Planning commission approves 16‑unit townhome project on Michael Drive

The Campbell Planning Commission on Nov. 25 approved a minor housing development permit and a vesting tentative subdivision map for a 16‑unit townhome project submitted by Masumi Brothers LLC (file PLN2025-23). The commission’s motion, adopted by all members present, allows demolition of two existing duplexes and the creation of 16 fee‑simple residential lots and one common lot for circulation and stormwater facilities.

Senior planner Daniel Fama told the commission the proposal features three buildings, each about 37 feet tall, and noted the project was submitted under the Housing Crisis Act and references state density bonus law and related waivers. “The 2 principal components of the application…are the housing development permit…to allow the 16 townhome units” and the tentative map, Fama said, adding that the applicant committed to meeting the city’s inclusionary requirement by providing one low‑income and one moderate‑income unit.

Why it matters: staff recommended approval because the project meets required objective findings, and the commission noted the proposal fits the city’s medium‑high‑density general plan range while illustrating how smaller infill projects are being used to add “missing middle” housing. The item highlights tensions common to such proposals: accommodating state housing law and local design standards while managing construction impacts on adjacent residents.

Commissioners and staff discussed several practical details before the vote. Fama explained the application did not claim an actual density bonus but requested waivers under the state statute; he also referenced the city’s inclusionary housing rules and said an in‑lieu fee methodology can apply in some calculations. Public works senior civil engineer Roger Storrs told the commission the city generally discourages staging materials in the public right‑of‑way and encourages developers to secure nearby private staging lots. “We generally do not allow the staging of materials in the public right of way because it just becomes problematic,” Storrs said, describing how staff often works with developers to preserve curb access and find off‑site staging if needed.

Nearby residents spoke during public comment about construction impacts, noise, dust and street parking. One neighbor, identifying himself as Phil of 940 Michael Drive, asked, “How are we going to deal with the noise, the dust?” Commissioners and staff pointed to Condition of Approval No. 25, which requires a construction management plan subject to city engineer approval and sets the standard mechanism to manage staging, hours and traffic impacts during construction.

Other details on the record: commissioners asked about visitor parking (staff noted on‑street parking remains a public resource and the site’s proximity to transit affects parking requirements), unit livability (architect Sherin Passal said the design provides small second‑floor balconies rather than ground‑floor patios), and stormwater treatment (public works described pervious paver driveways and infiltration basins and said construction drawings will show how downspouts tie into the project’s infiltration facilities).

The vote: the commission recorded Aye votes from all members present and approved the resolution. Chair Matt Comkar read the appeal instructions, saying the planning commission’s action is final unless appealed in writing to the city clerk within 10 calendar days.

Next steps: the applicant will proceed to required building and construction permits and must satisfy the conditions of approval (including the construction management plan and final construction drawings for drainage and street improvements) before permits are issued.