a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 27, 2019 was to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 5.50 entitled “Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance.”

ATTACHMENTA 7.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Sumbul Siddiqui Quinton Zondervan City Councillor City Councillor To: Paula Crane, Interim City Clerk From: Quinton Y. Zondervan and Sumbul Siddiqui, City Councillors • Date: June 20, 2019 Subject: Memorandum Submission Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of Please place the attached memorandum, "Establishing the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of Cambridge" on the City Council agenda as "Communications and reports from Other City Officials" for the June 24, 2019 meeting. Thank you. Attachment: COCO_Cannabis_6.24.2019 (COF 2019 #41 : Establishing the

7.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL the City of Sumbul Siddiqui Quinton Zondervan City Councillor City Councillor MEMORANDUM To: Cambridge City Council From: Quinton Y. Zondervan and Sumbul Siddiqui, City Councillors Date: June 20, 2019 Subject: Establishing the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of Cambridge the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry Establishing the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of Cambridge Since the last Ordinance Committee meeting (May 9, 2019), held to discuss the proposed Cannabis Business Permitting ordinance, Councillors Zondervan and Siddiqui have individually met with the City Solicitor's office to discuss additional proposed amendments: As new draft language for the ordinance has not been made available to us thus far, we are describing these amendments conceptually for discussion and consideration at the upcoming Ordinance Committee meeting (June 27, 2019) in this memo, in the hope that the Committee can provide guidance to the City Solicitor's office so that the ordinance language can be finalized subsequent to that meeting, and can be presented to the full Council in time for final deliberation and adoption of the ordinance at the summer meeting (July 29, 2019). Proposed Amendments to the Ordinance: Chapter 5.50 Cannabis Business Permitting 020.a Group A Priority Applicant definition: Add a Cambridge residency requirement to Social Equity applicants as follows: A person, corporation, or other legal entity applying for a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter to operate in the City who is: Machment: COCO_Cannabis_6.24.2019 (COF 2019 #41 : Establish 2

7.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Sumbul Siddiqui Quinton Zondervan City Councillor City Councillor 1) A Social Equity Applicant certified by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), and has been a Cambridge resident for at least 2 years; 2) a Women or Minority Owned business as certified by the Commonwealth; or 3) a Cambridge resident earning less than 50% AMI in the tax year prior to application-- to be known as Group A Priority Applicants. 040. Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants: a. The City shall issue a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants. b. For the first 2 years from the effective date provided in Section' 10 below, the City shall issue a Cannabis Business permit to operate a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to this Chapter only to i Priority Applicants who are an Economic Empowerment Applicant. 050. Permitting Requirements: a. In order to obtain a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter, an applicant must certify that: ADD the following criteria: It will certify it is a business in good standing with no outstanding federal, state or local investigations or judgments pending against it. If operating a Cannabis Retail Store, it will certify it will sell its products at the appropriate discount to holders of a Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Card for any qualifying Cannabis products sold in its store. It will comply with disclosure requirements similar to Boston (attached to memorandum) including beneficial and controlling ownership, loan agreements and shelf space agreements. Proposed Regulations: Attachment: COCO_Cannabis_6.24.2019 (COF 2019 #41 : Establishing the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of 3 Packet Pg. 311

7.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Sumbul Siddiqui Quinton Zondervan City Councillor City Councillor Based on the information disclosed in the application, the City Manager will not issue a license to an applicant if any third party has more than 50% stake (controlling interest) in the applying Cannabis Retail establishment and also has a controlling interest in any other licensed Cannabis Retail establishment in Cambridge. The City Manager may impose other restrictions on third party control over shelf space, loans and other financial interests in Cannabis Retail establishments in Cambridge so as to ensure tairness, and to limit the amount of control any one party has over the licensed Cannabis Retail establishments in Cambridge. Other Proposed Provisions: Cannabis License Registry the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of The Community Development Department shall publish online a registry that lists all currently licensed cannabis establishments, the type(s) of licenses held by each establishment, the owners) name(s), and the physical address(es) of operation. The registry shall be accompanied. by a map, showing the locations of all licensed establishments. *tachment: COCO_Cannabis_6.24.2019 (COF 2019 #41 : Establish

7.3.b CITY OF BOSTON MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT BENEFICIAL INTEREST CONTACT - Individual Please complete a Beneficial Interest - individual sheet for all individual(s) who have a direct or indirect beneficial interest, wit g or without ownership, in this license. This includes people with a financial interest and people without financial interest (i.e. board of directors for not-for-profit clubs). An individual with direct beneficial interest is defined as someone who has interest directly in the proposed licensee. For example, if ABC Inc is the proposed licensee, all individuals with interest in ABC Inc are considered to have direct beneficial interest in ABC Inc (the proposed licensee). An individual with indirect beneficial interest is defined as someone who has ownership in a parent level company of the • Cannabis Industry in the proposed licensee. For example, if ABC Inc is the proposed licensee and is 100% owned by XYZ Inc, all individuals with interes in XYZ Inc are considered to have an indirect beneficial interest in ABC Inc (the proposed licensee). First Name Salutation Middle Name Suffix Last Name Title: Social Security Number Date of Birth Email: Primary Phone: Fax Number Mobile Phone: Alternative Phone: Business Address Street Number: Street Name: State: City/Town: Country: Zip Code: Mailing Address • Check here if your Mailing Address is the same as your Business Address Street Number: Street Name: State: City/Town: Zip Code: Country: Types of Interest (select all that apply) Contractual • Landlord • Director •LLC Manager LLC Member _officer • Management Agreement Partner •Other Revenue Sharing •Stockholder •Sole Proprietor Citizenship / Residency Information Are you a U.S. Citizen? Are you a Massachusetts Resident? © Yes ONO Ores ONo Criminal History. Attachment: Beneficial Interest Disclosure individual (COF 2019 #41 : Establishing the Equitable Regulation of the Have you ever been convicted of a state, federal, or military crime? If yes, please provide an affidavit O Yes ONo explaining the charges Packet Pg. 313

CITY OF BOSTON MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT 7.3.b BENEFICIAL INTEREST CONTACT - Individual (continued) Ownership/Interest If you hold a direct beneficial interest Using the definition above, do you hold a direct Indirect in the proposed licensee, please list © Direct or indirect interest in the proposed licensee? the % of interest you hold. If you hold an indirect beneficial interest in this license, please complete the Ownership / Interest Table below. Ownership / Interest If you hold an indirect interest in the proposed licensee, please list the organization(s) you hold a direct interest in which, in turn, hold a direct or indirect interest in the proposed licensee. These generally include parent companies, holding companie trusts, etc. A Beneficial Interest - Organization Form will need to be completed for each entity listed below. FEIN Name of Beneficial Interest - Organization Other Beneficial Interest List any indirect or indirect beneficial or financial interest you have in any other City of Boston marijuana establishment. Name of License Premises Address Type of License Familial Beneficial Interest Does any member of your immediate family have ownership interest in any other City of Boston marijuana establishment? Immediate family includes parents, siblings, spouse and spouse's parents. Please list below. losure individual (COF 2019 #41 : Era lishing the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the Relationship to You Premise Address Type of Interest (choose primary function) Percentage of Intere isci Prior Disciplinary Action Have you ever been involved directly or indirectly in a marijuana license that was subject to disciplinary action? If yes, please complete the following: ment: Beneficial Interest State Name of License Date of Action Reason for suspension, revocation or cancellation City Packet Pg. 314

CITY OF BOSTON MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION 7.3.0 BENEFICIAL INTEREST - Organization ¿Please complete a Beneficial Interest - Organization sheet for all organization(s) who have a direct or indirect beneficial intere with or without ownership, in this license. Example: ABC Inc. is applying for a marijuana license. ABC Inc. is 100% owned by XYZ Inc., which is 100% owned by 123 Inc. XYZ Inc. is (considered to have a direct beneficial interest in the proposed licensee (ABC Inc.) and 123 Inc. is considered to have indirect beneficial interest in the proposed licensee (ABC Inc.). Both XYZ Inc. and 123 Inc. should complete a Beneficial Interest - Organization Form. FEIN: Entity Name: Fax Number: Primary Phone: Email: Alternative Phone: Business Address Street Number: Street Name: State: City/Town: Country: ^ Zip Code: Mailing Address C Check here if your Mailing Address is the same as your Business Address Street Name: Street Number: State: City/Town: Zip Code: Country: Publicly Traded Is this organization publicly traded? OYes ONo Ownership/ Interest If this organization holds a direct beneficial Using the definition above, does this Indirect ODirect interest in the proposed licensee, please list organization hold a direct or indirect interest in the proposed licensee? the % of interest it holds. If you hold an indirect beneficial interest in this license, please complete the Ownership / Interest Table on the next page. Attachment: Beneficial Interest Disclosure Organization (COF 2019 #41 : Establishing the Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in

CITY OF BOSTON MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION Ownership / Interest If this organization holds an indirect interest in the proposed licensee, please list the organization(s) it holds a direct interest in which, in turn, hold a direct or indirect interest in the proposed licensee. These generally include parent companies, holding companies, trusts, etc. A Beneficial Interest - Organization Form will need to be completed for each entity listed below. FEIN Name of Beneficial Interest - Organization Other Beneficial Interest List any indirect or indirect beneficial or financial interest this entity has in any other City of Boston marijuana establishments). Name of License Type of License Premises Address 7.3.0 Prior Disciplinary Action Has this entity ever been involved directly or indirectly in a marijuana license that was subject to disciplinary action? If yes, please complete the following: Name of License State Date of Action Reason for suspension, revocation or cancellation City aanization /Cu. 2019 #41 : Establishina the Equitable Reaulation of the Cannabis i_ustrv in the

