Documents Received After Published Agenda — Hayward City Council, December 16, 2025

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2025

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER PUBLISHED
AGENDA
Item #9
CONS 25-569
Side Letter Agreements -
International Association of
Firefighters Local 1909 and
Hayward Fire Officers
Association
From: Carlos Saavedra
To: List-Mayor-Council
Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEC 16th PUBLIC COMMENT - OPPOSITION to Agenda Topic 9 CONS 25-569: Fire Union Side Letter Agreement
Date: Monday, December 15, 2025 9:50:09 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hayward City Council:

I am writing to submit formal public comment in
strong opposition
to Agenda
Topic 9 CONS 25-569, the proposed Side Letter Agreements with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1909 and the Hayward Fire Officers Association.

My opposition is based on a thorough review of the city’s own financial statements, an active federal lawsuit, and the profound lack of transparency surrounding this vote.

1. The "Savings" Are an Illusion That Ignores a Massive, Active Liability.

The side letter claims of "$6 million in savings" is mathematically and strategically bankrupt.

It Trades Safety for Pennies: $2 million comes from "browning-out" fire companies
, degrading emergency response for nominal, temporary budget relief.

This moves the City further away from nationally recognized NFPA 1710 response benchmarks, without any formal determination of whether the City and Fire Department are knowingly jeopardizing public safety to close a budget gap. This is not fiscal management; it is a dangerous stopgap.

It Creates Future Debt: The rest defers a 3.82% raise, which the city will owe later, while
adding at least $1 million in new annual benefit costs
starting in
2028.

Financially, this is a losing proposition: the City is effectively taking on over $14 million in new long-term debt to achieve less than $6 million in temporary budget relief.

At a 7% discount rate, this creates a
$14M+ present value liability.

This is financial mismanagement.

It Ignores the Real Issue: This deal is being negotiated while the city faces an

active federal lawsuit from the same firefighters

(Ghali, et al. v. City of
Hayward, Case No. 4:25-cv-01116). The plaintiffs allege willful, years-long underpayment of overtime and seek three years of back pay plus liquidated damages—a potential liability dwarfing this side letter's "savings." You are voting to tinker with future pay while ignoring a past debt that could be orders of magnitude larger. This is negligent governance.

2. This Process Demonstrates a Clear Conflict of Interest.

The Council's closed session today is to discuss the very Ghali v. Hayward

lawsuit. To
then emerge and vote on a financial side agreement with the same union that is
suing the city
creates a profound conflict of roles and incentives. The public cannot have confidence in a deal struck under the shadow of active litigation, where the city’s leverage is compromised by its potential multi-million dollar liability.

Under the City’s own Long Range Financial Forecasting Policy, you are required to model and disclose 5–10 years of operating revenues and expenditures for key funds and clearly state the underlying assumptions. Yet the staff report for CONS 25-569 provides only a short-term ‘savings’ narrative and does not show the full 10-year impact of the deferred raises and new benefit costs on the General Fund long-range model.

3. The Council is Voting Without Critical Information.

To properly evaluate any financial agreement, the public needs to see the city's spending patterns and internal financial controls. I filed CPRA requests for exactly this information including vendor contracts, interfund transfers, the latest ACFRs, and audit letters resulting in the city having responded with an

unlawful delay
to
January 5, 2026, providing no valid legal justification.

You are asking the public to trust a multi-million dollar labor agreement while

simultaneously withholding the foundational documents

that would show the
city's true financial condition. This prevents any meaningful public analysis of whether this agreement is prudent or merely cosmetic.

Under Gov. Code § 7922.535(a)–(c), the City had ten days to determine whether my request sought disclosable records and, if invoking an extension, could extend that determination by at most fourteen days, with a written notice explaining the ‘unusual circumstances’ and stating the date the determination would issue. Instead, the City unilaterally set a January 5, 2026 date well beyond the statutory maximum and did so without citing any of the limited ‘unusual circumstances’ recognized in § 7922.535(c). That is not a lawful extension; it is an unlawful delay.

Separately, I must emphasize that the City’s current response to my Public Records Act request is not a mere “delay” but a facial violation of Gov. Code § 7922.535.

The statute allows ten days for a determination and, at most, an additional fourteen days in defined “unusual circumstances,” with written reasons. The City’s unilateral extension of the determination date to January 5, 2026, without identifying any statutory unusual circumstance and far beyond the 14-day maximum, is not authorized by law. Proceeding with CONS 25-569 while this violation remains unresolved compounds the risk: you are voting on a multi-million-dollar labor agreement while knowingly remaining out of compliance with the Public Records Act’s core procedural safeguards.

This comment is submitted not only for tonight’s
deliberation, but to preserve a clear public record of that noncompliance should judicial enforcement of the Public Records Act become necessary.

4. The Agreement Ignores the Core Insolvency Driver.

Crucially, this side letter does
nothing
to address the city's core insolvency driver:
the
$597 million (and growing) unfunded net pension and OPEB liabilities
documented in the FY 2024 CAFR. Tinkering at the edges of a $30 million deficit while ignoring a $600 million debt is not a solution; it is a direct path to municipal bankruptcy.

My Demand
Therefore, I demand that the City Council either:

Postpone the vote on CONS 25-569 until the requested financial documents are publicly released and the potential liability from the Ghali

lawsuit is fully
disclosed and accounted for, or
If you proceed with the vote, you must publicly commit, on the record, to agendizing a discussion at your very next meeting on the specific fiscal
thresholds that will trigger a declaration of fiscal emergency, enabling the renegotiation of all employment contracts to achieve permanent, structural solvency.

