4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2020.
18 Roll Calls Adopted 9-0

Sept 23, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Listed below are the recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2020. For additional information, please see attachments from the CPA Committee Chair, Lisa Peterson, dated Sept 18, 2019.

The CPA process included a public hearing held on June 20, 2019 to solicit proposals and ideas on CPA projects for FY2020. A second public hearing was held on July 31, 2019 to solicit recommendations on the percentage of CPA funds allocated to each funding category: Affordable Housing, Historic Preservation, and Open Space. The CPAC also received several petitions, letters, online submissions and e-mails regarding potential CPA projects and the allocation percentages. The CPAC, on Sept 17, 2019, unanimously voted for an allocation of 80% for Affordable Housing, 10% for Historic Preservation projects and 10% for Open Space projects.

In accordance with the CPAC’s recommendations, I am requesting that the City Council appropriate a total of $13,230,000 in CPA funds raised by the City's FY2020 CPA surcharge, the FY2019 state match funds received in FY2020 and a portion of the existing CPA fund balance.

For this appropriation, it is estimated that the net local receipts from the CPA surcharge for FY2020 will total $9,900,000, added to an anticipated FY2019 state match of $1,220,000 and an additional $2,100,000 from CPA Fund Balance. Additionally, $10,000 from CPA Fund Balance will go to the City’s annual membership in the Community Preservation Coalition.

On Sept 17, 2019, the CPAC made recommendations for allocation of these FY2020 funds. By unanimous votes, the CPAC recommended to the City Council, through the City Manager, that the CPA funds be allocated and appropriated as follows:

VOTE 1: Fiscal Year 2020 Local Funds ($9,900,000)
Vote 1A
80% of FY2020 CPA Local Fund revenues ($7,920,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust

Vote 1B
10% of FY2020 CPA Local Fund revenues ($990,000) allocated to Historic Preservation as follows:
1. $609,500 appropriated to the Historic Preservation Grants
2. $150,000 appropriated to the Inman Square Fire Station, façade restoration
3. $80,000 appropriated to the African American Trail Markers restoration, Phase II
4. $65,000 appropriated to Digitizing the Architectural Survey, Phase II
5. $55,500 appropriated to Conserving Assessor’s Records
6. $30,000 appropriated to the Old Burying Ground, grave marker restoration

Vote 1C
10% of FY2020 CPA Local Fund revenues ($990,000) allocated to Open Space as follows:
1. $874,050 appropriated to the Hoyt Field Play Structures and Furniture
2. $50,250 appropriated to the Hell’s Half Acre Ecological Restoration
3. $47,700 appropriated to the Magazine Beach Site Survey, Planning and Design
4. $18,000 appropriated to the Alewife Path Design

VOTE 2: Fiscal Year 2019 State Funds [received in FY2020] ($1,220,000)
Vote 2A
80% of FY2019 State Match revenues ($976,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust

Vote 2B
10% of FY2019 State Match revenues ($122,000) allocated to Historic Preservation as follows:
1. $122,000 to the Inman Square Fire Station, façade restoration

Vote 2C
10% of FY2019 State Match revenues ($122,000) allocated to Open Space as follows:
1. $122,000 to the Alewife Path Design

VOTE 3: CPA Fund Balance ($2,100,000)
Vote 3A
80% of the Fund Balance ($1,680,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust

Vote 3B
10% of the Fund Balance ($210,000) allocated to Historic Preservation as follows:
1. $210,000 to the Inman Square Fire Station, façade restoration

Vote 3C
10% of the Fund Balance ($210,000) allocated to Open Space as follows:
1. $210,000 to the Alewife Path Design

VOTE 4: CPA Fund Balance - Administration ($10,000)
Vote 4A
1. $10,000 appropriated to Administrative Costs for Community Preservation Coalition membership dues

TABLE 1. Summary of FY2020 Recommended Appropriations by Expenditure Type

Affordable Housing	$10,576,000
Historic Preservation
African American Trail Markers - Phase II	$80,000
Conserving Assessor's Records	$55,500
Digitizing Architectural Survey - Phase II	$65,000
Fire Station (Inman Sq.), facade restoration	$482,000
Grave marker restoration, Old Burying Ground	$30,000
Historic Preservation Grants	$609,500
Subtotal (Historic Preservation)	$1,322,000
Open Space
Hoyt Field Play Structures and Furniture	$874,050
Magazine Beach Site Survey, Planning & Design	$47,700
Alewife Path Design	$350,000
Hell’s Half Acre Ecological Restoration	$50,250
Subtotal (Open Space)	$1,322,000
Administration/ Community Preservation Coalition	$10,000
Grand Total	$13,230,000

TABLE 2. Summary of Recommended Appropriations by Funding Source

	FY2020 Local Funds	FY2019 State Funds	CPA Fund Balance	FY2020 Total
Affordable Housing Trust	$7,920,000	$976,000	$1,680,000	$10,576,000
Historic Preservation Projects	$990,000	$122,000	$210,000	$1,322,000
Open Space Projects	$990,000	$122,000	$210,000	$1,322,000
Admin./Community Preservation Coalition Membership Dues	-	-	$10,000	$10,000
Total	$9,900,000	$1,220,000	$2,110,000	$13,230,000

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a petition to amend provisions in Section 22.20, which governs Green Building Requirements, and also applicable definitions contained in Article 2.000.
Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee

Sept 23, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Enclosed is a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which is intended to advance the City’s Net Zero Action Plan. Specifically, the proposed amendment would amend provisions in Section 22.20, which governs Green Building Requirements, and also applicable definitions contained in Article 2.000.

I am pleased to submit this proposed amendment, and request that you accept it as a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance and refer the petition to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for hearing and report.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a petition to amend provisions in Article 5.000 and Article 22.000 pertaining to setback requirements and exterior building insulation.
Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee

Sept 23, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Enclosed is a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which is intended to advance the City’s Net Zero Action Plan. Specifically, the proposed amendment would amend provisions in Article 5.000 and Article 22.000 pertaining to setback requirements and exterior building insulation.

I am pleased to submit this proposed amendment, and request that you accept it as a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance and refer the petition to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for hearing and report.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

O-6     Sept 23, 2019  Amended at Oct 7, 2019 meeting
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Events held in Danehy Park such as the annual Cambridge Jazz Festival are an important opportunity to bring the Cambridge community together; and
WHEREAS: This past summer, a beer garden was offered as a new feature of the Cambridge Jazz Festival; and
WHEREAS: Due to restrictions on serving alcoholic beverages in a public park and the desire of the festival organizers to be able to offer beer close to the music stage, a decision was made to move the entire festival from its prior location and onto a turf field with no shade, making the viewing experience less comfortable for participants; and
WHEREAS: A better experience would be ensured for participants if a regulated, enclosed, and permitted beer garden could be located within a large park such as Danehy during a special event; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to determine whether it would be possible to allow a permitted area for serving alcoholic beverages on Danehy Park property during special community-wide events; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-9     Sept 23, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Many of our most vulnerable community members frequent the Central Square Library to access housing and job applications, government services applications, seek shelter from bad weather, and meet others in the community; and
WHEREAS: The staff at the Central Square Library has done an excellent job of serving these residents, but both library staff and our most vulnerable residents would benefit from an on-site social worker to aid residents in government services, housing, and job applications, respond to opioid-related emergencies, and connect them with nonprofits and other social services in the Central Square area; and
WHEREAS: This model has been successful in other cities, such as Boston, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Long Branch, New Jersey; and
WHEREAS: Placing a social worker in the Central Square Library will allow our most vulnerable residents to continue to seek out the library as an additional social service while maintaining a safe and welcoming environment for families and residents of the Square to enjoy; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Human Services and the Cambridge Public Library system to hire a social worker in the FY2021 budget for the Central Square Library branch; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Sept 10, 2019 beginning at 12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Attending: Carlone, Devereux,  Kelley (late), Mallon, McGovern (late), Siddiqui (late), Toomey (late), Zondervan (late)

Councillor Carlone announced the call of the meeting. He informed the committee that Councillor Siddiqui notified him that she was delayed and would join the group a few minutes late.

