Update: This story previously included an incorrect figure, provided by city staff, for the area affected by the change. It is 2.2 square miles.

The Denver City Council on Monday took a step to boost the slow growth of the city’s social-use cannabis businesses.

In a 9-2 preliminary vote, the council moved forward a proposal that would allow the marijuana-use businesses to operate closer to rec centers, day cares and other facilities.

“There are many people who we have heard from who want to open a business but cannot find a location,” said Councilwoman Kendra Black, who introduced the change after working with a group of business and community leaders.

City voters approved a “social use” law in 2016, but so far, only two businesses in Denver are licensed to allow cannabis consumption.

The law, as approved by voters, only required that the businesses be at least 1,000 feet from schools. But the city administration added a similar requirement for day care facilities, addiction treatment facilities and city recreation centers.

RELATED: Denver’s first-of-its-kind social marijuana use program for businesses is mostly a bust. Can it be fixed?

Under the new bill, those distances will be dropped to 500 feet for all categories except schools.

The proposal drew criticism from people who said they wanted to stop the spread of the industry, especially near places that children congregate, while advocates said the change would reduce illegal outdoor use.

“I don’t think it’s the job of any member of an elected government to make it easier for a drug industry to make more money, to make it easier for people to use drugs,” said Luke Niforatos of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-commercialization group.

Some groups, including the Colorado Children’s Campaign and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, opposed the change, according to an email from Ashley Kilroy, executive director of excise and licenses for the city. Mayor Michael Hancock also opposes the reduction, according to city staff.

But advocates said social use keeps marijuana away from kids by providing more spaces for adults to use it. Some investors said the limits have pushed them to undesirable industrial locations.

“If they have nowhere to consume, they will do it in front of our children,” said Stacy Lynn, an advocate for children’s medical access to cannabis. “How do you get it off the street? You put it in a closed, secure building.”

The change will theoretically open an additional 2.2 square miles for the businesses, compared to the current 20 square miles, although there are other practical limits. The city is 155 square miles in total.

Councilman Kevin Flynn questioned whether the problem wasn’t with the business model itself. “I believe it’s a flawed business model. I thought it was goofy when we voted on it,” he said, adding that ongoing efforts in the state legislature could open better options. State legislators are looking at marijuana tour buses and tasting rooms, where people could buy and use cannabis.

The two existing businesses are Vape and Play, which briefly closed, and The Coffee Joint. Customers can vaporize and eat marijuana products in the businesses, but the businesses can’t sell marijuana. Alcohol is not allowed at the shops.

Advocate Josh Kappel said that social-use entrepreneurs are struggling because they’re competing for space with the more profitable cannabis dispensaries.

Councilwoman At-large Robin Kniech questioned whether the city administration was legally allowed to add the distance requirements in the first place. The proposed change could avoid lawsuits by operators, she said. And there’s little evidence that distance requirements would affect youth cannabis use, she said.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that kids are at risk from activity happening in a building they cannot see at 1,000 feet, 500 feet or next door,” she said. She was frustrated, too: “We have so many huge challenges facing our city, and the time we have spent on this … frankly offends me,” she said.

The change requires a second, final vote at a future council meeting. It appeared to have enough support to pass. It was approved by all council members except Flynn and Councilman Wayne New, who voted against the measure, and Councilwoman At-large Debbie Ortega, who abstained.