California’s fiscal-emergency framework (Gov. Code §§ 53760, 53760.5) explicitly links municipal insolvency to circumstances where a city’s financial condition “jeopardizes the health, safety, or well-being of residents.” By adopting a budget strategy that deliberately reduces minimum fire staffing and browns out companies for short-term savings, the City is, by definition, using public safety as a budget- balancing tool. If you believe these brownouts do not jeopardize health and safety, you should state that on the record and produce the analysis that supports that conclusion. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge that they do increase risk, then the only responsible path consistent with state law is to initiate a structured, transparent fiscal-emergency discussion rather than continue to layer on long-dated compensation obligations in a vacuum.

By knowingly trading away emergency response capacity and adding long-dated compensation obligations against the backdrop of a documented $597 million unfunded liability, without any articulated plan for the fiscal-emergency scenarios contemplated in Gov. Code §§ 53760 and 53760.5, the City is willfully ignoring the state’s own framework for dealing with insolvency. Those facts will be highly relevant if, in the future, the City seeks to issue additional debt, raise taxes, or invoke fiscal- emergency powers while claiming that these risks were unforeseeable.

Public commitment to a fiscal-emergency discussion is not merely a request; it is aligned with the state’s mandatory process for municipalities facing insolvency, which is designed to force good-faith negotiations before a crisis point. You cannot demand public trust while withholding public information and ignoring existential debts. The math is clear and the public’s right to know is law. I urge you to choose transparency and address the real problem.

Kind regards,
Carlos Noe Saavedra, CFA
Item #11
PH 25-049
Phenos Hayward
From: Soufyan AbouAhmed
To: List-Mayor-Council
Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Proposed dispensary
Monday, December 15, 2025 5:12:12 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Apologies, attachments didn't work on my last email.

My name is Soufyan AbouAhmed, and I am the founder and CEO of Garden of Eden, located 21227 Foothill Blvd, Hayward, CA. 94541 . Garden of Eden,
has been operating in this location for over 23 years and I am proud to have been one of the first licenses granted by the County of Alameda. We have built a very strong business near your City, with most of our customers coming from the City of Hayward and many of our employees residing in Hayward.

For several months now, I have watched the conversion of the Walgreens on the corner of Grove Way and Foothill transform into what appears to be a "big box" type of cannabis dispensary, just needing a CUP to open their doors.

This is very concerning to me, to other cannabis dispensaries in the area, to our customers, to many local residents as well as many local businesses.

Over saturation of cannabis in the neighborhood, unfair strain on longstanding Hayward operators, protecting diverse business culture and the integrity of the Cannabis Licensing Process are some of the key points that have brought the Cannabis industry together to work in partnership to oppose the Planning Commissions approval of this CUP.

Attached to this email you will find 3 documents.

1. A petition signed by local Cannabis Dispensary Operators in Hayward, San Leandro, Union City and Unincorporated Alameda County against granting this CUP. at the proposed location.

2. A petition signed by hundreds of customers who either live and work in Hayward who are against the granting of this CUP at the proposed location.

3. A petition signed by 41 local businesses with a 1 mile radius of the proposed dispensary against the granting of a CUP at this location.

4. Unruly behavior by applicant Angilbert Sarkis
In closing I would humbly ask that you support the Planning Commissions decision and deny the applicants CUP. Once again, we are not opposed to the issuing of another Permit to dispense cannabis in the City of Hayward, we are simply opposing this location for the issues I have raised, and the applicant / operator, who the industry recognizes as an operator that does not always act in accordance with the local rules and regulations, thus making all of us law abiding, tax paying and high employee retained operators look bad.

Thank you for your time.

Soufyan Abou Ahmed
CEO / Founder
Petition of Hayward Cannabis Operators Coalition Opposing Proposed Retail Dispensary (Available by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 510-583-4400) Community Petition to Oppose Proposed Cannabis Dispensary (Available by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 510-583-4400) Local Businesses' Petition to Oppose Proposed Zoning
(Available by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 510-583-4400)

From:

Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 2:56 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: City Business Against the Dispensary

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Sana Kim Owner Hills Coffee on Foothill
ACME Car Repair (Unincorporated Alameda County) but will be directly impacted by traffic!!

From:

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:21 AM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Two more Hayward businesses opposing the Dispensary

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Two more businesses
New National Mattress
21354 Foothill Blvd, in City Hayward
Blue Wagon Landscape
21370 Foothill Blvd., in City of Hayward

From:

Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 1:13 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Foothill Dispensary opposition
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

I am a business owner on Foothill Blvd and owner of Real Estate in the area. I respectfully urge you to reject the proposed mega-dispensary at the former Walgreens site for two critical reasons.

Traffic and Safety Concerns. The impact on traffic and safety would be signiﬁcant. My staff and customers already navigate a busy Foothill Blvd. Introducing a business expected to draw 2,000 customers daily would drastically alter the character of this area, shifting it from a neighborhood-friendly business district to an industrial-scale operation. Even the applicant recognizes this, having allocated over $100,000 for security measures suggesting a troubling expectation of potential issues.

Negative Perception of Hayward. Allowing another dispensary at a major gateway sends a detrimental message about Hayward. The concentration of three dispensaries at the north and southern downtown entrances could shape a negative perception among residents, visitors, and potential investors. Rather than showcasing a diverse array of thriving businesses, Hayward risks being seen primarily as a cannabis corridor. Additionally, Hayward could see ﬁve dispensaries in the near future.

The anticipated high customer volume, spillover parking, and increased security presence would adversely affect nearby businesses and diminish the overall sense of safety and professionalism along Foothill Blvd.

The Planning Commission has already heard these concerns and voted 5–1 against the proposal. I urge you to stand by your constituents, protect our business environment, and preserve the image of our city.

Hayward deserves better than to be recognized solely as a cannabis destination.

Thank you for your consideration.

