Hayward City Council
October 13, 2026

UNIDENTIFIE
D
48:15
138:5
unique
49:5
United
50:3 51:6
unlawful
51:6
71:24
128:18
unlimited
105:2
107:3
unmarked
126:9
unmuted
80:19
unpaid
74:20
unplaying
135:23
unposted
47:10
unreasonabl
e
136:9
untaxed
128:19
untracted
8:4
unusual
17:2
updated
139:16
156:1
upgrades
5:12
upheld
71:12
96:22
uphold
46:11
117:6
157:1
user
12:15
UTL
112:19
113:3,5,
17 V
valid
22:6
validity
96:1
vape
47:5
49:11,25
50:5,24
51:3,14,
16 52:9,
11 70:16
72:14
88:13
89:4
115:18
121:18
125:9
127:1,12
128:9
vapes
64:2,19
72:8
101:4,7,9
vaping
71:3,4,5
89:3
variance
43:24
variety
23:17
vehicle
52:10
vehicles
51:18
verbally
130:5
verify
45:19
50:6
139:16
versus
56:1,3
147:11
vested
131:21
137:13,14
vice
20:5 48:8
video
130:22
151:5,15,
16 videos
49:10
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: Tyler..videos
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
137:21
view
116:4
127:17
Vigilia
17:8,16
18:2,7,
12,15,22
19:3,6,9,
21,24
28:3,21
30:19
31:9,22,
25 32:6
36:10
48:8,12,
14 60:14,
23,25
76:18
78:6,20
79:1,5,11
81:9
82:8,12
83:3,4
84:13
violate
53:2 64:9
122:1
126:22
128:25
136:11
violated
59:15
106:9
108:7
115:17
147:15,18
violates
136:4,13
violating
46:25
50:13
83:12
violation
25:1 26:6
37:2,3
39:16
43:8,14,
16,18
51:19
58:19
59:3,18
70:24
71:13
72:10
74:21,22,
25 86:1,
2,16,19
87:17
88:20
92:8
95:24
97:1,6,7
106:4
108:4
109:5
110:3
131:10,
11,16
133:6
134:7,19,
21,22,24
137:4,5
139:21
143:14,
15,17,18,
21 144:6,
8,9,13,15
148:8,10
149:8,16
150:12,
13,25
151:11
152:3,5,
12,14,17
154:4
157:25
violations
16:11
20:19
22:22
23:2,3,25
24:11
25:3,7,
10,12,18
27:2,4,6,
8 34:4,22
35:10
37:17,25
45:16,19
46:6
47:14
49:8,13,
18,22,23,
24 50:11,
15,16,21
51:1,11,
20,21,25
52:4
53:1,4,10
56:12
59:1,8,
17,20,22,
23 60:4,
5,9 62:20
64:1,10
65:6
68:19
70:10,12,
15,23
72:12,13,
19,23
73:14,19,
25 74:12,
14 75:2
80:2,3,5
85:2,11
86:5
88:3,5
89:9
92:10,11
94:5,7
95:20,22
96:9,11,
22,24
97:5,11
100:23
101:16
105:14,
15,22
107:25
108:8
117:2
120:4,24
121:1,8,
10,15,19,
21,25
122:3,9
123:24
124:25
125:8,11,
18,19
126:13,
24,25
127:21
128:4,16,
24 129:2,
8 133:1,9
134:5
138:24
143:20
149:19
151:3
153:10
154:20
155:1
156:8,10
159:8,11
160:8
violators
125:2
virtual
75:12
virtually
75:23
visit
88:7 97:5
visual
23:10
72:25
98:21
volume
31:24
voluntarily
55:6
vote
26:19,20
117:19
voted
8:9 10:15
votes
10:17
W
wait
29:20
77:14
145:7
waiting
19:22
59:10
60:18
93:3
walk
9:20
wall
99:24
100:9
walled
30:22
wanted
13:14
14:9 18:3
32:4 41:5
58:10
69:11
79:15
91:24
98:19
100:16
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: view..wanted
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
119:23
159:22
160:21
warning
150:13
warranted
27:12
56:15
106:16
Wastewater
5:12
watch
137:23
water
4:13 5:4,
6,8,10,18
8:4,5
14:14,15,
19 59:5
waxes
71:7
week
146:21
weekly
102:25
weeks
35:18
106:24
146:14
weigh
67:23
weighing
147:10
well-being
6:1 46:8
West
49:4
53:3,10
68:18
wet
145:10
whichever
151:1
wide
100:7,8
wife
12:16
wildlife
4:24 5:3,
22 willingness
126:22
win
135:24
wind
109:10
windfalls
133:2
wine
65:13
witnesses
17:5,10,
23 18:1
79:8,14
105:18
Wonderful
9:2
wondering
33:6
55:25
56:4
words
27:5
110:16
work
37:23
43:9
47:17
48:1
57:10
64:4
85:4,5
118:2
155:22
worked
49:9
155:15
working
12:14
works
44:9 60:2
78:19
82:2
150:18
world
8:4
worried
147:19
worry
151:19
worse
136:21
wrap
5:24
wraps
127:5
Wright
20:5
writing
147:25
written
31:20
32:3
154:3
wrong
95:20
111:3
Y
year
33:7,11
74:12,14
87:23
148:7
year's
143:19
years
8:13 23:3
25:10,12
34:4 43:4
45:17
50:6,10
51:7
52:24
59:18
62:4 64:4
65:10,18
70:14
89:1
101:17
105:21
116:2,9
121:23
123:25
126:12
128:22
132:14,17
146:20
148:7
Yorgov
32:9,10,
22 61:24,
25 62:25
103:11,12
107:8
111:4,5,
20,24
112:5,13,
16,25
113:6,15,
20,25
114:3,6
117:21,22
119:4
123:21
149:5,6,
18,23
158:18,19
159:4
160:12,13
young
21:8
47:15
youth
21:6,10
25:16
41:16
45:22
46:8
47:25
72:2
159:11
Z
Zermeno
14:5
zones
104:11
zoning
104:18
Zoom
3:7 11:7
15:18
42:17
63:11
66:22,23
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: warning..Zoom
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
4 5
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 ")4
26 27
28 F. Michael Ayaz (SBN 254973)
Anna Karenina P. Adraneda (SBN 315672)

BLAKE & AYAZ
2107 North Broadway, Suite 106
Santa Ana, California 92706
Telephone: (714) 667-7171
Facsimile: (714) 667-0477
Email: [email protected]

CITY OF HAYWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE
SHOP, an Individual,
Petitioner,
vs.

CITY OF HAYWARD, DOES 1-10
inclusive,
Defendants.

Permit No. CE-TRLPMT-22997
PETITIONER EZZADIN AL! DBA THE
GR8 SMOKE SHOP'S BREIF
Hearing
Date: June 25, 2026
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Hayward City Hall
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Ezzadin Ali, dba The Gr8 Smoke Shop (hereinafter "Petitioner") holder of that certain tobacco retail license under License No. CE-TRLPMT-2297 (the "License") used on or in connection with the operation of a tobacco retailer business located at 1090 La Playa, Hayward, CA 94545 (the "Premises") submits this Brief in support of its defense at the hearing scheduled for June 25, 2026, which the City ofHayward (the "City") seeks to revoke the License that would prevent Petitioner from lawfully selling or offering for sale tobacco products at the Premises.

The City seeks to revoke Petitioner's existing License through an administrative proceeding that would result in the substantial and potentially irreversible deprivation of Petitioner's vested property and business interests. The City has further denied Petitioner's reasonable request for a continuance and refused to produce the complete administrative record and evidentiary materials necessary for meaningful review of the claims against Petitioner and for preparation for the hearing. These actions violate Petitioner's constitutional right of due process in a quasiadjudicatory proceeding affecting a vested property interest.

The threatened revocation of a vested tobacco retailer license constitutes irreparable harm that cannot be remedied through monetary damages or post-hearing judicial review. The balance of equities strongly favors Petitioner, as the City faces only minimal administrative inconvenience, if any, from a brief continuance and production of complete materials already in its possession.

The public interest is served by ensuring that administrative proceedings comply with constitutional due process requirements. Finally, Petitioner demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process claims based on established California authority recognizing that denial of reasonable continuances, failure to disclose the full administrative record, and compressed hearing timelines violate due process in license revocation proceedings.

As such, Petitioner has been forced to defend its License under fundamentally unfair conditions. Petitioner does not seek to prevent the City from proceeding with the revocation hearing, but only to ensure that the proceeding is conducted fairly and in compliance with constitutional requirements.
/ / /
1 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
II. PARTIES
Petitioner, Ezzadin Ali dba The Gr8 Smoke Shop (the "Petitioner") is a tobacco retailer that operates a tobacco retail business at 1090 La Playa, Hayward, California 94545 (the "Premises").

Petitioner holds an existing tobacco retail license issued by the City of Hayward.

Defendant, City ofHayward (the "City") is a municipal corporation that has initiated a tobacco retail license revocation proceeding against Petitioner designated as Case No. CE-TRLPMT22997.

III. TIMELINE OF EVENTS
Petitioner has operated the Premises as a tobacco retailer business since at least as early as March 1, 2019. See Declaration of Ezzadin Ali ("Ali Decl."), ¶2.

On or about May 14, 2026, Petitioner received a Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License (the "Revocation Notice"), alleging the following basis for revocation:
• Violation #I: 4/10/2026 — Flavored tobacco products, out of state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, cannabis pre-rolled joints, and expired licensing.
• Violation #2: 11/26/2025 — Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted licensing.
• Violation #3: 4/10/2024— Hemp products, expired/not posted licensing.

The administrative hearing on the Revocation Notice was originally scheduled for June 11, 2026. Ali Decl., ¶3.

On or about May 21, 2026, Petitioner retained the law firm Blake & Ayaz to assist and represent him in the hearing that is the subject of the Revocation Notice. See Declaration of F.

Michael Ayaz ("Ayaz Decl."), ¶2.

On May 21, 2026, Petitioner's counsel reached out to the City's counsel to inform them of representation and to request at least a 30-day continuance due to Petitioner's counsel's unavailability from June 9 through June 15, 2026. Ayaz Decl., ¶3.

On May 26, 2026, the City denied Petitioner's counsel's request for a continuance. Ayaz Decl., 114.
2 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
On May 29, 2026, Petitioner's counsel sent a demand letter to the City requesting that the June 11, 2026, hearing date be continued for at least thirty (30) days, that the City produce the complete administrative record and all supporting evidence, and that the hearing be reset following full production of the evidentiary record and adequate time for Petitioner's counsel to review such discovery and to prepare for the hearing. The letter advised that the request for continuance was based on counsel's unavailability, the limited time available to obtain and review the administrative record, and various constitutional and procedural concerns in with the proceeding with the hearing. Ayaz Decl., ¶5.

On or about May 29, 2026, the City agreed to continue the hearing to June 25, 2026, and represented that discovery would be produced on or about June 4, 2026. Ayaz Decl., ¶6.

On or about June 4, 2026, the City failed to produce discovery as stated. Ayaz Decl., ¶7.

On or about June 5, 2026, Petitioner's counsel's office requested that the hearing be continued for at least thirty (30) days from the original hearing date (as initially requested) to allow sufficient time to review and prepare the case, and advised that the City had not produced discovery as previously indicated. Ayaz Decl., ¶8.

On or about June 5, 2026, the City produced the evidence the City intends to rely upon at the hearing, which included a Summary of Evidence (the "City's Summary"), Case and Inspection Details (the "City's Inspection Details"), and four (4) notices. The City again denied Petitioner's continuance request. Ayaz Decl., ¶9.

On or about June 8, 2026, Petitioner's counsel again requested a continuance of at least thirty (30) days from the original hearing date based on counsel's unavailability and the need for adequate time to review the late produced discovery. Ayaz Decl., ¶10.

On June 8, 2026, the City denied Petitioner's continuance request. Ayaz Decl., ¶11.

On or about June 14, 2026, despite counsel having been retained by Petitioner, and the City being aware that Petitioner has retained counsel for this matter, the City caused to have served a new Notice ofRevocation of Tobacco Retail License, alleging the following basis for revocation:
• Violation #1: 4/10/2026 — Flavored tobacco products, out of state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, cannabis 3 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
pre-rolled joints, and expired licensing.
• Violation #2: 11/26/2025 — Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted licensing.
• Violation #3: 4/10/2024 — Hemp products, expired/not posted licensing. • Violation #4: 1/25/2023 — Flavored tobacco products, hemp products, vape/electronic smoking devices.
(the "Second Revocation Notice").

Despite being served on or about June 17, 2026, the Second Revocation Notice was dated May 14, 2026. Upon personal service of the Second Revocation Notice, the, City Code Enforcement Officer expressly told Petitioner that it was the same letter "same same" as previously served on May 14, 2026, and notice was only reserved because Petitioner's attorney requested a continuance.

On or about June 18, 2026, the City posted its Staff Report and supporting documents for the hearing, which is the first time (five (5) working days prior to the hearing date) Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel had access to this information. Ayaz Decl., ¶12.

On or about June 18, 2026, Petitioner's counsel informed the City that it intended to submit documents for the Planning Commission to consider, respond to the City's Staff Report and supporting materials, cross-examine witnesses, and request additional time beyond the allotted eight (8) minutes. Petitioner's counsel also indicated that a court reporter would be present at the hearing. Ayaz Decl., ¶13.

On or about June 18, the City's counsel indicated that the City would object to allowing Petitioner more than eight (8) minutes to present its defense, request to cross-examine, or provide the Planning Commission with any additional documents at the hearing. Ayaz Decl., ¶14.

On or about June 22, 2026, a mere three (3) days before the scheduled June 25, 2026 hearing, the City stated that it would agree to continue the hearing only if Petitioner agreed to not sell tobacco products pending the continued hearing date. Ayaz Decl., ¶15. This condition would effectively require Petitioner to cease tobacco sales before any determination of the alleged violations, resulting in a summary suspension of the License without a prior hearing or determination on the merits.
4 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
On or about June 24, 2026, Petitioner's attorney and the City attorney's office engaged in communications regarding hearing procedures wherein the City's attorney confirmed that written materials may be presented which will become part ofthe administrative record. Ayaz Decl., ¶16.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. First Violation Notice
On or about January 25, 2023, the City conducted an inspection of the Premises and alleged that Petitioner violated Sec. 10-1.2783 of the City of Hayward's Municipal Code ("HMC") by offering flavored tobacco products, hemp products, vapes/electronic smoking devices for sale.

On or about February 2, 2023, the City issued and served a Notice of Violation, designated as Case No. CE-TRLENF-2023-00001, alleging that Petitioner violated HMC Sec. 10-1.2783 and stated the alleged violations observed during the January 25, 2023 inspection (the "First Violation Notice"). Upon information and belief, the First Violation Notice was sent via U.S. Mail to Bhupinder Bhandari at 1090 La Playa Dr., HayWard, CA 94545. Importantly,•Bhupinder Bhandari is neither the licensee or business operator and therefore lacks the authority and ability to address the issues identified in the City's First Violation Notice.

On or about February 2, 2023, the City conducted a follow-up inspection ofthe Premises and determined that the Premises was in compliance with all, applicable regulations and that the previously alleged violations had been corrected.

The City's Inspection Details state that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2023-00001 is "Closed — Resolved".

Notably, the original Revocation Notice does not reference this inspection or alleged First Notice of Violation. As such, such evidence and any reliance thereon by the City falls outside the scope ofthe Revocation Notice and should be excluded from consideration.

The Second Revocation Notice, however, does include the alleged violations observed in the First Violation Notice, but according to the City's Municipal Code notice of a public hearing, such as this revocation hearing, must be given at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. See Hayward Municipal Code 10-1.2820(c). Thus, the violation added to the Second Revocation Notice cannot be considered in these proceedings.
5 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. Second Notice of Violation
On or about March 25, 2024, the City conducted an inspection ofthe Premises and alleged that Petitioner violated HMC Sec. 10-2783 for having an expired tobacco retailer license or the failure to post a current license. The City otherwise determined that the Premises was in compliance with applicable City regulations.

The City's Inspection Details indicates that its report for the March 25, 2024, inspection was prepared on or about April 10, 2024. This delay between the alleged inspection, the preparation of the report, and lack of any other notes or material, or evidence produced during discovery raises concerns regarding the liability and accuracy ofthe factual allegations therein.

On or about April 10, 2024, the City issued and served a Notice of Violation designated as Case No. CE-TRLENF-2024-00072, alleging violations related to an expired or unposted current tobacco retailer license (the "Second Violation Notice"). The Second Violation Notice did not identify or allege any tobacco or hemp violations, nor did it state that any impermissible items were being offered for sale at the Premises, or any other violations. Still more, the Second Violation Notice did not include any documents, photographs, recordings, or other material establishing that the Premises had an expired or unposted current tobacco retailer license.

Upon information and belief, the Second Violation Notice was sent via U.S. Mail to Bhupinder Bhandari at PO Box 2701 Fremont, CA 94653-0701. Again, Bhupinder Bhandari is neither the licensee or business operator and therefore lacks the authority and ability to address the issues identified in the Second Violation Notice. Furthermore, the City's own evidence shows that this Second Violation Notice was never served on Petitioner or sent to the Premises. Petitioner, therefore, had no notice of the Second Violation Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware ofits existence.

The City's Summary also includes photographs purportedly taken during the March 25, 2024 inspection. None ofthe photographs, however, contain date or time stamps, and the City has not produced any other reliable data or information establishing when the photographs were taken.

Further, the "expired/not posted licensing" photograph appears to be strikingly similar, if not a cropped version, of a photograph already produced by the City in connection with a different 6 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
inspection. This raises questions regarding the origin, authenticity, and reliability of the photographs, as well as whether the City has improperly attributed photographs from one inspection to another and if such photograph is ofthe Premises or another unrelated location.

The City's Summary and the Revocation Notice indicates that the inspection occurred on April 10, 2024, but the City does not provide any documents or evidence showing an April 10, 2024 inspection. Neither the Inspection Details for March 25, 2025 or the Second Violation Notice identified any hemp-related violations for the March 25, 2025 inspection. The City's Summary of Evidence and Revocation Notice is inconsistent with the City's Inspection Details Report and the Second Violation Notice, which raises concerns regarding the liability and accuracy ofthe factual allegations therein.

Lastly, the City's Inspection Details state that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2024-00072 is "Closed — Resolved".

C. First Administrative Penalty Notice
On or about November 17, 2025, the City conducted an inspection ofthe Premises and alleged violation of HMC 10-1.2783 involving flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies, and violation of HMC 10-1.2785 for having an expired tobacco retailer license or the failure to post a current license.

The City's Inspection Details for the November 17, 2025 inspection indicate that the inspection report was not prepared until on or about April 10, 2026. This significant delay between the alleged inspection and the preparation ofthe report, coupled with the lack ofnotes, supporting materials, or other evidence produced during discovery, raises concerns regarding the reliability, accuracy, and evidentiary value ofthe allegations contained in the report.

On or about November 26, 2025, the City issued and served an Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice, designated as Case No. CE-TRLENF-2025-00105, alleging violations involving flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, mushroom gummies, and expired, or unposted license (the "First Penalty Notice"). The First Penalty Notice did not include any documents, photographs, or admissible evidence demonstrating the alleged violations.