Attorney James Rafferty, with offices at 907 Massachusetts Avenue, appeared to represent the Petitioners. He introduced Joseph Maguire, Senior Vice President at Alexandria, and Michelle Lower, Senior Vice President at Alexandria. Attorney Rafferty explained that the Petitioner has been meeting with neighborhood groups on the petition. He explained that there has been some progress. He explained that the Petitioner was willing to purchase a parcel of property from Eversource in order to resolve neighborhood concerns. He asked the committee to forward the petition to the City Council for a vote at a regular city council meeting in two weeks.

Ms. Lower explained some of the proposed community benefits of the project. She reviewed the same information that was presented to the committee at its July 11th meeting.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone, Mr. Maguire explained that the petitioner will be transparent about the costs from the benefits of the projects. Alexandria is very active in attempts to relocate Eversource’s proposed new construction out of the residential neighborhood. This latter issue’s resolution was very important for a number of councillors.

Councillor Zondervan explained that he could not support the project moving forward unless (1) the Petitioner purchases the Eversource parcel, (2) the grand junction land be conveyed to City at the earliest possible opportunity, not contingent on the issuance of a building permit, and (3) the Petitioner commit to constructing a net-zero ready building.

Councillor Mallon stated that the conveyance of the grand junction land was important to her.

Councillor Kelley clarified that a vote to move the item forward was a procedural matter, not a vote of confidence in the petition.

In response to a question from Mayor McGovern, Attorney Rafferty explained the hurdles associated with conveying land to the city.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone, Attorney Rafferty explained that the project was speculative until the special permit is issued.

In response to a question from Vice-Mayor Devereux, Attorney Rafferty and Mr. Maguire confirmed that the Petitioner intends to complete special permit process in 6 to 9 months.

In response to a question from Vice-Mayor Devereux, Attorney Rafferty confirmed that the letter of commitment is being negotiated. He confirmed that it will include the Grand junction pathway and the commitment to purchase of the Eversource parcel.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment 12:31pm.

Pamela Van Dort, 13 Cornelius Way, explained that she represented the neighborhood group. She stated the neighborhood still has concerns about the petition, especially the impact of the adjacent, proposed Eversource power plant in conjunction with the Alexandria proposal. She stated the neighborhood group is not opposed to moving the petition forward procedurally at this time.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated he was the Vice-President of ECPT. He spoke in support of neighborhood association.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 12:34pm.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Attorney Rafferty explained that the Petitioner committed not to change the zoning of the Eversource parcel’s residential use or propose to construct a commercial building at that location, if the Petitioner acquired the parcel.

Councillor Carlone explained that the petition’s additional 236,000 sq. ft. will lead to an extensive increase in value of approximately $150 per sq. ft. The same amount must be reimbursed to the city for mitigation purposes.

1. Motion to refer the petition back to the full City Council with favorable a recommendation by Councillor Toomey

Councillor Zondervan moved to refer the petition to the City Council with no recommendation and he expressed an interest in making an amendment.

Councillor Carlone explained the Councillor Toomey motion was on the floor and Councillor Zondervan could make his motion depending on the outcome of the vote on the pending motion.

Vice-Mayor Devereux asked for a roll call vote on the motion.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 3]
YEAS: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Toomey
NAYS: Devereux, Siddiqui, Zondervan
ABSENT: Kelley, Simmons

2. A Zoning Petition has been received from Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. et al proposing a Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District
RESULT: REFERRED

Councillor Carlone adjourned the meeting at 12:41pm.

2. Communication from Pamela Van Dort regarding the refiled zoning petition for the Grand Junction Pathway Overlay
RESULT: ANNOUNCED

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Aug 14, 2019 at 5:40pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to create a Cannabis Business Permitting ordinance including amendments submitted at the July 30, 2019 Special City Council meeting (ATTACHMENT A). A memo was received from Councillor Simmons (ATTACHMENT B). Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan submitted proposed amendments and a memo (ATTACHMENT C). A legal opinion was received from the City Solicitor (ATTACHMENT D).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Economic Development Director Lisa Hemmerle; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s office.

Also present were Frank H. Shaw, 126 Country Road, Ipswich; Nichole Snow, 190 Bridge Street, Salem; Jason Perkins, 57 Boutempo Road, Newtonville; Vanessa Jean Baptist; Grant Ellis; Mo Barbosa; Bob Moses, 73 School Street; Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Steve Sillari, 91 Park Avenue; Malaika Moses, 1540 Columbus Avenue; Dr. Denise Valenti, 62 Forest Avenue, Quincy; Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street; Elechi Kedete, 10 Laurel Street; Saskia James, 251 Garden Street; Malaika GrBonafide, 225 Franklin Street; Sameer Kapasi; Kadijah Tribble, Salem; Sean Hope, Fairmont Avenue; Zachary Burke; Sia Samora, Boston; Shaleen Title, Malden, Cannabis Control Commission; Wenshel Brown, Boston; Leah Simora; Joe Gilmore; Ahmed Lowell; Chris Hunter; Taba Moses; Richard Harding, 189 Windsor Street; Markus Johnson Smith, Reed Street; Suzanne Wong.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that the Committee is working from First Publication # 3488 which has been passed to a second reading by the City Council. He listed the documents submitted by Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan amendments, a legal opinion from the City Solicitor dated Aug 14, 2019, a memo from Councillor Simmons regarding her amendment and a memo from Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan regarding their amendments. Councillor Kelley requested City Solicitor Glowa to review the highlights from the legal opinion on clarification of questions raised by the City Council. Then he will ask Councillors Simmons, Siddiqui and Zondervan to explain their memos. He stated that then there will be public comment and then the Committee would work through the non-controversial amendments. He stated that the amendments submitted by Councillors Simmons, Siddiqui and Zondervan have suggested changes to the First Publication 3488 and will work through the amendments. He stated that if there is a requirement for another hearing he will recess and schedule another hearing without public comment.

Deputy City Manager Peterson introduced City staff.

City Solicitor Glowa went through the questions submitted by the City Council at the July 30, 2019 Special City Council Meeting contained in the committee report accepted by the City Council at July 30, 2019 meeting. She read the legal opinion.

Councillor Kelley asked for clarifying question from the City Council.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that on page four of the opinion the options are laid out. She spoke about the City Council setting certain criteria. She asked if the City Council could potentially have a section in the criteria relating to a corporate social responsibility plan that could state that an individually voluntarily is committed to donating a certain amount of funding. She asked if this could be considered. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Division of Local Services was clear that any voluntary contribution could not be documented as being required or accepted by the City as part of a host community agreement and did not believe it would be permissible for the City to be involved in any way. She stated that cannabis companies can voluntarily set up such a fund as an act of good will, but it is not something that the City can be involved in negotiating or documenting as part of the host community agreement.

Councillor Toomey asked why on question five this language is not stronger. The phrase “it appears”; this should state it is allowed or not allowed. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the language is clear. This language has not been interpreted by the court and therefore it is presumptively valid which is the basis that the Law Department does its analysis on. She stated that the City Council is the legislative body and can enact provisions and the role of the Law Department is to provide legal advice. She stated that she believes that this is not permitted, but if the City Council chooses to do this, the Law Department would vigorously represent the City if there were a challenge to it in a court of law.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the approaches to directing the impact fees to non-profit charitable corporations for services that the City will not otherwise be providing. She asked for examples of things that are services and instances where the City has done this. City Solicitor Glowa cited the Community Benefits Ordinance. She explained that the City cannot give money to entities for their operating, capital costs or anything like this. The City can enter into a contract for such entities to provide services that would be helpful to the community. This has to be a grant agreement which is essentially a contract where the City pays money and a service is provided. She stated that the value of the service must be comparable to the amount of money being paid. These funds can be used to acquire services that the City might not otherwise have a budget to do but would still be quid pro quo in a contractual arrangement through the grant agreement. Vice Mayor Devereux asked could this be used to set up job training opportunities or startup costs to an Economic Empowerment applicant. This is fundamental to one of the proposed amendments before the City Council. She noted that this is for services and not for startup costs.