ATTACHMENT B CITY OF CAMBRIDGE In the Year Two Thousand Nineteen AN ORDINANCE In amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Cambridge as follows: That the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge be amended in Title 5 entitled "Business Licenses and Regulations" by adding a new chapter 5.50 entitled "Cannabis Business Permitting" which reads as follows: Cannabis Business Permitting Chapter 5.50 5.50.010 Purpose This ordinance is intended to create a separate local permitting requirement for Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer and/or Cannabis Transporter (collectively "Cannabis Business") applicants to certify compliance with certain conditions in the public interest prior to being permitted to operate a Cannabis Business in the City. The City. deems it to be in the public interest to give initial permitting preferences for Cannabis Businesses, to Priority Applicants, as defined herein. 5.50.020. Definitions Cannabis Business. A Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer and/or Cannabis Transporter. Cannabis Cultivator. An entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission as a Marijuana Cultivator to cultivate, process and package cannabis or marijuana, and to transfer cannabis or marijuana to other cannabis or marijuana establishments, but not to consumers. A craft marijuana cooperative as defined by state regulation is a type of Cannabis Cultivator. Cannabis Product Manufacturer. An entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission as a Marijuana Product Manufacturer to obtain, manufacture, process and package cannabis or marijuana products and to transfer these products to other cannabis or marijuana establishments, but not to consumers. Cannabis Retail Store. An establishment authorized to sell or otherwise transfer cannabis or marijuana products to consumers for use off the premises, but not to cultivate, manufacture, process, or package cannabis or marijuana products, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations. A Cannabis Retail Store may be licensed to operate as a Cannabis or Marijuana

2 Retailer or registered as a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center, also known as a Registered Marijuana Dispensary (hereafter "RMD"), or both, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations. Cannabis Transporter. An entity, not otherwise licensed by the Cannabis Control Commission, that is licensed to purchase, obtain, and possess cannabis or marijuana, or cannabis or marijuana products, solely for the purpose of transporting, temporarily storing, selling and distributing them to cannabis establishments, not for selling to consumers. Priority Applicant. A person, corporation, or other legal entity applying for a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter to operate in the City who is: a. Group A Priority Applicant. An Economic Empowerment or Social Equity Program Applicant certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission; or a Social Equity Program Applicant certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission who is also a Cambridge resident and has been for at least the previous three years; or a Women or Minority Owned business as certified by the Commonwealth and/or by the City; or a Cambridge resident for at least the three previous years prior to application earning less than fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income (AMI) in the three previous tax years prior to application -- to be known as Group A Priority Applicants. b. b. Group B Priority Applicant. An RMD within the City that will sellwas licensed or registered not later than July 1, 2017 to sell cannabis products in a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to the Commonwealth's medical use of marijuana laws, which seeks toeither alone or in addition to operateing as a licensed marijuana retailer pursuant to the Commonwealth's adult use of marijuana laws - to be known as Group B Priority Applicants. Those who qualify as Group B Priority Applicants cannot also qualify as a Group A Priority Applicant. 5.50.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any proposed Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Retail Store, or Cannabis Transporter that is seeking licensure from the Cannabis Control Commission on or after the effective date of this Chapter. This Chapter shall not apply to RMDs that have already been permitted in the City and are not seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales prior to the effective date of this ordinance ("Existing RMD"'). 5.50.040 Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants a. For the first two years from the effective date provided in Section 10 below, the City shall issue a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants. The

3 City will only issue a Cannabis Business permit to a Group B Priority Applicant if, after issuance, there will be an equal or greater number of currently active Cannabis Business permits of that type held by Group A Priority Applicants, or if the applicant is an RMD that has been granted a special permit from the Planning Board and a Provisional Certificate of Registration from the Cannabis Control Commission before the effective date of this Chapter and is seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales. b. After two years from the effective date provided in Section 10 below, the City may issue Cannabis Business permits to any qualifying applicant, whether or not such applicant is a Priority Applicant. However, after two years from the effective date in Section 10 below, the City shall continue to prioritize the issuance of permits to Priority Applicants when applications for Cannabis Business permits from both Priority Applicants and non Priority Applicants are pending approval by the City at the same time. The City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants. For the first two years after the Effective Date of this Chapter as stated in section 5.50.100 below, the City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit to operate a Cannabis Retail Store only to Group A Priority Applicants who are Economic Empowerment Applicants certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission. 5.50.050 Permitting Requirements a. In order to obtain a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter, an applicant must certify that: 1. It will comply with employee pay standards set out in the City's Living Wage Ordinance; 2. It will hire at least 51% of minority, women and/or veterans as employees; 3. If applicant has a Board of Directors, the board makeup will be at least 51% minority, women and/or veterans; 4. It consents to unannounced, periodic compliance inspections by City officials of its Cannabis Business, including any Cannabis Business activities it conducts off-site; 5. It will comply with all State and local laws and regulations regarding its Cannabis Business operations; 6. No person under the minimum legal sales age shall be permitted to enter the Cannabis Business site unless such person possesses a state-issued registration card demonstrating that the person is a registered qualifying medical marijuana (cannabis) patient and the Cannabis Business site is, or is co-located with, an RMD; 7. It will work with the Cambridge Public Health Department to create and distribute educational materials to its customers as directed by the Cambridge Public Health Department;

4 8. It will sell only cannabis and cannabis accessories, and not other products, including tobacco products or alcoholic beverages of any kind; 9. It will comply with directives of the Police Commissioner and of the Director of Traffic Parking and Transportation, or their designees, regarding traffic measures to be taken at and near the Cannabis Business site; and 10. It has received a special permit from the Planning Board for its Cannabis Business and has entered into a Host Community Agreement with the City through the City Manager's Office; and 11. It is a business in good standing with no outstanding federal, state or local investigations or judgments pending against it.= b. No discretionary permit conditions may be imposed by the permit issuing authority pursuant to this Chapter. c. A Cannabis Business permit shall be valid only for the applicant to which the Cannabis Business permit was issued, and only for the use and for the site approved in the permit. A proposed change of controlling ownership, change of use, or change of site shall require a new Cannabis Business permit. As part of the Cannabis Business permit application process, the City shall require the applicant to disclose all individuals and legal entities who have a beneficial interest in the applicant's business. 5.50.060 Permitting Procedure This Chapter shall be administered by the City's Inspectional Services Department, except that Priority Applicant status shall be certified by the Director of the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department. Applications for Cannabis Business permits shall be obtained from and submitted to the Inspectional Services Department. If permit applications are properly completed and certified, and the conditions of this Chapter are met, the Commissioner of Inspectional Services (the "Commissioner") shall issue a Cannabis Business permit to the applicant. No public hearing process on individual applications shall be conducted. A Host Community Agreement shall be negotiated with the City Manager. 5.50.070 Permit Expiration and Renewal The Cannabis Business permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to renewal annually. If the applicant fails to timely renew or fails to meet the requirements of this Chapter at the time of each renewal, including the Permitting Requirements in section 5.50.050 above, the Cannabis Business permit issued hereunder shall expire. A Cannabis Business permit will not be renewed if the permit holder has failed to pay all fines issued pursuant to this Chapter.

5 5.50.080 Enforcement a. Failure to comply with this Chapter, including a failure to maintain the status of a Priority Applicant, failure to obtain or to comply with the provisions of a Planning Board special permit or State license to operate a Cannabis Business, or failure to comply with any applicable laws, may result in revocation by the City, through the Commissioner, of the Cannabis Business permit granted pursuant to this Chapter. Failure to meet the annual Cannabis Business permit renewal requirements will result in the expiration of the Cannabis Business permit. If a permit holder's State license is revoked, then the Cannabis Business permit issued by the City shall be revoked...A Cannabis Business permit may be revoked or not renewed if the permit holder has sold a cannabis product to a person under the minimum legal sales age three times or more, or if the permit holder has failed to pay to the City all outstanding fines issued pursuant to this Chapter. b. An applicant must cease to operate if it does not hold and maintain a valid Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter. Prior to revoking a Cannabis Business permit issued hereunder, the Commissioner will notify the Cannabis Business permit holder in writing and allow the Cannabis Business permit holder at least fourteen (14) days to submit written information to the Commissioner establishing that the Cannabis Business permit holder is in compliance with the terms of this Chapter. The Commissioner shall make a final determination on the Cannabis Business permit expiration or revocation thereafter. If a permit holder requests, the Commissioner in his discretion may hold a hearing before deciding whether to revoke a Cannabis Business permit. c. Any violation of this Chapter by a permit holder shall be subject to a fine of up to $300 for each violation. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate violation. d. Fines pursuant to this Chapter may be issued pursuant to the non-criminal ticketing procedure in G.L.c.40, §21D. The Commissioner of Inspectional Services, the Police Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Public Health, or their designees shall be the enforcement officials for this Chapter. 5.50.090 Regulations The Commissioner of Inspectional Services, as well as the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, with the approval of the City Manager, are authorized to promulgate regulations and to create the necessary application and permit forms, to implement this Chapter with respect to their respective responsibilities pursuant to this Chapter. Regulatory requirements implementing this ordinance may differ for Priority Applicants and non-Priority applicants, such that the regulatory burden for Priority Applicants is less burdensome. 5.50.100 Effective Date , 2019. This Chapter shall take effect on

6 5.50.110 Severability The provisions of this Chapter are severable, and if any part of this Chapter should be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder of the Chapter, and the remainder of the Chapter shall remain in full force and effect.