Upon information and belief, the First Penalty Notice was sent via U.S. Mail to Bhupinder 7 EZZADTN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Bhandari at PO Box 2701 Fremont, CA 94653-0701. Again, Bhupinder Bhandari is neither the licensee or business operator and therefore lacks the authority and ability to address the issue's\ identified in the First Penalty Notice. The City's own evidence also shows that the First Penalty Notice was never served on Petitioner or sent to the Premises. Petitioner, therefore, had no notice ofthe First Penalty Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware of its existence.

The City's Summary includes photographs of cigarette packages that it intends to rely upon to suggest that applicable taxes were not paid because no stamp is visible in the photographs. The Revocation Notice does not identify this allegation as a basis to support its revocation action. As Petitioner was not provided notice that this allegation would be asserted, the photographs and any related claim should be excluded from consideration. The photographs also do not establish that the cigarette packages lacked valid stamps. The photographs only show one angle ofthe packages.

Tax stamps may be affixed on the package in an area that is not visible in the photograph. Without photographs of all angles of the packaging, supporting documentation, or testimony establishing that the packages were fully inspected, the photographs are insufficient to support the conclusion that no stamp was present.

The City's Summary and the Revocation Notice identifies November 26, 2025, as the date of the alleged violation when the City's own discovery does not indicate that any inspection occurred on November 26, 2025. Still more, the City's Summary and the Revocation Notice state that the alleged violations are for hemp products, expired/not posted license. As stated above no hemprelated violations were observed on November 17, 2024 or November 26, 2025. This severe inconsistency with the inspection date, the evidence submitted, the alleged violations, and the administrative record raises concerns regarding the liability and accuracy ofthe factual allegations therein.

On or about November 26, 2025, the City issued Invoice No. EG25-26369 for Case No. CETRLENF-2025-00105 in the amount of $1,5000.00 for Fee Name: CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense (the "First Administrative Penalty Fee"). The City's Adopted Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal year 2025-2026, which became effective on July 1, 2025, expressly provides that the penalty for a first offense of the Tobacco Ordinance is "$1,500.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension". The 8 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
City's own assessed penalty confirms that the First Penalty Notice is Petitioner's first offense of the City's Tobacco Ordinance.

Upon information and belief, the First Administrative Penalty Fee was paid. The City's Inspection Details state that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2025-00105 is "Closed — Resolved".

D. Second Administrative Penalty Notice
On or about January 28, 2026, the City conducted an inspection of the Premises and alleged violation ofHMC 10-1.2783 involving flavored tobacco products, out-of-state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, pre-rolled cannabis joints, and violation ofHMC 10-1.2785 for having an expired tobacco retailer license or the failure to post a current license.

The City's Inspection Details for the January 28, 2026, inspection indicates that the report regarding such inspection was not prepared until on or about April 10, 2026. This significant delay between the alleged inspection, the preparation ofthe report, and the issuance ofthe Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice raises concerns regarding the reliability, accuracy, and evidentiary value ofthe allegations therein.

On or about April 10, 2026, the City issued and served an Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice, designated as Case No. CE-TRLENF-2026-00006, alleging violations involving flavored tobacco products, out-of-state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, pre-rolled cannabis joints, and expired or improperly posted licensing (the "Second Penalty Notice"). The Second Penalty Notice does not identify the date of the inspection for which the alleged violations are based, nor does it specify which inspection formed the basis for the cited violations. The Second Penalty Notice was sent via U.S. Mail to Bhupinder Bhandari at PO Box 2701 Fremont, CA 94653-0701. Again, Bhupinder Bhandari is neither the licensee or business operator and therefore lacks the authority and ability to address the issues identified in the Second Penalty Notice. The City's own evidence shows that the Second Penalty Notice was never served on Petitioner or sent to the Premises. Petitioner, therefore, had no notice ofthe Second Penalty Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware ofits existence.

On or about April 10, 2026, the City issued Invoice No. EG26-2737 for Case No. CE9 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
TRLEN1F-2026-00006 in the amount of $1,500.00 for Fee Name: CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense (the "Second Administrative Penalty Fee"). By assessing a penalty that matched the City's first offense penalty schedule, acceptance of payment, the City effectively represented that the alleged violation was being treated as a first offense.

Upon information and belief, the Second Administrative Penalty Fee was paid. The City's Inspection Details state that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2026-00006 is "Closed — Resolved".

E. Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License
On or about May 14, 2026, Petitioner received a Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License dated May 14, 2026, alleging violations that occurred on the following dates: (1) April 10, 2026; (2), November 26, 2025; and (3) April 10, 2024 (the "Revocation Notice"). The Revocation Notice indicated that a hearing on the matter was scheduled for June 11, 2026. The Revocation Notice further indicates that such notice was served via Certified Mail and Posted at Premises. To date, no evidence is shown confirming that the Revocation Notice was served via Certified Mail.

Notably, the City's administrative record does not reflect any violations recorded on those dates.

F. Second Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License On or about June VA) 2026, Petitioner received a second Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License dated May 14, 2026, alleging violations that occurred on the following dates: (1) April 10, 2026; (2), November 26, 2025; (3) April 10, 2024; and (4) January 25, 2023 (the "Second Revocation Notice"). Notably, the City's administrative record does not reflect any violations recorded on those dates. The City personally served the Second Revocation Notice to Petitioner at the Premises, despite the City being aware that Petitioner is represented by counsel. Further, the City did not provide a copy ofthe Second Revocation Notice to Petitioner's counsel of record. The Second Revocation Notice also indicated that the hearing on the matter was continued to June 25, 2026. Still more, the Second Revocation Notice fut=ther indicates that such notice was served via Certified Mail and Posted at Premises. To add to the City's misrepresentations to date no evidence is shown confirming that the Second Revocation Notice was served via Certified Mail.

Furthermore, when serving the Second Revocation Notice, the Code Enforcement officer indicated to Petitioner that the Second Revocation Notice was the same as the initial Revocation 10 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Notice, when clearly, such representation is incorrect and in fact, a material misrepresentation.

Petitioner has and provided herein, video footage with audio capturing the Code Enforcement Officer's material misrepresentations that the Second Revocation Notice was the exact same as the original Revocation Notice.

V. IARGUMENT
A. THE LICENSE IS A VESTED PROPERTY INTEREST PROTECTED BY

DUE PROCESS
Once an agency has exercised its expertise and issued a license, the agency's subsequent revocation of that license generally calls for an independent review of the facts, because the revocation or suspension affects a vested right. Berlinghieri v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1983) 33 Ca1.3d 392, 396 [188 Cal.Rptr. 891, 657 P.2d 383]. Clerici v. Dep't ofMotor Vehicles, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1016, 1023, 274 Cal. Rptr. 230, 234 (1990). Property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money, and safeguard the security of interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits. Petrillo v. BART Dist., 197 Cal. App. 3d 798. A license is considered a vested right protected by due process in circumstances involving existing licenses subject to revocation. Stroh v. Midway Restaurant Systems, Inc., 180 Cal. Appl 3d 1040. Petitioner's private interest in retaining a vested property right is substantial and entitled to the highest protection. Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A.

Cty. Office ofEduc., 57 Cal. 4th 197, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 358, 303 P.3d 1140 (2013).

The City issued Petitioner the License which authorizes Petitioner to lawfully operate its tobacco retailer business. The City's revocation proceeding threatens to deprive Petitioner ofthis vested property interest and therefore heightened procedural due process protections should apply.

These protections require more than a routine hearing, they require adequate notice of charges, disclosure ofthe evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to present a defense before an impartial decision-maker. Where, as here, the City seeks to revoke the License, strict adherence to these procedural safeguards is essential to satisfy constitutional due process requirements. Accordingly, the proceeding is subject to constitutional due process requirements. / / /
11 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. THE CITY'S SELECTIVE AND DELAYED ENFORCEMENT VIOLATES

DUE PROCESS
The timing of the City's enforcement action aligns with the availability of grant funding that was not previously available'. During the 2025-2026 grant cycle, the City was awarded $153,000.00 in funding from the California Department of Justice to support the City's tobacco retailer inspections and retailer education. The California Department ofJustice's website does not show that City received comparable funding, or any funding, in the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, or 2025-2025 grant cycles.

Thus, the record suggests that the alleged activity the City had tolerated for years suddenly became the basis for revocation proceedings only after funding became available. This conclusion is supported by the City's delay in creating records to support its enforcement action. The City's own Case Details show that records documenting the alleged violations were not created until weeks and even months after the alleged violations were purportedly observed. Such delays undermine any claim that the alleged conduct warrants revocation. Instead, it raises questions as to whether the enforcement action was motivated by factors other than the alleged violations themselves. When enforcement decisions are motivated by financial windfalls rather than consistent application of regulatory standards, the government has acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily. Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz, 170 Cal. App. 4th 229. When a governmental entity enforces regulations against one party while ignoring similar conduct by others, or when it delays enforcement for reasons unrelated to legitimate regulatory objectives, the resulting action violates substantive due process guarantees under both the federal and California Constitutions.

Id.

The City's prolonged delay has also substantially prejudiced Petitioner's ability to defend itself. Memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, and records become more difficult to locate as time passes. By waiting years to pursue these allegations, the City has increased the risk of an erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's vested property rights while also impairing Petitioner's ability to present a meaningful defense.
1 See https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/tobacco-grant-2025-2026-grantees.pdf 12 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Even more ironic is the acceptability of the City's delay in investigating and prosecuting these actions while adamantly denying Petitioner's reasonable request to continue the hearing on the matter in order to prepare a proper response and defense. Notwithstanding the City's selfcongratulatory statements in its Staff Report regarding its greatly improved monitoring and inspection process for Tobacco Retail Licenses, it is clear that the behavior ofthe City will not be tolerated by those attempting to defend themselves.

C. THE CITY'S REVOCATION NOTICES VIOLATE DUE PROCESS
"The protections ofprocedural due process apply to administrative proceedings." Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City ofBeverly Hills, 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 90 (2003). A business license, or a tobacco retailer permit such as the License here, is a protected property interest as the City upon review and consideration ofLicensee's application to obtain a business license, issued the License.

Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971). Under California law, due process requires a permit holder (or in this instance the Licensee), notice and an opportunity to be heard before a permit (or license) is revoked. Revocation without notice, a hearing, or evidence is considered a violation of due process and renders the revocation inoperative and without legal force. City of San Marino v.

Roman Catholic Archbishop, 180 Cal. App. 2d 657, 4 Cal. Rptr. 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960); Travers° v. Dep't ofTransp., 87 Cal. App. 4th 1142, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 (Ct. App. 2001). Thus, any revocation action undertaken by a governmental agency, such as the City, must be preceded by proper notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

1. The City Failed to Comply with the Notice Requirements Due process requires that a party facing potential deprivation of a property interest receive adequate notice ofthe charges and access to the evidence upon which the government relies. Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d 605. The City's Revocation Notice is constitutionally and statutorily deficient because it states the dates on which notices were sent, not the dates the alleged violations occurred. Furthermore, the City's Revocation Notice fails to state what time and where the hearing will take place. This fundamental defect deprives Petitioner ofthe ability to prepare an adequate defense and violates both California's Administrative Procedure Act, due process guarantees, and its own municipal code, rendering any hearing based on the defective notice unfair. 13 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
i. The Revocation Notice Fails to State When the Alleged Violations Occurred
California Government Code §11503(a) mandates that an accusation "shall set forth in ordinary and concise language the acts or omissions with which the respondent is charged, to the end that the respondent will be able to prepare their defense." California Government Code §11503. The statute further requires that the accusation "specify the statutes and rules that the respondent is alleged to have violated, but shall not consist merely of charges phrased in the language of those statutes and rules." California Government Code §11503. The overriding purpose ofthese requirements is to enable the accused party to prepare a meaningful defense.

Notice comports with due process where it provides sufficient information, in light ofthe particular circumstances, to "fully and fairly apprise[] [an administrative litigant] of the charges with sufficient certainty to prepare his defense thereto." JMSAir Conditioning & Appliance Serv., Inc. v. Santa Monica Cmty. Coll. Dist., 30 Cal. App. 5th 945, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 197 (2018). At a minimum, fair procedure requires adequate notice ofthe administrative action proposed or taken and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Bollengier v. Doctors Med. Ctr., 222 Cal. App. 3d 1115, 272 Cal. Rptr. 273 (1990). The rules of pleading that apply in ordinary civil actions do not apply to administrative proceedings, but "what is required is disclosure of charges adequate to allow the accused to prepare a defense and to avoid being disadvantaged by surprise at the hearing." Alpha Nu Ass 'n ofTheta XI v. Univ. ofS. Cal., 62 Cal. App. 5th 383, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 (2021).

The Revocation Notice merely states when the notices regarding the alleged violations were sent, not when the violations actually occurred. The inconsistency between the Revocation Notice's stated violation dates and the actual inspection dates in the administrative record creates confusion and demonstrates procedural sloppiness that violates California Government Code §11503's requirement that accusations "set forth in ordinary and concise language the act and omissions with which the respondent is charge". The lack of sufficient notice prevents Petitioner from identifying key witnesses, review relevant records, such as closed caption footage, if any, evaluate the sufficiency ofthe City's allegations, and raise factual defenses related to the particular circumstances.
14 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The distinction between the date a violation notice is sent and the date a violation allegedly occurred is not a mere technicality. As a violation notice may be generated days, weeks, or even months after an alleged incident, as is the case here. The date of mailing reflects only administrative processing, not the operative facts. Advising a licensee that "a notice was sent on April 10, 2026" provides no information about whether the alleged violation occurred on April 10, January 28, or any other date.
ii. The Revocation Notice Fails to State the Time and Place ofHearing Due process requires that notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties ofthe pendency ofthe action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Failure to provide adequate notice, including the time and place of a hearing, constitutes a violation of due process. See Chinese Theater, LLC v. Starline Tours USA, Inc., 115 Cal. App. 5th 1048 (2025).

Notice of a public hearing on a matter going before the Planning Commission or the City Council, whether as a matter of course, on referral, or on appeal, shall be given at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and shall include the date, time and place of hearing. See City of HMC Sec. 10-

1.2820.

Neither the original Revocation Notice nor the Second Revocation Notice identifies the location or the time the administrative hearing will take place. The failure to include this critical information, not once, but twice, deprives Petitioner of basic notice of when and where the proceeding will occur, making any revocation notice provided by the City fatally deficient. iii. The City's New Revocation Notice
On or about June 2026, Petitioner received the Second Revocation Notice which was dated May 14, 2026, alleging violations that occurred on the following dates: (1) April 10, 2026; (2), November 26, 2025; (3) April 10, 2024; and (4) January 25, 2023.

First, the Second Revocation Notice, was not merely a notice of continuation ofthe hearing date, which Petitioner anticipates the City will argue. The Second Revocation Notice is materially different from the original Revocation Notice as the Second Revocation Notice adds an additional violation. The Second Revocation Notice comes just eight (8) days from the hearing date. Pursuant to the City's Code, shall be given at least ten "(10) days prior to the public hearing and shall include , 15 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
*
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 0
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 the date, time, and place ofhearing. See HMC Sec. 10-1.2820(c). The City falls short of complying with their own regulations.

Second, the Second Revocation Notice states that the notice was sent on May 14, 2026, which is another material misrepresentation. The Second Revocation Notice was actually sent on June 17, 2026, as evidenced by the video surveillance footage submitted herewith. The false mailing date creates the appearances that the City acted earlier than it actually did and muddies the true timeline of events. This material misrepresentation raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the City's representations concerning the revocation process, notice, and possibly other representations.

Third, the Second Revocation Notice includes an additional alleged violation which was not included in the original Revocation Notice. The City cannot expand the basis for revocation after the fact by adding new allegations, a mere eight (8) days prior the hearing date, especially since they were not previously noticed. Fundamental principles of due process require that a party receive adequate notice and specific allegations against them and a meaningful opportunity to respond. By introducing an additi9nal alleged violation this late in the process, the City has deprived Petition of fair notice and attempted to alter the basis for revocation. This late addition of new allegations undermines the integrity of the revocation process and further raises concerns regarding the fairness ofthe City's actions.
iv. The Deficiency Cannot be Cured
Petitioner is entitled to notice that is complete on its face, not notice that requires crossreferencing external documents that may or may not have been provided. The statute requires that the accusation itself "set forth in ordinary and concise language the acts or omissions with which the respondent is charged." California Government Code §11503. As the City has, within its possession, records showing the dates ofthe alleged violations, there is no justification for omitting those dates or stating incorrect dates (and factual allegations) in the Revocation Notice. This defect therefore supports a finding that the City did not proceed in the manner required by law. Manning v. Watson, 108 Cal. App. 2d 705, 239 P.2d 688 (1952).

Even ifthe violation notices themselves specify the dates ofthe alleged conduct, requiring 16 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Petitioner to locate and consult those notices to determine the charges creates the very uncertainty and confusion that California Government Code §11503 is designed to prevent. A licensee facing revocation should not be forced to piece together the accusations from multiple documents or guess which prior notices are relevant to the current proceeding. The omission of the hearing time and location from the operative notices deprives Petitioner of constitutionally adequate notice and renders the proceeding fundamentally unfair. Here, the City's failure to provide complete and legally adequate notice, including omitting the time and place of the hearing, deprives Petitioner of a fair administrative process and renders the proceedings procedurally defective. v. The City's Improper Notice is Prejudicial to Petitioner Prejudice is inherent in the denial of adequate notice. Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to investigate the factual circumstances surrounding the alleged violations, to gather exculpatory evidence, and to present a defense tailored to the specific dates in the Revocation Notice. The inability to identify relevant witnesses, when the alleged events actually occurred, and review relevant and probative material surrounding the circumstances of the alleged violations renders any hearing fundamentally unfair.
vi. The Appropriate Remedy is to Vacate the Hearing Date As Petitioner has established that the Revocation Notice is deficient on its face, the revocation proceeding must be set aside and be dismissed. To uphold a revocation based on deficient notice would undermine the protections that the Administrative Procedure Act and due process guarantee to all licensees facing disciplinary action. Should the City decide to revoke, despite the issues raised, Petitioner will seek any and all legal and equitable remedies available to it.

D. The City Must Afford Reasonably Fair Hearings in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
Due process "always requires ... [the] 'constitutional floor' of a 'fair trial in a fair tribunal,' in other words, a fair hearing before a neutral or unbiased decision-maker." Id. (quoting Bracy v.

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-905 (1997) and Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 43 (1975)). "A fair tribunal is one in which the judge or other decision maker is free of bias for or against a part." 17 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Morongo Band ofMission Indians v. California State Water Resources Control Board (2009) 731 Ca1.4th 737. When local agencies act in a quasi-judicial capacity, they must afford parties a reasonably fair hearing. Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City ofBeverly Hills, 108 Cal. App. 4th 81.

California courts have recognized that statutory administrative procedures have been augmented with common law rules to promote fair hearings and effective judicial review. Roth v. City ofLos Angeles, 53 Cal. App. 3d 679. Courts have required agencies to give notice and hold hearings, afford opportunity to rebut evidence, and allow appropriate procedures even when not strictly required by statute. Roth, 53 Cal. App. 3d 679. The standards for adequate administrative hearings are largely judge-made law developed to ensure fairness. Id. As will be discussed below, the City's procedures fail to provide the "fait' tribunal" and "level playing field" that due process demands.

