[420 Girl]

Former 5th District Supervisor (1979-1995) Norman de Vall has submitted comments urging the his former board to include medical cannabis regulation in the 2008 General Plan Update.

"This is the first proposal in the state for a county to regulate medical cannabis through land use requirements as a means to generate needed income for the County," stated de Vall in a release issued Thursday.

Norman de Vall & Associates, Planning & Land Use Consultants, submitted the proposal to Board Chairman and 2nd District Supervisor Jim Wattenburger and the Planning Team on behalf of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board.

"The MMMAB urges the Supervisors to pass reasonable Land Use regulations to enhance patient access to medical marijuana as well as to benefit the County financially," stated a portion of the release. "The MMMAB believes that normalizing legitimate growing of medical marijuana for the benefit not only of patient-growers, collectives and cooperatives, but for the county as well, is overdue and it is time for the board to begin to substantially engage in the process. There is a window of opportunity for them to do so by support of the suggested plan for medical marijuana normalization through inclusion in the General Plan Update."

On the last week of October, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the most recent case (People vs. Phomphakdy) which had set aside, for about two months, the state medical marijuana possession limits. This actionrestores the statewide limits set by the legislature in 2003, which are now part of the state Health and Safety Code.

The following minimum limits apply statewide, unless counties have approved greater quantities:

"Qualified patients and primary caregivers who possess a state issued identification card may possess eight ounces of dried marijuana, and may maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature plants per qualified patient." It also allows patients to possess more marijuana if specifically authorized by a doctor's recommendation.

In early August, Mendocino County Superior Court Judge John Behnke's set aside the specific county limits imposed by Measure B, referencing the Phomphakdy and Kelly cases until such time as the California Supreme Court ruled on those cases.

Since Mendocino County has adopted no other limits after the repeal of Measure G, it appears likely that state limits apply locally, although it is clear that some defense attorneys may disagree. The county does have a nuisance ordinance passed in December 2007, which limits the number of marijuana plants allowed to be grown on any one county parcel to 25 or less, no matter how many caregivers or patients are being served.

"Now that the Attorney General has issued legal guidelines and the courts are issuing theirs, it is time to begin taking the necessary steps to adopt an economic model allowing the county to regulate medical cannabis production, for the express purpose of benefiting and sustaining the county economically," stated a portion of the release. "The question is: Where and how can legitimate growers of medical marijuana be enabled to serve patient-growers, collectives and cooperatives, as well as the County?"

De Vall and MMMAB stated that the best way to answer this question would be through specific land use designations, either as a Use by Right (i.e., Ministerial with no permit required) or through a minor or major use permit for "collective cooperative cultivation projects," according to SB 420, or by any other appropriate land use designation that fulfills the regulation purpose of the legislation.

De Vall said the economic impact of such changes had potential to be monumental.

"We're not going to get more movies," he said. "We know our fisheries are in desperate trouble. We've over-harvested our forests. My only suggestion is really simple. Now with the General Plan Update it is very possible to lay the groundwork and begin the discussion. I'll leave the specifics up to them. If a person can grow for others legally should they be able to grow for how many patients? Is it a ministerial use? Let's have this discussion. I've tried to have this discussion and I don't get that much feedback from them. This board does not like to debate."

De Vall said support for the idea had come about organically and deserved thorough reading from the board.

"My reason is historic," he said. "This idea is coming from outside of leadership. Here were are again. It's a wonderful opportunity. Let's hope the board are willing to stay in the chambers and figure this thing out."

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...egulation.html