the project would be capable of capturing some of this activity without putting substantial additional pressure on existing local businesses.

L-3 The comment states that the main concern is how the project would affect water supply and wastewater conveyance and treatment for the community.

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 57
This comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the SFEIR because the SFEIR is not required to address the project’s water and wastewater treatment demands. The only directive from the courts was to complete additional analysis of potential adverse health effects of project-related traffic on future project residents and occupants. This response is provided for information and to be responsive to public concerns.

As discussed in Response to Comment L-1, the 2019 EIR found that there is adequate water supply and wastewater treatment and conveyance capacity to serve the project. This conclusion was upheld by both the Nevada County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 58
Draft SFEIR Revisions – Page 2-23

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 59
Draft SFEIR Revisions – Page 2-24

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 60
Draft SFEIR Revisions – Page 2-25

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 61
References Cited
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Adopted December 9, 1983; revised June 2, 2001. Available: https://www.cnps.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline City of Grass Valley. 1999. City of Grass Valley 2020 General Plan. November 1999. Available:
https://www.cityofgrassvalley.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/general_plan_2014_website_copy.pdf?1570425933 Cypher, Ellen. 2002. General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines. Revised July 2002.

Item # 11.

FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR FOR DORSEY MARKETPLACE 9478 AUGUST 2024 62

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Item # 11.

Item # 11.

Greater Grass Valley Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Center 128 East Main Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-4667 • www.grassvalleychamber.com
Board of Directors

OFFICERS
President
Bob Medlyn
Beam Easy Living Center
Vice-President
Jay Strauss
J R Strauss Law Group
Secretary/Treasurer
Suzanne Voter
Home Heroes Lending
Member-at-Large
Machen MacDonald
ProBrilliance Leadership
Institute

DIRECTORS
Buckley Armacher
Budget Blinds
Barbara Bashall
Individual Member
Debbe Blakemore
Alpine Storage
Joy Porter
Winding Road Imagery
Susan Rice
Individual Member
Lillie Robertson
Yuba Blue
Steve Sanchez
Sierra Gold Parks
Foundation
Executive Director
Robin Galvan-Davies
Robin Galvan-Davies
Executive Director
September 5, 2024
City of Grass Valley
125 East Main Street
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Subject: Dorsey Marketplace Project
Dear Council Members:

The Greater Grass Valley Chamber of Commerce remains a very strong supporter of the Dorsey Marketplace project. This project has broad community support as it will provide desperately needed housing and will in fact clean up a hazardous brown field at the site.

We believe the project has been delayed by the obstructionist tactics of a relatively few outspoken citizens and by an aberrational decision in the Court of Appeal which found a minor, extremely technical imperfection in the EIR. This ‘imperfection’ has now been remedied, as we believe will be reflected in the City staff report, and we urge the City Council to quickly ‘re-approve’ the project EIR so that the long-awaited development of Dorsey Marketplace can at last proceed.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and anticipated approval of the amended EIR.

Sincerely,

Item # 11.

From: Daniel J Desmond <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 11:20 AM
To: COGV General Voicemail <[email protected]> Subject: Dorsey Marketplace
The Dorsey Marketplace project is flawed at many levels and from a community development perspective represents another scar on the community. I would like to register my strong opposition and hope that the City Planners will preserve the “heart” of our community and not sell it off to promote sprawl or growth at any cost.

Thanks for listening to my concerns.

Take care,
Daniel Desmond
10500 Hawke Lane
Nevada City CA 95959
PS: We live just outside the City limits but invest our time, energy and money in the City’s social, cultural and economic infrastructure.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Item # 11.

From: Gary Emanuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 2:06 PM
To: Public Comments <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comments on Dorsey Marketplace Project
Hello,
I have a comment on the proposed Dorsey Marketplace Project.

Based on the current levels of traffic congestion at the Brunswick/Hwy. 49 intersection due to the large shopping centers on either side, I would have thought that the City of Grass Valley would not have wanted to create another mess like this.

The Dorsey Marketplace Project would be even closer to a major freeway intersection with only a single access road to the intersection.

Please consider this issue and let's not add another traffic congestion area.

Regards,
Gary

Item # 11.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Main St Sealing And Striping – Authorize Bidding and Approve Design CEQA: Categorically Exempt – Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” Recommendation: That Council 1) approve the findings that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2) provide direction to Staff on several design proposals; and 3) authorize the advertisement for bids.

Prepared by: Bjorn P. Jones, PE, City Engineer
Council Meeting Date: 09/10/2024 Date Prepared: 09/5/2024 Agenda: Administrative
Background Information: The Main Street Sealing and Striping Project primarily involves the pavement replacement, microsurfacing and restriping of Main Street between Bennett Street and Church St. Also included are associated roadway improvements such as utility cover adjustments, signage and curb painting.

A number of design concepts and Engineering proposals are incorporated into the project that Staff would like to bring to Council’s attention and gain direction on how to proceed. These proposals are discussed individually in the sections to follow.

Mill @ Main Intersection: Since the Mill St Pedestrian Plaza was completed the number of pedestrians in the downtown area has increased significantly and it is apparent that additional safety measures for pedestrians crossing the stop controlled intersection of Mill and Main Streets would be advantageous. Engineering Staff worked with design consultant Coastland Engineering to evaluate different treatments for the intersection, including options of enhanced signage and striping, eliminating one of the crossings, or eliminating both crossings and creating a single centralized crossing.

At prior meetings, Council was first presented with a proposal to leave the primary layout of the Mill/Main intersection unchanged and increase pedestrian safety through added signage, enhanced striping and the construction of median islands (Option #1).

Subsequently a revised design was discussed to eliminate the downhill (easterly) pedestrian crossing and focus safety improvements on the uphill side which would have the benefit of consolidating crossings to a single area and reducing conflict and decision points (Option #2).

