Vineyards are what Sonoma County has always been known for, but as a different kind of green landscape takes root, something new may become the hit of the county. Marijuana is quickly becoming a hot industry in wine country, and this boom is a direct result of some very wise legal counsel.
In order to keep their businesses afloat in Sonoma County, cannabis growers are going out and using Ministerial permits to start cannabis growing outdoors, rather than going through the CUP process. The Ministerial permit violates Sonoma County’s cannabis ordinance, as well as avoids the consideration of the environmental impacts that cannabis operations can have within the area of operation.
The Ministerial permit allows for the growth of product by the operator to occur as the permit allows that the proposed project (in this case, marijuana operation) complies with established standards set forth. Ministerial permits are Sonoma County growers’ way of bypassing the more traditionally ethical Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process.
The CUP process is a permit that allows the growth of agricultural cannabis in Sonoma County. Growers tend to avoid the CUP process, as it is rather time consuming and expensive compared to other methods. It takes over two years for the CUP permit to be issued, and it costs over $30,000 in financing to register for the permit application. The explanation behind both its expensive and time-consuming process is that, due to the amount of overview the CUP process requires, there is a waiting period and a handful of fees that come along with it. It first goes through a specific environmental review, then it would be a public process, which would then be looked over through public notification and within a public hearing, and if approved, the operator receives the green light to move forward with its plan.
A Ministerial permit makes the CUP process look dated in a way, as it costs almost nothing and takes a minuscule amount of processing time. The Ministerial permit costs less than $5,000 and takes 3-4 months for review. The review itself doesn’t require a project-specific environmental review, public notification, or public process as the permit can be made and received privately, therefore making it the obvious choice over the CUP permit.
This has led to Ministerial permits becoming the primary method for companies to be able to run their operation, as the ministerial permits allow companies to bypass the necessary process that needs to be run both by the state and the county.
The Sonoma County Neighborhood Coalition states that CannaCraft, one of the many applicants, turns the permits that were given to the minority to an extensive majority as 63 of the ministerial permits were issued to operators this year alone. CannaCraft applied for 28 of the 63 applicants which is a violation of its own right, but they filed for the permits through different names and LLC’s.
Not only is the permit limited to one per corporate name and LLC, which CannaCraft violates, but CannaCraft would be over the outdoor cultivation limit that’s prohibited against Ministerial permits. The operator is able to have no more than 10,000 square feet of outdoor cultivation use on any one parcel of land per project. CannaCraft over-steps these boundaries with the cultivation, as CannaCraft related businesses have a total of 160,000 square feet of cannabis cultivation, which not only is a violation, but would be negatively impacting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) set within the state.
CEQA is defined by California’s government as, “…to avoid, reduce or prevent environmental damage, and foster an informed and transparent public decision-making process by providing information to decision-makers and the public concerning the environmental effects of projects either undertaken or approved by lead agencies.”
It would be in Sonoma County’s best interest that they immediately voided the permits the county issued to it’s applicants that violate the regulations set forth in state. Violations like what CannaCraft managed violates the safety of not only the environment, but shows how flawed our County is by letting such applicants receive these permits. Officials in the County must have accountability, but also reform to not let a growing problem like this happen again in the future.
