Thumbnail photo by Jennifer Martin via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons License. Despite opposing Crescent City’s commercial cannabis ordinance five years ago, Councilor Jason Greenough argued that limiting the number of businesses selling it was unnecessary. “It seems like the market is regulating itself,” he said Monday. “We’re not being inundated with cannabis shops on every corner, so I’m confused why this is even before the Council again.” Greenough, who was absent when his colleagues first considered a Planning Commission recommendation on Nov. 17 to make changes to the city’s cannabis regulations, urged the City Council to remove the proposed limitation. However, when his motion died due to a lack of a second, Greenough voted in favor of a subsequent motion approving changes to the commercial cannabis ordinance. Those amendments include limiting the number of retailers operating within city limits to five. “My one critique of this is why try to ban something that nobody’s trying to increase while we’re trying to get people to open businesses in our empty buildings,” Greenough said. “It’s not showing that we’re business friendly here.” In addition to restricting the number of retailers, Crescent City’s amended commercial cannabis ordinance disallows indoor cultivation. One indoor cultivator opened their doors in the old Turf Club about a year after Crescent City adopted the original ordinance on April 6, 2020. They will be allowed to continue doing business, but future use permits for cultivation operations will not be granted, City Attorney Martha Rice said. Under the amended ordinance, the number of cannabis retailers would be restricted to five, which is stricter than the Planning Commission’s recommended cap of eight. Future cannabis cultivation operations would be prohibited, and the Planning Commission would be able to suspend, revoke or amend a use permit if a business wasn’t complying with the ordinance. The new regulations also require a cannabis retailer to open their doors within 24 months of getting a use permit or the permit expires. If a permit holder closes their doors for 60 or more consecutive days, under the new ordinance, the permit would be considered to be surrendered, according to Rice’s staff report. On Wednesday, however, Mayor Isaiah Wright asked his colleagues to consider a mechanism allowing for extenuating circumstances if a permit holder were forced to suspend their operation. “(If) there were extenuating circumstances like, I don’t know, another big fire that closes doors, I’d hate for somebody to lose their license because something happens that’s not necessarily under their control,” Wright said. Crescent City’s original ordinance allowed commercial cannabis operations, including indoor cultivation, within the city’s commercial areas and highway service district. Other uses include storefront retail, delivery-based retail, non-volatile manufacturing, processing, distribution, micro businesses and testing laboratories. The ordinance required retailers to have a 600-foot setback from schools and daycares. Cannabis advertising was also prohibited within 1,000 feet of a playground, daycare center, youth center, community use center or a public library. The fee to obtain a commercial cannabis conditional use permit is $2,000, according to City Manager Eric Wier. A commercial cannabis business owner must also maintain a $15,000 surety bond during the life of their business. According to Rice, the Planning Commission recommended changes because under the original ordinance, they didn’t feel they had control over what was happening. Their role was to ensure that the applicant met the requirements of the ordinance, she said. “We looked at different options — capping the number of permits was one, maybe changing the zoning where it’s allowed or coming up with space between retailers — different things like that,” Rice said. “We had a discussion about several different mechanisms and in the end they decided that their recommendation was just going to be to cap it at five.” It was also important that the ordinance include clear due process guidelines as well as enforcement options for the Planning Commission, Rice said. Greenough pointed to the five active retailers as evidence for the market regulating itself. He said he was opposed to the cannabis ordinance back in 2020, wanting more restrictions on where it could be and ensuring that it was kept away from children. Many of those restrictions didn’t make it into the ordinance, Greenough said Wednesday. “Another thing I’ve also been pretty consistent on is my stance on business,” Greenough told his colleagues. “We shouldn’t have a heavy hand when it comes to business. We should only regulate to the point where it’s necessary to regulate and no more. I believe the market should regulate itself and it is.” Crescent City resident Roger Gitlin, who was on the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors when it adopted its own cannabis ordinance, reminded the Council of his own abhorrence of the product. He urged them to vote against the ordinance and “let it die its own death.” Another public commenter, Eric Taylor, who co-owns Fifth and Green LLC, urged the Council to reconsider deeming permits surrendered after 60 consecutive days of inactivity. He also said that the 2-year window for a retailer to open their doors after getting a permit was overly generous. Taylor also addressed indoor cultivation operations, saying they are allowed under the city’s micro business licensing regulations. A micro business license requires a proprietor to conduct retail sales, manufacturing, distribution and cultivation, he said. “As far as limiting the number of shops, maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know, but you also limit the amount of alcohol retailers and tobacco as well so I don’t think it’s totally out of the question,” he said. “I’m a free market guy too, I get where you’re coming from, but you can always look at other communities.” A public hearing and second reading of the amended ordinance will take place at a future City Council meeting.