Shaw v. Cty. ofSanta Cruz, 170 Cal. App. 4th 229, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 186 (2008).

The City of Hayward, as a local agency conducting a quasi-judicial license revocation proceeding, must provide Petitioner with proper notice and a fair hearing that comports with due process requirements. The City's conduct falls short ofthis standard. The Revocation\ Notice alone was deficient. Furthermore, the City has violated this requirement by denying a reasonable continuance despite good cause, the unavailability of counsel and the limited time to prepare for the hearing. Notwithstanding the unqualified representations ofthe City's attorney when denying Petitioner's request, California courts have recognized that denial of continuances under such circumstances may constitute reversible error, and that administrative due process requires timely disclosure of evidence to permit meaningful preparation.

1. The City's Application of Different Standards of Proof Risks Unfairness
The City's Staff Report indicates that different standards of proof will be applied to the City and Petitioner.

The City bears the burden of proof under the "preponderance of evidence" standard. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, is the default standard in civil proceedings which requires that the evidence demonstrate a fact is "more likely true than not true". In re Terry D., 83 Cal. App. 3d 890 (1978), Conservatorship of0.B., 9 Cal. 5th 989 (2020). 18 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
By contract, the City contends that Petitioner must satisfy the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. The California Supreme Court has defined "clear and convincing evidence" as evidence "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt" and "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind". In re Angelia P.,28 Cal. 3d 908 (1981), In re Terry D., 83 Cal. App. 3d 890 (1978), Utility Consumers 'Action Network v. Public Utilities Corn., 187 Cal. App. 4th 688 (2010). This standard requires a finding of "high probability" ofthe truth ofthe facts asserted. In re Angelia P., 28 Cal. 3d 908 (1981), Conservatorship of 0.B., 9 Cal. 5th 989 (2020).

By requiring the City to prove its case by preponderance while requiring Petitioner to prove defenses by clear and convincing evidence, the City, has engineered a structural advantage that violates the equal distribution of risk inherent in due process. The City's allegations need only be slightly more probable than not, while Petitioner's defenses must be proven to a near certainty.

This does not create a level playing field.

Moreover, the staff report implies the City's burden of proof is pursuant to HMC Section 10-1.2794. However, nowhere in that section or chapter of the HMC is the City's burden articulated. Staff attempts to convince the Planning Commission that it merely needs to show up, lump all Tobacco Retail Licensees under one staff report with indiscernible allegations, and it has met its burden of proof Meanwhile, the licensee must refute those claims with clear and convincing evidence.

Furthermore, the use of differing standards of proof within the same proceeding could create an imbalance that unfairly disadvantages one party. As noted in H.S. v. N.S., 173 Cal. App. 4th 1131 (2009), the preponderance of the evidence standard distributes the risk of error equally between the parties, while the clear and convincing evidence standard shifts the risk to one party to protect important rights. H.S. v. NS., 173 Cal. App. 4th 1131 (2009). Applying different standards to the parties could undermine this balance and increase the risk of an erroneous deprivation of rights, potentially violating due process. Both parties should be held to the same standard of proofto ensure fairness and compliance with constitutional protections. / / /
19 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

2. Unequal Deadlines Create an Risk of Erroneous Deprivation The City requiring Petitioner to submit all documents before ever seeing the City's staff report, while the City can withhold its own staff report until five (5) working days before the hearing, deprives Petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to review the City's case, investigate the staff's findings, prepare rebuttal evidence, or formulate responsive legal arguments. Receiving the staff report only five (5) working days before the hearing does not constitute a "meaningful time" to respond. Miller v. Dep't ofReal Estate, 84 Cal. App. 5th 141, 300 Cal. Rptr. 3d 189 (2022). A party cannot meaningfully "rebut evidence" when it receives that evidence so late that the party lacks a reasonable opportunity to investigate, analyze, and respond to it before the hearing.

This procedural imbalance creates the very type of unfairness that due process is intended to prevent. The City essentially demands full access to the information to support Petitioner's defense and ample time to prepare its position, while Petitioner would not receive the City's staff report and supporting materials until five (5) working days before the hearing. Moreover, the City has had ample years to prepare its _case. The Staff Report is materially different from City's Summary of Evidence.

This leaves Petitioner with insufficient time to review the evidence, investigate the City's claims, gather responsive evidence, consult with experts, and prepare a meaningful defense. A fair process requires that Petitioner have a reasonable opportunity to review and respond to the evidence being used against it before facing the potential loss ofthe License. There is no legitimate reason for the Staff Report to be available mere days before the hearing.

Additionally, the City's initial Revocation Notice requires Petitioner to submit any information or documentation for Planning Commission's consideration at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date. The City's attorney has insisted this requirement is not negotiable and any attempts otherwise would not be tolerated. Nevertheless, as stated above, the City served its Second Revocation Notice, alleging a new additional violation, a mere eight (8) days before the continued hearing date, in contravention to their own code, denying any ability to address this added violation ifthe fourteen (14) day deadline were adhered to. See HMC Sec. 10-1.2820(c).

The City's uneven application of deadlines is fundamentally unfair and constantly "moves 20 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the goalposts", changing the rules and conditions of the process already in progress to gain an unfair advantage or make Petitioner's ability to successfully defend himself impossible.

3. The City Abused its Discretion by Imposing Unreasonable Time Limitations on Petitioner's Presentation at the Hearing The City's Revocation Notice(s) indicate that Petitioner will only be allotted up to eight (8) minutes to address the Planning Commission during the hearing. When a vested property interest is at stake, limiting a petitioner's time to speak and present evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion ifthe limitations prevent meaningful presentation of the case. While administrative bodies possess discretion to manage proceedings efficiently and impose reasonable time limits, that discretion is not unlimited. Toda's Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. Cty. Office ofEduc., 57 Cal. 4th 197, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 358, 303 P.3d 1140 (2013). Time limits must be "reasonable and tailored to the circumstances," and they "do not inherently constitute an abuse of discretion unless they result in a fundamentally unfair proceeding." Where the City seeks to revoke a vested property interest, due process requires that Petitioner be afforded adequate time to "present [their] side of the story before a responsible governmental official." People v. Bedrossian, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1070, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 697 (2018). The City's eight (8) minute time limit will likely prevent Petitioner from calling all necessary witnesses, introducing essential evidence, fully presenting its case, cross-examining witnesses the City intends to present, among other limitations. Those limitations constitutes an abuse of discretion and violate due process. The City cannot claim administrative efficiency as a defense when the consequence is denial of a fair hearing on matter concerning a vested property right.

4. The City's Denial of a Reasonable Continuance Violates Due Process The City denied Petitioner's continuance request despite the existence of good cause and the absence of any prejudice to the City. California courts have established that denial of a reasonable continuance may constitute reversible error and an abuse of discretion where it deprives a party of a meaningful opportunity to prepare and be heard. Denton v. City and County ofSan Francisco, 16 Cal. App. 5th 779. Continuances may not be denied where doing so results in substantial 21 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 prejudice or injustice to the affected party. See Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriffs Dept., 8 Cal.

App. 5th 759.

The unavailability of counsel due to conflicting obligations may constitute good cause for continuance where the conflict is unavoidable and denial would prejudice the party's ability to present its case. Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 164 Cal. App. 4th 858. Attorney scheduling conflicts and calendar-management concerns are legitimate considerations within the continuance analysis and cannot be resolved in a manner that unfairly prejudices the represented party. People v. Johnson, 26 Cal. 3d 557. The unavailability of counsel due to excusable circumstances may constitute good cause for continuance where necessary to serve the interests of justice. Forrest v. Department ofCorporations, 150 Cal. App. 4th 183.

Petitioner's counsel was specifically retained based on substantial experience with tobacco and alcohol licensing enforcement matters and familiarity with the constitutional issues implicated in the proceeding. Counsel's unavailability stems from unavoidable personal obligations that predate the hearing schedule.

The City has made no showing that witnesses would become unavailable, evidence would be lost, or exigent circumstances require proceeding on the currently scheduled date. In fact, as shown above, the opposite is the case where significant delay has occurred by the City in investigating and prosecuting the alleged violations, some which the City claim occurred more than three (3) years ago. The City's reliance on calendar management concerns cannot justify curtailing constitutional due process protections. The denial of the continuance request deprives Petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

5. The City's Failure to Produce the Complete Administrative Record Administrative due process may require disclosure where denial of access to evidence would substantially impair a party's ability to prepare and present its case. California Teachers Assn. v.

California Com. on Teacher Credentialing, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1001, Miller v. Department ofReal Estate, 84 Cal. App. 5th 141. The City has not produced the complete administrative record, including investigative reports, witness statements, photographs, recordings, communications, 22 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
41104111•••• 4110••••••••••••••• ••••••04)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
education and compliance focused inspection materials, outreach efforts, and any other related documentary materials.

The City initially directed Petitioner to submit a Public Records Act request to obtain evidence.

This approach is improper. A PRA request requires time to prepare, submit, and await response.

The mismatch between the PRA timeline and the hearing schedule, along with the City's uneven application of deadlines, as it applies to Petitioner, renders this suggestion impractical and inconsistent with due process. The City's reliance on a separate statutory process effectively shifts the burden to Petitioner to discover evidence that the City possesses and upon which it intends to rely. Due process requires that the government provide notice ofthe charges and a fair opportunity to respond, it does not require the accused party to conduct its own investigation through administrative requests while the government withholds its evidence.

After several requests for the City to produce the administrative record, the documents produced by the City reveal that the alleged inspections occurred on one date, yet the inspection report was created at a later date, and at times months later. The absence of records establishing what was observed during the inspections, who made the observations, when those observations were recorded, or whether the reports accurately reflect the underlying facts, coupled with substantial delay between the alleged inspections and preparation of the reports, raises serious concerns regarding the reliability, accuracy, and evidentiary value ofthe City's allegations. Where the agency's findings are devoid of evidentiary support or are based upon inferences arbitrarily drawn and without reasonable foundation, the administrative order will be ieversed as not being supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Clerici, supra, 224 Ca1.App.3d at 1024; citing Lorimore v. State Personnel Board (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 183, 187 [42 Cal.Rptr. 640].

The City's failure to produce this information prejudices Petitioner's ability to evaluate the factual basis for the allegations, assess the credibility and reliability ofthe City's evidence, conduct meaningful cross-examination, and prepare an adequate defense. Forcing Petitioner to relay on the incomplete records and reports prepared days, even months, after the alleged inspection would be fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with the basic principles of administrative due process. 23 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
E. Revocation Based on a Technical/Administrative Discrepancy is Disproportionate
Even if Petitioner failed to properly display its tobacco retailer license, such a violation is fundamentally different from violations involving unlawful tobacco sales or other actions that directly threaten public health, safety, and wellbeing ofthe community. A failure to post a license is, at most, a technical or administrative violation. The City has not alleged, nor can it demonstrate, that the absence of a posted license resulted in any harm to the public, impaired regulatory enforcement, facilitated unlawful sales, or otherwise endangered the health, safety, or wellbeing ofthe community.

Given the nature of the alleged violation, using such alleged violation to impose the most severe sanction available is disproportionate and constitutes an abuse of discretion. If a violation occurred, a warning, corrective notice, or fine would adequately address the City's regulatory interests and accomplish the stated goals of the ordinance, which is compliance. Treating an alleged failure to post a license as a qualifying violation for purposes of escalating penalties and counting it as a basis to revoke the License would improperly equate a technical administrative oversight with substantive violation that directly implicate public health and safety. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the purpose ofthe regulatory scheme and would produce an arbitrary and unreasonable result.

F. The City's Mischaracterization of the Alleged Violations The City repeatedly characterized Petitioner's alleged violations as a "first offense" and assessed the $1,500.00 fee applicable to first offenses according to the City of Hayward's Master Fee Schedule. At no point did the City classify any alleged violation as a second, third, or fourth offense, nor did the City impose the increased penalties associated with subsequent offenses.

Based on the City's represented representation and its assessment offirst-offense penalties, Petitioner reasonably believed, that it had cured or "resolved" (as stated in the City's Case Detail) each alleged violation and that no prior violation remained pending for purposes of future penalty enhancement.

Ifthe City intended subsequent offenses to constitute second, third, or fourth offenses, it 24 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
had the obligation to provide clear notice of that determination. Instead, the City consistently characterized the alleged violations as first offense(s). Having repeatedly represented that the violations were first offenses, the City cannot retroactively classify them as second, third, or fourth offenses for purposes ofimposing the harshest penalty, revocation. Such a position is inconsistent with the City's own notices and fee assessments and deprives Petitioner of fair notice of the consequences'the City now seeks to impose.

Fundamental fairness and due process require that a party receive clear notice of both the nature of the alleged violations and the consequences that may result from them. As the City repeatedly designated these alleged violations as first offenses and never informed Petitioner that they would be counted as second, third, or fourth offenses, the City's attempt to rely upon those violations as a basis for revocation should be rejected.

The City may contend that its designation of each violation as a "first offense" merely reflected that it was the first alleged violation assessed during a particular year. Even ifthat is the City's interpretation, the City's notice failed to communicate that distinction to Petitioner. Nor did the notices state that a violation designated as a "first offense" would nevertheless be counted toward a cumulative total for revocation purposes over a five-year period. To the contrary, the City assessed only first offense penalties and identified each matter as "resolved' reinforcing Petitioner's reasonable understanding that the matter had been fully resolved and would not later be aggregated with other alleged violations to support a revocation.

G. Petitioner will Suffer Irreparable Harm
Petitioner has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result ofthe City's enforcement ofthe summary revocation ofthe License. The harm suffered by Petitioner includes, but is not limited to the violation of Petitioner's due process rights, loss of business and business income, reputational damage; the revocation also jeopardizes Petitioner's leasehold interest in the Premises and causes significant economic harm to its employees, whose well-being and livelihood depend on the continued operation of the business under the License. These harms cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages alone. The threatened revocation would result in permanent loss of the business license, destruction of business operations and goodwill, and 25 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
deprivation ofthe constitutional right to a fair hearing. These harms cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages or post-hearing judicial review because the business opportunity will have been lost during any period of closure.

Petitioner faces irreparable harm if the hearing proceeds as scheduled. The threatened revocation of the tobacco retail license would result in permanent loss of the business license, destruction of business operations, and deprivation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing.

These harms cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages or post-hearing judicial review.
- The loss of a business license that is essential to lawful operation cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages. Once the license is revoked, Petitioner cannot operate its tobacco retail business at the licensed location. This deprivation is not compensable through damages because the license itself cannot be replaced by monetary compensation, and the business opportunity will have been lost during any period of closure.

Post-hearing legal remedies are inadequate to address the harms Petitioner faces. While Petitioner might theoretically pursue judicial review after an adverse hearing, such remedies come too late to prevent the irreparable harms. Monetary damages cannot substitute for the loss of a business license and the ability to operate. By the time judicial review occurs, the license will have been revoked and the business will have suffered the full consequences ofthe deprivation.

The procedural defects in the current hearing process cannot be cured through post-hearing review. If Petitioner is forced to defend its license without adequate time to prepare and without access to the full evidentiary record, the prejudice ofthat unfair process will have already occurred.

A later finding that the process was deficient does not undo the harm of having been subjected to that deficient process in the first place.

The deprivation of due process itself constitutes irreparable harm. A constitutional violation cannot be adequately remedied by damages because the harm is to the integrity ofthe legal process and Petitioner's fundamental right to a fair hearing. The right to adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and access to the evidence is a fundamental procedural protection that cannot be restored once violated.
26 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 .28
The threatened harm is imminent and urgent. The hearing is being heard on June 25, 2026, only days away. The City has already denied Petitioner's continuance request, demonstrating its intent to proceed on the scheduled date.

1. Balance of Equities Favor Petitioner
In proceeding with the hearing despite the various procedural due process errors noted above, Petitioner has been deprived of the procedural safeguards designed to ensure that license revocations are based on proper legal standards rather than subjective decisions and arbitrary or unsupported allegations. Such continued enforcement will continue to cause Petitioner irreparable harm which cannot be adequately and fully remedied by monetary damages alone. Petitioner has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to the violations of Petitioner's due process rights, loss of business and business income, reputational damage; the revocation also jeopardizes Petitioner's leasehold interest in the Premises and causes significant economic harm to its employees, whose well-being and livelihood depend on the continued operation ofthe business under the license.

Petitioner faces substantial harm ifthe hearing proceeds as scheduled: potential revocation of a vested business license, loss ofbusiness operations, and deprivation of due process. The inability to present a meaningful defense due to lack of evidence and inadequate preparation time creates irreparable harm to the business.

The City would face minimal harm ifthe hearing is postponed. The City's concerns are limited to administrative inconvenience and calendar management. The City must produce investigative materials already in its possession, which requires only administrative effort, not the expenditure of substantial resources or the undertaking of new investigative work. The City has made no showing that witnesses would become unavailable, evidence would be lost, or exigent circumstances require immediate resolution.

The harm to Petitioner significantly outweighs the harm, if any, to the City. Petitioner's property and business interests are substantially more significant than the City's administrative convenience. The City's primary concern appears to be calendar management, which cannot justify curtailing constitutional rights and due process protections. 27 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Petitioner acted promptly in seeking relief. The continuance request was promptly made on May 29, 2026, providing the City with advance notice. The City's denial ofthis reasonable request demonstrates that any hardship the City now claims is self-inflicted. The City had ample opportunity to accommodate a modest continuance and to produce the investigative materials.

A brief continuance and production ofthe evidentiary record would not have prevented the City from pursuing revocation, they will only ensure that the proceeding is fair and orderly.

The balance of equities strongly favors Petitioner. Petitioner faces loss of its business and deprivation of due process, while the City faces only administrative inconvenience and the minimal burden ofproducing materials already in its possession and proceed in a fair hearing. The City has demonstrated no prejudice.

Additionally, the City's conduct in this matter reflects a broader pattern of enforcement actions that, if continued, will, and have harmed other similarly situated businesses. This pattern risks a chilling effect on lawful business operations and undermines confidence in the fairness and consistency of municipal licensing enforcement.

Allowing the City to proceed, and a decision to revoke, despite inadequate notice, an incomplete administrative record, and insufficient time for Petitioner to review the evidence and prepare its defense would undermine the integrity of the administrative process and the constitutional protections afforded to all citizens and business.

Allowing the City to revoke a vested business license without affording due process would harm not only Petitioner but also public confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of administrative proceedings.

Administrative convenience, sloppiness, misrepresentations, and calendar congestion cannot override constitutional rights and due process protections. / / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
28 EZZADIN ALT DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned, Petitioner respectfully requests that the June 25, 2026, hearing be vacated on the grounds that proceeding with, such hearing despite significant violations to , Petitioner's due process rights would be improper and unlawful and violate principles of fairness and due process.

Dated: June 24, 2026 BLAKE & AYAZ
29 EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
3 4
6 7
9 I()
I I
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ
I, F. Michael Ayaz, declare as follows:

1. I am the principal attorney of the law firm Blake & Ayaz (the "Firm"), and I am e licensed to practice in the State of California, and I have personal knowledge of all facts contain herein and if called as a witness I would and could testify thereto.