From: Alejandra Arias
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:18 AM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: NEW MEGA DISPENSARY

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

I am a Hayward resident and I oppose the new Cannabis Dispensary for any of the following reasons:

1. Neighborhood Impacts

2. Traffic Concerns

3. Oversaturation of Cannabis in the main gateway to Hayward

4. Unsafe for our Youth

5. Too Close to Youth Activities

Please do not let this get approved. We do not need another dispensary in Hayward

Alejandra Arias

From: Justin Thomas
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2025 12:28 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Dispensary

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Mayor Salinas / Council Members Syrop
I am very concerned about the proposed dispensary on your agenda next week.

Respectfully, my family and I do not feel the City of Hayward needs another dispensary.

Please do the right thing and vote this proposal down.

1. Oversaturation for that community.

2. Traffic at that corner is already a nightmare, a huge dispensary will make it worse.

3. The Dispensary is too large and shares a wall with a karate studio where kids go!

4. It is less than 600 feet from a Koren School and Church.

5. It will be directly across from your approved Transitional Housing project.

THANK you!
Justin Thomas
Homeowner, Voter and Union Member

From: C. Y.

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2025 12:54 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Strongly opposed to a new cannabis dispensary in our area

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Hello, Mayor Salinas and all City Council members,

My name is Casondra Young, and I live just two blocks from the proposed site of the new cannabis dispensary at Lincoln Landing Apartments. Having lived in Hayward for 20 years, I recently chose this neighborhood for its proximity to downtown and its welcoming vibe. I love coming home, taking my dog for a walk, and always feeling safe while doing so. In recent years, the area has seen many positive changes, and I’d hate to see this vibrant part of Hayward turn into something unpleasant or less conducive to a healthy lifestyle.

Please keep in mind the residents in our area who chose this location for reasons opposite to what a cannabis dispensary would offer.

Kind Regards,
Casondra Young

From: Michael Warda
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 5:51 PM
To: Michael Lawson
Cc: Mark Salinas; Angela Andrews ; Daniel Goldstein ; George Syrop ; Ray Bonilla ; Francisco Zermeno ; Steve Kowalski
Subject: Phenos Hayward to Michael Lawson, Esq. (City Attorney)

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Lawson:

This office represents Phenos. I was one of the participants attempting to advance the application for a use permit during the September 15, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. Prior to the hearing, we had an opportunity to review the City of Hayward's cannabis ordinance as well as the City's planning mapping tool. It appeared clear that, aside from political and other non-planning issues that could be raised at City Council, most of the testimony offered fell outside the purview of the core principles that the Planning Commission would typically consider. For this reason, there was virtually no advocacy for non-planning issues.

The denial was troubling. The applicant relied entirely on the City’s mapping tool to locate the property and entered into a long-term lease. Part of the consideration was the very limited number of properties available. Our focus at the Planning Commission was planning. We frankly did not want to inundate the Commission with members of the public presenting information that would be relevant at City Council, but not necessarily at Planning Commission.

It seems highly relevant to bring to the City Council’s attention that, with all due respect to the work and effort of the Planning Commission, the denial was not based on sound planning principles.

We have been involved in dozens of entitlement processes to obtain use permits. The City’s comprehensive ordinances and planning guidelines lay out an extremely well-considered process. It is critically important for all applicants to be able to rely on this process. In fact, the applicant had great conﬁdence that, had planning issues been the sole focus at the Planning Commission, all possible concerns would have been satisﬁed.

Any assistance from your office in conﬁrming that the applicant did satisfy all planning issues prior to the Planning Commission would be greatly appreciated.

We believe that some councilmembers understand that it was a stretch to vote the application down at the Planning Commission. We know that all members of the Council receive accurate information directly from staff. We hope that the Planning Commission meeting deviation from simply following planning principles is also explained.

The applicants are very well-funded and have a strong history of being excellent community partners—so much so that they have received over 140 letters of recommendation and have created a website that has gathered more than 5,837 local cell phone numbers and emails in support of their project.

We hope the applicants can work with the City of Hayward for the next ten years, and we are optimistic that this collaboration can begin in a positive direction with a strong community partnership, just as they have achieved in their 31 other city partnerships.

Regards,
Michael S. Warda

MICHAEL S. WARDA,
A Professional Law Corporation

Turlock, CA
Tel:

Fax:

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED; DO NOT FORWARD WITHOUT PERMISSION This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain conﬁdential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient, and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the conﬁdential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. Thank you.

From: Amy Bublak
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 5:59 PM
To: Steve Kowalski
Subject: Phenos/Firehouse

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear Council Member,

As the Mayor of the City of Turlock and a former police officer of more than 25 years, I wanted to write to you to discuss Phenos/Firehouse, a business that has operated in Turlock for more than ﬁve years.

While I did not vote to approve any cannabis dispensary in Turlock based on my law enforcement background, I did want to advise the City of Hayward that Phenos/Firehouse has been an excellent business operation in Turlock. First, there has been no impact to law enforcement as the operators are extremely professional and operate within the stringent guidelines of the City of Turlock. From a ﬁnancial perspective, Phenos/Firehouse has generated millions of dollars in revenue to the City of Turlock. Without this revenue, Turlock would have had a signiﬁcant challenge to fund a multi-million dollar aquatic center to serve our citizens. It should also be known that Phenos/Firehouse generates as much revenue as the other three dispensaries in Turlock.

Phenos has recently asked for an additional cannabis license for distribution purposes. Based on the character of the ownership, the revenue performance, improvement to safety of the surrounding neighbors, professional security team, and the lack of calls for service, I ﬁnd myself supporting their request for an additional distribution license.

I offer this letter of support for your consideration and thank you.