Based on feedback from the last Council meeting Staff has further explored a preliminary design and prepared a cost estimate for a revised intersection layout that would remove both the existing crosswalks and construct a single, 20 foot wide crossing aligned with the center aisle of the Mill Street Pedestrian Plaza (Option #3). This would

Item # 12.
have similar benefits to Option #2 in the consolidation of pedestrian crossings and reduction in conflict points. It could also be deemed more aesthetically pleasing as a continuation of the Plaza across Main St. However, it would necessitate relocation of the Clocktower and other monuments on the central, northern end of the “T” and move them uphill, out of the direct line of sight of the Mill St corridor. An intersection exhibit is attached that shows the proposed centralized crossing concept. Also included are prior exhibits showing a dual crossing configuration and the single crossing layout with removal of the downhill crossing only.

Evaluating Engineering cost estimates of the various options; the overall project cost for leaving a dual crossing and enacting safety improvements is approximated at $300,000. Using this Option #1 as a base number it is estimated that removing the downhill crosswalk, as proposed in Option #2, adds $25,000 to the contract for the associated demolition and reconstruction costs. Removing both crossings and completing all the associated work; demolition, relocations (Clocktower, monuments, signs), concrete and pavement reconstruction, hardscaping and landscaping, adds an estimated $225-$245,000 to the base contract cost for this Option #3.

South Auburn @ Main Intersection Crosswalk: Engineering Staff and consultant Coastland Engineering also evaluated the S Auburn and Main Street intersection due to safety concerns of the westerly crossing of Main Street. As the left/through lane coming from S Auburn St is signalized and does not have any oncoming traffic to contend with, motorists are not always acutely alert for pedestrians using the westerly crossing, leading to potential conflicts.

Coastland’s recommendation was to eliminate this crosswalk in entirety and Engineering Staff agrees that this is the preferred alternative. Pedestrians may have slightly increased crossing times/distances depending on their destination, but this is a small tradeoff for the enhanced pedestrian safety, as well as increased efficiency for S Auburn St traffic turning onto Main St.

Parking Space Adjustments: After pavement rehabilitation, the roadway will be restriped and parking marking “L’s” and “T’s” placed to define parking spaces, as well as painting curbs. As discussed at prior meetings modified dimensions and layouts are proposed for parking spaces up and down the Main St corridor. Primarily by relocating and shortening loading zones and adjusting the minimum length for some parallel parking spaces, a design has been developed that would gain ten additional defined parking spaces over what exists today.

Staff requests that Council provide any direction on the described proposals at the Council meeting for the Main St Sealing And Striping Project. After consideration, Engineering will finalize the design and contract documents in order to release the project for bidding. The award of a construction contract is anticipated to occur in Fall 2024, with construction in early 2025, depending on weather.

The street improvements associated with this project are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” of the CEQA Guidelines. The requested Council motion is to approve the findings that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and authorize the advertisement for bids.

Item # 12.

Council Goals/Objectives: The Main St Sealing And Striping executes portions of work tasks towards achieving/maintaining Strategic Plan Goal – City Infrastructure Investment
Fiscal Impact: The base project is fully funded in the 2024/25 CIP Budget with Measure E funding. No funding is currently identified for increases in the project scope due to modified configurations of the Mill and Main intersection.

Funds Available: Yes Account #: 300-406-63850
Reviewed by: City Manager Attachments: Main St @ Mill Exhibits

Item # 12.

LOADING
ZONE
STOP
STOP

LOADING
ZONE
NO
PARKING LOADING ZONE Page 795
Item # 12.

LOADING ZONE
NO

PARKING

LOADING
ZONE
STOP

LOADING
ZONE
NO

PARKING
STOP Page 796
Item # 12.

STOP NO

PARKING

LOADING
ZONE
STOP LOADING ZONE Page 797
Item # 12.

Agenda Item #
City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Discussion on City Council Compensation
CEQA: Not a Project
Recommendation: That Council considers the information provided and provides direction to staff on how to proceed.

Prepared by: Tim Kiser, City Manager
Council Meeting Date: 09/10/2024 Date Prepared: 09/04/2024 Agenda: Administrative
Background Information: Per the City Charter, the City Council may determine the annual compensation of the mayor, vice mayor, and council members by ordinance.

However, any ordinance increasing such compensation will not take effect until the commencement of the terms of council members elected at the next regular election.

Compensation for council members shall not exceed the maximum amount set by the Government Code for council members in general law cities of comparable size, which is subject to periodic adjustments.

State law regulates the maximum compensation for council members and the timing of these adjustments. The compensation schedule for general law cities has not been updated since 1984, leading to councilmember compensation not keeping pace with inflation. On June 29, 2023, the Governor approved Senate Bill No. 329 (Dodd) (“SB 329”), which increases the maximum allowable salary based on the city's population.

For cities with populations up to and including 35,000 people, SB 329 sets the maximum salary at $950 per month. Currently, under the City Municipal Code, a council member receives $275 per month, and the mayor receives $300 per month.

Additionally, Government Code Section 36516 permits a Council compensation increase of up to five percent per calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment.

No ordinance can be enacted to provide future increases beyond this limit.

With the upcoming election, staff seeks direction on further evaluating adjustments to City Council salaries and benefits. Attached for the City Council's review is a handout from the 2011 League of California Cities Annual Conference

Item # 13.

Agenda Item #
Council Goals/Objectives: This item executes portions of work tasks towards achieving/maintaining Strategic Plan - High Performance Government and Quality Service.

Fiscal Impact: The Fiscal Impact is not known until City Council decides on a potential action.

Funds Available: N/A Account #: N/A
Reviewed by: ____ City Manager
Attachments: 1) 2011 League of California Cities Annual Conference Handout from the City Council Salaries and Benefits Session

Item # 13.
 






 








 


!"#
$%&$&'
()&"*+("(,

)
-.!')*&/%(0
(12('33/34556("('&$%())
"7895:;<9<:0=1=
+'
&">
2 ?/

@

'"(/%&"A&2$ 

Item # 13.

Item # 13.