2. On or about May 21, 2026, Petitioner retained my law firm Blake & Ayaz to assist and represent him in the hearing that is the subject ofthe Revocation Notice.

3. On May 21, 2026, I reached out to the City's counsel to inform them of representation and to request at least a 30-day continuance due to my unavailability from June 9 through June 15, 2026.

4. On May 26, 2026, the City denied my request for a continuance.

5. On May 29, 2026, I sent a demand letter to the City requesting that the June 11, 2026, hearing date be continued for at least thirty (30) days, that the City produce the complete administrative record and all supporting evidence, and that the hearing be reset following full production of the evidentiary record and adequate time for Petitioner's counsel to review such discovery and to prepare for the hearing. The letter advised that the request for continuance was based on counsel's unavailability, the limited time available to obtain and review the administrative record, and various constitutional and procedural concerns in with the proceeding with the hearing. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the demand letter I sent on May 29, 2026.

6. On or about May 29, 2026, the City agreed to continue the hearing to June 25, 2026, and represented that discovery would be produced on or about June 4, 2026.

7. On or about June 4, 2026, the City failed to produce discovery as stated.

8. On or about June 5, 2026, my office requested that the hearing be continued for at least thirty (30) days from the original hearing date (as initially requested) to allow sufficient time to review and prepare the case, and advised that the City had not produced discovery as previously indicated.

9. On or about June 5, 2026, the City produced the evidence the City intends to rely upon at DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the hearing, which included a Summary ofEvidence (the "City's Summary"), Case and Inspection Details (the "City's Inspection Details"), and four (4) notices. The City again denied Petitioner's continuance request.

10. On or about June 8, 2026, I, again, requested a continuance of at least thirty (30) days from the original hearing date based on counsel's unavailability and the need for adequate time to review the late produced discovery.

11. On June 8, 2026, the City denied my continuance request.

12. On or about June 18, 2026, the City posted its Staff Report and supporting documents for the hearing, which is the first time (five (5) working days prior to the hearing date) Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel had access to this information.

13. On or about June 18, 2026, I informed the City that it intended to submit documents for the Planning Commission to consider, respond to the City's Staff Report and supporting materials, cross-examine witnesses, and request additional time beyond the allotted eight (8) minutes.

Petitioner's counsel also indicated that a court reporter would be present at the hearing.

14. On or about June 18, I received an email from the City's counsel indicating that the City would object to allowing Petitioner more than eight (8) minutes to present its defense, request to cross-examine, or provide the Planning Commission with any additional documents at the hearing.

15. On or about June 22, i026, a mere three (3) days before the scheduled June 25, 2026 hearing, the City stated that it would agree to continue the hearing only if Petitioner agreed to not sell tobacco products pending the continued hearing date.

16. On or about June 24, 2026, I and the City attorney's office engaged in communications regarding hearing procedures wherein the City's attorney confirmed that written materials may be presented which will become part ofthe administrative record.

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the email exchanges between my office and the City's counsel's office dated May 21 through June 24, 2026.

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the evidence produced by the City on June 5, 2026.

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Tobacco Grant Program DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
award from the California Department ofJustice for the following Fiscal Years 2022-2023, 2023- 2024, 2024-2025, and 2025-2026 obtained from the California Department of Justice, California Attorney General's Office website at https://oag.ca.gov/tobaccogrants/awards.

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy ofthe relevant portions ofthe City of Hayvvard's Adopted Master Fee Schedule for the Fiscal Year 2025-2026, showing the penalty guidelines for violations of the City's tobacco ordinance. This Exhibit E was obtained from the City of Hayward's publicly available website at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/yourgovernment/documents/master-fee-schedule.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on this 24th day ofJune 2026 at Santa Ana, California.

F. Michael Aya ,declarant
DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ

EXHIBIT A
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
b BLAKE 8 AYAZ
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706
Tel: (714) 667-7171 Fax: (714) 667-0477
[email protected]
www.blakeandayaz.com
May 29, 2026
File No. ALI01-5000
Via E-mail Only
City ofHayward
Attn: Amy Rothman, Deputy City Attorney II
Amy.RothmanAhayward-ca.gov
Re: The Gr8 Smoke Shop I Revocation of Tobacco Retail License Case No.: CE-TRLPMT-22997
Premise Address: 1090 La Playa, Hayward, California 94545 Counsel:

We have reviewed the City's response and respectfully disagree with both its legal conclusions and its stated intention to proceed with the June 11, 2026, hearing absent production ofthe evidentiary record and a reasonable continuance.

At the outset, this is not a routine scheduling dispute. The City seeks to conduct a quasi-adjudicatory administrative proceeding that may result in revocation of a vested business license and substantial deprivation of Respondent's property and business interests. As such, the proceeding is subject to constitutional due process requirements, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to prepare and be heard. (Horn v. County ofVentura (1979) 24 Ca1.3d 605, 612).

The City's denial of the requested continuance fails to adequately account for these constitutional protections. A refusal to grant a continuance that effectively deprives a party of a fair hearing may constitute reversible error. (See Denton v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 779.) Likewise, courts have recognized that although adjudicative bodies face significant calendarmanagement pressures, continuances may not be denied where doing so results in substantial prejudice or injustice to the affected party. (Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759.) The City asserts that undersigned counsel accepted representation "with knowledge oftravel plans" and therefore cannot establish good cause for a continuance. That position is neither legally nor practically supportable. The unavailability of counsel due to a conflicting obligation may constitute good cause where the conflict is unavoidable and denial of the continuance would prejudice the party's ability to present its case. (Bussard v. Department ofMotor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858.).

City ofHayward
May 29, 2026
Page I 2 b
Respondent retained undersigned counsel immediately upon receipt of the Notice in order to protect substantial vested rights under an accelerated hearing schedule established by the City. Existing professional or personal scheduling conflicts do not somehow extinguish a party's right to competent representation and adequate preparation in proceedings carrying significant punitive and economic consequences.

Moreover, the City's position improperly assumes substitute counsel could simply appear interchangeably without prejudice. That is not the case here. Undersigned counsel was specifically retained based upon substantial experience handling tobacco and alcohol licensing enforcement and revocation matters, familiarity with the statutory and constitutional issues implicated herein, and responsibility for development of the anticipated defense strategy. Requiring substitute counsel unfamiliar with the factual record, procedural posture, evidentiary issues, and legal issues would substantially prejudice Respondent's ability to meaningfully prepare and present a defense.

Equally important, the City will suffer no cognizable prejudice from a brief continuance. The request sought only a modest extension, was made promptly upon retention of counsel, and was supported by legitimate scheduling conflicts. The City has made no showing that witnesses would become unavailable, evidence would be lost, or any exigent circumstance requires the matter to proceed on the currently scheduled date.

California courts have repeatedly recognized that denial of a reasonable continuance may constitute an abuse ofdiscretion where it deprives a party of a meaningful opportunity to prepare and be heard. (McGown v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 648, 654.) Courts likewise recognize that attorney scheduling conflicts and calendar-management concerns are legitimate considerations within the continuance analysis and cannot be resolved in a manner that unfairly prejudices the represented party. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Ca1.3d 557, 566-567.). California courts have further acknowledged that the unavailability of counsel due to excusable circumstances may constitute good cause for continuance where necessary to serve the interests ofjustice. (Forrest v.

Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183.).

The City's reliance on the availability ofa "hybrid" appearance is likewise misplaced. Remote access does not cure the inability to prepare a defense without access to the evidence, nor does it mitigate the prejudice resulting from the City's refusal to produce the administrative record in advance of hearing. The issue is not merely physical attendance, but the ability to effectively represent the client in a contested quasi-judicial proceeding involving evidentiary objections, witness examination, confidential attorney-client communications, and real-time review of documentary evidence.

Moreover, Respondent has the right to appear in person, particularly in a proceeding where the City seeks revocation of a significant vested property interest. Personal experience has shown that appearing in person is strategically and operationally more beneficial to all parties and the creation and preservation of an appropriate administrative record. We have the right to appear in person and that is precisely what our client wants in this case, where the City is seeking to revoke a material and vested right.

City ofHayward
May 29, 2026
Page I 3 b
The City's position regarding evidentiary disclosure is equally problematic. Mohilefv. Janovici does not stand for the proposition that an agency may withhold the evidence upon which it intends to rely until immediately prior to hearing. While formal civil discovery procedures may not strictly apply in administrative proceedings, due process nevertheless requires disclosure sufficient to permit meaningful preparation and avoid trial by ambush. The absence offormal discovery procedures does not relieve the City of its obligation to provide adequate notice of the evidence supporting the proposed action. The withholding of evidence until immediately prior to the hearing would undermine the Respondent's ability to prepare a meaningful defense and could result in a fundamentally unfair proceeding.

Providing a staff report one week prior to a license revocation hearing, without production of the underlying investigative materials, witness statements, reports, photographs, recordings, communications, or related documentary evidence falls far short of what due process requires in a proceeding of this nature. Courts have recognized that administrative due process may require disclosure where the denial of access to evidence would substantially impair a party's ability to prepare and present its case. (See California Teachers Assn. v. California Corn. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001; Miller v. Department of Real Estate (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 141.) Access to the underlying evidentiary materials is necessary to evaluate the allegations, assess credibility issues, prepare objections, determine whether expert consultation is required, and meaningfully prepare a defense.

Further, the City's initial directive that Respondent submit a Public Records Act request to obtain the evidence against it is improper. This is an enforcement proceeding, not a public-records dispute.

The City cannot condition access to the evidentiary record upon a separate statutory process governed by entirely different timelines and procedures. The administrative record must be produced as part of the proceeding itself and sufficiently in advance of hearing to permit meaningful preparation.

Finally, the City's reference to the volume of scheduled matters is concerning. Administrative convenience and calendar congestion cannot justify curtailing constitutional rights and due process protections. To the extent the City has calendared more matters than can be fairly adjudicated consistent with due process requirements, the appropriate remedy is adjustment of the hearing calendar, not denial ofreasonable continuances, withholding of evidence, or proceeding in a manner that risks reversible error and judicial invalidation.

Accordingly, this correspondence constitutes Respondent's final request and demand that the City:

1. Vacate the June 11, 2026 hearing date;

2. Produce the complete administrative record and all evidence upon which the City intends to rely, including but not limited to all investigative reports, witness statements, photographs, recordings, inspection reports, notices, communications, and related documentary materials; and

3. Reset the hearing only after full production ofthe evidentiary record, with sufficient time thereafter to permit meaningful preparation and presentation ofRespondent's defense.

City of Hayward
May 29, 2026

Should the City elect to proceed as currently scheduled, Respondent will have no choice but to seek immediate judicial intervention, including, but not limited to, an ex parte application for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunctive relief, and petition for writ of mandate enjoining the hearing from proceeding in violation ofRespondent's due process rights.

The record will reflect that the City was provided a full and fair opportunity to correct these constitutional and procedural defects and declined to do so.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondent remains willing to meet and confer promptly and in good faith regarding a reasonable continuance and production schedule that will permit this matter to proceed in a manner consistent with due process requirements.

BLAKE YAZ
F. Michae Ayaz

EXHIBIT B
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
From: Michael Lawson
To: Mike Avaz; Karen Adraneda
Cc: CityClerk; Sara Buizer; Planning Division; Litigation; Jesse Prins Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 12:13:07 PM
Attachments: image003.onq
image004.ong
image005.ong
image006.ong
Good afternoon,
At the hearing you will be allowed to represent your client's interests by addressing the Planning Commission directly. Your client, and members of the community, are entitled to address the commission directly. You are free to submit any additional written materials which become part of the administrative record. There is no cross-examination of witnesses. The commission generally adheres to procedures established by the City Council in the Council's handbook for time limits for speakers.

The City Attorney's Office has established an ethical wall for prosecutorial and advisory functions in quasi-judicial proceedings of this nature. Deputy City Attorney Rothman is aware of these communications.

Respectfully,
/m

MICHAEL LAWSON I CITY ATTORNEY
777 B Street, 4th Floor I Hayward, CA 94541
0: 510.583.4455 I F: 510.583.3660 I E: MichaellawsonPhavward-ca.gov

HAYWARD
www. ha \rtvard-ca goy
PRIVILEGED COM M UNICATION/ATTORN EY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED:

Information and documents contained in this transmission are legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressee. Any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege against disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

From: Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:30 AM
To: Michael Lawson <[email protected]>; Karen Adraneda <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Litigation <[email protected]>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
CAUT1ON:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Mr. Lawson:

We noticed that Ms. Rothman has been removed from the email chain regarding this matter as of your last correspondence. As we continue to prepare for the hearing tomorrow, we need to know if you and/or staff will be maintaining Ms. Rothman's position, namely that:

1. We will be limited to 8 minutes to present our defense.

2. And that you or the city would object to the submittal(of any additional documents, information, or evidence at the hearing.

3. Cannot question witnesses.

I would note that the "hearing procedures" referenced by Ms. Rothman are not codified in your own code and appear to be arbitrary rules constructed for the city's convenience and frankly give the city an unfair advantage in the proceedings.

In fact, from our reading, the city's code reads to us that any information provide at the hearing shall be part of the record, we see not time limitation for presenting our defense nor a prohibition of questioning witnesses. If you feel that your code does provide such authority, please let us know.

I need to know today so that we can adjust our presentation if you, the city or staff maintain such position on the above.

F. Michael Ayaz
b BLAKE EAYAZ
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 I F: 714-667-0477
E: mikeOblakeandayaz.com I www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without coPying it and notify Blake & Ayaz, A Law Corporation, by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.

From: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhayward-ca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 5:40 PM
To: Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandayaz.com>; Karen Adraneda <karenPblakeandayaz.com> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division <Planning.DivisionPhayward-ca.gov>; Litigation <litigationPblakeandayaz.com>; Jesse Prins <Jesse.PrinsPhayward-ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
Good evening,
Thank you for your email. The City confirms receipt and notes you have likewise confirmed receipt of the Staff Report, which includes the procedures governing the hearing. The City will object to any attempt to violate those procedures, and we caution that an announced intent to disregard the procedures is not a basis for excusing such conduct, but rather compounds it.

The City has no objection to use of a court reporter provided any recording complies with Government Code § 54953.5, and that the presence and arrangements for the court reporter are coordinated with the City Clerk in advance of the hearing. We note that all Commission meetings are video recorded and publicly available online, as well.

Sincerely,

AMY ROTHMAN I DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor I Hayward, CA 94541
0: 510.583.4456 I F: 510.583.3660 I E: [email protected] HAYWARD www.hayward-ca.gov
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED:

Information and documents contained in this transmission are legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressee. Any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege against disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

From: Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandayaz.com>.

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 4:49 PM
To: Amy Rothman <[email protected]>; Karen Adraneda <karenPblakeandayaz.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerkPhayward-ca.gov>; Sara Buizer <Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Litigation <litigationPblakeandayaz.com>; Jesse Prins <Jesse. PrinsP hayward-ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
CAUT1ON:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Good afternoon:

Our office is in receipt of the Staff Report (today) for the hearing set for June 25, 2026. We will be submitting documents prior to the hearing for the Planning Commission to consider, which intends to respond to the City's Staff Report and supporting documents.

We anticipate an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses the City intends to present at the hearing and will require time beyond the eight (8) minutes allotted.

Lastly, we will be having a court reporter present at the hearing, please advise if there will be appropriate accommodations for the court reporter.

Thank you.

F. Michael Ayaz
b BLAKE 8 AYAZ
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-71711 F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] I www.blakeandayoz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz, A Law Corporation, by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.
• From: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhavward-ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:03 PM
To: Karen Adraneda <karenPblakeandayaz.com>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerkPhayward-ca.gov>; Sara Buizer <Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division <Planning.DivisionPhayward-ca.gov>; Litigation <litigationPblakeandayaz.com>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMV22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
Counsel:

The City has already granted your client one courtesy continuance and your third request for yet another continuance is denied for the reasons previously asserted, as further expanded upon below. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 25, 2026.

By way of brief summary of the relevant history: The Notice of Revocation Hearing, previously set for June 11, 2026, was served on the Retailer on May 14, 2026. On May 21, your office appeared and requested a, 30-day continuance on the Retailer's behalf and immediate production of the City's evidence. On May 26, the City declined the continuance, noting that the hearing is conducted in a hybrid format, that remote appearance was always available, and that counsel's voluntary travel conflict does not constitute grounds for rescheduling. On May 29, as a courtesy, the City nonetheless agreed to continue the hearing to June 25, 2026— a date specifically selected to accommodate your office's stated unavailability of June 5 through June 15. On June 5, the City produced all evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing, with 20 days remaining to prepare.

The City has fully satisfied its due process obligations. The Retailer has been provided with all evidence the City intends to present. The June 25 hearing date affords ample time to review that evidence, identify witnesses, research legal issues, and prepare a defense.

The assertion that 13 business days is insufficient — particularly where the Retailer has had notice of this matter since May 14 and counsel has been engaged since at least May 21 — is not well-taken by the City, nor will it be well-taken by any reasonable court.

Your office's characterization that the City "unilaterally set" the hearing date misapprehends how these proceedings work. Hearing dates are not subject to negotiation between the parties. These matters are heard by the Planning Commission, which meets only on the first and third Thursdays of each month. The available dates are therefore fixed by the Commission's calendar, not by the City's choosing. Furthermore, the Tobacco Retail License Revocation Hearings are scheduled for June, and that timeline applies uniformly to all retailers with matters before the Commission. It is not subject to adjustment based on the scheduling preferences of any individual retailer or their counsel.

The scheduling conflict at the heart of this request is a matter of your office's own making.' Your firm accepted representation of the Retailer with full knowledge of counsel's planned travel. That was, a choice made by the Retailer and its attorneys, not the City, and it does not give rise to any obligation on the City's part to further delay these proce,edings.

If lead counsel's availability is genuinely an issue, the Retailer had — and retains — the option of engaging substitute or additional counsel.

The City has already extended one courtesy continuance and will not be extending another.

Regarding the threat of judicial intervention, the City notes that preparing and filing a TRO application or writ petition will itself consume a significant portion of the very time your office claims is insufficient to prepare for the hearing. That is, of course, a strategic choice for the Retailer and its counsel to make. The City will vigorously oppose any such application and will seek fees and costs as appropriate, as it is confident that all applicable due process requirements have been met.

The hearing will proceed on June 25, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. Please refer to the original notice for remote appearance instructions.

AMY ROTHMAN I DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor I Hayward, CA 94541
0: 510.583.4456 I F: 510.583.3660 I E: Amy.Rothmanahayward-ca.gov H HAYWARD www.hayward-ca.gov
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED:

Information and documents contained in this transmission are legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressee. Any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege against disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

From: Karen Adraneda <karenPblakeandayaz.com>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:09 PM
To: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhayward-ca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerkPhayward-ca.gov>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <Planning.DivisionPhayward-ca.gov>; Litigation <litigationPblakeandayaz.com>; Jesse Prins <Jesse.PrinsPhayward-ca.gov>; Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandayaz.com>; Karen Adraneda <karenPblakeandayaz.com>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Good afternoon:

We previously requested 30-days from the original hearing date to allow our office sufficient time to review the evidence, identify witnesses, and prepare for the hearing. The City's evidence was produced only recently, late on Friday afternoon. With approximately 13 business days remaining before the hearing, Mr. Ayaz will be out of the office for 7 of those days, which further limits the time available to meaningfully review the material and prepare for the hearing. This is precisely the reason why our original request was for a 30- day continuance.