Councillor Simmons stated she wanted to broaden this idea. She explained that several years ago in the Economic Development Division there were micro loans, a program where businesses that needed support could get it and it usually was monetary and the City was the conduit to this. The businesses would come through Economic Development and file an application and the City would help facilitate the money going to the business. She asked if this is something that the City can do in this instance. She commented that the City Solicitor’s interpretation of the law and what is being proposed cannot be done but could something else be done and if this something else could be similar to what was once done a decade ago. City Solicitor Glowa stated that many programs that CDD handles and manages are the benefit for funds from state or federal government such as Community Block Grant funds. She stated that municipalities cannot loan or give money to individuals other than through a program that has been established and sanctioned by the state or federal government. She added that the program referred to by Councillor Simmons may have been such a program. She stated that it is unlikely that the City was actually serving as lender to individuals because this would not be permitted and was most likely through one of the state or federal programs.

Councillor Simmons asked if there is a model that could be utilized that was similar to this previous program to get to where we are trying to do. She stated that the City Council clearly wants to do something to enfranchise Economic Empowerment applicants. She stated that the City Council is looking for a way to facilitate this process through the City Solicitor. She asked Ms. Glowa if she had any ideas of what the City can do in a broader way and what the tax law allows. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this would require additional work with other City staff to do more research to see if there were programs as described; there are limitations of what the City can do with funding. Councillor Simmons spoke about insufficiencies seen by the City Council of what the Cannabis Control Commission has promulgated in terms of enfranchising Economic Empowerment applicants. She commented in the absence of this the members of the City Council have come up with their own ideas of what and how it would look. It is her assumption that City Council would like to find a way to do this and can this be clarified how this can be done. City Solicitor Glowa stated that Economic Empowerment applicants are entering the business to make a profit and City cannot be in the business of providing funds to third parties who will use these funds to set up businesses to make a profit.

Councillor Mallon stated she had questions about the fees proposed by the RMDs. She spoke about the limitation of the community benefits funds in terms of being able to directly give out funds to Cambridge agencies that need the grants. She spoke about the Immigrant Defense Fund and could the Cambridge Community Foundation set up a fund that could accept funds from the existing RMDs and could administer the fund since it cannot go through the Community Host Agreement. She asked could there be a commitment letter, or a letter of intent used as a tool for the donation of funds. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she does not think it is likely but would need to look more closely at the details. Councillor Mallon asked about converting the RMD to adult use and is there a way for the RMDs to commit to continue to serve medical patients. City Solicitor Glowa stated that as long as it is a unilateral letter of commitment that is voluntary and provided to the City as an expression of what that entity wishes to do and it has nothing to do with the City’s permitting process or Community Host Agreement. Councillor Mallon asked is this commitment letter legally binding. City Solicitor Glowa responded that this is contract law and it has to have benefits or obligations to both parties and a unilateral promise is not considered a contract under the traditional contract analysis so absent two-way consideration it would not be binding.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he has not heard that the City cannot require a fee in excess of what is proposed by the Cannabis Control Commission regulations and what is the legal risk. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the legal risk is that the statute states that one cannot impose a fee greater than 3% of the revenues of the business and there would be a legal risk in imposing a fee greater than this because the law does not allow this. Councillor Zondervan commented that Boston has imposed a fee. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she has looked at other Community Host Agreements and neither Boston nor Somerville have imposed fees greater than 3% in their Community Host Agreements. She noted that other communities have imposed higher fees and some of the businesses that have entered into Community Host Agreements with these communities have gone to the legislature and are part of the discussions about whether to amend the law to make the language stronger. Councillor Zondervan asked if the City Council could choose to impose a greater fee even if it is not permissible under the law. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative, but there is an obligation of the City Council to act in good faith and she is advising the City Council to following the law. Councillor Zondervan noted that there is a proposal to take a portion of the fee within the allowable amount and have this go into a fund that is administered by a non-profit. He asked the City Solicitor her opinion on this and could the non-profit make grants to Economic Empowerment applicants. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is no prohibition from the City entering into a contract with a non-profis to administer funds that are public monies of the City’s for use in entering into grant agreements, however, when the City has looked into such arrangements it often has seemed to be somewhat cumbersome by adding additional steps when the City has the capability of simply entering into grant agreements with eligible organizations ourselves and having the entity that the City provides grants funds to pursuant to the agreement perform the services directly for the City. She added that some of the non-profits want to charge a fee to administer these programs and funds and therefore this funding, if handled in house, is essentially money that could be better spent on the programs rather than paying a third party to administer the program. Councillor Zondervan asked whether it would be admissible for the City to provide these funds to a non-profit organization and for that organization to make grants directly to Economic Empowerment applicants.

City Solicitor Glowa responded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City could list goals such as the City wants to maintain medicinal operations where possible and go beyond the scope. He asked can this be done with this whole process to inform the medicinal operations about what the City’s civic goals are without requiring the RMDs to maintain medicinal marijuana if providing adult use marijuana. He asked can goals be stated and evaluate the potential operations based on these goals. City Solicitor Glowa responded not in this manner. She stated that the City Council could adopt goals that to be good corporate citizens the City can state its values but cannot be part of the conversation related in any way to the permitting process and cannot be addressed in the Community Host Agreement because the DOR has been clear. Councillor Carlone stated that this is strictly a business operation; goals do not mean anything. City Solicitor Glowa stated that what is being suggested is that an individual wants to get their retail permit and meet the City’s goals by promising to provide medical marijuana; this is not permissible.

Councillor Kelley asked about the City Council establishing Community Host Agreement criteria by ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council could follow its usual practice by passing a Policy Order to the City Manager and if the City Manager had concerns, they could be discussed with the City Council. This could be put into the ordinance and if the City Council wanted a regulation that is binding it should be done either through the ordinance or through the ordinance to authorize the City Manager to promulgate regulations or the City Council could direct the City Manager.

Councillor Kelley now moved to Councillor Simmons to explain her memo. Councillor Simmons read her memo into the record. She reviewed the attachments to her memo regarding the compromise amendment and the seven items. She stated that she submitted a sample budget of a typical dispensary which she hopes will provide context for the Ordinance Committee in terms of what funds are necessary to start a cannabis dispensary operation. She stated that as part of this memo there are copies of attestations and would they be valid if retail opens and a promise to continue to provide medical exists. She went through a summary of her amendments.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the memo dated Aug 14, 2019 submitted by himself and Councillor Siddiqui. He stated that they submitted further amendments built on Councillor Simmons’ amendments dealing with the amount of fees that the RMDs would pay into the fund. He stated that understanding that the ability to do this is in question. He stated that the proposed amendments each RMD would make a deposit of $5 million into the fund and that the first five Economic Empowerment applicants would receive $2.5 million each spread out over time. Councillor Kelley commented that this is about the memo dated Aug 14, 2019. Councillor Zondervan stated that the memo addresses both the amendments submitted to the City Clerk on Aug 12, 2019 and distributed to the City Council and retail startup costs. He stated that attached to the memo are startup costs for a cannabis retail establishment. He noted that there is agreement that the startup costs are like those provided by Councillor Simmons. The additional costs in his memo is the cost of the inventory for a retail establishment. He noted that in the previous Ordinance Committee the amendment submitted previously by Councillor Zondervan and Siddiqui to the City Council as a substitution for what is before the committee as First Publication 3488. This has not been adopted by the City Council but it has been forwarded to the City Council (See ATTACHMENT B in Committee Report from the Ordinance Committee hearing held on June 27, 2019 reported to the City Council on July 30, 2019 and ATTACHMENT I in Committee Report from the Ordinance Committee hearing on May 9, 2019 and reported to the City Council on June 3, 2019 ). (ATTACHMENTS E and F)

Councillor Siddiqui asked the City Solicitor in the memo provided by her today some of the amendments were covered in the memo regarding the permitting requirements. She asked if the City Solicitor opined in section 5.50.040 Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants in their memo that stated for the first two years from the effective date provided in the section below the City shall issue a cannabis business permit to operate a cannabis retail store according to this chapter only to Priority Applicants who are an Economic Empowerment applicant. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she believed she gave a previous opinion.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 6:47pm.