!"!"#
$%!"!"&!
'()


*

+,-
./01- 23456789:;<=6

>?@A>BCD>?EFGEGHAGDIJKDKL?@F

MNOPQNRSTOMUSRVWUOTUXUNY
TUXZOXXRVWNZY[\N]OVX^NWX

OWWQOMTRWSNVNWTN
YN]XN^_NV``a`bcc

_defg^hMeijk
TelmOlljdgnm
TelmjoYfg]fipj

Item # 13.






   








!"

#$%!"&
''()*'+(',$
(*-

"$(.,!/$*
*!)$%)!0)$'
1 1-
,(
/
)!1
0*
,2,

,(),0$%34,$)0','%$

,
!".
,1$(($-'


'
*

'",
-

"$(+

/,$!0((0
(
2!/
,

(
1
,("!,1
,'%
$)!1.,

($-'
1!,((!"1-$20!0(*(

1$2'%)!,*$)!,%.,!/$($!(35


.0,.!(
!"
$(..
,$(!,%!1
(
(
!"

(
(0!,%.,!/$($!(+*$/$*$2


'%($($!
,

16!,)
2!,$
(7(',%*,
$1-0,(
1 (8

'
*

'",

-

"$(
,
/$'-'
!)0,,
)$%)!0)$'1
1-
,(8*-

"$(
,

/$'-'
!,
$,
*!,"!,1
,)$%)!0)$'1
1-
,(3

90*
,'%$2.,$)$.'
-

$*

$
,.,
$!!"

(
(0
($(
+



,

%
)!)
,(',%+
:.
(
,
$1-0,(
1 +!,-

"$(+

%,
!-
;<=>?<@A?BC;<=DEF>C
GHIB=BG<JEK><AHCFHLH>C;<<JEMDN@>?BGG>?E=OKBDC<ABGPHCQ>ELBIOR>@B<STUVKH@OWF XVYTXVXZY[\V]^RHFFECIO_>@EAT\`KH@OaMMOWFbYUTbWWZY[UW]^V\ cM;OKH@Oa<<AOdECO\YXT\WefWYZY[bW]O

g

!

,
*+

,0'

$
,
(.
)!,
$,
1 -

"$($(
1-$20$$
(10(
-
,
(!'/
*$"/!,!"
!(
,
)
$/$2.0-'$).
($!(3h

+
323+iEC<D=HKBDC<A
QEMD<APJE=>GG;ja;;COIOkBH=FBG_E<>=ElEC<mnoppqnr#'3s stu+sov8w><<@EIO
PHC<HkH=NH=HKBDC<AxlM@BAEE;j_E<>=ElEC<a;;COmnotyquo#'3u*ups+uov8ov g.(3#'39%3z
3u{m{vvpq3

|



 


| }~€€€‚ƒ„
†‡ˆ ƒ‰Š‹}
‹
†Œ‹‰„‚ƒ

z!/
,1
#!*
(
)$!urynrn0
!,$
()$%!.,!/$*
$()$%)!0)$'1
1-
,(

$
$$$'(',%!"-


Žuvv*Žn+vvv.
,1!
+*
.
*$20.!

)$%(
.!.0'$!3h
)$!urynr3y'(!0
!,$
($),
(
$#!0)$'(',$
($
1!0!!
:)

*y"!,
)
)'
*,%
,",!1

!.
,$/
*
!"

'(
*60(1
35
0(+$"

#!0)$'
(!
*(',%$),
(
$

'(

%%
,(+
$)*!.!,*$)

""
)$/
'%*!0-'$2$((',%7{v:y‘nvv3g")!0,(
+$"


#!0)$'*!
(!
!
)$!$(
'"+$1%.')
(',%1
(0,
!


-''!3m’urynrm-qq3

5 9!,
%z

,'
(,0'
*


1:$101y.
,%
,.
,)
2
$),
(

10(-
..'$
*!'%!)
+
$
!)!1.!0*$23tog.(3#'39%3z
3nyom{vvrq3
“!0)!'%)')0'


$),
(
-(
*!



)0'(',%
(+!!

$
)!0'*
/
-

3!

,
!,*(+

)$%1%!..'%

y!

)0,,
'%
,
)
$/
*(',%1!0!'%"!,

"$,(%
,+*

..'%$!



'%)')0'
*
1!0"!,

(
)!*%
,+*)!$0


(
(
.,
)')0'$!("!,
)

$
,/
$2%
,3”!,
:1.'
+$"($:%
,(
/
.((
*($)


'((',%$),
(
+

n9'',
"
,
)
(,
!

z!/
,1
#!*
0'
((!

,
$(
!
*3

Item # 13.









  





 






 


 

!

"











#

$ 

  

  $ 





#





!%&'()'!)*!+ 

 


 


#


 
 












,
#



# - 
  



 !+
"

.


 



 
  - /

0















 

 '()'!(
123323456789:68;<=>:

875







!+


 


 
 -



 

#


/



 !0?@A!B
!"
!.
!)(@%C'*

D



$



 
( 


$ 










#







$

 




 


 
#






!

EFGHIJKLMNOMPNQRNSMTUUMKVWJVXYRZMEM[XJJXJ[HUGM\RML]OHU  ^UUXKM

.#
 
B



 '()'!( 

 -
 

 
 -






_


!+ 

 
  B



`




 
C?
$ 







-  C)C!a











#
--




B



`$




-

 





$ -


 



  C)
$
$ 




 



#
 - ` 



$ 
!

bFGHcdVH]NVXKIJKLMNOMO

e

 '()'%*%f*#


 


 / 
 

 









#






 

!0+




- 


3ghi7j332 



kAl
$ 

# -


 m

)






 
!a
 


!

nFoH\RHPMNOdLMpbNYMJqNLrMNLs

e

 '()'%*%f*#

t/+


















 #

  
# 
 
 


 



 
 


 



 

 

  
u
(












#





,




 


$


 








v0

e


#















$



 



  w#

C?!+





 m

C@

 
B

B


 

 



 -

 

 
)




#


Item # 13.




 










!" # 

#

#$#



 #
 

#

%&

&

#

'


 






#

#$## 
#(
 


 #

#


#
) *+#
 

#
 

#

#
#

#

#


#
"),
-+


.