The City declined the request and instead unilaterally set the continued hearing date. Had there been coordination between the parties regarding scheduling, which our office attempted to do, these issues could easily have been avoided.

Accordingly, we are again requesting a brief continuance, at the minimum to the first available date in July to allow for reasonable preparation for the hearing. If the City declines to do so, Respondent will have no choice but to seek judicial relief, including a temporary restraining order and seeking'a writ, to protect its due process rights.

Karen Adraneda
b BLAKE 8 AYAZ
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 I F: 714-667-0477
E: Karenablakeandayaz.com I www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individLial or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify Blake 84 Ayaz by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.

From: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhayward-ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 5:24 PM
To: Litigation <litigationPblakeandayaz.com>; Jesse Prins <Jesse.PrinsPhayward-ca.gov> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandayaz.com>; Karen Adraneda <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
Counsel,
Thank you for your email. The City will not be continuing the hearing a second time. As you are aware, the City already granted Respondent one courtesy continuance. No further continuance is warranted. The claim of a scheduling conflict is unavailing. Your office previously advised the City that you and your client were unavailable June 5 through June 15, 2026. The June 25th hearing date was selected precisely to accommodate that stated unavailability. There is no scheduling conflict with the June 25th dete based on the information your office provided.

Regarding the evidence, please find attached the evidence the City intends to rely upon at the hearing. The hearing is scheduled for June 25, 2026 — 20 days from today — which provides your office ample time to review the materials, identify witnesses, evaluate legal issues, and prepare a defense. This production satisfies any due process obligation the City has.

The City will oppose any application for a temporary restraining order, writ petition, or other judicial relief, and will seek fees and costs as appropriate should your office pursue such religf.

The hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 25, 2026.

Best regards,

AMY ROTHMAN I DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor I Hayward, CA 94541
0: 510.583.4456 F: 510.583.3660 I E: [email protected] HAYWARD www.hayward-ca.gov
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED:

Information and documents contained in this transmission are legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressee. Any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege against disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

From: Litigation <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 4:43 PM
To: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhayward-ca.gov>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerkPhayward-ca.gov>; Sara Buizer <Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandavaz.com>; Litigation <litigationftlakeandayaz.com>; Karen Adraneda <karen(@blakeandavaz.com> Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Counsel:

In your May 29 email, you indicated that the City would provide the evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing no later than the close of business on June 4, 2026. To date, our office has not received any such evidence.

The City's failure to provide the evidence despite representations that it would do so, materially prejudices Respondent and our office's ability to review all evidence and prepare a defense for the hearing. As you are aware, Mr. Ayaz previously advised the City of a scheduling conflict that will significantly limit his time to review any late-produced materials and prepare for the hearing that is now scheduled for June 25, 2026. We remind you that as a result of the scheduling conflict, our previously requested a 30-day continuance of the hearing date.

Proceeding with the hearing under these circumstances would deprive Respondent and Mr. Ayaz of a meaningful opportunity to review the evidence, prepare a defense, identify witnesses, evaluate legal issues, and submit any necessary Public Records requests and obtain and review such information before the hearing. This will substantially impact Respondent's ability to defend against the allegations and protect his rights.

Accordingly, we request that the hearing be continued to a date in July 2026. A continuance is necessary to ensure a fair process and to protect Respondent's due process rights. The City's refusal to continue the hearing for at least 30 days, knowing of Mr. Ayaz's scheduling conflict and now failing to produce the evidence on the day the City indicated it would provide it, only further prejudices Respondent and undermines both Respondent's and this office's ability to meaningfully prepare for and participate in the hearing.

If the City refuses to continue the hearing, despite the above, Respondent will be forced to seek judicial intervention to request a temporary restraining order, a writ petition, and/or any other appropriate relief necessary to prevent a hearing from proceeding in a manner that violates Respondent's due process rights.

Karen Adraneda
b BLAKE G AYAZ
2107 N,, Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 I F:714-667-0477
E: [email protected] I www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.

From: Amy Rothman <Amy.Rothmarahayward-ca.gov>
Date: May 29, 2026 at 4:06:46 PM PDT
To: Mike Ayaz <mikeblakeandayaz.com>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
Good evening,
As a courtesy, the City will shift the revocation hearing for Case No. CETRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop to the June 25, 2026 Planning Commission meeting held in person and remotely at 7:00 p.m. We will provide you with the evidence the City will be presenting and the procedures for the hearing, which will be emailed to you by the end of business on June 4, 2026.

Thank you and have a good weekend.

Amy

AMY ROTHMAN I DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor I Hayward, CA 94541
0: 510.583.4456 I F: 510.583.3660 I E: Amy.Rothmanghayward-ca.gov HAYWARD www.hayward-ca.gov
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED:

Information and documents contained in this transmission are legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressee. Any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege against disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

From: Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandayaz.com>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 2:16 PM
To: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhayward-ca.gov>; Litigation <litigationPblakeandayaz.com>
Cc: Jesse Prins <Jesse.PrinsPhayward-ca.gov>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division <Planning.DivisionPhayward-ca.gov>; Legal <legalPblakeandayaz.com>; Karen Adraneda <karenPblakeandayaz.com>
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE- TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
CAUT1ON:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Counsel:

Please give the attached your immediate attention. If we do not hear from you or the city on or before the close of business on June 2, 2026, we will proceed as indicated in the attached.

F. Michael Ayaz b BLAKE E AYAZ
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 I F:714-667-0477
E: [email protected] I www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz, A Law Corporation, by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.

From: Amy Rothman <Amy.RothmanPhayward-ca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:58 AM
To: Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandayaz.com>
Subject: FW: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CETRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop Dear Counsel,
Thank you for your correspondence. We have reviewed both requests and are unable to accommodate them.

Regarding the continuance, notices were sent and hand delivered sufficiently in advance of the hearing date and numerous tobacco revocation matters are calendared for this particular hearing date. Counsel's travel conflict, particularly where representation was accepted with knowledge of those plans, does not provide a basis to reschedule. Additionally, no in-person appearance is necessary—the hearing is being conducted in a hybrid format, and remote appearance instructions were included with the original notice.

The City also notes that accommodating this request would require extending the same courtesy to the many other tobacco retailers with matters scheduled that day, which is not practicable given the volume and seriousness of the violations at issue.

Regarding the request for immediate evidence production, there is no constitutional right to pretrial discovery in administrative proceedings. (Mohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 302.). However, the staff report, including all evidence the City intends to rely upon will be made publicly available one week prior to the hearing providing counsel opportunity to prepare. Please use the following link to access the report once it is available: https://hayward.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx? ID=30859&GUID=61527508-1071-493D-93C4-OCCF21DD457A&Search= .

Please also see the following link for additional information:
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/plenning-commission The hearing will proceed as scheduled. Please refer to the original notice for remote appearance instructions.

Best regards,

AMY ROTHMAN DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor I Hayward, CA 94541
0: 510.583.4456 I F: 510.583.3660 I E: Amy.Rothmanhayward-ca.gov <image002.png>
www.hayvvard-ca.gov
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED:

Information and documents contained in this transmission are legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressee. Any use, revjew, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege against disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

From: Mike Ayaz <mikePblakeandavaz.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:24 PM
To: jessee.prinsPhayward-ca.gov <jessee.prinsPhayward-ca.gov> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer
<Sara.BuizerPhayward-ca.gov>; Planning Division
<Planning.DivisionPhayward-ca.gov>; Legal <legalPblakeandayaz.com>; Karen Adraneda karenPblakeandayaz.com>
Subject: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Good Evening:

Please be advised that this office has been retained to represent Mr.

Ezzaddin Ali, operator of The Gr8 Smoke Shop located at 1090 La Playa, Hayward, California 94545, in connection with the City's Notice ofRevocation of Tobacco Retail License dated May 14.

At the outset, we respectfully request a continuance of no less than thirty (30) days. Undersigned counsel will be out of state from June 9 through June 15 and unavailable to attend any scheduled proceeding, whether in person or remotely. Should it be required, we are prepared to provide confirming travel documentation. Moreover, as lead counsel responsible for handling license revocation matters ofthis nature, my participation is essential to ensuring an orderly and efficient presentation ofthe issues. Granting a continuance will serve the interests offairness, completeness ofthe record, and administrative economy.

Separately, and of equal importance, our client advises that he has received only the Notice ofRevocation, but none ofthe underlying materials upon which the City relies. This omission is highly problematic. Fundamental principles of due process, as well as-the integrity ofthe administrative record, require that a licensee be provided with full and timely access to all evidence forming the basis ofthe proposed action.

To date, no reports, investigative materials, citations, photographs, communications, witness statements, or other documentary evidence have been produced or provided to our client. Proceeding in the absence of such disclosures would severely prejudice our client's ability to prepare a defense, meaningfully respond to the allegations, and participate in the hearing process. Any attempt to move forward under such circumstances would raise substantial due process concerns and create a defective administrative record subject to challenge on appeal.

Accordingly, we hereby formally demand the immediate production of a complete and unredacted copy ofthe City's file, including but not limited to:

1. All notices, citations, and violation histories;

2. All investigative reports and officer narratives;

3. All photographs, video, or audio evidence;

4. All correspondence or internal communications relating to the subject matter;

5. Proofs of service;

6. Any and all materials the City intends to rely upon in support of revocation.

Our client is entitled to a fair and transparent process. The requested continuance and full evidentiary disclosure are necessary prere,quisites to ensuring that any proceeding is conducted in a manner consistent with applicable legal standards and constitutional safeguards. Given the need to review the disclosures, as we assume the city will provide the same as requested, we request a minimum 30 day continuance.

We are available to meet and confer at your earliest convenience and would prefer to resolve these procedural issues informally. We are also willing to discuss any potential resolution following review ofthe record.

We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response.

F. Michael Ayaz
<image007.png>
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706 P:714-6 67-7171 I F: 714-667-0477
E: mikeablakeandayaz.com I www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz, A Law Corporation, by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.

EXHIBIT C
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
C.
•
Summary of Evidence
Business Information
Business Name: The Gr8 Smoke Shop
Business Address: 1090 La Playa Rd, Hayward, CA 94545
Business Owner Name: Ezzadin Ali
Recommendation
As summarized, this establishment committed its first violation on January 25, 2023 within the past 5 year time period. Evidence supporting the violation listed below are included in the Exhibits listed on the following page and includes testimony from various Inspectors as indicated on the Notice of Violation and Case and Inspection Details, whom witnessed the violations, as well as dated photos of the violations. This is more than enough evidence to meet the City's preponderance of the evidence burden.

Here, the City does not recommend issuance of a lesser penalty due to the business's continued pattern of non-compliance, including the sale of prohibited flavored tobacco products, electronic smoking devices, and flavored cigarettes. During the 2026 inspection, hidden compartments were discovered that appeared intended to conceal prohibited products and continue unlawful sales despite multiple prior enforcement cases, failed inspections, and repeated educational outreach by the City.

Violations
Date Nature of Violation Municipal Code
Violation
Fees
04/10/2026 Flavored tobacco products, out of state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin,
hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, cannabis prerolled joints, and expired licensing.

Hidden compartments were found beneath the
display counter that were accessible using an RFID
card for unlocking. The compartments contained
prohibited flavored tobacco products.

SEC. 10-1.2783 51500.00
11/26/2025 Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and
mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted
licensing.

SEC. 10-1.2783'
SEC. 10-1.2785 $1500.00
04/10/2024 Hemp products, expired/not posted licensing. SEC. 10-1.2783, SEC. 10-1.2785
_
01/25/2023 Flavored tobacco products, hemp products,
vapes/electronic smoking devices. SEC. 10-1.2783 -
Current Status
$1500.00 remains due to the resolved 2025 TRL case. 2026 TRL case is closed as resolved.

Appeals
None
List of Evidence
Exhibit I: Photos
Exhibit II: Case and Inspection Details (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001) Exhibit III: Case and Inspection Details (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072) Exhibit IV: Case and Inspection Details (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Details (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) Exhibit VI: Notice ofViolation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Exhibit VII: Notice ofViolation (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)
Exhibit VIII: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) Exhibit X: Hayward Police Department Inventory of Unpermitted or Illegal Items Caption: Several hidden compartments
under display cases which used RFID card to
unlock for access.

Caption: Hidden compartment
containing prohibited flavored
products.
#1
710ININ31411
mu CJMI
310171, IN11031N N
DinqN031.71)00Md

VNINHOM
113M1W1 ltalltatrdWI
Si 1011%
ST44'41%05 OCION8 SIA1
'.9140,11:1tliktt
Caption: Numerous vaporizers models and
types.

Caption: Flavor enhancers meant to add
flavor to unflavored cigarettes.
0 ORIGINAL
t-tj FVQ.^4.110 Fov onlAmia 10 nt (1 FL " SOW:WU:0G °Z1 WARNING • This product contains
nicotine
Nicotine is'an addictive
chemical.

Caption: Flavored vape liquid.

Caption: Pre-rolled cannabis joints being
confiscated by Hayward Police Dept. and
California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA).

Caption: Several different types of vape
devices.

Lova
JUUt JUU1

PURR ORPROR
T., WARNING:
reediset contatn-s IT044114). Nicotine is an addicu,.
chemical

WARNING'
This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive _
RAs'i
12046 3:17 PM
Caption: Juul menthol flavored vape
devices.

Caption: Flavored nicotine pouches and vape
devices.

Caption: Menthol flavored vape devices and
several different flavored tobacco products
being confiscated by California Department
of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

Caption: Unstamped cigarette box meaning
cigarettes were bought out of state and the
correct California taxes were not paid.

Caption: Unstamped cigarette box meaning
cigarettes were bought out of state and the
correct California taxes were not paid.

Caption: Unstamped cigarette box meaning
cigarettes were bought out of state and the
correct California taxes were not paid
therefore not receiving the California stamp.

Caption: Unstamped cigarette box meaning
cigarettes were bought out of state and the
correct California taxes were not paid.

Caption: Out of state, missing the California
cigarette stamp, menthol flavored cigarettes.

WaRigiNG•
This woducl contains
^,C-Chane, hicmine 15
itattICtivt chemical7n
WARNING:

This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical, Caption: Several menthol flavored vape
device cartridges.
get
01/28/2026 2:58
Caption: Several flavored cannabis vape juice Caption: Flavored tobacco cartridges. cigarettes/shisha.
•
• • •
„t
&pow* 0 ish Crafted
cora,
041 • Pr's:
cp.untty m both The corr, s and uncthisieks
moth 4.5 awns d red fungi, Oft
Ohl _ottitYPOPV,
aption: Edible items containing psilocybin. Caption: Edible items containing psilocybin.
•
Caption: Several different models of vape Caption: Several different models of devices. vape devices.
•
-,aption: Hemp products. 3/20/2024
aption: Flavored tobacco products and
emp products. 1/25/2023
Caption: Expired/not posted
licensing. 3/20/2024
Caption: Flavored tobacco products
and hemp products. 1/25/2023
0 Caption: Flavored tobacco products and
hemp products. 1/25/2023
Caption: Vape devices and electronic
smoking devices. 1/25/2023
ni CITY OF HAYWARD
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Code Case
CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards Open Date: 01/25/2023 Status: Closed - Resolved Closed Date: 02/09/2023
Description: Notice received from attorney. Please see Files for details. )arcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 La Playa Dr, Hayward, CA 94545
Zone: 6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Contacts: Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 VAPE
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Activity Type Comments User Created On
Case Notes 01/26/23 Spoke with Code Manager P.Nichols and confirmed Caitlyn Murray 01/30/2023 Notice is to be issued for next re-inspection.
rmail <[email protected]>Good Afternoon, Caitlyn Murray 01/25/2023 Please see the following link to the City of Hayward Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments ordinance as we discussed today:
nspection
Votice of Violation Letter Sent
https://library.municode.com/ca/hayward/codes/municipal_code? nodeld=HAYWARD_MUNICIPAL_CODE_CH1OPLZOSU_ART1
ZOOR_S10-1.2780TORESAES
As a reminder I will be inspecting the business for compliance tomorrow at 1pm.

Please also have all your current licensing and permits prominent location visible to the public at all times, to include:

1. City of Hayward Business License

2. City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License

3. State of California Tobacco Retailer's License

4. State of California Sellers Permit

5. Alameda County Dept of Health Permit to Operate
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Caitlyn Murray
<[email protected]>Good Morning,
Please see the attached Notice of Violation. Make all corrections, if you have not done so already, by the scheduled re-inspection date 02/09/23 @10 am.

Please let me know if you have any questions,
Caitlyn Murray
Visited the business to observe current products and compliance with CoH Tobbaco Lic. Identified several banned products, removed visable products from the shelf and instructed the store owner Issy and clerk Nagi of the current regulations including prohibited products storefront advertizing. Advised I would return to the business tomorrow at 1pm to verify compliance.

At time of re-inspection found business to be in compliance with TRL regulations. Advised store clerk that some of the small individual price stickers with the generic term special price will need to be changed to not indicate any sale or special price on tobacco products. Vynil awning at the business entrance where it previously said "Vape Shop" has been convered with plastic temporarily until a permanent vynil sticker is aquired.

Caitlyn Murray 02/02/2023
Caitlyn Murray 01/25/2023
Caitlyn Murray 02/09/2023
Caitlyn Murray 02/02/2023
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Notice of Violation Letter Sent Caitlyn Murray 02/02/2023 Caitlyn Murray 02/02/2023
Violation Code: HMC SEC 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO Violation Status: Resolved

RETAIL STANDARDS
Code Description:

Corrective Action:

Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Citation Issue Date: 02/02/2023
Compliance Date: 02/09/2023
Resolved Date: 02/09/2023
All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations:

1. All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall display their City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License and California Cigarette and Tobacco and Product Retailer License to sell tobacco products, in a prominent location visible to the public at all times.

2. It shall be a violation of these regulations for any Tobacco Retailer to violate any local, State, or Federal law applicable to tobacco products, electronic smoking devices or tobacco paraphernalia.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be a violation of these regulations for any licensee or any of the licensee's agents or employees to sell, offer for sale, or exchange for any form of consideration:
a. Any single cigar, whether or not packaged for individual sale, with a retail price of less than eight dollars ($8.00), including all applicable taxes and fees.
b. Any number of cigars fewer than the number contained in the manufacturer's original consumer packaging designed for retail sale to a consumer.
c. Any package of cigars unless it contains at least five (5) cigars or units in the manufacturer's original consumer package with a retail price of eight dollars ($8.00) or more, including all applicable taxes and fees.

4.1t shall be a violation of these regulations for any Tobacco Retailer or any of the Tobacco Retailer's agents or employees to sell or offer for sale, to possess with intent to sell or offer for sale, or exchange for any form of consideration any:
a. Flavored tobacco products, parts, components, or flavored tobacco paraphernalia. b.Electronic smoking devices, electronic nicotine delivery systems (E-cigarettes), vaping devices, including all parts and components. c. Electronic smoking and vaping products, and vaping paraphernalia, including but not limited to, devices, parts and components, eliquids, concentrates, waxes, etc. d. CBD or hemp products, or any products made from, derivative of, or containing any amount of a Cannabis plant intended for human consumption.