Frank Shaw, 126 Country Road, Ipswich, stated that he is a medical marijuana patient and he frequents the medical marijuana dispensaries in Cambridge. He said that he has been sick with AIDS since 1998 and he is now sick of how the City Council in Cambridge is treating medical marijuana. He said that every time he comes to a meeting there is a new wrench thrown in, so nothing ever gets completed. He said that medical marijuana is not a shell game for a person’s political agenda. He said that it means life to people like him. He said that he is pulling his support from all the amendments on the table because he is done with being disrespected by the City Council. He said that the goal is clearly how to disrupt and financially destroy the medical marijuana operators in Cambridge. He said that no medical marijuana operator should ever be forced to pay into a fund that has nothing to do with providing fees and low-cost marijuana to patients like him. He said that municipal equity guidance is not law and if Cambridge could just delay medical marijuana operators from co-locating with adult-use, why isn’t it included in the statutes or regulations. He said that the legislature included the conversion language in the statute to protect the medical marijuana operators from being harmed by the adult-use operators so patients like him do not lose their access. He said that Cambridge does not have the authority to delay the medical marijuana operators from co-locating with adult use. He said that the City Council has no right to force a medical operator to pay into a fund to help competing businesses open. He said that Senator Pat Jehlen spoke at the State House about the 3% limitation on the Community Host Agreements in the law. He asked why the City Council is not demanding a $25 million fund to provide low-cost medical marijuana to patients suffering from AIDS and cancer from highly profitable adult-use operators. He said that if any of the amendments pass, he hopes that the City Council gets sued as this proposal completely fails. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT G).

Nicole Snow, 190 Bridge Street, Salem, stated that she is the President and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance. She thanked the City Council for doing an incredible amount of legwork and research. She thanked the City Solicitor for conducting due diligence. She said that nonprofit law, contract law, health care, and social equity combined is very complicated. She said that she has promised to keep the issue of medical marijuana on the right track. She said that she testified in Boston that there is an existing bill to cover medical cannabis under health insurance. She said that she trusts the decisions that are made, and she asked the City Council to come to a compromise that is within the law. She said that it is important not to set a dangerous precedent for medical cannabis businesses. She said that she wants to make sure that adult-use businesses can add medical to their facility because they are the ones that came first for patients. She stated that she supports a compromise.

Jason Perkins, 57 Boutempo Road, Newtonville, spoke in favor of the amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui. He said that he was born and raised in Cambridge and he has a great affinity for what the City has come to represent throughout the world. He said that Cantabrigians pride themselves for being a melting pot of cultures and a progressive social environment. He said that Cambridge has fallen victim to the ugly reality of the haves and have nots. He said that in his early years, he got caught up in an endless cycle of minor drug offenses, limited community role models and poor rehabilitation opportunities. He said that it has happened to some very good-hearted and promising individuals. He said that too many lives have been affected negatively for what now may become socially acceptable behavior. He said that it is fitting that these victims can redeem themselves. He said that 23 years ago, after a short period of incarceration, he was afforded the opportunity to attend a building trades program being run by Cambridgeport Resources. He said that today, he is a proud member of Carpenters Local 28 with over twenty years of service. He said that this has led to him having a solid real estate portfolio in the Greater Boston area. He said that is an example of what meaningful opportunities can represent to those who have fallen off a productive path in life. He said that this is a pivotal point in the community’s history. He said that the city has a chance to ensure that those most negatively affected, less fortunate or less educated, have an opportunity to benefit from this profitable, global industry. He said that society has made it difficult for people of color and those less fortunate to succeed. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT H).

Vanessa Jean-Baptiste stated that she is an Economic Empowerment Applicant and she is in the process of opening a retail business in Brockton. She said that the process takes a lot of time to go through. She said that it took her one year to get a Community Host Agreement. She said that having the opportunity to keep medical from staying medical and not transitioning to recreational would be something that should be done. She said that regardless of the money that they give to economic empowerment, it will help but not as much as a company that has already been established. She said that she would like to ban or hold off having medical turn to recreational.

Grant Ellis, Long Avenue, stated that he is a disabled medical cannabis patient. He said that his ability to access medical cannabis has nothing to do with the existing medical dispensaries and their ability to profit has no relationship to his ability to access cannabis. He said that according to the Boston Globe, just one of the Cambridge dispensaries is projected to make $90 million in revenue next year alone. He said that regarding the 30,000-foot elevation perspective, what are we fundamentally talking about? He said that there is the proposal to give a two-year priority period to economic empowerment and social equity applicant. He said that the dispensaries offered a few different compromises to give funds to allow themselves co-equal priority. He said that that priority period reflects that fact that those economic empowerment applicants suffered for decades at the hands of the drug war which caused their communities to suffer and this is a way that it can be made up to them. He said that to give co-equal priority to dispensaries for a monetary amount on its face does not seem like the best idea but now that the City Solicitor has said that these contributions may not even be legal, we must look at what is at stake. He said that the City can offer economic empowerment applicants and social justice applicants a two-year priority period to give them a chance to get a foothold in the market to compete against the monopolized, corporate cannabis dispensaries. He said that the most difficult aspect of this process has been the fact that this priority period is all that can be offered to these applicants. He said that this is inappropriate. He said that the inability of the City to mandate that it be overseen by a non-profit would be hugely problematic. He said that the dedicated levy on the 6% local tax should go forward. He said that the program should be funded and move forward with a two-year moratorium.

Mo Barbosa stated that he is struck every time that he is in the Sullivan Chamber that there are four portraits of women on the wall and two of people of color. He said that equity was not legislated and that is what we have in 300+ years. He said that the five medical dispensaries are not owned by anyone of color. He said that equity was not legislated and that is the result that we have. He said that there are 5,000 liquor licenses in Cambridge, with only one being owned by a black person. He said that equity was not legislated, and we got this result. He said that this is a chance to do something different. He said that we should think about what is possible, beyond what other folks have already done. He said that at the very least, he would like to see a 1 to 1 rollout. That would mean an economic empowerment rollout with an RMD for recreation that would allow entry into the market. He asked the City Council to consider the provisions in Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui’s amendment because creating that fund would support these industries. He asked that the City Council to ensure that the City Solicitor and City Manager give them the tools for what they dictate as vision.

Bob Moses, 73 School Street, stated that he is present on behalf of his son. He said that he would like to put this in a historical context. He said that the City Council is up against the fundamental fault line of American democracy. He said that it is a democracy that normalized opportunity for its constitutional people and refused to provide structured opportunity for its constitutional rejects. He said that in the first constitutional era from 1787 to 1865, there were two sets of constitutional people: the preamble which outlines the people who own the constitution and then Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3, constitutional property - Africans who are property of the members of the constitutional people class. He said that they are the first set of undocumented people and the country would go to war over a question of their documentation. He said that they spent their lives trying to be documented by insurgent runaways. That constitutional era ends with a war and the second constitutional era begins. He said that the City Council should look up circular 3591. He said that Attorney General Biddle put that circular forward on Dec 12, 1941 because President Roosevelt now needed young black men. He instructed his Attorney General to stop rounding them up for not having any work and instead order the state prosecuting attorneys to prosecute them as indentured servitude. He said that in 1961, James Conant wrote a book titled Slums and Suburbs. He said that the country was running a tight system through its educational system. He suggested that the City Council look up Judge Wisdom. He said that in December 1963 in the US v. Louisiana, Judge Wisdom said that from 1875 down to 1963, the Southern wing of the National Democratic Party was the manifestation of the will to white supremacy. He said that in the first constitutional era, one did not lock up enslaved Africans and in the second constitutional era, African-Americans were put to work. He said that in our constitutional era, there was mass incarceration because there was no work for them.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street stated that this is the United States of America and it will stay the United States of America forever. He said that other than using marijuana for medical reasons, he has heard nothing about a person being required to take a test to indicate whether the person has the maturity to use marijuana in a mature, responsible way.