#



 # 

#


 

# 

/01023
 

#
( 

 


#

%



#

#
 4 
$5
#

(






%

# 
 



6#

#$#7




((
  8/9:/ 

 







((
  ;2<= #


#




 
4 (

#>

&




#
#$ 


 

?
#

 
#
  
 4 
$5
#

@
$

#
#(( #

 #

#(
 

#
#
 


 AB1CD;/;$#
  (#
 # 
#
# '

  #
# (

  

#
#



@
#
#$# '

%

E


#



#(( #

 #

#



#

 
;FF;A/0G; # 
#


#
 ;FF;A/0G; # 
@

#
%?



#$

#

#



#
#





$

 
 
#  

C9:/09D
#

#$#
%

HI JKLKMNOPQRSTHQRKULVQWTXSNYMXVZKZ[T



#


 
$



#
#$
$ 

#





%
)\]^!^)#+)_++%.#
#
$


#

# ( #@
!"($#

#





 
#$(#$





#   ##

# ( 
#
#$





#@




?`


#
( 
  

( 

#$(#$

$ 

#
#
a
 $


]^!^)#+)_+


(#$





$

 (# 
#
#$#



#@


(


%?


# 
b

 

#




 





#

 (




#


#

#$(#$


#

 #

#
@(





 

 #
#


#



%c


) +#
)+ 


]^!^( 
#


d

) +4
$#

(#
$#
$ 

#
#


#
#
 #


#


$



#





  
((

  


#
#$





( 
 #

#


###

#
#
(#
$
$ 

(
$
%

)+4
$#

(#
$#
$ 

#


 
##
#



#$@(


(
#
 c

]^!_%!
#






  ((

  


#
#$(
#
 





%


Item # 13.









 


 


 






















 




























  
 !"








 




#$%






& '
(


































 







)

*



  






 







+,$$$


 


 




 







+,#$$


 

"





  





 








 +#$$


 


 
 



 

!
-



.





















 



 



/

&





(







 0
1






 


 23
4 5 -

 .
,$607$$81 9
 



-



.





















 
 

 












"










 7

!

 '







*





 &





(




 






/




 9






 





 





:













;














 

  
<





 =>?@ABCDE 













+,#$$

 *

 



 
+,#$$


 

  



 









9 






5 









 +,$$$





0





  
1 F
















 +#$$

 










 '




G 






 
*





 





 













'















H
!
 















 

 





9 
  




























 






















 
!






























/




 



  








I















 





















 J 

  
 



 K















 


HL 






/



  






 
















K












7!




 






-.

 
  L




,# 
 

Item # 13.








































 
























!
"



#





$%&'%(






)*







 







 


+









+



+











)

,- ./01234567689:9;<


=>*
)#)?
)!

)''@A'@@BC
?


!




 














(





+

 
+














)D



 







E




(







 
+





 







+







AF)G)#

))H'>I#)#

))H@C


"






"





 AF)G)#

)'J ?

)I
#)#

))HB
)ACC












 










+
































 









"













)













 










?


!



K 

















E






)*














L


+ 
"











+
)M




N









 "






L

)O

?


!
"



#





$%&'%AC

+
"

 K






+"













 




)O

 P-./4QR1;S/Q/635TUVW/6S/S

X


!
"



#





$%&'J)&


































)?








































)
AH$%&'%A
CC)

D












!
"



#





&$Y$Y)Y

&$Y$Y)$)F








#


+



+  














 Z






)[



















)[
#
















 











)[









+ 















)?
 








)

\










































)!
"



#





&$Y$Y)$

Item # 13.







  
 
  
 


  
  

 


 

 


 

 

  
  







!
"



"#$





%
  
 &' (



  



 

 

  
   

  


 




 



 



  



   




 "

  
 
 

 
 
 









)*+,-.-/01234516/574.-89
:;<=>

 






  

 


9   

 
 
 


  






?$@

A
'
B 
CD%#EEC(FGHIJ<K;:LM
N<:OPQRPS:;RT=UJT=V<WVP%#E?$(XXA
'
YZ[[%


\ 


 



 




(
'

"


  
 






 










" 


"

 




  

Z$@

A
'
B 
C#D%CDDC('"

"


   


  ]^^A"
 

  
[#@

A
'
B 
YXC%#E?Z(

_734`-25/4040ab 





 


   

"
 

  



  



 



%cc$YCYXd$YCY$(


e/5fgg+h/0`.ij73.5k+073gl)74*.01- B
 A 

#CCY 





  

 
 


      


  
m
  

  


]
 

 '

&
#CYX
CDD$" 
  B
 A 



$YCDC
Y$YCDC
C"



  
   
  
 
 



' " 





 JnVn<o:WQPJnpon=WnWq

    



 r 

 


'"
s


 


t    TQ:nJ

#CCY


   r    


!
 
"




 

" d  
 
  " 


 


   

u
 ' 
B  
 
CD#D


 



 

 " 

  

"


 r
"s


 t  



 



 


 

"
r 

 "




#CCY
EY@

A
'
B 
E
%CD#D(
Y

Y
 

""
r  





#CCY
!N<:<vn=GwLPVT:nWqx=VMLMyPTJwPQ
RSonJL<WPJW%#EZY(#X[A
'
Y#?#" 

 "
  
 

#CCY"




\   


 




  z#DD 



 
  
 

 

    

{


st
 


   {


s
t

Item # 13.







 !
"

#
$

%&

#
"'
#&


&#

%





#
%

&
#&



$
&


###
&

&'
&


"




(
)
*+,
-



#&

"

#&


&&
'
&

&



.



&

%

"

$

&/&
0112%

%&'&-

3456789:;<=>?@9?ABC9>:D;E9?F>6?G<>?H>88B<<B>:< 
I
&
#
&
.
'"&
&&


#
#$
%

&

-J

&'

&'


#

&-KL# .&




&
##&

"!




#
#
MN0OPQ
#&&

"&
"
"
"



-M+$R
S2TO0TM&Q-Q

U&!

