HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2025-09-23 Agenda Packet
1
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 23, 2025 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Participate In-Person:
San Rafael City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
Watch Online:
Watch on Zoom Webinar: http://tinyurl.com/Planning-Commision-24
Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael
Listen by phone: 1 (669) 444-9171
ID: 840 9897 7308#
One Tap Mobile: US: +16694449171, 84098977308#
This meeting will be held in-person. This meeting is being streamed to YouTube at
www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael.
How to participate in the meeting:
• You are welcome to come to the meeting and provide public comment in
person. Each speaker will have 2-minutes to provide public comment.
• Submit your comments by email to:
PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org by 4:00 p.m. the day of the
meeting.
If you experience technical difficulties during the meeting, please contact
PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
C. APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
D. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
E. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Remarks are limited to two minutes per person and may be on anything within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Remarks on non-agenda items will be heard
first, remarks on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar allows the Commission to take action, without discussion, on
Agenda items for which there are no persons present who wish to speak, and no
Commission members who wish to discuss.
2
None
G. ACTION ITEM
1. 990 Andersen Drive (APN 018-143-03) – Public hearing to consider a Major
Environmental and Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit to expand the
existing mini-storage facility resulting in an increased floor-area-ratio (FAR) of .98; CEQA
Determination: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15332 (In-Fill Developments
Projects).
Project Planner: Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
reneenickenig@cityofsanrafael.org
Recommended Action – It is recommended that the San Rafael Planning Commission
receive staff’s report and public input on the Project and adopt the draft Resolution
included in the packet to approve the project.
H. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
I. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
I. ADJOURNMENT
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Commission less
than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language
interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing
city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing
“711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible
formats upon request.
The Planning Commission will take up no new business after 11:00 p.m. at regularly scheduled
meetings. This shall be interpreted to mean that no agenda item or other business will be discussed
or acted upon after the agenda item under consideration at 11:00 p.m. The Commission may
suspend this rule to discuss and/or act upon any additional agenda item(s) deemed appropriate by
a unanimous vote of the members present. Appeal rights: any person may file an appeal of the
Planning Commission's action on agenda items within five business days (normally 5:00 p.m. on
the following Tuesday) and within 10 calendar days of an action on a subdivision. An appeal letter
shall be filed with the City Clerk, along with an appeal fee of $350 (for non-applicants) or a $5,000
deposit (for applicants) made payable to the City of San Rafael and shall set forth the basis for
appeal. There is a $50.00 additional charge for request for continuation of an appeal by appellant.
1
Community and Economic Development
Department
Meeting Date:
September 23,
2025
Agenda Item:
G.1
Case Number:
PLAN24-068 (ED24-
033; UP25-001)
Project
Planner:
Renee Nickenig,
Associate Planner
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 990 Andersen Drive (APN 018-143-03) – Resolution of the San Rafael Planning
Commission to approve a Major Environmental and Design Review Permit and
Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing mini-storage facility resulting in an
increased floor-area-ratio (FAR) of .98; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant
to CEQA Guideline 15332 (In-Fill Developments Projects).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project (Project) includes the addition of a second floor of storage units above and
bridging two existing buildings at 990 Andersen Drive. The Project will include some exterior
modifications to the existing buildings, but no alterations to the surrounding paving, fencing, and
landscaping is proposed.
The existing mini-storage use and buildings were originally approved by the Planning Commission
in 1975. The existing operation includes a caretaker’s unit within the building. The facility is
accessed by tenants through automatic gates operated with keypads at the entrances. The new
addition with the existing floor area will result in a floor-area-ratio (FAR) greater than what is
permitted by-right in the General Plan; however, General Plan Policy LU-2.11 and Section
14.16.150(G)(3) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) allow mini-storage uses to develop
with a FAR of up to 1.0 with the Planning Commission’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP).
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
Major Environmental and Design Review. Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC)
Section 14.25.040(A)(2)(b), Major Environmental and Design Review is required for an addition
to a nonresidential structure greater than forty percent (40%) of the existing square footage.
Conditional Use Permit. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU-2.11 and SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3), mini-storage projects may be permitted to have a FAR up to 1.0 with a
Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
2
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution to Approve the requested
Major Environmental and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/
Location:
990 Andersen Drive Parcel Number(s): 018-143-03
Property
Size:
145,551 sf Neighborhood: Southeast San
Rafael/Canal
(Near Southeast)
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land-
Use
Project Site: General Industrial (I) Industrial (I) Commercial
Surrounding Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land-
Use
North: Community Commercial
Mixed Use (GC)
Light Industrial/Office
(LI/O)
Commercial
South: General Industrial (I) Industrial (I) Commercial
East: Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP);
Light Industrial/Office (LI/O)
Light Industrial/Office
(LI/O)
Exempt;
Commercial
West: General Industrial (I) Industrial (I) Commercial
Site Description/Setting:
The Project site is located between Jacoby Street at the southwest and Andersen Drive at the
northeast. The site is accessible from both streets, but is most commonly entered by tenants at
Andersen Drive. The site is currently developed with four individual buildings totaling 71,419
square feet in floor area. The site is level with surface parking and gates at the primary access
points. The existing landscaping is limited to the small trees and low shrubs at the Andersen Drive
frontage.
3
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Existing Site Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Summary
The Project includes the addition of a second floor of mini-storage units above and bridging two
existing buildings at 990 Andersen Drive. The Project will include some exterior modifications to
the existing buildings, but no alterations to the surrounding paving, fencing, or landscaping are
proposed.
4
Figure 3. Proposed North Elevation
The Project includes the construction a full second story covering and bridging between Building
A and Building B as identified in Figure 2. The addition will result in an additional 68,777 square
feet of self-storage space and 525 self-storage units to the site, resulting in a proposed total of
140,196 square feet accommodating 1,418 self-storage units. The proposed height of the building
will not exceed 33 feet – eight (8) inches.
The existing exterior wall finish will remain at the lower story of the existing building, and will be
expanded to the addition above. The north primary entry facing Andersen Drive will include a two-
story glass and metal window system and a small metal overhang above the single entry door.
The pitched roof system will be surrounded by vertical seam finished metal siding in a dark color.
No site changes, including access or landscaping, are proposed.
ANALYSIS
The Project is compliant with all relevant policies of the General Plan 2040 and the San Rafael
Municipal Code.
General Plan 2040
The project site has a “General Industrial” land use designation, which allows a variety of uses
including production, distribution, repair, manufacturing, storage and warehouse facilities with an
overall maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.33. Per General Plan Policy LU-2.11, mini-storage
uses are allowed on sites with a “Light Industrial / Office” or “Light Industrial” designation, as well
as in existing commercial buildings, if the mini-storage units are not located along the street
frontage(Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities). Mini-storage may be permitted with a FAR of up
to 1.0 on such sites if certain findings can be made (Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities).
This Project to expand an existing mini-storage facility is in accordance with the General Plan
land use designation and applicable policies (Policy LU-2.1: Land Use Map and Categories; Policy
LU-2.3: Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Use). The Project proposes an increased FAR of 0.98
and satisfies the findings specified in Policy LU-2.11, so it is consistent with the General Plan’s
allowance for increased FAR for mini-storage uses (Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities). The
design of the Project will be compatible with the existing building on the site, and the surrounding
buildings and neighborhood. (Policy CDP-4.7: Larger-Scale Buildings; Policy CDP-4.8: Scale
Transitions). The Project will maintain the existing landscape, supporting the existing qualities of
the streetscape (Policy CDP-2.5: Commercial and Industrial Districts).
Additional analysis is provided in Attachment A, Exhibit 1.
5
San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC)
The Project is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards in the San Rafael Municipal
Code, including aspects of SRMC Chapter 14.25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit and
SRMC Chapter 14.22 – Conditional Use Permits. Compliance of these sections is summarized
below, and included in detail in Attachment A, Exhibit 2.
Zoning District Development Standards
The Project is located in the Industrial (I) zoning district, which is regulated by the development
standards in SRMC Section 14.06.030. Mini-storage uses are a permitted use in the Industrial
zone (SRMC Section 14.06.020). While several of the standards are not relevant as this is an
existing developed property, the Project will not exceed the maximum height requirement for the
district of 36-feet. The existing development is deficient in the required 10% landscaping, but the
discrepancy will not be further increased by the Project. The Project scope is limited to the second
story addition, and no additional landscaping area will be disturbed or added.
Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR)
The Project would increase the FAR on the Project’s site to 0.98, which is greater than the Far of
0.33 that is generally permitted on sites with a General Plan designation of “General Industrial.”
However, pursuant to SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3), which implements General Plan Policy LU-
2.11, a mini-storage facility may be permitted with an FAR of up to 1.0 with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
Light and Glare
The Project includes the addition of lighting fixtures along the perimeter of the building. The
fixtures are proposed to be minimal and oriented downward to avoid excessive glare. Pursuant to
SRMC Section 14.16.227(G), all new lighting will be subject to a 90-day post installation
inspection to allow for adjustment if necessary.
Parking
The project site is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor according to the
most recent map data available. As such, no parking minimum may be imposed pursuant to the
interpretation of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 adopted by the Community and Economic Development
Department.
Environmental and Design Review
The Project is substantially compliant with the design review criteria as required by SRMC Section
14.25.050. The design of the addition is consistent with the existing development and will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood through the use of industrial materials and neutral
colors.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (In-fill Development)
of the CEQA Guidelines. Support for this determination is provided in the CEQA Infill exemption
memo found in Attachment B.
COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the Project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements
contained in Chapter 14.29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all
property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site and all other interested
parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing. Public notice was also posted on the
6
frontage of the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this
hearing.
No correspondence has been received by Staff as of the date of the creation of this Staff report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the Project as presented, subject to conditions of approval (staff
recommendation)
2. Approve the Project with certain modifications, changes, or additional conditions of
approval.
3. Deny the Project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution of denial.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Resolution
Exhibit 1. General Plan Consistency
Exhibit 2. Zoning Consistency
B. CEQA Memorandum
Exhibit 1. Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report, dated September 2025, prepared
by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
C. Application Packet – Received December 6, 2024
Attachment A
1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-06
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND USE PERMIT
(PLAN24-068; ED24-033; UP25-001) TO EXPAND THE EXISTING MINI-STORAGE
FACILITY RESULTING IN AN INCREASED FLOOR-AREA-RATIO (FAR) OF 0.98 AT
990 ANDERSEN DRIVE(APN: 018-143-03) AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (INFILL
DEVELOPMENT) OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2024 Ken Carrell (Architect) submitted a request for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit to construct a second story
above two existing buildings at 990 Andersen Drive to expand an existing mini-storage
facility; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2024 the application was deemed complete for
processing; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the Planning Commission finds that
the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves an infill
development project that meets the following criteria and as further elaborated in the
CEQA Infill Exemption Memorandum for the project prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.,
dated August 2025:
a. The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and
regulations.
b. The Project occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
d. Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2025 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on the Project, accepting all oral and written public testimony
and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, based on the staff report, written
comments and testimony received at the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission
- 2 -
makes the following findings relating to the Environmental and Design Review (ED24-
033) and Conditional Use Permit (UP25-001):
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS (ED24-033)
A. The project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and the purposes of this chapter:
According to the City of San Rafael’s San Rafael General Plan 2040, the Project
has a land use designation of General Industrial, which allows for a range of uses.
As discussed in the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the General Industrial
designation is intended for “activities such as manufacturing, storage and
warehouse facilities, motor vehicle service and repair, contractor uses and yards,
wholesalers, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling
facilities, and trucking yards or terminals. Uses that are incidental or ancillary to
these activities also may occur, including offices related to the primary use and
employee-oriented retail uses.” Self-storage facilities are consistent with this range
of uses and the proposed project would thus be consistent with the allowable uses
for the project site under the General Plan.
The Project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), as the project
is in accord with the General Industrial designation in General Plan 2040 and the
policies to support the mini-storage use and increased floor-area-ratio (FAR)
(Policy LU-2.1: Land Use Map and Categories; Policy LU-2.3: Neighborhood-
Serving Commercial Use; Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities; Policy CDP-4.7:
Larger-Scale Buildings; Policy CDP-4.8: Scale Transitions; Policy CDP-2.5:
Commercial and Industrial Districts). The Project is located in the Industrial zoning
district where mini-storage facilities are permitted by right and an FAR of up to 1.0
may be permitted with a Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
The site is zoned Industrial. SRMC Section 14.06.010 states that the Industrial (I)
district “provides opportunities for a full range of heavy and light industrial uses,
including the building trades and automotive service industry. The Industrial district
protects general industrial uses from disruption and competition for space from
unrelated retail, commercial and office uses that could be more appropriately
located elsewhere in the city. However, ancillary office, small office and certain
retail and service uses are allowed for the convenience of area businesses and
employees.”
Pursuant to SRMC Table 14.06.020, mini-storage is a conditionally permitted use
in this district. Setbacks would not change as part of the project, and the proposed
modified building height of 33-feet, eight (8)-inches would be within the 36-foot limit
- 3 -
in Table SRMC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area (FAR) ratio for mini-storage projects may
be permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the findings in SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3) can be made; the proposed FAR is 0.98.
B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site
is located:
The proposed mini-storage expansion would not alter existing setbacks and the
proposed modified building height of 33-feet, eight (8)-inches would be within the
36-foot limit in Table SRMC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area ratio (FAR) for mini-storage
projects may be permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the findings in
SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) can be made; the proposed FAR is 0.98. As such,
the Project is substantially compliant with the property development standards for
Industrial districts (SRMC Section 14.06.030), with only an existing deficiency in
required landscaping.
The Project is substantially compliant with the design review criteria provided in
SRMC Section 14.25.050 as the materials, colors, and overall design are in
concert with the existing property features and surrounding area.
C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts:
The design and construction of the Project will not significantly impact the existing
developed site. However, it will be required to comply with CalGreen standards
through the building permit process and therefore will be designed to minimize
impacts to the environment.
D. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity:
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department
and the location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access
by the Department of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the
public health, safety or welfare.
SECTION 2. USE PERMIT FINDINGS (UP25-001)
- 4 -
A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of
the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located;
The Project is in accord with General Plan 2040 and the zoning ordinance as mini-
storage uses are permitted and the Project has been reviewed per the criteria for
a design review.
Pursuant to SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) and General Plan Land Use Policy
LU-2.11, mini-storage projects may be allowed in existing commercial buildings if
the mini-storage units are not located along the street frontage, and may be
permitted to have a FAR up to 1.0 by Use Permit if the Planning Commission can
find the following:
A. The facility is needed in the community
B. The design of the project is compatible with surrounding uses;
C. The project is designed so that it cannot be converted to other, more
intensive uses; and
D. The location is appropriate for this type of use
The Project would expand on existing commercial buildings, and the mini-storage
units are not located along the frontage of either Andersen Drive or Jacoby Street;
rather, the mini-storage units are located along private driveways that pass
between these streets. The surrounding uses are a mix of commercial and
industrial and the Project site is already developed with mini-storage uses, so the
Project’s design is compatible with surrounding uses. The design of the addition is
specific to storage use and could not be readily converted to a more intensive use.
Mini-storage is permitted in the Industrial zoning district, which implements the
General Plan’s General Industrial land use designation, and the Project is
compliant with all relevant regulations. Accordingly, the location is appropriate for
this type of use.
The Planning Commission finds that all of the criteria specified in General Plan
Land Use Policy LU-2.11 and SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) are satisfied and
therefore approves the Project with a maximum FAR of 0.98.
B. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general
welfare of the city;
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department
and the location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access
by the Department of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or
- 5 -
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the
public health, safety or welfare.
C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the zoning ordinance.
The Project meets the criteria to increase the proposed FAR per SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3) as specified in Section 2(A) of this Resolution.
SECTION 3. CEQA and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Commission makes the following findings, based on its independent
judgment after considering the Project, and having reviewed and taken into consideration
all written and oral information submitted in this matter, including the CEQA Exemption
Memo prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc:
A. The Project is categorically except from environmental review pursuant to
Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15332 et seq. (Infill Development)
because it satisfies the following conditions.
1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Further, as analyzed in the CEQA Exemption Memo, none of the exceptions to the Class
32 Exemption apply. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.) The Project would not result in
significant cumulative impacts, impacts to scenic highways, or historical resources. The
Project does not involve unusual circumstances or a hazardous waste site. Therefore,
none of the exceptions to the Class 32 exemption apply.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(PLAN24-068)
A. General Terms and Standard Conditions
- 6 -
The following are general terms and standard conditions that apply to each severable
entitlement of the 990 Andersen Drive project, hereby the “Project”: Environmental and
Design Review Permit and Use Permit (PLAN24-068; ED24-033; UP25-001).
1. For purposes of these Conditions of Approvals, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
“Director” shall mean the Director of the Community and Economic Development
Department.
“First building permit” shall mean any permit required for construction related
activities on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or
superstructure, but excluding demolition permits.
“Building permit” shall mean any permit required for construction related activities
on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or superstructure, but
excluding demolition permits.
“Site development permit” shall mean any permit required for earth-disturbing
activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition,
site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities, but
excluding building permits.
“Applicant” shall mean Ken Carrell, ARE Associates and/or any successor in
interest.
“Property Owner(s)” shall mean HP ANDERSEN LLC. and/or any successor in
interest.
“Project” shall mean the 990 Andersen Drive Project as approved by the City of
San Rafael as described in the staff report.
“Project Site” shall mean the approximately 145,551 square foot property
comprised of APN 018-143-03 as represented on Sheet 1 of the approved plan set
(Dated September 27, 2024).
2. Development of the Project. Development of the Project, defined as the project
plans and supporting documents attached to the September 23, 2025, Planning
Commission staff report (hereinafter the “Plans”), shall be substantially in
conformance with the plans prepared by:
Ken Carrell, ARE Associates, consisting of eight (8) plan sheets, dated on
September 27, 2024
- 7 -
3. The Plans are incorporated by reference herein. The Plans may only be modified
by the conditions contained herein, subject to review and approval of the
Community and Economic Development Director or their designee.
4. Term of Approval. This Project (PLAN24-068; ED24-033; UP25-001), shall be
valid for two years from the date of approval of the Planning Commission, and
shall be null and void if a building permit is not exercised or a time extension
granted prior to the expiration date. A permit for the construction of a building or
structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is
issued, and construction has lawfully commenced.
5. Fees, Dedication Requirements, Reservation Requirements and Other Exactions.
The conditions of Project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice
of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications,
reservation, and other exactions. The Applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day
period in which one may protest those fees, the amount of which has been
identified herein, dedications, reservations, and other exactions required in
connection with the instant approvals has begun. If the Applicant fails to file a
protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the Applicant will be
legally barred from later challenging such exaction.
6. Notice of Fees Protest The Applicant may protest any fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as
a condition of approval of this development. Per California Government Code
Section 66020, this 90-day protest period has begun as of the date of the approval
of this application.
7. Right to Audit of the City’s Development Impact Fees. In accordance with
Government Code Section 66006(e), the Applicant is hereby notified of the right to
file with the City Clerk: (a) a request for an audit of the City’s development impact
fees in accordance with Government Code Section 66023; and (b) a written
request for mailed notices of the City’s public meetings to review annual reports of
development impact fees under Government Code Section 660066(b)(1). 4. At the
times (e.g., building permit) provided for in the City’s fee ordinances, the Applicant
shall pay all applicable City Development Impact fees.
8. All Third Party Fees Shall be Paid. Prior to issuance of any/each building permit,
the Applicant shall verify for the City that it has paid all third party-outside agency
fees applicable to such portion of the Project, including but not limited to any school
fees, water capacity fees, and sewer capacity fees. Unless a condition of approval
includes a different time for payment, the Applicant shall pay all applicable City
fees prior to the issuance of each building permit.
- 8 -
9. Conditions of Approval Shall be Printed. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed
on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional
sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the
conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as
those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not
acceptable.
10. Applicant Responsible for Conditions of Approval. The Applicant shall ensure
compliance with all conditions of approval, including submittal to the Project
Planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply
with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation,
and/or modification or other remedies.
11. Applicant to Hold City of San Rafael Harmless. Applicant or permittee shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed
officials, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
brought by a third party against the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed
officials, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the Planning Commission, the City Council, the Director, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the City concerning a development, variance,
permit or land use approval.
12. This Permit authorizes only the proposed Project described in the application. In
no way does approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in
the Project description. When the City approves a new use that replaces an
existing use, any prior approval of the existing use becomes null and void when
permits for the new use are exercised (e.g., building permit or business license
issued). To reestablish the previously existing use, an Applicant must obtain all
permits required by the Zoning Ordinance for the use.
13. All Plans and Information Become Conditions. All information and representations,
whether oral or written, including the building techniques, colors, materials,
elevations, and overall appearance of the project, as presented at the Planning
Commission meeting dated September 23, 2025 and as presented in the Plans as
outlined below shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit,
except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or
revisions to the Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Director.
Modifications deemed not minor by the Director may require review and approval
as an amendment to the approved project entitlements including the
Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN24-068: ED24-033; UP25-001),
as applicable.
- 9 -
14. Regulation Compliance. Approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall
comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other
governmental agencies. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve
an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City
regulations that also apply to the property. Prior to any construction, tenant
improvement or installation of signage, the applicant shall identify and secure all
applicable permits from all federal, state, and City departments.
15. Conditions of Approval Validity. If any term, provision, or portion of these conditions
or the application of these conditions to a particular situation is held by a court to
be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these conditions, or
their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force
and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
16. Construction Hours (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A,
construction hours on private property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction
shall not be permitted on Sundays or City-observed holidays. Construction
activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of
construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, playing of radios
and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or
working on, the site.
17. Construction Noise (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
During construction, the Project shall:
a. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by
internal combustion engines.
b. Prohibit unnecessary idling of combustion engines.
c. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air
compressors as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other
noise-sensitive land uses. Such equipment shall also be acoustically
shielded.
d. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors,
whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good
working order.
e. Erect temporary noise barriers to limit construction noise to no more than
90 dBA max at residences. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed
with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per
square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier at a
minimum height of 12 feet along the southern and eastern project
boundaries. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with
solid material with a density of at least one pound per square foot with no
- 10 -
gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the
construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive
material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
18. The Applicant shall designate a “Project Liaison” responsible for responding to any
local complaints about construction noise and related disturbance. This person
shall determine the cause of any noise or vibration complaint and shall require that
reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number
for the Project Liaison shall be posted at the construction site and shared with the
project planner.
19. Encroachment Permit (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction). Any construction work, including on-street traffic control, is subject
to review and approval through the Department of Public Works Encroachment
Permit process. Truck routes are submitted to review and approval through
Department of Public Work’s Transportation Permit process and shall comply with
City of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 5.52.
20. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for
historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during
construction” shall be implemented. Further, compliance with the City’s
Archeological Resources Protection Ordinance and Resolution No. 10988, which
implements the Ordinance, requires the following:
a. In the event that any archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered
during ground disturbing activities (“find”), all work within 50 feet of the
resources shall be halted. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
(FIGR) shall be immediately notified and a a qualified archaeologist retained
at Developer’s sole cost and expense to consult with the City, FIGR, and
the Developer and any other applicable regulatory agencies to employ best
practices for assessing the significance of the find, developing and
implementing a mitigation plan if avoidance is not feasible. Evidence of
prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits
may include ceramic shards, trash scatters, and lithic scatters). All
significant, non-Tribal cultural materials recovered shall be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared
by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.
b. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified
professional, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is
necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find,
project design, costs, and other considerations.
- 11 -
c. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g.,
data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.
d. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall
prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information
Center.
21. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the
following steps should be taken: (1) There shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains until:
a. The Marin County Coroner must be contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required, and
b. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
i. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours.
ii. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person
or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the
deceased Native American.
iii. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. Where the following conditions
occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury
the Native American human remains and associated grave goods
with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance:
1. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable
to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely
descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24
hours after being notified by the commission.
2. The descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation; or
3. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects
the recommendation of the descendant, and the
mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
22. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological
- 12 -
resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP
1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed,
evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The
paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that
would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the
find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall
prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities
that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan
shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
23. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources (Ongoing
throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that cultural
resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work
within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project
construction contractor shall notify the Director of Community and Economic
Development Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes
who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified
archaeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide
recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource
and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and
implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native
American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid
or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.
24. Construction Management Plan. The Applicant shall submit a Construction
Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Director of Community
and Economic Development Department and Director of Public Works prior to
issuance of building or grading permit. The construction management plan shall
address at a minimum, the following:
a. Acknowledgement that all materials and equipment shall be staged on-site,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Chief Building Official.
b. Contact information (phone number and email) for contractor, Project
Liaison shall be posted on site in an all-weather sign that is visible to the
public right of way.
c. Another all-weather sign shall be posted at all entrances to the construction
site to inform all contractors and subcontractors of the requirements of the
City’s Noise Ordinance in accordance with SRMC 8.13.050.
d. Traffic Control Plan to address on-site and off-site construction traffic. This
plan shall include:
- 13 -
i. Any alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks,
pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle
lanes);
ii. Storage of building materials, equipment, dumpsters, debris
anywhere in the public Right of Way;
iii. Hauling route for trucks used for the construction of project.
The TCP shall be stamped and signed by a registered
engineer prior to submittal. The TCP shall be consistent with
any other requirements of the construction phase. A current
copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the
construction site for review by City Staff.
e. Designate location of construction worker parking on-site or in another off-
street location provided by the applicant. Construction workers may not park
on-street in the downtown area or adjacent residential neighborhoods.
f. A screened security fence approved by the Director of Community and
Economic Development Department shall be placed and maintained around
the perimeter of the project and removed immediately following construction
work.
g. Proposed construction phasing, schedule of work, and approximate timeline
of project.
h. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the
grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions
shall prevail. The Applicant shall be responsible for addressing any
unanticipated construction impacts to the neighborhood and surrounding
residents to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community and
Economic Development Department.
i. Mass grading shall occur between April 15 through October 15, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Department of Public Works.
j. Acknowledgement that the Applicant shall be required to repair any
roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic.
k. Acknowledgement that that the location of construction trailers shall be on-
site, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official.
l. Location of construction staging and material storage related to the
project.
m. Environmental and safety measures:
i. Construction safety fences around the construction area.
ii. Dust control and air pollution control measures.
iii. Erosion and sedimentation control measures.
iv. Tree protection fencing.
v. Construction vehicle parking
25. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to issuance of the first site development permit for
each construction area (e.g., on-site parcel(s) or building site(s), or off-site
- 14 -
improvement construction area), a pre-construction meeting shall be held,
including representatives from the Applicant and the City to review the CMP and
including applicable conditions of approval. The general contractor or Applicant
shall ensure that all subcontractors involved in subsequent phases of construction
aware of the conditions of approval.
5. Landscaping Shall Be Maintained. All landscaping included in this project approval
shall be maintained in good condition in perpetuity and any dead or dying plants,
bushes, or trees shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size compatible with
the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement to the satisfaction of the
Director.
6. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall comply with Marin Municipal Water District's
(MMWD) water conservation rules and regulations. The project must meet the
Marin Municipal Water District's (MMWD) water conservation rules and
regulations. For projects that are required to provide a water-efficient landscape
pursuant to Section 14.16.370 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, the applicant
shall prepare a landscape plan and supportive materials that comply with the Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance No. 414, and future amendments as
adopted. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
written verification of plan approval from MMWD.
7. Mechanical Equipment to be Screened. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air
conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely
enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from
public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on
the building plans and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a
building permit.
8. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and
shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent
excessive glare beyond the subject property.
9. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans. The conditions of this Permit shall be printed
on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional
sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the
conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as
those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not
acceptable.
10. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions. The applicant shall ensure
compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project
planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply
- 15 -
with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation,
and/or modification or other remedies.
26. Plans and Representations Become Conditions. All information and
representations, whether oral or written, including the building techniques,
materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented at the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 28, 2025 shall be the same as required for
the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of
approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review
and approval by Director. Modifications deemed not minor by the Director may
require review and approval as an amendment to the Environmental and Design
Review Permit.
27. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The project is subject to, and shall
comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other
governmental agencies. Prior to any construction, the applicant shall identify and
secure all applicable permits from the Planning and Building Divisions, Public
Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(ED24-033)
B. Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
28. Project Approval. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED24-033)
approves the construction of the above-defined Project at 990 Andersen Drive.
Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans
dated September 27, 2024 and received on December 6, 2024 with regard to
building techniques, materials, elevations, and overall project appearance except
as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the
Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community and Economic
Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed greater than
minor in nature by the Community and Economic Development Director shall
require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
29. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on 10/01/2025 and shall be
valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or 10/01/2027,
and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension
is not applied for prior to the expiration date. A permit for the construction of a
building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if
required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced.
- 16 -
30. Mechanical Equipment. Plans shall demonstrate compliance with regulations set
forth in San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.320, requiring a
minimum setback of five feet from the property line for all mechanical equipment.
31. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and
shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to conceal light
sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties pursuant to
SRMC §14.16.227. The Project shall be subject to a 90-day post installation
lighting inspection to evaluate the need for adjustment and assure compliance with
SRMC Section 14.16.227.
32. Landscape Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition
and any dead or dying plants, bushes, trees, or groundcover plantings shall be
replaced with new healthy stock of a size appropriate and compatible with the
remainder of the growth at the time of replacement.
33. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Approval. Prior to the issuance of occupancy, a
licensed landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Director of Community and
Economic Development certifying that the landscape plan is in compliance with
Water Efficient Landscape requirements and the Water Efficient Landscape
requirements of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.370 and MMWD
Ordinance No. 414 (including amendments), as applicable.
C. Department of Public Works
See Exhibit 3 for additional detail.
34. The property is located within special flood hazard area (SFHA) Zone AE with a
base flood elevation (BFE) of 10 ft NAVD88. In accordance with FEMA
requirements, if the scope of the project constitutes a “substantial improvement”,
then the structures must be elevated or dry floodproofed one foot above the BFE
(FEMA P-758, Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference,
2010c).
“Substantial improvement” is defined in San Rafael Municipal Code (S.R.M.C.)
chapter 18.20.010 as any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed
new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent
(50%) of the market value of the structures before the "start of construction" of the
improvement.
Prior to building permit issuance, a cost estimate for the improvements to the
structure in accordance with section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of FEMA P-758 Substantial
Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference will need to be provided to
determine if the project is considered a substantial improvement.
- 17 -
If the project is considered a substantial improvement, it shall be designed in
accordance with California Building Code Section 1612 and ASCE 24-14: Flood
Resistant Design and Construction.
If dry floodproofing is included in the scope, the permit drawings shall include a
statement (by registered design professional) that the dry floodproofing is designed
in accordance with ASCE 24. Dry floodproofing design must be incorporated into
the drawings prior to building permit issuance.
35. A minor temporary encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public
Works prior to conducting any work within or any time the Public Right-of-Way
(ROW) is restricted. Encroachment permits can be applied for online on the city of
San Rafael website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/encroachment-permits/
36. A construction vehicle impact fee (Street Maintenance Fee) shall be required at
the time of building permit issuance, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation,
with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt.
37. The proposed project is expected to generate 14 net new peak hour AM trips and
14 net new peak hour PM trips as shown in the table below. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee a total of 28 net new
peak-hour trips. The rate per peak-hour trip and the corresponding amount of the
traffic mitigation fee will be determined based on the rate in effect on the date of
building permit issuance. For reference, the current rate is $6,930 per peak-hour
trip. The current rate is valid until January 1, 2026. The rate is adjusted annually
per Resolution No. 14983 adopted by City Council on 10/4/2021.
USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(UP25-001)
D. Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
38. Project Approval. This Use Permit (UP25-001) approves the continued operation
of the existing mini-storage facility with and increased FAR to .98. The facility will
continue to operate with an on-site caretakers unit, office facilities, and controlled
tenant access through automatic gates operated with keypads at the entrances.
39. Hours of Operation. The office facilities will operate Monday through Friday, 9:00
am to 5:30 pm and Saturday and Sunday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. Storage units will
be accessible to tenants everyday from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm.
40. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on 10/01/2025 and shall be
valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or 10/01/2027,
and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension
- 18 -
is not applied for prior to the expiration date. A permit for the construction of a
building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if
required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced. A permit for the use
of a building or a property is exercised when, if required, a valid City business
license has been issued, and the permitted use has commenced on the property.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning
Commission meeting held on the 23rd day of September, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Secretary Chair Mercado
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040
1
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-2-3: Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Uses.
Encourage the retention and improvement of neighborhood-serving
retail stores and services. In the event such spaces become vacant,
consider other activities that reinforce their role as neighborhood
centers. Neighborhood-serving commercial areas should reinforce
the City’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic
congestion by providing walkable, bikeable services and shopping
close to residents.
Consistent
The expanded storage facility will continue to serve residents in
the surrounding neighborhoods. The Project is within one-half mile
of a high-quality transit stop, and so will be accessible by public
transit.
Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities. Allow mini-storage (“self-
storage”) in light industrial/ office and light industrial districts. For
lots facing Highways 101 or 580 or the Bay, the mini-storage use
may not be located along the street or bay frontages. New
ministorage may be permitted with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up
to 1.0 if the following findings can be made: a) The facility is needed
in the community. b) The project is compatible with surrounding
uses. c) The project is designed so that it cannot be converted to
other, more intensive uses – or includes approval conditions which
limit and mitigate off-site impacts in the of future event conversion.
d) The location is appropriate for this type of use. Mini-storage is
not permitted in other districts, except that it may be considered in
existing commercial buildings if not located along the street
frontage.
Consistent
The Project is an addition to existing commercial buildings and the
new mini-storage units would not be located along any street
frontage (i.e., along either Andersen Drive or Jacoby Street).
The Project has been found to be consistent the criteria to permit
an increased FAR of up to 1.0 as the facility is needed by the local
community; the design is compatible with surrounding uses; the
addition could not be readily converted to a more intensive use;
and the use is appropriate for the location and in an Industrial
zoning district.
COMMUNITY DESIGN AND PRESERVATION ELEMENT
Policy CDP-2.5: Commercial and Industrial Districts. Recognize
and preserve the design elements that contribute to the economic
vitality, functionality, and visual quality of San Rafael’s commercial
and industrial districts. Where feasible, improve the appearance of
Consistent
The Project will be compatible with surrounding building in scale, materials, and colors, and will enhance the existing visual quality through design elements incorporated at the primary façade on Andersen Drive.
