4201 Bloomfield Road — Pre-Application Feasibility Brief

Our overriding goal is to design something that lands cleanly — we would rather adjust the concept now than discover a classification problem at plan check. This brief states the proposal and lists the determinations we are seeking, organized by topic. We are glad to bring it to a formal Project Review meeting.

The proposal

Three independent, freestanding structures on a new building pad at the north edge of the parcel's oak grove. None shares a wall or roof with another; each is separated from the others by open space (we intend ≥ 10 ft between structures).

Structure A — dwelling

Main ADU

~1,185 sqft · 2 bed / 2 bath · single story. Intended as a ministerial ADU under Gov. Code §65852.2.

Structure B — accessory

Studio — West

~257 sqft · art / yoga studio. Habitable, with a bathroom. No kitchen, no sleeping room.

Structure C — accessory

Studio — East

~257 sqft · identical to West. Habitable, with a bathroom. No kitchen, no sleeping room.

Construction (all three): timber frame; wood + metal cladding; low-slope roofs; substantial glazing to the northwest view; pier/post foundations stepping with the sloping pad. WUI Chapter 7A-compliant exterior; Title 24 solar on the ADU. This brief addresses land-use feasibility and classification; interior layouts, finishes, and landscape elements are not part of the question.

Property & existing conditions

Existing structures (to remain): the 1988 single-family dwelling (~3,456 sqft; VR permit ZPE16-0070 was revoked at transfer and is not relied upon); a 1,152 sqft former goat-dairy structure legalized as a non-dwelling (BLD03-1684); the private well; and a septic system documented for 1 unit / 4 bedrooms (SDS #1342, 1988).

Disclosed history (all files closed): two prior code-enforcement cases cited the former dairy barn as an illegal second dwelling (VBU02-0038, VPL02-0039, VBU05-0538). We are aware of this record and specifically want to design the new accessory structures so there is no ambiguity about their non-dwelling status.

What we need confirmed

AUse, classification & densityCentral question

Please confirm the LEA-zoned parcel supports a detached ADU under §65852.2 ministerial review.
Are two detached accessory structures used as art/yoga studios — habitable, with a bathroom, but with no kitchen and no sleeping room — permitted by right (building permit only) as accessory to the residential use, with no per-parcel numeric limit and no use permit required?
Does the presence of a bathroom (with no kitchen and no sleeping room) reclassify such a studio as a guest house, "guest room," or dwelling unit? If not, please confirm.
What specific plan features does the County use to distinguish an accessory studio from (a) a guest house (sleeping room) and (b) a dwelling unit (kitchen)? We want to remain unambiguously an accessory structure — e.g., do you look at closets, the extent of plumbing, square footage, or finishes?
Please confirm the guest-house standards (≈640 sqft cap, one-per-parcel, within 100 ft of the primary dwelling) do not apply to studio accessory structures, since these are not guest houses.
Is there a maximum size and/or height for habitable accessory structures in the LEA district?
Are there limits on the total number of structures or on lot coverage applicable to this 46-acre parcel?
Do the existing SFD and the legalized non-dwelling barn constrain any of the above?

BADU specifics (ministerial)

Confirm the size cap (≤1,200 sqft), height limit, and that state ADU setback minimums (we understand 4 ft side/rear) govern the ADU.
Confirm the fee picture (we noted ≈$13K impact + ≈$4–5K review at the counter) and whether the accessory studios carry separate fees.
Confirm the Title 24 solar PV requirement for the new ADU and acceptable compliance paths.
Confirm the fire-sprinkler requirement (CRC R313) for the dwelling, and whether the studios require sprinklers.
Confirm the 60-day ministerial review timeline.

CSetbacks & separation between structures

Confirm property-line setbacks: ADU under state minimums; studios under LEA base (front 55 ft from road centerline / side 10 ft / rear 20 ft) — and that none are binding given interior siting.
Confirm the minimum separation that keeps each building "detached" (we understand a ≥6 ft open-to-sky yard; we intend ≥10 ft).
At our proposed spacing, confirm the building-code fire-separation requirements (CRC R302.1) for exterior-wall rating and window-opening area on facing walls, and that ≥10 ft between buildings permits unprotected glazing.

DCombining districts — OAK · RC50/50 · SR

OAK: the ADU pad sits at the north edge of the oak grove. What triggers oak-woodland review, what is the drip-line standard, and will an arborist report, tree survey, or mitigation be required? Do the studios (sited away from the grove) trigger OAK at all?
RC50/50: please confirm the location of any designated watercourse near the pad and that our structures and access clear the 50-ft riparian setback. May we obtain the GIS overlay layers?
SR: what height, materials, or visibility standards from the Bloomfield Rd scenic corridor apply under ministerial review? Do low-slope, non-reflective, earth-toned structures satisfy them?

EWell & septic

Confirm the well classification (noted as Class 2 at the counter) supports the added demand.
The existing OWTS is documented for 1 unit / 4 BR (SDS #1342). How do the ADU (2 BR) plus the two studio bathrooms count toward OWTS design flow, and please confirm a new or expanded OWTS design (Type III findings / perc) is the path. (Our civil engineer, BC Engineering, is engaged.)
Confirm the sanitary setbacks governing siting — well-to-leach-field (we understand 100 ft), tank-to-well, structure-to-components — and point us to the OWTS Manual table.

FBuilding · fire · WUI

Confirm Chapter 7A WUI requirements (ignition-resistant exterior, ember-resistant vents, Class A roof) apply to all three structures.
The ADU pad is adjacent to the protected oak grove. How do we reconcile defensible space (PRC 4291, 100 ft) with the OAK overlay's tree protection — is a vegetation-management plan (limbing + understory reduction, retaining mature oaks) the accepted approach?
What fire-apparatus access / turnaround and any fire-flow or water-storage requirements apply in the SRA (Bloomfield VFC / Cal Fire)?

GGrading & access

Confirm the grading-permit threshold (we noted >50 cy) for the building pad and pier/post foundations on the sloping site, and the geotechnical expectations (expansive soils, Seismic Design Category D).
Confirm when an Encroachment (ENC) permit is triggered for access work near the Bloomfield Rd right-of-way. (We are also reviewing the recorded 50-ft Pullin easement.)

HProcess, submittal & sequencing

Recommended sequencing: we expect to permit the ADU first (ministerial). May the two studios be submitted concurrently, or should they follow? Does any element push into discretionary review?
Required electronic submittal format and file-naming convention.
Do you recommend a formal Project Review (pre-application) meeting for this multi-structure plan, and how do we schedule it?

IPrior record

Please confirm the closed violations (VBU02-0038, VPL02-0039, VBU05-0538) and the revoked VR permit (ZPE16-0070) pose no obstacle — and advise what we should proactively document to demonstrate the new studios are genuine accessory structures, not dwelling conversions, given the parcel's history.

The proposal

Property & existing conditions

What we need confirmed

Reference materials we can provide