$
&V
#W
&#X
$

*%&-*!



#N2P

%

"!&
#
%

"

.
Y
/#R
&
2200K-O-

Z[ \
]\
^]_
V&X
$
*%&&
#&&



R
R&
&
"&

$#

&$
&
%
#
'


%
"

&
`
%

&$-J
"'&

$


&"R
R&

%



(`
)
%'

X
$
*%&-JR
Ra

$&&

%
`

%$'
&
#
&*%&&
'
a
&-b



&&
#*%&
%`

%
&
#
#*%&&


-c2U
-R-*-
+-10OM1PPPQ-

d
ef
g]hi
]jklb'*V
12"&
%'&
OKmO1-2"
'
"#n0"1P01"o
&%&
&
&
%



%#


&



&"&
&

&
$
&%

$
#&



%MQ"

 
p *+




&
%&
&&
'
&
&



&'

&(")c0U
-R-*-+-qOM0mmcQ"&&

%



'#
&
#%'&
!



&


&o


&
&&



+$R
SKPTPOr




&
$-MJ*+



&&

1PPT"&&

%SKPTPO

stsutvwxyz&

M-%-'
{


{
$

##a
&


%&
&"&-Q






zv|}tww~-

Item # 13.





















!"#$
$%&%'$()
*%&+%$

,%-%#$"
./0/

12
34



56789:;



<8=83

;



>>
3






3


?


@

A

?




:




3







B
C
;3:
>
3
;




DEFG



:
EHIGJDK




 


L

9M<88

@

A

?
>

>





NB:
>
>BNB:

B




>





B
3



;









?>




O


PB
3












;3











>



Q






5RS9M<86T744AS<9M88RUU

?
3:


9M<86>
3
>




O


P
B
3












;3





:
B







>
B:










Q






?



;
3
;









V

W?











:
B>



:;

BBB

X588

;<7

>




RS9M<86R
UT
AB
<9M866U

W?






>




:
B







RS9M<86TAB
<9M865U

44








O











:P


?
Q




YZ[EFG >









\]^_`abbcddcae^fdfgahi_gfe_cj^ikdi_hdifegflgfefmndcdoalg_pcgcejq^_i^_lfecegcrcgsfm^fdf gcdtsfmconcejpaeomcpiaocei_l_dicefenjcr_ejar_leb_eifmg_pcdcaeu]ag_i_lbce_q^_i^_lfjcr_ecegcrcgsfm^fdf gcdtsfmconcejpaeomcpiaocei_l_diseg_li^_vpiwaoocpcfmdfhhmni^_oammaqcej_cj^iplci_lcfxyz{|_i_lbce_q^_i^_l i^_cegcrcgsfmcdfhs}mcpaoocpcfm~y{|_i_lbce_q^_i^_li^_hs}mcpaoocpcfmqcmm}_bf€cejwhflicpchficejcebf€cejw alsdcejalfii_bhicejiasd_^cd^_laoocpcfmhadcicaeiaceoms_ep_fjar_leb_eig_pcdcae~y‚{ƒg_eiconi^_hs}mcp aoocpcfm„d_paeabcpcei_l_did~y
{†al_fp^aoi^_aoocpcfm„d_paeabcpcei_l_didwg_i_lbce_q^_i^_li^ficei_l_dicd gcl_pimnalcegcl_pimnceramr_gcei^_g_pcdcae~y‡{|_i_lbce_i^_fhhmcpf}m_bfi_lcfmcindifegflg~yˆ{|_i_lbce_ q^_i^_lcicdl_fdaef}mnoal_d__f}m_i^fii^_g_pcdcaeqcmm^fr_fbfi_lcfmocefepcfm_oo_piae_fp^_paeabcpcei_l_di~ y‰{|_i_lbce_coi^_l_fdaef}mnoal_d__f}m_ocefepcfm_oo_picdgcdicejscd^f}m_olabi^__oo_piaei^_hs}mcpj_e_lfmmn~ fegyŠ{|_i_lbce_coi^_hs}mcpaoocpcfm„dhflicpchficaecdm_jfmmnl_tscl_gu 

Item # 13.


























 !


"








#









$
%&

&
&







'





$





#







()*+,--
.,/0123245+676--61839:;9<=>80?2@,A61-.,BBC0?3245+676--618D9<<9::E 
F
G&

HIJKLLM
N










#















OPLK


HPQ


!











R& 


&
SRG&

HIJKLLM$N



&


 










&

















$&



&$
T

'U







R










$&







&$

$



















$

&










&


R
&


R

"





R














$




,1-,V6-0V0W01X
B,1-Y6,BB5+50W,10C6CA61,BY5V,1Y615CC6250-6B0C5WX/Y5+Y5V25BB616?-B1,C V0W0156VZ052-,,-Y616CZW,X66V,B-Y6[,461?C6?-0[6?+X5?-Y6V0C6\,A +W0VV5B5+0-5,?,1Z,V5-5,?]^M_



N

U
&

 !













%&

"









$





R













SR
`R&

$


"









$





R




$












a$










R

!&



R



R



&


$
M
&






$&




'
Q&
(



&
$
#

&

&

VbZ108



R&
$
R$

Q&




&

$
&

$


)*+,--.,/0123245+676--61839:;9<=>M!&

$R




$








$






c
R




c
R




OHLK







&$
R

N
 de

!)
IPKfKM$NMPN



'
(


&T

')



$&











&

$



$















$&











$





 



&
)

LKHMNMfN
g


G
&!(


Item # 13.







 !"
#
$
"$%
&"!
!"

$$'(&"!

)*

+!$"!

'&"!%%
"
"!,"


""$%
(

&"!! "


($!"
$$'('
!