ATTACHMENT C SLCO ПАСТЕРН CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL E. Denise Simmons Mayor City Councillor 2008-2009 2016-2017 June 27, 2019 Paula Crane Interim City Clerk Cambridge City Hall Re: Proposed Amendments For June 27, 2019 Ordinance Hearing Dear Ms. Crane: I am submitting my proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting discussion scheduled to take place at the Ordinance Hearing scheduled for June 27, 2019 at 3:30 pm. Please include the proposed attached amendments as part of the record for consideration and discussion at this hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, City Councilor E. Denise Simmons CITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 EMAIL: dsimmons@cambridgema.gov TTY/TDD: [phone removed] FAX: [phone removed] [phone removed]

Proposed Amendments to the Ordinance: Chapter 5.50 entitled "Cannabis Business Permitting" is hereby amended in Section 5.50.040 "Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants" by striking subsection (a.) and inserting in its place, the following: 5.50.040 Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants a. For the first two years from the effective date provided in Section 10 below, the City shall issue a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants. The City will only issue a Cannabis Business permit to (a) a Group B Priority Applicant if, after issuance, there will be an equal or greater number of currently active Cannabis Business permits of that type held by Group A Priority Applicants, or (b) if the applicant is an RMD that has been granted a Provisional Certificate of Registration not later than July 1, 2017 and is seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales. Chapter 5.50 entitled "Cannabis Business Permitting" is hereby amended by inserting a new section to be entitled "Section 5.50.045 RMD Conversion Economic Empowerment Accelerator Deposit": 5.50.045 RMD Conversion Economic Empowerment Accelerator Deposit An RMD that has been granted a Provisional Certificate of Registration not later than July 1, 2017 and is seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales pursuant to Section 4 above shall i) deposit not less than $250,000 annually into the Cambridge Economic Empowerment Accelerator Fund for a period of four years to commence upon the date of the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy to such RMD as a co-located Cannabis Retail Store and ii) coordinate with each RMD that qualifies under this subsection to collaboratively establish and fund a management and operations training program available for all Economic Empowerment applicants certified pursuant to Section 6 below. Chapter 5.50 entitled "Cannabis Business Permitting" is hereby amended by inserting a new section to be entitled "Section 5.50.095 Cambridge Economic Empowerment Accelerator Fund": Section 5.50.095 Cambridge Economic Empowerment Accelerator Fund a. The Assistant City Manager for Community Development shall establish a procurement process by which the City shall engage a nonprofit located within the City of Cambridge to establish and administer a Cambridge Economic Empowerment Accelerator Fund. The purpose of the fund shall be to provide start-up capitalization grants to support qualifying Economic Empowerment applicants certified pursuant to Section 6 above. b. The Fund shall be administered by the selected nonprofit. There shall be a Cambridge Economic Empowerment Accelerator Fund Advisory Board which shall support and advise the nonprofit in its administration of the fund. The advisory board shall be made up of the Assistant City Manager for Community Development or designee, who shall serve as chair, as well as four City residents with experience in community and economic development or small business development to be appointed by the City Manager.

AITACHMENTD Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairperson, members of the ordinance committee. My name is Marvin Gilmore, I reside at 26 Mount Vernon Street and I am a proud African American man who is the grandson of slaves. I served this country with courage and dignity in World War Il with the 458t* Battery "A" Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion, which as you may have heard, stormed Normandy, Utah and Omaha beaches on D-Day. In 2010, I was named a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor, the highest civilian recognition in France for what they called my heroic military service. However, back when I was leaving Europe at the end of the war I was denied passage on a military ship full of white soldiers. Despite my service, I had to cross the Atlantic on a small tug boat. In my professional life since the war, I have been involved in many different efforts to encourage economic empowerment among the black community, including becoming the 15t African American in Cambridge to hold a beer and wine license, to operating the Western Front jazz club, to developing the old Hyde Shoe factory on Columbia Street, and then later developing 50 acres in lower Roxbury and

bringing major businesses to the area such as Digital Corporation, Morgan Memorial and the BU Bio-Medical laboratories, all of which provided jobs and opportunity that literally economically empowered an entire community. I have done this work throughout my entire life. And now, at 95 years young, 1 am here as an Economic Empowerment Applicant seeking to enter the Cannabis industry. I have learned in my lifetime that moratoriums lead to stagnation, they promote blight. This proposed moratorium on the medical cannabis companies in Cambridge won't help the Economic Empowerment applicants because that isn't what they need. I have learned that in order to be successful, communities of color need access to capital. That is why is the 1960's, I formed the first full service black owned bank in all of New England. And it worked. Today, in the Cannabis business, Economic Empowerment applicants need the same thing - access to capital and operational support.

Councilor Simmons' amendment is a real solution to the problems faced by me and other Economic Empowerment applicants. This amendment is a thoughtful way to provide much needed funds and support so that Economic Empowerment applicants can actually enter the business, open retail Cannabis establishment and prosper, as opposed to Councilor Siddiqui's amendment, which just seeks to stop someone else from getting into the legal cannabis marketplace. I AM HERE TO TELL EACH OF YOU, THAT THE WAY WE START RESOLVING ISSUES AROUND EQUITY IS BY WORKING TOGETHER, NOT AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. THIS MEANS ALL OF US, ALL ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENTS APPLICANTS, ALL RMDS AND ALL CITY OFFICIALS. :"' THIS AMENDMENT PROVIDES A PATHWAY TO A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING RMDS AND THE HOPEFUL ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT APPLICANTS. I BELIEVE THIS PARTNERSHIP IS NEEDED, AND IN THIS COUNTRY, IT IS NEEDED NOW MORE THAN EVER. THE STATE MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN THIS RIGHT, BUT HERE IN CAMBRIDGE, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ONCE AGAIN DO WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST.

TO LEAD, BE THE FIRST, AND TO SET A BETTER EXAMPLE. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO DO IN MY LIFE, AND IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU WILL DO THAT TODAY BY VOTING UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF COUNCILOR SIMMONS' AMENDMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ATTACHMENTE Joseph Gilmore, Director of Outreach for the Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council offers: "Are you from Cambridge? Testify timorrow & I'll gift you a gram, #joeygottagram" g* Add Friend ® Message Joseph Gilmore More About Friends Photos Timeline DO YOU KNOW JOSEPH? To see what he shares with friends, send him a friend request. & Add Friend Intro Joseph Gilmore 17 mins • ei Co-founder, Director of Community Outreach at Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council Are you from Cambridge? Testify tomorrow & l'll gift Founder, President at Students for Sensible you a gram #joeygottagram Drug Policy at UMass Boston Former Dispensary Agent at Garden 00 Remedies inc. (GRI) Lives in Dorchester, Massachusetts Comment From Boston, Massachusetts DO Like 000 Joseph Gilmore 37 mins • 8: Do you believe Medical Marijuana dispensaries should receive priority licensing over Social Equity & Economic Empowerment Applicants? The Cambridge City Council is requesting public feedback from Cambridge residents tomorrow at Cambridge City Hall, 3:30pm 4 Comments 002 0 Like • Comment

ATTACHMENT F-I Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance Advocating for Safe Access to Medical Marijuana One Beacon Street, 15th Floor Boston, MA 02108 [phone removed] Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance [email removed] compassionforpatients.com June 27, 2019 City of Cambridge City Council, Ordinance Committee 795 Massachusetts Avenue, 2nd Floor Gambridge, MA 02139 Chairs Carlone and Kelley, I have reviewed Councillor Denise Simmons' Compromise Amendment and find that it is sound policy, is equitable, and keeps in mind all of the stakeholders while justly enhancing support for Economic Empowerment Applicants. Supporting this Compromise will: • Collect $550,000 in new tax revenue every month, which the City could direct toward Economic Empowerment Applicants for access to capital, job training and skills development Establish a $5M fund with the sole objective of supporting Cambridge Economic Empowerment applicants with no-strings-attached start-up capital to drive true equity, paired with mentoring and training from existing RMDs, allowing Cambridge to be the first City in the country to truly solve for equity • Economic Empowerment Applicants as well as RMDs could all move forward at the same time, allowing for everyone to benefit from the opportunity Adult Use sales offer • Patients would continue to have access to the medicinal products they have come to rely on and take advantage of the discounts that MIMTs offer

• Economic Empowerment Applicants would have a unique opportunity in Cambridge to go to market and develop experienced employees faster than in any other municipality in Massachusetts. The MPAA wholeheartedly supports Councillor Denise Simmons' proposed Compromise Amendment. Thank you on behalf of Massachusetts' patients. Sincerely, Whole now Nichole Snow President & Executive Director Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance Cc: City of Cambridge City Council City Manager Louis D. DePasquale, City of Cambridge Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, City of Cambridge Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Chairman Steven J. Hoffman, CCC Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan, CCC Shawn Collins, Executive Director, CCC

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT F-D From: Crane, Paula Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:24 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: FW: Points of Information about Cannabis Businesses and Oregon Statistics Attachments: Oregon statistics.docx From: Nichole Snow <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:22 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; City Manager <CityManager@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Glowa, Nancy <nglowa@cambridgema.gov>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Points of Information about Cannabis Businesses and Oregon Statistics Good morning City of Cambridge, Please enter this information into the Record for Thursday's hearing. I attached some information in a docx from Oregon. I will be sending new information along as I find it. Please let me know if you need anything else. • This Amendment negatively impacts Patients and Small Businesses that benefit from Sira, Revolutionary Clinics, and Healthy Pharms' contributions to community reinvestments these businesses have been providing for the last four years. (Patients' Hardship Discount Programs & Small Businesses' Accelerator Programs) • The Legislators' plan was to allow the already opened and operating RMDs to remain competitive and be able to sustain what assistance they have been providing to patients and small businesses. • In the interest of public health and safety, Sira, Revolutionary Clinics, and Health Pharms will be the most experienced in following state laws and regulations and will remain cooperative with community stakeholders (Public Safety, Public Health) and partners when expanding to adult use sales while maintaining patients' continuity of care. • Sira, Revolutionary Clinics, and Healthy Pharms will also be the companies most ready to open this calendar year for adult use sales. When the voters voted on the Original Ballot Initiative to have access to Recreational Sales through preexisting RMDs, the Legislators carried over that provision in order to meet the voters' demand for safe access to adult use marijuana while causing no harm to our MA Medical Marijuana Program. Delaying safe access to adult use sales will not appeal to voters that expected safe access to adult use sales not to be delayed any further. • If Sira, Revolutionary Clinics, and Healthy Pharms are not able to move forward, when the RMDs real estate/property values and costs go up because of how much profit their Adult Use competitors are making and the property owner wants to raise to rent, the Businesses will not be able to sustain themselves and they will move on to less expensive real estate. Thank you, Nichole Snow President & Executive Director Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance www.compassionforpatients.com 1

One Beacon Street, Floor 15 Boston, MA 02108 [phone removed] CONFIDENTIAL: This message, including all attachments transmitted with it, is for the use of the addressee only. It may contain proprietary, confidential and/or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print or copy any part of this message. If you believe you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender immediately by reply email. Thank you.