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040
2
these areas by making them more walkable, attractive, and visually
compatible with the neighborhoods around them.
Policy CDP-4.7: Larger-Scale Buildings. Design larger scale
buildings to reduce their perceived mass. Encourage the
incorporation of architectural elements such as towers, arcades,
courtyards, and awnings to create visual interest, provide protection
from the elements, and enhance orientation.
Consistent
The scale of the building will be minimized by the street-level front entry and space left open beneath the second-story addition.
Policy CDP-4.8: Scale Transitions. Require sensitive scale and
height transitions between larger and smaller structures. In areas
where taller buildings are allowed, they should be designed to
minimize shadows, loss of privacy, and dramatic contrasts with
adjacent low-scale structures. Exceptions may be made where
taller buildings are also permitted on the adjoining site.
Consistent
The Project will only increase the existing height by one story, and will not exceed the permissible height in the zoning district or of existing surrounding buildings.
NH
Policy NH-3.1: Southeast San Rafael/Canal. Strengthen
Southeast San Rafael/Canal as a local and regional employment
center and a community of diverse, resilient neighborhoods.
Consistent
The expansion of the existing storage facility will support the existing diverse uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
1
CHAPTER 14.06 – INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
14.06.020 - Land use regulations (I, LI/O,
CCI/O, LMU)
Consistent
Mini-storage facilities are permitted by right in the Industrial (I) zoning district.
14.06.030 - Property development standards
(I, LI/O, CCI/O, LMU).
Partially Consistent
The Project is consistent with the lot size, overall height and floor-are-ration (FAR) by way of
the required Use Permit described below. The existing development is deficient in the required
10% landscaping but is not exacerbating the deficiency.
CHAPTER 14.22 – USE PERMITS
14.22.080 - Findings
A. That the proposed use is in accord with
the general plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located;
Consistent
The Project is in accord with General Plan 2040 and the zoning ordinance as mini-storage
uses are permitted and the Project has been reviewed per the criteria for conditional use
permits.
B. That the proposed use, together with
the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity,
or to the general welfare of the city;
Consistent
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department and the
location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access by the Department
of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the public health, safety or welfare.
C. That the proposed use complies with
each of the applicable provisions of the
zoning ordinance.
Consistent
The Project meets the criteria to increase the proposed FAR per SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3) as: the facility is utilized by the local community; the design is compatible with
surrounding uses; the addition could not be readily converted to a more intensive use; and the
use is appropriate for the location and in an Industrial zoning district.
CHAPTER 14.25 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS
14.25.090 - Findings
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
2
A. The project design is in accord with the
general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this
chapter;
Consistent
The Project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance
and the purposes of San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), as the project is in accord with the
General Industrial designation in General Plan 2040 and the policies to support the mini-
storage use and increased floor-area-ratio (FAR) (Policy LU-2.1: Land Use Map and
Categories; Policy LU-2.3: Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Use; Policy LU-2.11: Mini-
Storage Facilities; Policy CDP-4.7: Larger-Scale Buildings; Policy CDP-4.8: Scale Transitions;
Policy CDP-2.5: Commercial and Industrial Districts). The Project is located in the Industrial
zoning district where mini-storage facilities are permitted by right and an FAR of up to 1.0 may
be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
B. The project design is consistent with all
applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines
for the district in which the site is located;
Consistent
The Project is substantially compliant with the property development standards for Industrial
districts (SRMC Section 14.06.030), with only an existing deficiency in required landscaping.
The Project is consistent with the design review criteria provided in SRMC Section 14.25.050
as the materials, colors, and overall design are in concert with the existing property features
and surrounding area.
C. The project design minimizes adverse
environmental impacts; and
Consistent
The design and construction of the Project will no further impact the existing developed site.
D. The project design will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
Consistent
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department and the
location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access by the Department
of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the public health, safety or welfare.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 1 of 5
Community Development Department – Planning Division
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 23, 2025
To: Project File
From: Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
Subject: CEQA Infill Exemption Memorandum for a proposed expansion to existing mini-
storage facility at 990 Andersen Drive; APN 018-143-03; City Case Numbers PLAN24-
068 (ED24-033; UP25-001)
Summary
The proposed project (Project) includes the addition of a second floor of mini-storage units above and
bridging two existing buildings at 990 Andersen Drive. The addition will result include and an additional
68,777 square feet of new self-storage space to the site and add 525 new self-storage uses, resulting in
a proposed total of 140,196 square feet accommodating 1,418 self-storage units. The Project is subject
to approval of an Environmental and Design Review permit by the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission and is a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A Class 32 Exemption Report, which serves as the technical documentation for the environmental
analysis of the Project, was solicited by the City of San Rafael and prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.,
and therefore represents an independent third-party analysis of the Project. The report evaluated the
Project’s potential impacts to biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality as well as
statutory exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2(a-f) that would make the Project ineligible for the
exemption. The report concluded that the Project is eligible for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption with
implementation of standard conditions of approval that will be verified through the building permit process
(see Attachment 1).
The CEQA Process
CEQA establishes a three-tier environmental review process. The first step is jurisdictional and requires
a public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a “project” as defined in Section 21065 of
the CEQA Guidelines. As provided therein, under CEQA a “project” means an activity that may cause
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment, and which is any of the following:
a. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency.
b. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants,
subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
c. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 2 of 5
If an activity is defined as a “project, the agency must decide whether the project is exempt from CEQA
review under either a statutory or categorical exemption, Articles 18 and 19, respectively. If a project is
categorically exempt, it is not subject to CEQA and is processed without an initial study or further CEQA
review. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 409.)
CEQA provides several “categorical exemptions” that are applicable to categories of projects that the
Legislature has determined do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. Here, the Project
qualifies for the infill exemption pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15332
(“CEQA Guidelines 15332”).
The CEQA Infill Exemption
CEQA Guidelines 15332 states that infill development is exempt from CEQA review if it meets the
following criteria:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.”
As discussed below, the Project meets each of these criteria and is therefore categorically exempt from
CEQA. Furthermore, there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. As stated above, the below
analysis is based on the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report prepared for the project by Rincon
Consultants, Inc and can be found in its entirety in Attachment 1.
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulation.
According to the City of San Rafael’s San Rafael General Plan 2040, the project site has a land use
designation of General Industrial, which allows for a range of uses. As discussed in the San Rafael
General Plan 2040, the General Industrial designation is intended for “activities such as manufacturing,
storage and warehouse facilities, motor vehicle service and repair, contractor uses and yards,
wholesalers, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling facilities, and trucking
yards or terminals. Uses that are incidental or ancillary to these activities also may occur, including
offices related to the primary use and employee-oriented retail uses.” Self-storage facilities are
consistent with this range of uses and the proposed project would thus be consistent with the allowable
uses for the project site under the General Plan.
The site is zoned Industrial. Section 14.06.010 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) states that
the Industrial district “provides opportunities for a full range of heavy and light industrial uses, including
the building trades and automotive service industry. The industrial district protects general industrial
uses from disruption and competition for space from unrelated retail, commercial and office uses that
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 3 of 5
could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city. However, ancillary office, small office and
certain retail and service uses are allowed for the convenience of area businesses and employees.”
Pursuant to SMRC Table 14.06.020, mini-storage is a permitted use in this district. Setbacks would not
change as part of the project, and the proposed modified building height of 33 feet, 8 inches would be
within the 36-foot limit in Table SMRC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area ratio for mini-storage projects may be
permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the findings in SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) can
be made; the proposed floor-to-area ratio is 0.98 and the Planning Commission can make the required
findings.
The project would be consistent with this criterion.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is located on a 3.27-acre parcel within the limits of the city of San Rafael. It is
surrounded on all sides by urban uses comprising primarily industrial and commercial development, as
such the Project would be consistent with this criterion.
c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Listed species are defined as species categorized as endangered, rare, or threatened (or as candidates
for such designations) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). A project site has no value as habitat for listed species if the site
lacks suitable habitat and/or appropriate habitat and micro-habitat constituents for listed species, or if
suitable habitat within the project site is outside of the listed species known range.
Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the Project site and surroundings, as well as the absence
of vegetation or water features on or near the site, the site does not support listed species or their
habitat. There is no critical habitat on or adjacent to the site (USFWS 2025a), and the nearest wetland,
a freshwater emergent wetland, is approximately 0.33-mile northwest of the site (USFWS 2025b). Thus,
the Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
The Class 32 Report for the Project includes a thorough analysis of analysis of the project’s potential
effects with respect to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality, and ultimately concludes that the Project
would meet the requirements of criterion (d). Below is a summary of the report’s conclusions:
Traffic
Impacts related to trip generation, VMT and site circulation and access would be less than significant
Noise
Construction noise would generate noise levels of up to 63 dBA Lmax at the Mission Evangelica Peniel
Church property line to the north and 61 dBA Lmax at the nearest residential property line to the west.
This would be below the construction noise significance threshold of 90 dBA Lmax. In addition,
construction would be limited to hours allowed by the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.13.050(A).
Impacts would be less than significant.
The Project does not include substantial noise sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 4 of 5
Traffic noise levels generated along Andersen Drive would cause an increase of up to 0.1 dBA Ldn. This
would be below the most stringent threshold of 3 dBA Ldn increase from traffic noise. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Operation of the Project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Groundborne vibration
from construction activities could generate levels of up to 0.210 in/sec PPV at the nearby commercial
building to the west, which would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for structural damage to
nearby commercial buildings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
There are no airports within two miles of the Project site and there would be no impact.
Air Quality
The proposed Project would not generate significant air quality impacts or require additional analysis for
CO hotspots or TACs based on BAAD criteria.
Water Quality
Because the Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff and would be required to comply
with City requirements to control and filter runoff, development of the proposed Project would not degrade
the quality of stormwater runoff from the site.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The proposed Project involves infill development on a project site in an urban area that is already
served by existing utilities and public services. The Project would not increase the type or intensity of
use such that existing utility and public service providers would not be able to serve the Project site.
Therefore, the Project would meet the requirements for Utilities and Service Systems under criterion
(e).
No Exceptions to the Exemption Apply
If a project qualifies for use of a categorical exemption, then the lead agency must determine whether
the categorical exemption is unavailable because the project is subject to an exception to the categorical
exemptions. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2.) A project will not qualify as exempt if it is subject to one of
the six exceptions provided below:
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to
be located.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result
in damage to scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 5 of 5
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on
a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
As described in the attached report (Attachment 1), none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
Conclusion
Based on this analysis, the mini-storage expansion at 990 Andersen Drive meets the criteria for a Class
32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines and is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19.
Exhibits:
1. Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report, dated September 2025, prepared by Rincon
Consultants, Inc.
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report
prepared for
City of San Rafael
Community and Economic Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
Contact: Renee Nickenig, Project Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
September 2025
Table of Contents
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Location and Description .................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 2
2.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 7
3 Consistency Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Criterion (a) ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Criterion (b) ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Criterion (c) ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Criterion (d) ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Criterion (e) ....................................................................................................................... 24
4 Exceptions to the Exemption ........................................................................................................ 25
4.1 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Significant Effect due to Unusual Circumstances ............................................................. 25
4.3 Scenic Highways ................................................................................................................ 25
4.4 Hazardous Waste Sites ...................................................................................................... 26
4.5 Historical Resources .......................................................................................................... 26
5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 28
6 References .................................................................................................................................... 29
Tables
Table 1 San Rafael General Noise Limits ...................................................................................... 12
Table 2 Project Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................... 14
Table 3 Construction Vibration Levels ......................................................................................... 15
Table 4 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 18
Table 5 Project Construction Equipment List............................................................................... 19
Table 6 Project Construction Average Daily Emissions ................................................................ 20
Table 7 Project Operational Emissions ........................................................................................ 21
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Project Site Location .......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3a Site Photographs 1 and 2 .................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3b Site Photographs 3 and 4 .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4 Proposed North Elevation and Existing and Proposed Roof Plan ..................................... 8
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
ii
Appendices
Appendix A Roadway Construction Noise Model Results
Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix C Cultural Resources Letter Report
Introduction
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 1
1 Introduction
This report serves as the technical documentation of an environmental analysis performed by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the proposed 990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project in San Rafael,
California. The intent of the analysis is to document whether the project is eligible for a Class 32
Categorical Exemption (CE) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The report provides an
introduction, project description, and evaluation of the project’s consistency with the requirements
for a Class 32 exemption. This includes an analysis of the project’s potential impacts in the areas of
biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, and historic resources. The report
concludes that the project is eligible for a Class 32 CE.
The CEQA Guidelines in Section 15332 states that a CE is allowed when:
a.The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b.The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c.The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d.Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality.
e.The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 outlines exceptions to the applicability of a CE,
including cumulative impacts, significant effects due to unusual circumstances, scenic highways,
hazardous waste sites, and impacts to historical resources. A full listing of these exceptions and an
assessment of their applicability to the proposed project is provided in this report.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. evaluated the project’s consistency with the above requirements, including
its potential impacts in the areas of biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality
as well as the applicability of the exceptions to use of a Class 32 CE, to confirm the project’s
eligibility for a Class 32 CE.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
2
2 Project Location and Description
2.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The project site encompasses one assessor’s parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 018-143-03) totaling
142,551 square feet (3.27 acres) located on the southwest side of Andersen Drive near its
intersection with Jacoby Street. The site has primary frontage on Andersen Drive, its main ingress
point, via four driveways, and also has frontage on Jacoby Street with three driveways mainly used
for egress. The project site is regionally accessible from US Highway 101 and Interstate 580, both of
which are located within 1,000 feet of the site.
The project site is currently developed with four self-storage buildings and surface parking. The
existing buildings total 71,419 square feet in floor area and currently have 893 self-storage units
combined, and can be generally described as follows:
Building A. This refers to the two largest buildings, in the northwestern portion of the site, that
would be modified as part of the proposed project. Both are one story except that the southern
of the two has a partial second story used for office space.
Building B. one story.
Building C. one story.
The project site is generally level, and landscaping is limited to several ornamental trees and low
shrubs along the Andersen Drive frontage. Photographs of the project site are shown in figures 3a
and 3b.
The project site has a City of San Rafael General Plan land use designation of General Industrial and
is zoned Industrial (I).
Figure 1 shows the project site in a regional context and Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project
site at a local scale.
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 3
Figure 1 Regional Project Location
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
4
Figure 2 Project Site Location
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 5
Figure 3a Site Photographs 1 and 2
Photograph 1. View of the two subject buildings and one of the access driveways from Andersen Drive,
looking south toward the project site from Andersen Drive.
Photograph 2. View of the two subject buildings and one of the egress driveways from Jacoby Street,
looking east toward the project site from Jacoby Street.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
6
Figure 3b Site Photographs 3 and 4
Photograph 3. View between the two subject buildings (visible on either side of the frame), looking
northeast from the interior of the site.
Photograph 4. View of a portion of the southern of the subject buildings showing the partial second
story, looking east from the site interior.
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 7
2.2 Project Description
The project would involve construction of a full second story over the two buildings identified in
Section 2.1 above as Building A. The proposed second story would also bridge the space between
the two buildings. The second-story addition would add 68,777 square feet of new self-storage
space to the site and add 525 new self-storage uses, for a proposed total of 140,196 square feet
accommodating 1,418 self-storage units. The maximum height of the building to be added to would
be 33 feet, 8 inches. Existing and proposed roof plans and the proposed elevation at the Andersen
Drive frontage (north elevation) are shown in Figures 3. Other than the added floor and storage
units, the buildings and site would remain generally as under current conditions.
Site Access, Parking, and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would remain generally as it is under current conditions, as described
above in Section 2.1.
Utilities and Stormwater Management
Utilities, stormwater management and drainage would remain generally the same as under current
conditions, as described above in Section 2.1.
Construction
Project construction would occur over approximately 10 months. The project would include several
construction phases including site preparation, grading, trenching for utilities, building construction,
and paving. Excavation and grading activities, estimated to involve up to 1,000 cubic yards of soil at
a maximum depth of 48 inches, would be limited to the driving aisles between existing buildings.
The work would consist of installing isolated post footings approximately at intervals along the
building perimeter. This process entails removing pavement at each footing location, excavating the
required volume of soil to install the footings, backfilling as necessary, and repaving around the
newly installed posts. Pile driving would not be employed during construction. The construction
fleet would be equipped with Level 1 diesel particulate matter filters. Construction staging would
occur onsite and construction worker parking would occur nearby on public streets. Construction
would occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with occasional Saturday
construction from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
8
Figure 4 Proposed North Elevation and Existing and Proposed Roof Plan
Proposed North Elevation
Existing Roof Plan
Proposed Roof Plan
Source: ARE Associates 2025
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 9
3 Consistency Analysis
3.1 Criterion (a)
The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
According to the City of San Rafael’s San Rafael General Plan 2040, the project site has a land use
designation of General Industrial, which allows for a range of uses. As discussed in the San Rafael
General Plan 2040, the General Industrial designation is intended for “activities such as
manufacturing, storage and warehouse facilities, motor vehicle service and repair, contractor uses
and yards, wholesalers, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling facilities, and
trucking yards or terminals. Uses that are incidental or ancillary to these activities also may occur,
including offices related to the primary use and employee-oriented retail uses.” Self-storage
facilities are consistent with this range of uses and the proposed project would thus be consistent
with the allowable uses for the project site under the General Plan.
The site is zoned Industrial. Section 14.06.010 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) states that
the Industrial district “provides opportunities for a full range of heavy and light industrial uses,
including the building trades and automotive service industry. The industrial district protects general
industrial uses from disruption and competition for space from unrelated retail, commercial and
office uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city. However, ancillary office,
small office and certain retail and service uses are allowed for the convenience of area businesses
and employees.” Pursuant to SMRC Table 14.06.020, mini-storage is a conditionally permitted use in
this district. Setbacks would not change as part of the project, and the proposed modified building
height of 33 feet, 8 inches would be within the 36-foot limit in Table SMRC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area
ratio for mini-storage projects may be permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the
findings in SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) can be made; the proposed floor-to-area ratio is 0.98.
The project would be consistent with this criterion.
3.2 Criterion (b)
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is located on a 3.27-acre parcel within the limits of the city of San Rafael. It is
surrounded on all sides by urban uses comprising primarily industrial and commercial development,
as shown on Figure 2. The project would be consistent with this criterion.
3.3 Criterion (c)
The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
Listed species are defined as species categorized as endangered, rare, or threatened (or as
candidates for such designations) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). A project site has no value as habitat for listed species if the site
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
10
lacks suitable habitat and/or appropriate habitat and micro-habitat constituents for listed species,
or if suitable habitat within the project site is outside of the listed species known range.
Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the project site and surroundings, as well as the
absence of vegetation or water features on or near the site, the site does not support listed species
or their habitat. There is no critical habitat on or adjacent to the site (USFWS 2025a), and the
nearest wetland, a freshwater emergent wetland, is approximately 0.33-mile northwest of the site
(USFWS 2025b). Thus, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened
species.
3.4 Criterion (d)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality,
or water quality.
The following discussion provides an analysis of the project’s potential effects with respect to traffic,
noise, air quality, and water quality.
3.4.1 Traffic
Trip Generation
Rincon used standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021 (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021) to estimate the
trip generation for the project’s proposed uses. Rates for Mini-Warehouse (ITE Code 151) are
commonly used for mini-storage or self-storage uses. The average daily trip generation rate for this
use is 17.96 trips per 100 storage units, which results in 94 average daily trips for the proposed
additional 525 storage units.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Pursuant to the City of San Rafael’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (San Rafael 2022), projects
generating 110 or fewer average daily vehicle trips are assumed to have a less than significant VMT
impact. The project’s estimated 94 average daily trips is beneath this threshold and the impact
would be less than significant.
Site Circulation and Access
The project would not involve changes to Andersen Drive or its sidewalks, and access to the site
would remain as they are currently. Driveways are adequately sized and configured for safe ingress
and egress. The modest increase in vehicular traffic to the site would not result in conflicts with
pedestrians, bicyclists or other modes of transportation.
Conclusion
Impacts related to trip generation, VMT and site circulation and access would be less than
significant. The project would meet the requirements for Traffic under criterion (d).
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 11
3.4.2 Noise
Noise Fundamentals
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being
detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Noise levels are
commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-
weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with
the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz and less
sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999). Decibels are measured
on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to
measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of
traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3
dB decrease (Crocker 2007).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is
not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as
one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA,
increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible;
and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud as what is readily
perceptible (Crocker 2007).
Sound changes occur in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the
receptor. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source
increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of
sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise
levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance
(e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway,
pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (California
Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening
structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object
and the frequencies of the noise levels.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the
duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for
more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors
have been developed by academics and industry professionals. One of the most frequently used
noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq
is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that
contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Noise that occurs at night tends to be more
disturbing than that occurring during the day. Community noise is often measured using Day-Night
Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise
occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours (Caltrans 2013).
Noise Standards
San Rafael General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Noise Element are relevant to the proposed project.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
12
Policy N-1.2: Maintaining Acceptable Noise Levels. Minimize noise conflicts resulting from everyday
activities such as construction, sirens, yard equipment, business operations, night-time sporting
events, and domestic activities.
(a) New development shall not increase noise levels by more than 3 dB Ldn in a residential area,
or by more than 5 dB Ldn in a non-residential area.
Policy N-1.11: Vibration. Minimize noise conflicts resulting from everyday activities such as
construction, sirens, yard equipment, business operations, night-time sporting events, and domestic
activities.
Program N-1.11A: Vibration-Related Conditions of Approval. Adopt Standard conditions of
approval in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 (Noise) that apply Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various building
types. These conditions should:
(a) reduce the potential for vibration-related construction impacts for development projects
near sensitive uses such as housing, schools, and historically significant buildings
(b) reduce the potential for operational impacts on existing or potential future sensitive uses
such as uses with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., microscopes in hospitals and research
facilities) or residences.
Vibration impacts shall be considered as part of project level environmental evaluation and
approval for individual future projects. If vibration levels exceed FTA limits, conditions of
approval shall identify construction and operational alternatives that mitigate impacts.
City of San Rafael Municipal Code
To implement the City’s noise policies, the City adopted Chapter 8.13 Noise (Noise Ordinance) in the
San Rafael Municipal Code (MHMC). Section 8.13.040 of the City of San Rafael Code of Ordinances
states that the general noise limits contained in Table 1 shall apply subject to the exceptions and
exemptions set forth in the chapter. Where two or more noise limits may apply, the more restrictive
noise limit shall govern.
Table 1 San Rafael General Noise Limits
Land Use
Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime1 Nighttime1
Intermittent Constant Intermittent Constant
Residential 60 50 50 40
Mixed-Use 65 55 55 45
Multifamily Residential 40 35 35 30
Commercial 65 55 65 55
Industrial 70 60 70 60
1 Daytime = 7am-9pm (Sun-Thu); 7am-10pm (Fri-Sat); Nighttime = 9pm-7am (Sun-Thu); 10pm-7am (Fri-Sat)
Source: City of San Rafael Ordinance, Chapter 8.13
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 13
Section 8.13.050(A), Standard exceptions to general noise limits – Construction, states that on any
construction project on property within the city, construction, alteration, demolition, maintenance
of construction equipment, deliveries of materials or equipment, or repair activities otherwise
allowed under applicable law shall be allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, provided that the noise level at
any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA. All such activities
shall be precluded on Sundays and holidays.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are generally regarded as being more sensitive to noise than others due to the types
of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children and the
elderly. Sensitive land uses generally include residential areas, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities,
senior facilities, libraries, churches, and parks. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Mission
Evangelica Peniel Church approximately 440 feet to the north of the northern project site boundary;
and the nearest residential receptor is a single-family residence approximately 540 feet to the west
of the western project site boundary, across US-101.
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, in a characteristically urban area subject
to noise from nearby Highway 101, local traffic on public streets (Andersen Drive), buses, trains,
light rail (Pacific Avenue), construction, and small power equipment (e.g., lawn mowers, edger, etc.).
The San Rafael General Plan Appendix I provides noise contours, indicating that the nearest
sensitive receptor area west of the Project has expected daytime ambient noise levels of about 70
dBA.
Construction Noise
Construction of the project would generate temporary noise that may be audible at the nearby
Mission Evangelica Peniel Church to the north and residential receptors to the west. Noise
associated with construction is a function of the type of construction equipment, the location and
sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Based on
construction details provided by the applicant, it is estimated that the construction period for all
phases would be approximately 10 months.
While all phases of construction would generate noise, the site preparation and grading phases
would represent the loudest periods of noise-generating activity. The greatest anticipated sources
of construction noise would be generated by large earthmoving equipment such as large bulldozers
and a vibratory roller. Additionally, this is a conservative analysis as it does not account for shielding
from buildings or other barriers. Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006), with results
shown in Table 2.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
14
Table 2 Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Activity Phase
Approximate Noise Level (dBA Lmax))
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
(50 feet)
Residences
to the West
(540 feet)
Mission Evangelica Peniel
Church to the North
(440 feet)
Site Preparation1 82 61 63
Grading 82 61 63
Building Construction 75 54 56
Paving 77 56 58
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software are included in Appendix A.
1 Construction noise levels from the grading phase were conservatively applied to site preparation phase as the construction
equipment list is assumed to be similar to grading operations.
dBA = A-weighted decibels, Lmax = maximum noise level
As shown in Table 2, estimated noise levels generated during the site preparation and grading phase
of construction at the Mission Evangelica Peniel Church property line approximately 440 feet to the
north from the edge of the construction activity would be up to 63 dBA Lmax; and at a distance of 540
feet to the west from the edge of construction activity, noise levels would be up to 61 dBA Lmax at the
nearest residential receptors. Therefore, construction noise would not exceed the City of San
Rafael’s construction standard of 90 dBA Lmax.
Additionally, project construction activity specified by the applicant (scheduled for Mondays
through Fridays between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.)
would occur within the allowable construction day and time limits defined in the City of San Rafael
Code of Ordinances: between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Therefore, noise generated by construction activity would be less
than significant.
Construction Vibration
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore,
construction activities have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting
nearby receptors, especially during grading of the project site. Construction equipment may be used
within approximately 25 feet from the commercial buildings to the west. Table 3 identifies vibration
velocity levels at the nearby sensitive receptors from a vibratory roller and large bulldozer
equipment (representative of equipment 100 horsepower [hp] or greater), as well as smaller
equipment such as a small bulldozer (under 100 hp).
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 15
Table 3 Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment
in/sec PPV
Reference Level
(25 feet)
Commercial Building to the West
(25 feet)
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.003
FTA Threshold for Building Damage – 0.3
Thresholds Exceeded? – No
in/sec PPV = inches per second peak particle velocity
Note: Vibration analysis worksheets are included in Appendix A
Source: FTA 2018
Per Program N-1.11A of the San Rafael General Plan (San Rafael 2021a), the FTA Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) is used to evaluate construction vibration impacts
related to potential building damage. Based on the FTA criteria, construction vibration impacts
would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at nearby commercial structures, which
is the limit for potential building damage at these structures. Based on the information presented in
Table 3, vibration levels could be up to approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV at the commercial building
to the west of the project site when a vibratory roller is used. Therefore, construction vibration
would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for structural damage to nearby commercial
buildings, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
On-Site Operational Noise
The project does not include substantial noise sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Based on calculations from using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation,
11th Edition, 2021, the proposed project would generate approximately 94 average daily trips. The
proposed project would not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially
change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-
site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. The project’s increase in traffic noise was
estimated by adding the project daily trip generation to the existing average daily traffic (ADT)
volume on the surrounding roadways provided in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2040 &
Downtown Precise Plan Draft EIR (City of San Rafael 2021b).
The existing ADT on Andersen Drive, between Bellam Blvd and Sir Francis Drake Drive, is 3,579. The
addition of 94 daily vehicle trips would result in an increase in traffic noise that would be
approximately 0.1 dBA Ldn 1. As stated in the City of San Rafael 2040 General Plan (City of San Rafael
2021a), a significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise
1 Based on the formula 10 x LOG (future traffic volume/existing traffic volume)
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
16
environment of noise-sensitive locations by 3 dBA Ldn or more for residential neighborhoods. All
other roadway segments would have a lower increase in traffic noise. As the project would result in
a traffic noise increase 0.1 dBA, the project’s traffic noise increase would not exceed the most
stringent threshold of 3 dBA Ldn or more, and impacts would be less than significant.
Airport Noise
The San Rafael Airport is located approximately 4.2 miles to the north and is not located within the
65 dBA CNEL noise contour of this airport (San Rafael 2021a). There is no other public or private use
airport within two miles of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact
Conclusion
Construction noise would generate noise levels of up to 63 dBA Lmax at the Mission Evangelica Peniel
Church property line to the north and 61 dBA Lmax at the nearest residential property line to the
west. This would be below the construction noise significance threshold of 90 dBA Lmax. In addition,
construction would be limited to hours allowed by the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.13.050(A).
Impacts would be less than significant.
The project does not include substantial noise sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels generated along Andersen Drive would cause an increase of up to 0.1 dBA Ldn.
This would be below the most stringent threshold of 3 dBA Ldn increase from traffic noise. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of the project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Groundborne
vibration from construction activities could generate levels of up to 0.210 in/sec PPV at the nearby
commercial building to the west, which would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for structural
damage to nearby commercial buildings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
There are no airports within two miles of the project site and there would be no impact.
3.4.3 Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air
pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other
pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust
stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),2 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with
diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead.
Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as
ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between
2 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the
term ROG is used in this analysis.
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 17
ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates
(smog). Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds
suspend fine dust particles. Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile
sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.
Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.
Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial
water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some
consumer products.
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways.
Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and falls under the
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). As the local air quality management agency, BAAD is
required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they
are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are
met or exceeded, the SFBAAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas
designated as non-attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists
for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants are
already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under State law, air
districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the
district is non-attainment. The SFBAAB is currently designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS
and CAAQS, the PM10 CAAQS, and the PM2.5 NAAQS and CAAQS. The SFBAAB is either unclassified or
designated attainment for all other NAAQS and CAAQS (CARB 2023).
BAAD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality
emissions in its California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAD 2023). Table 4
shows the significance thresholds that have been recommended by BAAD for project construction
and operation in the SFBAAB. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual
emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the
project would result in a significant impact if construction or operational emissions exceed
thresholds as shown in Table 4.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
18
Table 4 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter
2.5 microns or less in diameter;
Source: BAAD 2023
In addition, BAAD provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine
whether a proposed project would exceed CO thresholds at the local level. If the following criteria
are met, a project would result in a less than significant impact related to local CO concentrations:
1. Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g.,
tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade
roadway).
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction were estimated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod uses project-specific information,
including the project’s land uses, square footages, and location to model a project’s construction
emissions. The analysis reflects only the construction and operation of the new storage units, as
described under Section 2.2, Project Description.
Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutant emissions from
construction equipment operation onsite and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site.
Construction activity was analyzed based on information provided by the applicant, such as building
characteristics, construction phasing and construction equipment. It is assumed project construction
would begin in January 2026 and is expected to be completed within 10 months. 3 Construction
activities would occur Monday through Friday, with occasional work on Saturdays. Therefore,
emissions are conservatively modeled assuming a six day work week. The list of construction
equipment provided by the applicant is presented in Table 5. During project construction,
approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and represent the total amount of
3 This assumed construction start date is an estimate and is based on average processing and approval times for various future
entitlements associated with the proposed project. Construction activities with a later start date than 2026 would generate lower
emissions, due to CalEEMod emissions factors accounting for the state’s initiative for cleaner equipment fleet (i.e., each subsequent year
assumes lower emission factors for each construction equipment). Therefore, this analysis and the CalEEMod modeling upon which it is
based provide a conservative assumption.
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 19
concrete and asphalt material requiring removal during site preparation. As described in Section 2.2,
Project Description, the removal of pavement and soil, followed by repaving, is proposed to facilitate
the installation of isolated post footings at regular intervals along the building perimeter. For a
conservative emissions analysis, it is assumed that all construction equipment would be diesel-
powered. Based on information provided by the applicant Each piece of construction equipment
would be equipped with Level 1 diesel particulate filters. Additionally, the project would comply
with all applicable regulatory standards, specifically with BAAD’s Basic Best Management Practices
for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions guidelines (BAAD 2023):
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be
treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to
contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Table 5 Project Construction Equipment List
Construction Phase1 Construction Equipment List1
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (4), Excavators (2), Off-Highway Trucks (2).
Grading Grader, Rubber Tired Dozer, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe, Excavators (2), Rollers, Skid Steer
Loaders.
Trenching Trencher, Backhoe, and Off-Highway Truck
Building Construction Forklifts (2), Aerial Lifts (3), and Cement and Mortar Mixers
Paving Pavers and Paving Equipment
1 Construction phases and equipment listed provided by the applicant.
Project operations would include mobile source emissions and area source emissions. Mobile source
emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site. This analysis uses the average
trip generation rates for Mini-Warehouse from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th
edition of the Trip Generation Manual (ITE 2021).4 These rates are warranted for this analysis, as
4 A mini-warehouse is a building in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. They are typically
referred to as “self-storage” facilities.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
20
self-storage facilities would generate lower daily trip volumes compared to a small warehouse
operations due to fewer employees and customer visits. The project is anticipated to generate
approximately 94 additional vehicle trips to existing operations. Area source emissions are
generated by consumer products and architectural coatings. Natural gas would not be utilized
during project operations; therefore, there would be no onsite energy source emissions.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated
with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and
construction vehicles. Additionally, ROG emissions that would be released during the drying of
paving phases. As described in Section 2.2, Project Description, the project site would undergo
excavation activities involving the removal of pavement and soil, followed by repaving, for the
installation of isolated post footings at regular intervals along the building perimeter. Table 6
summarizes the estimated average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10 exhaust, PM2.5 exhaust,
and sulfur oxide during project construction. As shown in Table 6, project construction emissions for
criteria pollutants would be below the BAAD average daily thresholds of significance and the project
would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. Construction impacts would be less than significant.
Table 6 Project Construction Average Daily Emissions
Construction Year
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust) SOX
2026 <1 4 5 <1 <1 <1
BAAD Thresholds (average daily emissions) 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
N/A = not applicable; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SOx = oxides of sulfur.