Mayor Amy Bublak

From: Strasburg, Ashley, BOS Dist. 4
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:11 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Cc: Henninger, Tona, BOS Dist4 ; Jennifer Ott
Subject: Proposal Commercial Cannabis Retail Dispensary at 21463 Foothill Boulevard (Assessor Parcel No. 414-0086-056-02
Importance: High

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Hello,

Please ﬁnd the attached correspondence from Supervisor Nate Miley regarding the proposal for the Commercial Cannabis Retail Dispensary at 21463 Foothill Boulevard (Assessor Parcel No. 414-0086-056-02) that is being voted on at tonight's Hayward City Council meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Ashley Strasburg
Office of Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4 Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Constituent Liaison & Organizer

Board of Supervisors

Nathan A. Miley
Supervisor, District 4

Oakland Office Eden Area District Office Pleasanton District Office 1221 Oak Street, Suite 536 20980 Redwood Road, Suite 250 4501 Pleasanton Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 Castro Valley, CA 94546 Pleasanton, CA 94566 510-272-6694/510-465-7628 Facsimile 510-670-5717/510-537-7289 Facsimile 925-803-7959

Contact our office: [email protected]

December 16, 2025

Honorable Mayor and City Councilmemebers
City of Hayward
777 B Street, 4th Floor
Hayward, Ca. 94541

Re: Proposal to operate a Commercial Cannabis Retail Dispensary at 21463 Foothill Boulevard (Assessor Parcel No. 414-0086-056-02), Conditional Use Permit application UP-25-0011, for Phenos Hayward.

December 16, 2025

Honorable Mayor and City Councilmemebers
City of Hayward
777 B Street, 4th Floor
Hayward, Ca. 94541

Re: Proposal to operate a Commercial Cannabis Retail Dispensary at 21463 Foothill Boulevard (Assessor Parcel No. 414-0086-056-02), Conditional Use Permit application UP-25-0011, for Phenos Hayward.

Dear Honorable City of Hayward Mayor and City Council:

I am writing to you today to respectfully urge you to reject the proposed Commercial Cannabis Retail Dispensary at the former Walgreens site on Foothill Boulevard.

The proposed cannabis dispensary is to be located at the intersection of Foothill Blvd and Grove Way, at a key entry point into unincorporated Alameda County, and adjacent to the residential communities of Cherryland and Castro Valley.

There is another cannabis dispensary (Garden of Eden) located only one block away to the north along Foothill Boulevard in unincorporated Alameda County.  Approving a second cannabis dispensary would create a concentration of dispensaries at this prominent thoroughfare, one of the main gateways into the City of Hayward and into unincorporated Alameda County, risks creating a negative perception of Foothill Boulevard as a cannabis corridor rather than a diverse, vibrant business district—an outcome that carries real consequences for residents, visitors, and long-term economic development.

A second cannabis dispensary concentrated within a single block undermines the intent of balanced land-use planning. While the proposal may meet technical spacing requirements, it conflicts with the spirit of local cannabis regulations designed to prevent overconcentration and avoid clustering along a single corridor.

The proposal's projected increase in traffic and associated safety impacts raise serious concerns.

Foothill Boulevard is already a heavily traveled corridor serving residents, families, and small businesses. A proposal anticipating up to 2,000 customers per day would significantly strain existing infrastructure and alter the character of this area.

Community members and existing operators have also raised concerns about the broader market impacts of introducing a large-scale, high-volume dispensary in an already concentrated area.

The proximity of this proposed site to family- and youth-serving uses raises additional concerns. The location is within close range of child-care providers, youth-focused programs, faith-based institutions, and family-oriented businesses, including facilities that directly serve children. Land-use decisions in such contexts must carefully weigh the cumulative impact on families and neighborhood character.

Current dispensaries operating near this location have invested in Hayward and Unincorporated Alameda County through responsible operations, community engagement, and adherence to local standards. Oversaturation risks destabilizing this ecosystem while also affecting nearby non-cannabis businesses through parking constraints, traffic congestion, and heightened security activity.

I urge you to uphold the intent of local land-use policy and follow the City of Hayward’s Planning Commission's September 25, 2025, vote recommending denial of the conditional use permit.

Sincerely,

Nate Miley, Supervisor, District 4
County of Alameda

CC: Hayward City Manager

From: pat d
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:38 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Cannabis Dispensary at Foothill & Grove

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff:

I write as a longstanding Hayward resident to oppose the proposed cannabis dispensary located at 21463 Foothill Boulevard. Hayward already has enough licensed cannabis dispensaries to meet community needs. Introducing another dispensary would jeopardize the well-being of longstanding operators who have invested heavily and committed themselves to the Hayward community over the last several years. Furthermore, a dispensary operating primarily as a large-scale liquidation retailer undermines the community-based model that the current operators have fostered. In addition, my research indicates that local tax revenue has declined in all markets where the prospective operator has opened for business, and that this operator has had signiﬁcant controversies surrounding how they treat their employees and labor, as well litigation regarding anti- competitive business practices. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the retail cannabis dispensary application for the proposed site.

Sincerely,
Pat Doherty

From:

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:43 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: 12 Reasons to OPPOSE

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Put together by Families in Cherryland, on Grove way and within the City of Hayward proper from Foothill to Gary to Cotter.