Steve Sillari, 91 Park Avenue, stated that he is a Cambridge resident and taxpayer. He thanked the City Council taking on this important issue. He said that he is a proponent of legalized marijuana. He said that he is in support of the non-profit fund. He said that it was done to the Kendall Square group and it can be done for this group. He said that as the Treasurer of Cambridge Community Television and a board member of the Community Arts Center, he fully supports non-profits trying to make some money off this boom that will happen. He said that there should be a point system for community payback. He said that Boston and Somerville have a point system. He said that has any relationship with any of these applicants should recuse themselves from the process and not be voting on who these applicants should be.

Malaika Moses, 1540 Columbus Avenue, stated that each of the City Councillors have the opportunity to define the cannabis retail market. She said that the market will be comprised of five medicinal firms and potentially eight new retail shops. She said that the question at hand is how these eight licenses will be distributed in the city. She said that she was born and raised in Cambridge. She said that after her college graduation, she worked for Fleet Boston and Bank of America. She said that under the leadership of Gail Snowden who was responsible for the bank’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, they used the full power of the bank’s resources to help create wealth within minority and poor communities. She said that the CRA is a federal law that requires banks to direct resources to communities that were historically discriminated against by banking institutions. She explained that it is an attempt to correct the wrongdoings of the past. She said that because of her experience with the bank, she understands the power of the amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui. She said that it is a neighborhood reinvestment act that will require the cannabis industry and the City to help build wealth in communities whose most valuable assets did not achieve their full potential as a result of the war on drugs and the gross miseducation of working class and minority children who get tracked for failure in Cambridge Public Schools. She said that she supports the amendment because it is an opportunity for Cambridge to achieve four objectives: create long-term value for officers and shareholders of publicly traded companies that are operating medicinal dispensaries in our open retail venues, increase the City’s revenue, create long-term value for the community through performance-based start-up capital for emerging entrepreneurs who reside in Cambridge and generate annual residual income for community programs to the tune of 1% of the combined gross revenue of all cannabis companies in Cambridge. She said that this 1% could provide under $2 million per year to fund programs and businesses that uplift families impacted by the war on drugs. She said that cannabis companies must be held accountable in the same way that banks have been held accountable through the CRA for the past 42 years. She asked the City Council to support the amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT I).

Dr. Denise Valente, 62 Forest Avenue, Quincy, stated that she grew up in Oregon and was exposed to the illegal cannabis market. She said that she is an advocate for medicinal and appropriately managed recreational use. She reminded everyone that the nation is watching the City of Cambridge. She said that Cambridge was in a position to correct what the state of Massachusetts had put before them and voted on by Cambridge residents. This was discriminatory behavior against many diverse groups in our state. She said that by defining economic empowerment, they discriminated against Native Americans and disabled. She said that writing these amendments, legislators in Cambridge had an opportunity to correct this exclusionary, discriminatory behavior. She cited data related to these populations. She said that she was diagnosed with a chronic illness and her career path changed. She said that the disabled are the highest incarcerated group in the country. She said that it is important to include language for the employment of disabled. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT J).

Sameer Kapasi stated that he grew up working as a busboy and waiter in his parents’ restaurant in Inman Square. He said that he is now a physician practicing rehabilitation medicine, particularly pain medicine at Mount Auburn Hospital. He said that he sees daily what the opioid epidemic has done to the community. He said that since starting his practice, he has weaned many patients off these medications only to find that their pain actually improved. He said that he has seen his patients progress through various forms of cannabis, whether THC or CBD heavy. He said that he sees how this plant has changed lives, seizure thresholds, spasticity, and managed chronic pain and it isn’t something that he, or the scientific community, readily understand. He said that there is limited research and quantification on how cannabis affects our bodies. He said that the current industry is highly interested in a profit motive. He said that Constellation Brands, owner of Corona, bought a 38% stake in Canopy Growth for $4 billion dollars. Altria, owner of Marlboro cigarettes, bought 45% of Cronos for $1.8 billion, hence we have alcohol and tobacco poised to control this industry. He said that both industries have deceived the public consistently and continue to market to an underage clientele. He said that Cambridge needs to avoid the lure of established RMDs but also be cognizant of what it takes to build a company in the technology, education and health center that Cambridge has become. He said that we need to empower those victimized by the opiate epidemic through social equity and economic empowerment programs, we need to raise up hardworking and minority entrepreneurs. He stated his support for the moratorium on larger RMDs in favor of minority, economic empowerment and social equity applicants. He proposed special dispensation for co-op applicants so that multiple people can benefit from whatever this industry can bring. He proposed that physicians and researchers be allowed to make cannabis ubiquitous such as Ibuprofen by empowering them to open labs, manufacturing facilities and adult-use stores.

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she is a business owner and has trained hundreds of businesses through her work. She said that she supports the amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui because this has more substance and offers the best chance for economic empowerment businesses to succeed. She said that there was a study done where it revealed that US blacks median net worth was $8.00 compared to whites of $247,500 in the Greater Boston area. She said that 1 in 5,000 liquor licenses are owned by black entrepreneurs. She noted that there are more than 500 restaurants in Cambridge, about 1% of which are owned by black and Latina people. She said that she wonders what the City of Cambridge has done and what the City’s equity report card looks like. She said that the two things that businesses need most are money and credit. She said that this is an opportunity for Cambridge to do something bold, right and big. She said that the City Solicitor should be sharing with the City Council how we can make it happen and not how it cannot happen. She said that the City should look at funding other businesses beyond the economic empowerment cannabis businesses.

Elechi Kedete, 10 Laurel Street, stated that he believes that Cambridge is in a unique position to do something great which is to level the playing field for economic empowerment applicants. He said that we must ask ourselves if the lives of black, brown or female business persons matter. He said that economic empowerment applicants are minorities and women. He said that for a time in this country, African-Americans were not allowed to read, vote, build homes, or get a mortgage. He said that when these laws were lifted, African-Americans still had major hurdles in front of them in the way of systematic racism. He said that he is in support of the Zondervan and Siddiqui amendment. He said that this will level the playing field. He said that major corporations are not going to go away if they are prohibited for a certain amount of time. He said that they can afford to wait.

Saskia James, 251 Cambridge Street, stated that she is happy with the progress that has been made. She said that she is not happy that she must repeat herself. She said that there is a loophole in the paperwork, and she is seeing amendments placed on the table for suggestions from the City Council. She said that she does not see this loophole being addressed. She said that under the Group A Priority Applicant, it is asked for social equity program applicants certified by the Commonwealth’s Cannabis Control Commission who is also a Cambridge resident and has been for at least the previous three years. She said that the City Council does not have any language underneath women or minority-owned business as certified by the Commonwealth or the City. She said that there is no language regarding race or residency in the City of Cambridge. She said that this is basically prioritizing someone that is certified through the State or City over a social equity applicant in Brockton. She said that she does not understand why this is not being addressed. She said that in a local magazine talking about women in cannabis, there was not one black woman on the cover. She said that there is not language addressing brown, black or indigenous women. She said that it must intentional to include these groups.