(,!
"
"!
(
"(
&$&
-"(
)

./ 0123453064657

8!((-%
""

&&(("!+ 

"
"(('9



(
"
((
"!:;<=;
(>)+&"!+?!"
(
"()@

%%("
"!"(


A(
'
"(&


$%!(
"!%"&
"(!&$%

(
"
"(
"($!""%
"('9


"


)B,)+),CDEFGHIJKLMNGEOPQRSRTQ
ULVJWXYSZS[P\L]OEG^_D`aObHVGaOOEMG`EcdeO_``GHfOILDVDM]\L]OfOgcDfObOM`ETh KGMGbLUGcM`aif]LMDjL`DGMG^kcdVD_lbHVGaOOEIJKGMGbLPQRmRTnWULVJWXnRSZ WQmPXO`OfbDML`DGMG^\L]OEHLDX`GObHVGaOOETJ

o #,
+"(

(&
&,#"p#!$!
?&(
"!<:qrs)<,



FOLV`FdOMO^D`E%#"&&
"

!"
$$'("($

(

 "&
!!!&!
$!""%
")

tt/uvwxyuwz{|vx}w~vvzv}ty€}~0‚~~vzyxƒ€v~„tz
0‚z0tx
†v†v~€

B#
%#"("!("!
p#!$!
?&

 
?"


%#"&'!"
(!

$%

(!&!"
$$'(,('9


"!(
"
"!()

‡v†u0w0ˆ‰532Š5

‹!
"
"($$'(?
"!"Œ'
"$%

Ž(
"$!
B
(
$ŒB‘)
8Œ'
"$%

(’‹&"
!&o(%"

?*
“Œ‹o?*”Ap#)?&,
••qq–<rAqq—˜s‘

 (%'
"+!"(
%#"&$&"
'!"
(

"$%

(
!&“!!"
!
(”
"(‘!&(%""&"$(
!()Œ‹o?*"(&$"!"(
&'

ŒB)*

“!

"!++!
,”((
"

,!&“$%

!!"
!
”
$(
!
"'


(


%
!#+%#"&&!&%
!%%#&'

ŒB)•qqs—r‘‘)s—™%()?
)*

)p!)q:qqrr;‘‘)

š"

"(!(
 $"!+
"(&"(
"!
"!,
*

!
p!
(
&


Œ‹o?*
"›(!

!
"#$
&

+!"(
%#"&

'!"
()
*!+!
!%
!&
ŒBAŒ‹o?*($$&"
#+,!&

(%#"&


!& 
'!"
(

!
('9

Œ‹o?*)–;
™%()?
)*

)p!)—==——:‘)š!!+!
!

("
( !

"!(!
#+

&""
()+)&!

,#"("!,
",%(("'

&&"
"!
$&"

#+'
!&

&&"!
?"

Ž(ŒB(

"!‘,

+
"




#+"(('9

p#!$!
?&(
"!(<:qrrA<:q=r)8((
"!(
!
%%
"'

Œ‹o?*#+)B,—r™%()?
)*

)p!):qqrr–‘?!



Item # 13.






 


 


 




!"
 

#
 !"$

%&




 


 '





 


(


!



)*+,-./

0123145 !




  
 

6



%&












 


(



!



+,*++/7
 















%&


8



89

 







 


!"/(


!



++::+8



; .;+.




 




 







#


'


!"8


<=


 



#








/'>
 





%& /
?

#8' 


# 8'
 




%&





 /@

   
















!
A 



 







 8
6 
/(


!



++B+,









/C

 




D



!"/E8
 

 




%&


!"/@



 

D



%&
 #

 
















F' 
/

C
G 









%& 








%& 


!"

 /@
 




 8

 







%&8

%&


#

'

 />




9










%&






 


%&
/

HIJKLMNOPQPIRSTUVSWXIRSTJYSJZPI[S\S]Z^IJ_`abbSZcSd/ 
(


!



)*+,):8


D






)*+,-; .e8 G
 

:#E


D


8 


 
f



 8





 


8

88


 
 
 



8



8


8






;.
&


)*+,-8


 

D

D


/>
6

 
 
 

F/'#g




'

(


!
h)*+,,;.












/;

  .

e#; .> 


 

 

8D





 
 
8





 
 





8


8


8


 

8 




;.8









 
f

 




88


 




 

8
6
 
  











D





 

 

&


)*+,)/';

  .


Item # 13.






 



 
 

 












 

 



  





 

!
 
"#$%"
&

' 


 "#$%%(
)*


+


 





 




 



!

,-
.


/ 


*&($%%#)


0


 "#$%& 


 (
)



 
 













 




  


















1






  

 




 





+




1  
 






23
2455625722482245948:;5<8:573293=5:5>


 



' 



1 




 "#$%"
!
 "#$%?







1




 














 






@








 
 


 





 

 
(



)



A

&
@




  



 



B




 C





 
B 


C(D#-"&-())E

$
@

B


C  



 B
1





C
(D"#$%$
#)E

#
 F




 


   


 


 






G


 









1





 
1 
B





 C 
 


1737H<8I52J



(D"#$%?
")


K



L





 






+



 







1  


 

  
@



 

1







/ 



M





'




*!
 "#$%"
&(
) 
AB0
 ' 


1





+



 

 
 


 







1











 






 





1 $&


 





1 $"



N 
 
 


1 
 



 


1 


1 


















1








'
  

' 















 



 

C

!
 "#$%%(
)AOP

OO




O







1






1







1


















 





1 
  

 

C


Item # 13.