Medicinal-only retail outlets will not be able to compete with recreational outlets and will fail within 12 months. Recreational (adult use) outlets can and will serve both medicinal and recreational users. The products are virtually identical for both market segments and there is obviously no requirement for stores to turn away medicinal clients. The difference in tax sales tax rates between medicinal and recreational purchases (17-20%) is a factor but that comes with the price of $200-$250 to get a medical card, a physical visit to a doctor, an average of 2 weeks before getting the card and required annual renewals. Many people who would otherwise get their medicinal cards for medical needs will forego that inconvenience and expense and simply go right to recreational stores. This will drive down demand for the medical cards and drive down patronage of medicinal-only stores. The inequity of new recreational stores being able to serve everyone and the medicinal stores only able to serve the medical card population will create automatic winners and losers. The businesses of the current medicinal companies will not only suffer both from severely reduced client base but also from the lost opportunity of the recreational client base. Some will surely lose funding from investors who have always understood that recreational revenues would increase business and returns from these stores. A vivid proxy for what would happen to medicinal retail stores in MA is found in Oregon: From Oregon State Health Authority https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/MedicalMarijuanaProgram/Pages /data.aspx Medical only stores are going out of business every week as the # patients have fallen 53% in the past 2: years: January 2017: 67,000 • January 2018: 50,000 • January 2019: 31,000 2017: Oregon Health Authority • Public Health Division • Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistical Snapshot, 01/2017- Page 1 Patients, Caregivers, Growers and Grow Sites' Grow Sites Growers Caregivers Patients 66,291 36,265 Mailing Address in OR 28,021 26,631 N/A 347 850 89 Mailing Address Outside OR Total 36,354 67,141 26,631 28,368 2018:

Oregon Health Authority • Public Health Division • Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistical Snapshot, 01/2018- Page 1 Patients, Caregivers, Growers and Grow Sites! Grow Sites Growers Patients Caregivers 25,576 20,025 50,339 19,890 Mailing Address in OR 39 61 N/A 140 Mailing Address Outside OR Total 25,615 50,400 20,025 20,030 2019: Oregon Health Authority • Public Health Division • Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistical Snapshot, 01/2019 Patients, Caregivers, Growers and Grow Sitest Growers Grow Sites Patients Caregivers 14,629 12,933 31,233 12,408 Mailing Address in OR 80 14 N/A 18 Mailing Address Outside OR Total 12,408 14,643 31,251 13,013 Medical Marijuana Sales In Oregon Plummeting As Recreational Sales Increase "State officials say that since recreational marijuana became legal (3 months ago), the number of people with medical cards dropped from 77,000 to 67,000 — that's equivalent to the population of Cottage Grove. ... last month, Shaffer let her official Oregon medical marijuana card lapse. She said the annual $200 cost isn't worth the savings she makes on medical versus recreational marijuana. (Oregon Public Broadcasting) EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — A medical marijuana card used to be the key to buying and possessing pot in Oregon. But the rise of recreational marijuana is making the cards primarily valuable only as a discount card, and not a necessity to buy, said Sam Elkington, owner of Track Town Collective in Glenwood. The card exempts the buyer from Oregon's state and local pot taxes, which are levied on recreational pot.

Daily sales at medical pot dispensaries — once cutting-edge hubs for the marijuana industry — have plummeted as a result. "Nobody is going to survive being medical only, " said Brad Zusman, owner of Cannadaddy's, a recreational shop at 17020 S.E. Division Street in Portland. (OCC Newspaper.com) It's so bad that they had only two sales on January 4, for $125.00, and barely over $100 the previous day. The typical sales at Stash Cannabis Company, before they were forced to go back to medical-only sales, was about $4000 a day.

ATTACHMENT G Thank you members of the Ordinance Committee for hearing me today, My name is Frank Shaw, and I live at 126 County Rd in Ipswich. I am here to support the compromise amendment on the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance developed by Councilor Simmons. I'm 66 years old, I'm disabled, and I'm a registered medical marijuana patient who travels to Cambridge to obtain my medicine. I have been suffering with AIDS for the past twenty years, and medical marijuana equals life for some individuals with AIDS including me. I am very pleased to see the new Simmons amendment will not cause a conflict between medical patients and equity entrepreneurs. Medical marijuana patients stand with social

equity and I am happy to see that we do not have to be divided anymore. 5 Million Dollars for economic empowerment applicants in Cambridge is nearly half of what the entire state failed to pass in their new budget for social equity. If Cambridge passed Councilor Simmons amendment, Cambridge will be the first city in the entire state to put real money into a social equity program. Currently existing medical marijuana dispensaries who opened for patients and who have helped small businesses in Cambridge do not deserve to be punished. The Simmons amendment is legal and will act to protect those small business relationships these businesses have already developed. Radical councilors pushing an agenda that intentionally hurts medical marijuana patients and currently existing businesses will lead to

lawsuits and prevent equity and recreational sales from coming to Cambridge for years. Delaying RMDs from opening will cause a major lawsuit and will ensure only Economic Empowerment applicants supported by big out of state companies like Medmen are able to hold onto real estate for the length of the litigation. The largest barrier to entry for Equity is funding. Councilor Simmons amendment creates a real pathway for Economic Empowerment applicants not supported by big out of state money by creating a real grant fund of 5 Million Dollars for them to pull from. Other states medical programs have been eliminated by similar local level efforts after legalization. All you need to do is look online for the subject and article after article will say how recreational hurts medical.

While some radical councilors have shared publicly in news reports that they intended to hurt the medical program with the other amendment, .... I find it hard to believe that all Cambridge city councilors would want to contribute to the destruction of our state's medical program. Please vote for Councilor Simmons compromise amendment. Please protect the medical marijuana patients of Massachusetts. Please support funding social equity. Thank you.

# ATTACHMENT Lopez, Donna From: Derek Kopon < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 6:14 PM Clerk To: Cc: City Council; [email removed] Cannabis public comment Subject: Dear Clerk, Please find below my public comment from the cannabis hearing of the Ordinance committee this afternoon. Thank you, Derek Kopon Cannabis usage has been around in various forms for centuries. However, until recently we have had almost no reliable scientific studies on its health effects. An increasing number of recent studies are showing correlations and observational evidence of serious adverse health effects of cannabis use in children and adolescents. While the majority of the Cambridge electorate voted in favor of legalizing cannabis, it is important to note that the weed that many of my neighbors were smoking back in the 70's was significantly less potent than the cannabis products commercially available today. In some cases, products that will be sold in these retail stores will have THC concentrations that are 500% higher, or more, than products that were typically available decades ago. Some of these products are in the form of candy, chocolate, gummy bears, etc. This council has spent a fair bit of time discussing various issues of equity empowerment, permitting, etc. However, the most important issue that you should be considering, is the health of our children and families. It is disturbing that the 500ft limit from schools proposed by the Commonwealth and adopted by the city of Boston has been relaxed to 325 ft in Cambridge. You should be erring on the side of caution and making zoning more restrictive in areas frequented by young people, not less. Earlier you heard testimony from Dr. Lisa Price, an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry, urging you to adopt a conservative approach to cannabis zoning and permitting near schools. I urge you to heed her advice and keep these shops away from schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and neighborhoods where young children are growing up. If this means that the zoning restricts the number of cannabis stores in Cambridge to 0 or 1 or 2, rather than the 10-15 that some of you envision, then so be it. This is a public health issue and must be treated as such. 1

