A prospective buyer's working summary of Bloomfield Farms — a 113-acre agriculturally-zoned working ranch in the Petaluma West dairy belt, off-market since December 2025. The property runs three overlapping operations: an organic farm with a wedding/event venue, an equestrian boarding facility, and a newly-approved 2.5-acre cannabis cultivation site. This brief consolidates the seller's disclosure packet, the county record (Permit Sonoma, Assessor & GIS, CEQAnet), and the title prelim into the facts that drive a purchase decision — with particular attention to the three things that shape value here: the absence of a residence, the cannabis entitlement and its title-insurance friction, and the post-close tax-structuring opportunity.
What it is: a 113-acre working ranch owned since 2001 by Robert L. Hanson (CEO of The Duckhorn Portfolio) and Michael Agins, vested in Bloomfield Farms, LLC. The asset stack is unusually deep — an 8-stall equestrian facility, a restored 120-year-old barn, a seasonal tent-cabin campground, three wells, 2.5 miles of no-climb fencing, a heritage orchard — and it now carries a fully-approved 5-year cannabis cultivation permit. But there is no principal residence: the original was demolished in 2001 and never rebuilt.
The three things a buyer must underwrite: (1) the residence gap — a buyer underwrites a 2–3 year, $4.5–7M custom build on top of the purchase; (2) cannabis — Fidelity won't insure a cannabis-associated transaction, so the entitlement is as much a structuring liability as an asset; and (3) taxes — a purchase resets the assessed value under Prop 13, but a layered Williamson Act + conservation-easement play can claw much of that back. All three are covered below.
The parcel is zoned LEA B6 160 — Land Extensive Agriculture at a 160-acre minimum density. At 113 acres it is under that minimum, so residential and subdivision potential is capped: this is a single working-ranch parcel, not a development play. The dominant land uses are grazing/pasture (most of the 113 acres), the building cluster (equestrian + restored barn + campground), and the ~2.5-acre cannabis pad built on engineered fill over a former quarry floor on the west side.
Hazards are modest but real. The parcel-report flags "few landslides / mostly landslide / surficial deposits," and the seller discloses a recurring soil slump on the west side below the four water tanks during heavy-rain events (remediated by tractor "a few times in 24 years"). A year-round creek crosses the property. Any residence pad or new cannabis building on the west side warrants an independent geotechnical review.
The seller has not stated an asking price — the packet is intentionally price-less, with offers solicited off-market. The independent buyer-side model, corroborated by a 14-property closed-sale comp set inflation-adjusted to May 2026, puts the most-probable market-clearing close at $6–8M (median pull ~$6M), with a recommended opening offer of $4.8–5.8M. Three converging large-acreage anchors in the last 21 months frame the land value:
| Scenario | Range | Buyer profile |
|---|---|---|
| Passive lifestyle | $4.5–6M | Carries the property without optimizing operations |
| Most-probable close | $6–8M | Lifestyle buyer who builds the residence + runs modest equestrian |
| Operator-optimized | $8–10M | Cannabis + equestrian + ag at full operation |
| Ceiling | $10–12M | Outlier; above this, finished Sonoma estates compete |
| Anchor comp (last 21 mo) | Adj. price | Acres | $/ac | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4300 Browns Lane | $2.59M | 100 | $25,900 | <1 mi from subject; small old home |
| 5000 Carroll Rd | $5.78M | 234 | $24,665 | 1900 farmhouse on 234 ac |
| 5335 Burnside Rd | $7.41M | 211 | $35,100 | The Burnside-corridor anchor |
| 105 Purvine Rd | $10.29M | 71 | $144,900 | Ceiling anchor — finished estate |
Three drivers compress the price below the seller's likely $12–17M+ ask: no principal residence (buyer underwrites a $4.5–7M build over 2–3 years — not the seller's inflated $8.3–11.2M bid range), carrying costs of $200–250K/yr (NPV ~$2.5M over a 20-year hold), and the reality that the cannabis entitlement is more often a negotiation liability than a premium for lifestyle buyers. This is an analytical estimate, not an appraisal.
The property carries no ag-tax instrument on title — no Williamson Act contract, no conservation easement, no open-space contract. The sellers declined to encumber the land. That means the single biggest tax event at close is the Prop 13 reassessment from the current $1.67M assessed value up to the purchase price. At a representative ~$4.3M close, expect ~$47K/yr in property tax (≈1.1% effective), versus the current $18,258 — and a future house adds its own ~$50–77K/yr.
Every tax-saving structure is therefore a post-close opportunity the buyer executes, not an inherited shield. The recommended play is layered:
Net: a buyer who executes Williamson + easement + ag-building exemptions can cut the post-reassessment carry 40–60%. Engage a Sonoma land-use attorney + a §170(h)-experienced tax advisor before close. Cannabis is a "compatible," not a "qualifying," use under Sonoma's Uniform Rules — confirm county treatment before relying on it.
The cannabis permit is fully approved — Final Conditions of Approval issued 2026-04-28, Notice of Determination filed 2026-04-30. It is a 5-year limited-term permit covering 15,000 sq ft of cultivation plus processing and propagation on the 2.5-acre pad, and it is grandfathered under the pre-2026-07-01 ordinance, so the new 1,000-ft residential setbacks don't apply (a fresh application here likely couldn't be permitted). That grandfathering is the real, if modest, value driver.
It comes loaded with conditions a buyer inherits if they keep it: a 1.0 acre-foot/yr water cap and a 250,000-gallon rainwater catchment required before operation; mandatory primary ag use including sheep grazing (Condition 29 — which conveniently doubles as the Williamson qualifying use); a Sept 1–Oct 31 ground-disturbance window; a 30-ft right-of-way dedication along Bloomfield Rd; and a workforce-housing in-lieu fee on new construction. And critically, vesting is gated on abating the unpermitted lower-barn kitchen (Condition 34) before the operating certificate issues.
Seller-claimed capital improvements since 2001 exceed $8.8M (directional, unaudited). The major assets:
The pattern worth noting: 6 recorded Notices of Agricultural Exemption (2002–2018) explain why assessed improvements are only $334K — many structures were built ag-exempt without standard permit review. Combined with the 2014 + 2018 wedding-permit violations, a buyer should price a $50–100K contingency for unpermitted-work surprises and walk the site before relying on any structure's status.
A cattle/sheep grazing lease is the operational linchpin: it clears the Williamson ag-income bar, satisfies cannabis Condition 29's sheep-grazing mandate, and turns otherwise-idle pasture into a qualifying ag use. The working plan assumes the 2.5-mi perimeter is already fenced and adds interior cross-fencing for rotational paddocks, a fenced house yard, and an exclusion around the barn / glamping / event cluster.