No BAAD threshold for CO or SOX
See Appendix B for CalEEMod outputs; emission data presented is the average daily outputs. The emissions presented in the mitigation
tables actually reflect unmitigated values, as CalEEMod only allows the Level 1 diesel particulate filter for construction equipment to be
applied through its mitigation measures screen, rather than directly in the input parameters.
BAAD does not establish quantitative thresholds for fugitive dust emissions during construction.
Instead, it recommends implementing best management practices to mitigate these emissions. The
project would be required to comply with BAAD’s Basic Best Management Practices for
Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions, as outlined in BAAD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and
consistent with industry practices. Therefore, construction-related air quality impacts from fugitive
dust would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area
sources (e.g., architectural coatings and consumer products) and mobile sources (vehicle trips to
and from the project site). As shown in Table 7, project operation emissions for criteria pollutants
would be below the BAAD average daily and annual thresholds of significance and the project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 21
region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Operational impacts would be less than significant.
Table 7 Project Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Sources ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile <1 <1 2 <1 1 <1
Area 2 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions 2 <1 4 <1 1 <1
BAAD Thresholds 54 54 N/A N/A 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No No
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Mobile <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
BAAD Thresholds 10 10 N/A N/A 15 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No No
N/A = not applicable; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;; SOx = oxides of sulfur.
No BAAD threshold for CO or SOX
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B. Emission data presented is the average daily and annual outputs. The emissions
presented in the mitigation tables actually reflect unmitigated values, as CalEEMod only allows the Level 1 diesel particulate filter for
construction equipment to be applied through its mitigation measures screen, rather than directly in the input parameters.
Project Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan
The California CAA requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the
jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the 2017
Plan. The 2017 Plan focuses on two paramount goals, both consistent with the mission of BAAD
(BAAD 2017a):
Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all national and state air
quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk
from TACs.
Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Under BAAD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate
that a project:
Supports the primary goals of the air quality plan.
Includes applicable control measures from the air quality plan.
Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures.
A project that would not support the 2017 Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the
2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAD quantitative thresholds is
interpreted as demonstrating support with the 2017 Plan’s goals. Since the project would not
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
22
exceed BAAD thresholds for criteria air pollutants, it would not conflict with the 2017 Plan’s goal of
attaining air quality standards.
The 2017 Plan includes goals and measures aimed at promoting energy efficiency. The project
would be consistent with these goals by incorporating all-electric appliances and complying with the
California Green Building Standards Code, including, but not limited to, the installation of energy-
efficient equipment and lighting. The project is an infill site and would utilize existing utilities onsite;
therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air
quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant impact.
CO Emissions
According to BAAD, a project would have less than significant CO impacts if project-generated traffic
would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour
or would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per
hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage,
bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin has been designated attainment for both federal and State standards for CO since
1998 (BAAD 2017b). According to Appendix I of the City of San Rafael General Plan Environmental
Impact Report, existing peak-hour traffic volumes in 2019 along Andersen Drive between Bellam
Boulevard and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard totaled 716 vehicle trips. Additionally, the underpasses
beneath State Route 101 and U.S. Route 580, between Andersen Drive and Kerner Boulevard,
experienced a peak-hour volume of 2,069 vehicle trips in 2019 (City of San Rafael 2021b). The
proposed project would generate approximately 94 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the project’s trip
generation would not increase the traffic volumes near the project site to exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s hourly traffic volume threshold. Therefore, the project would not
result in a significant CO impact. Impacts related to CO emissions would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the
following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65,
children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB
2005; OEHHA 2015). The sensitive receptors nearest to the project site are residential receptors
located approximately 540 feet west of the project site across State Route 101. The following
subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during
construction and operation.
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site
preparation grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as
a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the
following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2025).
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 10 months. The dose to
which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a
function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 23
exposure that a person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning
that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed
Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure
occurs over a longer period of time. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which
determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year
exposure period (assumed to be the approximate time that a person spends in a household).
OEHHA recommends this risk be bracketed with 9-year and 70-year exposure periods. Health risk
assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.
The maximum PM2.5 emissions, which is used to represent DPM emissions for this analysis, would
occur during site preparation and grading activities. While site preparation and grading emissions
represent the worst-case condition, such activities would occur for 30 days, less than one percent
for a 9-year, 30-year, and 70-year health risk calculation period. PM2.5 emissions would decrease for
the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction,
trenching, and paving would require less construction equipment.
According to the CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, DPM
concentrations would decrease by approximately 70 percent at a distance of 500 feet from DPM
emitting source (CARB 2005). Wind rose data from the nearest air monitoring station at Gnoss Field
Airport indicates that prevailing winds from the northwest and southwest would likely carry TAC
emissions away from the project site, further minimizing potential exposure (BAAD 2025).
Additionally, the sensitive receptors are located approximately 30 meters higher in elevation than
the construction area, which would increase the vertical dispersion distance of DPM, thereby
reducing the potential for concentrated exposure at those receptors (Topographic Maps 2025).
Given the aforementioned, DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create
conditions where the probability that the Maximally Exposed Individual would contract cancer is
greater than 10 in one million. This impact would be less than significant.
Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) identifies
various sources that potentially emit TAC emissions including, freeways, distribution centers, rail
yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. In
addition, CARB provides distance recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses
near potential sources of TAC emissions. The proposed project’s storage units are not considered a
land use listed to potentially emit substantial TAC emissions during project operations. Therefore,
the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational TAC pollutant
concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.
Odors
BAAD’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identifies land uses that have the potential to generate
substantial odor complaints. The uses in the table include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or
transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing,
smelting plants, and chemical plants (BAAD 2023). Odors are typically associated with industrial
projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling
elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills.
The project does not involve odor-emitting uses as identified in BAAD’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines. Additionally, the project would be subject to BAAD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances,
which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. Therefore, the project
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
24
would not substantially cause new sources of odors and would not significantly expose sensitive
receptors to existing or new odors, and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not generate significant air quality impacts or require additional
analysis for CO hotspots or TACs based on BAAD criteria. Therefore, the project would meet the
requirements for Air Quality under Criterion (d).
3.4.4 Water Quality
The project site is currently developed with existing structures, paving and surface parking, and
there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2025b).
The site is comprised almost entirely of impervious surfaces under existing conditions, and this
condition would not substantially change with the proposed project. The City of San Rafael’s Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention ordinance (Code of Ordinances Chapter 9.30) includes provisions to
comply with federal requirements for the control of urban pollutants in storm water runoff during
construction and operation. The ordinances requires construction projects to implement best
management practices (BMPs) during construction to prevent discharge of construction
contaminants including erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention practices, and to
implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan if subject to a grading or building permit. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Because the project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff and would be required to
comply with City requirements to control and filter runoff, development of the proposed project
would not degrade the quality of stormwater runoff from the site. Impacts would be less than
significant, and the project would meet the requirements for water quality under criterion (d).
3.5 Criterion (e)
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project site is in an urban area served by existing public utilities and services; the site itself,
which is currently developed with an operational storage facility, is currently served by such public
utilities and services. The existing use would be expanded but would not change, and self-storage
facilities do not typically require high demand from public services or utilities. There are adequate
public utilities and services to serve the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed project involves infill development on a project site in an urban area that is already
served by existing utilities and public services. The project would not increase the type or intensity
of use such that existing utility and public service providers would not be able to serve the project
site. Therefore, the project would meet the requirements for Utilities and Service Systems under
criterion (e).
Exceptions to the Exemption
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 25
4 Exceptions to the Exemption
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 outlines exceptions to the applicability of a Categorical Exemption,
including cumulative impacts, significant effects due to unusual circumstances, scenic highways,
hazardous waste sites, and historical resources. These exceptions are discussed below. As shown,
none of the exceptions would apply.
4.1 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that “all exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when
the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is
significant.”
The City of San Rafael’s May 2025 Development Pipeline Overview identified no similar or
substantial projects proposed within 0.25-mile of the project site. Thus, there are no “successive
projects of the same type in the same place” proposed and this exception would not apply.
4.2 Significant Effect due to Unusual Circumstances
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that “a categorical exemption shall not be used for an
activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances.”
As discussed under Section 2.1, Project Location and Existing Conditions, the project site is a level,
paved and developed site in an urbanized area surrounded by other development. Neither the site,
its surroundings, or the proposed project itself (expansion of an existing use on a level site in an
urban area) are unusual in terms of existing conditions, land uses or proposed features. The
potential presence of cultural resources is not uncommon or unusual in urban neighborhoods in the
Bay Area, and as discussed further below, impacts related to cultural resources would be less than
significant with implementation of existing City regulations. The project site does not possess
characteristics which would qualify as unusual circumstances under CEQA Guidelines Section
15300.2. There are no known unusual circumstances at the project site or related to project
operations that would result in a reasonable possibility of significant effects on the environment.
Therefore, this exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.
4.3 Scenic Highways
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that a CE “shall not be used for a project which may result in
damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings,
or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.”
There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the project site. The closest scenic
highway is State Route 1 through the Tamalpais Valley over four miles south of Downtown San
Rafael. Due to distance and intervening topography, the project site is not visible from State
Route 1. The project would not damage scenic resources within a highway officially designated or
eligible for designation as a state scenic highway. This exception would not apply to the project.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
26
4.4 Hazardous Waste Sites
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a project
located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code.”
The site is not a hazardous waste site and is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Section
65962.5 of the Government Code (DTSC 2024, SWRCB 2024). This exception is not applicable to the
proposed project.
4.5 Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f) states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a
project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”
A Cultural Resources Assessment completed for the project in July 2025 by Rincon Consultants
included background and archival research, a California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) records search, field survey, and one National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of San Rafael Landmark evaluation to identify
whether there are historical resources, as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a), within the project
site. The Cultural Resources Assessment is included in Appendix C.
Based on the results of the study, the existing buildings on site are ineligible for listing in the NRHP,
CRHR, or as City of San Rafael Landmarks due to lack of historical and architectural significance and
are therefore not historical resources as defined by CEQA (Appendix C). Furthermore, as a result of
background research, CHRIS records search, field survey, and aerial and map review, no
archaeological resources were identified within the project site. However, it is possible for intact
archaeological deposits to be encountered subsurface within undisturbed native alluvial soils. The
City has adopted policies and regulations to protect cultural and historical resources. These include
the following:
San Rafael General Plan 2040 Policy CDP-5.13: Protection of Archaeological Resources. Protect
significant archaeological resources by: a) Consulting the City’s archaeological resource data
base prior to issuing demolition or construction permits in known sensitive areas. b) Providing
information and direction to property owners to make them aware of these resources and the
procedures to be followed if they are discovered on-site. c) Identifying, when possible,
archaeological resources and potential impacts on such resources. d) Implementing measures to
preserve and protect archaeological resources, including fines and penalties for violations.
Resolution No. 10980. Resolution of the San Rafael City Council Rescinding Resolution No.
10933 and Approving Revised Procedures and Regulations for Archaeological Resources
Protection in the City of San Rafael. Among a number of relevant provisions in this resolution is
the direction that “If it is determined that there is an archaeological resource present, the
Community Development Department may require that approval of the permit be issued with
conditions” to ensure protection of cultural resources.
San Rafael Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.19 - Archeological Resources Protection. This section
of the City’s code includes this provision, among others: “…Implement measures that would
preserve and protect valuable archeological resources, when there is a potential for
encountering such resources.”
Exceptions to the Exemption
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 27
Accordingly, the City, as a standard regulatory practice, includes conditions of approval (COAs) for
projects on sites with the potential to contain cultural resources, as required by these City policies
and regulations – in particular, its Archaeological Resources Protection ordinance. The COAs reflect
the requirements of Resolution No. 10980, Policy CDP-5.13 and City Code Chapter 2.19 that cultural
resources, including paleontological resources and human remains, if inadvertently discovered,
require work to be halted until appropriate avoidance and/or protection measures can be
undertaken to the extent feasible. The COAs would ensure this, if resources are encountered,
through measures including but not limited to preparation and implementation of a Data Recovery
and Treatment Plan or equivalent prior to ground disturbance that delineates the extent of
archaeological resources, including consultation with native American representatives; oversight of
ground disturbance by a qualified archaeologist; recordation and proper treatment of any
encountered cultural resources; and avoidance and preservation in place of inadvertently
discovered resources wherever possible. With required adherence to these City policies; because no
known cultural resources have been identified at the site; and because ground disturbance would
be limited generally to previous disturbed areas, this exception is not applicable to the proposed
project.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
28
5 Summary
Based on this analysis, the proposed 990 Andersen Street Self Storage Project meets the criteria for
a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines and is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19.
References
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 29
6 References
Bay Area Air District (BAAD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. San
Francisco, CA. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed July 2025).
______. 2017b. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. San Francisco, CA. April 19, 2017.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-
plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed July 2025).
______. 2023. 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. April. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-
climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines (accessed July
2025).
______. 2025. AERMOD-Ready Meteorological Data – Gnoss Field Airport. N.d. [website].
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-
ceqa/ceqa-tools/ceqa-modeling-data (July 2025).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective. April 2005. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-
05/Land%20Use%20Handbook_0.pdf (accessed July 2025).
______. 2023. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations
(accessed July 2025).
______. 2025. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health”. N.d. [website].
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed July
2025).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic
Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. (accessed August 2025).
______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e
8057116f1aacaa (Accessed July 2028)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025. EnviroStor database.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed July 2025).
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker database.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed July 2025).
Crocker, Malcolm J. (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471-
39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s
Guide. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/ (accessed
August 2025).
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
30
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th edition. September 2021.
(accessed July 2, 2025).
Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. Fundamentals
of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.
https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf
(accessed July 2025).
San Rafael, City of. 2021. Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/downtown-precise-plan/ (accessed December 2024)
______. 2025. San Rafael Code of Ordinances. February 27, 2025. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_rafael/codes/code_of_ordinances. (Accessed March
2025)
______. 2021a. San Rafael General Plan 2040. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/gp-2040-document-library/
______. 2021b. San Rafael General Plan Update Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/01/AppendixI_Transp
ortationData.pdf (accessed August 2025).
______. 2022. City of San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/08/SanRafael_TA_Guidelines_
Feb-2022.pdf
Topographic-map. 2025. “San Rafael topographic map” [website]. N.d. https://en-ca.topographic-
map.com/map-121nm2/San-Rafael/?center=37.95446%2C-122.50726&zoom=17 (accessed
July 2025).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025a. Critical Habitat for Threatened and
Endangered Species.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989
3cf75b8dbfb77 [Accessed January 2025]
______. 2025b. Wetlands Mapper. Available at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/[Accessed January
2025]
Appendix A
Roadway Construction Noise Model Results
Appendix A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Results
Construction Noise
Construction Vibration
Noise Level @ 50 ft Single Family Residential - West Multi-Family Residential - South Mission Evangelica Peniel
Distance 540 1560 440
Site Preparation 82 61.332 52.117 63.110
Grading 82 61.332 52.117 63.110
Building Construction 75 54.332 45.117 56.110
Paving 77 56.332 47.117 58.110
Vibration @ 25 ft Single Family Res Multi Family Res
Distance 25 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.210 0.040
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.089 0.017
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.076 0.015
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.003 0.001
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Site Preparation
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Site Preparation Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 80.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 81.7 81.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Grading
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Grading Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 80.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 81.7 81.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Building Construction
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Building Construction Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.7 72.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Paving
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Paving Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Paver No 50 77.2 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Paver 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Appendix B
Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Letter Report
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Letter Report
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
www.rinconcons ultan ts.com
July 31, 2025
Project No: 25-17473
Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
Via email: Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org
Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project,
San Rafael, California 94901
Dear Ms. Nickenig:
This letter report presents the findings of a cultural resources assessment completed in support of the
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project (hereafter, project) at 990-1010 Andersen Drive (APNs 018-
143-03 and 018-143-09) in San Rafael. The City of San Rafael Community Development Department
(Client) retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to support compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This letter report documents the methods and results of a cultural
resources records search, archival and background research, field survey, and an evaluation for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR),
and as a City of San Rafael local historic landmark. The intent of the study is to identify historical
resources, as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a), within the project site.
Project Site and Description
The project site is two assessor parcels totaling approximately 142,551 square feet (3.27 acres) on
the southwest side of Andersen Drive approximately 0.3-mile south of its underpass under US Highway
101 (Attachment 1, Figure 1 and Figure 2). Specifically, the project encompasses portions of Section
3 of Township 01 North, Range 06 West on the San Rafael, California United States Geological Survey
(USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The site also has frontage on Jacoby Street in the rear and
is developed with four existing self-storage structures accommodating 893 self-storage units and
surface parking.
The project would involve constructing a second level of 525 new storage units above the two larger
existing buildings, bridging the two structures at the new second level. The overall site configuration
and access would remain the same as under current conditions and that the project would not involve
grading or excavation below existing paving and structures (Attachment 1, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Methods
This section describes the methodology of background and archival research, cultural resources
records search, field survey, and NRHP, CRHR, and local evaluations conducted to identify historical
resources within the project site.
Background and Archival Research
Rincon completed background and archival research in support of this assessment in June and July
2025. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted. Sources included, but were
not limited to, historical maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following
sources were utilized to develop an understanding of the project site and its context:
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
2
• Marin County Assessor’s Office property data accessed via ParcelQuest
• Historical aerial photographs accessed via NETR Online
• Historical aerial photographs accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Library
FrameFinder (UCSB)
• Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps held by the Library of Congress, accessed through the San
Francisco Public Library’s ProQuest and Fire Insurance Maps Online databases
• Historical United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps accessed online, via USGS
topoView
• City of San Rafael Building Permits accessed via the City’s Public Records Request
• Historical newspaper clippings obtained from Newspapers.com and the California Digital
Newspaper Collection
• Various historical records via Ancestry.com
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
Rincon completed a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search
through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. The NWIC is the official
State repository for cultural resources records and reports for the county in which the project falls. The
purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as
previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.25-mile radius. Rincon
also reviewed the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks list, and Built Environment Resources
Directory (BERD) (Attachment 2).
Field Survey
Rincon Architectural Historian Josh Bevan, AICP, MSHP, conducted a built environment survey of the
project site on April 29, 2025. Site characteristics and survey conditions were documented using field
records and a digital camera. Copies of the survey notes and digital photographs are maintained
digitally by Rincon.
Historical Evaluation
Pursuant to California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Guidelines (OHP 1995: 2), properties over
45 years of age were evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and local listing and recorded on
California Department of Parks (DPR) 523 series forms (Attachment 3).
Findings
This section describes the findings of background and archival research, cultural resources records
search, field survey, and NRHP, CRHR, and local evaluations conducted to identify cultural resources
within the project site.
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
Rincon received records search results from the NWIC on July 25, 2025.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
3
Known Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search and background research identified three studies that include portions of
the project site and fourteen studies within the 0.25-mile search radius (Attachment 2). Known studies
that occurred within or adjacent to the project site are discussed in further detail below.
Study S-006424
Study S-006424 was an archaeological evaluation prepared by Cindy Desgrandchamp and David
Chavez for Nute Engineering in 1984, Archaeological Resources Evaluation for the Central Marin
Sanitation Wastewater Transportation Facilities Improvement Project. The evaluation included
archival research, field survey of the project site, a records search, and preparation of a report for the
installation of relief force mains, upgrading of thirteen existing pump stations, and construction of two
new pump stations throughout the city of San Rafael. Study S-006424 included only approximately 90
feet of 990-1010 Andersen Drive at the northeastern end of the property and found no evidence of
cultural resources within or in the vicinity of the current project site (Desgrandchamp and Chavez
1984).
Study S-022013
In November 1996, Cassandra Chattan with Archaeological Resource Service (ARS) prepared Results
of Archaeological Monitoring at the Marin Recycling Center, Jacoby Street, San Rafael, California
(Study S-022013) in response to archaeological monitoring of the excavation for improvements in the
Marin Recycling Center in San Rafael. Monitoring identified pockets of midden though they appeared
to be previously disturbed. Study S-022013 included Buildings 1 and 2 and the paved driveway in-
between the buildings at 990-1010 Andersen Drive, though the buildings are not part of the Marin
Recycling Center. The study did not identify archaeological resources within the current project site
(Chattan 1996).
Study S-055702
In 2021, Heidi Koenig and Amber Grady of ESA prepared a California Department of Transportation
Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin East Bay Emergency Intertie Project proposed by the
Marin Municipal Water District. The project was located in the city of San Rafael and the city of
Richmond including the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in-between the two cities. The project boundaries
for Study S-055702 include approximately 684 feet of the northern end of the current project site. The
study did not identify any historic or pre-historic resources within or adjacent to the current project site
(Koenig and Grady 2021).
Known Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records search and background research identified no cultural resources within the project
site and four cultural resources within the 0.25-mile search radius (Attachment 2). Resources within
the search radius include two pre-historic sites (P-21-000109 and P-21-000681), a historic-age single-
family residence (P-21-000910), and a historic-age railroad (P-21-002618).
Aerial Imagery and Historical Map Review
Rincon completed a review of aerial imagery and historical maps to ascertain the development history
of the project site.
Topographic maps from 1897, 1900, 1905, 1907, 1910, 1913, 1922, 1928, 1932, and 1940 depict
the project site as undeveloped. A northwest to southeast trending railroad labeled “San Quentin
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
4
Railroad” is depicted south of the project site and a northwest to southeast trending road, what would
become Andersen Drive, is depicted north of the project site (USGS 1897, 1896, 1900, 1905, 1907,
1910, 1913, 1922, 1928, 1932, 1940).
Topographic maps from 1941, 1947, 1948, and 1950 depict the project site as undeveloped. A
railroad, labeled the “Northwestern Railroad”, is depicted running northwest to southeast north of the
project site, and a paved road, later Jacoby Street, is depicted west and south of the project site (USGS
1941, 1947, 1948, 1950). Highway 101 is also depicted west of the project site (USGS 1941, 1947,
1948, 1950).
Aerials from 1946, 1947, and 1948 confirm the presence of the Northwestern Railroad north of the
project site, paved Jacoby Road west and south of the project site, and Highway 101 west of the project
site. Additionally, the aerial shows a single-family property east of the project site and a railroad spur
between Highway 101 and Jacoby Street, and the surrounding area and project site still undeveloped
(UCSB 1947, NETR Online 2025).
Aerials from 1952 and 1958 depict the project site and surrounding area as they appeared in 1946-
1948; however, a drive-in theater was shown northwest of the project site and single-family residential
development southwest of Highway 101 (UCSB 1952).
Aerials from 1965 and 1968 depict the project site as undeveloped, but the property next door is
depicted with a commercial building and construction yard off Jacoby Street. Andersen Drive and
Interstate 580 are depicted north of the project site, and industrial and commercial development is
shown northwest of Interstate 580. Lastly, additional single-family development is depicted southwest
of Highway 101 (UCSB 1965).
Aerials from 1982, 1983, and 1987 depict the project site developed with the four self-storage
buildings and paved driveways. The surrounding properties are developed with industrial and
commercial properties along Andersen Drive and Jacoby Street. The surrounding area developed
further with industrial and commercial properties north of Interstate 580 and single- and multi-family
residential properties southwest and northwest of the project site (NETR Online 2025).
Aerials from 1993 to 2022 depict no further changes within the project site and infill development
within the surrounding area (NETR Online 2025).
Field Survey
The project site is currently developed with buildings and paved driveways; as such, an archaeological
pedestrian survey was not conducted. The following section summarizes the built environment survey
results.
The field work resulted in the identification of four historic-age buildings within the project site: 990-
1010 Andersen Drive (Figure 2 and Table 1). The property was recorded and evaluated on DPR 523
Series Forms which are provided in Attachment 3.
Table 1 Built Environment Resources
Address APN Description
990-1010 Andersen Drive 018-143-03
018-143-09
Commercial property containing four self-storage buildings constructed
in 1976 and 1979.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
5
Historical Evaluation
As a result of background research and field survey for this study, Rincon recommends 990-1010
Andersen Drive ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and for local listing due to a lack of historical
and architectural significance. Refer to Attachment 3 for DPR 523 series forms providing architectural
descriptions, historical context, and full evaluations for each building.
Conclusion
As a result of background research, CHRIS records search, field survey, and aerial and map review,
one cultural resource was identified within the project site: 990-1010 Andersen Drive. The NRHP,
CRHR, and local evaluations determined the property ineligible due to lack of historical and
architectural significance. There are no known historical or unique archaeological resources within the
project site.
Should you have any questions concerning this study, please contact the undersigned at
alosco@rinconconsultants.com.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Ashley Losco, MSHP
Architectural Historian
Margo Nayyar, MA
Cultural Resources Principal
Attachments
Attachment 1 Figures
Attachment 2 Northwest Information Center CHRIS Search Results
Attachment 3 DPR 523 Series Forms
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
6
References
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Chattan, Cassandra
1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring at the Marin Recycling Center, Jacoby Street, San
Rafael, California. November 1996. Archaeological Resource Service (ARS). On file with
the NWIC as Study S-022013.
Desgrandchamp, Cindy and David Chavez
1984 Archaeological Resources Evaluation for the Central Marin Sanitation Wastewater
Transportation Facilities Improvement Project. Prepared by for Nute Engineering. On file
with the NWIC as Study S-006424.
Koenig, Heidi and Amber Grady
2021 California Department of Transportation Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin
East Bay Emergency Intertie Project. Prepared by ESA. Prepared for the Marin Municipal
Water District. On file with the NWIC as Study S-055702.
NETR Online (NETR)
2025 “Historic Aerials and Topographic Maps.” [digital photograph database]. Images of the
Project Site from 1946, 1948, 1958, 1968, 1982, 1983, 1987, and 1993-2022.
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed May 2025).
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1897 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1900 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1905 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1907 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1910 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1913 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
7
1922 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1928 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1932 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1940 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1947 San Francisco, California Quadrangle. 1:250000. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1948 San Francisco, California Quadrangle. 1:250000. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1950 Mt. Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
University of California Santa Barbara
1947 Flight GS_CP, Frame 5-91, Scale 1:23,600, January 1, 1947.
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ (accessed July 2025).
1952 Flight DRH_1952, Frame 2K-51, Scale 1:20,000, January 1, 1952.
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ (accessed July 2025).
1965 Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 39-173, Scale 1:12,000, May 1, 1965.
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ (accessed July 2025).
Attachment 1
Figures
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-1
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-2
Figure 2 Project Location Map
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-3
Figure 3 Preliminary Project Plans
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-4
Figure 4 Preliminary Project Plans
Attachment 2
Northwest Information Center CHRIS Search Results
7/24/2025 NWIC File No.: 25-0004
Ashley Losco
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 N. Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003
Re: 990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced
above, located on the San Rafael USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records
search for the project area and a ¼ mile radius:
Resources within project area: None listed
Resources within ¼ mi. radius: (4) P-21-000109; P-21-000681; P-21-000910; P-21-002618
Reports within project area:
(3) S-6424; S-22013; S-55702
Reports within ¼ mi. radius: (14) See table below
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due
to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource
location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution.
If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the
phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public
disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or
any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information
maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks
and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State
Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource
records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records
search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that
produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native
American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should
contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal
contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record
search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result
in the preparation of a separate invoice.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Dana Richards
Researcher
Reports within ¼ mi. radius:
S- 001165
S- 001896
S- 010760
S- 012673
S- 012801
S- 012945
S- 013217
S- 016949
S- 027679
S- 031737
S- 037429
S- 044351
S- 048525
S- 052015
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-001165 1978 Pipeline and Water Treatment Plant
Facilities, Marin County.
Holman & AssociatesCindy Desgrandchamp
and Matthew Clark
21-000209, 21-000541
S-001896 1980 Archaeological Inspection of 1060 Andersen
Drive - AP 18-181-35 and AP 18-143-07
(letter report).
David Chavez
S-006424 1984 Archaeological Resources Evaluation for the
Central Marin Sanitation Wastewater
Transportation Facilities Improvement
Project - Phase II, Marin County, California
(EPA Project No. C-06-2467-21)
Cindy Desgrandchamp
and David Chavez
Other - EPA Project
No. C-06-2467-21
S-010760 1989 Historic Properties Survey Report for
Construction of High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes on Route 101 from Lucky Drive to San
Pedro Road and Modifications of Routes
101/580 Interchange, in Cities of San Rafael
and Larkspur, Marin County, 4-MRN-101,
P.M. 8.4/12.7 04232-115750
Caltrans, District 4Terry Jones, Robert
Gross, and Denise
O'Connor
21-000109, 21-000114, 21-000675,
21-000681, 21-002505, 21-002506,
21-002507, 21-002508, 21-002509,
21-002510, 21-002511, 21-002512,
21-002513
Caltrans - 04232-
115750;
OHP PRN -
FHWA990311B;
Voided - S-35514
S-010760a 1989 Archaeological Survey Report for the Marin
HOV Gap Closure, City of San Rafael, Marin
County, California 4-MRN-101, P.M.
8.4/12.7 04232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Terry Jones
S-010760b 1988 Historic Architectural Survey Report for
Construction of High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes on Route 101 from Lucky Drive to San
Pedro Road and the Upgrading of the Route
101/580 Interchange 4-MRN-101, P.M.