 


!"#$%&'%"())

*++,-,./0,1.2.3.45,+67895/./487:8;3:5<=.=2.7+=;+,2.,1.>+-=.2.3.45,+?,1-, ,1.@5,A6-A+487>5,+.=6<8A..+?BCDEFGEB/HHIJ+,15++.:,583958<-,./54,1.@8;3:5<K.,+ =;:12.,,.72.3.45,+,1-3=8+,:5,A.=6<8A..+LM1.N;.+,583,;73+8318O,8/.453. >5,+.=6<8A..+I?P8.+,15+=.-3,1-,,1.@5,A=;+,6-A.Q-:,<A,1.+-=.-=8;3,0-3/ 38K7.-,.70487,1.:5,A:8;3:5<-3/RSSTUVTWXYZX[\V]ST[\\W^TU_`WXWTV\\V]ST[\\WL 
M1.N;.+,5835+-3+O.7./2A53,.767.,53K-3/1-7=835a53K,15+7.N;57.=.3,53-=-33.7 :83+5+,.3,O5,1-38,1.767895+58353,1.+,-,;,87A+:1.=.b+.:,583FDcdeIF0O15:1 =-f.+:<.-7,1-,O1.7./544.7.3,2.3.45,+,7;:,;7.+-7.67895/./487/544.7.3,+.,+84 .=6<8A..+0,1.=-Q5=;=2.3.45,+7.:.59./2A,1.@8;3:5<:-32.38K7.-,.7,1-3,1. =8+,K.3.78;+>+:1./;<.842.3.45,+?67895/./,8-3A:-,.K87A84383g+-4.,A .=6<8A..+Ih53:.,15++6.:545:+,-,;,87A67895+583-<<8O+:5,A:8;3:5<=.=2.7+,8

7.:.59.K7.-,.72.3.45,+,1-3=8+,:-,.K875.+84:5,A.=6<8A..+0h.:,583DEFGEB/H8;K1, ,82.53,.767.,./53,1.+-=.O-AI@8/.84@595<i78:./;7.+.:,583GeFj.Q67.++.+,1. :-38384+,-,;,87A53,.767.,-,583,1-,O1.3-K.3.7-<-3/6-7,5:;<-767895+5835+ 53:83+5+,.3,0,1.<-,,.75+6-7-=8;3,,8,1.487=.7IM1;+0+8<83K-+WTV\kTklWRm\X[ .=6<8A..K78;6+K.,,1.+-=.:89.7-K.-+,1.:8;3:5<0,1.+,-,;,.+-<<8O,1.:8;3:5<,8

7.:.59.,18+.+-=.2.3.45,+.9.3,18;K1,1.A=-A2.15K1.7,1-3487=8+,.=6<8A..+I 

nop

o

q

rqs(

t
uvw

!

x89.73=.3,@8/.+.:,583FDcdcID67895/.+537.<.9-3,6-7,,1-,>-<<6<-3+068<5:5.+87 8,1.7/8:;=.3,+;+./,8.44.:,;-,.,1.6;768+.+84,15+-7,5:<.+1-<<67895/.2.3.45,+487 <-7K.3;=2.7+84.=6<8A..+Iy?

M1.+-=.N;.+,58367.+.3,+5,+.<4zO1.,1.7.Q-:,<A,1.+-=.:89.7-K.083,1.+-=. ,.7=+0=;+,2.67895/./,8<-7K.3;=2.7+84.=6<8A..+087O1.,1.7,1.7.=-A2. /544.7.3:.+53:89.7-K.+8<83K-+,1.1.-<,16<-35,+.<4844.7++8=.:89.7-K.,8<-7K. 3;=2.7+84.=6<8A..+I{87.Q-=6<.0-:5,A=5K1,1-9.+.9.7-<2-7K-5353KK78;6+87 8,1.77.:8K35a./.=6<8A..;35,+I|15<.,1.@5,AO8;</844.71.-<,153+;7-3:.,8-<< K78;6+0,1.@5,A=5K1,65:f;6/544.7.3,/.K7..+84,1.=83,1<A67.=5;=+0/.6.3/53K83 ,1.;35,I

M1.6<-53<-3K;-K.84,1.+,-,;,.+6.-f+53,.7=+84,1.6<-3844.753K2.3.45,+,8<-7K. 3;=2.7+84.=6<8A..+I}35,+4-:.05,/8.+38,7.N;57.,1-,,1.+-=.2.3.45,6-:f-K.

2.844.7./,8-<<.=6<8A..+IM1.>+,-,;,.~+6<-53=.-353K:83,78<+,1.:8;7,~+ 53,.767.,-,583;3<.++5,+O87/+-7.-=25K;8;+IJ4,1.6<-53<-3K;-K.84-+,-,;,.5+ ;3-=25K;8;+038:8;7,3../087+18;</0K82.A83/,1-,6;7..Q67.++58384<.K5+<-,59. 53,.3,IGd{;7,1.70,1.:8;7,€+675=-7A82.:,59.5+,8/.,.7=53.,1.<.K5+<-,59.53,.3, 
Gd‚\\|15,.9Iƒ<,7-=-70J3:I0cG@-<I„,1FED0F
cBGjjjH0†`TXZk‡ˆ82a8449I‰8+*3K.<.+@8;3,A
Š-7287‹ƒ@‰*Œ./5:-<@.3,.70Gj@-<I„,1eFG0eEGBGjjeHI

Item # 13.




































!



"!





!







"#




"
"!

$




%"!

!



&'



(



)*+,-).




/















01$


""
!!











"









!






#









"
'


!

!
'
 

%
"







%



!
'
!



'





2


"3
456789:;<=>:6;5?:@A:BC;89D9BEFG
(!""H
F*,F)H2))I+,,-J+








'!










"



K
$








"









""!


L


)*+,





!!



"
'

/



!



!















"!

795M79N9OPD:?99BQ;N
795M79NO9OR97B:@5S9D98MBDQ5M<9R:N?E1


L


)*+,-)!


















2


"!

$










/
!








#




!!




"
'



"!






T









"
'





 
!!!





"!


%
"





"
'









.!

!
'
 


!


/





!









'











"!

1*IU"


J
$

!






!



&

!"










/
"
QPDQ;
!





"!

1-,V"(!

&

WIWWGJI
"


J$





"!




!
'
!









"







!!


"!


!


'



!





"!



$
!
!





"!





'

!
'
!










!"!



)*+,+*
!




X



/!





Y1$


'

!!









3
-*V"(!
&

H)
I+,,,J



&

!
%






















!







/

!


!

1






&'



(



)*+,,2)*+,3

!



&





T






"!
/
!!"
'





!





"!

1

499X


'Z!

3
+(!H
)F*)G+IWWWJ[6:5M;8\

2]
3
'^

U"!


_
`

(=H*(!**GW*-FIW-GJ
+a
b'






!




!


*/3




%









!!




