4201 Bloomfield Road — Pre-Application Feasibility Brief

Headline from the 2026-06-05 consultation: rather than build habitable "offices," the parcel's allowance of two ADUs lets us simply build two by-right ministerial dwellings, sited together as one compound. Our overriding goal is still to design something that lands cleanly — we would rather adjust the concept now than discover a classification problem at plan check.

The proposal — a two-ADU compound

On a new building pad at the north edge of the parcel's oak grove: two detached ADUs, each a complete, independent dwelling, sited together and connected by a shared deck (with a physical break so they are not "obviously attached"). Separately, a detached 3-car garage on the eastern part of the parcel, below the hill near the existing developed area.

North pad · dwelling

ADU A — main

~1,200 sqft · 2 bed / 2 bath · single story, with the large ("epic") kitchen + great room. A ministerial ADU under Gov. Code §65852.2.

North pad · dwelling

ADU B — second

~1,200 sqft (the full per-ADU cap) · 2 bed / 2 bath · single story, with a compact, tucked-away kitchen. A ministerial ADU under §65852.2 — complementary to A, not mirrored (A holds the showpiece kitchen; B's footprint favors bedrooms/living).

East · accessory

Garage (3-car)

~700 sqft · vehicle storage. Load-bearing straw-bale on a slab foundation. No kitchen, no sleeping room. (An arts studio may follow later as an accessory structure.)

Connector: a shared deck joins ADU A and ADU B, with a concrete break so each reads as an independent structure. Construction: load-bearing / post-and-beam straw-bale with lime/earth plaster; wood + metal cladding; low-slope roofs; substantial glazing to the northwest view; pier/post or slab foundations on the sloping ground. WUI Chapter 7A-compliant exteriors; Title 24 solar on both ADUs. The earlier "1 ADU + two detached offices" concept is superseded — two ADUs are by-right dwellings, so the second absorbs the office / homeschool / guest program. This brief addresses land-use feasibility and classification; interior layouts and finishes 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Existing structures (to remain): the 1988 single-family dwelling (~3,456 sqft; VR permit ZPE16-0070 was revoked at transfer and is not relied upon); a 1,152 sqft former goat-dairy structure legalized as a non-dwelling (BLD03-1684); the private well; and a septic system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 want the new structures designed so there is no ambiguity about their classification.

Confirmed

A detached ADU is permitted here — ministerial, 60-day review — and the parcel allows up to two ADUs.
ADU standards: ≤1,200 sqft, no height limit or setbacks beyond the state ADU minimums.
No ADU-related ceiling on accessory structures — "as many as desired" (studios, outbuildings, etc.).
The well is Class 2 — sufficient for multiple dwellings; no extra yield test or storage tank required.
Septic path = a Type III findings report via our septic consultant (BC Engineering engaged).
Permits: BLD + SEP; GRD only if earthwork >50 cy; ENC if work is within 30 ft of the Bloomfield Rd ROW.
ADU government fees ≈ $13K impact + $4–5K review (~$17–18K per ADU).
The combining overlays (OAK / RC50/50 / SR) do not push the ADU into discretionary review; siting is a civil-engineering determination.
Closed violations (VBU02 / VPL02 / VBU05) are not a plan-check issue; VR permit ZPE16-0070 was revoked at transfer.

Two ADUs may be built and sited together, connected by a shared deck — each must be a complete dwelling (its own kitchen). The only constraint: structures must not be "obviously attached" into a single building unless intended; a physical break (concrete) in any connecting deck keeps each independent.
Straw-bale construction is acceptable — for the dwellings and the garage. No special hurdle flagged.
No setback requirements for accessory structures — garage, arts studio, etc. — given interior siting on the parcel.

What remains open

AADU specifics

Title 24 solar PV requirement for both new ADUs and acceptable compliance paths (grid-tied / battery / roof-ready conduit).
Fire sprinklers (CRC R313): confirm for the dwellings, and whether the garage requires them.
We have the per-ADU fee picture (~$17–18K). Do two ADUs each carry full impact / permit fees, and does the garage carry separate fees?

BSeparation & fire-rating

Confirm the minimum separation that keeps the garage (and any future studio) "detached" from the ADUs (we understand a ≥6 ft open-to-sky yard; we intend ≥10 ft).
At our proposed spacing, confirm the CRC R302.1 fire-separation requirements for exterior-wall rating and window openings on facing walls, that ≥10 ft permits unprotected glazing, and how these apply to the straw-bale assemblies.

CCombining-district specifics

OAK: the drip-line standard for building near the grove (the north pad is at its edge), and whether an arborist report, tree survey, or mitigation is required. May we also obtain the GIS overlay layers for OAK and RC50/50?
RC50/50: confirm the location of any designated watercourse near the pad and that our structures and access clear the 50-ft riparian setback.
SR: the Bloomfield Rd scenic corridor — what height, materials, or visibility standards apply under ministerial review? Do low-slope, non-reflective, earth-toned structures satisfy them?

DSeptic — open specifics

Our septic path is a Type III findings report (BC Engineering engaged). How do two 2BR ADUs (4 added bedrooms) count toward OWTS design flow / bedroom-equivalent on top of the documented 1-unit / 4-BR baseline?
Please confirm the governing dwelling-to-leach-field / tank / well setbacks (well-to-leach-field 100 ft, tank-to-well, structure-to-components) or point us to the OWTS Manual table.

EBuilding · fire · WUI

Confirm the Chapter 7A WUI specifics (ignition-resistant exterior, ember-resistant vents, Class A roof) for all structures, and how they apply to the lime/earth-plastered straw-bale assemblies.
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)?

FGrading & access

Given the building pad, garage pad, and pier/post foundations on the sloping site, what geotechnical investigation do you expect (expansive LoE/SnD2/SnE2 soils, Seismic Design Category D), and is a soils report required at submittal?
The recorded 50-ft Pullin shared right-of-way — if our access interacts with it, does Planning need anything beyond the ENC (within 30 ft of the Bloomfield Rd ROW)?

GProcess, submittal & sequencing

Sequencing: may both ADUs (and the garage) be submitted concurrently, or should they follow one another? Does the two-ADU compound remain fully by-right / ministerial?
Required electronic submittal format and file-naming convention.
Realistic application-to-permit timeline for the ADUs and the garage.
Do you recommend a formal Project Review (pre-application) meeting for this multi-structure plan, and how do we schedule it?

The proposal — a two-ADU compound

Property & existing conditions

Confirmed

What remains open

Reference materials we can provide