THEIR ARGUMENT #1: "We project 500-900 customers initially. " YOUR COUNTER:
• They admit in their own documents they expect this to grow to 2,000 customers per day
• That's 250 customers per hour at peak times with only 61 parking spaces • This is industrial-scale retail, not a neighborhood business • Use their own words against them: The document shows they're planning for massive growth they're not being upfront about

THEIR ARGUMENT #2: "$100,000 security system is a community gift" YOUR COUNTER:
• The document proves this is for THEIR protection, not ours • Quote from their plan: cameras monitor "loading/unloading area, intake area, and storage room" - this is about protecting THEIR inventory • Oakland dispensaries lost $5 million - they're preparing for the crimes they EXPECT • Cameras record crimes AFTER they happen - they don't prevent them • This is liability transfer, not community investment

THEIR ARGUMENT #3: "No history of minors accessing Cookies or their other locations"
YOUR COUNTER:
• The jiu jitsu academy serves at-risk youth SPONSORED to steer them AWAY from drugs
• Staff report admits "many children train at on a daily basis" • It's not just about preventing sales to minors - it's about appropriate placement • Children shouldn't have to walk past 200+ cannabis customers and armed guards to reach programs teaching them discipline
• One stray bullet or one drug offer could shatter a child's life forever

THEIR ARGUMENT #4: "Cookies don't have loitering/public consumption issues" YOUR COUNTER:
• Cookies had 5 burglaries/robberies in just 2 years
• The clustering effect is real - that's why Oakland lost $5 million • This will be the 4TH dispensary within one mile - saturation creates the problem

THEIR ARGUMENT #5: "Parking is adequate - fewer trips than Walgreens" YOUR COUNTER:
• Walgreens had 42 theft/robbery incidents because of high traffic • They're comparing a FAILED business model (Walgreens closed) to justify their operation
• 2,000 customers/day with 61 spaces = disaster
• Their own plan admits only 26 spaces are directly in front • Math doesn't work: 250 customers/hour cannot be served with 61 spaces

THEIR ARGUMENT #6: "We meet the 500-foot distance requirement" YOUR COUNTER:
• Meeting MINIMUM requirements doesn't mean it's the RIGHT decision • Garden of Eden is 600 feet away - that's barely more than the minimum • The ordinance doesn't account for CUMULATIVE impact of 4 dispensaries • Planning Commission voted 5-1 AGAINST - they understood saturation

THEIR ARGUMENT #7: "$1 million advance payment shows good faith" YOUR COUNTER:
• This is a bribe, not a community beneﬁt
• They're essentially saying "we'll pay you to ignore the problems" • 20 jobs and tax revenue aren't worth a child's life
• We already have 3 dispensaries generating revenue - how much is enough from ONE neighborhood?

THEIR ARGUMENT #8: "Armed security will prevent problems" YOUR COUNTER:
• Why do they need armed security if this is so safe?
• Armed guards are an ADMISSION that they expect violence • Children will have to walk past armed guards to get to their programs • Security guards don't prevent crime - they respond to it AFTER it happens

THEIR ARGUMENT #9: "Staff recommends approval despite Planning Commission 5-1 vote"
YOUR COUNTER:
• Planning Commission listened to the community - 27 residents spoke against, only 3 for
• Those 3 supporters? Document admits "some people supporting were paid and don't even live here"
• Staff is overriding the experts (Planning Commission) who heard ALL the testimony • Why have a Planning Commission if we ignore their decisive 5-1 vote?

THEIR ARGUMENT #10: "This location has good visibility and access" YOUR COUNTER:
• That's exactly the problem - high visibility means high impact on our RESIDENTIAL neighborhood
• This is a GATEWAY to Hayward - is this the image we want? • Good access also means EASY access for criminals targeting high-value inventory • North Hayward will become the cannabis destination for Alameda County

THEIR ARGUMENT #11: "Transitional housing residents deserve compassion" YOUR COUNTER (use their compassion argument against them):
• If we truly care about vulnerable populations, we don't surround them with 2,000 daily cannabis customers
• Recovery is hard enough without constant exposure and temptation • The applicants claim to care - but their actions show they prioritize proﬁt over these residents' success

THEIR ARGUMENT #12: "Other cities have multiple dispensaries successfully" YOUR COUNTER:
• San Leandro's dispensaries are in INDUSTRIAL areas - not residential neighborhoods
• Union City's Decoto location (near residential) was ROBBED - criminals drove through the storefront
• Those cities learned from mistakes - why should we repeat them? • Our neighborhood is already saturated with 3 within one mile

From: cinnnabunz
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:59 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Mega Dispensary

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Hayward City Council Members,

I am contacting to as a life long resident of Hayward, my family has lived in the same house for 80+ years, and we have seen lots of changes to our city, some good, some bad.

The plan to open a mega dispensary is a bad idea, Hayward streets are already congested after the Ill planned loop, messed up downtown Hayward streets, we certainly do not need more traffic in our neighborhood due to the new planned dispensary.

Hayward already had a number of dispensaries and certainly doesn't need another one so close to people homes and family oriented businesses.

To often Hayward makes bad decisions which effect residents without taking into consideration those who live in these neighborhoods it's about time they start doing just that. Hayward does not want it, or need another dispensary.

What is important to those of us living in and near these neighborhoods is the pot holes in Grove Way between Western and Mission. The trash that is continually being dumped on Western Blvd, the overgrown foliage along the train tracks running along Western Blvd and Meekland. The congestion caused by the loop one of Hayward worst ideas and lastly the fact that I live in the CITY OF HAYWARD, not Cherryland and someone needs to make that distinction cause I'm tired of getting forced to accept Cherryland in place of Hayward anytime I order something online.

I do not live in Cherryland I live in Hayward born and raised, stop the stupidity already.

From: Sana Alam
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:03 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose the Mega Dispensary

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear Hayward City Council,

I, Sana Alam, resident of South Hayward (94544), strongly oppose the opening of the mega dispensary in downtown Hayward. The dispensary will increase traffic and devalue our properties further. The city needs to work hard on removing all dispensaries and shady massage clinics.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Happy Holidays!