Attached Images
IMG_1800.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1801.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1802.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1803.jpg IMG_1804.jpg IMG_1805.jpg
.vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 4
Notes: 01/25/23 Notes: 01/25/23 Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1808.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1810.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
EB14C3E8-4A46-4DE7-9600-
5D3D4076615D.jpeg
Notes: 02/09/23
,vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Inspection(s)
ICODE-001615-2023
, Case Type: Initial Assessment Inspection Scheduled: 01/25/2023 )Status: In Violation Actual Date: 01/25/2023
, Comments:

Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
- IC0DE-001892-2023
Case Type: Code Enforcement Inspection Scheduled: 02/09/2023 Status: Passed Actual Date: 02/09/2023
Comments:

Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 4 of 4

CITY OF HAYWARD
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)
Code Case
CE-TRLENF-2024-00072
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards Open Date: 02/06/2024 Status: Closed - Resolved Closed Date: 05/13/2024
Description: 2024 Annual TRL Inspection
r)arcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 LA PLAYA DR, HAYWARD, CA 94545
Zone: 6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Contacts: Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Activity Type Comments
Case Notes Annual TRL Inspection required. Compliance with all regulations including any past-due licensing required no later than 14 days after the initial NOV. All initial Inspections are due by March 29, 2024.

NOV sent 4-10-2024
PO came by to pay the tobacco invoice for 1090 LA PLAYA DR.

All fees paid as of 04/22/24. Current TRL certificate emailed to business owner <[email protected]> and attached to case.

Inspection On 3-25-2024 at time of inspection tobacco products were in compliance but permits were not all posted or up to date.

On May 2, 2024, I connected a TRL reinspection for inspector Silva case. I entered the business and introduced myself to the attendant, Angie, who showed me to where the business licenses were posted. The business license and tobacco retail license license were up-to-date and current though there was not a California tobacco license valid posted. I asked Angie about it and she called the owner. The owner stated that he paid for it, but has not received it yet and would send me the payment confirmation via email. I explained to Angie that once I receive that the case will be closed. I also stated that inspections are common and we will be looking for flavored tobacco, unstamped cigarettes, and cigarillos in packs of under five. Angie communicated that she understood and would let the owner know later that day. This concluded the inspection.

Votice of Violation Letter Sent Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! User Created On
Phil Nichols 02/06/2024
Ashley Silva 04/10/2024
Stephanie Toong 04/16/2024
Angelica Ventura 04/23/2024
Ashley Silva 04/10/2024
Jesse Prins 05/13/2024
Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO Violation Status: Resolved

RETAIL STANDARDS
Code Description:
7,orrective Action:

Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Ashley Silva 04/10/2024
Citation Issue Date: 04/10/2024
Compliance Date: 04/30/2024
Resolved Date: 05/02/2024
All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations: Obtain City of Hayward Business license, City of Hayward Tabaco Retail license, Alameda County Health permit & California State Tabaco license.

Attached Images
Oay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 3
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)
Photo Taken 3-20-2024 (7).JPG
Photo Taken 3-20-2024 (9).JPG
Photo Taken 3-20-2024 (10).JPG
Photo Taken 3-20-2024 (11).JPG
Photo Taken 3-20-2024 (8).JPG
Photo Taken 3-20-2024 (6).JPG
.lay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 3
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)
Inspection(s)
ICODE-006445-2024
Case Type: Initial Assessment Inspection Scheduled: 03/25/2024 Status: In Violation Actual Date: 04/10/2024
Comments:

Address: 1090 LA PLAYA DR,
HAYWARD, CA 94545
Attached Images
Photo Taken 3-25-2024 (7).JPG
ICODE-007995-2024
Case Type: Code Enforcement Inspection Scheduled: 05/02/2024 Status: Passed Actual Date: 05/02/2024
Comments:

Address: 1090 LA PLAYA DR,
HAYWARD, CA 94545
vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 3

CITY OF HAYWARD
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
Code Case
CE-TRLENF-2025-00105
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards Open Date: 11/07/2025 Status: Closed - Resolved Closed Date: 04/10/2026
Description: 2025 Annual TRL Inspection
"larcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 La Playa Dr, Hayward, CA 94545
Zone: 6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Contacts: Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Activity Type Comments User Created On
Case Hold Business not in compliance due to unpaid fees and no current TRL Angelica Ventura 11/13/2025 Certificate.

Citation Issued Listed time of reinspection may not be accurate as the Jesse Prins 11/26/2025 reinspection may be later. Tobacco inspections occur annually but can occur at anytime throughout the year. To avoid penalty fees and potentially the revocation of the business license, please ensure that SEC. 10-1.2780 - TOBACCO RETAIL SALES
ESTABLISHMENTS is being adhered to. Reach out to Code
Enforcement at ay time with any questions about tobacco laws.

Inspection Written at time of inspection: Jesse Prins 04/10/2026 On November 17, 2025, I conducted an initial TRL inspection of the business. Upon arrival, I contacted the storekeeper, Farrac, who allowed me access behind the counter to conduct the inspection. I introduced myself and provided him with my business card.

During the inspection, I observed multiple tobacco-related products. Violations observed include, but are not limited to, products labeled with flavors, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. The business also did not have a valid City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License posted, nor was a California Seller's Permit observed as posted.

While I was conducting the inspection, a patron entered the store and asked Farrac for vapes. Farrac responded that they do not sell vapes. The patron stated that another employee had previously told him they were available for purchase. Farrac again stated that they do not sell vapes. Following this interaction, I clarified with Farrac that vapes and any electronic smoking devices are not permitted for sale. He acknowledged and stated that he understood.

I reviewed all observed violations with Farrac at the time of inspection. A Notice of Violation will be issued for correction.

Written at the time of inspection: Jesse Prins 04/10/2026 On December 10, 2025, I conducted a reinspection for the annual TRL case at this property. At the time of inspection, no prohibited products or packaging were observed in either the front or back areas of the business. All required licensing was current and properly posted.

This case is now closed as resolved.

Other Activity 2025 TRL paid 12/10/25. Current certificate attached. Angelica Ventura 12/18/2025 nvoice No. Fee Name Fee Amount Amount Paid
EG25-26369 CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense $1,500.00 $1,500.00 CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Total for Invoice Number EG25-26369 S3,000.00 S3,000.00 Grand Total for Code Case $3,000.00 $3,000.00
vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2785 - TOBACCO Violation Status: In Violation

RETAIL LICENSE
Citation Issue Date: 11/26/2025
Code Description:

Corrective Action:

Violation Code:

Code Description:

Corrective Action:

Expired or Lack of Tobacco Retail License
Compliance Date:

Resolved Date:
12/10/2025
Obtain required Tobacco Retail License and comply with all Requirements and Operational Standards for Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments set forth in SEC.10-1.2780 through 10-1.2795 of the Hayward Municipal Code. -Please obtain and post: City of Hayward Business License, City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License, California Seller's Permit, and California Tobacco License.

HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO Violation Status: In Violation

RETAIL STANDARDS
Citation Issue Date: 11/26/2025
Compliance Date:

Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Resolved Date:

All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations: Flavored tobacco products, tobacco cigarillos and tobacco wraps that do not meet minimum packaging of 5 per pack, hemp products, and mushroom gummies.
12/10/2025
The following items cannot be sold or stored for the purpose of selling at the place of business:
-Please remove all tobacco products that are labeled with or advertise a "characterizing" flavor (sweet, grape, strawberry, fruit, menthol, mint, etc.).
-Please remove all hemp wraps.
-Please remove all tobacco cigarillos and/or wraps that do not meet minimum 5 per manufacturer's pack. -Please remove all imitation drug (mushroom gummies) products.

Note - Vapes or any electronic tobacco products are prohibited within the City of Hayward.

Attached Images
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (4).jpg
3-14•11-Y
.r1
sgadiee.,„
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (7).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (5).jpg

SURGEON GENERAL
WARNMG- Tobacco
Use Increases in. WO
of InfewIllity. 151111W.
and LoW BIrth WoN9.

Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (8).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (6).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (9).jpg
.Vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
11 Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (1).jpg Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (2).jpg Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (3).jpg vtay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 4
CASEAND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
Inspection(s)
- ICODE-023746-2025
Case Type: Initial Assessment Inspection Scheduled: 11/17/2025 Status: In Violation Actual Date: 11/17/2025
Comments:

Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
ICODE-023747-2025
Case Type: Code Enforcement Inspection Scheduled: 12/10/2025 , Status: Passed Actual Date: 12/10/2025
Comments:

Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
'May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 4 of 4

CITY OF HAYWARD
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Code Case
CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards Open Date: 02/25/2026 Status: Closed - Resolved Closed Date: 05/18/2026
Description: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
Zone: 6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Contacts: Enforcement Area: 6) Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Activity Type
Case Notes
Citation Issued
Inspection
Comments
Per inspector J. Prins, create a 2026 tobacco case for the following:

The Gr8 Smoke Shop
1090 la Playa Dr
Business owner came to the counter today regarding the tobacco 1st offense and to see whether or not he needs to pay the tobacco renewal invoice. They stated that the inspector visited and said that the TRL is outdated. Taking a look at the invoice, the admin clerk asked the senior secretary, since it said it was issued, but the invoice was still there. Admin clerk notified senior secretary and let the business owner know to follow up with them regarding this invoice.

Please email your inspector if you have any questions. Thank you! On January 28, 2026 I connected an initial inspection 2026 tobacco retail license accompanied by CDTFA and Hayward Police Department.

Upon entering the business, we made contact with the clerk who allowed us behind the counter for inspection.

Upon inspection I observed multiple violations including but not limited to: flavored tobacco products, out of state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, cannabis pre-rolled joints, and expired California Tobacco License, City of Hayward Business license, and City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License posted. A firearm was also located but Hayward Police did not confiscate it as it was registered to the business owner.

Below the cabinets were hidden compartments that used an RFID card to unlock them. Inside the compartments were flavored tobacco products and prohibited cigarillo packaging violations.

This will be considered a failed inspection. An administrative penalty and fee notice will be sent for correction.

User Created On
Stephanie Toong 02/25/2026
Stephanie Toong 04/22/2026
Jesse Prins 04/10/2026
Jesse Prins 04/10/2026
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 8
-
Inspection
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
On April 22, 2026, I conducted a reinspection related to the 2025 Jesse Prins 05/18/2026 Tobacco Retail License case. Upon entering the business, I was greeted by the clerk, Farrac, whom I had interacted with during prior inspections. He was cooperative and provided consent for me to inspect behind the counter area.

During the inspection, I did not observe any flavored tobacco products or any of the prohibited items previously present during prior inspections. All hidden storage compartments beneath the countertops had been cleared, with the exception of standard cigarette carton storage.

Business licensing appeared current, with the exception of the City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License, which had expired. Farrac explained that the business owner was currently at City Hall submitting payment for renewal of the license. He stated the renewed license would be posted that same day and that he would email me a photograph confirming it had been posted. I advised him that upon receipt of the photograph showing the valid license properly posted, the inspection would be considered compliant.

I reiterated that the products previously observed during prior inspections, including but not limited to cannabis products, vape products, menthol cigarettes, and flavored tobacco products, are prohibited for sale at this business and are not permitted to be sold within the City of Hayward. Farrac acknowledged and stated his understanding.

During the inspection, I also provided Farrac with California Department of Justice documentation regarding the unflavored tobacco list and explained its intended use. Additionally, I provided documentation identifying products that may appear on the state list but are still prohibited under the City of Hayward's tobacco ordinance. Farrac acknowledged his understanding of the information provided.

This concluded the inspection.

Invoice No.

EG26-02737
Fee Name
CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense
Total for Invoice Number EG26-02737
Grand Total for Codetase
Violation Code:

Code Description:

Corrective Action:

HMC SEC. 10-1.2785- TOBACCO Violation Status: Resolved

RETAIL LICENSE
Expired or Lack of Tobacco Retail License
Fee Amount
$1,500.00
Amount Paid
$1,500.00
$1,500.00 $1,500.00
$1,500.00 $1,500.00
Citation Issue Date: 04/10/2026
Compliance Date: 04/22/2026
Resolved Date: 04/22/2026
Obtain required Tobacco Retail License and comply with all Requirements and Operational Standards for Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments set forth in SEC.10-1.2780 through 10-1.2795 of the Hayward Municipal Code.

Please post current copies of the City of Hayward Business License, City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License, and the California Tobacco Retail License in a public, conspicuous place.
violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO Violation Status: Resolved Citation Issue Date: 04/10/2026

RETAIL STANDARDS
;ode Description:

Corrective Action:

Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Compliance Date: 04/22/2026
Resolved Date: 04/22/2026
All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations: any flavored tobacco products, any cannabis, any cigarillo product with packaging containing less than 5 units, any vape or vape accessories, any menthol cigarettes, any hemp products, any product that contains psilocybin or "magic mushrooms" or adulterated food items that alters consciousness. - ekttached Images
.Vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (4).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (7).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (9).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (5).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (10).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (11).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (6).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (8).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (12).jpg
.vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (13).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (16).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (19).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (14).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (17).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (20).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (15).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (18).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (21).jpg
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 4 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (22).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (25).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (28).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (23).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (26).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (29).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (24).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (27).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (30).jpg
.Vlay 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 5 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (31).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (34).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (1).jpg
31 n a small amount you can
ABER SET & SE777NG A
Make sure you are in a
you can be yourself
t. tY BODY IS DIFFERENT,
Ingredients: Sugar,
Powder, Emu'sMer (Soy L
Extr -,Ilocybin. Enriched Flour
1) Organic PalmFaj
ate, This produrNualtin
. JCRSS8S , nuts -
°lei F•
..,ein g (4ii0
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (32).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (35).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (2).jpg
400
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (33).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (36).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (37).jpg
- May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 6 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (3).jpg
- May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 7 of 8
II Inspection(s)
6 CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) I1
ICODE-006140-2026
Case Type: Initial Assessment Inspection Scheduled: 01/28/2026 Status: Scheduled Actual Date:

Comments:

Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
ICODE-006141 -2026
Case Type: Code Enforcement Inspection Scheduled: 04/22/2026 Status: Passed Actual Date: 04/22/2026
Comments:

Address: 1090 La Playa Dr,
Hayward, CA 94545
- May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 8 of 8

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Property Owner: Bhupinder Bhandari
Mailing Address
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023
NOV-000930-2023
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
An inspection of the property identified the following violations(s) of the Hayward Municipal Code (HMC), California Health and Safety Code (CHS), California Building Code (CBC), and/or other adopted codes or related ordinances.

Violations of adopted codes as identified below are hereby deemed a public nuisance and must be corrected as follows prior to the next compliance date.

Please note: Failure to resolve violations by the compliance deadline as listed above may result in penalties and fees pursuant to the current City of Hayward Master Fee schedule.

Property Location: Parcel
1090 La Playa Dr
Hayward, CA 94545
442-0038-003-00
Violation: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO RETAIL STANDARDS - Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards
Tobacco Retail License
Corrective Action: All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations:

1. All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall display their City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License and California Cigarette and Tobacco and Product Retailer License to sell tobacco products, in a prominent location visible to the public at all times.

2. It shall be a violation of these regulations for any Tobacco Retailer to violate any local, State, or Federal law applicable to tobacco products, electronic smoking devices or tobacco paraphernalia.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be a violation of these regulations for any licensee or any of the licensee's agents or employees to sell, offer for sale, or exchange for any form of consideration:
a. Any single cigar, whether or not packaged for individual sale, with a retail price of less than eight dollars ($8.00), including all applicable taxes and fees.
b. Any number of cigars fewer than the number contained in the manufacturer's original consumer packaging designed for retail sale to a consumer.
c. Any package of cigars unless it contains at least five (5) cigars or units in the manufacturer's original consumer package with a retail price of eight dollars ($8.00) or more, including all applicable taxes and fees.

4.1t shall be a violation of these regulations for any Tobacco Retailer or any of the Tobacco Retailer's agents or employees to sell or offer for sale, to possess with intent to sell or offer for sale, or exchange for any form of consideration any:
a. Flavored tobacco products, parts, components, or flavored tobacco paraphernalia. b.Electronic smoking devices, electronic nicotine delivery systems (E-cigarettes), vaping devices, including all parts and components.
c. Electronic smoking and vaping products, and vaping paraphernalia, including but not limited to, devices, parts and components, e-liquids, concentrates, waxes, etc.
d. CBD or hemp products, or any products made from, derivative of, or containing any amount of a Cannabis plant intended for Printed: 2/2/23 Page 1 of 5

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLEN F-2023-00001
Case Type: CH-Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023
NOV-000930-2023
human consumption.

Unit: Area: Compliance Date: 02/09/2023
You may request an Administrative Hearing within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this letter to dispute the facts of the violations(s) under the Hayward Municipal Code. To request a hearing, please call the inspector at (510) 583-4172 within 10 days from the date of this notice. A $946 hearing fee is required and must be submitted with any hearing request. If you have any questions regarding this notice or wish to schedule an alternate reinspection date before further action is taken, please call (510) 583-4172 as soon as possible and prior to next reinspection date.

Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

A reinspection will be conducted on February 09, 2023 to verify compliance. Failure to comply and satisfactorily eliminate all violations by this date will result in a failed inspection and penalty fees in accordance with the City of Hayward Master Fee Schedule. The City contractor will be ordered to abate all remaining violations on or after this date. The property owner(s) will be billed for all abatement expenses, fees and penalties. Note: When applicable the City will communicate with non-profit agencies to refer homeless individuals to services prior to abatement.

Printed: 2/2/23 Page 2 of 5

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLEN F-2023-00001
case Type: CH-Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023
NOV-000930-2023
Partial compliance or continued violations will result in additional inspection and penalty fees, and/or other available legal remedies. If the violations are abated by the City, the property owner(s) will be billed for all abatement expenses, fees and penalties. Non-payment will result in a lien/special assessment against the property.

Egregious Violation Penalties: Tier 1: $1,500 for first verified violation; Tier 2: $3,000 for second verified violation; and Tier 3: $5,000 for third and subsequent verified violation(s).

Vacant Property Ordinance Fees: Registration: $2,550; Inspection Fees with Violations: Initial Inspection: $1,500; 2nd Reinspection with violations: $3,000; 3rd and Subsequent Reinspections with Violations: $5,000; Reinspections with No Violations Found: $500; Inspections greater than 3 hours: $200/hour in addition to other applicable inspection fees.

Violations of California Building Code Section 105.1, and California Residential Code R105.1; Permits Required, are subject to an initial 5% code violation fee and two times (2x) the required permit fees in addition to the regular Building Division Permit Fee in accordance with the City of Hayward Master Fee Schedule.

Identified unsafe conditions resulting in posting of Placards for Condemnation will incur a posting fee of $ 164/hour in accordance with the Master Fee Schedule.

Violation(s) of Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-8.10, Grading/Clearing Permit Required, are subject to A $2,000 code enforcement investigation fee and an initial $125 illegal project fee in addition to any applicable violation inspection and penalty fees in accordance with the Master Fee Schedule.

In accordance with Sections 17274 and 24436.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, certain tax deductions may not be allowed in the taxable year for nuisance violations pertaining to substandard housing in the State of California.