)*+,


)*+,,*
!


T







"
'


K






!


!


"!





"
'

/


"!

1c




)*+,-)
%"

!









"










)*+,
'

 

!!



!





"!




 K

 










"
'

/
"!

1




)*+,,*







!




!





1L


'(

 

!
FG(!""H
F*,F)H2))
I+,,-JL


)*+,,*!

"



K
/





!

"!









T






"!





1

K







L


)*+,+*
*F)FIJ


Item # 13.






 
 






 
!
"

!

#"$%& 





#

 #

##
#"
 '(

 



 #"
 )
#


"

# )


 
!$%

*+,-+./0 '

!(
 
#
#

# !#
)
#
1#"#!#
)
 
 %


# 
"#

! )


 
!$

&2#
3
#


 #
"

"
 

1
4#! #"# #
  " 
%
" 5 #
&4

 # ##
#
#""
 )# 

!

!

)4#! #) ! #) 
 # 


 
!)
 




$6



4#!
#

" #


#  

 
 

%

#789:;<= 



"

"
 " 

#"

##


%

 

# 


#


 )


 
!$>
1 
#
?@6$4 $'!$(
$ABC
D
BBE
'(
 "#!"

"#
 )
  "#! !
#

#


#
)#"
 

#"  #

##

"
#"!#"



#
  


#)
#


 #
#

 
#"

# 
# " 


#

#

 "

#   #

  )


"#!F
 
!$

2  3
&"


"



) 
  "
# !
#
"#
 
!"

"#

#
 

$'# 
  "
 #)
 #! #

 

"#
)

1 "

#
#
)


 





#
%

#"!
%
#"



##G "



$
') #

 


0'(
#
#

 
#

#
)H@AA$@ 
    " 

#
#


"

"#

   
#


 )


 
!$0'

!(
  
 
"




 !)
! #
 

 

#
 )C
#
 "# 


 
  
A! 




 I
 !


B

#"

#  "

#
 #



 )


#
"
#
) 
F"# 

#"



# 
#



 )


"


##"F 
!$??6$4 $'!$(
$D
BB
E$2
 
#
#







?@6$4 $'!$(
$ABCD
BBE
'( 

# !
#

#"#
)
#"!

 1 "

#
#


"

"# 
 
  
#


 )



 
!$


2
 "
'

!(
 
#
G##
#
#
#



) #!
#
J#% !
B
6$4 $'!$(
$
?DACE

#"
#
K"#


$>
 $0'(
 #
J#% ! 


 
 

 



 
!

" #  "  ! 
 



 
 ! 

#"!
 

 "
 )$')

 ) 
"


 '(
#


"#
)#
!#

<=L=M8;N=O=8P=QR 



STULVW0
##


#
J#

#

"#!
#"# 

 
!"

 )


 

 "
"#!X 
#" 
Y%#
""

"#

 ! #"# #
ULZSTUL
 

 

#
%" 

#


 

$
K" 
#
))# 
1
##
 #


 

 

 

#
%
 

#
) 
X 

"
#
J# !

  
#" "
 )


#
""
#
  #
)
"#!




##

"
"#!X
##!



#) #


 !
 
#" 
"
 )
 "#! 
!$&" '(#


"# 
"

"
 #
)

1 "


# 




%#
#
#!
#





"3#
)
 "


 
#

$


Item # 13.





 

 





  

  


!"#







$% 

&
'
(


)


(*&


(+


 


++
(
&

+
 


( 
++*









,

+
+
-+

.



+
$

///0 123/45672829/:;9<=4<>84/612172=;?@<625A2<99/42 
B
+


C

* &
*
)
&&

+ DEF

(
GHI'


+


*(

J KF 





 
&GHI'* &
$
B
L(
 
) 


&
* &

 


 M
)

&&



(

+
&

*
)D

GHI'B

*(

DNG(*H+
OP Q

B


R-GHPQB
.
C
$B
SSKKTUVCKKWXYF
+
(* 




* &




+
 - (

.R


F( 
&
(+
 $GHPQB

+ 

*GHI'$

-


  .(

 -
+


 (

.+(


*(






&
 



( 
 
*GHI'$RSKKYWVRFF$RYWZ$B$

$ $K[KRKVV\F$F

]
CGHPQB
B

D^


)+_ 

 




 


GHPQB
(


M 


+

&



 



* &
$Z   


( 

GHI'C
GHPQB
+&

+

 





 )&

* &





(*`


GHPQB
$T\Z$B$

$ $WEREWW[F$^  
 


&



) 
 (
 

&



&&R$$


&F


&



(*`




+
B



U[KVVCU[KEV$

50=abcdaa1aecfgh4ijadgka>leadm21@45

n 


+
B


KKYWV KKYWK*



 
+
o (






*(


)




&
+
+(+$N
+
(

&



*(


*

( 

(



*&)
GHI'$
N
+
(
*L(&

*

+
  (

 

*
 
pWT
+


&EWWY`(

*GHI'


&
BG%$E\
]

)

  
L(

*(


L(
+



)


*

+




*(

&

 (


 +








*(

&

 (

 ( 
*&&

+((




*(


L($N (`(
+

L(
+




)
*
+(*`



&

q (
EEWY\$N(


(






(
B
)

*(
 L(+
(


+

&

*

(



+
r#s


$

E\N(


+
(
DpKYU&

&+

JpKKV&


)
C



JpEVY&

 

$

Item # 13.




































 !"#





$



%








&


'()&*(
&



*(()& (
&


+












+

,-./0





1






&




&

21%1&

%





%









%





%
&





+*34%&











&&






%
&











'# ((5+
&








-.678




%9






&





+

:;<=>?@ABCDED=>FG>HIFG=>=JCKILFMD=NKOIPK

Q&







&




%%



&


-.678




&&





&





%
$R


&S%&





'# (*5+

4

%






'# (*






&


+*!

*3 ++/+T'""+'(UV&W
*!VW4




%

&



%9



%%

%



&



&%&
&
%&

&

&&







%
&




%




%


V%W




%&





$