8.4/12.7 04232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Denise O'Connor
S-010760c 1989 Historical Resources Evaluation Report,
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Tracks Within
Project APE, 4-MRN-101, P.M. 8.4/12.7
04232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Stephen D. Mikesell
S-010760d 1999 Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin
HOV Gap Closure, City of San Rafael, Marin
County, California, 04-MRN-101, PM
8.4/12.7, 04-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
S-010760e 1999 First Addendum Positive Archaeological
Survey Report for the Marin HOV Gap
Closure, City of San Rafael, Marin County,
California 04-MRN-101, PM 8.4/12.7 EA 4232-
115750
California Department of
Transportation; Sonoma
State University
Katherine M. Dowdall and
Nelson B. Thompson
Page 1 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:09 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-010760f 1999 FHWA990311B: Historic Property Survey
Report; 04-MRN-101, PM 8.4/12.7. HOV
Gap Closure, State Route 101, City of San
Rafael, Marin County, California
U.S. Department of
Transportation; California
Office of Historic
Preservation
Jeffrey A. Lindley and
Daniel Abeyta
S-010760g 1999 Addendum Historic Property Survey Report,
for the Marin-101 HOV Gap Closure Project,
in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, 04-
Mrn-101, P.M. 8.2/12.7, EA 4232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Andrew Hope
S-012673 1991 An Archaeological Investigation of CA-MRN-
80, San Rafael, Marin County, California
(letter report)
Cultural Resources Facility,
Sonoma State University
Anmarie Medin 21-000109
S-012801 1991 Cultural Resources Technical Report,
Municipal Water District Water Supply Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
21-000109, 21-000115, 21-000154,
21-000163, 21-000170, 21-000173,
21-000176, 21-000182, 21-000183,
21-000219, 21-000220, 21-000458,
21-000525, 21-000558, 21-002649
S-012801a 1991 An Archaeological Investigation of CA-MRN-
80, San Rafael, Marin County, California
(letter report)
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Anmarie Medin
S-012801b 1991 An Archaeological Investigation of CA-MRN-
151, Novato, Marin County, California (letter
report)
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Anmarie Medin
S-012945 1957 The Examination of Indian Shell mounds
Within San Francisco Bay with Reference to
the Possible 1579 Landfall of Sir Francis
Drake
San Francisco State CollegeAdan E. Treganza 21-000108, 21-000109, 21-000218,
21-000256, 21-000267, 21-000541
Voided - S-13069
S-012945a 1958 The Examination of Indian Shellmounds
Within San Francisco Bay With Reference to
the Possible 1579 Landfall of Sir Francis
Drake: Second Season
San Francisco State CollegeAdan E. Treganza
S-013217 1990 An Archaeological Survey for the AT&T Fiber
Optics Cable, San Francisco to Point Arena,
California
Tom Origer & AssociatesThomas M. Origer 21-000042, 21-000043, 21-000347,
21-000527, 21-000528, 21-002694,
38-001336, 49-002834
Voided - S-13399;
Voided - S-13400;
Voided - S-13401
S-013217a 1990 Archaeological findings regarding a selection
of a route through Novato for the AT&T Fiber
Optics Cable (letter report)
Thomas M. Origer
S-013217b 1991 An archaeological study of revised portions of
the AT&T route near Santa Rosa and
Sausalito (letter report)
Thomas M. Origer
Page 2 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:10 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-013217c 1991 Archaeological study of AT&T revised fiber
cable routes (letter report)
Thomas M. Origer
S-013217d 1992 Archaeological survey of alternative fiber
optics cable routes, Point Arena (letter report)
Tom Origer & AssociatesThomas M. Origer
S-016949 1991 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of a
Proposed Reclaimed Water Pipeline in the
San Quentin Point, Corte Madera, Larkspur,
Kentfield and San Rafael Areas
Archaeological Resource
Service
William Roop 21-000095, 21-000114, 21-000541,
21-000544
Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 91-14
S-022013 1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring at the
Marin Recycling Center, Jacoby Street, San
Rafael, California
Archaeological Resource
Service
Cassandra Chattan 21-000109Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 96-48
S-027679 2003 Results of Archaeological Monitoring
Program for Improvements to Jacoby Street
located at the Marin Sanitary Service
Property, San Rafael, Marin County, CA
(ARS 03-037) (letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Elizabeth Bedolla 21-000109Submitter - ARS 03-
037
S-031737 2004 Archaeological Resources Technical Report
for the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART)
Project, Sonoma and Marin Counties,
California
Garcia and AssociatesCarole Denardo and
Daniel Hart
21-000113, 21-000114, 21-000193,
21-000194, 21-000551, 21-000560,
21-000675, 21-000681, 21-000685,
21-002540, 21-002571, 21-002611,
21-002612, 49-000788, 49-000790,
49-000900, 49-000901, 49-000902,
49-001014, 49-001196, 49-001198,
49-001262, 49-001263, 49-001352,
49-001468, 49-001517, 49-001583,
49-001798, 49-002134, 49-002255,
49-002273, 49-002274, 49-002275,
49-002301, 49-002304, 49-002319,
49-002536, 49-002539, 49-002695,
49-002697, 49-002819, 49-002820,
49-002823, 49-002824, 49-002825,
49-002826, 49-002827, 49-002833,
49-002834, 49-003014, 49-003022,
49-003135, 49-003250, 49-003334,
49-003352, 49-003353, 49-003374,
49-003376, 49-003377, 49-003379,
49-003380, 49-004755
Voided - S-31738
S-031737a 2004 Historic Architectural Resources Technical
Report for the Sonoma Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) Project
Garcia and Associates
Page 3 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:11 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-037429 2010 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Marin
Sanitary Service Parcel, Jacoby Street, San
Rafael, Marin County, California
Archaeological Resource
Service
William Roop 21-000109, 21-000458, 21-000775Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 10-005
S-044351 2014 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Proposed Freeway Performance Initiative
Project, Marin County, California, 04-MRN-
101, PM 0.0/27.6, 04-MRN-580, PM 2.4/4.5,
EA 151600
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Emily Darko 21-000035, 21-000182Caltrans - EA 151600
S-044351a 2013 Extended Phase I Archaeological Testing at
CA-MRN-157 (P-21-000182) and CA-MRN-4
(P-21-000035) for the Proposed Freeway
Performance Initiative Project, Hwy 101 and
580, Marin County, 04-MRN-101, PM
0.0/27.6, 04-MRN-580, PM 2.4/4.5, EA
151600
Caltrans, District 04
California Department of
Transportation
Emily Darko
S-048525 2014 Historic Architectural Survey Report for the
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)
Rail Corridor, San Rafael to Larkspur Project,
Marin County, California
AECOMMadeline Bowen 21-001015, 21-002618, 21-002910OHP PRN -
FTA_2013_0418_001
S-052015 2018 Archaeological Excavation Report, Albion
Monolith LLC Master Plan Project, Marin
County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.Neal Kaptain 21-000681Submitter - LSA
Project No. AMN1801
S-055702 2021 Historic Property Survey Report, Emergency
Intertie Project in Marin and Contra Costa
Counties, California, 04-CC/MRN-580, PM
MRN 0.0/2.64; CC 5.44/6.5, EA 04-4W180,
04-3W680, 04-4W000, E-FIS 0422000121,
0422000015, 0422000099
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig and Amber
Grady
07-000441, 07-001162, 07-004745,
07-005027, 07-005028, 21-002865,
21-002920
Agency Nbr - EA 04-
3W680;
Agency Nbr - EA 04-
4W000;
Agency Nbr - EA 04-
4W180;
Agency Nbr - E-FIS
0422000015;
Agency Nbr - E-FIS
0422000099;
Agency Nbr - E-FIS
0422000121;
Submitter - ESA
Project:
D201900090.09
S-055702a 2021 Draft Historical Resources Evaluation Report,
Marin East Bay Emergency Intertie Project
Proposed By Marin Municipal Water District,
Marin And Contra Costa Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Amber Grady
Page 4 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:12 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-055702b 2021 Archaeological Survey Report, Marin East
Bay Emergency Intertie Project Proposed By
Marin Municipal Water District, Marin And
Contra Costa Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
S-055702c 2021 Draft Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards
For The Treatment Of Historic Properties
Action Plan, Marin East Bay Emergency
Intertie Project Proposed By Marin Municipal
Water District, Marin And Contra Costa
Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Amber Grady
S-055702d 2021 Environmentally Sensitive Area Action Plan,
Marin East Bay Emergency Intertie Project
Proposed By Marin Municipal Water District,
Marin And Contra Costa Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
Page 5 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:12 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-21-000109 CA-MRN-000080 Resource Name - Nelson No. 80 S-002301, S-
010760, S-012673,
S-012801, S-
012945, S-013070,
S-022013, S-
027679, S-033646,
S-037429, S-
038999, S-049780
Site Prehistoric AP09; AP15 1957 (Arnold R. Pilling, [none]);
1989 (Terry Jones, John Hayes,
Caltrans);
1991 (Sally Morgan, Woodward-
Clyde Consultants)
P-21-000681 Resource Name - Possible Chert
Quarry
S-010760, S-
031737, S-035514,
S-052015, S-053942
Site Prehistoric,
Historic
AH02; AH09; AP12 1999 (Nelson Thompson, Sonoma
State University);
2018 (Neal Kaptain, LSA);
2020 (Katherine Jorgensen)
P-21-000910 Resource Name - 524 Jacoby
Street;
OHP Property Number - 000775;
OTIS Resource Number -
403832;
OHP PRN - 4902-0179-0000
Building Historic HP02 1977 (Niki Simons, City of San
Rafael)
Page 1 of 2 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:55:18 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-21-002618 CA-MRN-000699H Resource Name - Northwestern
Pacific Railroad;
Other - California Park Hill
Tunnel;
Other - Footing 13; Footing 14;
Footing 1; Footing 3 & 4;
Other - Auburn Street Trestle;
Other - Footing 5 & 6; Footing 7 &
8; Footing 9; Footing 10, 11, 12;
Other - Trestle over Corte Madera
Creek;
Other - Sonoma Valley Branch;
Other - San Francisco & Northern
Pacific Railroad;
OTIS Resource Number -
513207;
OTIS Resource Number -
513208;
OTIS Resource Number - 513210
S-036941, S-
037827, S-039171,
S-039520, S-
040317, S-040318,
S-040319, S-
043710, S-044440,
S-047399, S-
047935, S-048525,
S-049166, S-
051136, S-053102,
S-054951, S-055740
Structure,
Object, Site,
Element of
district
Historic AH02; AH07; AH15;
HP11
2003 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2003 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2003 (Rand Herbert, JRP Historical
Consulting);
2004 (Rand Herbert/Cindy
Toffelmier, JRP Historical
Consulting);
2004 (Rand Herbert, Cindy
Toffelmier, JRP Historical
Consulting);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, Garcia & Assoc);
2004 (Andrew Hope, Caltrans);
2006 (Melissa Gallagher, ASC,
SSU);
2008 (B.Harris, PAR
Environmental);
2009 (Toni Webb, JRP);
2010 (A. DeGeorgey, NCRM);
2011 (Erica Schultz, GANDA);
2014 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2014 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2014 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2018 ([none], Tom Origer & Assoc.)
Page 2 of 2 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:55:18 PM
Attachment 3
DPR 523 Series Forms
DPR 523A *Required information
Page 1 of 9 *Resource Name or #: 990-1010 Andersen Drive
P1. Other Identifier: House Storage Plus
*P2. Location: ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County Marin and
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Rafael, Calif. Date 1995 T 01N; R 06W; Sec 03 S.B.B.M
c. Address 990-1010 Andersen Drive City San Rafael Zip 94901
d. UTM: Zone 10S, 543388.20 mE/ 4200974.27 mN
Zone 10S, 543450.43 mE/ 4200986.36 mN
e. Other Locational Data: Marin County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 018-143-03 and 018-143-09
*P3a. Description: 990-1010 Andersen Drive is a commercial, self-storage property sited on two parcels (APNs 018-143-03 and 018-143-09)
on the south side of Andersen Drive in San Rafael, California (Photo 1). The 3.3-acre property has four storage buildings constructed in
1976 and 1979, which are set back from the street by strips of grass and ornamental trees. The four buildings are rectangular in plan and
sited northeast-to-southwest with similar basic features: each building sits on a concrete foundation, constructed of concrete tilt-up walls,
and capped with flat and Mansard roofs clad in asphalt shingles and non-original decorative aluminum corrugated sheets along the roof line
(Photo 2). The Mansard roofs are located at the eastern and western ends of each building adjacent to Andersen Drive at the front and Jacoby
Street at the rear likely to give the site more aesthetic character to the public right-of-way. The south and north elevations of each building
feature storage unit openings with non-original steel roll-up doors, and between each building are paved driveways (Photos 3 and 4). See
Continuation Sheet.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 Story Commercial Building
*P4. Resources Present: ☒ Building
P5b. Description of Photo:
Photo 1: 990-1010 Andersen Drive
north and east elevations, facing
southwest; taken July 16, 2025.
P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:☒ Historic
1976 and 1979 (ParcelQuest 2025)
*P7. Owner and Address:
HP Andersen LLC
35 Corte Madera Avenue
Mill Valley, California 94941
*P8. Recorded by:
Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants
66 Franklin Street, Suites 352 and 357
Oakland, California 94607
*P9. Date Recorded:
July 16, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Losco, A. and M. Nayyar. 2025. Cultural Resources Assessment for the 990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project, San
Rafael, California 94901. On file with the Northwest Information Center.
*Attachments: ☒Location Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Page 2 of 9 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
DPR 523B *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
B1. Historic Name: Mini-Stor Self-Storage
B2. Common Name: House Storage Self-Storage
B3. Original Use: Self-storage Warehouse
B4. Present Use: Self-Storage Warehouse
*B5. Architectural Style: Late Modern - Mansard
*B6. Construction History:
• 1976 – Buildings 3 and 4 (northern two buildings) constructed (ParcelQuest 2026)
• 1979 – Construction of Buildings 1 and 2 (southern two buildings) (ParcelQuest 2026)
• 1989, 1993, 1997, and 2009-2010 - Buildings re-roofed: tar and gravel removed, and new tar and gravel added (City of San Rafael 2025)
• Between 2008 and 2011 – Storage unit doors and roofing replaced (Google 2025)
• 2023 - New paving and gates to existing storage facility (City of San Rafael 2025)
• Vinyl replacement windows and skylight in Building 3 at an unidentified time.
*B7. Moved? ☒No
*B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: Ron Glander and Associates b. Builder: Sandbach Construction Company, Inc.
*B10. Significance: Theme: Commercial Development Area: San Rafael
Period of Significance N/A Property Type Commercial Applicable Criteria N/A
San Rafael
The context for the city of San Rafael was excerpted from the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources Inventory Summary Report
prepared by the City of San Rafael and Garavaglia Associates and Opticos Design in May 2021:
The early shape of San Rafael formed around the original Spanish mission in the early 1840s, when immigrants first came to the
area during the gold rush. No gold was found in San Rafael, but a thriving cattle farming business developed for the production and
supply of beef to the San Francisco market and areas of the Gold Country. When California became a state in 1850, local land grants
were divided into farms and city blocks, and former grants’ owners made up the early population of San Rafael. San Rafael was
later incorporated as a city in 1874.
The streetscape of San Rafael’s commercial downtown developed along a typical pattern of regional growth from the late 1860s to
the 1890s, when advances in transportation technologies and expansion in services determined the location for housing and
businesses. In 1870, the San Rafael and San Quentin Railroad was established, offering a regular train service to Point San Quentin.
See Continuation Sheet.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet.
B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: 6/25/2025
Page 3 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Map Name: San Rafael, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1995
DPR 523J * Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 4 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*P3. Description (Continued from Page 1):
The main office is located within Building 1 and is differentiated from the other buildings by a two-story section along Andersen Drive with
a Mansard roof clad in asphalt shingles, skylights, and dormers with aluminum-framed and vinyl vertical sliding sash windows (Photo 5).
The first floor has vinyl vertical sash windows, and the entrance is recessed at the northeast corner under the primary roof supported by a
stucco-clad post.
Photo 2: North and west elevation along Jacoby Street, facing
southeast.
Photo 3: Examples of storage unit openings and roll-up doors,
detail.
Photo 4: Paved driveway between buildings showing storage units
and roll-up doors, facing west.
Photo 5: Main office within building 3 east and south elevations,
facing northwest.
*B10. Significance (Continued from Page 3):
San Rafael Context Continued:
When the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, many unemployed Chinese immigrants came to San Francisco and
the surrounding cities. In San Rafael a community was formed along the east side of C Street with shops, laundries, and
gambling establishments. A Chinese community simultaneously formed a few miles east along San Pablo Bay, where nearly
500 people originally from Canton China lived and worked in a shrimp-fishing village. The North Pacific Coast Railroad (NPC)
followed in 1871, which provided San Rafael with a spur track that connected San Anselmo to the station at B Street. A new
depot was constructed in Tamalpais Avenue between Third and Fourth Streets in 1884, and passenger ferry services were
Page 5 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
provided with the extension of the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad (SF&NP) in 1879. A faster and more reliable
electric train service was ultimately introduced in 1903. The railroad encouraged a modest hospitality industry of summer and
weekend visitors that contributed to the growth of the town, with the opening of several hotels, saloons, and specialty shops.
By 1900, Fourth Street had become a premier shopping area in Marin County.
In the later years of the 19th century San Rafael had begun to be seen by some San Franciscans as a desirable escape from city
life. Prominent San Franciscans began to relocate to San Rafael, and after regular ferry services became available travel between
the two cities an influx of new residents following the San Francisco earthquake and fire in 1906. The increase in population
triggered new development in the residential neighborhoods on the borders of the new downtown. The expansion of these
neighborhoods created a foundation for the mixed residential/commercial areas in what is now the West End as well as the
residential neighborhoods immediately north of downtown. The early twentieth century also saw an increased interest in the
civic life of San Rafael, with the establishment of a Marin County Board of Supervisors, a local National Guard company, and
construction of new civic buildings.
These changes were accelerated by the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and the entry of the United
States into World War II. The Bay Area became a major hub for wartime industry, mainly shipping and arms production,
bringing waves of migration and development to San Rafael. San Rafael’s proximity to Point Richmond, the Mare Island
shipyards and Marinship in Sausalito caused a severe housing shortage and the construction of many new homes, including the
subdivision of existing housing. These events refocused new development to provide locally oriented goods and services to
many working families now residing in San Rafael. The growth of nearby military installations such as Hamilton Army Air
Base would also result in considerable impacts on downtown growth and commerce and set the stage for postwar suburban
growth. Even as the automobile became more ubiquitous, a “village”-like character made up of small shops and residences was
developed on the western end of Fourth Street (now known as the West End Village).
The early 20th century saw a transformation of transportation infrastructure in San Rafael, beginning with passenger ferry
service from Tiburon to Sausalito and the construction of the Northwestern Pacific electric interurban railway system from the
Sausalito ferry terminal. The interurban system was soon providing commuter service from southern Marin, the Ross Valley
and San Rafael to San Francisco. As late as 1903, automobiles were banned from many Marin County roads, prohibited from
night use, and limited to a 15 mile-per-hour speed. In 1909, a winding series of roads leading from Sausalito through the other
towns of Marin County was designated a California state highway, an early step in the transformation of California’s built
environment around the personal automobile. Entering San Rafael from the west, the highway traveled along Fourth Street
before turning north and leaving San Rafael via Lincoln Avenue (then Petaluma Boulevard). In 1915 the San Rafael-Richmond
Ferry was in operation, offering automobile access from the east.
The federal government had authorized the construction of US 101 in 1925, and by 1929 its Marin County route was under
development. By the mid-1930s, US 101 was handling 1.5 million cars annually. Population growth and ever-increasing
reliance on automobile transportation created demand for additional infrastructure, and federal funding made available by the
New Deal allowed construction on the Golden Gate Bridge to begin in 1933. The opening of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937,
and the increasing popularity of the automobile, improved connectivity between Marin County and San Francisco, effectively
ending the rail era. The last commuter train departed from San Rafael in 1941, the same year a viaduct for Highway 101 was
completed over San Rafael Creek. This raised freeway through the heart of the city created a visual and physical barrier between
east and central San Rafael.
While means of transportation were rapidly changing in the early 20th century, the need for rail stations persisted. The Spanish
Colonial/Mission Revival “B Street Station” was constructed to replace an older structure in 1928. This era also saw the
replacement of the 1884 railroad shed structure at Tamalpais Avenue with a Spanish Colonial/Mission Revival station in 1929.
The station was designed by architect Frederick H. Meyer, who is credited with designing many “Mission Revival” stations
throughout Marin County. The station has been significantly altered, but still stands in its original location.
As the country changed following the profound impacts of World War II, so did the City of San Rafael. Supporting industries
for the war ceased function, and workers sought alternate opportunities. This period saw the beginnings of larger auto-focused
developments, like those seen east of the freeway in Montecito Plaza. Following the war, housing needs started to increase,
and the Sun Valley, Terra Linda, Glenwood, Peacock Gap and Marinwood neighborhoods were developed on former ranch
lands from 1953 through the 1970s. Industries around San Rafael Canal also continued well into the 1950’s including petroleum
sales for other local industries.
During the postwar years, especially between 1953 and 1955, the construction of San Rafael’s housing stock rapidly increased.
Page 6 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
The development of the Terra Linda and Marinwood neighborhoods on former ranch lands are just one example of San Rafael’s
expansion at this time. Ferry strikes beginning in the late 1940s led to construction of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in 1956,
and the demise of ferry service between San Rafael and Richmond. Rapid construction of many inexpensive commercial
buildings took place on recently drained lands that had been the marshy floor of the San Rafael Valley, expanding the town’s
footprint into previously open space. Other notable examples of construction during this period can be found in the Eichler
homes in the Terra Linda and Marinwood neighborhoods.
Development of large department stores anchored new regional shopping centers at Northgate in Terra Linda and The Village
in Corte Madera, and eroded Downtown San Rafael’s dominance as the County’s retail destination. In 1962, completion of the
Marin County Civic Center several miles to the north negated the need for a Downtown County building. The 1872 courthouse
was destroyed by an arsonist in 1971. Major changes in Downtown continued into the 1970s, provoking a desire for historic
preservation. In 1975 the City Council approved Chapter 2.18 – Historic Preservation in the San Rafael Municipal Code and
established the Cultural Affairs Commission. In 1978 (updated 1986) the first survey of historic resources in San Rafael was
completed and a number of landmark properties were identified Downtown. At this same time the San Rafael Redevelopment
Agency formed, spearheading a campaign to restore and revitalize the aging buildings of Downtown. Historic preservation
efforts have continued in recent decades and are reflected in the Downtown Vision Plan adopted in 1993 and the General Plan
2020 adopted in 2004. This context has been developed in conjunction with the General Plan 2040, which will continue to
advance efforts to preserve the built heritage of San Rafael.
Property Development History
Commercial storage companies date as far in the past as the late nineteenth century, when the moving firm, Bekins Van and Storage, was
established in Nebraska and had several warehouses to facilitate their moving operations. Self-storage facilities, however, did not become
common in the United States until the 1950s and 1960s, possibly growing in number because the relative affluence of the Post-World War
II period allowed middle-class American families to accumulate significantly more material goods than previous generations (Neighbor
Blog 2019).
Planning for construction of the subject property began in 1975, which was described as the Mini-Stor Park as “new warehouse development
to provide mini-storage” (Daily Independent Journal 1975a). The article continued to explain that the one-story buildings would be concrete
and redwood and constructed on a two-acre parcel next door to Ghilotti Bros. Inc., who were part-owners of the subject property. In the
article, Dino and Mario Ghilotti explained the facility would provide storage spaces of 5ft by 10ft, 10ft by 10ft, or 10ft by 20ft.
Ron Glander and Associates, Inc. designed Buildings 3 and 4 (northern two buildings) addressed 990 Andersen Drive, and in 1976 Sandbach
Construction Company Inc. constructed and completed the two storage buildings for owners Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach. By 1979,
Glander and Associates and Sandbach Construction Company Inc. designed and constructed two additional buildings for the facility,
Buildings 1 and 2 (southern two buildings) addressed 1010 Andersen Drive (City of San Rafael 2025). At said time, the property was owned
by Mini Stor Ventures.
Since 1979, the property has undergone a few alterations. In 1989, 1993, 1997, and between 2009-2010, the buildings were re-roofed: the
tar and gravel were removed and new tar and gravel added. Lastly, in 2023, the new occupant of the property added new paving and gates
to the existing storage facility (City of San Rafael 2025).
Ron Glander and Associates
The architecture firm, Ron Glander and Associates, designed the subject property in 1976 and 1979. Based out of Novato, the firm designed
commercial and single-family residential properties “including land planning details for business parks, subdivisions and shopping centers”
throughout the North Bay Area (Novato Advance 1980). The firm formed in the early 1970s and designed most of their projects in the Late
Modern Mansard architectural style or Second Bay Tradition, utilizing shingles siding, exposed redwood structural framing, and simple,
horizontal form. Three of their identified projects include the Paradise Shopping Center in Corte Madera, a veterinarian hospital in San
Rafael (2060 Fourth Street), and a commercial property which won them a local Novato architecture award (8 Commercial Boulevard)
(Daily Independent Journal 1974, 1975b; Novato Advance 1976).
Sandbach Construction Company Inc.
Also active between the 1970s and 1980s, Sanbach Construction Company Inc. constructed commercial and multi-family housing projects
throughout the North Bay Area. Sandbach was one of the owners of the subject property when it was developed in 1976. No additional
information was identified.
Page 7 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Architectural Style
990-1010 Andersen Drive expresses some characteristics of the Late Modern Mansard architectural style. Popular in the United States
between 1960 and 1985, the style was defined by the use of the mansard roof previously popularized by the Second Empire style from the
late 19th century. Architects applied the style to a variety of building types including single- and multi-family residences, commercial
properties, and small medical offices. Architects also utilized Mansard architecture to update older, out-of-fashion commercial buildings by
“modernizing” the buildings with a mansard roofline (DAHP 2025).
Character-defining features of the Mansard Style:
• Two-story form, sometimes one-story
• Second floor hidden within the steeply pitched mansard roofline
• Roof commonly clad in cedar shingles but also asphalt shingles, or clay tiles
• Dormers of various roof styles
• Recessed entries
• Aluminum sliding windows
• Prominent garages or carports for residential properties (DAHP 2025)
Ownership and Occupancy History
At the time of construction, business partners of Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach owned the subject property and constructed the storage
facility (City of San Rafael 2025). Ghilotti refers to Dino and Mario Ghilotti, who owned Ghilotti Bros. Construction Company which
specialized in stone and cement. The company formed in 1914 by their father, James Ghilotti (Ghilotti Bros. 2025). Dino and Mario
purchased the company from their father in 1950 and expanded the company into not only stone and cement but also general construction,
including the foundation of the subject property in 1976 (City of San Rafael 2025, Ghilotti Bros. 2025).
Sandbach refers to Sandbach Construction Company Inc. who constructed the subject property in 1976. Refer to the information above
about the company. No information was identified on Kersch. Since opening in 1976, two tenants have occupied the subject property, Mini-
Stor Self Storage and House Storage (City of San Rafael 2025, Google 2025).
Between the late 1970s and mid-2010s, Mini Stor Ventures managed Mini Stor Self-Storage Facilities throughout northern California with
locations including Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and Roseville (The Folsom Telegraph 1992, The Sacramento Bee 1995, The Press-
Tribune 1997). Their facilities had similar site plans: three to four long storage buildings running perpendicular from the street with
individual storage units and a main office. Based on research, the company is no longer in business, and the identified locations are occupied
by new self-storage companies. Refer to Table 1 below for a full list of occupants and owners during the historic period.
Table 1. Ownership and Occupancy History of 990-1010 Andersen Drive
Date Name Source
1976-2022 Mini-Stor Self Storage (Occupant) City of San Rafael 2025
Google 2025
1976-1978 Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach (Owners)
City of San Rafael 2025
1979 Mini Stor Ventures (Owner) City of San Rafael 2025
Historical Resources Evaluation
990-1010 Andersen Drive was recorded and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register
of Historical Resources (CRHR), and for local listing as a city of San Rafael historic landmark and is recommended ineligible for listing in
the NRHP, CRHR, and for local listing.
According to National Register Bulletin 15 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, in order for a property to be eligible
under Criterion A the property must be associated with one or more events within a defined historic context (NPS 1997). Based on the San
Rafael history presented in the San Rafael General Plan, 990-1010 Andersen Drive’s construction occurred after the post-World War II
development of San Rafael (City of San Rafael et al. 2021). Constructed in 1976 and 1979, the property does not contribute to the post-
World War II development of San Rafael nor any other identified single events, pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends. 990-
1010 Andersen Drive does not contribute to the development of self-storage facilities in San Rafael. The property is not associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP
under Criterion A, CRHR under Criterion 1, and local listing under Criterion a.
Page 8 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Research identified three historic-era owners of 990-1010 Andersen Drive, Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach. As stated above, Dino and
Mario Ghilotti owned Ghilotti Bros. Construction Company which worked throughout the San Rafael area. Research did not identify Ghilotti
Brothers as significant and their activities are not demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context (NPS 1997).
Sandbach was a local contractor, but little information was identified on the company and no information was identified on Kersch.
Sandbach and Kersch do not appear significant as their specific contributions to history are not identified or documented. Therefore, the
property is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, and the property is recommended ineligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion B, CRHR under Criterion 2, and local listing under Criterion a.
Constructed in 1976 and 1979, 990-1010 Andersen Drive exhibits some of the distinctive characteristics of the Mansard subtype of the Late
Modern style including one to two story form, second floor hidden within steeply pitched mansard roofline clad in asphalt shingles, dormers,
and recessed entries (DAHP 2025). According to National Register Bulletin 15, “To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of
those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction” (NPS 1997). Based on
visual observation, the property does not contain enough characteristics to be considered a true representative of the Mansard style. The
property was designed by Ron Glander and Associates and constructed by Sanbach Construction Company Inc. Based on Ron Glander and
Associates’ body of work, the company is not recognized as a master architect within San Rafael. Their work is not distinguishable from
others’ work by clear characteristic style or quality and a mere association with an architect or builder does not warrant eligibility (NPS
1997). Little information was identified on Sanbach Construction Company Inc. to warrant eligibility. Lastly, the property does not possess
high artistic value. 990-1010 Andersen Drive is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C, CRHR under Criterion
3, and as a local landmark Criterion b.
The property is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history because the property is
not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to subjects such as late-twentieth century concrete self-storage
buildings. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D, CRHR under Criterion 4, and as a
local landmark Criterion d.
*B12. References (Continued from Page 3):
Daily Independent Journal. 1974. “Other People’s Business.” December 17, 1974.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/74514316/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22 (accessed
June 2025).
------. 1975a. “Warehouse to Store Cars, Furniture to be Built Next to Ghilotti Bros.” September 4, 1975.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/70303543/?match=1&terms=%22990%20Andersen%20Drive%22 (accessed June 2025).
------. 1975b. “Miracle Mile Vet Hospital.” April 8, 1975.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/70340445/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22 (accessed
June 2025).
DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2025. “Mansard 1960-1085.” State of Washington.
https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/historic-buildings/architectural-style-
guide/mansard#:~:text=His%20designs%2C%20often%20called%20%22Hollywood,popularity%20in%20the%20late%2019
70s (accessed June 2025).
The Folsom Telegraph. 1992. “Public Notice.” May 13, 1992.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/387035174/?match=1&terms=%22mini%20stor%20self-storage%22 (accessed July
2025).
Ghilotti Bros. 2025. “History.” https://www.gbi1914.com/about/history/ (accessed June 2025).
Google. 2025. Street view of 990-1010- Andersen Drive.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/990+Andersen+Dr,+San+Rafael,+CA+94901/@37.9559359,-
122.5054564,3a,53.6y,260.43h,100.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF9Kysm2ivLqxa9lKGKKbDg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetvie
wpixels-
pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-
10.218953197712608%26panoid%3DF9Kysm2ivLqxa9lKGKKbDg%26yaw%3D260.4306930231198!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!
3m5!1s0x80859a387d610255:0xaa8117d0932c942d!8m2!3d37.955203!4d-
122.5061432!16s%2Fg%2F11c15wm17f?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYzMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Page 9 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
(accessed June 2025).
NPS (National Park Service). 1997. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-
15_web508.pdf.
Neighbor Blog. 2019. “The History of Self Storage: From China to Omaha.” The Neighbor Blog. January 31, 2019.
https://www.neighbor.com/storage-blog/history-of-self-storage/ (accessed July 2025).
Novato Advance. 1976. “To Present Awards for Projects at Aug. 4 Lunch.” July 7, 1976.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1100970647/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22
(accessed June 2025).
------. 1980. “Bel Marin Business.” July 2, 1980.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1100744152/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22
(accessed June 2025).
ParcelQuest. 2025. Property Information for APNs 018-143-03 and 018-143-09. https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home (accessed June
2025).
The Press Tribune. 1997. “Public Notices.” February 2, 1997.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/384635699/?match=1&terms=%22mini%20stor%20self-storage%22 (accessed July
2025).
The Sacramento Bee 1995. “Classified 321-1234.” January 25, 1995.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/626720374/?match=1&terms=%22mini%20stor%20self-storage%22 (accessed July
2025).
San Rafael, City of. 2025. 2025. Permit Search. Building Permits for 990 and 1010 Andersen Drive.
https://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/etrakit3/Search/permit.aspx
San Rafael, City of, Garavaglia Associates, and Opticos Design. 2021. Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources Inventory
Summary Report. May 2021.
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/05/PreservationSummaryReport-May2021.pdf (accessed
June 2025).
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
BUILDING 4
0'15'30'60'
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
P 561.625' S 39° 26' W
P
1
5
2
.
7
2
'
S
5
0
°
3
4
'
0
0
"
W
L=
2
7
.
1
1
7
'
R=
1
0
3
6
'
D=
1
°
2
9
'
5
9
"
P
5
1
.
1
7
'
N
5
4
°
3
2
'
3
5
"
W
P 286.88' S 39° 33' 11" W
P
1
2
8
.
8
7
'
N
5
0
°
2
6
'
4
9
"
W
P 611.83' S 39° 26' 00" W
P
5
9
.
3
0
'
N
4
4
°
1
7
'
W
5'
25'-0"
EASEMENT
EASEMENT
29'-6"±
25'-4"±
38'-0"±
31'-3"±
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
4'
24
'
-
4
"
±
48
'
-
0
"
35
'
-
4
"
±
48
'
-
0
"
34
'
-
2
"
±
51
'
-
2
"
34
'
-
3
"
±
(V
A
R
I
E
S
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
33
'
-
2
"
T
O
3
8
'
-
8
"
)
VISION TRIANGLE-TYP.
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
JA
C
O
B
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOT 1
LOT 2
3'-10"±17'-0"4'-6"
18'-0"
5'-3"±
6'-4"±
NOTE: ALL EXISTING TREES ARE SHAMEL ASH (FRAXINUS UHDEI)
THE BALANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING IS EXISTING PIVET SHRUBS
AND GRASS.
24
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
VICINITY MAP
LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA 92630
EMAIL: KEN@AREASSOCIATES.COM
TELEPHONE: (949) 305-4752
25422 TRABUCO ROAD, SUITE 105-A
KEN CARRELL / ARE ASSOCIATESARCHITECT
BUILDING DATA
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
I (INDUSTRIAL)
TYPE III-B SPRINKLERED
S-1 (STORAGE)
B (OFFICE)
4 MAXIMUM
71,419 SF / 142,551 SF = 0.50 F.A.R.
U (GARAGE)
APPLICANT/OWNER
BUILDINGS
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 1
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
OCCUPANCY GROUP
ZONING
018-143-03
PER PLANNING
2 SPACES
1 SPACE
3 SPACES
PROJECT DATA
SITE SQUARE FOOTAGES
PARKING DATA
PARKING - REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
PARKING - PROVIDED
STANDARD SPACES
HANDICAP SPACES
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
GROSS SITE AREA
BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
LANDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
HARDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
R-1 (APARTMENT)
SUB-TOTAL
PROJECT DIRECTORY
TELEPHONE: (415) 388-9905
EMAIL: EVAN@SILVERCREEKPARTNERS.NET
EVAN LILLEVAND / HOUSE PROPERTIES / SILVERCREEK PARTNERS
MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941
35 CORTE MADERA AVENUE
BUILDING 4
SITE
1"=30'-0"EXISTING SITE PLAN 1
BUILDING 2
MONUMENT SIGN
HARDWARE SUPPLY
L
L
P
R = 276.00'
L = 129.63' D = 26 54' 34"
L
L
L
L
L
PL
P
R
=
1
0
3
6
.
0
0
'
L
=
7
1
.
30
'
D
=
3
56
'
36
"
L
0
L
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
NOTE: SITE IS FLAT AT ALL BUILDING LOCATIONS.
SITE HAS MINIMAL DOWNWARD SLOPE AT FRONT.
EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD
HARDWARE SUPPLY
PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITYPROJECT TYPE
(3.27 ACRES) 142,551 SQUARE FEET (100.0%)
71,419 SQUARE FEET ( 50.1%)
7,552 SQUARE FEET ( 5.3%)
63,580 SQUARE FEET ( 44.6%)
EXISTING PROJECT
26,772 SQUARE FEET
7,382 SQUARE FEET
71,419 SQUARE FEET
25,709 SQUARE FEET
11,556 SQUARE FEET
140,196SF / 142,551 SF = 0.98 F.A.R.FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - PROPOSED
MONUMENT SIGN
LANDSCAPE
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
BUILDING A
0'15'30'60'
BUILDING B
BUILDING C
P 561.625' S 39° 26' W
P
1
5
2
.
7
2
'
S
5
0
°
3
4
'
0
0
"
W
L=
2
7
.
1
1
7
'
R=
1
0
3
6
'
D=
1
°
2
9
'
5
9
"
P
5
1
.
1
7
'
N
5
4
°
3
2
'
3
5
"
W
P 286.88' S 39° 33' 11" W
P
1
2
8
.
8
7
'
N
5
0
°
2
6
'
4
9
"
W
P 611.83' S 39° 26' 00" W
P
5
9
.
3
0
'
N
4
4
°
1
7
'
W
5'
25'-0"
EASEMENT
EASEMENT
29'-6"±
25'-4"±
38'-0"±
31'-3"±
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
4'
24
'
-
4
"
±
13
1
'
-
4
"
34
'
-
2
"
±
51
'
-
2
"
34
'
-
3
"
±
(V
A
R
I
E
S
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
33
'
-
2
"
T
O
3
8
'
-
8
"
)
VISION TRIANGLE-TYP.
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
JA
C
O
B
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
2'-10"±18'-0"4'-6"
18'-0"
5'-3"±
6'-4"±
NOTE: ALL EXISTING TREES ARE SHAMEL ASH (FRAXINUS UHDEI)
THE BALANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING IS EXISTING PIVET SHRUBS
AND GRASS.
24
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
VICINITY MAP
LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA 92630
EMAIL: KEN@AREASSOCIATES.COM
TELEPHONE: (949) 305-4752
25422 TRABUCO ROAD, SUITE 105-A
KEN CARRELL / ARE ASSOCIATESARCHITECT
BUILDING DATA
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
I (INDUSTRIAL)
TYPE III-B SPRINKLERED
S-1 (STORAGE)
B (OFFICE)
4 MAXIMUM
71,419 SF / 142,551 SF = 0.50 F.A.R.
