---

---

Crescent City Councilors were unable to decide how close to a school, daycare or youth center a commercial cannabis retailer should be allowed.

Following a presentation from Garry Rees, a planner with Eureka-based SHN, Monday, Councilors agreed Monday that the indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis should be limited to 2,000 square feet and on-site consumption should not be allowed within city limits.

They also agreed that a 600 foot setback between a commercial cannabis cultivation or manufacturing operation and schools and youth centers was sufficient.

However, the Council was torn over whether the state-required 600 foot setback between retailers and schools, daycare centers or youth centers was sufficient enough.

Councilors asked for more information on whether the Del Norte Child Care Council on K Street and the Del Norte County Fairgrounds could be considered as youth centers.

Councilor Jason Greenough argued that the setback between commercial cannabis retailers and schools, churches, youth centers and public parks should be 1,000 feet “because those are the places that are distributing the marijuana.”

Greenough’s colleague, Isaiah Wright, said the Del Norte County Fairgrounds should be considered a youth center because they hold multiple activities for young people, which his son participates in, year-round.

Councilor Alex Fallman, Mayor Pro Tem Heidi Kime and Mayor Blake Inscore were on the other side of the argument. Inscore said that with the city’s small footprint, requiring a 1,000 foot setback would limit them to the highway services corridor near the town’s south gateway.

Kime said she wanted to have legal cannabis operations in areas where it can be monitored. Fallman argued that a majority of Del Norte County voters approved Proposition 64 — the 2016 California initiative that legalized marijuana for recreational use.

“We’re creating a scare over something that’s a legal product,” Fallman told his colleagues. “If you don’t like it, explain it to your kids. It is legal in the state of California to buy cannabis and shielding people from that is not helping them.”

Rees and Crescent City Public Works Director Jon Olson presented a draft commercial cannabis ordinance to the Crescent City Council at its Nov. 18 meeting. After working with the city Planning Commission, the Olson called for allowing commercial cannabis use in the city’s general commercial, waterfront commercial, downtown business district and highway district zones.

These include areas along U.S. 101 south of Front Street; the eastern side of the city; along Front Street and in Downtown Crescent City, Rees told the Council on Nov. 18. Commercial cannabis uses include indoor cultivation of no more than 2,000 square feet, storefront retail with deliveries and onsite consumption, non-storefront retail, delivery only, processing facilities, micro business and testing laboratories, according to the draft ordinance.

The draft ordinance proposes banning cannabis processing that uses potentially explosive substances as well as stores that allow drive-through sales within city limits. It also recommends commercial cannabis operations require a use permit and comply by the state’s 600-foot setback from schools, daycare centers and other places where youth congregate, Rees told the Council.

The Planning Commission also recommended against issuing a cap on the number of use permits issued for commercial cannabis operations, saying they think that number will be based on the market.

On Monday, Rees told the Council that if the 600-foot setback was applied, commercial cannabis operations would be allowable in the highway services corridor, however a “fair amount” of the city’s commercial waterfront, general commercial and downtown areas wouldn’t be permitted.

Expanding the setback to 1,000 feet, most of the highway services corridor and a small portion of the city’s general commercial area would be available. But its downtown and commercial waterfront areas would be off limits to commercial cannabis, Rees told the Council.

Rees also showed Councilors where commercial cannabis would be allowed if parks and recreation facilities were added to the setback requirements. Noting that those setbacks aren’t state-mandated, Rees told Councilors that a commercial cannabis would be permitted in a very small portion of the town’s general commercial area and highway services corridor.

“When we start going beyond the state requirements we don’t have much area left to conduct cannabis operations in the city,” Rees told Councilors, “especially if you’re going to 1,000 feet.”

Rees noted that when it crafted its commercial cannabis ordinance, the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors required a 1,000 foot setback between one operator and another as well as between a cannabis business and a school. However, he said, Del Norte County has a larger land base.

Greenough argued that there are “some areas” where marijuana shouldn’t be sold. He said the City Council could require different setback requirements for retailers and manfucturers or processors.

“I think that for retail, there ought to be a 1,000 foot setback from schools, churches and public parks,” he said, though when Kime asked, he admitted that he had never been inside a cannabis dispensary. “Kids tend to find a way… whether it’s cigarettes…”

Kime noted that those wanting to enter a cannabis retailer must display identification that shows they are older than 21. She noted that she agrees there should be a setback between retailers and places where children are required to be such as schools, but for churches and parks, especially if parents are there, a buffer shouldn’t be required.

“For me this is all about bringing this out of the darkness and having legal operations that can be monitored,” she said. “I don’t want it to be on the fringe.”

Inscore said he didn’t want the highway services corridor the only place commercial cannabis retail was allowed because he didn’t want it to be the first thing travelers from the south see when they enter Crescent City. He told his colleagues that he wasn’t concerned about children accessing the product, however he asked Greenough and Wright if they were concerned about the product being a negative influence on young people.

“If we’re talking about influence, would you use this same test to say that places that sell alcohol in these zones — would you restrict those from being?” Inscore asked. “Would you say that all businesses that sell alcohol downtown, because they’re in proximity to schools, woudl you say they shouldn’t be doing that?”

When the discussion turned to signs and advertising, the Planning Commission recommending adopting regulations similar to the city’s tobacco ordinance, which prohibits the promotion of tobacco products within 500 feet of a school, daycare center, public playground, park, community center or library.

Inscore noted that the municipal code also prohibits flags, sandwich board signs or signs pasted onto a vehicle that’s parked on the street. He said the sign should have the name of the business only with no advertising language at all.

“A person who is looking to purchase this product does not need any advertising in the window to come in there,” Inscore said. “I just don’t think that’s necessary. If it were up to me, I’d take out every bit of advertising out of our liquor stores as well. Those windows should be flat-out clear.”

---

SHARE →