De Vall is asking that 25 serious people commit to speaking in favor of local regulation at the General Plan Update hearings (Feb-Mar 09). Others may prefer to write letters or help bring together a broad spectrum of voices--business owners, enlightened public officials, health professionals and community organizers--all advocating that we give medical cannabis regulation in the county a chance. How can you help?

The Mendocino County General Plan was produced in 1981. There has never been an Update, according to Sally Palacio, a member of the 5-person Planning Team in charge of the Update. The County began the Update process in 2001 but never completed it. The Planning Team was formed in 06. They are carrying over the ideas presented earlier with the same planning consultants (PMC), so it is not like starting from scratch.Palacio said:1) All Update comments (deadline: 11/18/08) will be published in final draft form, to be included in the EIR, by Jan 2009.2) Planning Commission Hearings are projected for Feb 09.3) Board of Supervisors Hearings are projected for Mar 09.The collaborative purpose of Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board (MMMAB) and Norman de Vall is to spark debate on the feasibility of medical cannabis regulation within the county through land use requirements. We need to find a resolution--a middle ground between increasingly warring sides, i.e., law enforcement and the medical marijuana community. The practice of medicine is regulated by the state. The right to regulate income is part of that. Local regulation would turn the waste of law enforcement at war with its own citizens into a way of generating income for the county and forming a future working relationship, beneficial to all concerned. Why should the county deny itself the economic opportunity of sustainable income from local production of medical cannabis under state law?Anna T has suggested that this is at odds with MMMAB's original plan to go to county voters with a regulation proposal. Not at all; one would logically follow the other.This juncture of harsh times coinciding with economic potential & the General Plan Update makes moving into discussions/hearings/policy level change ideas worth a try. The Supervisors have been absent from the Prop 215 debate in the past but are now looking for income options. If we can debate a realistic land use regulation perspective, laying the groundwork in the General Plan Update, we've put the idea in motion, whether or not the Supes are innovative enough to act, not just talk.Regardless, the ballot belongs to the people. The public has more common sense and courage than the government on this issue. The Update is a dress rehearsal on the feasibility of using marijuana--the county's most valuable and viable crop--to the county's economic advantage, while at the same time fulfilling the medical access / medical choice purpose of the law.In the end, the question is who will emerge to shape the future--the people or the government? The idea of medical marijuana regulation is coming from outside government, from the grassroots, suggesting a way of integrating medical marijuana which is now legal into the economic fabric of society. If we the people take the reins, we can do what government has failed to do--i.e., steer policy in a beneficial direction for the good of the whole. Our goal is nothing short of equality for cannabis medicines and the people who use them. pebsPress Release -- Press Contact: Norman de Vall (707) 877-3551; 357-5555 (cell); 877-1861 (fax).FORMER MENDOCINO COUNTY SUPERVISOR NORMAN DE VALL URGES SUPERVISORS TO INCLUDE MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION IN THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2008.Former 5th District Mendocino County Supervisor (1979-1995) Norman de Vall has submitted comments urging the Supervisors and the Planning Team to include medical cannabis regulation in the 2008 General Plan Update. According to de Vall, "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."Representing Norman de Vall & Associates, Planning & Land Use Consultants, his proposal was submitted on behalf of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board (MMMAB) to Chairman Wattenburger and the Board of Supervisors' Planning Team for inclusion in the Mendocino County General Plan Update/EIR.MMMAB believes that normalizing legitimate growing of medical marijuana for the benefit not only of patient-growers, collectives and cooperatives, but also for the County, is overdue. Now that the Attorney General and the Courts are issuing guidelines, it is time for the Board to begin taking the necessary steps to adopt an economic model allowing Mendocino County to regulate medical cannabis production, for the express purpose of benefiting and sustaining the County economically.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?The answer put forward by de Vall & Associates and MMMAB is "by regulating the legal production of medical cannabis under specific land use designations with either a Use by Right (i.e., Ministerial with no permit required) or by approval of a Minor or Major Use Permit for "collective cooperative cultivation projects" (Senate Bill 420) or by any other appropriate land use designation that fulfills the regulation purpose of the legislation". (See attached letter from Norman de Vall & Associates.)The MMMAB steering committee "urges the Supervisors to pass reasonable Land Use Regulations to enhance patient access to medical cannabis as well as to benefit the county financially".Norman L. de Vall & Assoc.Planning and Land Use ConsultantsP.O. Box 3Elk, California 95432(707) 877-3551 357-5555 877:1861November 17, 2008The Honorable Jim Wattenburger, chairand Members Board of SupervisorsMendocino County501 Low Gap RoadUkiah CA 95482(797) 463-4221 463:4245re: General Plan Update Regulation of Medical MarijuanaDear Chairman Wattenburger and Members of the BoardWe have been retained by the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board to present to you recommendations for the regulated, controlled and publicly beneficial production of Medical Marijuana in Mendocino County, as authorized under California Health and Safety Codes 11362,5 et seq.There is a window of economic opportunity the county would be wise to pursue at this juncture in time, in light of imminent California Supreme Court rulings and the California Attorney General issuing medical marijuana guidelines for Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420, especially regarding collectives and cooperatives.We do not believe that any one ordinance can address all of the issues surrouding this new economic opportunity for Mendocino County. However, with the fortuitous occasion of the General Plan Update, we can establish and limit the land use types on which medical marijuana can be produced and what conditions its production must meet.We appreciate that your Board and its Standing Committees have struggled long and hard to bring about reasonable responsible regulation of medical marijuana production. While the efforts have been commendable, the results have been limited, controversial, litigious and unpopular.The question is: Where and How can the legitimate growing of medical marijuana be enabled to serve patient-growers, collectives and cooperatives, as well as the County?Years ago, when the Board of Supervisors was confronted with another significant land use issue, resolution was found during the update process of the General Plan. The issue was the reality that hundreds (or more) owner-builders had constructed their homes without benefit of building permits. Through the Board's Clean Slate program and the new Intent Section of the County General Plan, those structures were then recognized by the County.The Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board believes that the two challenges--owner-builders and providing medical marijuana--are remarkably similar. It was a General Plan change that broke the intractable impasse between the County and the owner-builder community. Today's Board has the opportunity to permit and regulate what is allowed by State law but is not recognized to date by the County.The owner-builder issue was greatly influenced by a published court decision (City of Santa Barbara v Mary Adamson, 1982). The current situation regarding medical cannabis guidelines (P v Kelly and P v Phomphakdy, 2008) is now under review by the State Supreme Court with sections of H&S Code 11362.7 at the heart of the discussion.With that successful history in mind, we now recommend that the Board begin regulating the legal production of medical cannabis under specific land use designations with either a Use by Right (i.e., Ministerial with no permit required) or by approval of a Minor or Major Use Permit for "collective cooperative cultivation projects" (SB420) or by any other appropriate land use designation that fulfills the regulation purpose of the legislation.In addition, we suggest that the number of Medical Marijuana Use Permits (MMUP) be initially limited and gradually adjusted as the permit process evolves: 1) to encourage responsible production and 2) to reduce control and enforcement issues (similar to how the number of taxi cabs is limited in urban areas).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 for the forseeable future.I look forward to further discussions with your Board on this issue.Sincerely,Norman L. de VallAgent on behalf of Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Boardcc: Sheriff Tom AllmanDistrict Attorney Meredith LintottPresiding Superior Court Judge Cindy MayfieldCongressman Mike ThompsonAssembly Member Patty BergAssembly Member Wesley ChesbroState Senator Patricia WigginsGovernors' Office of Planning and ResearchMendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory BoardMMMAB Counsel Keith FaulderAll Media