ATTACHUENT I Jeffrey S. Robbins SAUL EWING Phone: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] ARNSTEIN [email removed] www.saul.com & LEHR"P June 25, 2019 VIA EMAIL (nglowa@cambridgema.gov) Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. City Solicitor City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Ave., 3rd Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 Re: Comments Made at the June 24 Council Meeting Regarding CCC Guidance and Impact of Another Two-Year Moratorium on Registered Marijuana Dispensaries Dear Ms. Glowa: I write on behalf of our clients Sira Naturals, Inc., Revolutionary Clinics, Inc., and Healthy Pharms, Inc., to address certain comments made at last night's council meeting regarding the purported legality of the Proposed Amendments and questions raised concerning the impact of the proposed additional delay of at least two years for converting RMDs' medical licenses to co-located medical- and adult-use licenses.! The CCC's Guidance Documents Are Not Legally Binding And, When Read In Context, Further Support The Conclusion The Proposed Amendments Are Illegal First, the CCC's guidance documents are not legally binding. See Kellogg v. Bd. of Registration in Med., No. SJ-2010-0382, 2011 WL 13224166, at *9 (Mass. Feb. 4, 2011), aff'd, 461 Mass. 1001(2011) (noting that agency guidelines "are not, binding in-and-of-themselves, but are better understood as the [agency's] interpretation of statutes and regulations accompanied by a description of best practices"); Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 230 (2011) (observing that "[m]erely because [an agency] is possessed of authority regarding a particular topic does not render his every pronouncement regarding that topic a regulation possessing the full force and effect of a statute"). In fact, the CCC's guidance documents repeatedly disclaim 'Any abbreviated terms or phrases used herein should be interpreted in accordance with the definitions set forth in my prior letter dated June 24, 2019. 131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501 • Boston, MA 02116 • Phone: [phone removed] • Fax: [phone removed] DELAWARE FLORIDA ILLINOIS MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MINNESOTA NEW JERSEY NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON, DC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Ms. Nancy Glowa June 25, 2019 Page 2 that "this guidance is not legal advice." (See, e.g., CCC's "Guidance on Equitable Cannabis Policies for Municipalities" (the "Municipal Guidance"), attached hereto at Tab A, at p. 1.) The Municipal Guidance further encourages municipalities to consult counsel with "legal questions regarding the marijuana laws in the Commonwealth." (Id.) Second, comments made by a Council member regarding the CCC's guidance referenced only a snippet of text out of its proper context, which, unfortunately, and no doubt unintentionally, was misleading to both the Council and the public as to the CCC's directives. The paragraph referenced, which is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the Municipal Guidance, makes eminently clear that any priority review for economic empowerment applicants is to be "in addition to registered marijuana dispensaries [or RMDs]." (Emphasis added.) In other words, this section affirms RMDs' priority status as outlined within my June 24, 2019 communication and leaves no doubt that any preference given to economic empowerment applicants cannot be enacted to the detriment of RMDs. As made clear by the guidance's introductory phrase, which regrettably was not read, the discussion thereafter suggesting that a municipality may only consider economic empowerment applicants for the first six months is obviously referring to economic empowerment applicants vis-à-vis other, non-priority applicants, and not RMDs. Third, municipalities' legal obligation to allow RMDs to promptly convert their medical licenses to co-located medical- and adult-use licenses is made even more obvious by the guidance provided by the CCC. The CCC's "Guidance for Municipalities" (a copy of which is attached hereto at Tab B), in a section entitled "Local Control: Conversion from Medical Use to Adult Use," unequivocally states that "IzJoning bylaws or ordinances are not permitted to operate to prevent the conversion of an RMD ... to a marijuana establishment of adult use engaged in the same type of activity." (Id. at p. 10.) (Emphasis added.) If there were any question about whether a delay in allowing RMDs to convert is tantamount to a prevention, that is clarified in the subsequent section entitled "Local Control: Moratoria." (See id.) That section of the "Guidance for Municipalities" provides that municipalities may only impose a "temporary delay" in allowing RMDs to convert their licenses for the sole purpose of "allow[ing] a municipality to engage in a planning process to determine how best to zone marijuana establishments for adult use in its community." (Id.) In other words, the only delay that is permitted is to allow the City of Cambridge to pass its cannabis ordinances, not to prioritize other license applicants. Fourth, the "Local Control: Moratoria" guidance further states that "It]he Commission will interpret the reasonableness of the length of a moratorium in a manner consistent with the opinions issued by the Attorney General's Office in reviewing moratoria proposed by communities, which, as of the date of this publication, in the majority of cases allowed moratoria through December 31, 2018." (Id.) (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the City of Cambridge has 2 The specific section of the Municipal Guidance that was referred to during the hearing is entitled "What process with prospective licensees need to follow, and what in the timeline for that process?" (See Municipal Guidance at p. 5.) 2

Ms. Nancy Glowa June 25, 2019 Page 3 already delayed RMDs' license conversions for six months beyond the time that the Attorney General's Office has deemed reasonable. The Attorney General's Office has further instructed that "[u]nder Massachusetts law, the extension of a temporary moratorium must be tied to an ongoing planning need." (See Dan Adams, Healey rejects several local moratoriums on marijuana businesses, Boston Globe, Dec. 3, 2018, attached hereto at Tab C.) (Emphasis added). The two-year delay on RMDs' ability to convert their licenses under the Proposed Amendments is in no way tied to the City of Cambridge's planning needs regarding how to best zone marijuana establishments. The City of Cambridge simply cannot, without violating the law, impose a two-year moratorium on RMDs' right to convert their medical licenses to co-located medical- and adult- use licenses. As a result, if the City of Cambridge adopts the Proposed Amendments, or does anything to further delay RMDs' legal right to convert, it will be done so in violation of fundamental statutory and constitutional rights. The Proposed Two-Year Delay On RMDs' Right To Convert Will Result In The Destruction Of The RMDs' Business To The Detriment Of Medical Patients There was discussion during last night's meeting regarding the impact a two-year delay in RMDs' ability to convert their licenses would have on their businesses. Make no mistake, the Proposed Amendments would be devastating to RMD businesses and, consequently, medical marijuana patients' ability to have their unique needs met. This has already played out in other states, including, for example, Colorado and Oregon, where numerous "medical only" stores are going out of business. (See, e.g., Kristian Foden-Vencil, Medical Marijuana Sales in Oregon Plummeting as Recreational Sales Increase, Oregon Public Broadcasting (opb.org), May 23, 2017, attached hereto at Tab D.)' Reports in Colorado suggest there has been a "massive exodus" of medical patients since adult-use was legalized resulting in, among other things, products medical patients rely on "disappearing off the shelves." (See Gillian Flaccus and Angeliki Kastanis, Medical pot takes hit when weed legal for all, Associated Press, June 11, 2019, attached hereto at Tab E.) The number of medical patients in Oregon has fallen fifty-three percent (53%) in the last two years. One Oregon company reported that its sales fell from approximately $4,000 per day to barely over $100 per day when it was forced to exclusively operate as a medical-only business. (See Keith Mansur, Some Oregon Marijuana Dispensaries Devestated by Recreational Sales Deadline, Oregon Cannabis Connection, Jan. 6, 2017, https://www.occnewspaper.com/some-oregon-marijuana-dispensaries-devastated-by- recreational-sales-deadline/). 3 See also Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistics, at https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/MedicalMarijuanaProgram/Pages/data.aspx (last visited June 25. 2019). * According to the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistics cited in footnote 3 above, in January 2017, there were 67,000 medical marijuana patients as opposed to the 31,000 patients existing as of January 2019. 3

Ms. Nancy Glowa June 25, 2019 Page 4 The reason for the significant impact adult-use sales has on medical-only establishments. is simple. Medical marijuana patients are disincentivized to obtain or renew their medical marijuana cards, which cost $200 to $250 per year, must be renewed annually, and can only be obtained after a doctor's visit weeks before the card is renewed. Many people who would otherwise get or renew medicinal cards will forego the inconvenience and expense and simply go straight to adult-use businesses. The benefit of the twenty percent (20%) difference in sales tax rates between medical and adult-use purchases is outweighed by the cost and inconvenience of getting and maintaining a medicinal card. For these reasons, the Proposed Amendments would significantly harm the medical marijuana industry, including both RMDs and patients. Furthermore, as referenced in our prior letter, it would expose the City of Cambridge to significant damages to compensate the RMDs for the losses they will certainly sustain by the deprivation of their property rights. Conclusion We hope that this letter helps to further inform you and the City Councillors as to the clear illegality of the Proposed Amendments-or any other attempt to further illegally and unconstitutionally delay our clients' clearly mandated property rights-—and the profoundly adverse consequences they would impose on both RMDs and medical marijuana patients. In our letter of Monday, June 24, we requested the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these very legal issues in advance of the meeting that evening. Thereafter, we followed up with several phone calls seeking to meeting with you. While we have yet to hear back in response to our prior letter and phone calls, we still firmly believe that a meeting prior to Thursday's committee hearing would be beneficial to everyone so that we can discuss these important legal issues and avoid the need for our clients to take legal action. Finally, please ensure that this letter is formally entered into the record for Thursday night's meeting. Very Truly Yours, Is/ Jeffrey S. Robbins Jeffrey S. Robbins CC: Arthur Goldberg (agoldberg@cambridgema.gov) Members of the Cambridge City Council (council@cambridgema.gov) Mayor Marc C. McGovern (mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov) Jan Devereux (jdevereux@cambridgema.gov) Dennis J. Carlone (dcarlone@cambridgema.gov) Craig A. Kelley (ckelley@cambridgema.gov) Alanna M. Mallon (amallon@cambridgema.gov) Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. (ttoomey@cambridgema.gov) 4

Ms. Nancy Glowa June 25, 2019 Page 5 Denise Simmons (dsimmons@cambridgema.gov) Sumbul Siddiqui (ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov) Quinton Y. Zondervan (qzondervan@cambridgema.gov) Paula Crane (pcrane@cambridgema.gov) Iram Farooq (cddat344@cambridgema.gov) Joseph D. Lipchitz, Esq. ([email removed]) Zachary W. Berk, Esq. ([email removed]) Bridgitte E. Mott, Esq. ([email removed]) 5

ATTACHMENT I The Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives • Boston 02133 State House, MARK J. CUSACK REPRESENTATIVE Chairman 5TH NORFOLK DISTRICT Committee on Revenue STATE HOUSE, ROOM 34 TEL: [phone removed] Mark.Cusack@MAhousa.gov June 27, 2019 Steve Hoffman, Chairman Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission 101 Federal Street, 13" Floor Boston, MA 02110 Dear Chairman Hoffman: I am writing to you today in my oversight capacity as the House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Revenue. As discussions progress on finding new revenue to help fund transportation and education here in the commonwealth, it is incumbent on me as the Chair of the Revenue Committee to review our current revenue streams and to make sure we are hitting the already agreed upon benchmarks set in our fiscal year budgets. With just days left in FY19, the gross sales of adult use cannabis products in Massachusetts have, passed $176 million. Taking into account the 17% combined tax going to the commonwealth, we are looking at approximately $29.9 million in taxes. The state budget for FY19 benchmarked $63 million for revenue from the sales tax on recreational marijuana sales. The FY20 budget benchmarks the marijuana tax at $132.5 million. These actual tax numbers are well below where they should be according to these benchmarks. If a contributing issue was the speed at which the rollout occurred, then one would think a system would be in place - with an adequate number of well trained staff and inspectors -- to streamline and get more retailers up and running at a faster pace, while keeping safety and the throughout the licensing process. As I have discussed in the past with the CCC, it is my understanding that there are roadblocks within the application process dealing with the municipalities in which these businesses hope to be located. Per my prior letter to the CCC and comments in the press I have made, you know of my opinion and the legislative intent in host community agreements. The way these municipalities are disregarding the law and preventing businesses for being able to secure a location, is just another reason of lost revenue. Additionally, it has been brought to my attention Page 1 of 4

that some applicants attempting to convert and co-locate a current medical marijuana treatment center and recreational marijuana business, that municipalities are once again disregarding the law in order to prevent their openings. The law clearly states that a municipality's local zoning ordinances or by-laws shall not "prevent the conversion of a medical marijuana treatment center licensed or registered not later than July 1, 2017 engaged in the cultivation, manufacture or sale of marijuana or marijuana products to a marijuana establishment engaged in the same type of activity" M.G.L. ch.94G §3(a)(1)(i). If these treatment centers wish to convert and co-locate, and have been given approval by the CCC, a municipality shall not be able to create new by-laws to prevent it, and the CCC as the governing body should be there te inform-these-municipalities as such. Allowing these municipalities to act in such a way to prevent the recreational market from thriving is impeding not only on this new industry, but even more it is impeding on the increased revenue, which has the potential to focus on public safety, preventative measures within the opioid crisis and additional much needed areas in these municipalities and in the commonwealth. The task in front of you as commissioners in creating this new industry and commission was not an easy one, and I appreciated all of your hard work in that respect. But, as I have seen and have been informed, the direction and focus of this process has been off course at times. I understand the need to expand the program, to make it stronger and include anyone who wants to be apart it to make it a success. The problem is without a strong basis for a program/industry none of these other aspects can occur, so why is it the CCC's method of operation to continually have meetings, press releases and guides on a new issue almost every week, while applicants continue to be unlicensed and left in the dark. A flourishing, safe program with increasing revenue is the basis for a medical and recreational cannabis program that can be a national model. These continued obstacles to getting priority applicants through the application process, lack of licensed stores being opened and municipality related issues to name a few have unfortunately been well documented in the press. They are also costing and will continue to cost the commonwealth millions of dollars of revenue. That is unacceptable. To this end, I am writing to respectfully request a listing of every applicant that has submitted applications to the CCC for any type of cannabis related business. This should include all standard applications as well as those considered under priority status. In addition, I would request detailed answers and responses to the following questions and requests: • How many standard applications and priority applications has the CCC received to date? • What dates were they received on? • Where are these applications in the process of being licensed? If stalled in the process, any reason(s) why? • How many priority applications have been approved by the CCC? Are these approvals open and running, if not reasons why? • Have there been instances where other priority applications or standard applications leapfrogged over an earlier, complete priority applicant? • What is the timeline for license approval for a priority applicant? • What is the timeline for license approval for a standard applicant? • A list of the length of time it has taken for every priority applicant to be licensed or denied and how that compares to standard applicants. Page 2 of 4

• Is there a process or avenue for a potential licensee to view or be notified where they are currently in the process of licensing? • How many inspectors are currently sent to conduct an onsite inspection and how long does the average inspection take? • How many inspectors are currently employed at the CCC? Does the CCC anticipate the hiring of additional inspectors? • Number of inspectors that were transitioned from the medical marijuana program at DPH and how many of those transitioned currently are employed by the CCC. • How are the inspectors trained? Is there a continuing education available? • Process for how a person/company in the process of getting licensed can communicate with the CCC and staff. • Response times of the CCC and staff to issues, specific questions or general inquiries from the public, potential licensees and current licensees. • Amount of vacant staff positions the CCC currently has. • Staff numbers transitioned from the DPH's medical marijuana program and if these employees still currently reside in the CCC's medical marijuana program. • How many employees the CCC had prior to and now after the announcement of the move to the Worcester headquarters? Please include the DPH employees originally designated to transition to the CCC and how many did not transfer due to the move to Worcester, if applicable. • How many medical marijuana licenses are currently in the application process? • What is the timeline for medical marijuana license application process from applying to being approved? • Total number of meetings by the CCC since the start of the program. Total number of meetings where licensing process was discussed. Total number of meetings where a license approval was discussed. • Has the CCC created and implemented ethical guidelines for the commissioners and employees. If so, please supply. If not, why has none been implemented? • To the CCC's knowledge has any staff, counsel or commissioners been supplying advice to communities, licensees or other interested parties outside of their official capacity, whether they have let it known or not that said person is acting or not acting in that capacity. • If applicable, how many lawsuits by applicants against the CCC and the commonwealth have been official filed? • Have there been any issues with registration cards for agents of a marijuana business? If so, what issues have arisen and are there steps to fix and prevent such issues? • Has the CCC received complaints due to any aspect of the agent registration card process and regulations? • Is the fee for a patient registration card in discussion or finalized to be waived or removed? If so what would be the loss of revenue for the Marijuana Regulation Fund? Any reasoning for the removal or waiver of the fees. • Please include the CCC's opinion on where the M.G.L. states there is a legal mandate for the priority of social equity marijuana businesses to be licensed over any other type of marijuana business. Page 3 of 4

Due to the importance of the highlighted issues, I would request that you provide answers to these questions in your own letter within the next three weeks. Thank you for your attention into this matter, and I look forward to your timely response to this request. Sincerely, Made Casada Mark J. Cusack State Representative Fifth Norfolk District Co: Kay Doyle, Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan, Commissioner Britte McBride, Commissioner Shaleen Title, Commissioner Shawn Collins, Executive Director David Lakeman, Director of Governmental Affairs Page 4 of 4

ATTACHMENTK Keith Cooper, 81 Woodridge Road, Wayland and CEO RevClinics • First you should know that I am not the face of "big marijuana" • Both sets of grandparents lived in Somerville • My parents were born in Somerville, went to Somerville High School, fell in love and got married in Somerville • I grew up in Watertown and attended Watertown High • I lived in Cambridge for 6 years, attended Harvard College and Harvard Business school • So l am not a big marijuana out of state company, l am a local entrepreneur who has run 6 local companies and helped create over 500 good paying jobs Let me tell you a bit about RevClinics: • We help over 8,000 patients deal with stress, pain and other issues without narcotics • We offer medical discount pricing programs to assist those with financial hardships • We have created over 115 new jobs; 25 in Cambridge; we will hire an additional 35 people in Cambridge for 541 Mass Ave so 60 new jobs in 2 years • Compensation 30% higher than other service industry jobs • Full medical benetits • Free transit benefit for all employees • Minority employees currently represent 34% of our team. The goal is at least 50% • We have the highest customer service ratings in our industry and were voted Best Dispensary in New England in 2019 • We founded Alternative Treatment for Veterans (ATV) to help our wounded heroes There is a belief that delaying our opening is the best way to help the EE applicants to benefit...it couldn't be further from the truth In that plan: • Cambridge businesses lose tens of millions of dollars • Cambridge loses $12M in tax revenue and it goes to Brookline and Newton • 80 jobs in Cambridge are delayed 2 years

• Creates a legal nightmare that will likely keep everyone out of business well beyond 2 years • It does nothing to solve the 2 real problems facing EE candidates, capital and support We support 100% the equity initiatives and equality in the market and we have never seen it as an us vs. them. It does not have to be. Even though we have the statutory property right to add adult use to our medical program, we have come here to support a plan which collaborates with the city to actually benefit the EE candidates with real financing and support • When the RMDs are allowed to add adult use, there are real funds available to make a real difference in helping EE applicants get into the business. • The RMDs have committed $5M to be granted to EE applicants, $1.25M/year over 4 years, no strings attached • Without this plan it will very likely be over 2 years before an EE store opens Let Cambridge and its leaders be headline news for introducing the most progressive and successful program in the country as opposed to headlines for creating a delay, legal challenges and problems. Thank you.

ATTACHMENT L ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C. TELEPHONE ATTORNEYS AT LAW WEBSITE [phone removed] www.akzlaw.com 90 Canal Street, Suite 120 Boston, MA 02114 E-MAIL [email removed] Via Electronic Transmission (nglowa@cambridgema.gov) June 27, 2019 Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. City Solicitor City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 Re: Letter of June 24, 2019, on behalf of Siri Naturals, Inc., Revolutionary Clinics, Inc., and Healthy Pharms, Inc. Dear Ms. Glowa: I write this letter on behalf of Green Soul Organics, LLC and its principals, Tabasuri Moses and Richard Harding, in initial response to the letter above ("Letter" or "Letter of June 24"), which Mr. Moses and Mr. Harding received quite recently. Mr. Moses, who is African- American and a businessman who graduated from the Cambridge Public Schools, and Mr. Harding, an African-American businessman and resident of Cambridge, stand, with many fellow business people and Cambridge friends, in wholehearted support of Councillors Zondervan and Siddiqui's proposed amendments to Cambridge's cannabis ordinance to provide that in the first two years from its effective date, "the City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit to operate a Cannabis Retail Store ... only to Priority Applicants who are an Economic Empowerment Applicant" ("Amendment"'), see Cambridge City Council Memorandum of June 20, 2019, Exhibit A to Letter of June 24, 2019 at p. 3. Mr. Moses and Mr. Harding will later address, in remarks before the City Council and/or in written submissions, the many cogent reasons the Amendment should be adopted, see, e.g., Letter to the City of Cambridge Council, The Ordinance Committee, Cannabis Equity and Cannabis Business Permitting ("Letter to the City"), reviewing reasons supporting the Amendment. The Amendment is a critical step needed to vindicate a critical purpose of the Ordinance and, indeed, more generally, the reason to legalize the retail sale of cannabis, as stated in the Letter to the City at p. 1: The legalized adult-use cannabis industry represents a rare opportunity to transform the lives of the individuals, families,

Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. June 27, 2019 Page 2 households, and communities, particularly communities of color, that have been disproportionately harmed by marijuana law enforcement. Because of this history, the legalized cannabis industry has a moral obligation to provide economic opportunities o communities that have been devastated by the enforcement of previous laws governing the use of marijuana That this "moral obligation," almost universally accepted by the proponents of legalization, is currently far from met, is made clear by the Letter to the City at its end pages. Only three minority-owned businesses are among the 149 licenses approved since 2012, and only six of the 243 applications currently under review by the CCC are Economic Empowerment applications. The Amendment would correct in Cambridge, swiftly and effectively, this gross disparity, and serve, with Somerville, Boston, and Easthampton, as examples of how these valuable licenses should be parceled out. This is a matter nowhere mentioned, much less acknowledged, in the Letter of June 24. More specifically concerning the Letter, my clients wish at this time to make a few points. First, even the most casual reading of the Letter shows quickly that it relies excessively on overheated rhetoric and threats, e.g., the Amendment will expose the "City of Cambridge and its councillors to liability," Letter at p. 2; the Amendment is an "obviously illegal attempt to circumvent the clear mandates of the State Legislature" (as though the City is trying to break the law), id; this "unlawful provision" will leave the Letter's writer "no choice but to vigorously challenge their legality in court," id. at p. 3; the Amendment is "fundamentally illegal," id. at p. 7; if enacted the Proposed Ordinance "will be swiftly challenged by our clients as clearly violating G.L. c. 94G and unconstitutional...," id. at p. 8; see Conclusion at second paragraph, with its heavy-handed warnings about holding "councillors accountable for the destruction or deletion of all relevant evidence," including "emails and text messages," as though City officials and employees are engaging in some massive conspiracy by debating an ordinance. We want the Letter writers to know, and the Cambridge City Council to know, that in the event that the Letter writer (and the unidentified "others") bring a lawsuit against the City, Green Soul Organics and, just as certain, other entities and persons - many if not most residents or businesses in Cambridge - will join Green Soul and will move to intervene in any litigation in support of the City and will litigate (and organize) vigorously on behalf of the Amendment and against the Letter writers' threats, distortions, and not-so-veiled attempts at intimidation. Be assured that the disadvantaged community intended to be benefitted by the legalization of adult- use cannabis will stand by the City.

Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. June 27, 2019 Page 3 Second, while we have had only a short period of time to review the Letter's legal arguments, they are, especially in light of the Letter's extravagant and over-heated language, far- fetched in the extreme. The Letter, in main part, makes two assertions. First, the writer says, the Amendment runs afoul of the statute's prohibition against ordinances that "prevent the conversion of a medical marijuana treatment center ... engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, or sale of marijuana or marijuana products to a marijuana establishment engaged" in, inter alia, retail sales. See G.L. c. 94G, §3(a)(I)(i) (emphasis added); see Letter at p. 3 et seq. But the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary, commonsense meaning,' and the Amendment does not "prevent" RMDs from opening recreational use outlets; rather, it simply gives Economic Empowerment applicants a necessary period to catch up, see Letter to City at "Business Considerations" (The existing RMD operations have been granted and have enjoyed a period of no less than three years' head start). The Amendment thus attempts to even a very uneven playing field. Moreover, the Amendment does this in a way entirely consistent with the Cannabis Control Commission's guidance: Section 56 of Chapter 55 requires the Commission to prioritize review and licensing decisions for prospective licensees who demonstrate experience in or business practices promoting economic empowerment in communities disproportionately impacted by high rates of arrest and incarceration for drug offenses, in addition to registered marijuana dispensaries. There are 123 applicants that qualify as economic empowerment applicants certified by the Commonwealth. In accordance with the Commission's mandate to promote and encourage full participation in the adult-use cannabis industry by those disproportionately harmed communities, the Commission's recommendation is for municipalities to prioritize review for these economic empowerment applicants at the local level as well. In other words, those prospective licensees should be reviewed for suitability before others. Some municipalities in Massachusetts are considering prioritizing applicants by ' See Kain v. Department of Environmental Protection, 474 Mass. 278, 287 (2016). 2 A normal, commonsense definition of "prevent" is "to keep from happening," e. g., Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth ed.).

Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. June 27, 2019 Page 4 allowing them to move forward exclusively for a certain period of time. For example, a municipality may consider only economic empowerment applicants and applicants who are local residents for the first six months. We recommend that municipalities alternate signing host community agreements with economic empowerment applicants and non-economic-empowerment applicants. CCC's Guidance On Equitable Cannabis Policies For Municipalities at p. 5. While the example above references a six-month head start for Economic Empowerment applicants, that is an example, and not a prescription, and where the RMDs enjoy a much longer head start, and the ultimate result will be an equitable distribution of four new licenses each to the RMDs and the Economic Empowerment applicants, as in Cambridge, the two-year period is entirely reasonable. See Letter to City. at last page. The Letter of June 24 also repeatedly asserts that the Amendment constitutes a regulatory taking, "a straightforward, categorical taking of [the RMDs'] proprietary rights." Letter of June 24 at p. 6. Indeed, the Letter goes so far as to claim that the Amendment would require the city "to compensate RMDs for their losses," measured by "the fair market value of property actually taken ...." Id. at pp. 6-7. But this is nonsense. The RVDs were created pursuant to Chapter 369 of the Acts of 2012, which provided no rights to anyone to run adult use marijuana retail stores. M.G.L. c. 94G does not give any particular RMD, or any class of RMDs, a specific right to do anything other than apply to be licensed as an adult-use retail store, with cities and towns given the right to limit the number of marijuana establishments, even to prohibit certain uses. Municipalities can by ordinance impose a ban on adult-use marijuana establishments, see CCC's Guidance On Equitable Cannabis Policies For Municipalities, p. 2 (what the Amendment does is much less). Constitutionally-protected property rights are created by "rules" that "secure certain benefits" and support "claims of entitlement to those benefits," Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). There is no entitlement here, not even a benefit previously enjoyed.3 The Letter 3 And, of course, state-created property rights can be abrogated so long as due process hearing analogy, the current proceedings before the Cambridge City Council constitute what would satisfy a due process hearing right were the Letter's clients entitled to such a hearing.

Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. June 27, 2019 Page 5 cites no case even remotely relevant to their claim that an ordinance delaying for two years RMDs' ability to apply for licenses to do something they have never done and a right they have never had infringes constitutional property rights, and the only case the Letter cites even remotely relevant is contrary to their contentions.4 Finally, we make one comment on Mr. Robbins' letter of June 25, 2019, another exercise in over sion ang anare oy sad av 85. 01, 5) with, i is va words "ensuring the meaningful participation in the cannabis industry of communities disproportionately affected by the enforcement of previous cannabis laws, small businesses, and companies led by people of color, women, veterans, and farmers." CCC's Guidance on Equitable Policies for Municipalities at p.1. The CCC reviews each application for adult-use cannabis and decides whether the applicant is suitable for licensing. Id. at p. 2. The CCC has adopted - and will enforce - "stringent security protocols intended to ensure safety and security.... " In short, the CCC is the state authority regulating the industry at issue, and to suggest that its guidance and recommendations are not to be given the most serious consideration is simply illogical. In sum, the Amendment is proper, necessary, and equitable, and should be enacted. Very truly yours, Dals 111 David Kelston 4 In Bigelow v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 727 F. Supp. 346 (W.D. Mich. 1989), see Letter of June 24 at p. 6, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's taking claims, even though a license long used by plaintiff commercial fisherman had been "drastically impaired" by a ruling that certain Indian tribes had superior fishing rights through treaties. Plaintiffs claimed a right to harvest fish as guaranteed by their commercial fishing licenses and by Michigan statutes giving them the right to yearly renewals of those licenses. The court ruled that the tribes had superior rights such that no right was taken from plaintiffs. The same is the case here - for a relatively short period of time, the Amendment gives superior catch up rights to Economic Empowerment applicants.

Ms. Nancy Glowa, Esq. June 27, 2019 Page 6 CC: Arthur Goldberg (agoldberg@cambridgema.gov) Members of the Cambridge City Council (council@cambridgema.gov) Mayor Marc C. McGovern (mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov) Jan Devereux (idevereux@cambridgema.gov) Dennis J. Carlone (dcarlone@cambridgema.gov) Craig A. Kelley (ckelley@cambridgema.gov \lanna M. Mallon (amallon@cambridgema.gov Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. (toomey@cambridgema.gov) Denise Simmons (dsimmons@cambridgema.gov) Sumbul Siddiqui (ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov) Quinton Y. Zondervan (gzondervan@cambridgema.gov) Paula Crane (pcrane@cambridgema.gov) Iram Farooq (cddat344@cambridgema.gov) Joseph D. Lipchitz, Esq. ([email removed]) Zachary W. Berk, Esq. ([email removed]) Bridgitte E. Mott, Esq. (bridgitte.mott@,saul.com)

ATTACHMENT M AND 6/26/2019 Dear City of Cambridge, Please submit this letter to the record for Thursday, 6/27/2019 afternoon's Meeting. My name is Sherri Tutkus and I have been a RN for 30 years. I am the founder and director of nursing at GreenNurse Group. GreenNurse Group is a non-profit whole/home health consulting agency of Registered Nurses who are also medical cannabis patients. The GreenNurse Group implores you to vote NO on the on Councilor Zondervan and Siddiqui's Amendment. GreenNurse Group also asks you to please vote YES on Councillor Denise Simmons's " : Compromise Amendment that will help ensure there are funds raised by the RDs for Economic Empowerment Applicants to apply for Grants. The Nurses of the GreenNurse Group want you to understand Councilor Zondervan and Siddiqui's Amendment negatively impacts small businesses that benefit from Sira, Revolutionary Clinics, and Health Pharm's contributions to community reinvestments that these businesses have been providing for the last four years. More importantly it impacts medical cannabis patients and all of their needs. I am a medical cannabis patient and it took me 2 years to figure out how to make cannabis work for me as medicine so I could function. As cannabis nurses we are liaisons between patients and the medical cannabis industry. Our organization's diverse backgrounds, clinical expertise on the endocannabinoid system and our ability to teach people how to make cannabis work for them has been an asset to the patients, the community, and the medical marijuana industry. We have all overcome devastating debilitating chronic illnesses using cannabis as a tool to bridge the gap from what we were not getting from traditional medicine.