Sana Alam
From: BC4AD
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 5:22 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting 12/16/25 Public Comment RPT 25-097

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

‘This is the moment where we decide whether local democracy survives’

I am writing to bring to your attention of the FCC proposed rulemaking in Docket 25-276, it is a sweeping no rulemaking proposal that would dramatically expand federal preemption, force rapid approvals, eliminate meaningful community participation and allow wireless facilities to be placed almost anywhere.

Over 2000 people have already submitted opposition to the rulemaking.

The following cities have written or are in the process of their opposition:

Encinitas
Carlsbad
Murieta
Lake Oswego
West Linn
Carmel by the Sea
San Mateo
Palo Alto
League of California Cities

Federal agencies and Congress are pushing major policy changes to all the placement in front of people’s bedrooms, schools, playgrounds, etc. all with no informed consent, no safety oversight, and an industry shielded from liability.

Congress is pushing forward with H.R. 2289 a bill that would let federal agencies and big telecom override local governments, eliminate key environmental (NEPA) and historic preservation (NHPA) reviews, and make it extremely easy to expand cell tower equipment with little notice or public input.

H.R. 1343, H.R. 1588, H.R. 1665, H.R. 1681, H.R. 1731, and H.R. 6046, Congress is advancing six bills that would limit local governments ability to regulate where wireless facilities are installed.

Together, these actions threaten community and environmental health, safety, privacy, property values, and the basic right of residents to decide what belongs in their own neighborhoods.

Just as you need a sewage treatment plant, it doesn’t mean you put it anywhere you want.

We need to preserve aesthetics, quality of life, and local control.

Please see the attached sample letter.

I urge you to direct the city attorney & city manager to submit opposition to the FCC proposed rulemaking and reach out to Congress to let them know we oppose this power grab.

Best,
John
BC4AD Group
I.Introduction.We oppose the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 25-276 (NPRM), which proposes to commandeer local governments to implement the fast-tracked, wall-to-wall deployment of wireless infrastructure desired by the FCC and its de facto partner, the wireless telecommunication industry. The rules and other actions that are contemplated in the NPRM would exceed the FCC’s scope of authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104 (1996) (TCA), and violate theanti-commandeering doctrine. Equally important, if enacted, they would have devastatingeffects on communities like ours, because they would virtually eliminate all state and local zoning authority over macro cell towers and other wireless facilities, and effectively transfer that traditional authority to private telecommunication companies.The rules and actions contemplated in the NPRM would functionally require local zoning authorities to approve wireless facilities without regard to regional planning, aesthetics, setbacks, cost, community character, or community input, and to do so under condensed timelines, with facilities “deemed granted” when those timelines cannot be met. This is soeven though the legislative history of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) (B)(ii) directly states that Congress did not intend “this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to anybut the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.” See S. Rep. No. 104-230, at 208.Moreover, because the rules and actions contemplated in the NPRM would require approvals regardless of ﬁt, local authorities would be helpless to address legitimate complaints from constituents, who will ultimately bear the adverse impacts of those approvals, and who will not understand that their ire should be directed at the FCC. In light of the illegalities and myriad harms that would ﬂow from the NPRM, we urge the FCC to abandon this effort, and begin a new one that actually considers the interests of the individuals and communities affected by each deployment proposal.II.By Eliminating Local Authority Over Cell Towers and Giving Telecommunication Companies Ability to Determine the Fate of Communities Like Ours, the Rules and Actions Contemplated in the NPRM Would Have Devastating Consequences.As a matter of history, law, and public policy, zoning decisions are and should be made by local authorities, who — unlike the FCC and private telecommunication companies –- are accountable to and knowledgeable about the communities affected by their decisions. Indeed, "land-use decisions are a core function of local government. Few other municipal functions have such an important and direct impact on the daily lives of those who live or work in a community.” Petersburg Cellular Pshp. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 205 F.3d 688, 703 (4th Cir. 2000).Local zoning authorities best understand the unique character, needs, and priorities of their communities, and use their police powers to maintain safety and infrastructure; protect the environment; protect neighborhood character; ensure quiet enjoyment of private property; maintain orderly growth; further local economic goals; stabilize property values; and more. However, the rules and actions contemplated in the NPRM would strip communities like ours of the ability to engage in any of these core government functions when it comes to wireless infrastructure.The NPRM proposes turning local zoning authorities into rubber stamps, creating a free-for-all for private telecommunication companies. Among other ills, the rules and actions contemplated in the NPRM would turn conditional use permitting into a ministerial process; curtail communities’ authority to set fees to recoup the full costs of permitting and overseeing wireless infrastructure; override concealment and aesthetic protections and other essential tools of zoning, such as setbacks; and set accelerated deployment timelines that silence community input and overtax small, local governments like ours.This loss of control over the siting of communications facilities would have devastating consequences. Among others,any number of telecommunications towers and other communications facilities could be erected in the midst of residential neighborhoods, next to schools, or in bucolic natural settings such as in the woods or on top of mountains -- areas held in high value by most communities. . . . [Loss of zoning control] would put at risk the property value of every home in the jurisdiction and create the possibility that aesthetic quality of every area in the jurisdiction would be destroyed.Petersburg Cellular, 205 F.3d at 703.Meanwhile, if the outcomes envisioned in the NPRM come to pass, local ffiocials will bear the brunt of rightful citizen complaints, while the true culprint—the FCC—gets off scott free. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1992) (when local authority is commandeered to federal government ends, “it may be state ffiocials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramiﬁcations of their decision”).For these practical reasons, the FCC should abandon the course being contemplated in the NPRM.III.The Rules and Actions Contemplated in the NPRM Would Exceed the FCC’s Statutory Authority, and Violate the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.In addition to being abandoned due to their devastating effects on local communities, the rules and actions contemplated in the NPRM should be rejected because they would violate key constitutional principles: the separation of powers, federalism, and theanti-commandeering doctrine.The TCA reﬂects “[t]he deliberate choice that Congress made not to preempt, but to use,state legislative processes for siting towers,” and the Act “precludes the federal government from instructing the states on how to use their processes for this purpose.” Petersburg Cellular, 205 F.3d at 704. Congress spoke very clearly when drafting Sections 253 and 332 of the TCA: under 47 U.S.C. § 253 (b) and (c), state and local governments retain the authority (and responsibility) to protect public safety, preserve service quality, safeguard consumer rights, and manage the public rights-of-way on fair and competitively neutral terms; and under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A), local communities retain full authority over “decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modiﬁcation of personal wireless service facilities,” with just a few, key limitations. .The FCC has power to act only within the boundaries of authority delegated in the TCA; in the areas where local communities retain authority under the TCA, the FCC has no power to regulate. See generally, Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The NPRM proposals turn Sections 253 and 332 into empty vessels and expand the few stated “limitations” in § 332(c)(7)(B) far beyond what Congress intended.In addition, "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer afederal regulatory program." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 933 (1991) (quoting New York v. United States, 505 U.S. at 188). This is for good reason: “when the federal government commandeers state and local legislative processes to carry out its own goals, not only is the federal power aggrandized and the state power enslaved, but also the lines of separation are blurred, causing a loss of accountability to the people and confusion by them.” Petersburg Cellular, 205 F.3d at 701. Accordingly, the FCC may not commandeer local zoning authorities to further its regulatory program of “eliminating barriers” to wireless rollout.The rules and actions contemplated in the NPRM would effectively transfer core zoningpowers from local government to private telecommunication companies. They wouldexceed the scope of the FCC’s delegated authority and violate the anti-commandeeringdoctrine by● preempting local rules and actions that the FCC claims merely inhibit the deployment of wireless infrastructure (rather than effectively prohibiting such deployment);● preempting local rules and actions that are based on legitimate zoning concerns such as aesthetics, concealment, and setbacks;● eliminating communities’ ability to use conditional use permitting as a zoning tool to promote orderly and sustainable land development;● requiring communities to permit “densiﬁcation” of 5G networks regardless of whether such densiﬁcation is desired by the community;● imposing shot-clock and “deemed granted” rules that ignore and override the realities of local government functioning;● curtailing communities’ ability to set fees that fairly reﬂect the true cost of permitting and allowing wireless infrastructure;● preempting state and local regulation of AI.IV.ConclusionThe FCC should abandon its pursuit of pro-industry rules that eviscerate local control and violate the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Agency should turn its attention to revising its outdated RF exposure guidelines, as ordered by the D.C. Court of Appeals over four years ago. See Envtl. Health Tr. v. FCC 9 F.4th 893, 900 (2021).

