Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal of Bloomfield cannabis cultivation and centralized processing permit
Summary
The board denied an appeal and upheld a Board of Zoning Adjustments approval for a 5,000‑sf indoor, 10,000‑sf mixed‑light cultivation and centralized processing facility at 4707 Bloomfield Road after hearing neighbors’ concerns about hours, noise, odor and light and staff’s findings tying the project to the certified cannabis program EIR and required mitigation.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal and upheld the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision to approve a use permit for a cannabis cultivation and centralized processing operation at 4707 Bloomfield Road (UPC 1912) on April 28.
Permit Sonoma staff presented the application and described a project sited on roughly a small portion of a 113‑acre parcel in a land‑extensive agricultural area: 5,000 square feet of indoor cultivation, 10,000 square feet of mixed‑light cultivation and a centralized processing facility. Staff said all cultivation and processing would occur inside enclosed structures, that the project included HVAC and acoustical measures, a 24‑hour contact and complaint log requirement, and must implement filtration and odor controls to prevent detectable odors off‑site. Staff also tied the project analysis to the recently certified cannabis program Environmental Impact Report and recommended denying the appeal.
Neighbors and appellants argued the project would allow 24‑hour operations, bring additional traffic and create noise, glare and odor impacts — and asked the board to require stronger, verifiable odor and noise controls (including carbon‑scrubber systems), to limit deliveries and to shorten the CUP term for earlier review. Appellants’ counsel urged mandatory carbon scrubbers, continuous self‑monitoring and a one‑year CUP to allow rapid review.
The applicant and staff said the project’s mitigation measures (including activated carbon filtration as required under the program EIR) and the site‑specific conditions would control odor and noise and that the county has enforcement tools, including code enforcement and permit revocation, if conditions are violated. The applicant said most processing demand would come from on‑site product initially, with potential local use if more cultivators become permitted.
After board questions and deliberation, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the BZA approval passed unanimously. Supervisors noted neighbors’ concerns and encouraged robust monitoring and enforcement; staff and the applicant said they would implement mitigation and operate under the EIR‑driven conditions.