Kadijah Tribble, Salem, stated that she would like to talk about the work that she did at the Kennedy School around social equity. She said that she is struck by the fact that in the conversation, there is a loss of what equity is all about. She said that equity is about actually looking at the least of your residents and doing what is right for them. She said that earlier this year, the Mayor and City Council embarked on a conversation called Dig Deep Cambridge. She said that these conversations were to encourage the community to live up to its values and to move closer to realizing our vision of a truly just and equitable Cambridge. She said that the City Council has the right to seek this out in its legislative process. She said that nothing progressive or equitable has come without risk. She said that to consider two years of prioritizing economic empowerment applicants and social equity applicants is the easiest of what the City Council can do.

Sean Hope, Fairmont Avenue, stated his support for Councillor Simmons’ amendment. He said that this amendment was narrowly tailored and related to one of the important goals which was providing construction financing. He said that both amendments seek equity. He said that he feels that Councillor Simmons’ amendment is more balanced. He said that there are no bad actors. He said that the amendments are different approaches and should be applauded. He said that there were many legal questions that were making it difficult for the City Council to come to consensus. He said that he is pleased that the information is available and helps move the matter forward. He said that he is not a municipal lawyer, but he believes that he has a proposal that might move this issue forward. He said that he believes that the City Council could pass Councillor Simmons’ amendment, strike any reference to any impermissible dollar amount and replace that with the maximum amount that is allowed by State law in consultation with the City Solicitor. He said that this amendment contained $5 million dollars of construction financing and valuable services and training. He said that these elements are very valuable. He said that as part of the conversation, he was made aware that the RMDs had committed to everything in the Simmons’ amendment and he believes that if the RMDs are still willing to do that, they can do it on their own and they do not need City Council involvement. He said that a private agreement with a nonprofit can take place. He said that the money that was promised and stated can be delivered to the RMDs. He said that the moratorium could be effective if it was passed without legal challenge.

Zachary Burke, partner of the law firm Sal Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, stated that he represents three of the existing medical marijuana treatment centers operating in Cambridge. He thanked the City Council for its thoughtful consideration of this issue. He said that he would like to emphasize how critical it is that the ordinance is voted on this evening. He said that all the parties involved are harmed by continued delay. He said that in addition, the residents of Cambridge who overwhelmingly voted for adult use and legalization deserve to have these businesses up and running as consumers and taxpayers. He said that the Attorney General has said that ordinances should have been adopted by Dec 31, 2018. He said that his clients have been patient in letting the process play out. He said that if nothing gets voted on this evening, his clients will be left with no choice but to consider immediate legal action to get their licenses converted. He said that the two-year moratorium is clearly illegal, and if passed, will be legally challenged in court. He said that the Cannabis Control Commission regulations clearly state that RMDs and EE applications are to be considered on a 1 for 1 basis. He said that Councillor Simmons has offered a framework that works for everyone. He said that RMDs are permitted to make voluntary donations. He said that his clients are willing to do that and attest to their willingness to do that as they have already done, under the penalties of perjury, with regard to committing to serve medical use customers in the future. He said that they will work with the economic empowerment applicants to get it done in a legally enforceable way. He urged the City Council, on behalf of his clients, to vote in favor of some version of that ordinance this evening.

Sia Simora, Boston, stated that he is currently pursuing cannabis licensing in Cambridge. He thanked the City Council for their work. He said that through all the meetings, the City Council asked economic empowerment applicants to go back and meet with the RMDs and sort it out. He said that he is proud to say that those talks have been taking place and he believes that Councillor Simmons’ amendment represents the fruit of those conversations. He said that if meetings continue, there will be a lot of people with a lot of different views. He said that the amendment by Councillor Simmons has been worked on by a majority of the economic empowerment applicants that are moving through licensing in Cambridge along with the RMDs.

Shaleen Title, Malden, stated that she is an expert on this subject because she serves on the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission. She said that she admires the thoughtful and careful approach that has been taken. She reminded the City Council that the idea of an exclusive period for economic empowerment applicants is explicitly contemplated in Cannabis Control Commission guidance. She said that at a meeting earlier today of the Cannabis Control Commission, she heard from a lot of small businesses, equity applicants, and economic empowerment applicants. She said that she came away with the feeling that 24 months is a very short period. She said that when the Cannabis Control Commission was considering all the same legal questions and moral questions, they decided to set a period of 24 months but at the end of that time, set very clear criteria that will be evaluated to see whether the goals of that exclusivity period have been met. She said that this criterion is in their draft regulations. She said that if the City does have such a period, at the end, it is important to evaluate and decide whether the City wants the period to continue. She noted that the part of the law that governs Host Community Agreements looks very clear in terms of the limits. She said that real world conditions are very different. She said that she has chosen to abstain from votes on licenses that she feels go beyond the law in terms of Host Community Agreements and that has ended up being the vast majority of them. She suggested that the City consider what advice other cities and towns are getting and what they are doing as the City makes its decision. She encouraged the City Council to continue looking at innovative solutions such as Councillor Simmons’ amendment.

Wenshel Brown, Boston, stated that licenses should be awarded on a point-based system, such as Boston. He said that there is no restriction on how many licenses the City can issue so that should be considered. He said that there should be a 1 for 1 scenario for rollout. He said that there are RMDs that are being considered for these new licenses that have threatened to sue the City of Cambridge if certain things are not done to their liking. He said that a lot of them do not have ties to Cambridge and some do not have ties to America. He said that they will not prioritize hiring women, black or brown people. He said that 100% Pure is 100% black and brown owned and Cambridge born and raised. He said that they have been residents for many years. He said that he does not want Black Lives Matter banner in front of City Hall to be a bold-faced lie.

Leah Samora stated that she supports the amendment by Councillor Simmons. She said that it is a start. She said that she believes that the other proposed amendment is a reach at the moment. She said that she is an economic empowerment applicant.

Joe Gilmore, President, Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council, stated that he supports the amendment by Councillors Zondervan and Siddiqui. He said that he agrees with a lot of the economic empowerment applicants who spoke tonight about the need for a much greater leg up because RMDs have the resources to move through the process. He said that he does work with social equity and economic empowerment applicants to help them navigate the licensing process. He said that he has reached out to certified economic empowerment and social equity applicants and asked them how much it cost to build out a cannabis dispensary and the majority of responses were between $1.5 - $5 million dollars. He said that to say the $5 million dollars is sufficient to take care and bolster opportunities for all the economic empowerment applicants is wrong. He said that equity is about supporting everyone, including the people at the bottom.

Ahmed Lowell stated that he is an economic empowerment applicant out of Randolph, MA. He said that 100 years from now, people will look back and say that they cannot believe that cannabis was illegal. He said that people will look back and say either Cambridge City Council set the precedent for what a real equitable playing field looks like when it comes to the cannabis industry or they will say that Cambridge has an opportunity to do it right for all people, regardless of sex, color, religion, or finances, and they blew it. He said that in the past year he has seen or read about people switching careers and jumping head first into the legal cannabis market and it is a sign of changing times. He said that the negative stigma on cannabis is gradually disappearing. He implored the City Council not to forget the years that have vanished, never to be returned to the lives of those negatively affected by the misguided war on cannabis. He said that consider those still imprisoned for something that has been legalized or is in some stage of reform throughout the county. He said that the amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui is going in the right direction.

Chris Hunter spoke in support of the economic empowerment applicants. Regarding Councillor Simmons’ proposed amendment, he said that it is insufficient and effectively creates a scenario in which economic empowerment applicants are set up for failure. He said that the evidence of that is provided within the budget that was attached by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui about the requirements for opening a cannabis retail operation. He said that those conditions are that it leads to insufficient cash flow generation due to lack of access to inventory due to lack of access to capital. He said that a $250,000 cash injection undercapitalizes a business and leads to it entering a vicious cash flow cycle that results in failure. He said that the key points to focus on for the content of the amendments are ultimately what is defining priority. He said that priority in this case is quota, ordering and location control. He said that at a baseline, any amendment requires is at least 1 to 1 to ensure economic empowerment applicants have access to prime retail locations. He said that as a result of that access, those licenses acquire access to capital that is a portion of avoiding a vicious cash flow cycle scenario.