GreenNurse Group is the only home health cannabis nursing organization in Massachusetts where we teach about the endocannabinoid system and the safe utilization of cannabis to multiple patient populations including those in both medical and recreational dispensaries. Our nursing organization is participating in writing the first nursing text book on cannabinoid therapeutics. The GreenNurse Group has the ability to bring in substantiated education and clinical application for both medical and recreational cannabis for all people. If medical dispensaries are not able to take the next step and vertically integrate recreational cannabis, then the funding for educational programs will be cut. The recreational market supports the medical market. Without the recreational market thriving the medical market will suffer, educational programs will be cut, no donations to nonprofits, no grants, and no patient discounts. Our nursing organization that is providing one of the most important services in the Commonwealth will most likely be cut because we are a charitable organization and we rely on dispensaries and businesses to hire us to provide them with accurate substantiated education to help their businesses thrive. Councillor Siddiqui and Zondervan's Amendment negatively affects social equity. I am a woman, on disability with a nonprofit nursing organization that wants to participate in educating Massachusetts to be one of the best medical and recreational cannabis states. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration to this important matter. Sincerely, Sherri Tutkus RN BSN Founder GreenNurse Group Director of Nursing

ATTACHMENT N Michael Byme «mcbyme @gmail com? M Gmail Statement for Cannabis Ordinance Hearing Michael Byrne <[email removed]> Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:14 PM To: council@cambridgema.gov, "Kelley, Craig" <ckelley@cambridgema.gov> My name is Michael Byrne, and I live at 79 Kirkland St. in Cambridge. I am also part of the Kirkland Village Neighborhood Association which can be found at KirklandStreet.com. I was hoping to make this statement in person at the hearing, but I have an event scheduled at the same time for Save The Children that I had previously committed to attend I came to be involved with this issue when an applicant for retail marijuana permit notified some of the people in our neighborhood that he wanted to set up shop at 86 Kirkland St. This location is in the heart of our residential neighborhood and directly across the street from a day care center, a family dentist, and Harvard University's housing for graduate students with children. 86 Kirkland is surrounded by residential houses with children, as well as being directly on the walking path for high school students (who get off the bus and walk to CRLS, which in one long block away from this location.) All within 300 feet. Additionally the location is traffic-congested, and couldn't bear the additional volume from a high-traffic store, as well as loss of parking. In short, it is a terrible choice to locate a retail marijuana shop, without even bring up the crime and public safety issues. I set up a website for our neighborhood association and went door-to-door talking to neighbors and collecting signatures on a petition against it. There was no one who was "for" the retail marijuana location. In a few days we had over a hundred signatures on paper as well as another 250 signatures from neighbors via an online petition at change.org. You can go there and read the comments. http://chng.it/T7nbdqHWyd 350+ angry voters. One week ago on a rainy day, there was a community meeting with the permit applicant, and 90 neighbors showed up in opposition at this meeting. Atter listening to the neighbors, the project developer told us he realized it was the wrong location, and that he definitely was not going to proceed with the permit, but he also said that he chose this location because the City Council had pointed him to it. I found this disturbing. I'm here to offer some comments about the cannabis ordinance for retail marijuana shops in Cambridge and to ask this question: Is the City Council here to regulate marijuana to protect our community and children from the negative externalities of public retail marijuana retailers, or is its goal to promote the sale of marijuana to collect revenue at the expense of our community? If you are here to regulate and protect the community, I ask you to consider this: 1. Cap the number of retail licenses to the eight mandated by state law. Eight is enough. Anymore is essentially promoting the exposure and distribution of marijuana. There is an aphorism in economics, "Supply creates its own demand." With eight retailers and five medical dispensaries, that is more than enough for a town of our size. 2. Equalize the penalty for public consumption of marijuana to be on par with public consumption of alcohol. According to the Cambridge and Somerville Police Officers I have interviewed, the current marijuana open consumption law is completely "unenforceable" with "no consequences" and the people who are smoking in public know this. Why are you pushing people to use marijuana in public versus alcohol? Any statement to the effect that

there won't be smoking on the sidewalk because it is against the law is completely disingenuous. 3. As far as social equity, there five existing corporate RMDs who will open retail shops. If there have to be any more, put the Economic Empowerment licenses on a separate fast track. They have been heavily vetted and have a clear plan to help Cambridge and are face-to-face accountable to the community, and have ties of personal accountability. Out-of-state corporations and foreign investors who get licensed will be like absentee landlords, unaccountable, and untraceable. Why reward them with a windtall that will be extracted trom our community! As proven by the recent $35 million sale to an out-ot-state corporation of Brookline's NEIA three months after opening, even it someone "quasi-local" is granted a license, they can just cash out to outsiders at any point. The applicant for 86 Kirkland has received foreign overseas funding. Of these 8 retail permits: 5 will go to existing RMDs colocate a retail store, you can't stop them by state law. 2 should go to Economic Empowerment applicants, if they pass scrutiny. These new Social Equity applicants frankly seem to be "greenwashing" and front people, and not of the same caliber as EE applicants. You can decide who of that group has merit later, but don't hold up the EE applicants because of that. 1- The last license can go to whomever the Council see fit, but the store location should be at a City-owned property. The City can collect the rent and exert leverage on the performance of that licensee. The landlord at 86 Kirkland is an absentee, out-of-town landlord, the location is rundown, paint peeling, wood rotting, windows boarded up, and graffiti is not cleaned up. Why would you offer a windfall to a landlord like that? Have that money stay in the community via Cambridge government collecting the rent, and keep that wildcard applicant under control. The most concerning issue of all: Promoting drug use to minors via online tracking. There is a complete lack of regulation regarding marketing and promotion of use to minors and others in this cannabis ordinance. At community meetings, I have heard permit applicant groups discuss how there won't be signage promoting the sale of marijuana in the store window, but that is meaningless and inadequate. What will inevitably happen, unless it is addressed in the ordinance, is that: A teenager will either walk past the location and see the sign, or will be told about it by a classmate. They will google the store name on their smartphone and get sent to the pot shop's website. They will see a pop-up that asks them if they are 21. They will click "Yes" (even though they aren't) and will visit the beautiful, enticing site. More importantly, they will be permanently tagged, tracked, and retargeted forever. The will be served grooming content or outright solicitations online. If caught, the shop will say, "Not our fault, they said they were 21. Gosh, how could we know?" These youth will be targeted for ads on Facebook, Instagram, web sites, and YouTube until they convert into customers or users. This is inevitable. Also, since these locations will have high-resolution video cameras for security, all passers-by, regardless of age will have their faces scanned for facial recognition programs that will identify them and retarget them online. This is current, existing technology and costs 10 cents per identity, which will probably cost less than a penny per person by the end of the year. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/rekognition/latest/dg/what-is.html The use of this technology by marijuana sellers should be banned by ordinance. There should be zero tolerance of any online marketing or identity stalking by any retail marijuana location in Cambridge, including the use of a home website by the retailer, even if it is gated as "over 21, in the ordinance. The retailer contact information web presence should exist on a web page that is part of the Cambridge government site, with information posted by the Cambridge government regarding open hours, location, etc., for that retailer, but there should be no promotional, or glamorous content on it, and the retailer should pay the City for maintaining, serving, and updating that one website. They retailer should not be allowed to have a flashy, enticing website with cookies and user-tracking software.

Again the question is: Is the City Council here to protect our community from the known bad side effects that accompany marijuana sales, or are they here to promote and encourage the use of marijuana to make money off of it? Please take these points into consideration as you work to improve the cannabis ordinance. Thank you. Best, Michael Byrne

ATTACHMENT One Kendall Square, Building 600 Suite 6-105, Cambridge MA 02139 CAMBRIDGE [phone removed] | cambridgechamber.org CHAMBER of COMMERCE [email removed] President and CEO David P. Maher Board Chair June 27, 2019 Jay Kiely Brookfield Properties Councillor Dennis Carlone Secretary Robyn Culbertson Councillor Craig Kelley Office for Tourism Members of the Ordinance Committee Treasurer Cambridge City Hall Stephen Meunier Sunofi Gencyme Cambridge, MA 02139 Board Members Alex Allia Re: Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance The Charles Hotel Ken Barron CARU Associates Dear Chairmen and Members of the Committee: Brian Burke Microsoft On behalf of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to voice our concern Kelly Flynn with the proposed amendment to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance. As Tukeda written, the proposed amendment would help Economic Empowerment Applicants for Sarah Gallop MIT cannabis licenses. Our concern is that current medicinal facilities will be at a distinct disadvantage by not being allowed to apply for a recreational license. In many instances, Holly Heslop Cambridge Eats & Beats these medicinal stores answered the call of residents and elected officials by their early Sean Hope investment in this new market and in our community. Hope Legal Serices Bill Kane The inequity of new recreational stores being able to serve everyone and the medicinal Biofed Realty stores only able to serve the medical card population will create automatic winners and Paul lee Hong Kong Restaurant losers. The businesses of the current medicinal companies will not only suffer both from Jelfrey Lockwood severely reduced client base but also from the lost opportunity of the recreational client Novartis base. Some will surely lose funding from investors who have always understood that Thomas Lucey recreational revenues would increase business and returns from these stores. This Harrard Unitersit! problem has played out already in Oregon. Joseph Maguire Aleramria Real state Jim MeSweeney While we applaud the desire to promote opportunities for minority owned businesses, CIP Group we do not believe that this proposal is fundamentally fair. Michael Medeiros Royal Sonesta Hotel Sincerely, Gilda Nogueira East Cambridge Sarings Bank Vayne Palenaude Cambridge Satings Banl Nancy E. Donohue Sasha Purpura Director of Government & Community Affairs Food for Free Katherine Rafterly Mount Auburn Hospital Deborah Rube Just-Al-Starl Elizabeth Schwab Google Bill Zamparelli Eversource Emeritus Members Joe Barrell amies Hawkins Norman Melver