HAYWARD MUNICIPAL CODE & OTHER CODE SECTIONS: Copies of the Hayward Municipal Code sections are available for review in the City Clerk's Office or via the internet by accessing the City's website at: www.hayward-ca.gov and searching for "Hayward Municipal Code". To view other department information, search for "Code Enforcement Division".

Sincerely,
Caitlyn Murray
Code Enforcement Inspector II
510-583-8543
Ca itlyn.M u rray@Haywa rd-ca.gov
Printed: 2/2/23 Page 3 of 5
E:.,,,,.
lCITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
LAST INSPECTION IMAGES:

Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023
NOV-000930-2023
CASE IMAGES:

IMG 1800.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG 1803.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG 1808.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG 1801.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
I MG 1804.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1810.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1802.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1805.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
Printed: 2/2/23 Page 4 of 5
Ill ' CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLEN F-2023-00001
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023
NOV-000930-2023

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I, Caitlyn Murray, am over the age of 18 and employed by the City of Hayward, 777, "B" Street, Hayward, Alameda County, California 94541.

On February 2, 2023, I served the following document(s) on the interested parties in this action by sending true copies as shown below for service as designated below:
1) Letter to Owner, APN:442-0038-003-00 , Case #: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001 SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bhupinder Bhandari
1090 La Playa Dr
Hayward, CA 94545
I am familiar with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence will be enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and deposited with the U .S. Postal Service on the date herein above in the ordinary course of business at Hayward, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 2, 2023, at Hayward, California.

Caitlyn Murray
Code Enforcement Inspector II
Printed: 2/2/23 Page 5 of 5

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Property Owner: Bhupinder Bhandari
Mailing Address
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2024-00072 '
-,
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/06/2024
Last Inspection Date: 04/10/2024
Compliance Deadline: 04/30/2024
NOV-003958-2024
An inspection of the property identified the following violations(s) of the Hayward Municipal Code (HMC), California Health and Safety Code (CHS), California Building Code (CBC), and/or other adopted codes or related ordinances.

Violations of adopted codes as identified below are hereby deemed a public nuisance and must be corrected as follows prior to the next compliance date.

Please note: Failure to resolve violations by the compliance deadline as listed above may result in penalties and fees pursuant to the current City of Hayward Master Fee schedule.

Property Location: Parcel
1 1090 LA PLAYA DR
HAYWARD , CA 94545
442-0038-003-00
Violation: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO RETAIL STANDARDS - Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards
Tobacco Retail License
Corrective Action: All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations: Obtain City of Hayward Business license, City of Hayward Tabaco Retail license, Alameda County Health permit & California State Tabaco license.

Unit: Area: Compliance Date: 04/30/2024
Additional Comments:

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! You may request an Administrative Hearing within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this letter to dispute the facts of the violations(s) under the Hayward Municipal Code. To request a hearing, please call the inspector at (510) 583-4143 within 10 days from the date of this notice. A $946 hearing fee is required and must be submitted with any hearing request. If you have any questions regarding this notice or wish to schedule an alternate reinspection date before further action is taken, please call (510) 583-4143 as soon as possible and prior to next reinspection date.

Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

A reinspection will be conducted on April 30, 2024 to verify compliance. Failure to comply and satisfactorily eliminate all violations by this date will result in a failed inspection and penalty fees in accordance with the City of Hayward Master Fee Schedule. The City contractor will be ordered to abate all remaining violations on or after this date. The property owner(s) will be billed for all abatement expenses, fees and penalties. Note: When applicable the City will communicate with non-profit agencies to refer homeless individuals to services prior to abatement.

Printed: 4/10/24 Page 1 of 3

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLEN F-2024-00072
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/06/2024
Last Inspection Date: 04/10/2024
Compliance Deadline: 04/30/2024
NOV-003958-2024
Partial compliance or continued violations will result in additional inspection and penalty fees, and/or other available legal remedies. If the violations are abated by the City, the property owner(s) will be billed for all abatement expenses, fees and penalties. Non-payment will result in a lien/special assessment against the property.

Egregious Violation Penalties: Tier 1: $1,500 for first verified violation; Tier 2: $3,000 for second verified violation; and Tier 3: $5,000 for third and subsequent verified violation(s).

Vacant Property Ordinance Fees: Registration: $2,550; Inspection Fees with Violations: Initial Inspection: $1,500; 2nd Reinspection with violations: $3,000; 3rd and Subsequent Reinspections with Violations: $5,000; Reinspections with No Violations Found: $500; Inspections greater than 3 hours: $200/hour in addition to other applicable inspection fees.

Violations of California Building Code Section 105.1, and California Residential Code R105.1; Permits Required, are subject to an initial 5% code violation fee and two times (2x) the required permit fees in addition to the regular Building Division Permit Fee in accordance with the City of Hayward Master Fee Schedule.

Identified unsafe conditions resulting in posting of Placards for Condemnation will incur a posting fee of $ 164/hour in accordance with the Master Fee Schedule.

Violation(s) of Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-8.10, Grading/Clearing Permit Required, are subject to A $2,000 code enforcement investigation fee and an initial $125 illegal project fee in addition to any applicable violation inspection and penalty fees in accordance with the Master Fee Schedule.

In accordance with Sections 17274 and 24436.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, certain tax deductions may not be allowed in the taxable year for nuisance violations pertaining to substandard housing in the State of California.

HAYWARD MUNICIPAL CODE & OTHER CODE SECTIONS: Copies of the Hayward Municipal Code sections are available for review in the City Clerk's Office or via the internet by accessing the City's website at: www.hayward-ca.gov and searching for "Hayward Municipal Code". To view other department information, search for "Code Enforcement Division".

Sincerely,
Ashley Silva
Code Inspector
510-583-4171
[email protected]
Printed: 4/10/24 Page 2 of 3
H
.,_ • CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2024-00072
Case Type: CH-Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/06/2024
Last Inspection Date: 04/10/2024
Compliance Deadline: 04/30/2024
NOV-003958-2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I, Ashley Silva, am over the age of 18 and employed by the City of Hayward, 777, "B" Street, Hayward, Alameda County, California 94541.

On April 10, 2024, I served the following document(s) on the interested parties in this action by sending true copies as shown below for service as designated below:
1) Letter to Owner, APN:442-0038-003-00 , Case #: CE-TRLENF-2024-00072 SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
I am familiar with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence will be enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and deposited with the U .S. Postal Service on the date herein above in the ordinary course of business at Hayward, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 10, 2024, at Hayward, California.

Ashley Silva
Code Inspector
Printed: 4/10/24 Page 3 of 3

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2025-00105
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 11/07/2025
Failed Inspection Date: 11/17/2025
Next Inspection Date: 10-Dec-2025 10:00 am
CIT-015067-2025

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Property Owner: Bhupinder Bhandari
Mailing Address
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Dear property owner/tenant: A recent reinspection of the subject property showed that the following violations were not satisfactorily corrected in accordance with the Notice of Violation mailed to the property owner(s), and continue to be in violation of Hayward Municipal Code (HMC), California Building Code (CBC), California Health and Safety Code (CHS) and/or other adopted ordinances. A failed inspection and penalty fee has been assessed for continued non-compliance. Invoice is attached to this letter. Please resolve all remaining violations by the next reinspection date to avoid additional fees and penalties.

Property Location: Parcel
1090 La Playa Dr 442-0038-003-00
Hayward, CA 94545
VIOLATIONS/CORRECTIONS:

Violation: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO RETAIL STANDARDS - Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards
Tobacco Retail License
Corrective Action: All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations: Flavored tobacco products, tobacco cigarillos and tobacco wraps that do not meet minimum packaging of 5 per pack, hemp products, and mushroom gummies.

The following items cannot be sold or stored for the purpose of selling at the place of business:
-Please remove all tobacco products that are labeled with or advertise a "characterizing" flavor (sweet, grape, strawberry, fruit, menthol, mint, etc.).
-Please remove all hemp wraps.
-Please remove all tobacco cigarillos and/or wraps that do not meet minimum 5 per manufacturer's pack. -Please remove all imitation drug (mushroom gummies) products.

Note - Vapes or any electronic tobacco products are prohibited within the City of Hayward.

Unit: Area: Compliance Date: 12/10/2025
Violation: HMC SEC. 10-1.2785 - TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE - Expired or Lack of Tobacco Retail License Tobacco Retail License
Corrective Action: Obtain required Tobacco Retail License and comply with all Requirements and Operational Standards for Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments set forth in SEC.10-1.2780 through 10-1.2795 of the Hayward Municipal Code. -Please obtain and post: City of Hayward Business License, City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License, California Seller's Permit, and California Tobacco License.

Unit: Area: Compliance Date: 12/10/2025
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Printed: 11/26/25 Page 1 of 4

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
i
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2025-00105
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 11/07/2025
Failed Inspection Date: 11/17/2025
Next Inspection Date: 10-Dec-2025 10:00 am
CIT-015067-2025

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Listed time of reinspection may not be accurate as the reinspection may be later. Tobacco inspections occur annually but can occur at anytime throughout the year. To avoid penalty fees and potentially the revocation of the business license, please ensure that SEC. 10-1.2780 - TOBACCO RETAIL SALES ESTABLISHMENTS is being adhered to. Reach out to Code Enforcement at ay time with any questions about tobacco laws.

You may request an Administrative Hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of this letter to dispute the facts of the violations(s) under the Hayward Municipal Code. The completed form and hearing fee must be submitted to the City of Hayward Revenue Division, 777 B St., Hayward, Ca 94541. For additional information please see the City of Hayward website at www.hayward-ca.gov or call (510) 583-4600.

Administrative Hearing Fee: $1,276.00
An inspection will be conducted on Wednesday, December 10, 2025 10:00 am, to verify compliance and determine any necessary corrections. Your presence or that of an adult over the age of 18 is required. Pets must be secured during the inspection. Fees and penalties may apply as noted pursuant to the most recently adopted City of Hayward Master Fee Schedule. Note: When applicable the City will communicate with non-profit agencies to refer homeless individuals to services prior to abatement.

Please join us in maintaining a clean, safe and attractive neighborhood for all residents. If you have any questions or wish to schedule an alternate inspection date, please call 510-583-4139.

Sincerely,
Jesse Prins
Code Inspector I
510-583-4139
[email protected]
Printed: 11/26/25 Page 2 of 4
',H' - ' CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2025-00105
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 11/07/2025
Failed Inspection Date: 11/17/2025
Next Inspection Date: 10-Dec-2025 10:00 am
CIT-015067-2025

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I, Jesse Prins, am over the age of 18 and employed by the City of Hayward, 777, "B" Street, Hayward, Alameda County, California 94541.

On November 26, 2025, I served the following document(s) on the interested parties in this action by sending true copies as shown below for service as designated below:
1) Letter to Owner, APN:442-0038-003-00 , Case #: CE-TRLENF-2025-00105 SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
I am familiar with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence will be enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and deposited with the U .S. Postal Service on the date herein above in the ordinary course of business at Hayward, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Jesse Prins
Code Inspector I
Printed: 11/26/25 Page 3 of 4
-
INVOICE (EG25-26369)

FOR CITY OF HAYVVARD

SUM ITRA PROPERTIES LLI
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 945:

INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION EG25-26369 11/26/2025 12/26/2025 Due NONE

CODE CASE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CE-TRLENF-2025-00105 CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense $1,500.00 SUBTOTAL $1,500.00

REMITTANCE INFORMATION TOTAL
City of Hayward
777 B St
Hayward, CA 94541
Please write the Invoice Number on Your Check
Make Check payable to: CITY OF HAYWARD
$1,500.00 I
THERE WILL BE A $25.00 CHARGE FOR EACH RETURNED CHECK.

TO PAY IN ONLINE: Go to https://www.hayward-ca.goviepermits and search for the Invoice number Printed: 11/26/25 Page 4 of 4

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am
CIT-004844-2026

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Property Owner: Bhupinder Bhandari
Mailing Address
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Dear property owner/tenant: A recent reinspection of the subject property showed that the following violations were not satisfactorily corrected in accordance with the Notice of Violation mailed to the property owner(s), and continue to be in violation of Hayward Municipal Code (HMC), California Building Code (CBC), California Health and Safety Code (CHS) and/or other adopted ordinances. A failed inspection and penalty fee has been assessed for continued non-compliance. Invoice is attached to this letter. Please resolve all remaining violations by the next reinspection date to avoid additional fees and penalties.

Property Location:
1090 La Playa Dr
Hayward, CA 94545
Parcel
442-0038-003-00
VIOLATIONS/CORRECTIONS:

Violation: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO RETAIL STANDARDS - Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Tobacco Retail License
Corrective Action: All Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments shall abide all Federal, State and Local requirements and standards to include but not limited to the following identified violations: any flavored tobacco products, any cannabis, any cigarillo product with packaging containing less than 5 units, any vape or vape accessories, any menthol cigarettes, any hemp products, any product that contains psilocybin or "magic mushrooms" or adulterated food items that alters consciousness. Unit: Area: Compliance Date: 04/22/2026 Violation: HMC SEC. 10-1.2785 - TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE - Expired or Lack of Tobacco Retail License Tobacco Retail License Corrective Action: Obtain required Tobacco Retail License and comply with all Requirements and Operational Standards for Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments set forth in SEC.10-1.2780 through 10-1.2795 of the Hayward Municipal Code.

Please post current copies of the City of Hayward Business License, City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License, and the California Tobacco Retail License in a public, conspicuous place.

Unit: Area: Compliance Date: 04/22/2026
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Please email your inspector if you have any questions. Thank you! Printed: 4/10/26

H

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am
CIT-004844-2026

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
You may request an Administrative Hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of this letter to dispute the facts of the violations(s) under the Hayward Municipal Code. The completed form and hearing fee must be submitted to the City of Hayward Revenue Division, 777 B St., Hayward, Ca 94541. For additional information please see the City of Hayward website at www.hayward-ca.gov or call (510) 583-4600.

Administrative Hearing Fee: $1,276.00
An inspection will be conducted on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 9:00 am, to verify compliance and determine any necessary corrections. Your presence or that of an adult over the age of 18 is required. Pets must be secured during the inspection. Fees and penalties may apply as noted pursuant to the most recently adopted City of Hayward Master Fee Schedule. Note: When applicable the City will communicate with non-profit agencies to refer homeless individuals to services prior to abatement.

Please join us in maintaining a clean, safe and attractive neighborhood for all residents. If you have any questions or
wish to schedule an alternate inspection date, please call 510-583-4139.

Sincerely,
Jesse Prins
Code Inspector I
510-583-4139
[email protected]
Printed: 4/10/26 Page 2 of 9
IH1 ' CITY OF HAYWARD .'- • Development Services Department Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
CASE IMAGES:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (4).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (7).jpg
Notes:

Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (10).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (5).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (8).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (11).jpg
-.4116r.

Notes:

CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (6).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (9).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (12).jpg
Printed: 4/10/26 Page 3 of 9

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (13).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (16).jpg
Notes:

Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (19).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (14).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (17).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (20) jpg
Notes:

CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (15).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (18).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (21).jpg
Notes:
c 111,-"J‘
Mina f 1

VVARNIPJCI
This
ttttt alris
Nit-r3hrie,

11.,.••••,“
.r,
Printed: 4/10/26 Page 4 of 9
S - . -
H
N.— CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www. hayward-ca.gov
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (22).jpg Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (23).jpg Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (25).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (28).jpg
Notes:

Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (26).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (29).jpg
Notes:

CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (24).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (27).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (30).jpg
Notes:

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 5 of 9
H

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (31).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (34).jpg
Notes:

Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (37).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (32).jpg
ri a small amount, you can
.113EFt SET 11 SET77/41a A
Make sure you are In a spa
you can be yourself corn
1V BODY IS DIFFERENT,
trognectlants: Sugar,
tole Powder, Emulsifier (Soy L
Eortr. 'sIIocj,bIfl. Enriched Flour
$rk) Organic Palm Froir
ssits.This proctor'
. .3CelliELS49.9 nuts. rNucritic,•
Olaf F
•
. utoint ;ea (4%0
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (35).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (1).jpg
CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (33).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (36).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (2).jpg
Notes:

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 6 of 9
CITY OF HAYWARD rill Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (3).jpg
Notes:

Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
Printed: 4/10/26 Page 7 of 9
.,

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov
Case Number: CE-TRLEN F-2026-00006
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Failed Inspection Date:

Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am
CIT-004844-2026

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I, Jesse Prins, am over the age of 18 and employed by the City of Hayward, 777, "B" Street, Hayward, Alameda County, California 94541.

On April 10, 2026, I served the following document(s) on the interested parties in this action by sending true copies as shown below for service as designated below:
1) Letter to Owner, APN:442-0038-003-00 , Case #: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006 SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
I am familiar with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence will be enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and deposited with the U .S.

Postal Service on the date herein above in the ordinary course of business at Hayward, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Jesse Prins
Code Inspector I
Printed: 4/10/26 Page 8 of 9

SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLI
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 945:

INVOICE (EG26-02737)

FOR CITY OF HAYVVARD

INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION EG26-02737 04/10/2026 05/10/2026 Due NONE

CODE CASE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CE-TRLENF-2026-00006 CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense $1,500.00 SUBTOTAL $1,500.00

REMITTANCE INFORMATION TOTAL
City of Hayward
777 B St
Hayward. CA 94541
Please write the Invoice Number on Your Check
Make Check payable to: CITY OF HAYWARD
$1,500.00
THERE WILL BE A $25.00 CHARGE FOR EACH RETURNED CHECK.

TO PAY IN ONLINE: Go to https://www.hayward-ca.qoviepermits and search for the Invoice number Printed: 4/10/26 Page 9 of 9
2026-5345:

Licensee: Ezzaddin Ali
DBA: The Gr8 Smoke Shop
Address: 1090 La Playa Drive
City of Hayward Business License number: CE-TRLPMT-22997 Date of Inspection: 01/28/2026
During the compliance check the following items were located inside the business:
99 packages of suspected cannabis pre rolls with an approximate weight of 3 pounds. 1 Sprakiez preroll- licensed cannabis product
1 Burrs place container pre roll
1 Hashtag Jar pre roll
1 Sparkiez Jar pre roll
2 Josh Wax container with pre roll
1 Rosin tech Container pre roll
73 Single "Raw" pre roll
17 3pack "Raw" pre roll in small plastic bag
82 containers of cannabis "vape" pens with an approximate weight of 8 pounds 11 3.5 grain box ofJoker King Vape
7 1.5g box ofjoker king vape
5 Diamond sauce disposable in green container
13 Stiizy half gran THC pods
8 verde disposable thc pod vape
9 boutiq switch 2g tank
2 1.5g royal premium oil vape pen
2 1g Globs vape
2 500mg himalayavapor
1 1g green line vape
1 lemon og vape
1 kushme 100mg vape
1 lazy bud 1g vape
1 homegrown vape
1 1g halara vape
1 1g sun& smoke vape
1 1care by design vape
1 1g shooters vape
1 1g high 90s vape
1 1g Hanabi vape
1 2g hitz vape
1 1g Hanabi pyramid vape
In addition, 39 packages of food suspected of being infused with psilocybin was collected with an approximate total weight of 5 pounds:
4 Wonka Bar (suspected psilocybin)
2 Silly farms (suspected psilocybin)
6 mycrochips organic mushroom chocolate
3 Deja vu food bar 4g
9 odyssey food bar 3.5g
3 mushlover raw mushrooms 3.5 grams
6 Medi Mind trips chocolate 22g
6 Medi vegan gummies 4.5g

EXHIBIT D
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
EXHIBIT D-1
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 AWARDS

ALAMEDA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Alameda County District
Attorney's Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, merchant diversion, and prosecution of violators.
$ 2,254,107
Alameda County Sheriff's Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, enforcement education, and task force collaboration. $ 157,499
City of Alameda
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education, merchant diversion, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 234,287
City of Hayward Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and retailer education. $ 153,000

BUTTE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Oroville
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 123,622

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Oakley Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 57,464
City of Pinole
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 309,910
Pittsburg Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, and retailer education.
$ 342,675
San Pablo Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retailer education.
$ 782,661
Continued next page.
e

FRESNO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Fresno County Department of
Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education, task force collaboration, and prosecution of violators.
$ 1,998,231
City of Huron
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 137,808
City of Kerman
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education. $ 30,628
City of Mendota
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 15,390

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Eureka Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and undercover buys.
$ 170,789

KINGS COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Hanford Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and task force collaboration.
$ 482,016
Kings County Sheriff's Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education. $ 1,229,673

LASSEN COUNTY

LAWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Lassen County Sheriff's Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 725,492

Continued next page.
4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Compton
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and retailer education. $ 350,000 Inglewood Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and enforcement education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 136,682
.