Taba Moses stated that he just saw two lawyers speak and one said that they support the Simmons’ amendment and then he threatened to sue the city. He said that another lawyer who spoke did not say that he is the lawyer for Sira Naturals. He said that since Sira Naturals has become a medical RMD, they sold their company to Cannabis Strategies Acquisition Corp. He said that since the last meeting that he attended, they are now Ayer. He said that they are the biggest cannabis trading company operating on the NEO Canadian exchange. He said that he has a quote from the person that runs the Canadian Stock Exchange commending them for being the first $1 billion company on their exchange. He said that these are the people that the City Council is trying to give advantage to. He said that as it relates to Councillor Simmons’ amendment, it was said that a bud tended, and retail store could be run by six people. He said that you cannot run a coffee shop with 6 people. He said that it wound need at least 12 people. He said that the City Council needs to decide if they are going to vote for their friends or vote for their community.

Richard Harding, 189 Windsor Street, said that the Simmons’ amendment is a slave amendment. He said that it was negotiated by the slave masters. He said that $250,000 is like giving a tip. He said that the amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui gives Economic Empowerment Applicants more money, more opportunity to close the gap with first move advantage and more leverage to equal the playing field. He stated that if an Economic Empowerment Applicant comes here and states that they do not want more money to open their business or do not want to even the gap around first move advantage it is because they are compromised. He stated that the game of divide and conquer is being played. He stated that he wants equity and equity in cannabis now. He commented that cannabis will happen no matter what. He added that the City Council cannot go back if this is messed up. He stated that the amendment is insufficient. He stated that the money in this business is different and it needs to be commensurate with the first mover advantage. He stated that giving one entity 25% of the licenses is not fair.

Markus Johnson Smith, Reed Street, stated that he owns his business with his best friend. He stated that he has a lease and has been paying for the lease for property at 701-703 Mt. Auburn Street for 7-8 months. He stated that his reality and circumstances today is that financial support in any capacity would be helpful to help him maintain equity in his business. He supports any amendment that helps his circumstances because he represents what the City wants in its social equity effort, but this also represents the circumstances of Economic Empowerment Applicants who have been paying rent on a property and needs relief.

Suzanne Wong stated that she lives in East Cambridge. She stated that she has been attending meetings about the Leggat McCall construction fiasco going on in East Cambridge. She stated that a condition of this situation is that there is a City-owned garage that has retail space on the first floor that will be leased exclusively to the property that is going to get built in the area. She wondered how many other City-owned properties exist where they could then be leased out to an Economic Empowerment Applicant because the City owns this property and why wouldn’t the City help these applicants. The City could help subsidize their cost on the property because the City owns this property.

Mayor McGovern closed public comment at 8:09pm.

Councillor Kelley commented on Councillor Zondervan statement that the First Publication #3844 referred to earlier is not the most current version of the proposal. Councillor Zondervan stated that in the previous Ordinance Committee hearing on June 27 the Ordinance Committee voted to forward the amendments introduced by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui at that time to the full City Council and the City Council has not yet deliberated these amendments and have been forwarded by the Ordinance Committee to the City Council. He stated that this does not supersede the version before the committee, but this needs to be taken into consideration for the discussions.

Councillor Simmons asked if First Publication # 3488 is it the most recent rendition from last hearing. Councillor Kelley stated that this is the version that the City Council has passed to a second reading. There are several proposed amendments to this. He suggested acting upon the amendments that are in agreement.

Councillor Simmons urged Councillor Kelley to call a recess.

Councillor Kelley recessed the hearing at 8:13pm.

Councillor Kelley reconvened the hearing and stated that he would entertain a motion to recess.

Councillor Zondervan asked the clerk to clear up which version is before the committee. The Clerk stated that there was a committee report submitted to the City Council at its June 3, 2019 City Council meeting which contained an Attachment I which included the First Publication #3488 and the text contained Councillor Zondervan’s amendments.

Councillor Kelley moved to recess the hearing and the next hearing will follow up on the amendments submitted by Councillor Simmons and Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan and there will be no public comment.

Mayor McGovern noted that the expectation is that this will be voted on at the Sept 9th City Council meeting. Councillor Kelley stated that he will hold a follow up hearing and be ready for the next City Council meeting.

The hearing recessed at 8:24pm on a motion by Councillor Kelley.

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Sept 18, 2019 beginning at 11:00am in the Sullivan Chamber.

Attending: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Siddiqui, Toomey (late), Zondervan

Reconvened hearing to discuss the proposed Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance

Councillor Kelley opened the hearing. He explained that this is a reconvened public hearing and that there would be no public comment. He further explained that there were three documents before the committee which identified as follows:
1. The proposed ordinance as amended on July 30, 2019.
2. Councillor Simmons' amendments proposed on July 29, 2019.
3. Councillor Simmons' amendments proposed on Sept 5, 2019.

The chair explained that Councillor Simmons withdrew her amendments proposed on July 30, 2019 and the committee would be considering Councillor Simmons' amendments proposed on Sept 9, 2019.

The chair opened the floor for councillors to make comments.

Councillor Simmons made remarks to the committee about the process which are attached to the minutes of the committee as “Councilor Simmons' remarks to the Ordinance Committee on Sept 18, 2019”.

Mayor McGovern thanked Councillor Simmons for her comments. He shared her disappointment with the comments that have been made by certain members of the public.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she shared Councillor Simmons disappointment in the tenor of the public debate on this subject. She apologized for any hurt that Councillor Simmons has experienced.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he shared Councillor Simmons disappointment in the tenor of the public debate on this subject. He apologized for any hurt that Councillor Simmons has experienced.

In response to a question from Councillor Simmons, City Solicitor Glowa stated that municipal taxes generated by cannabis retailers in Cambridge must be placed in to general fund and that money must be used for public purposes. She stated that moneys, in the form of impact fees, generated by the execution of Host Community Agreements are meant to reimburse the City for its expenses in operating these programs. Therefore, it is the opinion of the law department that such money must only be used for public purposes. Solicitor Glowa further explained that there is no prohibition against RMDs or other Cannabis Retail Establishments from voluntarily contributing money to a fund or non-profit to assist with EE applicants, so long as that money does not come to the City or managed by City or influenced by the City in any way.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Solicitor Glowa confirmed that it is her opinion that section 5.50.045 in Councillor Simmons' amendments proposed on Sept 9, 2019 is not permissible and should not be enacted.

Councillor Simmons stated that the documents she submitted with her Sept 5, 2019 proposed amendments is more of a communication about what certain RMDs and EE applicants have voluntarily agreed to amongst themselves.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the communication, as described by Councillor Zondervan, has no bearing on the discussion before the committee.

Councillor Zondervan move to strike the communication.

No action was taken on the motion.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone, Solicitor Glowa stated that many of the permitting requirements in the proposed ordinance are unique to cannabis and other appear in some other ordinances.

1. Motion by Councillor Simmons to insert a new paragraph titled "Local Sales Taxes" in to section 5.50.020

Motion by Councillor Simmons to insert a new paragraph titled "Local Sales Taxes" in to section 5.50.020 to read as follows:
"Local Sales Taxes. Taxes imposed by the City upon the sale or transfer of marijuana or marijuana products by a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to Section 3 of M.G.L. Chapter 64N."

Councillor Simmons spoke in support of the amendment.

Councillor Zondervan suggested discussing latter amendments first.

In response to a question from Mayor McGovern, Solicitor Glowa stated that City will receive 3% sales tax from cannabis sales. She stated that these funds must be used for another purpose.

Vice-Mayor Devereux stated that there is no need for this definition.

Councillor Zondervan asked for a roll call vote.
RESULT: ADOPTED [5 TO 4]
YEAS: Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Toomey
NAYS: Carlone, Devereux, Siddiqui, Zondervan

2. Motion by Councillor Simmons to amend the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" in section 5.50.020

Motion by Councillor Simmons to amend the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" in section 5.50.020 to read as follows:
"Group B Priority Applicant. A Medical Marijuana Treatment Center within the City that was licensed or registered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health 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 to operate as a Colocated Marijuana Operation licensed pursuant to 935 CMR 502.000: Colocated Adult-Use and Medical-Use Marijuana Operations 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."