From: Anita Wah
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 10:51 AM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: cannabis dispensary at Foothill and Grove

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Salinas and Members of the City Council:

I attended the meeting last night. My interest was in the cannabis dispensary. Although I left at 11:30, I learned this morning from a neighbor that you all voted in favor of it.

As someone who lives less than ﬁve blocks away from the site, I am appalled. The Council was swayed by the million dollar “deal” offered by the applicant that will help you balance your budget. If you did not have a huge budget shortfall, my guess is that you might have considered the neighbors’ comments over the money offered the City by the applicant.

The staff report, and your votes and questions, showed that you were not taking into account the needs of the neighborhood. The staff member who delivered the staff report (ignoring the recommendation of the Planning Commission) said that he used a computer program to determine traffic patterns. I suggest that he leave his office and walk the neighborhood to see the congestion there. He also stated that Garden of Eden was 750 feet away so outside the 500 foot limit. So 250 feet will make a difference to the neighborhood?

Hayward is a big city. Why not put the cannabis dispensary in another part of the city? There is plenty of space around Southland Mall. Or why not in one of the neighborhoods you live in, with another cannabis dispensary 750 feet away?

You have seriously let down the neighborhood in other ways. When we ﬁrst moved here, over 28 years ago, the area around Grove and Foothill was a pretty, residential area with an antique shop, and a hair salon. Just across Foothill was a Walgreens that was heavily used by the neighborhood. Now, because you have reneged on your responsibility to ﬁnd developers for Parcel 8, the lower part of Grove it is a mess of boarded up buildings. The neighbors are strongly in favor of housing there, including affordable housing. They are also in favor of replacing the old Walgreens with a similar type of store. My husband and I are elderly, I am disabled, and in a few years we may need to sell our house. That will be very difficult, given what you have already done to the neighborhood and what, last night, you have promised to do.

It was clear by the way Mayor Salinas conducted the meeting that he was biased in favor of the applicant. Although he asked people not to repeat themselves, he allowed the people who represented the applicant, and had prepared, repetitive speeches, to say the same things over and over again. He gave each of them the full minute, which is just what he promised not to do. He also threatened to clear the hall when the opposition clapped in favor of a comment, but said nothing when those in favor repeatedly broke into applause.

I am a supporter of having cannabis dispensaries in our city. I use cannabis medically myself because of my disability. However, we don’t need two dispensaries near the end of Grove. Neighbors are organizing protests, so although you have voted, we are not defeated.

Anita Wah
Grove Way
faculty emeritus, Chabot College

From:

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 10:19 AM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Deﬁnition of Mega

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

For the Council Member (the same one that admitted ﬁnancial gain from the applicant) who asked what "Mega" means and why it was applied to this applicants proposed dispensary by the opposition, let me explain for you.

Mega is an adjective deﬁned as "Very large. Huge"
Based on that deﬁnition I think one can derive, that a Costco is a Huge or Mega type wholesale store, right?
Therefore, if we agree on that, then if you would have listened to the September Planning Meeting the dispensary applicant HIMSELF , compared his proposed application to Costco, thus self-proclaiming his proposed dispensary as "mega" . I hope this helps clear the air.