U (GARAGE)
SECOND FLOOR
APPLICANT/OWNER
BUILDINGS
BUILDING C
BUILDING A
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
OCCUPANCY GROUP
ZONING
018-143-03
(3.27 ACRES) 142,551 SQUARE FEET (100.0%)
71,419 SQUARE FEET ( 50.1%)
7,552 SQUARE FEET ( 5.3%)
PER PLANNING
2 SPACES
1 SPACE
3 SPACES
63,580 SQUARE FEET ( 44.6%)
PROJECT DATA
SITE SQUARE FOOTAGES
PARKING DATA
PARKING - REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
PARKING - PROVIDED
STANDARD SPACES
HANDICAP SPACES
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
GROSS SITE AREA
BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
LANDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
HARDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
R-1 (APARTMENT)
0 SQUARE FEET
140,196 SQUARE FEET68,777 SQUARE FEETTOTAL
PROJECT DIRECTORY
TELEPHONE: (415) 388-9905
EMAIL: EVAN@SILVERCREEKPARTNERS.NET
EVAN LILLEVAND / HOUSE PROPERTIES / SILVERCREEK PARTNERS
MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941
35 CORTE MADERA AVENUE
68,777 SQUARE FEET
SITE
1"=30'-0"NEW SITE/ROOF PLAN 2
BUILDING B
0 SQUARE FEET
MONUMENT SIGN
HARDWARE SUPPLY
L
L
P
R = 276.00'
L = 129.63' D = 26 54' 34"
L
L
L
L
L
PL
P
R
=
1
0
3
6
.
0
0
'
L
=
7
1
.
30
'
D
=
3
56
'
36
"
L
0
L(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD
HARDWARE SUPPLY
PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITYPROJECT TYPE
(3.27 ACRES) 142,551 SQUARE FEET (100.0%)
71,419 SQUARE FEET ( 50.1%)
7,552 SQUARE FEET ( 5.3%)
63,580 SQUARE FEET ( 44.6%)
PROPOSED PROJECTEXISTING PROJECT
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
7,382 SQUARE FEET
71,419 SQUARE FEET
52,481 SQUARE FEET
11,556 SQUARE FEET
140,196SF / 142,551 SF = 0.98 F.A.R.FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE
7,382 SQUARE FEET
11,556 SQUARE FEET
121,258 SQUARE FEET
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
0'10'20'40'
1"=20'-0"GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS 3
NOTE: GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS WILL REMAIN AS IS
EXCEPT WHERE ELEVATORS AND STAIRS ARE ADDED.
UPEL
E
V
UPEL
E
V
R/R
GA
R
A
G
E
OFFICE
UPEL
E
V
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
APARTMENT
0'10'20'40'
1"=20'-0"SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4
DNEL
E
V
DNEL
E
V
DNEL
E
V
LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING BELOW-TYP.
DNEL
E
V
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
0'10'20'40'
..5 ROOF PLAN 5
RIDGE
GAVALUME
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
1/2:12
1/2:12
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
0'10'20'40'
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
COLOR: GAVALUME
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: MATTE BLACK
PREFABRICARED METAL CANOPY
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: BRONZE / CLEAR
STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
COLOR: GAVALUME
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
METAL FASCIA
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
1"=20'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6
33
'
-
8
"
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
33
'
-
8
"
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
33
'
-
8
"
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
30
'
-
0
"
±
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
4'
±
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF ROOF
33
'
-
8
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
FINISHED FLOOR
29
'
-
6
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
3'
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATETOP OF ROOF
FINISHED FLOOR
33
'
-
8
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
FINISHED FLOOR
33
'
-
8
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
FINISHED FLOOR
BUILDING C BUILDING B BUILDING A
BUILDING CBUILDING BBUILDING A
BUILDING A
BUILDING CBUILDING A
WALL PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
0'10'20'40'
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 2
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 2
COLOR: ORANGE
METAL OVERHEAD DOOR
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: FACTORY FINISH
ALUMINUM SLIDING WINDOW
1"=20'-0"EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 7
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 1
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4
BUILDING 1BUILDING 2BUILDING 3BUILDING 4
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALY SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALY SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
METAL OVERHEAD DOOR
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
0'10'20'40'
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 4
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 3
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
1"=20'-0"EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 4
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 3
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
Attachment A
1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-06
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND USE PERMIT
(PLAN24-068; ED24-033; UP25-001) TO EXPAND THE EXISTING MINI-STORAGE
FACILITY RESULTING IN AN INCREASED FLOOR-AREA-RATIO (FAR) OF 0.98 AT
990 ANDERSEN DRIVE(APN: 018-143-03) AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (INFILL
DEVELOPMENT) OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2024 Ken Carrell (Architect) submitted a request for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit to construct a second story
above two existing buildings at 990 Andersen Drive to expand an existing mini-storage
facility; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2024 the application was deemed complete for
processing; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the Planning Commission finds that
the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves an infill
development project that meets the following criteria and as further elaborated in the
CEQA Infill Exemption Memorandum for the project prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.,
dated August 2025:
a. The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and
regulations.
b. The Project occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
d. Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2025 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on the Project, accepting all oral and written public testimony
and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, based on the staff report, written
comments and testimony received at the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission
- 2 -
makes the following findings relating to the Environmental and Design Review (ED24-
033) and Conditional Use Permit (UP25-001):
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS (ED24-033)
A. The project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and the purposes of this chapter:
According to the City of San Rafael’s San Rafael General Plan 2040, the Project
has a land use designation of General Industrial, which allows for a range of uses.
As discussed in the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the General Industrial
designation is intended for “activities such as manufacturing, storage and
warehouse facilities, motor vehicle service and repair, contractor uses and yards,
wholesalers, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling
facilities, and trucking yards or terminals. Uses that are incidental or ancillary to
these activities also may occur, including offices related to the primary use and
employee-oriented retail uses.” Self-storage facilities are consistent with this range
of uses and the proposed project would thus be consistent with the allowable uses
for the project site under the General Plan.
The Project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), as the project
is in accord with the General Industrial designation in General Plan 2040 and the
policies to support the mini-storage use and increased floor-area-ratio (FAR)
(Policy LU-2.1: Land Use Map and Categories; Policy LU-2.3: Neighborhood-
Serving Commercial Use; Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities; Policy CDP-4.7:
Larger-Scale Buildings; Policy CDP-4.8: Scale Transitions; Policy CDP-2.5:
Commercial and Industrial Districts). The Project is located in the Industrial zoning
district where mini-storage facilities are permitted by right and an FAR of up to 1.0
may be permitted with a Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
The site is zoned Industrial. SRMC Section 14.06.010 states that the Industrial (I)
district “provides opportunities for a full range of heavy and light industrial uses,
including the building trades and automotive service industry. The Industrial district
protects general industrial uses from disruption and competition for space from
unrelated retail, commercial and office uses that could be more appropriately
located elsewhere in the city. However, ancillary office, small office and certain
retail and service uses are allowed for the convenience of area businesses and
employees.”
Pursuant to SRMC Table 14.06.020, mini-storage is a conditionally permitted use
in this district. Setbacks would not change as part of the project, and the proposed
modified building height of 33-feet, eight (8)-inches would be within the 36-foot limit
- 3 -
in Table SRMC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area (FAR) ratio for mini-storage projects may
be permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the findings in SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3) can be made; the proposed FAR is 0.98.
B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site
is located:
The proposed mini-storage expansion would not alter existing setbacks and the
proposed modified building height of 33-feet, eight (8)-inches would be within the
36-foot limit in Table SRMC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area ratio (FAR) for mini-storage
projects may be permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the findings in
SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) can be made; the proposed FAR is 0.98. As such,
the Project is substantially compliant with the property development standards for
Industrial districts (SRMC Section 14.06.030), with only an existing deficiency in
required landscaping.
The Project is substantially compliant with the design review criteria provided in
SRMC Section 14.25.050 as the materials, colors, and overall design are in
concert with the existing property features and surrounding area.
C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts:
The design and construction of the Project will not significantly impact the existing
developed site. However, it will be required to comply with CalGreen standards
through the building permit process and therefore will be designed to minimize
impacts to the environment.
D. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity:
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department
and the location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access
by the Department of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the
public health, safety or welfare.
SECTION 2. USE PERMIT FINDINGS (UP25-001)
- 4 -
A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of
the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located;
The Project is in accord with General Plan 2040 and the zoning ordinance as mini-
storage uses are permitted and the Project has been reviewed per the criteria for
a design review.
Pursuant to SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) and General Plan Land Use Policy
LU-2.11, mini-storage projects may be allowed in existing commercial buildings if
the mini-storage units are not located along the street frontage, and may be
permitted to have a FAR up to 1.0 by Use Permit if the Planning Commission can
find the following:
A. The facility is needed in the community
B. The design of the project is compatible with surrounding uses;
C. The project is designed so that it cannot be converted to other, more
intensive uses; and
D. The location is appropriate for this type of use
The Project would expand on existing commercial buildings, and the mini-storage
units are not located along the frontage of either Andersen Drive or Jacoby Street;
rather, the mini-storage units are located along private driveways that pass
between these streets. The surrounding uses are a mix of commercial and
industrial and the Project site is already developed with mini-storage uses, so the
Project’s design is compatible with surrounding uses. The design of the addition is
specific to storage use and could not be readily converted to a more intensive use.
Mini-storage is permitted in the Industrial zoning district, which implements the
General Plan’s General Industrial land use designation, and the Project is
compliant with all relevant regulations. Accordingly, the location is appropriate for
this type of use.
The Planning Commission finds that all of the criteria specified in General Plan
Land Use Policy LU-2.11 and SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) are satisfied and
therefore approves the Project with a maximum FAR of 0.98.
B. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general
welfare of the city;
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department
and the location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access
by the Department of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or
- 5 -
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the
public health, safety or welfare.
C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the zoning ordinance.
The Project meets the criteria to increase the proposed FAR per SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3) as specified in Section 2(A) of this Resolution.
SECTION 3. CEQA and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Commission makes the following findings, based on its independent
judgment after considering the Project, and having reviewed and taken into consideration
all written and oral information submitted in this matter, including the CEQA Exemption
Memo prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc:
A. The Project is categorically except from environmental review pursuant to
Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15332 et seq. (Infill Development)
because it satisfies the following conditions.
1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Further, as analyzed in the CEQA Exemption Memo, none of the exceptions to the Class
32 Exemption apply. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.) The Project would not result in
significant cumulative impacts, impacts to scenic highways, or historical resources. The
Project does not involve unusual circumstances or a hazardous waste site. Therefore,
none of the exceptions to the Class 32 exemption apply.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(PLAN24-068)
A. General Terms and Standard Conditions
- 6 -
The following are general terms and standard conditions that apply to each severable
entitlement of the 990 Andersen Drive project, hereby the “Project”: Environmental and
Design Review Permit and Use Permit (PLAN24-068; ED24-033; UP25-001).
1. For purposes of these Conditions of Approvals, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
“Director” shall mean the Director of the Community and Economic Development
Department.
“First building permit” shall mean any permit required for construction related
activities on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or
superstructure, but excluding demolition permits.
“Building permit” shall mean any permit required for construction related activities
on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or superstructure, but
excluding demolition permits.
“Site development permit” shall mean any permit required for earth-disturbing
activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition,
site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities, but
excluding building permits.
“Applicant” shall mean Ken Carrell, ARE Associates and/or any successor in
interest.
“Property Owner(s)” shall mean HP ANDERSEN LLC. and/or any successor in
interest.
“Project” shall mean the 990 Andersen Drive Project as approved by the City of
San Rafael as described in the staff report.
“Project Site” shall mean the approximately 145,551 square foot property
comprised of APN 018-143-03 as represented on Sheet 1 of the approved plan set
(Dated September 27, 2024).
2. Development of the Project. Development of the Project, defined as the project
plans and supporting documents attached to the September 23, 2025, Planning
Commission staff report (hereinafter the “Plans”), shall be substantially in
conformance with the plans prepared by:
Ken Carrell, ARE Associates, consisting of eight (8) plan sheets, dated on
September 27, 2024
- 7 -
3. The Plans are incorporated by reference herein. The Plans may only be modified
by the conditions contained herein, subject to review and approval of the
Community and Economic Development Director or their designee.
4. Term of Approval. This Project (PLAN24-068; ED24-033; UP25-001), shall be
valid for two years from the date of approval of the Planning Commission, and
shall be null and void if a building permit is not exercised or a time extension
granted prior to the expiration date. A permit for the construction of a building or
structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is
issued, and construction has lawfully commenced.
5. Fees, Dedication Requirements, Reservation Requirements and Other Exactions.
The conditions of Project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice
of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications,
reservation, and other exactions. The Applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day
period in which one may protest those fees, the amount of which has been
identified herein, dedications, reservations, and other exactions required in
connection with the instant approvals has begun. If the Applicant fails to file a
protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the Applicant will be
legally barred from later challenging such exaction.
6. Notice of Fees Protest The Applicant may protest any fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as
a condition of approval of this development. Per California Government Code
Section 66020, this 90-day protest period has begun as of the date of the approval
of this application.
7. Right to Audit of the City’s Development Impact Fees. In accordance with
Government Code Section 66006(e), the Applicant is hereby notified of the right to
file with the City Clerk: (a) a request for an audit of the City’s development impact
fees in accordance with Government Code Section 66023; and (b) a written
request for mailed notices of the City’s public meetings to review annual reports of
development impact fees under Government Code Section 660066(b)(1). 4. At the
times (e.g., building permit) provided for in the City’s fee ordinances, the Applicant
shall pay all applicable City Development Impact fees.
8. All Third Party Fees Shall be Paid. Prior to issuance of any/each building permit,
the Applicant shall verify for the City that it has paid all third party-outside agency
fees applicable to such portion of the Project, including but not limited to any school
fees, water capacity fees, and sewer capacity fees. Unless a condition of approval
includes a different time for payment, the Applicant shall pay all applicable City
fees prior to the issuance of each building permit.
- 8 -
9. Conditions of Approval Shall be Printed. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed
on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional
sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the
conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as
those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not
acceptable.
10. Applicant Responsible for Conditions of Approval. The Applicant shall ensure
compliance with all conditions of approval, including submittal to the Project
Planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply
with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation,
and/or modification or other remedies.
11. Applicant to Hold City of San Rafael Harmless. Applicant or permittee shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed
officials, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
brought by a third party against the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed
officials, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the Planning Commission, the City Council, the Director, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the City concerning a development, variance,
permit or land use approval.
12. This Permit authorizes only the proposed Project described in the application. In
no way does approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in
the Project description. When the City approves a new use that replaces an
existing use, any prior approval of the existing use becomes null and void when
permits for the new use are exercised (e.g., building permit or business license
issued). To reestablish the previously existing use, an Applicant must obtain all
permits required by the Zoning Ordinance for the use.
13. All Plans and Information Become Conditions. All information and representations,
whether oral or written, including the building techniques, colors, materials,
elevations, and overall appearance of the project, as presented at the Planning
Commission meeting dated September 23, 2025 and as presented in the Plans as
outlined below shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit,
except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or
revisions to the Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Director.
Modifications deemed not minor by the Director may require review and approval
as an amendment to the approved project entitlements including the
Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN24-068: ED24-033; UP25-001),
as applicable.
- 9 -
14. Regulation Compliance. Approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall
comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other
governmental agencies. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve
an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City
regulations that also apply to the property. Prior to any construction, tenant
improvement or installation of signage, the applicant shall identify and secure all
applicable permits from all federal, state, and City departments.
15. Conditions of Approval Validity. If any term, provision, or portion of these conditions
or the application of these conditions to a particular situation is held by a court to
be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these conditions, or
their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force
and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
16. Construction Hours (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A,
construction hours on private property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction
shall not be permitted on Sundays or City-observed holidays. Construction
activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of
construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, playing of radios
and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or
working on, the site.
17. Construction Noise (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
During construction, the Project shall:
a. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by
internal combustion engines.
b. Prohibit unnecessary idling of combustion engines.
c. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air
compressors as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other
noise-sensitive land uses. Such equipment shall also be acoustically
shielded.
d. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors,
whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good
working order.
e. Erect temporary noise barriers to limit construction noise to no more than
90 dBA max at residences. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed
with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per
square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier at a
minimum height of 12 feet along the southern and eastern project
boundaries. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with
solid material with a density of at least one pound per square foot with no
- 10 -
gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the
construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive
material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
18. The Applicant shall designate a “Project Liaison” responsible for responding to any
local complaints about construction noise and related disturbance. This person
shall determine the cause of any noise or vibration complaint and shall require that
reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number
for the Project Liaison shall be posted at the construction site and shared with the
project planner.
19. Encroachment Permit (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction). Any construction work, including on-street traffic control, is subject
to review and approval through the Department of Public Works Encroachment
Permit process. Truck routes are submitted to review and approval through
Department of Public Work’s Transportation Permit process and shall comply with
City of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 5.52.
20. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for
historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during
construction” shall be implemented. Further, compliance with the City’s
Archeological Resources Protection Ordinance and Resolution No. 10988, which
implements the Ordinance, requires the following:
a. In the event that any archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered
during ground disturbing activities (“find”), all work within 50 feet of the
resources shall be halted. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
(FIGR) shall be immediately notified and a a qualified archaeologist retained
at Developer’s sole cost and expense to consult with the City, FIGR, and
the Developer and any other applicable regulatory agencies to employ best
practices for assessing the significance of the find, developing and
implementing a mitigation plan if avoidance is not feasible. Evidence of
prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits
may include ceramic shards, trash scatters, and lithic scatters). All
significant, non-Tribal cultural materials recovered shall be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared
by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.
b. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified
professional, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is
necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find,
project design, costs, and other considerations.
- 11 -
c. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g.,
data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.
d. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall
prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information
Center.
21. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the
following steps should be taken: (1) There shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains until:
a. The Marin County Coroner must be contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required, and
b. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
i. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours.
ii. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person
or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the
deceased Native American.
iii. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. Where the following conditions
occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury
the Native American human remains and associated grave goods
with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance:
1. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable
to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely
descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24
hours after being notified by the commission.
2. The descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation; or
3. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects
the recommendation of the descendant, and the
mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
22. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological
- 12 -
resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP
1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed,
evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The
paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that
would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the
find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall
prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities
that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan
shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
23. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources (Ongoing
throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that cultural
resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work
within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project
construction contractor shall notify the Director of Community and Economic
Development Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes
who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified
archaeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide
recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource
and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and
implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native
American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid
or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.
24. Construction Management Plan. The Applicant shall submit a Construction
Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Director of Community
and Economic Development Department and Director of Public Works prior to
issuance of building or grading permit. The construction management plan shall
address at a minimum, the following:
a. Acknowledgement that all materials and equipment shall be staged on-site,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Chief Building Official.
b. Contact information (phone number and email) for contractor, Project
Liaison shall be posted on site in an all-weather sign that is visible to the
public right of way.
c. Another all-weather sign shall be posted at all entrances to the construction
site to inform all contractors and subcontractors of the requirements of the
City’s Noise Ordinance in accordance with SRMC 8.13.050.
d. Traffic Control Plan to address on-site and off-site construction traffic. This
plan shall include:
- 13 -
i. Any alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks,
pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle
lanes);
ii. Storage of building materials, equipment, dumpsters, debris
anywhere in the public Right of Way;
iii. Hauling route for trucks used for the construction of project.
The TCP shall be stamped and signed by a registered
engineer prior to submittal. The TCP shall be consistent with
any other requirements of the construction phase. A current
copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the
construction site for review by City Staff.
e. Designate location of construction worker parking on-site or in another off-
street location provided by the applicant. Construction workers may not park
on-street in the downtown area or adjacent residential neighborhoods.
f. A screened security fence approved by the Director of Community and
Economic Development Department shall be placed and maintained around
the perimeter of the project and removed immediately following construction
work.
g. Proposed construction phasing, schedule of work, and approximate timeline
of project.
h. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the
grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions
shall prevail. The Applicant shall be responsible for addressing any
unanticipated construction impacts to the neighborhood and surrounding
residents to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community and
Economic Development Department.
i. Mass grading shall occur between April 15 through October 15, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Department of Public Works.
j. Acknowledgement that the Applicant shall be required to repair any
roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic.
k. Acknowledgement that that the location of construction trailers shall be on-
site, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official.
l. Location of construction staging and material storage related to the
project.
m. Environmental and safety measures:
i. Construction safety fences around the construction area.
ii. Dust control and air pollution control measures.
iii. Erosion and sedimentation control measures.
iv. Tree protection fencing.
v. Construction vehicle parking
25. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to issuance of the first site development permit for
each construction area (e.g., on-site parcel(s) or building site(s), or off-site
- 14 -
improvement construction area), a pre-construction meeting shall be held,
including representatives from the Applicant and the City to review the CMP and
including applicable conditions of approval. The general contractor or Applicant
shall ensure that all subcontractors involved in subsequent phases of construction
aware of the conditions of approval.
5. Landscaping Shall Be Maintained. All landscaping included in this project approval
shall be maintained in good condition in perpetuity and any dead or dying plants,
bushes, or trees shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size compatible with
the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement to the satisfaction of the
Director.
6. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall comply with Marin Municipal Water District's
(MMWD) water conservation rules and regulations. The project must meet the
Marin Municipal Water District's (MMWD) water conservation rules and
regulations. For projects that are required to provide a water-efficient landscape
pursuant to Section 14.16.370 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, the applicant
shall prepare a landscape plan and supportive materials that comply with the Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance No. 414, and future amendments as
adopted. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
written verification of plan approval from MMWD.
7. Mechanical Equipment to be Screened. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air
conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely
enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from
public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on
the building plans and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a
building permit.
8. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and
shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent
excessive glare beyond the subject property.
9. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans. The conditions of this Permit shall be printed
on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional
sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the
conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as
those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not
acceptable.
10. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions. The applicant shall ensure
compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project
planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply
- 15 -
with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation,
and/or modification or other remedies.
26. Plans and Representations Become Conditions. All information and
representations, whether oral or written, including the building techniques,
materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented at the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 28, 2025 shall be the same as required for
the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of
approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review
and approval by Director. Modifications deemed not minor by the Director may
require review and approval as an amendment to the Environmental and Design
Review Permit.
27. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The project is subject to, and shall
comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other
governmental agencies. Prior to any construction, the applicant shall identify and
secure all applicable permits from the Planning and Building Divisions, Public
Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(ED24-033)
B. Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
28. Project Approval. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED24-033)
approves the construction of the above-defined Project at 990 Andersen Drive.
Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans
dated September 27, 2024 and received on December 6, 2024 with regard to
building techniques, materials, elevations, and overall project appearance except
as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the
Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community and Economic
Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed greater than
minor in nature by the Community and Economic Development Director shall
require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
29. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on 10/01/2025 and shall be
valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or 10/01/2027,
and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension
is not applied for prior to the expiration date. A permit for the construction of a
building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if
required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced.
- 16 -
30. Mechanical Equipment. Plans shall demonstrate compliance with regulations set
forth in San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.320, requiring a
minimum setback of five feet from the property line for all mechanical equipment.
31. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and
shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to conceal light
sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties pursuant to
SRMC §14.16.227. The Project shall be subject to a 90-day post installation
lighting inspection to evaluate the need for adjustment and assure compliance with
SRMC Section 14.16.227.
32. Landscape Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition
and any dead or dying plants, bushes, trees, or groundcover plantings shall be
replaced with new healthy stock of a size appropriate and compatible with the
remainder of the growth at the time of replacement.
33. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Approval. Prior to the issuance of occupancy, a
licensed landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Director of Community and
Economic Development certifying that the landscape plan is in compliance with
Water Efficient Landscape requirements and the Water Efficient Landscape
requirements of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.370 and MMWD
Ordinance No. 414 (including amendments), as applicable.
C. Department of Public Works
See Exhibit 3 for additional detail.
34. The property is located within special flood hazard area (SFHA) Zone AE with a
base flood elevation (BFE) of 10 ft NAVD88. In accordance with FEMA
requirements, if the scope of the project constitutes a “substantial improvement”,
then the structures must be elevated or dry floodproofed one foot above the BFE
(FEMA P-758, Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference,
2010c).
“Substantial improvement” is defined in San Rafael Municipal Code (S.R.M.C.)
chapter 18.20.010 as any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed
new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent
(50%) of the market value of the structures before the "start of construction" of the
improvement.
Prior to building permit issuance, a cost estimate for the improvements to the
structure in accordance with section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of FEMA P-758 Substantial
Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference will need to be provided to
determine if the project is considered a substantial improvement.
- 17 -
If the project is considered a substantial improvement, it shall be designed in
accordance with California Building Code Section 1612 and ASCE 24-14: Flood
Resistant Design and Construction.
If dry floodproofing is included in the scope, the permit drawings shall include a
statement (by registered design professional) that the dry floodproofing is designed
in accordance with ASCE 24. Dry floodproofing design must be incorporated into
the drawings prior to building permit issuance.
35. A minor temporary encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public
Works prior to conducting any work within or any time the Public Right-of-Way
(ROW) is restricted. Encroachment permits can be applied for online on the city of
San Rafael website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/encroachment-permits/
36. A construction vehicle impact fee (Street Maintenance Fee) shall be required at
the time of building permit issuance, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation,
with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt.
37. The proposed project is expected to generate 14 net new peak hour AM trips and
14 net new peak hour PM trips as shown in the table below. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee a total of 28 net new
peak-hour trips. The rate per peak-hour trip and the corresponding amount of the
traffic mitigation fee will be determined based on the rate in effect on the date of
building permit issuance. For reference, the current rate is $6,930 per peak-hour
trip. The current rate is valid until January 1, 2026. The rate is adjusted annually
per Resolution No. 14983 adopted by City Council on 10/4/2021.
USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(UP25-001)
D. Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
38. Project Approval. This Use Permit (UP25-001) approves the continued operation
of the existing mini-storage facility with and increased FAR to .98. The facility will
continue to operate with an on-site caretakers unit, office facilities, and controlled
tenant access through automatic gates operated with keypads at the entrances.
39. Hours of Operation. The office facilities will operate Monday through Friday, 9:00
am to 5:30 pm and Saturday and Sunday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. Storage units will
be accessible to tenants everyday from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm.
40. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on 10/01/2025 and shall be
valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or 10/01/2027,
and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension
- 18 -
is not applied for prior to the expiration date. A permit for the construction of a
building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if
required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced. A permit for the use
of a building or a property is exercised when, if required, a valid City business
license has been issued, and the permitted use has commenced on the property.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning
Commission meeting held on the 23rd day of September, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Secretary Chair Mercado
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040
1
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-2-3: Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Uses.
Encourage the retention and improvement of neighborhood-serving
retail stores and services. In the event such spaces become vacant,
consider other activities that reinforce their role as neighborhood
centers. Neighborhood-serving commercial areas should reinforce
the City’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic
congestion by providing walkable, bikeable services and shopping
close to residents.
Consistent
The expanded storage facility will continue to serve residents in
the surrounding neighborhoods. The Project is within one-half mile
of a high-quality transit stop, and so will be accessible by public
transit.
Policy LU-2.11: Mini-Storage Facilities. Allow mini-storage (“self-
storage”) in light industrial/ office and light industrial districts. For
lots facing Highways 101 or 580 or the Bay, the mini-storage use
may not be located along the street or bay frontages. New
ministorage may be permitted with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up
to 1.0 if the following findings can be made: a) The facility is needed
in the community. b) The project is compatible with surrounding
uses. c) The project is designed so that it cannot be converted to
other, more intensive uses – or includes approval conditions which
limit and mitigate off-site impacts in the of future event conversion.
d) The location is appropriate for this type of use. Mini-storage is
not permitted in other districts, except that it may be considered in
existing commercial buildings if not located along the street
frontage.
Consistent
The Project is an addition to existing commercial buildings and the
new mini-storage units would not be located along any street
frontage (i.e., along either Andersen Drive or Jacoby Street).
The Project has been found to be consistent the criteria to permit
an increased FAR of up to 1.0 as the facility is needed by the local
community; the design is compatible with surrounding uses; the
addition could not be readily converted to a more intensive use;
and the use is appropriate for the location and in an Industrial
zoning district.
COMMUNITY DESIGN AND PRESERVATION ELEMENT
Policy CDP-2.5: Commercial and Industrial Districts. Recognize
and preserve the design elements that contribute to the economic
vitality, functionality, and visual quality of San Rafael’s commercial
and industrial districts. Where feasible, improve the appearance of
Consistent
The Project will be compatible with surrounding building in scale, materials, and colors, and will enhance the existing visual quality through design elements incorporated at the primary façade on Andersen Drive.
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040
2
these areas by making them more walkable, attractive, and visually
compatible with the neighborhoods around them.
Policy CDP-4.7: Larger-Scale Buildings. Design larger scale
buildings to reduce their perceived mass. Encourage the
incorporation of architectural elements such as towers, arcades,
courtyards, and awnings to create visual interest, provide protection
from the elements, and enhance orientation.
Consistent
The scale of the building will be minimized by the street-level front entry and space left open beneath the second-story addition.
Policy CDP-4.8: Scale Transitions. Require sensitive scale and
height transitions between larger and smaller structures. In areas
where taller buildings are allowed, they should be designed to
minimize shadows, loss of privacy, and dramatic contrasts with
adjacent low-scale structures. Exceptions may be made where
taller buildings are also permitted on the adjoining site.
Consistent
The Project will only increase the existing height by one story, and will not exceed the permissible height in the zoning district or of existing surrounding buildings.
NH
Policy NH-3.1: Southeast San Rafael/Canal. Strengthen
Southeast San Rafael/Canal as a local and regional employment
center and a community of diverse, resilient neighborhoods.
Consistent
The expansion of the existing storage facility will support the existing diverse uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
1
CHAPTER 14.06 – INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
14.06.020 - Land use regulations (I, LI/O,
CCI/O, LMU)
Consistent
Mini-storage facilities are permitted by right in the Industrial (I) zoning district.
14.06.030 - Property development standards
(I, LI/O, CCI/O, LMU).
Partially Consistent
The Project is consistent with the lot size, overall height and floor-are-ration (FAR) by way of
the required Use Permit described below. The existing development is deficient in the required
10% landscaping but is not exacerbating the deficiency.
CHAPTER 14.22 – USE PERMITS
14.22.080 - Findings
A. That the proposed use is in accord with
the general plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located;
Consistent
The Project is in accord with General Plan 2040 and the zoning ordinance as mini-storage
uses are permitted and the Project has been reviewed per the criteria for conditional use
permits.
B. That the proposed use, together with
the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity,
or to the general welfare of the city;
Consistent
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department and the
location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access by the Department
of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the public health, safety or welfare.
C. That the proposed use complies with
each of the applicable provisions of the
zoning ordinance.
Consistent
The Project meets the criteria to increase the proposed FAR per SRMC Section
14.16.150(G)(3) as: the facility is utilized by the local community; the design is compatible with
surrounding uses; the addition could not be readily converted to a more intensive use; and the
use is appropriate for the location and in an Industrial zoning district.
CHAPTER 14.25 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS
14.25.090 - Findings
ATTACHMENT A – Exhibit 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
2
A. The project design is in accord with the
general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this
chapter;
Consistent
The Project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance
and the purposes of San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), as the project is in accord with the
General Industrial designation in General Plan 2040 and the policies to support the mini-
storage use and increased floor-area-ratio (FAR) (Policy LU-2.1: Land Use Map and
Categories; Policy LU-2.3: Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Use; Policy LU-2.11: Mini-
Storage Facilities; Policy CDP-4.7: Larger-Scale Buildings; Policy CDP-4.8: Scale Transitions;
Policy CDP-2.5: Commercial and Industrial Districts). The Project is located in the Industrial
zoning district where mini-storage facilities are permitted by right and an FAR of up to 1.0 may
be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
B. The project design is consistent with all
applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines
for the district in which the site is located;
Consistent
The Project is substantially compliant with the property development standards for Industrial
districts (SRMC Section 14.06.030), with only an existing deficiency in required landscaping.
The Project is consistent with the design review criteria provided in SRMC Section 14.25.050
as the materials, colors, and overall design are in concert with the existing property features
and surrounding area.
C. The project design minimizes adverse
environmental impacts; and
Consistent
The design and construction of the Project will no further impact the existing developed site.
D. The project design will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
Consistent
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division and the Fire Department and the
location and orientation of the parking has been reviewed for safe access by the Department
of Public Works, and as conditioned it will not be a detriment or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site or the public health, safety or welfare.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 1 of 5
Community Development Department – Planning Division
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 23, 2025
To: Project File
From: Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
Subject: CEQA Infill Exemption Memorandum for a proposed expansion to existing mini-
storage facility at 990 Andersen Drive; APN 018-143-03; City Case Numbers PLAN24-
068 (ED24-033; UP25-001)
Summary
The proposed project (Project) includes the addition of a second floor of mini-storage units above and
bridging two existing buildings at 990 Andersen Drive. The addition will result include and an additional
68,777 square feet of new self-storage space to the site and add 525 new self-storage uses, resulting in
a proposed total of 140,196 square feet accommodating 1,418 self-storage units. The Project is subject
to approval of an Environmental and Design Review permit by the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission and is a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A Class 32 Exemption Report, which serves as the technical documentation for the environmental
analysis of the Project, was solicited by the City of San Rafael and prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.,
and therefore represents an independent third-party analysis of the Project. The report evaluated the
Project’s potential impacts to biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality as well as
statutory exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2(a-f) that would make the Project ineligible for the
exemption. The report concluded that the Project is eligible for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption with
implementation of standard conditions of approval that will be verified through the building permit process
(see Attachment 1).
The CEQA Process
CEQA establishes a three-tier environmental review process. The first step is jurisdictional and requires
a public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a “project” as defined in Section 21065 of
the CEQA Guidelines. As provided therein, under CEQA a “project” means an activity that may cause
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment, and which is any of the following:
a. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency.
b. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants,
subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
c. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 2 of 5
If an activity is defined as a “project, the agency must decide whether the project is exempt from CEQA
review under either a statutory or categorical exemption, Articles 18 and 19, respectively. If a project is
categorically exempt, it is not subject to CEQA and is processed without an initial study or further CEQA
review. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 409.)
CEQA provides several “categorical exemptions” that are applicable to categories of projects that the
Legislature has determined do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. Here, the Project
qualifies for the infill exemption pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15332
(“CEQA Guidelines 15332”).
The CEQA Infill Exemption
CEQA Guidelines 15332 states that infill development is exempt from CEQA review if it meets the
following criteria:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.”
As discussed below, the Project meets each of these criteria and is therefore categorically exempt from
CEQA. Furthermore, there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. As stated above, the below
analysis is based on the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report prepared for the project by Rincon
Consultants, Inc and can be found in its entirety in Attachment 1.
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulation.
According to the City of San Rafael’s San Rafael General Plan 2040, the project site has a land use
designation of General Industrial, which allows for a range of uses. As discussed in the San Rafael
General Plan 2040, the General Industrial designation is intended for “activities such as manufacturing,
storage and warehouse facilities, motor vehicle service and repair, contractor uses and yards,
wholesalers, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling facilities, and trucking
yards or terminals. Uses that are incidental or ancillary to these activities also may occur, including
offices related to the primary use and employee-oriented retail uses.” Self-storage facilities are
consistent with this range of uses and the proposed project would thus be consistent with the allowable
uses for the project site under the General Plan.
The site is zoned Industrial. Section 14.06.010 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) states that
the Industrial district “provides opportunities for a full range of heavy and light industrial uses, including
the building trades and automotive service industry. The industrial district protects general industrial
uses from disruption and competition for space from unrelated retail, commercial and office uses that
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 3 of 5
could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city. However, ancillary office, small office and
certain retail and service uses are allowed for the convenience of area businesses and employees.”
Pursuant to SMRC Table 14.06.020, mini-storage is a permitted use in this district. Setbacks would not
change as part of the project, and the proposed modified building height of 33 feet, 8 inches would be
within the 36-foot limit in Table SMRC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area ratio for mini-storage projects may be
permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the findings in SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) can
be made; the proposed floor-to-area ratio is 0.98 and the Planning Commission can make the required
findings.
The project would be consistent with this criterion.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is located on a 3.27-acre parcel within the limits of the city of San Rafael. It is
surrounded on all sides by urban uses comprising primarily industrial and commercial development, as
such the Project would be consistent with this criterion.
c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Listed species are defined as species categorized as endangered, rare, or threatened (or as candidates
for such designations) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). A project site has no value as habitat for listed species if the site
lacks suitable habitat and/or appropriate habitat and micro-habitat constituents for listed species, or if
suitable habitat within the project site is outside of the listed species known range.
Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the Project site and surroundings, as well as the absence
of vegetation or water features on or near the site, the site does not support listed species or their
habitat. There is no critical habitat on or adjacent to the site (USFWS 2025a), and the nearest wetland,
a freshwater emergent wetland, is approximately 0.33-mile northwest of the site (USFWS 2025b). Thus,
the Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
The Class 32 Report for the Project includes a thorough analysis of analysis of the project’s potential
effects with respect to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality, and ultimately concludes that the Project
would meet the requirements of criterion (d). Below is a summary of the report’s conclusions:
Traffic
Impacts related to trip generation, VMT and site circulation and access would be less than significant
Noise
Construction noise would generate noise levels of up to 63 dBA Lmax at the Mission Evangelica Peniel
Church property line to the north and 61 dBA Lmax at the nearest residential property line to the west.
This would be below the construction noise significance threshold of 90 dBA Lmax. In addition,
construction would be limited to hours allowed by the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.13.050(A).
Impacts would be less than significant.
The Project does not include substantial noise sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 4 of 5
Traffic noise levels generated along Andersen Drive would cause an increase of up to 0.1 dBA Ldn. This
would be below the most stringent threshold of 3 dBA Ldn increase from traffic noise. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Operation of the Project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Groundborne vibration
from construction activities could generate levels of up to 0.210 in/sec PPV at the nearby commercial
building to the west, which would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for structural damage to
nearby commercial buildings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
There are no airports within two miles of the Project site and there would be no impact.
Air Quality
The proposed Project would not generate significant air quality impacts or require additional analysis for
CO hotspots or TACs based on BAAD criteria.
Water Quality
Because the Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff and would be required to comply
with City requirements to control and filter runoff, development of the proposed Project would not degrade
the quality of stormwater runoff from the site.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The proposed Project involves infill development on a project site in an urban area that is already
served by existing utilities and public services. The Project would not increase the type or intensity of
use such that existing utility and public service providers would not be able to serve the Project site.
Therefore, the Project would meet the requirements for Utilities and Service Systems under criterion
(e).
No Exceptions to the Exemption Apply
If a project qualifies for use of a categorical exemption, then the lead agency must determine whether
the categorical exemption is unavailable because the project is subject to an exception to the categorical
exemptions. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2.) A project will not qualify as exempt if it is subject to one of
the six exceptions provided below:
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to
be located.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result
in damage to scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.
4936-2634-1953 v1 Page 5 of 5
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on
a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
As described in the attached report (Attachment 1), none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
Conclusion
Based on this analysis, the mini-storage expansion at 990 Andersen Drive meets the criteria for a Class
32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines and is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19.
Exhibits:
1. Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report, dated September 2025, prepared by Rincon
Consultants, Inc.
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report
prepared for
City of San Rafael
Community and Economic Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
Contact: Renee Nickenig, Project Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
September 2025
Table of Contents
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Location and Description .................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 2
2.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 7
3 Consistency Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Criterion (a) ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Criterion (b) ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Criterion (c) ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Criterion (d) ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Criterion (e) ....................................................................................................................... 24
4 Exceptions to the Exemption ........................................................................................................ 25
4.1 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Significant Effect due to Unusual Circumstances ............................................................. 25
4.3 Scenic Highways ................................................................................................................ 25
4.4 Hazardous Waste Sites ...................................................................................................... 26
4.5 Historical Resources .......................................................................................................... 26
5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 28
6 References .................................................................................................................................... 29
Tables
Table 1 San Rafael General Noise Limits ...................................................................................... 12
Table 2 Project Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................... 14
Table 3 Construction Vibration Levels ......................................................................................... 15
Table 4 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 18
Table 5 Project Construction Equipment List............................................................................... 19
Table 6 Project Construction Average Daily Emissions ................................................................ 20
Table 7 Project Operational Emissions ........................................................................................ 21
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Project Site Location .......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3a Site Photographs 1 and 2 .................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3b Site Photographs 3 and 4 .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4 Proposed North Elevation and Existing and Proposed Roof Plan ..................................... 8
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
ii
Appendices
Appendix A Roadway Construction Noise Model Results
Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix C Cultural Resources Letter Report
Introduction
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 1
1 Introduction
This report serves as the technical documentation of an environmental analysis performed by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the proposed 990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project in San Rafael,
California. The intent of the analysis is to document whether the project is eligible for a Class 32
Categorical Exemption (CE) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The report provides an
introduction, project description, and evaluation of the project’s consistency with the requirements
for a Class 32 exemption. This includes an analysis of the project’s potential impacts in the areas of
biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, and historic resources. The report
concludes that the project is eligible for a Class 32 CE.
The CEQA Guidelines in Section 15332 states that a CE is allowed when:
a.The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b.The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c.The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d.Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality.
e.The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 outlines exceptions to the applicability of a CE,
including cumulative impacts, significant effects due to unusual circumstances, scenic highways,
hazardous waste sites, and impacts to historical resources. A full listing of these exceptions and an
assessment of their applicability to the proposed project is provided in this report.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. evaluated the project’s consistency with the above requirements, including
its potential impacts in the areas of biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality
as well as the applicability of the exceptions to use of a Class 32 CE, to confirm the project’s
eligibility for a Class 32 CE.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
2
2 Project Location and Description
2.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The project site encompasses one assessor’s parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 018-143-03) totaling
142,551 square feet (3.27 acres) located on the southwest side of Andersen Drive near its
intersection with Jacoby Street. The site has primary frontage on Andersen Drive, its main ingress
point, via four driveways, and also has frontage on Jacoby Street with three driveways mainly used
for egress. The project site is regionally accessible from US Highway 101 and Interstate 580, both of
which are located within 1,000 feet of the site.
The project site is currently developed with four self-storage buildings and surface parking. The
existing buildings total 71,419 square feet in floor area and currently have 893 self-storage units
combined, and can be generally described as follows:
Building A. This refers to the two largest buildings, in the northwestern portion of the site, that
would be modified as part of the proposed project. Both are one story except that the southern
of the two has a partial second story used for office space.
Building B. one story.
Building C. one story.
The project site is generally level, and landscaping is limited to several ornamental trees and low
shrubs along the Andersen Drive frontage. Photographs of the project site are shown in figures 3a
and 3b.
The project site has a City of San Rafael General Plan land use designation of General Industrial and
is zoned Industrial (I).
Figure 1 shows the project site in a regional context and Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project
site at a local scale.
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 3
Figure 1 Regional Project Location
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
4
Figure 2 Project Site Location
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 5
Figure 3a Site Photographs 1 and 2
Photograph 1. View of the two subject buildings and one of the access driveways from Andersen Drive,
looking south toward the project site from Andersen Drive.
Photograph 2. View of the two subject buildings and one of the egress driveways from Jacoby Street,
looking east toward the project site from Jacoby Street.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
6
Figure 3b Site Photographs 3 and 4
Photograph 3. View between the two subject buildings (visible on either side of the frame), looking
northeast from the interior of the site.
Photograph 4. View of a portion of the southern of the subject buildings showing the partial second
story, looking east from the site interior.
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 7
2.2 Project Description
The project would involve construction of a full second story over the two buildings identified in
Section 2.1 above as Building A. The proposed second story would also bridge the space between
the two buildings. The second-story addition would add 68,777 square feet of new self-storage
space to the site and add 525 new self-storage uses, for a proposed total of 140,196 square feet
accommodating 1,418 self-storage units. The maximum height of the building to be added to would
be 33 feet, 8 inches. Existing and proposed roof plans and the proposed elevation at the Andersen
Drive frontage (north elevation) are shown in Figures 3. Other than the added floor and storage
units, the buildings and site would remain generally as under current conditions.
Site Access, Parking, and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would remain generally as it is under current conditions, as described
above in Section 2.1.
Utilities and Stormwater Management
Utilities, stormwater management and drainage would remain generally the same as under current
conditions, as described above in Section 2.1.
Construction
Project construction would occur over approximately 10 months. The project would include several
construction phases including site preparation, grading, trenching for utilities, building construction,
and paving. Excavation and grading activities, estimated to involve up to 1,000 cubic yards of soil at
a maximum depth of 48 inches, would be limited to the driving aisles between existing buildings.
The work would consist of installing isolated post footings approximately at intervals along the
building perimeter. This process entails removing pavement at each footing location, excavating the
required volume of soil to install the footings, backfilling as necessary, and repaving around the
newly installed posts. Pile driving would not be employed during construction. The construction
fleet would be equipped with Level 1 diesel particulate matter filters. Construction staging would
occur onsite and construction worker parking would occur nearby on public streets. Construction
would occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with occasional Saturday
construction from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
8
Figure 4 Proposed North Elevation and Existing and Proposed Roof Plan
Proposed North Elevation
Existing Roof Plan
Proposed Roof Plan
Source: ARE Associates 2025
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 9
3 Consistency Analysis
3.1 Criterion (a)
The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
According to the City of San Rafael’s San Rafael General Plan 2040, the project site has a land use
designation of General Industrial, which allows for a range of uses. As discussed in the San Rafael
General Plan 2040, the General Industrial designation is intended for “activities such as
manufacturing, storage and warehouse facilities, motor vehicle service and repair, contractor uses
and yards, wholesalers, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling facilities, and
trucking yards or terminals. Uses that are incidental or ancillary to these activities also may occur,
including offices related to the primary use and employee-oriented retail uses.” Self-storage
facilities are consistent with this range of uses and the proposed project would thus be consistent
with the allowable uses for the project site under the General Plan.
The site is zoned Industrial. Section 14.06.010 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) states that
the Industrial district “provides opportunities for a full range of heavy and light industrial uses,
including the building trades and automotive service industry. The industrial district protects general
industrial uses from disruption and competition for space from unrelated retail, commercial and
office uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city. However, ancillary office,
small office and certain retail and service uses are allowed for the convenience of area businesses
and employees.” Pursuant to SMRC Table 14.06.020, mini-storage is a conditionally permitted use in
this district. Setbacks would not change as part of the project, and the proposed modified building
height of 33 feet, 8 inches would be within the 36-foot limit in Table SMRC 14.06.030. Floor-to-area
ratio for mini-storage projects may be permitted up to 1.0 by the Planning Commission if the
findings in SRMC Section 14.16.150(G)(3) can be made; the proposed floor-to-area ratio is 0.98.
The project would be consistent with this criterion.
3.2 Criterion (b)
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is located on a 3.27-acre parcel within the limits of the city of San Rafael. It is
surrounded on all sides by urban uses comprising primarily industrial and commercial development,
as shown on Figure 2. The project would be consistent with this criterion.
3.3 Criterion (c)
The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
Listed species are defined as species categorized as endangered, rare, or threatened (or as
candidates for such designations) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). A project site has no value as habitat for listed species if the site
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
10
lacks suitable habitat and/or appropriate habitat and micro-habitat constituents for listed species,
or if suitable habitat within the project site is outside of the listed species known range.
Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the project site and surroundings, as well as the
absence of vegetation or water features on or near the site, the site does not support listed species
or their habitat. There is no critical habitat on or adjacent to the site (USFWS 2025a), and the
nearest wetland, a freshwater emergent wetland, is approximately 0.33-mile northwest of the site
(USFWS 2025b). Thus, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened
species.
3.4 Criterion (d)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality,
or water quality.
The following discussion provides an analysis of the project’s potential effects with respect to traffic,
noise, air quality, and water quality.
3.4.1 Traffic
Trip Generation
Rincon used standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021 (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021) to estimate the
trip generation for the project’s proposed uses. Rates for Mini-Warehouse (ITE Code 151) are
commonly used for mini-storage or self-storage uses. The average daily trip generation rate for this
use is 17.96 trips per 100 storage units, which results in 94 average daily trips for the proposed
additional 525 storage units.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Pursuant to the City of San Rafael’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (San Rafael 2022), projects
generating 110 or fewer average daily vehicle trips are assumed to have a less than significant VMT
impact. The project’s estimated 94 average daily trips is beneath this threshold and the impact
would be less than significant.
Site Circulation and Access
The project would not involve changes to Andersen Drive or its sidewalks, and access to the site
would remain as they are currently. Driveways are adequately sized and configured for safe ingress
and egress. The modest increase in vehicular traffic to the site would not result in conflicts with
pedestrians, bicyclists or other modes of transportation.
Conclusion
Impacts related to trip generation, VMT and site circulation and access would be less than
significant. The project would meet the requirements for Traffic under criterion (d).
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 11
3.4.2 Noise
Noise Fundamentals
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being
detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Noise levels are
commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-
weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with
the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz and less
sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999). Decibels are measured
on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to
measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of
traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3
dB decrease (Crocker 2007).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is
not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as
one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA,
increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible;
and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud as what is readily
perceptible (Crocker 2007).
Sound changes occur in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the
receptor. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source
increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of
sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise
levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance
(e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway,
pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (California
Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening
structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object
and the frequencies of the noise levels.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the
duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for
more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors
have been developed by academics and industry professionals. One of the most frequently used
noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq
is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that
contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Noise that occurs at night tends to be more
disturbing than that occurring during the day. Community noise is often measured using Day-Night
Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise
occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours (Caltrans 2013).
Noise Standards
San Rafael General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Noise Element are relevant to the proposed project.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
12
Policy N-1.2: Maintaining Acceptable Noise Levels. Minimize noise conflicts resulting from everyday
activities such as construction, sirens, yard equipment, business operations, night-time sporting
events, and domestic activities.
(a) New development shall not increase noise levels by more than 3 dB Ldn in a residential area,
or by more than 5 dB Ldn in a non-residential area.
Policy N-1.11: Vibration. Minimize noise conflicts resulting from everyday activities such as
construction, sirens, yard equipment, business operations, night-time sporting events, and domestic
activities.
Program N-1.11A: Vibration-Related Conditions of Approval. Adopt Standard conditions of
approval in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 (Noise) that apply Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various building
types. These conditions should:
(a) reduce the potential for vibration-related construction impacts for development projects
near sensitive uses such as housing, schools, and historically significant buildings
(b) reduce the potential for operational impacts on existing or potential future sensitive uses
such as uses with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., microscopes in hospitals and research
facilities) or residences.
Vibration impacts shall be considered as part of project level environmental evaluation and
approval for individual future projects. If vibration levels exceed FTA limits, conditions of
approval shall identify construction and operational alternatives that mitigate impacts.
City of San Rafael Municipal Code
To implement the City’s noise policies, the City adopted Chapter 8.13 Noise (Noise Ordinance) in the
San Rafael Municipal Code (MHMC). Section 8.13.040 of the City of San Rafael Code of Ordinances
states that the general noise limits contained in Table 1 shall apply subject to the exceptions and
exemptions set forth in the chapter. Where two or more noise limits may apply, the more restrictive
noise limit shall govern.
Table 1 San Rafael General Noise Limits
Land Use
Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime1 Nighttime1
Intermittent Constant Intermittent Constant
Residential 60 50 50 40
Mixed-Use 65 55 55 45
Multifamily Residential 40 35 35 30
Commercial 65 55 65 55
Industrial 70 60 70 60
1 Daytime = 7am-9pm (Sun-Thu); 7am-10pm (Fri-Sat); Nighttime = 9pm-7am (Sun-Thu); 10pm-7am (Fri-Sat)
Source: City of San Rafael Ordinance, Chapter 8.13
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 13
Section 8.13.050(A), Standard exceptions to general noise limits – Construction, states that on any
construction project on property within the city, construction, alteration, demolition, maintenance
of construction equipment, deliveries of materials or equipment, or repair activities otherwise
allowed under applicable law shall be allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, provided that the noise level at
any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA. All such activities
shall be precluded on Sundays and holidays.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are generally regarded as being more sensitive to noise than others due to the types
of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children and the
elderly. Sensitive land uses generally include residential areas, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities,
senior facilities, libraries, churches, and parks. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Mission
Evangelica Peniel Church approximately 440 feet to the north of the northern project site boundary;
and the nearest residential receptor is a single-family residence approximately 540 feet to the west
of the western project site boundary, across US-101.
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, in a characteristically urban area subject
to noise from nearby Highway 101, local traffic on public streets (Andersen Drive), buses, trains,
light rail (Pacific Avenue), construction, and small power equipment (e.g., lawn mowers, edger, etc.).
The San Rafael General Plan Appendix I provides noise contours, indicating that the nearest
sensitive receptor area west of the Project has expected daytime ambient noise levels of about 70
dBA.
Construction Noise
Construction of the project would generate temporary noise that may be audible at the nearby
Mission Evangelica Peniel Church to the north and residential receptors to the west. Noise
associated with construction is a function of the type of construction equipment, the location and
sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Based on
construction details provided by the applicant, it is estimated that the construction period for all
phases would be approximately 10 months.
While all phases of construction would generate noise, the site preparation and grading phases
would represent the loudest periods of noise-generating activity. The greatest anticipated sources
of construction noise would be generated by large earthmoving equipment such as large bulldozers
and a vibratory roller. Additionally, this is a conservative analysis as it does not account for shielding
from buildings or other barriers. Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006), with results
shown in Table 2.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
14
Table 2 Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Activity Phase
Approximate Noise Level (dBA Lmax))
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
(50 feet)
Residences
to the West
(540 feet)
Mission Evangelica Peniel
Church to the North
(440 feet)
Site Preparation1 82 61 63
Grading 82 61 63
Building Construction 75 54 56
Paving 77 56 58
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software are included in Appendix A.
1 Construction noise levels from the grading phase were conservatively applied to site preparation phase as the construction
equipment list is assumed to be similar to grading operations.
dBA = A-weighted decibels, Lmax = maximum noise level
As shown in Table 2, estimated noise levels generated during the site preparation and grading phase
of construction at the Mission Evangelica Peniel Church property line approximately 440 feet to the
north from the edge of the construction activity would be up to 63 dBA Lmax; and at a distance of 540
feet to the west from the edge of construction activity, noise levels would be up to 61 dBA Lmax at the
nearest residential receptors. Therefore, construction noise would not exceed the City of San
Rafael’s construction standard of 90 dBA Lmax.
Additionally, project construction activity specified by the applicant (scheduled for Mondays
through Fridays between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.)
would occur within the allowable construction day and time limits defined in the City of San Rafael
Code of Ordinances: between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Therefore, noise generated by construction activity would be less
than significant.
Construction Vibration
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore,
construction activities have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting
nearby receptors, especially during grading of the project site. Construction equipment may be used
within approximately 25 feet from the commercial buildings to the west. Table 3 identifies vibration
velocity levels at the nearby sensitive receptors from a vibratory roller and large bulldozer
equipment (representative of equipment 100 horsepower [hp] or greater), as well as smaller
equipment such as a small bulldozer (under 100 hp).
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 15
Table 3 Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment
in/sec PPV
Reference Level
(25 feet)
Commercial Building to the West
(25 feet)
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.003
FTA Threshold for Building Damage – 0.3
Thresholds Exceeded? – No
in/sec PPV = inches per second peak particle velocity
Note: Vibration analysis worksheets are included in Appendix A
Source: FTA 2018
Per Program N-1.11A of the San Rafael General Plan (San Rafael 2021a), the FTA Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) is used to evaluate construction vibration impacts
related to potential building damage. Based on the FTA criteria, construction vibration impacts
would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at nearby commercial structures, which
is the limit for potential building damage at these structures. Based on the information presented in
Table 3, vibration levels could be up to approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV at the commercial building
to the west of the project site when a vibratory roller is used. Therefore, construction vibration
would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for structural damage to nearby commercial
buildings, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
On-Site Operational Noise
The project does not include substantial noise sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Based on calculations from using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation,
11th Edition, 2021, the proposed project would generate approximately 94 average daily trips. The
proposed project would not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially
change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-
site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. The project’s increase in traffic noise was
estimated by adding the project daily trip generation to the existing average daily traffic (ADT)
volume on the surrounding roadways provided in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2040 &
Downtown Precise Plan Draft EIR (City of San Rafael 2021b).
The existing ADT on Andersen Drive, between Bellam Blvd and Sir Francis Drake Drive, is 3,579. The
addition of 94 daily vehicle trips would result in an increase in traffic noise that would be
approximately 0.1 dBA Ldn 1. As stated in the City of San Rafael 2040 General Plan (City of San Rafael
2021a), a significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise
1 Based on the formula 10 x LOG (future traffic volume/existing traffic volume)
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
16
environment of noise-sensitive locations by 3 dBA Ldn or more for residential neighborhoods. All
other roadway segments would have a lower increase in traffic noise. As the project would result in
a traffic noise increase 0.1 dBA, the project’s traffic noise increase would not exceed the most
stringent threshold of 3 dBA Ldn or more, and impacts would be less than significant.
Airport Noise
The San Rafael Airport is located approximately 4.2 miles to the north and is not located within the
65 dBA CNEL noise contour of this airport (San Rafael 2021a). There is no other public or private use
airport within two miles of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact
Conclusion
Construction noise would generate noise levels of up to 63 dBA Lmax at the Mission Evangelica Peniel
Church property line to the north and 61 dBA Lmax at the nearest residential property line to the
west. This would be below the construction noise significance threshold of 90 dBA Lmax. In addition,
construction would be limited to hours allowed by the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.13.050(A).
Impacts would be less than significant.
The project does not include substantial noise sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels generated along Andersen Drive would cause an increase of up to 0.1 dBA Ldn.
This would be below the most stringent threshold of 3 dBA Ldn increase from traffic noise. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of the project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Groundborne
vibration from construction activities could generate levels of up to 0.210 in/sec PPV at the nearby
commercial building to the west, which would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for structural
damage to nearby commercial buildings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
There are no airports within two miles of the project site and there would be no impact.
3.4.3 Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air
pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other
pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust
stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),2 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with
diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead.
Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as
ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between
2 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the
term ROG is used in this analysis.
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 17
ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates
(smog). Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds
suspend fine dust particles. Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile
sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.
Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.
Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial
water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some
consumer products.
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways.
Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and falls under the
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). As the local air quality management agency, BAAD is
required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they
are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are
met or exceeded, the SFBAAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas
designated as non-attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists
for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants are
already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under State law, air
districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the
district is non-attainment. The SFBAAB is currently designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS
and CAAQS, the PM10 CAAQS, and the PM2.5 NAAQS and CAAQS. The SFBAAB is either unclassified or
designated attainment for all other NAAQS and CAAQS (CARB 2023).
BAAD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality
emissions in its California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAD 2023). Table 4
shows the significance thresholds that have been recommended by BAAD for project construction
and operation in the SFBAAB. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual
emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the
project would result in a significant impact if construction or operational emissions exceed
thresholds as shown in Table 4.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
18
Table 4 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter
2.5 microns or less in diameter;
Source: BAAD 2023
In addition, BAAD provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine
whether a proposed project would exceed CO thresholds at the local level. If the following criteria
are met, a project would result in a less than significant impact related to local CO concentrations:
1. Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g.,
tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade
roadway).
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction were estimated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod uses project-specific information,
including the project’s land uses, square footages, and location to model a project’s construction
emissions. The analysis reflects only the construction and operation of the new storage units, as
described under Section 2.2, Project Description.
Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutant emissions from
construction equipment operation onsite and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site.
Construction activity was analyzed based on information provided by the applicant, such as building
characteristics, construction phasing and construction equipment. It is assumed project construction
would begin in January 2026 and is expected to be completed within 10 months. 3 Construction
activities would occur Monday through Friday, with occasional work on Saturdays. Therefore,
emissions are conservatively modeled assuming a six day work week. The list of construction
equipment provided by the applicant is presented in Table 5. During project construction,
approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and represent the total amount of
3 This assumed construction start date is an estimate and is based on average processing and approval times for various future
entitlements associated with the proposed project. Construction activities with a later start date than 2026 would generate lower
emissions, due to CalEEMod emissions factors accounting for the state’s initiative for cleaner equipment fleet (i.e., each subsequent year
assumes lower emission factors for each construction equipment). Therefore, this analysis and the CalEEMod modeling upon which it is
based provide a conservative assumption.
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 19
concrete and asphalt material requiring removal during site preparation. As described in Section 2.2,
Project Description, the removal of pavement and soil, followed by repaving, is proposed to facilitate
the installation of isolated post footings at regular intervals along the building perimeter. For a
conservative emissions analysis, it is assumed that all construction equipment would be diesel-
powered. Based on information provided by the applicant Each piece of construction equipment
would be equipped with Level 1 diesel particulate filters. Additionally, the project would comply
with all applicable regulatory standards, specifically with BAAD’s Basic Best Management Practices
for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions guidelines (BAAD 2023):
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be
treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to
contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Table 5 Project Construction Equipment List
Construction Phase1 Construction Equipment List1
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (4), Excavators (2), Off-Highway Trucks (2).
Grading Grader, Rubber Tired Dozer, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe, Excavators (2), Rollers, Skid Steer
Loaders.
Trenching Trencher, Backhoe, and Off-Highway Truck
Building Construction Forklifts (2), Aerial Lifts (3), and Cement and Mortar Mixers
Paving Pavers and Paving Equipment
1 Construction phases and equipment listed provided by the applicant.
Project operations would include mobile source emissions and area source emissions. Mobile source
emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site. This analysis uses the average
trip generation rates for Mini-Warehouse from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th
edition of the Trip Generation Manual (ITE 2021).4 These rates are warranted for this analysis, as
4 A mini-warehouse is a building in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. They are typically
referred to as “self-storage” facilities.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
20
self-storage facilities would generate lower daily trip volumes compared to a small warehouse
operations due to fewer employees and customer visits. The project is anticipated to generate
approximately 94 additional vehicle trips to existing operations. Area source emissions are
generated by consumer products and architectural coatings. Natural gas would not be utilized
during project operations; therefore, there would be no onsite energy source emissions.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated
with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and
construction vehicles. Additionally, ROG emissions that would be released during the drying of
paving phases. As described in Section 2.2, Project Description, the project site would undergo
excavation activities involving the removal of pavement and soil, followed by repaving, for the
installation of isolated post footings at regular intervals along the building perimeter. Table 6
summarizes the estimated average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10 exhaust, PM2.5 exhaust,
and sulfur oxide during project construction. As shown in Table 6, project construction emissions for
criteria pollutants would be below the BAAD average daily thresholds of significance and the project
would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. Construction impacts would be less than significant.
Table 6 Project Construction Average Daily Emissions
Construction Year
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust) SOX
2026 <1 4 5 <1 <1 <1
BAAD Thresholds (average daily emissions) 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
N/A = not applicable; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SOx = oxides of sulfur.
No BAAD threshold for CO or SOX
See Appendix B for CalEEMod outputs; emission data presented is the average daily outputs. The emissions presented in the mitigation
tables actually reflect unmitigated values, as CalEEMod only allows the Level 1 diesel particulate filter for construction equipment to be
applied through its mitigation measures screen, rather than directly in the input parameters.
BAAD does not establish quantitative thresholds for fugitive dust emissions during construction.
Instead, it recommends implementing best management practices to mitigate these emissions. The
project would be required to comply with BAAD’s Basic Best Management Practices for
Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions, as outlined in BAAD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and
consistent with industry practices. Therefore, construction-related air quality impacts from fugitive
dust would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area
sources (e.g., architectural coatings and consumer products) and mobile sources (vehicle trips to
and from the project site). As shown in Table 7, project operation emissions for criteria pollutants
would be below the BAAD average daily and annual thresholds of significance and the project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 21
region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Operational impacts would be less than significant.
Table 7 Project Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Sources ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile <1 <1 2 <1 1 <1
Area 2 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions 2 <1 4 <1 1 <1
BAAD Thresholds 54 54 N/A N/A 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No No
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Mobile <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
BAAD Thresholds 10 10 N/A N/A 15 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No No
N/A = not applicable; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;; SOx = oxides of sulfur.
No BAAD threshold for CO or SOX
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B. Emission data presented is the average daily and annual outputs. The emissions
presented in the mitigation tables actually reflect unmitigated values, as CalEEMod only allows the Level 1 diesel particulate filter for
construction equipment to be applied through its mitigation measures screen, rather than directly in the input parameters.
Project Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan
The California CAA requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the
jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the 2017
Plan. The 2017 Plan focuses on two paramount goals, both consistent with the mission of BAAD
(BAAD 2017a):
Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all national and state air
quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk
from TACs.
Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Under BAAD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate
that a project:
Supports the primary goals of the air quality plan.
Includes applicable control measures from the air quality plan.
Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures.
A project that would not support the 2017 Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the
2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAD quantitative thresholds is
interpreted as demonstrating support with the 2017 Plan’s goals. Since the project would not
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
22
exceed BAAD thresholds for criteria air pollutants, it would not conflict with the 2017 Plan’s goal of
attaining air quality standards.
The 2017 Plan includes goals and measures aimed at promoting energy efficiency. The project
would be consistent with these goals by incorporating all-electric appliances and complying with the
California Green Building Standards Code, including, but not limited to, the installation of energy-
efficient equipment and lighting. The project is an infill site and would utilize existing utilities onsite;
therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air
quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant impact.
CO Emissions
According to BAAD, a project would have less than significant CO impacts if project-generated traffic
would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour
or would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per
hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage,
bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin has been designated attainment for both federal and State standards for CO since
1998 (BAAD 2017b). According to Appendix I of the City of San Rafael General Plan Environmental
Impact Report, existing peak-hour traffic volumes in 2019 along Andersen Drive between Bellam
Boulevard and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard totaled 716 vehicle trips. Additionally, the underpasses
beneath State Route 101 and U.S. Route 580, between Andersen Drive and Kerner Boulevard,
experienced a peak-hour volume of 2,069 vehicle trips in 2019 (City of San Rafael 2021b). The
proposed project would generate approximately 94 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the project’s trip
generation would not increase the traffic volumes near the project site to exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s hourly traffic volume threshold. Therefore, the project would not
result in a significant CO impact. Impacts related to CO emissions would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the
following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65,
children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB
2005; OEHHA 2015). The sensitive receptors nearest to the project site are residential receptors
located approximately 540 feet west of the project site across State Route 101. The following
subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during
construction and operation.
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site
preparation grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as
a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the
following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2025).
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 10 months. The dose to
which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a
function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of
Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 23
exposure that a person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning
that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed
Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure
occurs over a longer period of time. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which
determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year
exposure period (assumed to be the approximate time that a person spends in a household).
OEHHA recommends this risk be bracketed with 9-year and 70-year exposure periods. Health risk
assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.
The maximum PM2.5 emissions, which is used to represent DPM emissions for this analysis, would
occur during site preparation and grading activities. While site preparation and grading emissions
represent the worst-case condition, such activities would occur for 30 days, less than one percent
for a 9-year, 30-year, and 70-year health risk calculation period. PM2.5 emissions would decrease for
the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction,
trenching, and paving would require less construction equipment.
According to the CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, DPM
concentrations would decrease by approximately 70 percent at a distance of 500 feet from DPM
emitting source (CARB 2005). Wind rose data from the nearest air monitoring station at Gnoss Field
Airport indicates that prevailing winds from the northwest and southwest would likely carry TAC
emissions away from the project site, further minimizing potential exposure (BAAD 2025).
Additionally, the sensitive receptors are located approximately 30 meters higher in elevation than
the construction area, which would increase the vertical dispersion distance of DPM, thereby
reducing the potential for concentrated exposure at those receptors (Topographic Maps 2025).
Given the aforementioned, DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create
conditions where the probability that the Maximally Exposed Individual would contract cancer is
greater than 10 in one million. This impact would be less than significant.
Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) identifies
various sources that potentially emit TAC emissions including, freeways, distribution centers, rail
yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. In
addition, CARB provides distance recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses
near potential sources of TAC emissions. The proposed project’s storage units are not considered a
land use listed to potentially emit substantial TAC emissions during project operations. Therefore,
the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational TAC pollutant
concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.
Odors
BAAD’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identifies land uses that have the potential to generate
substantial odor complaints. The uses in the table include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or
transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing,
smelting plants, and chemical plants (BAAD 2023). Odors are typically associated with industrial
projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling
elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills.
The project does not involve odor-emitting uses as identified in BAAD’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines. Additionally, the project would be subject to BAAD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances,
which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. Therefore, the project
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
24
would not substantially cause new sources of odors and would not significantly expose sensitive
receptors to existing or new odors, and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not generate significant air quality impacts or require additional
analysis for CO hotspots or TACs based on BAAD criteria. Therefore, the project would meet the
requirements for Air Quality under Criterion (d).
3.4.4 Water Quality
The project site is currently developed with existing structures, paving and surface parking, and
there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2025b).
The site is comprised almost entirely of impervious surfaces under existing conditions, and this
condition would not substantially change with the proposed project. The City of San Rafael’s Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention ordinance (Code of Ordinances Chapter 9.30) includes provisions to
comply with federal requirements for the control of urban pollutants in storm water runoff during
construction and operation. The ordinances requires construction projects to implement best
management practices (BMPs) during construction to prevent discharge of construction
contaminants including erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention practices, and to
implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan if subject to a grading or building permit. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Because the project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff and would be required to
comply with City requirements to control and filter runoff, development of the proposed project
would not degrade the quality of stormwater runoff from the site. Impacts would be less than
significant, and the project would meet the requirements for water quality under criterion (d).
3.5 Criterion (e)
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project site is in an urban area served by existing public utilities and services; the site itself,
which is currently developed with an operational storage facility, is currently served by such public
utilities and services. The existing use would be expanded but would not change, and self-storage
facilities do not typically require high demand from public services or utilities. There are adequate
public utilities and services to serve the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed project involves infill development on a project site in an urban area that is already
served by existing utilities and public services. The project would not increase the type or intensity
of use such that existing utility and public service providers would not be able to serve the project
site. Therefore, the project would meet the requirements for Utilities and Service Systems under
criterion (e).
Exceptions to the Exemption
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 25
4 Exceptions to the Exemption
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 outlines exceptions to the applicability of a Categorical Exemption,
including cumulative impacts, significant effects due to unusual circumstances, scenic highways,
hazardous waste sites, and historical resources. These exceptions are discussed below. As shown,
none of the exceptions would apply.
4.1 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that “all exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when
the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is
significant.”
The City of San Rafael’s May 2025 Development Pipeline Overview identified no similar or
substantial projects proposed within 0.25-mile of the project site. Thus, there are no “successive
projects of the same type in the same place” proposed and this exception would not apply.
4.2 Significant Effect due to Unusual Circumstances
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that “a categorical exemption shall not be used for an
activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances.”
As discussed under Section 2.1, Project Location and Existing Conditions, the project site is a level,
paved and developed site in an urbanized area surrounded by other development. Neither the site,
its surroundings, or the proposed project itself (expansion of an existing use on a level site in an
urban area) are unusual in terms of existing conditions, land uses or proposed features. The
potential presence of cultural resources is not uncommon or unusual in urban neighborhoods in the
Bay Area, and as discussed further below, impacts related to cultural resources would be less than
significant with implementation of existing City regulations. The project site does not possess
characteristics which would qualify as unusual circumstances under CEQA Guidelines Section
15300.2. There are no known unusual circumstances at the project site or related to project
operations that would result in a reasonable possibility of significant effects on the environment.
Therefore, this exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.
4.3 Scenic Highways
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that a CE “shall not be used for a project which may result in
damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings,
or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.”
There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the project site. The closest scenic
highway is State Route 1 through the Tamalpais Valley over four miles south of Downtown San
Rafael. Due to distance and intervening topography, the project site is not visible from State
Route 1. The project would not damage scenic resources within a highway officially designated or
eligible for designation as a state scenic highway. This exception would not apply to the project.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
26
4.4 Hazardous Waste Sites
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a project
located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code.”
The site is not a hazardous waste site and is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Section
65962.5 of the Government Code (DTSC 2024, SWRCB 2024). This exception is not applicable to the
proposed project.
4.5 Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f) states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a
project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”
A Cultural Resources Assessment completed for the project in July 2025 by Rincon Consultants
included background and archival research, a California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) records search, field survey, and one National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of San Rafael Landmark evaluation to identify
whether there are historical resources, as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a), within the project
site. The Cultural Resources Assessment is included in Appendix C.
Based on the results of the study, the existing buildings on site are ineligible for listing in the NRHP,
CRHR, or as City of San Rafael Landmarks due to lack of historical and architectural significance and
are therefore not historical resources as defined by CEQA (Appendix C). Furthermore, as a result of
background research, CHRIS records search, field survey, and aerial and map review, no
archaeological resources were identified within the project site. However, it is possible for intact
archaeological deposits to be encountered subsurface within undisturbed native alluvial soils. The
City has adopted policies and regulations to protect cultural and historical resources. These include
the following:
San Rafael General Plan 2040 Policy CDP-5.13: Protection of Archaeological Resources. Protect
significant archaeological resources by: a) Consulting the City’s archaeological resource data
base prior to issuing demolition or construction permits in known sensitive areas. b) Providing
information and direction to property owners to make them aware of these resources and the
procedures to be followed if they are discovered on-site. c) Identifying, when possible,
archaeological resources and potential impacts on such resources. d) Implementing measures to
preserve and protect archaeological resources, including fines and penalties for violations.
Resolution No. 10980. Resolution of the San Rafael City Council Rescinding Resolution No.
10933 and Approving Revised Procedures and Regulations for Archaeological Resources
Protection in the City of San Rafael. Among a number of relevant provisions in this resolution is
the direction that “If it is determined that there is an archaeological resource present, the
Community Development Department may require that approval of the permit be issued with
conditions” to ensure protection of cultural resources.
San Rafael Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.19 - Archeological Resources Protection. This section
of the City’s code includes this provision, among others: “…Implement measures that would
preserve and protect valuable archeological resources, when there is a potential for
encountering such resources.”
Exceptions to the Exemption
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 27
Accordingly, the City, as a standard regulatory practice, includes conditions of approval (COAs) for
projects on sites with the potential to contain cultural resources, as required by these City policies
and regulations – in particular, its Archaeological Resources Protection ordinance. The COAs reflect
the requirements of Resolution No. 10980, Policy CDP-5.13 and City Code Chapter 2.19 that cultural
resources, including paleontological resources and human remains, if inadvertently discovered,
require work to be halted until appropriate avoidance and/or protection measures can be
undertaken to the extent feasible. The COAs would ensure this, if resources are encountered,
through measures including but not limited to preparation and implementation of a Data Recovery
and Treatment Plan or equivalent prior to ground disturbance that delineates the extent of
archaeological resources, including consultation with native American representatives; oversight of
ground disturbance by a qualified archaeologist; recordation and proper treatment of any
encountered cultural resources; and avoidance and preservation in place of inadvertently
discovered resources wherever possible. With required adherence to these City policies; because no
known cultural resources have been identified at the site; and because ground disturbance would
be limited generally to previous disturbed areas, this exception is not applicable to the proposed
project.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
28
5 Summary
Based on this analysis, the proposed 990 Andersen Street Self Storage Project meets the criteria for
a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines and is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19.
References
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 29
6 References
Bay Area Air District (BAAD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. San
Francisco, CA. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed July 2025).
______. 2017b. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. San Francisco, CA. April 19, 2017.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-
plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed July 2025).
______. 2023. 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. April. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-
climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines (accessed July
2025).
______. 2025. AERMOD-Ready Meteorological Data – Gnoss Field Airport. N.d. [website].
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-
ceqa/ceqa-tools/ceqa-modeling-data (July 2025).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective. April 2005. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-
05/Land%20Use%20Handbook_0.pdf (accessed July 2025).
______. 2023. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations
(accessed July 2025).
______. 2025. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health”. N.d. [website].
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed July
2025).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic
Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. (accessed August 2025).
______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e
8057116f1aacaa (Accessed July 2028)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025. EnviroStor database.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed July 2025).
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker database.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed July 2025).
Crocker, Malcolm J. (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471-
39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s
Guide. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/ (accessed
August 2025).
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
30
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th edition. September 2021.
(accessed July 2, 2025).
Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. Fundamentals
of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.
https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf
(accessed July 2025).
San Rafael, City of. 2021. Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/downtown-precise-plan/ (accessed December 2024)
______. 2025. San Rafael Code of Ordinances. February 27, 2025. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_rafael/codes/code_of_ordinances. (Accessed March
2025)
______. 2021a. San Rafael General Plan 2040. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/gp-2040-document-library/
______. 2021b. San Rafael General Plan Update Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/01/AppendixI_Transp
ortationData.pdf (accessed August 2025).
______. 2022. City of San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/08/SanRafael_TA_Guidelines_
Feb-2022.pdf
Topographic-map. 2025. “San Rafael topographic map” [website]. N.d. https://en-ca.topographic-
map.com/map-121nm2/San-Rafael/?center=37.95446%2C-122.50726&zoom=17 (accessed
July 2025).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025a. Critical Habitat for Threatened and
Endangered Species.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989
3cf75b8dbfb77 [Accessed January 2025]
______. 2025b. Wetlands Mapper. Available at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/[Accessed January
2025]
Appendix A
Roadway Construction Noise Model Results
Appendix A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Results
Construction Noise
Construction Vibration
Noise Level @ 50 ft Single Family Residential - West Multi-Family Residential - South Mission Evangelica Peniel
Distance 540 1560 440
Site Preparation 82 61.332 52.117 63.110
Grading 82 61.332 52.117 63.110
Building Construction 75 54.332 45.117 56.110
Paving 77 56.332 47.117 58.110
Vibration @ 25 ft Single Family Res Multi Family Res
Distance 25 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.210 0.040
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.089 0.017
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.076 0.015
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.003 0.001
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Site Preparation
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Site Preparation Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 80.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 81.7 81.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Grading
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Grading Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 80.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 81.7 81.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Building Construction
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Building Construction Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.7 72.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/30/2025
Case Description: Paving
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Paving Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Paver No 50 77.2 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Paver 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Appendix B
Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Letter Report
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Letter Report
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
www.rinconcons ultan ts.com
July 31, 2025
Project No: 25-17473
Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
Via email: Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org
Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project,
San Rafael, California 94901
Dear Ms. Nickenig:
This letter report presents the findings of a cultural resources assessment completed in support of the
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project (hereafter, project) at 990-1010 Andersen Drive (APNs 018-
143-03 and 018-143-09) in San Rafael. The City of San Rafael Community Development Department
(Client) retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to support compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This letter report documents the methods and results of a cultural
resources records search, archival and background research, field survey, and an evaluation for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR),
and as a City of San Rafael local historic landmark. The intent of the study is to identify historical
resources, as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a), within the project site.
Project Site and Description
The project site is two assessor parcels totaling approximately 142,551 square feet (3.27 acres) on
the southwest side of Andersen Drive approximately 0.3-mile south of its underpass under US Highway
101 (Attachment 1, Figure 1 and Figure 2). Specifically, the project encompasses portions of Section
3 of Township 01 North, Range 06 West on the San Rafael, California United States Geological Survey
(USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The site also has frontage on Jacoby Street in the rear and
is developed with four existing self-storage structures accommodating 893 self-storage units and
surface parking.
The project would involve constructing a second level of 525 new storage units above the two larger
existing buildings, bridging the two structures at the new second level. The overall site configuration
and access would remain the same as under current conditions and that the project would not involve
grading or excavation below existing paving and structures (Attachment 1, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Methods
This section describes the methodology of background and archival research, cultural resources
records search, field survey, and NRHP, CRHR, and local evaluations conducted to identify historical
resources within the project site.
Background and Archival Research
Rincon completed background and archival research in support of this assessment in June and July
2025. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted. Sources included, but were
not limited to, historical maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following
sources were utilized to develop an understanding of the project site and its context:
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
2
• Marin County Assessor’s Office property data accessed via ParcelQuest
• Historical aerial photographs accessed via NETR Online
• Historical aerial photographs accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Library
FrameFinder (UCSB)
• Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps held by the Library of Congress, accessed through the San
Francisco Public Library’s ProQuest and Fire Insurance Maps Online databases
• Historical United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps accessed online, via USGS
topoView
• City of San Rafael Building Permits accessed via the City’s Public Records Request
• Historical newspaper clippings obtained from Newspapers.com and the California Digital
Newspaper Collection
• Various historical records via Ancestry.com
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
Rincon completed a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search
through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. The NWIC is the official
State repository for cultural resources records and reports for the county in which the project falls. The
purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as
previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.25-mile radius. Rincon
also reviewed the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks list, and Built Environment Resources
Directory (BERD) (Attachment 2).
Field Survey
Rincon Architectural Historian Josh Bevan, AICP, MSHP, conducted a built environment survey of the
project site on April 29, 2025. Site characteristics and survey conditions were documented using field
records and a digital camera. Copies of the survey notes and digital photographs are maintained
digitally by Rincon.
Historical Evaluation
Pursuant to California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Guidelines (OHP 1995: 2), properties over
45 years of age were evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and local listing and recorded on
California Department of Parks (DPR) 523 series forms (Attachment 3).
Findings
This section describes the findings of background and archival research, cultural resources records
search, field survey, and NRHP, CRHR, and local evaluations conducted to identify cultural resources
within the project site.
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
Rincon received records search results from the NWIC on July 25, 2025.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
3
Known Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search and background research identified three studies that include portions of
the project site and fourteen studies within the 0.25-mile search radius (Attachment 2). Known studies
that occurred within or adjacent to the project site are discussed in further detail below.
Study S-006424
Study S-006424 was an archaeological evaluation prepared by Cindy Desgrandchamp and David
Chavez for Nute Engineering in 1984, Archaeological Resources Evaluation for the Central Marin
Sanitation Wastewater Transportation Facilities Improvement Project. The evaluation included
archival research, field survey of the project site, a records search, and preparation of a report for the
installation of relief force mains, upgrading of thirteen existing pump stations, and construction of two
new pump stations throughout the city of San Rafael. Study S-006424 included only approximately 90
feet of 990-1010 Andersen Drive at the northeastern end of the property and found no evidence of
cultural resources within or in the vicinity of the current project site (Desgrandchamp and Chavez
1984).
Study S-022013
In November 1996, Cassandra Chattan with Archaeological Resource Service (ARS) prepared Results
of Archaeological Monitoring at the Marin Recycling Center, Jacoby Street, San Rafael, California
(Study S-022013) in response to archaeological monitoring of the excavation for improvements in the
Marin Recycling Center in San Rafael. Monitoring identified pockets of midden though they appeared
to be previously disturbed. Study S-022013 included Buildings 1 and 2 and the paved driveway in-
between the buildings at 990-1010 Andersen Drive, though the buildings are not part of the Marin
Recycling Center. The study did not identify archaeological resources within the current project site
(Chattan 1996).
Study S-055702
In 2021, Heidi Koenig and Amber Grady of ESA prepared a California Department of Transportation
Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin East Bay Emergency Intertie Project proposed by the
Marin Municipal Water District. The project was located in the city of San Rafael and the city of
Richmond including the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in-between the two cities. The project boundaries
for Study S-055702 include approximately 684 feet of the northern end of the current project site. The
study did not identify any historic or pre-historic resources within or adjacent to the current project site
(Koenig and Grady 2021).
Known Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records search and background research identified no cultural resources within the project
site and four cultural resources within the 0.25-mile search radius (Attachment 2). Resources within
the search radius include two pre-historic sites (P-21-000109 and P-21-000681), a historic-age single-
family residence (P-21-000910), and a historic-age railroad (P-21-002618).
Aerial Imagery and Historical Map Review
Rincon completed a review of aerial imagery and historical maps to ascertain the development history
of the project site.
Topographic maps from 1897, 1900, 1905, 1907, 1910, 1913, 1922, 1928, 1932, and 1940 depict
the project site as undeveloped. A northwest to southeast trending railroad labeled “San Quentin
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
4
Railroad” is depicted south of the project site and a northwest to southeast trending road, what would
become Andersen Drive, is depicted north of the project site (USGS 1897, 1896, 1900, 1905, 1907,
1910, 1913, 1922, 1928, 1932, 1940).
Topographic maps from 1941, 1947, 1948, and 1950 depict the project site as undeveloped. A
railroad, labeled the “Northwestern Railroad”, is depicted running northwest to southeast north of the
project site, and a paved road, later Jacoby Street, is depicted west and south of the project site (USGS
1941, 1947, 1948, 1950). Highway 101 is also depicted west of the project site (USGS 1941, 1947,
1948, 1950).
Aerials from 1946, 1947, and 1948 confirm the presence of the Northwestern Railroad north of the
project site, paved Jacoby Road west and south of the project site, and Highway 101 west of the project
site. Additionally, the aerial shows a single-family property east of the project site and a railroad spur
between Highway 101 and Jacoby Street, and the surrounding area and project site still undeveloped
(UCSB 1947, NETR Online 2025).
Aerials from 1952 and 1958 depict the project site and surrounding area as they appeared in 1946-
1948; however, a drive-in theater was shown northwest of the project site and single-family residential
development southwest of Highway 101 (UCSB 1952).
Aerials from 1965 and 1968 depict the project site as undeveloped, but the property next door is
depicted with a commercial building and construction yard off Jacoby Street. Andersen Drive and
Interstate 580 are depicted north of the project site, and industrial and commercial development is
shown northwest of Interstate 580. Lastly, additional single-family development is depicted southwest
of Highway 101 (UCSB 1965).
Aerials from 1982, 1983, and 1987 depict the project site developed with the four self-storage
buildings and paved driveways. The surrounding properties are developed with industrial and
commercial properties along Andersen Drive and Jacoby Street. The surrounding area developed
further with industrial and commercial properties north of Interstate 580 and single- and multi-family
residential properties southwest and northwest of the project site (NETR Online 2025).
Aerials from 1993 to 2022 depict no further changes within the project site and infill development
within the surrounding area (NETR Online 2025).
Field Survey
The project site is currently developed with buildings and paved driveways; as such, an archaeological
pedestrian survey was not conducted. The following section summarizes the built environment survey
results.
The field work resulted in the identification of four historic-age buildings within the project site: 990-
1010 Andersen Drive (Figure 2 and Table 1). The property was recorded and evaluated on DPR 523
Series Forms which are provided in Attachment 3.
Table 1 Built Environment Resources
Address APN Description
990-1010 Andersen Drive 018-143-03
018-143-09
Commercial property containing four self-storage buildings constructed
in 1976 and 1979.
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
5
Historical Evaluation
As a result of background research and field survey for this study, Rincon recommends 990-1010
Andersen Drive ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and for local listing due to a lack of historical
and architectural significance. Refer to Attachment 3 for DPR 523 series forms providing architectural
descriptions, historical context, and full evaluations for each building.
Conclusion
As a result of background research, CHRIS records search, field survey, and aerial and map review,
one cultural resource was identified within the project site: 990-1010 Andersen Drive. The NRHP,
CRHR, and local evaluations determined the property ineligible due to lack of historical and
architectural significance. There are no known historical or unique archaeological resources within the
project site.
Should you have any questions concerning this study, please contact the undersigned at
alosco@rinconconsultants.com.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Ashley Losco, MSHP
Architectural Historian
Margo Nayyar, MA
Cultural Resources Principal
Attachments
Attachment 1 Figures
Attachment 2 Northwest Information Center CHRIS Search Results
Attachment 3 DPR 523 Series Forms
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
6
References
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Chattan, Cassandra
1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring at the Marin Recycling Center, Jacoby Street, San
Rafael, California. November 1996. Archaeological Resource Service (ARS). On file with
the NWIC as Study S-022013.
Desgrandchamp, Cindy and David Chavez
1984 Archaeological Resources Evaluation for the Central Marin Sanitation Wastewater
Transportation Facilities Improvement Project. Prepared by for Nute Engineering. On file
with the NWIC as Study S-006424.
Koenig, Heidi and Amber Grady
2021 California Department of Transportation Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin
East Bay Emergency Intertie Project. Prepared by ESA. Prepared for the Marin Municipal
Water District. On file with the NWIC as Study S-055702.
NETR Online (NETR)
2025 “Historic Aerials and Topographic Maps.” [digital photograph database]. Images of the
Project Site from 1946, 1948, 1958, 1968, 1982, 1983, 1987, and 1993-2022.
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed May 2025).
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1897 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1900 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1905 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1907 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1910 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1913 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
7
1922 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1928 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1932 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1940 Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. Scale 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1947 San Francisco, California Quadrangle. 1:250000. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1948 San Francisco, California Quadrangle. 1:250000. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
1950 Mt. Tamalpais, California Quadrangle. 1:62500. Accessed via topoView, online.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/37.9556/-122.5038 (accessed July
2025).
University of California Santa Barbara
1947 Flight GS_CP, Frame 5-91, Scale 1:23,600, January 1, 1947.
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ (accessed July 2025).
1952 Flight DRH_1952, Frame 2K-51, Scale 1:20,000, January 1, 1952.
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ (accessed July 2025).
1965 Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 39-173, Scale 1:12,000, May 1, 1965.
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ (accessed July 2025).
Attachment 1
Figures
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-1
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-2
Figure 2 Project Location Map
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-3
Figure 3 Preliminary Project Plans
City of San Rafael
990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project
1-4
Figure 4 Preliminary Project Plans
Attachment 2
Northwest Information Center CHRIS Search Results
7/24/2025 NWIC File No.: 25-0004
Ashley Losco
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 N. Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003
Re: 990 Andersen Drive Self Storage Project
The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced
above, located on the San Rafael USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records
search for the project area and a ¼ mile radius:
Resources within project area: None listed
Resources within ¼ mi. radius: (4) P-21-000109; P-21-000681; P-21-000910; P-21-002618
Reports within project area:
(3) S-6424; S-22013; S-55702
Reports within ¼ mi. radius: (14) See table below
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due
to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource
location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution.
If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the
phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public
disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or
any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information
maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks
and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State
Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource
records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records
search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that
produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native
American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should
contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal
contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record
search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result
in the preparation of a separate invoice.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Dana Richards
Researcher
Reports within ¼ mi. radius:
S- 001165
S- 001896
S- 010760
S- 012673
S- 012801
S- 012945
S- 013217
S- 016949
S- 027679
S- 031737
S- 037429
S- 044351
S- 048525
S- 052015
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-001165 1978 Pipeline and Water Treatment Plant
Facilities, Marin County.
Holman & AssociatesCindy Desgrandchamp
and Matthew Clark
21-000209, 21-000541
S-001896 1980 Archaeological Inspection of 1060 Andersen
Drive - AP 18-181-35 and AP 18-143-07
(letter report).
David Chavez
S-006424 1984 Archaeological Resources Evaluation for the
Central Marin Sanitation Wastewater
Transportation Facilities Improvement
Project - Phase II, Marin County, California
(EPA Project No. C-06-2467-21)
Cindy Desgrandchamp
and David Chavez
Other - EPA Project
No. C-06-2467-21
S-010760 1989 Historic Properties Survey Report for
Construction of High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes on Route 101 from Lucky Drive to San
Pedro Road and Modifications of Routes
101/580 Interchange, in Cities of San Rafael
and Larkspur, Marin County, 4-MRN-101,
P.M. 8.4/12.7 04232-115750
Caltrans, District 4Terry Jones, Robert
Gross, and Denise
O'Connor
21-000109, 21-000114, 21-000675,
21-000681, 21-002505, 21-002506,
21-002507, 21-002508, 21-002509,
21-002510, 21-002511, 21-002512,
21-002513
Caltrans - 04232-
115750;
OHP PRN -
FHWA990311B;
Voided - S-35514
S-010760a 1989 Archaeological Survey Report for the Marin
HOV Gap Closure, City of San Rafael, Marin
County, California 4-MRN-101, P.M.
8.4/12.7 04232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Terry Jones
S-010760b 1988 Historic Architectural Survey Report for
Construction of High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes on Route 101 from Lucky Drive to San
Pedro Road and the Upgrading of the Route
101/580 Interchange 4-MRN-101, P.M.
8.4/12.7 04232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Denise O'Connor
S-010760c 1989 Historical Resources Evaluation Report,
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Tracks Within
Project APE, 4-MRN-101, P.M. 8.4/12.7
04232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Stephen D. Mikesell
S-010760d 1999 Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin
HOV Gap Closure, City of San Rafael, Marin
County, California, 04-MRN-101, PM
8.4/12.7, 04-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
S-010760e 1999 First Addendum Positive Archaeological
Survey Report for the Marin HOV Gap
Closure, City of San Rafael, Marin County,
California 04-MRN-101, PM 8.4/12.7 EA 4232-
115750
California Department of
Transportation; Sonoma
State University
Katherine M. Dowdall and
Nelson B. Thompson
Page 1 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:09 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-010760f 1999 FHWA990311B: Historic Property Survey
Report; 04-MRN-101, PM 8.4/12.7. HOV
Gap Closure, State Route 101, City of San
Rafael, Marin County, California
U.S. Department of
Transportation; California
Office of Historic
Preservation
Jeffrey A. Lindley and
Daniel Abeyta
S-010760g 1999 Addendum Historic Property Survey Report,
for the Marin-101 HOV Gap Closure Project,
in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, 04-
Mrn-101, P.M. 8.2/12.7, EA 4232-115750
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Andrew Hope
S-012673 1991 An Archaeological Investigation of CA-MRN-
80, San Rafael, Marin County, California
(letter report)
Cultural Resources Facility,
Sonoma State University
Anmarie Medin 21-000109
S-012801 1991 Cultural Resources Technical Report,
Municipal Water District Water Supply Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
21-000109, 21-000115, 21-000154,
21-000163, 21-000170, 21-000173,
21-000176, 21-000182, 21-000183,
21-000219, 21-000220, 21-000458,
21-000525, 21-000558, 21-002649
S-012801a 1991 An Archaeological Investigation of CA-MRN-
80, San Rafael, Marin County, California
(letter report)
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Anmarie Medin
S-012801b 1991 An Archaeological Investigation of CA-MRN-
151, Novato, Marin County, California (letter
report)
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Anmarie Medin
S-012945 1957 The Examination of Indian Shell mounds
Within San Francisco Bay with Reference to
the Possible 1579 Landfall of Sir Francis
Drake
San Francisco State CollegeAdan E. Treganza 21-000108, 21-000109, 21-000218,
21-000256, 21-000267, 21-000541
Voided - S-13069
S-012945a 1958 The Examination of Indian Shellmounds
Within San Francisco Bay With Reference to
the Possible 1579 Landfall of Sir Francis
Drake: Second Season
San Francisco State CollegeAdan E. Treganza
S-013217 1990 An Archaeological Survey for the AT&T Fiber
Optics Cable, San Francisco to Point Arena,
California
Tom Origer & AssociatesThomas M. Origer 21-000042, 21-000043, 21-000347,
21-000527, 21-000528, 21-002694,
38-001336, 49-002834
Voided - S-13399;
Voided - S-13400;
Voided - S-13401
S-013217a 1990 Archaeological findings regarding a selection
of a route through Novato for the AT&T Fiber
Optics Cable (letter report)
Thomas M. Origer
S-013217b 1991 An archaeological study of revised portions of
the AT&T route near Santa Rosa and
Sausalito (letter report)
Thomas M. Origer
Page 2 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:10 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-013217c 1991 Archaeological study of AT&T revised fiber
cable routes (letter report)
Thomas M. Origer
S-013217d 1992 Archaeological survey of alternative fiber
optics cable routes, Point Arena (letter report)
Tom Origer & AssociatesThomas M. Origer
S-016949 1991 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of a
Proposed Reclaimed Water Pipeline in the
San Quentin Point, Corte Madera, Larkspur,
Kentfield and San Rafael Areas
Archaeological Resource
Service
William Roop 21-000095, 21-000114, 21-000541,
21-000544
Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 91-14
S-022013 1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring at the
Marin Recycling Center, Jacoby Street, San
Rafael, California
Archaeological Resource
Service
Cassandra Chattan 21-000109Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 96-48
S-027679 2003 Results of Archaeological Monitoring
Program for Improvements to Jacoby Street
located at the Marin Sanitary Service
Property, San Rafael, Marin County, CA
(ARS 03-037) (letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Elizabeth Bedolla 21-000109Submitter - ARS 03-
037
S-031737 2004 Archaeological Resources Technical Report
for the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART)
Project, Sonoma and Marin Counties,
California
Garcia and AssociatesCarole Denardo and
Daniel Hart
21-000113, 21-000114, 21-000193,
21-000194, 21-000551, 21-000560,
21-000675, 21-000681, 21-000685,
21-002540, 21-002571, 21-002611,
21-002612, 49-000788, 49-000790,
49-000900, 49-000901, 49-000902,
49-001014, 49-001196, 49-001198,
49-001262, 49-001263, 49-001352,
49-001468, 49-001517, 49-001583,
49-001798, 49-002134, 49-002255,
49-002273, 49-002274, 49-002275,
49-002301, 49-002304, 49-002319,
49-002536, 49-002539, 49-002695,
49-002697, 49-002819, 49-002820,
49-002823, 49-002824, 49-002825,
49-002826, 49-002827, 49-002833,
49-002834, 49-003014, 49-003022,
49-003135, 49-003250, 49-003334,
49-003352, 49-003353, 49-003374,
49-003376, 49-003377, 49-003379,
49-003380, 49-004755
Voided - S-31738
S-031737a 2004 Historic Architectural Resources Technical
Report for the Sonoma Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) Project
Garcia and Associates
Page 3 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:11 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-037429 2010 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Marin
Sanitary Service Parcel, Jacoby Street, San
Rafael, Marin County, California
Archaeological Resource
Service
William Roop 21-000109, 21-000458, 21-000775Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 10-005
S-044351 2014 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Proposed Freeway Performance Initiative
Project, Marin County, California, 04-MRN-
101, PM 0.0/27.6, 04-MRN-580, PM 2.4/4.5,
EA 151600
California Department of
Transportation, District 04
Emily Darko 21-000035, 21-000182Caltrans - EA 151600
S-044351a 2013 Extended Phase I Archaeological Testing at
CA-MRN-157 (P-21-000182) and CA-MRN-4
(P-21-000035) for the Proposed Freeway
Performance Initiative Project, Hwy 101 and
580, Marin County, 04-MRN-101, PM
0.0/27.6, 04-MRN-580, PM 2.4/4.5, EA
151600
Caltrans, District 04
California Department of
Transportation
Emily Darko
S-048525 2014 Historic Architectural Survey Report for the
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)
Rail Corridor, San Rafael to Larkspur Project,
Marin County, California
AECOMMadeline Bowen 21-001015, 21-002618, 21-002910OHP PRN -
FTA_2013_0418_001
S-052015 2018 Archaeological Excavation Report, Albion
Monolith LLC Master Plan Project, Marin
County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.Neal Kaptain 21-000681Submitter - LSA
Project No. AMN1801
S-055702 2021 Historic Property Survey Report, Emergency
Intertie Project in Marin and Contra Costa
Counties, California, 04-CC/MRN-580, PM
MRN 0.0/2.64; CC 5.44/6.5, EA 04-4W180,
04-3W680, 04-4W000, E-FIS 0422000121,
0422000015, 0422000099
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig and Amber
Grady
07-000441, 07-001162, 07-004745,
07-005027, 07-005028, 21-002865,
21-002920
Agency Nbr - EA 04-
3W680;
Agency Nbr - EA 04-
4W000;
Agency Nbr - EA 04-
4W180;
Agency Nbr - E-FIS
0422000015;
Agency Nbr - E-FIS
0422000099;
Agency Nbr - E-FIS
0422000121;
Submitter - ESA
Project:
D201900090.09
S-055702a 2021 Draft Historical Resources Evaluation Report,
Marin East Bay Emergency Intertie Project
Proposed By Marin Municipal Water District,
Marin And Contra Costa Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Amber Grady
Page 4 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:12 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
S-055702b 2021 Archaeological Survey Report, Marin East
Bay Emergency Intertie Project Proposed By
Marin Municipal Water District, Marin And
Contra Costa Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
S-055702c 2021 Draft Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards
For The Treatment Of Historic Properties
Action Plan, Marin East Bay Emergency
Intertie Project Proposed By Marin Municipal
Water District, Marin And Contra Costa
Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Amber Grady
S-055702d 2021 Environmentally Sensitive Area Action Plan,
Marin East Bay Emergency Intertie Project
Proposed By Marin Municipal Water District,
Marin And Contra Costa Counties, California
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
Page 5 of 5 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:54:12 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-21-000109 CA-MRN-000080 Resource Name - Nelson No. 80 S-002301, S-
010760, S-012673,
S-012801, S-
012945, S-013070,
S-022013, S-
027679, S-033646,
S-037429, S-
038999, S-049780
Site Prehistoric AP09; AP15 1957 (Arnold R. Pilling, [none]);
1989 (Terry Jones, John Hayes,
Caltrans);
1991 (Sally Morgan, Woodward-
Clyde Consultants)
P-21-000681 Resource Name - Possible Chert
Quarry
S-010760, S-
031737, S-035514,
S-052015, S-053942
Site Prehistoric,
Historic
AH02; AH09; AP12 1999 (Nelson Thompson, Sonoma
State University);
2018 (Neal Kaptain, LSA);
2020 (Katherine Jorgensen)
P-21-000910 Resource Name - 524 Jacoby
Street;
OHP Property Number - 000775;
OTIS Resource Number -
403832;
OHP PRN - 4902-0179-0000
Building Historic HP02 1977 (Niki Simons, City of San
Rafael)
Page 1 of 2 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:55:18 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-21-002618 CA-MRN-000699H Resource Name - Northwestern
Pacific Railroad;
Other - California Park Hill
Tunnel;
Other - Footing 13; Footing 14;
Footing 1; Footing 3 & 4;
Other - Auburn Street Trestle;
Other - Footing 5 & 6; Footing 7 &
8; Footing 9; Footing 10, 11, 12;
Other - Trestle over Corte Madera
Creek;
Other - Sonoma Valley Branch;
Other - San Francisco & Northern
Pacific Railroad;
OTIS Resource Number -
513207;
OTIS Resource Number -
513208;
OTIS Resource Number - 513210
S-036941, S-
037827, S-039171,
S-039520, S-
040317, S-040318,
S-040319, S-
043710, S-044440,
S-047399, S-
047935, S-048525,
S-049166, S-
051136, S-053102,
S-054951, S-055740
Structure,
Object, Site,
Element of
district
Historic AH02; AH07; AH15;
HP11
2003 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2003 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2003 (Rand Herbert, JRP Historical
Consulting);
2004 (Rand Herbert/Cindy
Toffelmier, JRP Historical
Consulting);
2004 (Rand Herbert, Cindy
Toffelmier, JRP Historical
Consulting);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, GANDA);
2004 (Daniel Hart, Garcia & Assoc);
2004 (Andrew Hope, Caltrans);
2006 (Melissa Gallagher, ASC,
SSU);
2008 (B.Harris, PAR
Environmental);
2009 (Toni Webb, JRP);
2010 (A. DeGeorgey, NCRM);
2011 (Erica Schultz, GANDA);
2014 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2014 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2014 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2018 ([none], Tom Origer & Assoc.)
Page 2 of 2 NWIC 7/24/2025 12:55:18 PM
Attachment 3
DPR 523 Series Forms
DPR 523A *Required information
Page 1 of 9 *Resource Name or #: 990-1010 Andersen Drive
P1. Other Identifier: House Storage Plus
*P2. Location: ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County Marin and
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Rafael, Calif. Date 1995 T 01N; R 06W; Sec 03 S.B.B.M
c. Address 990-1010 Andersen Drive City San Rafael Zip 94901
d. UTM: Zone 10S, 543388.20 mE/ 4200974.27 mN
Zone 10S, 543450.43 mE/ 4200986.36 mN
e. Other Locational Data: Marin County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 018-143-03 and 018-143-09
*P3a. Description: 990-1010 Andersen Drive is a commercial, self-storage property sited on two parcels (APNs 018-143-03 and 018-143-09)
on the south side of Andersen Drive in San Rafael, California (Photo 1). The 3.3-acre property has four storage buildings constructed in
1976 and 1979, which are set back from the street by strips of grass and ornamental trees. The four buildings are rectangular in plan and
sited northeast-to-southwest with similar basic features: each building sits on a concrete foundation, constructed of concrete tilt-up walls,
and capped with flat and Mansard roofs clad in asphalt shingles and non-original decorative aluminum corrugated sheets along the roof line
(Photo 2). The Mansard roofs are located at the eastern and western ends of each building adjacent to Andersen Drive at the front and Jacoby
Street at the rear likely to give the site more aesthetic character to the public right-of-way. The south and north elevations of each building
feature storage unit openings with non-original steel roll-up doors, and between each building are paved driveways (Photos 3 and 4). See
Continuation Sheet.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 Story Commercial Building
*P4. Resources Present: ☒ Building
P5b. Description of Photo:
Photo 1: 990-1010 Andersen Drive
north and east elevations, facing
southwest; taken July 16, 2025.
P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:☒ Historic
1976 and 1979 (ParcelQuest 2025)
*P7. Owner and Address:
HP Andersen LLC
35 Corte Madera Avenue
Mill Valley, California 94941
*P8. Recorded by:
Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants
66 Franklin Street, Suites 352 and 357
Oakland, California 94607
*P9. Date Recorded:
July 16, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Losco, A. and M. Nayyar. 2025. Cultural Resources Assessment for the 990 Andersen Drive Self-Storage Project, San
Rafael, California 94901. On file with the Northwest Information Center.
*Attachments: ☒Location Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Page 2 of 9 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
DPR 523B *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
B1. Historic Name: Mini-Stor Self-Storage
B2. Common Name: House Storage Self-Storage
B3. Original Use: Self-storage Warehouse
B4. Present Use: Self-Storage Warehouse
*B5. Architectural Style: Late Modern - Mansard
*B6. Construction History:
• 1976 – Buildings 3 and 4 (northern two buildings) constructed (ParcelQuest 2026)
• 1979 – Construction of Buildings 1 and 2 (southern two buildings) (ParcelQuest 2026)
• 1989, 1993, 1997, and 2009-2010 - Buildings re-roofed: tar and gravel removed, and new tar and gravel added (City of San Rafael 2025)
• Between 2008 and 2011 – Storage unit doors and roofing replaced (Google 2025)
• 2023 - New paving and gates to existing storage facility (City of San Rafael 2025)
• Vinyl replacement windows and skylight in Building 3 at an unidentified time.
*B7. Moved? ☒No
*B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: Ron Glander and Associates b. Builder: Sandbach Construction Company, Inc.
*B10. Significance: Theme: Commercial Development Area: San Rafael
Period of Significance N/A Property Type Commercial Applicable Criteria N/A
San Rafael
The context for the city of San Rafael was excerpted from the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources Inventory Summary Report
prepared by the City of San Rafael and Garavaglia Associates and Opticos Design in May 2021:
The early shape of San Rafael formed around the original Spanish mission in the early 1840s, when immigrants first came to the
area during the gold rush. No gold was found in San Rafael, but a thriving cattle farming business developed for the production and
supply of beef to the San Francisco market and areas of the Gold Country. When California became a state in 1850, local land grants
were divided into farms and city blocks, and former grants’ owners made up the early population of San Rafael. San Rafael was
later incorporated as a city in 1874.
The streetscape of San Rafael’s commercial downtown developed along a typical pattern of regional growth from the late 1860s to
the 1890s, when advances in transportation technologies and expansion in services determined the location for housing and
businesses. In 1870, the San Rafael and San Quentin Railroad was established, offering a regular train service to Point San Quentin.
See Continuation Sheet.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet.
B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: 6/25/2025
Page 3 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Map Name: San Rafael, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1995
DPR 523J * Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 4 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*P3. Description (Continued from Page 1):
The main office is located within Building 1 and is differentiated from the other buildings by a two-story section along Andersen Drive with
a Mansard roof clad in asphalt shingles, skylights, and dormers with aluminum-framed and vinyl vertical sliding sash windows (Photo 5).
The first floor has vinyl vertical sash windows, and the entrance is recessed at the northeast corner under the primary roof supported by a
stucco-clad post.
Photo 2: North and west elevation along Jacoby Street, facing
southeast.
Photo 3: Examples of storage unit openings and roll-up doors,
detail.
Photo 4: Paved driveway between buildings showing storage units
and roll-up doors, facing west.
Photo 5: Main office within building 3 east and south elevations,
facing northwest.
*B10. Significance (Continued from Page 3):
San Rafael Context Continued:
When the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, many unemployed Chinese immigrants came to San Francisco and
the surrounding cities. In San Rafael a community was formed along the east side of C Street with shops, laundries, and
gambling establishments. A Chinese community simultaneously formed a few miles east along San Pablo Bay, where nearly
500 people originally from Canton China lived and worked in a shrimp-fishing village. The North Pacific Coast Railroad (NPC)
followed in 1871, which provided San Rafael with a spur track that connected San Anselmo to the station at B Street. A new
depot was constructed in Tamalpais Avenue between Third and Fourth Streets in 1884, and passenger ferry services were
Page 5 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
provided with the extension of the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad (SF&NP) in 1879. A faster and more reliable
electric train service was ultimately introduced in 1903. The railroad encouraged a modest hospitality industry of summer and
weekend visitors that contributed to the growth of the town, with the opening of several hotels, saloons, and specialty shops.
By 1900, Fourth Street had become a premier shopping area in Marin County.
In the later years of the 19th century San Rafael had begun to be seen by some San Franciscans as a desirable escape from city
life. Prominent San Franciscans began to relocate to San Rafael, and after regular ferry services became available travel between
the two cities an influx of new residents following the San Francisco earthquake and fire in 1906. The increase in population
triggered new development in the residential neighborhoods on the borders of the new downtown. The expansion of these
neighborhoods created a foundation for the mixed residential/commercial areas in what is now the West End as well as the
residential neighborhoods immediately north of downtown. The early twentieth century also saw an increased interest in the
civic life of San Rafael, with the establishment of a Marin County Board of Supervisors, a local National Guard company, and
construction of new civic buildings.
These changes were accelerated by the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and the entry of the United
States into World War II. The Bay Area became a major hub for wartime industry, mainly shipping and arms production,
bringing waves of migration and development to San Rafael. San Rafael’s proximity to Point Richmond, the Mare Island
shipyards and Marinship in Sausalito caused a severe housing shortage and the construction of many new homes, including the
subdivision of existing housing. These events refocused new development to provide locally oriented goods and services to
many working families now residing in San Rafael. The growth of nearby military installations such as Hamilton Army Air
Base would also result in considerable impacts on downtown growth and commerce and set the stage for postwar suburban
growth. Even as the automobile became more ubiquitous, a “village”-like character made up of small shops and residences was
developed on the western end of Fourth Street (now known as the West End Village).
The early 20th century saw a transformation of transportation infrastructure in San Rafael, beginning with passenger ferry
service from Tiburon to Sausalito and the construction of the Northwestern Pacific electric interurban railway system from the
Sausalito ferry terminal. The interurban system was soon providing commuter service from southern Marin, the Ross Valley
and San Rafael to San Francisco. As late as 1903, automobiles were banned from many Marin County roads, prohibited from
night use, and limited to a 15 mile-per-hour speed. In 1909, a winding series of roads leading from Sausalito through the other
towns of Marin County was designated a California state highway, an early step in the transformation of California’s built
environment around the personal automobile. Entering San Rafael from the west, the highway traveled along Fourth Street
before turning north and leaving San Rafael via Lincoln Avenue (then Petaluma Boulevard). In 1915 the San Rafael-Richmond
Ferry was in operation, offering automobile access from the east.
The federal government had authorized the construction of US 101 in 1925, and by 1929 its Marin County route was under
development. By the mid-1930s, US 101 was handling 1.5 million cars annually. Population growth and ever-increasing
reliance on automobile transportation created demand for additional infrastructure, and federal funding made available by the
New Deal allowed construction on the Golden Gate Bridge to begin in 1933. The opening of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937,
and the increasing popularity of the automobile, improved connectivity between Marin County and San Francisco, effectively
ending the rail era. The last commuter train departed from San Rafael in 1941, the same year a viaduct for Highway 101 was
completed over San Rafael Creek. This raised freeway through the heart of the city created a visual and physical barrier between
east and central San Rafael.
While means of transportation were rapidly changing in the early 20th century, the need for rail stations persisted. The Spanish
Colonial/Mission Revival “B Street Station” was constructed to replace an older structure in 1928. This era also saw the
replacement of the 1884 railroad shed structure at Tamalpais Avenue with a Spanish Colonial/Mission Revival station in 1929.
The station was designed by architect Frederick H. Meyer, who is credited with designing many “Mission Revival” stations
throughout Marin County. The station has been significantly altered, but still stands in its original location.
As the country changed following the profound impacts of World War II, so did the City of San Rafael. Supporting industries
for the war ceased function, and workers sought alternate opportunities. This period saw the beginnings of larger auto-focused
developments, like those seen east of the freeway in Montecito Plaza. Following the war, housing needs started to increase,
and the Sun Valley, Terra Linda, Glenwood, Peacock Gap and Marinwood neighborhoods were developed on former ranch
lands from 1953 through the 1970s. Industries around San Rafael Canal also continued well into the 1950’s including petroleum
sales for other local industries.
During the postwar years, especially between 1953 and 1955, the construction of San Rafael’s housing stock rapidly increased.
Page 6 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
The development of the Terra Linda and Marinwood neighborhoods on former ranch lands are just one example of San Rafael’s
expansion at this time. Ferry strikes beginning in the late 1940s led to construction of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in 1956,
and the demise of ferry service between San Rafael and Richmond. Rapid construction of many inexpensive commercial
buildings took place on recently drained lands that had been the marshy floor of the San Rafael Valley, expanding the town’s
footprint into previously open space. Other notable examples of construction during this period can be found in the Eichler
homes in the Terra Linda and Marinwood neighborhoods.
Development of large department stores anchored new regional shopping centers at Northgate in Terra Linda and The Village
in Corte Madera, and eroded Downtown San Rafael’s dominance as the County’s retail destination. In 1962, completion of the
Marin County Civic Center several miles to the north negated the need for a Downtown County building. The 1872 courthouse
was destroyed by an arsonist in 1971. Major changes in Downtown continued into the 1970s, provoking a desire for historic
preservation. In 1975 the City Council approved Chapter 2.18 – Historic Preservation in the San Rafael Municipal Code and
established the Cultural Affairs Commission. In 1978 (updated 1986) the first survey of historic resources in San Rafael was
completed and a number of landmark properties were identified Downtown. At this same time the San Rafael Redevelopment
Agency formed, spearheading a campaign to restore and revitalize the aging buildings of Downtown. Historic preservation
efforts have continued in recent decades and are reflected in the Downtown Vision Plan adopted in 1993 and the General Plan
2020 adopted in 2004. This context has been developed in conjunction with the General Plan 2040, which will continue to
advance efforts to preserve the built heritage of San Rafael.
Property Development History
Commercial storage companies date as far in the past as the late nineteenth century, when the moving firm, Bekins Van and Storage, was
established in Nebraska and had several warehouses to facilitate their moving operations. Self-storage facilities, however, did not become
common in the United States until the 1950s and 1960s, possibly growing in number because the relative affluence of the Post-World War
II period allowed middle-class American families to accumulate significantly more material goods than previous generations (Neighbor
Blog 2019).
Planning for construction of the subject property began in 1975, which was described as the Mini-Stor Park as “new warehouse development
to provide mini-storage” (Daily Independent Journal 1975a). The article continued to explain that the one-story buildings would be concrete
and redwood and constructed on a two-acre parcel next door to Ghilotti Bros. Inc., who were part-owners of the subject property. In the
article, Dino and Mario Ghilotti explained the facility would provide storage spaces of 5ft by 10ft, 10ft by 10ft, or 10ft by 20ft.
Ron Glander and Associates, Inc. designed Buildings 3 and 4 (northern two buildings) addressed 990 Andersen Drive, and in 1976 Sandbach
Construction Company Inc. constructed and completed the two storage buildings for owners Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach. By 1979,
Glander and Associates and Sandbach Construction Company Inc. designed and constructed two additional buildings for the facility,
Buildings 1 and 2 (southern two buildings) addressed 1010 Andersen Drive (City of San Rafael 2025). At said time, the property was owned
by Mini Stor Ventures.
Since 1979, the property has undergone a few alterations. In 1989, 1993, 1997, and between 2009-2010, the buildings were re-roofed: the
tar and gravel were removed and new tar and gravel added. Lastly, in 2023, the new occupant of the property added new paving and gates
to the existing storage facility (City of San Rafael 2025).
Ron Glander and Associates
The architecture firm, Ron Glander and Associates, designed the subject property in 1976 and 1979. Based out of Novato, the firm designed
commercial and single-family residential properties “including land planning details for business parks, subdivisions and shopping centers”
throughout the North Bay Area (Novato Advance 1980). The firm formed in the early 1970s and designed most of their projects in the Late
Modern Mansard architectural style or Second Bay Tradition, utilizing shingles siding, exposed redwood structural framing, and simple,
horizontal form. Three of their identified projects include the Paradise Shopping Center in Corte Madera, a veterinarian hospital in San
Rafael (2060 Fourth Street), and a commercial property which won them a local Novato architecture award (8 Commercial Boulevard)
(Daily Independent Journal 1974, 1975b; Novato Advance 1976).
Sandbach Construction Company Inc.
Also active between the 1970s and 1980s, Sanbach Construction Company Inc. constructed commercial and multi-family housing projects
throughout the North Bay Area. Sandbach was one of the owners of the subject property when it was developed in 1976. No additional
information was identified.
Page 7 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Architectural Style
990-1010 Andersen Drive expresses some characteristics of the Late Modern Mansard architectural style. Popular in the United States
between 1960 and 1985, the style was defined by the use of the mansard roof previously popularized by the Second Empire style from the
late 19th century. Architects applied the style to a variety of building types including single- and multi-family residences, commercial
properties, and small medical offices. Architects also utilized Mansard architecture to update older, out-of-fashion commercial buildings by
“modernizing” the buildings with a mansard roofline (DAHP 2025).
Character-defining features of the Mansard Style:
• Two-story form, sometimes one-story
• Second floor hidden within the steeply pitched mansard roofline
• Roof commonly clad in cedar shingles but also asphalt shingles, or clay tiles
• Dormers of various roof styles
• Recessed entries
• Aluminum sliding windows
• Prominent garages or carports for residential properties (DAHP 2025)
Ownership and Occupancy History
At the time of construction, business partners of Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach owned the subject property and constructed the storage
facility (City of San Rafael 2025). Ghilotti refers to Dino and Mario Ghilotti, who owned Ghilotti Bros. Construction Company which
specialized in stone and cement. The company formed in 1914 by their father, James Ghilotti (Ghilotti Bros. 2025). Dino and Mario
purchased the company from their father in 1950 and expanded the company into not only stone and cement but also general construction,
including the foundation of the subject property in 1976 (City of San Rafael 2025, Ghilotti Bros. 2025).
Sandbach refers to Sandbach Construction Company Inc. who constructed the subject property in 1976. Refer to the information above
about the company. No information was identified on Kersch. Since opening in 1976, two tenants have occupied the subject property, Mini-
Stor Self Storage and House Storage (City of San Rafael 2025, Google 2025).
Between the late 1970s and mid-2010s, Mini Stor Ventures managed Mini Stor Self-Storage Facilities throughout northern California with
locations including Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and Roseville (The Folsom Telegraph 1992, The Sacramento Bee 1995, The Press-
Tribune 1997). Their facilities had similar site plans: three to four long storage buildings running perpendicular from the street with
individual storage units and a main office. Based on research, the company is no longer in business, and the identified locations are occupied
by new self-storage companies. Refer to Table 1 below for a full list of occupants and owners during the historic period.
Table 1. Ownership and Occupancy History of 990-1010 Andersen Drive
Date Name Source
1976-2022 Mini-Stor Self Storage (Occupant) City of San Rafael 2025
Google 2025
1976-1978 Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach (Owners)
City of San Rafael 2025
1979 Mini Stor Ventures (Owner) City of San Rafael 2025
Historical Resources Evaluation
990-1010 Andersen Drive was recorded and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register
of Historical Resources (CRHR), and for local listing as a city of San Rafael historic landmark and is recommended ineligible for listing in
the NRHP, CRHR, and for local listing.
According to National Register Bulletin 15 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, in order for a property to be eligible
under Criterion A the property must be associated with one or more events within a defined historic context (NPS 1997). Based on the San
Rafael history presented in the San Rafael General Plan, 990-1010 Andersen Drive’s construction occurred after the post-World War II
development of San Rafael (City of San Rafael et al. 2021). Constructed in 1976 and 1979, the property does not contribute to the post-
World War II development of San Rafael nor any other identified single events, pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends. 990-
1010 Andersen Drive does not contribute to the development of self-storage facilities in San Rafael. The property is not associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP
under Criterion A, CRHR under Criterion 1, and local listing under Criterion a.
Page 8 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Research identified three historic-era owners of 990-1010 Andersen Drive, Ghilotti, Kersch, and Sandbach. As stated above, Dino and
Mario Ghilotti owned Ghilotti Bros. Construction Company which worked throughout the San Rafael area. Research did not identify Ghilotti
Brothers as significant and their activities are not demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context (NPS 1997).
Sandbach was a local contractor, but little information was identified on the company and no information was identified on Kersch.
Sandbach and Kersch do not appear significant as their specific contributions to history are not identified or documented. Therefore, the
property is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, and the property is recommended ineligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion B, CRHR under Criterion 2, and local listing under Criterion a.
Constructed in 1976 and 1979, 990-1010 Andersen Drive exhibits some of the distinctive characteristics of the Mansard subtype of the Late
Modern style including one to two story form, second floor hidden within steeply pitched mansard roofline clad in asphalt shingles, dormers,
and recessed entries (DAHP 2025). According to National Register Bulletin 15, “To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of
those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction” (NPS 1997). Based on
visual observation, the property does not contain enough characteristics to be considered a true representative of the Mansard style. The
property was designed by Ron Glander and Associates and constructed by Sanbach Construction Company Inc. Based on Ron Glander and
Associates’ body of work, the company is not recognized as a master architect within San Rafael. Their work is not distinguishable from
others’ work by clear characteristic style or quality and a mere association with an architect or builder does not warrant eligibility (NPS
1997). Little information was identified on Sanbach Construction Company Inc. to warrant eligibility. Lastly, the property does not possess
high artistic value. 990-1010 Andersen Drive is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C, CRHR under Criterion
3, and as a local landmark Criterion b.
The property is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history because the property is
not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to subjects such as late-twentieth century concrete self-storage
buildings. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D, CRHR under Criterion 4, and as a
local landmark Criterion d.
*B12. References (Continued from Page 3):
Daily Independent Journal. 1974. “Other People’s Business.” December 17, 1974.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/74514316/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22 (accessed
June 2025).
------. 1975a. “Warehouse to Store Cars, Furniture to be Built Next to Ghilotti Bros.” September 4, 1975.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/70303543/?match=1&terms=%22990%20Andersen%20Drive%22 (accessed June 2025).
------. 1975b. “Miracle Mile Vet Hospital.” April 8, 1975.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/70340445/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22 (accessed
June 2025).
DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2025. “Mansard 1960-1085.” State of Washington.
https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/historic-buildings/architectural-style-
guide/mansard#:~:text=His%20designs%2C%20often%20called%20%22Hollywood,popularity%20in%20the%20late%2019
70s (accessed June 2025).
The Folsom Telegraph. 1992. “Public Notice.” May 13, 1992.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/387035174/?match=1&terms=%22mini%20stor%20self-storage%22 (accessed July
2025).
Ghilotti Bros. 2025. “History.” https://www.gbi1914.com/about/history/ (accessed June 2025).
Google. 2025. Street view of 990-1010- Andersen Drive.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/990+Andersen+Dr,+San+Rafael,+CA+94901/@37.9559359,-
122.5054564,3a,53.6y,260.43h,100.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF9Kysm2ivLqxa9lKGKKbDg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetvie
wpixels-
pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-
10.218953197712608%26panoid%3DF9Kysm2ivLqxa9lKGKKbDg%26yaw%3D260.4306930231198!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!
3m5!1s0x80859a387d610255:0xaa8117d0932c942d!8m2!3d37.955203!4d-
122.5061432!16s%2Fg%2F11c15wm17f?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYzMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Page 9 of 9 *Resource Name or # 990-1010 Andersen Drive
*Recorded by: Ashley Losco, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: 7/16/2025 ☒ Continuation
DPR 523L
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
(accessed June 2025).
NPS (National Park Service). 1997. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-
15_web508.pdf.
Neighbor Blog. 2019. “The History of Self Storage: From China to Omaha.” The Neighbor Blog. January 31, 2019.
https://www.neighbor.com/storage-blog/history-of-self-storage/ (accessed July 2025).
Novato Advance. 1976. “To Present Awards for Projects at Aug. 4 Lunch.” July 7, 1976.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1100970647/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22
(accessed June 2025).
------. 1980. “Bel Marin Business.” July 2, 1980.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1100744152/?match=1&terms=%22Ron%20Glander%20and%20Associates%22
(accessed June 2025).
ParcelQuest. 2025. Property Information for APNs 018-143-03 and 018-143-09. https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home (accessed June
2025).
The Press Tribune. 1997. “Public Notices.” February 2, 1997.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/384635699/?match=1&terms=%22mini%20stor%20self-storage%22 (accessed July
2025).
The Sacramento Bee 1995. “Classified 321-1234.” January 25, 1995.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/626720374/?match=1&terms=%22mini%20stor%20self-storage%22 (accessed July
2025).
San Rafael, City of. 2025. 2025. Permit Search. Building Permits for 990 and 1010 Andersen Drive.
https://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/etrakit3/Search/permit.aspx
San Rafael, City of, Garavaglia Associates, and Opticos Design. 2021. Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources Inventory
Summary Report. May 2021.
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/05/PreservationSummaryReport-May2021.pdf (accessed
June 2025).
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
BUILDING 4
0'15'30'60'
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
P 561.625' S 39° 26' W
P
1
5
2
.
7
2
'
S
5
0
°
3
4
'
0
0
"
W
L=
2
7
.
1
1
7
'
R=
1
0
3
6
'
D=
1
°
2
9
'
5
9
"
P
5
1
.
1
7
'
N
5
4
°
3
2
'
3
5
"
W
P 286.88' S 39° 33' 11" W
P
1
2
8
.
8
7
'
N
5
0
°
2
6
'
4
9
"
W
P 611.83' S 39° 26' 00" W
P
5
9
.
3
0
'
N
4
4
°
1
7
'
W
5'
25'-0"
EASEMENT
EASEMENT
29'-6"±
25'-4"±
38'-0"±
31'-3"±
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
4'
24
'
-
4
"
±
48
'
-
0
"
35
'
-
4
"
±
48
'
-
0
"
34
'
-
2
"
±
51
'
-
2
"
34
'
-
3
"
±
(V
A
R
I
E
S
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
33
'
-
2
"
T
O
3
8
'
-
8
"
)
VISION TRIANGLE-TYP.
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
JA
C
O
B
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOT 1
LOT 2
3'-10"±17'-0"4'-6"
18'-0"
5'-3"±
6'-4"±
NOTE: ALL EXISTING TREES ARE SHAMEL ASH (FRAXINUS UHDEI)
THE BALANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING IS EXISTING PIVET SHRUBS
AND GRASS.
24
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
VICINITY MAP
LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA 92630
EMAIL: KEN@AREASSOCIATES.COM
TELEPHONE: (949) 305-4752
25422 TRABUCO ROAD, SUITE 105-A
KEN CARRELL / ARE ASSOCIATESARCHITECT
BUILDING DATA
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
I (INDUSTRIAL)
TYPE III-B SPRINKLERED
S-1 (STORAGE)
B (OFFICE)
4 MAXIMUM
71,419 SF / 142,551 SF = 0.50 F.A.R.
U (GARAGE)
APPLICANT/OWNER
BUILDINGS
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 1
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
OCCUPANCY GROUP
ZONING
018-143-03
PER PLANNING
2 SPACES
1 SPACE
3 SPACES
PROJECT DATA
SITE SQUARE FOOTAGES
PARKING DATA
PARKING - REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
PARKING - PROVIDED
STANDARD SPACES
HANDICAP SPACES
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
GROSS SITE AREA
BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
LANDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
HARDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
R-1 (APARTMENT)
SUB-TOTAL
PROJECT DIRECTORY
TELEPHONE: (415) 388-9905
EMAIL: EVAN@SILVERCREEKPARTNERS.NET
EVAN LILLEVAND / HOUSE PROPERTIES / SILVERCREEK PARTNERS
MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941
35 CORTE MADERA AVENUE
BUILDING 4
SITE
1"=30'-0"EXISTING SITE PLAN 1
BUILDING 2
MONUMENT SIGN
HARDWARE SUPPLY
L
L
P
R = 276.00'
L = 129.63' D = 26 54' 34"
L
L
L
L
L
PL
P
R
=
1
0
3
6
.
0
0
'
L
=
7
1
.
30
'
D
=
3
56
'
36
"
L
0
L
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
NOTE: SITE IS FLAT AT ALL BUILDING LOCATIONS.
SITE HAS MINIMAL DOWNWARD SLOPE AT FRONT.
EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD
HARDWARE SUPPLY
PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITYPROJECT TYPE
(3.27 ACRES) 142,551 SQUARE FEET (100.0%)
71,419 SQUARE FEET ( 50.1%)
7,552 SQUARE FEET ( 5.3%)
63,580 SQUARE FEET ( 44.6%)
EXISTING PROJECT
26,772 SQUARE FEET
7,382 SQUARE FEET
71,419 SQUARE FEET
25,709 SQUARE FEET
11,556 SQUARE FEET
140,196SF / 142,551 SF = 0.98 F.A.R.FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - PROPOSED
MONUMENT SIGN
LANDSCAPE
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
BUILDING A
0'15'30'60'
BUILDING B
BUILDING C
P 561.625' S 39° 26' W
P
1
5
2
.
7
2
'
S
5
0
°
3
4
'
0
0
"
W
L=
2
7
.
1
1
7
'
R=
1
0
3
6
'
D=
1
°
2
9
'
5
9
"
P
5
1
.
1
7
'
N
5
4
°
3
2
'
3
5
"
W
P 286.88' S 39° 33' 11" W
P
1
2
8
.
8
7
'
N
5
0
°
2
6
'
4
9
"
W
P 611.83' S 39° 26' 00" W
P
5
9
.
3
0
'
N
4
4
°
1
7
'
W
5'
25'-0"
EASEMENT
EASEMENT
29'-6"±
25'-4"±
38'-0"±
31'-3"±
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
4'
24
'
-
4
"
±
13
1
'
-
4
"
34
'
-
2
"
±
51
'
-
2
"
34
'
-
3
"
±
(V
A
R
I
E
S
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
33
'
-
2
"
T
O
3
8
'
-
8
"
)
VISION TRIANGLE-TYP.
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
JA
C
O
B
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
2'-10"±18'-0"4'-6"
18'-0"
5'-3"±
6'-4"±
NOTE: ALL EXISTING TREES ARE SHAMEL ASH (FRAXINUS UHDEI)
THE BALANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING IS EXISTING PIVET SHRUBS
AND GRASS.
24
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
VICINITY MAP
LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA 92630
EMAIL: KEN@AREASSOCIATES.COM
TELEPHONE: (949) 305-4752
25422 TRABUCO ROAD, SUITE 105-A
KEN CARRELL / ARE ASSOCIATESARCHITECT
BUILDING DATA
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
I (INDUSTRIAL)
TYPE III-B SPRINKLERED
S-1 (STORAGE)
B (OFFICE)
4 MAXIMUM
71,419 SF / 142,551 SF = 0.50 F.A.R.
U (GARAGE)
SECOND FLOOR
APPLICANT/OWNER
BUILDINGS
BUILDING C
BUILDING A
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
OCCUPANCY GROUP
ZONING
018-143-03
(3.27 ACRES) 142,551 SQUARE FEET (100.0%)
71,419 SQUARE FEET ( 50.1%)
7,552 SQUARE FEET ( 5.3%)
PER PLANNING
2 SPACES
1 SPACE
3 SPACES
63,580 SQUARE FEET ( 44.6%)
PROJECT DATA
SITE SQUARE FOOTAGES
PARKING DATA
PARKING - REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
PARKING - PROVIDED
STANDARD SPACES
HANDICAP SPACES
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
GROSS SITE AREA
BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
LANDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
HARDSCAPE SITE COVERAGE
R-1 (APARTMENT)
0 SQUARE FEET
140,196 SQUARE FEET68,777 SQUARE FEETTOTAL
PROJECT DIRECTORY
TELEPHONE: (415) 388-9905
EMAIL: EVAN@SILVERCREEKPARTNERS.NET
EVAN LILLEVAND / HOUSE PROPERTIES / SILVERCREEK PARTNERS
MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941
35 CORTE MADERA AVENUE
68,777 SQUARE FEET
SITE
1"=30'-0"NEW SITE/ROOF PLAN 2
BUILDING B
0 SQUARE FEET
MONUMENT SIGN
HARDWARE SUPPLY
L
L
P
R = 276.00'
L = 129.63' D = 26 54' 34"
L
L
L
L
L
PL
P
R
=
1
0
3
6
.
0
0
'
L
=
7
1
.
30
'
D
=
3
56
'
36
"
L
0
L(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
(GROUND LEVEL IS EXISTING)
EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD
HARDWARE SUPPLY
PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITYPROJECT TYPE
(3.27 ACRES) 142,551 SQUARE FEET (100.0%)
71,419 SQUARE FEET ( 50.1%)
7,552 SQUARE FEET ( 5.3%)
63,580 SQUARE FEET ( 44.6%)
PROPOSED PROJECTEXISTING PROJECT
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
7,382 SQUARE FEET
71,419 SQUARE FEET
52,481 SQUARE FEET
11,556 SQUARE FEET
140,196SF / 142,551 SF = 0.98 F.A.R.FLOOR-TO-AREA RATIO - PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE
7,382 SQUARE FEET
11,556 SQUARE FEET
121,258 SQUARE FEET
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
0'10'20'40'
1"=20'-0"GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS 3
NOTE: GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS WILL REMAIN AS IS
EXCEPT WHERE ELEVATORS AND STAIRS ARE ADDED.
UPEL
E
V
UPEL
E
V
R/R
GA
R
A
G
E
OFFICE
UPEL
E
V
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
APARTMENT
0'10'20'40'
1"=20'-0"SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4
DNEL
E
V
DNEL
E
V
DNEL
E
V
LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING BELOW-TYP.
DNEL
E
V
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
0'10'20'40'
..5 ROOF PLAN 5
RIDGE
GAVALUME
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
1/2:12
1/2:12
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
0'10'20'40'
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
COLOR: GAVALUME
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: MATTE BLACK
PREFABRICARED METAL CANOPY
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: BRONZE / CLEAR
STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
COLOR: GAVALUME
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
METAL FASCIA
COLOR: MCELROY METALS - CHARCOAL
EXTERIOR METAL SIDING
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
1"=20'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6
33
'
-
8
"
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
33
'
-
8
"
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
33
'
-
8
"
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
30
'
-
0
"
±
FINISHED FLOOR
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
4'
±
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF ROOF
33
'
-
8
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
FINISHED FLOOR
29
'
-
6
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
3'
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATETOP OF ROOF
FINISHED FLOOR
33
'
-
8
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
FINISHED FLOOR
33
'
-
8
"
16
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
7'
-
2
"
FINISHED FLOOR
TOP PLATE
TOP OF WALL
FINISHED FLOOR
BUILDING C BUILDING B BUILDING A
BUILDING CBUILDING BBUILDING A
BUILDING A
BUILDING CBUILDING A
WALL PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
0'10'20'40'
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 2
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 2
COLOR: ORANGE
METAL OVERHEAD DOOR
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: FACTORY FINISH
ALUMINUM SLIDING WINDOW
1"=20'-0"EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 7
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 1
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4
BUILDING 1BUILDING 2BUILDING 3BUILDING 4
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALY SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALY SHINGLES
COLOR: ORANGE
METAL OVERHEAD DOOR
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: LA HABRA - CHABLIS
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
0'10'20'40'
JOB NUMBER
DATE
DRAWN BY
REVISIONS
Exp. 10/31/25
No. C-23871
Kenneth K. Carrell
ST A T E O F CAL IF
O
R
N
I
A
L
I
C
E
N
SED A R C H I T E CT
SCALEAssociates
v. 949.305.4752
Lake Forest, California
25422 Trabuco Road
ken@AREAssociates.com
92630-2796
Suite 105-A
A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g D e s i g n HOUSE STORAGE PLUS990 ANDERSEN DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
22095
24 FEB 20
KKC
24 JUN 25
24 JUL 25
24 AUG 08
24 SEP 27
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 4
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 3
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
1"=20'-0"EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8
WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 4
EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 3
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
COLOR: LIGHT YELLOW
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
COLOR: ORANGE
CORRUGATED METAL ACCENT
COLOR: ORANGE
OVERHEAD METAL DOOR
COLOR: GRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.
WALL-PACK LIGHTING-TYP.