Councillor Simmons moved to amend her amendment to read as follows:
"Group B Priority Applicant. A Medical Marijuana Treatment Center within the City that received a Special Permit from the City of Cambridge not later than Sept 1, 2019 to sell cannabis products in a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to the Commonwealth’s medical use of marijuana laws, which seeks to operate as a Colocated Marijuana Operation licensed pursuant to 935 CMR 502.000: Colocated Adult-Use and Medical-Use Marijuana Operations 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."

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone, Jeffrey Roberts, from the Community Development Department, stated that there have been six (6) special permits issued for Medical Marijuana Establishments. He further stated that he believed that three (3) such businesses were open and operating.

Solicitor Glowa stated that two of those businesses that received a special permit and were operating are under a cease and desist order due to a change of ownership.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he did not believe it was good idea to change the date in the definition.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Solicitor Glowa stated that the Council has the power to issue a moratorium prevent Medical Marijuana Establishments from converting to retail. She further stated that it was her understanding that there were two establishments that met the current definition.

In response to a question from Councillor Toomey, Mr. Roberts stated that there are six (6) establishments that have received Special Permits, four (4) received occupancy permits, two (2) of those four have received cease and desist orders. He stated that one establishment is open at 110 Fawcett Street and another is open at 541 Massachusetts Avenue. He believes that the establishment on Massachusetts avenue may need a final approval from the state.

Iram Farooq clarified that only one establishment is actually open and operating. She stated that is the establishment on Fawcett Street.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Solicitor Glowa stated that there is a legal question about which establishments meet the definition in "Group B Priority Applicant" under the current language of the proposed ordinance based on changes of ownership.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Mr. Roberts stated that at most five (5) establishments could qualify under the current definition of Group B Priority Applicant. Ms. Farooq added that the Community Development Department can determine which establishments have a valid special permit.

Councillor Zondervan spoke in opposition to the amendment to the amendment.

Councillor Mallon spoke in opposition to the amendment to the amendment.

Vice-Mayor Devereux moved to call the question on the amendment to the amendment. The motion passed with seven (7) in favor and two (2) against by the following roll call vote:
Councillor Carlone Yea
Vice Mayor Devereux Yea
Mayor McGovern Yea
Councillor Mallon Nay
Councillor Siddiqui Yea
Councillor Simmons Nay
Councillor Toomey Yea
Councillor Zondervan Yea
Councillor Kelley Yea

Councillor Zondervan asked for a roll call on Councillor Simmons' motion to amend her amendment.

The motion to amend Councillor Simmons amendment failed with one (1) in favor, seven (7) against and one (1) voting present by the following roll call vote:
Councillor Carlone Nay
Vice Mayor Devereux Nay
Mayor McGovern Nay
Councillor Mallon Nay
Councillor Siddiqui Nay
Councillor Simmons Yea
Councillor Toomey Present
Councillor Zondervan Nay
Councillor Kelley Nay

Councillor Simmons moved to table her motion to amend the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" in section 5.50.020.

Mayor McGovern spoke in opposition to the motion.

Councillor Simmons withdrew motion to table.

Councillor Simmons moved to adopt her motion to amend the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" in section 5.50.020.

In response to a question from Councillor Siddiqui, Solicitor Glowa stated that City adopted the term "RMD" in the zoning ordinance.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Solicitor Glowa stated that the amendment is very different from the current proposed ordinance. She further stated based on her understanding of the proposed amendment the moratorium would not apply to colocated medical marijuana establishments.

Solicitor Glowa explained that the City cannot require Medical Marijuana Establishments to remain open.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the intent of the original ordinance was to allow only priority applicants to open retail cannabis establishments in Cambridge for 2 years.

Councillor Zondervan moved to take one vote on all of the remaining amendments proposed by Councillor Simmons in her Sept 5, 2019 communication. The motion passed with six (6) in favor and three (3) against by the following roll call vote:
Councillor Carlone Yea
Vice Mayor Devereux Yea
Mayor McGovern Yea
Councillor Mallon Nay
Councillor Siddiqui Yea
Councillor Simmons Nay
Councillor Toomey Yea
Councillor Zondervan Yea
Councillor Kelley Nay

In response to a question from Vice-Mayor Devereux, Solicitor Glowa stated that the license or registration in the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" is referring to a state certification and that she would need to do more research to determine which businesses would fall in that category.

3. Motion to adopt all of the remaining amendments proposed by Councillor Simmons in her Sept 5, 2019 communication
RESULT: DEFEATED [2 TO 6]
YEAS: Kelley, Simmons
NAYS: Carlone, Devereux, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Zondervan
PRESENT: Toomey

In response to a question from Mayor McGovern, Solicitor Glowa stated that she believed that it would be unnecessary to amend the proposed ordinance by dividing the paragraph in section 5.50.040 into two subsections because section 5.50.110 makes the ordinance severable should a court strike down any portion.

Councillor Carlone stated that he would like to have applicants submit goals about how they will help maximize long-term opportunities for the public to obtain medicinal cannabis.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she believed that the manager may be able to incorporate Councillor Carlone's goals in regulations that will be promulgated later.

In response to a question from Vice-Mayor Devereux, Solicitor Glowa stated that it is not appropriate to include goals into the ordinance.

Councillor Zondervan suggested that Councillor Carlone work with the solicitor on incorporating his thoughts into future regulations.

4. Motion by Councillor Mallon to amend the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" in section 5.50.020

Motion by Councillor Mallon to amend the definition of "Group B Priority Applicant" in section 5.50.020 to read as follows:
"Group B Priority Applicant. An RMD within the City that was licensed or registered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health 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 to operate 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."
RESULT: MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE [UNANIMOUS]
YEAS: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Siddiqui, Toomey, Zondervan

5. Motion by Councillor Simmons to amend the second sentence of section 5.50.040

Motion by Councillor Simmons to amend the second sentence of section 5.50.040 to delete the words "For the first two years" and replace them with the word "Immediately".

Councillor Zondervan stated that he does not believe that the amendment would remove the moratorium.

Councillor Zondervan explained that the purpose of the 2 year moratorium is to help EE applicants start their business. He spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Vice-Mayor Devereux spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Councillor Simmons moved to suspend the rules to extend the time of the meeting. The motion passed by a voice vote of nine councillors.

Councillor Simmons did not agree that having a license guarantees funding and that is why she proposed the amendment.

Mayor McGovern spoke in opposition to the amendment.

RESULT: DEFEATED [1 TO 7]
YEAS: Simmons
NAYS: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Zondervan
PRESENT: Toomey

6. Motion by Councillor Zondervan to refer the proposed ordinance as amended back to the City Council with a favorable recommendation

Councillor Simmons spoke in opposition to the motion and explained that she will vote present.
RESULT: ADOPTED [7 TO 0]
YEAS: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Zondervan
PRESENT: Simmons, Toomey

7. Motion by Vice Mayor Devereux to refer a policy order to the Council for adoption

Vice Mayor Devereux proposed the following policy order:
"That the City Manager work with the City Solicitor, the ordinance committee co-chairs and the Mayor's office to develop criteria and policy goals to guide the City Manager in negotiating Host Community Agreements with adult use cannabis retail applicants and report back to the Council before signing the first Host Community Agreement."

In response to concerns from Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux modified her proposed policy order to read as follows:
"That the City Manager work with the City Solicitor, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone and the Mayor's office to develop criteria and policy goals to guide the City Manager in negotiating Host Community Agreements with adult use cannabis retail applicants and report back to the Council before signing the first Host Community Agreement."
RESULT: MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE [UNANIMOUS]
YEAS: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Siddiqui, Toomey, Zondervan

Meeting adjourned by Councillor Kelley at 1:33pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair