Attachment VI-c
1 DATE: October 2, 2026
TO: Hayward City Council
RE: 10/13/26 Tobacco Retail License Revocation Appeal OF Haroon Ahmed, Owner of SNA Trading, Inc. (dba Smokey’s Smoke Shop), 25088 Hesperian Blvd -DUE PROCESS
REQUESTS & OBJECTIONS
Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Hayward, learned counsel:
OBJECTION TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OR THE LACK THEREOF; REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL DUE PROCESS:
Without waiving further objections and requests to be raised on judicial review if pursued by any party, Appellant makes the follow objections and requests:
1) It is unfair to require Appellant to file written briefing 11 days before the 10/13/26 hearing (10/2/26) when the prosecution (Code Enforcement) and its lawyers will not file their briefing until 4 days before the hearing (10/9/26). How is Appellant supposed to respond to the charges against him as City Council hears the matter de novo and the burden of proof is on the prosecution? This is a complete denial of the basic right of confrontation and amounts to a failure to follow the law on the part of the prosecution and the City. Appellant is forced to respond in advance based on the previous record before the Planning Commission rendering our briefing inaccurately cited of necessity—as there is nothing to cite in the instant case. 2) Appellant requests cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses, including without limit, the hearsay witness, Inspector Amber Green, who authored four of the five notices that prosecution relies on to prove its case. If any such witness is no longer employed by the City, Appellant requests that the City issue a subpoena to compel their attendance and examination.
Failure to do so is grounds for opening the record in petition for writ of mandate should the need arise.
3) Please demonstrate and document that the prosecution and the City Council have separate independent legal counsel, that they are not collaborating, and have not collaborated on any aspect of any tobacco enforcement case including without limit this one, and that the Council will receive fair, objective, accurate, independent legal advice about their powers and duties sitting quasi-judicial, and the applicable law that informs their decision making.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL BIAS:
Please disclose if the mayor or any council member, or any close family member or friend, has ever used tobacco or nicotine products, or suffered from or died as a result of any related disease.
I respectfully request that any voting member who cannot make a fair and unbiased related decision about a tobacco business because of the above raised common experiences, recuse themselves from these deliberations.
Respectfully submitted,
s/James Anthony
James Anthony, attorney for SNA Trading, Inc.
1 SMOKEY'S SMOKE SHOP & GIFTS — 25088 HESPERIAN BLVD
Chronological Activity Log
Reordered from Attachment IV, pages 7–15 (Exhibit II: Case CE-22-0507; Exhibit III: Case CE-TRLENF-2025-00085). In the original document, entries are grouped alphabetically by Activity Type (Case Notes, Email, Inspection, etc.) rather than by date. Below, every dated entry from both case files is merged into a single ascending timeline, sorted by the record's own “Created On” date. No entries have been added, altered, or omitted — shading marks the four inspections (red) and two caseclosing/passed events (green) for quick reference. Gray rows flag entries where the source PDF's table formatting cut off the underlying comment text.
Date Case Activity Type Logged By Log Entry (as recorded) 03/28/2022 22-0507 Case Opened — Code Case CE-22-0507 established. Case Type: CH – Tobacco Retail Standards. Citation Issue Date recorded
as 03/28/2022.
03/29/2022 22-0507 Case Notes A. Ventura Munis records show all TRL fees have been paid to date.
04/13/2022 22-0507 Inspection A. Green At time of inspection met with tenant Kahn and spoke with PO Haroon by phone. Inspector observed various
products not in compliance with the new tobacco
ordinance. Will allow 30 days for reinspection to
observe progress towards compliance.
04/18/2022 22-0507 Notice of Violation
Letter Sent
A. Green Sent to Owner / Property Location. Observation:
“During scheduled inspection please show progress is
being made towards compliance.”
04/28/2022 22-0507 Email A. Green (log) From Hannah Young (paralegal, Anthony Law Group), 11:06 AM: requests confirmation on submitting the
Administrative Hearing Request form and $946 fee
electronically.
— Inspector Green provided Administrative Hearing
form and payment instructions.
— From Forrest Nylander (Finance Supervisor):
hearing fee has been paid; attached original business
application and name-change update; notes business
license expired 12/31/2020.
04/28/2022 22-0507 Phone Call A. Green Received call from attorney James Anthony (510-207- 6243) requesting an administrative hearing; left VM.
Received call from paralegal Hannah Young
requesting an administrative hearing; left VM.
Source note: five separate 04/28/2022 entries (three Email, two Phone Call) share the same date; the source system does not record a time-of-day, so their order relative to one another cannot be determined from the text. 05/18/2022 22-0507 Case Notes / Phone Call A. Green Due to the administrative hearing requested, inspector will not inspect the property as scheduled so as not to interfere with the hearing.
Left VM for tenant Kahn advising no scheduled
reinspection will be conducted until after the hearing; spoke with PO Haroon and advised the same.
2 05/20/2022 22
-0507 Other Activity
(embedded)
A. Ventura Received Administrative Hearing Request. Hearing set for Wednesday, June 8 at 2:00 PM via Teams (in-
person option available). Mailed hearing appointment
letter to the address on the request form.
05/26/2022 22
-0507 Other Activity A. Green Logged case
-status entry: Contact Made (Yes); Contact
Date (04/13/2022); Hearing Type (Admin); Days to
Correct (30); Hearing Date (06/08/2022); Abated (No);
Abated by (Contractor).
Entry also recites, in narrative form, the case history already reflected individually above (04/13, 04/18,
04/28 × 4, 05/18 × 2, 05/20/2022) plus standard
Tobacco Retail License Program / Ordinance No. 20-
13 background language.
06/06/2022 22
-0507 Email A. Green Emailed hearing officer staff report and TRL Notice of Violation.
06/07/2022 22
-0507 Case Notes A. Green Attorney for Smokey’s and PO never received hearing information. Paralegal Hannah Young requests a
continuance; CAO proposes June 29th afternoon. PO
email: [email protected].
06/08/2022 22
-0507 Case Notes A. Green Continuance granted; next hearing scheduled for Wednesday, June 29th at 2:30 PM.
06/30/2022 22
-0507 Case Notes A. Green Hearing officer has called for a continuance due to administrative jurisdiction abilities.
07/01/2022 22
-0507 Courtesy Notice Sent A. Green Sent to Owner / Property Location (Extra Days: 3).
Advises that, after review of the 04/18/2022 Notice of
Violation and tenant concerns, staff will amend the
original Notice to provide additional clarity and
direction; a new inspection will be coordinated;
compliance dates will be adjusted.
07/05/2022 22
-0507 Phone Call A. Green Spoke with PO Haroon; advised the City will amend the original NOV to provide clarity and direction;
emailed a copy of the courtesy notice to the PO;
inspector will reinspect the property tomorrow.
07/06/2022 22
-0507 Inspection A. Green At time of inspection, spoke with PO Haroon; inspector took photographs of the entire shop.
07/15/2022 22
-0507 Case Notes A. Green Inspector will send out TRL NOV after PC 832 training. Schedule limited by 4th of July holiday
schedule and notices sent out.
08/12/2022 22
-0507 Case Notes / NOV
Letter Sent
A. Green Emailed CE manager TRL notice for review.
Notice of Violation Letter sent to Owner / Property
Location. Observation: “A progress check will be
conducted on Wednesday, September 28, 2022…”
3 08/15/2022 22-0507 Inspection A. Green At time of inspection, PO Haroon walked inspector to each area of the smoke shop to discuss individual
items.
09/01/2022 22-0507 Case Notes A. Green Inspector was out of the office due to COVID. Delay in the notice going out.
10/13/2022 22-0507 Case Notes / NOV
Letter Sent
A. Green Inspector was out of the office due to car accident and health issues. Delay in notice going out.
10/13/2022 22-0507 Notice of Violation
Letter sent
A. Green Send to (Owner / Property Location), Observation: (A progress check will be conducted on Wednesday,
November 16, 2022 to ensure measures are being taken
place to
bring the property into compliance.)
10/31/2022 22-0507 Case Notes A. Green Paralegal Hannah Young has reached out requesting an administrative hearing (VM left 10/24/2022).
11/17/2022 22-0507 Other Activity A. Green Logged case-status entry: Contact Made (Yes); Contact Date (08/15/2022); Hearing Type (Admin); Days to
Correct (30); Hearing Date (12/08/2022); Abated (No);
Abated by (Owner); plus standard ordinance
background language.
01/18/2023 22-0507 Phone Call A. Green Spoke with Sandra Lucas (daughter of the property owner); brought up to speed regarding the hearing and
legalities.
03/06/2023 22-0507 Inspection(s) –
Scheduled
— Three scheduled inspections (ICODE-002320-2023,
ICODE-002346-2023, ICODE-002357-2023), each
Status: Canceled.
03/16/2023 22-0507 Notice of Inspection
Sent
A. Green [No comment text recorded in source.]
03/20/2023 22-0507 Case Notes A. Green Mailed Notice of Inspection (template used after administrative hearings, constituting a reinspection
notice). Original mailed to PO; copy emailed to
business owner and attorney.
03/30/2023 22-0507 Inspection / Case
Closed
A. Green “Owner abated. Closing case.”
Inspection ICODE-004954-2023: Status – Passed.
— End of Case CE-22-0507 log (pp.7–12) — Beginning of Case CE-TRLENF-2025-00085 log (pp.13–15) — 11/05/2025 TRLENF-2025-
00085
Case Opened — Code Case CE-TRLENF-2025-00085 established.
Description: 2025 Annual TRL Inspection.
11/17/2025 TRLENF-2025-
00085
Inspection(s) — ICODE-023812-2025, Initial Assessment Inspection, Actual Date 11/17/2025: Status – In Violation.
4 12/01/2025 TRLENF-2025-
00085
Citation Issued J. Prins Reminder that tobacco inspections occur annually (can occur at any time); cites SEC. 10-1.2780 and warns of
penalty fees / possible license revocation for nonadherence. 12/01/2025 TRLENF-2025-
00085
Inspection (write-up) J. Prins Write-up (logged 12/01/2025) of the 11/17/2025 initial inspection: observed flavored tobacco wraps, flavored
cigarillos, non-compliant cigarillo packaging, and
imitation mushroom gummies. Explained violations to
Haroon; instructed removal before reinspection “in a
couple of weeks.” Notice to be sent.
12/10/2025 TRLENF-2025-
00085
Inspection(s) — ICODE-023813-2025, Code Enforcement Inspection, Actual Date 12/10/2025: Status – Passed.
04/14/2026 TRLENF-2025-
00085
Inspection (write-up) /
Case Closed
J. Prins Write-up (logged 04/14/2026 — over four months after the reinspection itself) of the 12/10/2025 reinspection:
“no prohibited products or packaging were observed in
either the front or back areas of the business. All
required licenses were current and properly posted.”
“This case is closed as resolved.” Case Status: Closed
– Resolved (Closed Date: 04/14/2026). Violation
record: Compliance Date 12/10/2025; Resolved Date
12/10/2025.
1 DATE: October 2, 2026
TO: Hayward City Council
FROM:Haroon Ahmed, Owner of SNA Trading, Inc. (dba Smokey’s Smoke Shop), 25088 Hesperian Blvd.
RE: 10/13/26 Tobacco Retail License Revocation Appeal Statement Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Hayward:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Your job, as the neutral decision-makers (like judges, not legislators) in this dispute between Code Enforcement and a local business owner, Haroon Ahmed, is to examine all the evidence and decide if Haroon’s shop had at least three violations in the last five years. But to actually count against him, a “violation” cannot just be a piece of paper from one side that has the word “violation” on it. It must contain some documented specific facts that violate a specific law. (Ask your independent lawyer if this is a fair summary of your role and the law you must apply.) Code Enforcement cannot get to three factual violations in the last five years. The most they can legitimately count is two—and even those are suspect because they were compliance notices giving Haroon time to comply without further penalty, and he did so within the time allowed.
Code Enforcement then signed o] on those at re-inspection with a “Passed” grade and closed the cases. Now they seek to count them towards revocation.
Regardless, two is not three, and Code Enforcement fails to meet their burden of proof.
Four of the five Notices from April 2022 to February 2023 contain zero facts that would support you finding a violation. Code Enforcement admits this as to the first Notice (4/13/22), but it is also true of the second Notice (7/6/22). One of the Notices listed in the sta] report (Attachment IV, page 1) does not even exist (11/17/22). And the fifth one (2/9/23) is just a duplicate of the only one from this period that might count (8/15/22)—except that it was during a period of compliance, education, and research. Haroon was given time to come into compliance, and he did so, with a grade of “Passed” at the next inspection and the case closed. The duplicate (2/9/23) cannot count, and the original (8/15/22) shouldn’t either. But even if it does, that is only one.
And there is only one other (11/17/25) that might count because it does contain specific facts.
But it too was a compliance inspection with time to comply (and a $1,500 penalty which he paid). For the second time, Haroon again complied in time with a grade of “Passed” at the next inspection and the case closed. This one should not count either, but even if it does, two is not three.
Code Enforcement, based on the correct reading of their own sta] report and records, cannot show three violations in five years. Therefore, they fail, and you must grant this appeal and deny the revocation. This is an open and shut case.
2 DETAILED APPEAL STATEMENT:
Haroon’s shop is not like the others. The new tobacco Code Enforcement team cannot show 3 violations in 5 years and thus the revocation is in error. The revocation uses misinterpreted and erroneous data from a 10-month period 4 years ago (4/2022 – 2/2023) against Haroon. At that time Haroon was cooperating with the original tobacco Code Enforcement team. The evidence shows that the documentation was intended for research and educational purpose only—and that three of the four alleged violations from this time are baseless and must be disregarded. 2022-04-13 Inspection: As noted in the Staff Report, this initial attempt at documenting compliance issues lacked any factual detail and was rescinded. Code Enforcement concedes that this one does not count due to “vagueness.” (Att. IV, p.1.) 2022-07-06 Inspection: The Staff Report alleges that this notice contains violations and should be counted towards the three needed for revocation. However, like the previous one, this one contains no specific factual allegations of violation. The "VIOLATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION" section contains only a word-for-word cut-and-paste of the language of the ordinance that might have been violated, but NO actual specific factual evidence of violation. (Att. IV, pp. 25-27.) This was a research inspection during which Inspector Amber Green photographed every shelf and all inventory in the "entire" shop systematically. (Case notes at Att. IV, p.8 (“Inspection” 7/06/2022); Photos at Att. IV, pp. 28-33.) This notice, like the previous one, should likewise be rescinded/disregarded for vagueness/lack of specificity. It does not contain a single factual allegation and cannot be counted against Haroon.
Further, it was clearly a cooperative effort to figure out how the new ordinance would apply to the many hundreds of products on the shelves. In addition to photographing the entire store for off-site analysis, the Inspector noted that during the inspection she spoke with Haroon. And Haroon confirms that she visited the shop often during this early period to chat about the inventory and the new law and how they might intersect. 2022-08-15 Inspection: In this one, after four months of research, for the first time Inspector Green observes and names specific brand names that were at the shop that seemed to violate specific sections of the new ordinance that she and Haroon were collaboratively implementing at the time, HMC 10-1.2783, including:
Subsection C 1: "Real Leaf Rolls", "Wraps", "ZYN", "Backwoods", etc.; Subsection C 2: "PAX", "Exus", "Vaped Vano", "Volcano", etc.:
Subsection C 3: "Carta", "G", "Backwoods", etc.
Subsection C 4: "Hemp2o", "High Hemp Organic Wraps", "Artisanal Hemp Cones", "Organic Hemp Raw Cones", "CBD Edibles", "CBD Lollipops", "PM Hemp", etc. (Att. IV, p. 44.)
That is the level of specificity constitutionally required to establish “notice of violation.” All the previous notices failed to meet that standard, one of which Code Enforcement concedes and the other of which is just a recitation of law without a single fact. 3 Therefore, this one is the first sufficiently specific that it could properly count as a "violation" unlike the previous two. However, this entire process was one of mutual education and research geared toward compliance. And as noted in the case notes, Inspector Green was delayed in sending out the notice: first by COVID in September; and then later due to a car accident and health issues. (Case Notes Att. IV, p. 7: 9/1/22, 10/13/22.) Thus, she did not send the notice until 10/13/22, which also set a compliance re-inspection date: “A progress check will be conducted on 11/16/22 to ensure measures are being taken to bring the property into compliance”. (Att.
IV, p. 44, emphases added.) The notice also stated that “Failure to comply and satisfactorily eliminate all violations by the next compliance date November 16, 2022 will result in a penalty fee of $1500/30 day tobacco retail license suspension.” (Att. IV, p. 44, emphases added.) Clearly, the intention of this entire early process—implementing a new local ordinance severely restricting tobacco/nicotine sales, under, but even more severely than, a similar new state law, in the immediate wake of COVID—was to figure it out together and check back for compliance in removing any prohibited items, now that they had finally identified them specifically. However, as noted in the Staff Report (Att. IV, p.1), Haroon appealed administratively. This delayed the compliance re-inspection, originally scheduled for 11/16/22, until after the administrative hearing on 2/2/23.
On 2/9/23, Inspector Green sent a notice rescheduling the "Compliance Deadline" for 3/6/23. (Att. IV, pp. 55-58, emphasis added.) There was no additional inspection at this time; the notice just repeats word-for-word the factual allegations of this 8/15/22 inspection which had been noticed on 10/13/22. (Att. IV, pp. 55-58.) Ultimately, she did re-inspect and the business owner had removed all the prohibited products. On 3/30/23, she wrote, “Owner abated. Closing case.” (Case Notes, Att. IV, page 8.) She also noted, “Status – Passed.” (Case Notes, Att. IV, page 12.) It is an open question of law if an inspection intending to give the licensee an opportunity to abate the issues and come into compliance, as intended and as accomplished here, should count towards revocation or not. You can use your own common-sense wisdom and sense of fairness to decide to count it or not. It is (at last and somewhat singularly) sufficiently specific to count as one violation if one disregards the compliance language. 2022-11-17 "Inspection": No such inspection exists for this date. Current staff seems to have misinterpreted an entry that Inspector Green’s made in her case notes on this date in lieu of conducting the previously scheduled compliance re-inspection, which was delayed by the administrative appeal process. (Case Notes Att. IV, p. 11: Other Activity: 11/17/22.) No actual notice in the staff report corresponds with this spurious entry. Certainly, a non-existent inspection with no notice documentation cannot stand as a “violation” to be counted towards revocation. The count stands at 1 (at most).
2023-02-09 "Inspection": Again, as noted above at the end of the entry for the 2022-08-15 Inspection (second to last paragraph there), no inspection occurred on this date. The notice generated on this date only repeats word-for-word the specific factual allegations from that earlier inspection and notice (not sent until 10/13/22). (Att. IV, pp. 55-58.) This notice was only intended to reschedule the compliance re-inspection from that earlier notice that had been 4 delayed by the administrative appeal process. This is in no way a separate violation and should not count as a second one towards revocation.
Therefore, of these five earlier (before 2025, all "occurring" between April 2022 and February 2023) alleged violations, of which current staff suggests that four should count towards revocation, only one can possibly count. And even that one is unclear as it was not intended to be punitive, but rather oriented toward compliance, which Haroon achieved by the deadlines.
After of a gap of almost 3 years—and after receiving a $153,000 Cal DOJ tobacco enforcement grant—Code Enforcement returned with a new team and a new attitude apparently of enforcement, punishment, and revocation, over compliance. 2025-11-17 Inspection: Inspector Prins visited on an “annual” inspection and in this notice again asks for compliance within 30 days by removal of the o]ending products (cigar packages of less than five per, confusingly-named unflavored “Swisher Sweets” cigars, imitation mushroom gummies—all legal under state law, but not in Hayward). Haroon promptly complied, and Inspector Prins then closed the case and noted its Status as “Passed” on the “Resolved Date: 12/10/25.” (StaJ Report, Attachment IV, pages 13, 15.) INITIAL CONCLUSION:
Haroon has already paid a $1,500 penalty for that most recent violation. Code Enforcement has never sought any other penalty or suspension throughout this five-year process. The new CE team wants to unfairly (and illegally) count all the early cooperative compliance inspections that were resolved and closed years ago without penalty—all under a single case, Case# 22-0507 which lasted from 3/28/2022 to 3/6/2023.