From: Ciaran Carr
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 3:34 PM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Potential community harm from dispensary proposal

CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Salinas and City Council Members,

I am writing out of great concern for the proposed dispensary in the old Walgreen at the corner of Foothill and Grove. I watched the last planning commission meeting about this proposed business in its entirety, and I was left with more questions than answers. After doing some brief internet searches on Angibert Sarkis and his company, The Premier Group, I have come up with several very large red ﬂags regarding how Mr. Sarkis conducts business. I believe that this man should not be allowed to open a location in my neighborhood (nor anywhere else in Hayward).

My family has lived in and near Hayward since before my birth. My family moved into a house on the corner of Grove Way and Bedford in 1989, and we have lived here ever since.

My address may say Castro Valley, but I attended school in the Hayward district, and consider myself a native of the city. There are so many problems in this neighborhood, and opening such a shady business will do nothing but degrade the neighborhood further. I have to add that I have no qualms with dispensaries, only wish that there was more regulation. I also wish that we didn't feel the need to put a dispensary on every single block - this is, quite bluntly, overkill. We should be working to improve the neighborhood to attract businesses that have integrity and are more wholesome.

But without further delay, let me provide some evidence.

Sarkis was sued by employees for gender and age discrimination in Fresno with one of his shops.

A food and commercial workers labor union sent a letter to the mayor of fresno to oppose ownership by sarkis due to suspicious circumstances.

I posted on the r/askfresno subreddit what the deal was with the dispensary in Fresno, and was given a lot of negative comments about the dispensary there. I'm also attaching a PDF of the screenshots from the comment section in case the thread gets pulled down for any reason. They said they will sell cheap and dirty weed to addicts in the neighborhood, they only hire young "attractive" women to work the store front, and it is rumoured from past employees that there is ample tax evasion by management, amongst other things. PLEASE READ ALL THE COMMENTS.

Here is the website for the parent company owned (at least in part) by Bert Sarkis. The page for their "community engagement" is so vague it's laughable.

Its common for this company to promise a portion of their income to the cities to coax them to open up shops.

Here is an article that talks about them not following Fresno municipal code.

Not directly related, but this is a 2023 article about how California cannabis companies are engaging in "pay to play" schemes.

Here's an article from NPR about how legal weed businesses are selling black market weed.

There are other facts of the matter that are very alarming about the proposal of this business, and the largest that comes to my mind is the proposed layout of the store. It is suspicious to me that only a 10th of the rented space will be used as a store front. What, exactly, are they planning to do with the rest of the space? Given the comments on Reddit, I am sure you could imagine some of the more illicit happenings that could go on behind closed doors. Why else would they need armed guards? Also armed guards?? Really?? Never have I ever heard of such nonsense happening in Hayward. I am honestly shook that the police department gave the okay on this. Hayward has made so much progress in the last ten years or so, why jump ten steps up just to jump 20 steps back?

I'm just going to end this bluntly: I believe this is a bad business run by literal drug dealers, and I don't just mean cannabis. Who knows what other dealings they could have. And at the very least, we don't need to put other dispensaries at risk of closure due to market oversaturation. Just say no to this guy's drugs.

I appreciate your time on this matter. I hope this is as concerning to you as it is to me.

Best,
Monica Carr

New eComment for City Council on 2025-12-16 7:00 PM
Michael Lopez submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council on 2025-12-16 7:00 PM
Item: The Public Comments section provides an opportunity to address the City Council on items not listed on the agenda or Informational Staff Presentation items. The Council welcomes comments and requests that speakers present their remarks in a respectful manner, within established time limits, and focus on issues which directly affect the City or are within the jurisdiction of the City. As the Council is prohibited by State law from discussing items not listed on the agenda, items will be taken under consideration and may be referred to staff. The City Council welcomes comments, including criticism, about the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the City, or of the acts or omissions of the City Council. Speakers shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a City Council. The City is committed to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that City staff regularly attend Council meetings.

Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, oppressive, or abusive - are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated. ration and may be referred to staff.
eComment: Hello City Council 34 year Hayward resident here. From a municipal standpoint, adding another dispensary increases traffic congestion, enforcement and regulatory oversight burdens, and the likelihood of public nuisance issues, without a corresponding increase in economic beneﬁt. These impacts include parking concerns, increased calls for service, and added strain on city resources.

View and Analyze eComments

New eComment for City Council on 2025-12-16 7:00 PM
Joseph Kline submitted a new eComment.

Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, oppressive, or abusive - are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated. ration and may be referred to staff.
eComment: respectfully oppose the approval of an additional cannabis dispensary at this time. Opening new cannabis retail locations does not create new demand or bring new customers into the cannabis market. Instead, it simply redistributes the same limited customer base across more operators. This oversaturation does not strengthen the industry or the local economy—it weakens existing compliant businesses that are already contributing tax revenue, employment, and regulatory compliance to the city.

Thank
View and Analyze eComments

Public Comment

New eComment for City Council on 2025-12-16 5:30 PM
Araselis Marte submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council on 2025-12-16 5:30 PM
Item: PUBLIC COMMENTS
eComment: My name is Araselis Marte, and I’m a District 2 resident. I’m writing because the vacancies on Jackson Street — Walgreens, Safeway, and Lee’s Deli are hurting this community. We’re losing essential services, foot traffic, and neighborhood safety. These empty buildings attract blight and discourage new businesses. I’m asking the Council to prioritize a plan to revitalize this corridor and restore needed services.

Our neighbors are worried about losing access to active spaces in the neighborhood.

View and Analyze eComments

Hayward City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Hayward City Council
December 16, 2025