They also want to skip any progressive enforcement, no suspensions ever, and immediately revoke based on the old compliance inspections where Haroon worked cooperatively to address the identified issues and was told by Inspector Green that there would be no further consequences This is unfair. Haroon already paid the penalty imposed—without asserting his right to a hearing on it. It is unfair for CE to now turn around and demand more punishment under these circumstances.
Based on all the above, two is not three, and CE’s assertions otherwise are illegal, without factual basis, and unfair. CE’s case fails, and you must grant this appeal and deny the revocation.
This is an open and shut case.
IF YOU FIND 3 VIOLATIONS, THE ABOVE FACTS AND ARGUMENT, AND FURTHER MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFERENTIATING HAROON, ARE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT A PENALTY LESS THAN REVOCATION IS WARRANTED:
If you find 3 violations, please consider all the above, especially Haroon’s track record of cooperation with Inspector Green’s original research and education in the implementing phase 5 of the new ordinance, his prompt on-time compliance with every compliance deadline, and the confusion in the early notices which lacked any facts. Also consider that CE invented a whole inspection that never happened: 11/17/22. And that they are double-counting the 8/15/22 inspection again on 2/9/23. And of course, that the 7/6/22 notice has zero facts in it.
Further, please consider that Haroon has never engaged in, or been cited for:
• Sales to minors, or
• Sales of anything illegal under state law like cannabis or actual psilocybin mushrooms, or hidden doors and compartments, or
• Untaxed/out-of-state cigarettes, or
• Any of the various other unsavory practices that the Planning Commission took issue with in revoking the other TRLs.
And unlike several of the other shops revoked by Planning Commission, he is not an “absentee owner.” He lives about 20 minutes away in Milpitas and works at the shop every day. He is very much a hands-on owner; he currently only has one employee who sometimes works at the shop with him.
A NOTE ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND THE ONE COURT PROCEEDING:
Haroon did appeal two early compliance inspection reports, aka “Notices of Violation,” because of their confusing mixed message: 30 days to comply or make progress towards compliance vs. only 10 days to appeal to avoid possible suspension or fines. He appealed the very first one (4/13/22)—and the City (Code Enforcement, but really the City Attorney) because the Hearing O]icer agreed with Haroon that the notice was so vague (no facts) as to fail to provide meaningful due process under constitutional law. This is the one that the Sta] Report says they “decided to rescind” without mentioning that they were challenged at hearing and lost. (StaJ Report, Attachment IV, pages 1.)
The second one that he appealed (the third one, 8/15/22, the second one counted by CE) also contained the mixed message, and he also wanted to test the legal theory that the new tobacco ordinance violated his constitutional property rights by erasing his grandfathered rights out of the Zoning Code. That time it went all the way through administrative hearing. On 2/28/2023 the Hearing O]icer upheld the City’s allegations of “violation,” but the City did not impose any suspension or fine. However, the Hearing O]icer’s written decision gave no legal reasoning for rejecting Haroon’s lawyer’s argument that his previously recognized grandfathered land use rights were being violated by the new ordinance amendments. In May 2023, Haroon and some other shop owners decided to take his case to court to assert the constitutional property rights to run the grandfathered businesses the same way they did legally, when they first opened, many years before the City passed any of its tobacco ordinances in its Zoning Code. 6 After 16 months of protracted (and expensive) litigation, that the City Attorney’s o]ice vigorously defended, Haroon decided to drop that case in late August 2024 without ever actually adjudicating any of the constitutional issues.
CONCLUSION:
Imagine if County Health inspected your favorite local restaurant, wrote up a Notice of Violation with a list of corrective actions and a 30-day compliance re-inspection date, came back and found that the restaurant had complied, gave it a grade of Pass… and then wanted to use that “violation” as grounds for shutting them down?
That is exactly what Code Enforcement is asking you to do to Haroon. You can and should grant this appeal and deny the revocation with this MOTION: I move to uphold the appeal and deny the revocation because Code Enforcement has not shown three violations in five years.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ James Anthony
James Anthony, attorney for SNA Trading, Inc.
VERIFICATION:
I, Haroon Ahmed, verify that the factual assertions in this Appeal Statement are true of my own knowledge.
s/Haroon Ahmed
Haroon Ahmed