City of Los Angeles
Will fund tobacco minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and undercover buys at tobacco retail establishments.
$ 2,235,844
City of Pasadena
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, task force collaboration, and prosecution of violators. $ 759,271
Redondo Beach Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 43,872
Santa Monica Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 138,138
City of South El Monte
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 291,235

MADERA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Madera
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations.
$ 394,197

MERCED COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Merced
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and coordinator for prosecution of violators. $ 112,026

MODOC COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Alturas
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education, task force collaboration, and prosecution of violators.
$ 263,857

Continued next page.

ORANGE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Anaheim Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 554,556
Fullerton Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and undercover buys.
$ 801,505
Irvine Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 626,250
City of Orange
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 301,440
RIVERSIDE COUNTY .4

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Coachella
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 126,000
Corona Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and enforcement education.
$ 648,500
Murrieta Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 167,997
City of Palm Desert
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 393,144
Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 385,664

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Sacramento
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 884,021
County of Sacramento Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and undercover buys. $ 163,625

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Loma Linda Will fund minor decoy operations at tobacco retail establishments. $ 21,570 Yucaipa Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and minor decoy operations. $ 74,709 Continued next page.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of El Cajon
Will fund tobacco retailer education, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 320,343

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Francisco Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, undercover buys, and prosecution of violators.
$ 1,119,862

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Manteca
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 169,200
San Joaquin County Public
Health Services
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 804,150
San Joaquin County Sheriff's
Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and enforcement education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 241,853
City of Stockton
Will fund minor decoy, shoulder tap, and undercover buy operations at tobacco retail establishments.
$ 976,853

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Luis Obispo Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and retailer education.
$ 74,276

SAN MATEO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
County of San Mateo
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and enforcement education, task force collaboration, and prosecution of violators. $ 1,305,540
South San Francisco Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 157,722
._

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Santa Barbara County Health
Department
Will fund undercover buys at tobacco retail establishments, retailer education, task force collaboration, and technical assistance to cities for retailer enforcement.
$ 578,560
Continued next page.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Gilroy Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 291,546

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Capitola Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer education, and prosecution of violators. $ 55,378
Santa Cruz Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, and retailer education.
$ 374,883

SHASTA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Anderson
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 37,412
Shasta County Health and
Human Services Agency
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education, and task force collaboration. $ 492,978

SOLANO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Fairfield Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and enforcement education, undercover buys, and prosecution of violators.
$ 795,408

SONOMA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Sebastopol Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer education, and coordination for prosecution of violators.
$ 31,704
County of Sonoma
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 628,252

STANISLAUS COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Stanislaus County Health
Services Agency
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education.
$ 436,639

TULARE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
County of Tulare
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and undercover buys.
$ 117,486
Continued next page.

VENTURA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Oxnard Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, task force collaboration, and prosecution of violators. $ 218,856
Port Hueneme Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buys, retailer and enforcement education, and prosecution of violators.
$ 156,657
End

EXHIBIT D-2
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
*

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 AWARDS

ALAMEDA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Alameda County Sheriff s Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulciler tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, merchant diversion, and a new task force.
$263,346
Dublin Police Services
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco
laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations. $60,950
Emeryville Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$99,780
Livermore Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations. $82,179
Newark Community
Preservation Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and task force collaboration. $176,802
Oakland Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor and should tap decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances, prosecution of tobacco sales violations, task force collaboration, and establishment of a database for enforcement activities.
$1,493,143
Union City Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$112,227

AMADOR COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Amador County Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and merchant diversion.
$259,922
Continued on next page.
1 BUTTE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Butt County Public Health
Department
Will fund minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and Tobacco Compliance Roundtables.
$259,823

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Brentwood Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$67,557
Concord Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations. $68,744
Contra Costa County Office of
the Sheriff
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$87,589
Walnut Creek Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and minor decoy operations. $16,481

EL DORADO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
El Dorado County Health and
Human Services Agency
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and a new task force.
$839,596

FRESNO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Clovis Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$84,500
Fresno, City of
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances.
$1,446,426

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Humboldt County Division of
Environmental Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and collaborate with County Counsel on education and compliance around flavored tobacco.
$203,276

LAKE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Lake County Department of
Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $383,527
Continued on next page.

•

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Baldwin Park, City of
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, a new task force, and youth purchase assessments.
$225,228
Calabasas, City of Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$54,900
Claremont Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and undercover buy operations.
$85,833
Compton, City of Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and merchant diversion.
$192,729
El Monte, City of
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and a new task force.
$489,508
El Segundo Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco
laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations. $19,608
Gardena Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$99,023
Long Beach City Prosecutor's
Office
Will fund vertical prosecution of tobacco sales violations and task force collaboration.
$854,118
.

Long Beach Department of
Health and Human Services
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and merchant diversion, and a Youth Ambassador Program for community-engaged retailer education and outreach.
$1,135,545
Los Angeles City Attorney's
Office
Will fund an online platform for retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$61,224
Los Angeles County
Department of Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspection, minor decoy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and task force collaboration.
$3,353,301
Montebello, City of
Will fund tobacco retailer inspection, undercover buy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$317,181
Pomona Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$381,591
San Fernando Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and minor decoy and shoulder tap operations.
$92,241

MADERA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Madera County Sheriff's Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor and should tap decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances, and merchant diversion.
$623,299

Continued on next page.
•

MARIN COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Mill Valley Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspection, minor decoy operations, and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$19,360

MENDOCINO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Mendocino County Public
Health Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances.
$789,629

MERCED COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Merced County Department of
Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances, and a new task force.
$551,076

MONTEREY COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Monterey County District
Attorney's Office
Will fund undercover buy operations (retail facilities and online) focused on flavored tobacco products and the prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$291,130
Monterey County Sheriff's
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances.
$252,756

ORANGE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Buena Park, City of Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, and minor decoy and shoulder tap operations.
$444,180
Garden Grove Community
Development Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor and should tap decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$735,990
Orange Cove Police
Department
Will fund shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $49,140
Stanton, City of Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$199,710

Continued on next page.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Blythe Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$99,404
Cathedral City Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$135,975
Hemet Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retail education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $218,120
Riverside Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$320,994

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Galt Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations. $58,275
Rancho Cordova, City of
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$56,453
Sacramento County Sheriff's Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailerOffice undercover buy operations, and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and task force collaboration.
$1,140,769

SAN BENITO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Hollister Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor and should tap decoy operations, officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$50,840

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Chino Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $46,899
Redlands Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $43,148
San Bernardino Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $301,015
Victorville, City of Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$111,210

Continued on next page.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Chula Vista Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$113,225
San Diego County Public Health
Services
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances and merchant diversion, and expansion of data management system for compliance tracking.
$2,402,082
San Diego Police Department Will fund retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $556,812
Vista, City of Will fund tobacco retailer inspections and minor decoy operations. $173,148

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Luis Obispo, County of Will fund task force collaboration, resource sharing, and online sales monitoring.
$184,750

SAN MATEO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Burlingame Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$86,639
Daly City Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and undercover buy operations.
$119,365
Pacifica, City of
Will fund retailer inspections, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$62,713
San Mateo County Sheriff's
Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $96,276
San Mateo Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor and should tap decoy operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education of tobacco laws/ordinances.
$651,800

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Santa Cruz County Sheriff s
Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$391,349

SHASTA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Redding Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances.
$630,569
Continued on next page.

SOLANO COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Vallejo Office of the City
Attorney
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$931,758

SONOMA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Petaluma Police Department Will fund minor decoy operations. $22,020

STANISLAUS COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Ceres Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $89,574
Modesto Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and merchant diversion.
$547,511

SUTTER COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Sutter County Sheriff's Office Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $199,829

TRINITY COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Trinity County Department of
Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, and a new task force. $523,888

VENTURA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD , AWARD
Camarillo Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances. $70,662
San Buenaventura, City of
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, undercover buy operations, retailer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, and prosecution of tobacco sales violations.
$302,192
Simi Valley Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, and undercover buy operations.
$194,250

YUBA COUNTY

AWARDEE SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Yuba County Sheriffs Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, undercover buy operations, retailer and officer education on tobacco laws/ordinances, prosecution of tobacco sales violations, and task force collaboration.
$236,613
End

EXHIBIT D-3
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
D-3
liberty
andjustice
under law
I

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 AWARDS

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Pablo Police Department
Will fund additional personnel to support tobacco retailer enforcement activities including retail inspections, minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, and community education and outreach. $225,613

FRESNO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Fresno County Superintendent
of Schools
Will fund tobacco education including student-led awareness campaigns and student-led retailer education including information about flavored tobacco laws.
$880,188
Kingsburg Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail inspections, decoy operations, retailer and parent town hall training, additional retailer education following the training, and tobacco education for students and school staff.
$23,053
Parlier Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections, flavored tobacco operations, establishment of a retailer diversion program with retailer education meetings for violators. Will also fund outreach and education to students and the community and purchase and installation of tobacco-related signage. $182,941
Parlier Unified School District
Will fund tobacco retailer education through youth-led campaign, educational and outreach campaign, after-school diversion program and connecting students to community resources, tobacco training to school staff, and coordination of services through the Parlier Youth Tobacco Prevention Community Task Force.
$197,000

KERN COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Wasco Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations, and retailer education. Will also fund public education and outreach at community events.
$501,478
Continued on next page.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Duarte Public Safety
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement including inspections, minor decoy and flavored tobacco operations, and retailer education and diversion.
$295,178
Inglewood Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail inspections, shoulder tap and minor decoy operations, surveillance operations, officer training on tobacco laws and best practice enforcement activities.
$143,888
Los Angeles City Attorney's
Office
Will fund investigations and prosecutions of illegal tobacco sales to minors/youth (PC 308 violations), retailer education and trainings, develop new investigation program to target illegal online sales to youth, a new enforcement protocol for local flavored tobacco ordinance, and online tobacco retailer education to enhance the existing diversion program.
$4,249,580
Los Angeles County Office of
Education
Will fund tobacco education including training of school staff, student and family awareness presentations, facilitate a coalition of Tobacco Grant Program grantees and partner agencies to share best practices and resources, and establish procedures for safe storage and/or disposal of e-cigarettes and vape devices.
$1,483,149
Lynwood Unified School
District
Will fund tobacco education provided to students and parents, student-led anti-tobacco awareness campaigns, intervention services and community referrals for students seeking to stop tobacco use, and staff training on tobacco issues using the Stanford Tobacco Prevention Toolkit.
$201,285
Palmdale Neighborhood
Services Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections, identification and targeting of problematic retailers, and enforcement operations including shoulder-tap and single-sales flavored and single-sales operations. Will also fund purchase and installation of tobacco signage.
$793,170
West Hollywood Community
Safety Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include identification of non-compliance retailers, retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, retailer education and training, and officer training on tobacco laws and ordinances.
$75,000

MADERA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Madera Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement, tobacco education of students and the community, training of officers on tobacco laws and local ordinances, and development of a task force for retailer enforcement.
$42,227
Continued on next page.

4 •

MARIN COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Mann County Office of
Education
Will fund tobacco education to include student-led media campaigns and peer-to-peer education, prevention and intervention, student and community outreach, and establish procedures for safe storage and/or disposal of e-cigarettes and vape devices.
$116,530
Novato Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail inspection and compliance checks, minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations, retailer education including about the flavored tobacco ban, and tobacco education of students and youth.
$20,124

MONTEREY COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Soledad Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections, shoulder-tap and other enforcement operations, flavored tobacco enforcement, and conduct post-enforcement actions for violators.
$215,967

ORANGE COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Cypress Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include inspections, minor decoy, shoulder tap, targeted enforcement of known violators, and retailer education.
$128,958
Irvine Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail compliance and license inspections, flavored tobacco enforcement, consumer protection enforcement operations, retailer training and education, and community education.
$519,993
Orange Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections and enforcement operations including minor decoy, shoulder-tap operations, flavored and single-sales operations, and provide retailer education. Will also fund a diversion educational course for retailers in violation of tobacco laws or ordinances.
$230,969

Continued on next page.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Moreno Valley
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail inspections, minor decoy, shoulder-tap and single sales operations, problematic retailer identification and compliance checks, retailer education, and community education.
$123,850
Murrieta Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include problematic retailer identification, surveillance operations, minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations, and collaboration to suspend and revoke tobacco permits after identifying violations. Will also fund retailer education classes and tobacco education presentations to students, parents, and school staff.
$134,061
Riverside County Sheriff's
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections, minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations, single-sales enforcement operations, establish procedures for safe storage and/or disposal of e-cigarettes and vape devices, and install tobacco signage.
$336,618
[ SACRAMENTO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Elk Grove Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations, flavored tobacco sales enforcement, retailer education, training of officers in tobacco laws and ordinances, and will provide tobacco education in public forums and at schools. $138,594
Sacramento County Sheriff's
Office
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, enforcement of the flavored tobacco ban, monitoring online sales and reporting violators for business license suspension, retailer education, tobacco education at schools and in the community, and training officers on tobacco laws and ordinances.
$1,096,253

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Ontario Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail inspections, minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations, retailer education meetings/classes, community outreach and tobacco education, and training of officers on tobacco laws and ordinances.
$130,606

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Chula Vista Police Department Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include shoulder tap and minor decoy operations, and flavor tobacco operations. $115,217 San Diego County Public Health
Services
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include minor decoy operations and code enforcement, retailer education, citations for violators and participation in appeals hearings.
$1,279,771
Continued on next page.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Francisco Department of
Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retail inspections, minor decoy operations, flavored tobacco enforcement operations, online sales enforcement including lawsuits and demand letters filed by City Attorney's Office, retailer education and training, and retailer diversion. Will also fund improvements to data collection, analysis and reporting, and assisting other jurisdictions build their capacity. $2,888,144

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Arroyo Grande Police
Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include shoulder tap and minor decoy operations, follow-up inspections, retailer education, tobacco education to minors and youth, and training of officers on tobacco laws and local ordinances.
$153,826

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Santa Clara County Department
of Public Health
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement across the county and in seven contracted law enforcement agencies to include minor decoy operations, flavored tobacco inspections, retailer education, implementation of a multi-agency task force, and coordinate postenforcement protocols related to violations. Will also fund data tracking efforts to monitor compliance, evaluate effects of ordinances, and help law enforcement agencies prioritize 1 enforcement of non-compliant retailers. 1
I
$1,216,296
Santa Clara County Office of
Education
Will fund tobacco education, staff training and implementation of restorative practices, youth-involved media awareness campaigns, retailer education media including about the flavored tobacco ban, purchase and installation of tobacco signage, and tobacco education and outreach to parents and guardians including proper disposal of vape devices.
$1,417,927

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Santa Cruz Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer inspections and surveillance, minor decoy operations, retailer education including the flavored tobacco ban, community outreach, and sharing of information and resources with neighboring agencies through the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition.
$256,568

SISKIYOU COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Siskiyou County Sheriff's Office
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include minor decoy operations and retailer education including about flavored tobacco bans. Will also fund community outreach and education, training school staff on tobacco issues, and establishment of a tobacco product waste management protocol.
$620,900
Continued on next page.

SUTTER COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Sutter County Health and
Human Services Agency
Will fund tobacco retailer education, tobacco education and diversion services for students. $396,039

TULARE COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Farmersville Police Department
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include shoulder-tap and minor decoy operations, retail stings, and retailer and community education.
$36,545

YOLO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Yolo County Health and Human
Services Agency
Will fund tobacco retailer enforcement to include retailer compliance checks and licensing inspections, decoy operations, flavor ban enforcement, and retailer training and education.
$139,107
End

EXHIBIT D-4
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
A4,0. c
• .1/..111 •
4 4 "I

TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

ALAMEDA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Alameda County Sheriff's Office Will fund enforcement operations to include retail inspections, shoulder tap and minor decoy operations, and tobacco store enforcement operations. In addition, training and education will be conducted with youth, sworn officers, and business owners to prevent the access and use of tobacco products by minors. $351,216
Piedmont Police Department Will provide funding for tobacco enforcement operations, to conduct retail license and compliance inspections, provide training to local retailers, conduct minor decoy operations in collaboration with other local jurisdictions, provide student and parent education classes on the harms of tobacco use, and assist the local school district to procure on campus vape sensors.
$410,117
Pleasanton Police Department Will fund school and community education and enforcement operations, including retail stings and shoulder tap operations. $431,459

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Contra Costa Health Services
(Tobacco Prevention Program)
Will fund tobacco-related enforcement operations at all licensed retailers in unincorporated Contra Costa, including compliance inspections, tobacco-related training to enforcement agencies regarding tobacco laws, issues, and products, and provide technical assistance to local enforcement agencies and facilitate a countywide enforcers' workgroup.
$442,692
San Pablo Police Department Will fund personnel to provide education to youth regarding tobacco prevention, conduct retail compliance inspections, perform multijurisdictional enforcement operations, conduct enforcement operations, including minor decoy and shoulder tap, and to implement procedures to ensure 100% compliance with for smokefree rental housing tobacco ordinance. $936,288
Continued on next page.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Humboldt County Department
of Health and Human Services
Will fund retailer compliance checks and tobacco licensing inspections, retailer training and education, increase public knowledge and awareness of, and adherence to, local tobacco control ordinance, updates to internal retail permit tracking tools, and online licensing for tobacco retailers.
$541,793

IMPERIAL COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Imperial County Sheriff's Office Will fund community education and anti-tobacco campaign, retailer outreach and education, and retail compliance.
$717,802

KINGS COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Avenal Police Department Will fund efforts to create a local task force who will design and implement an educational anti-tobacco campaign targeted towards minors, organization of community outreach events, conduct tobacco-related enforcement operations, including minor decoy and shoulder tap, retail compliance checks, conduct retail education meetings, and install signage throughout the community to inform the public of state and local no smoking laws.
$158,673
Hanford Police Department Will fund enforcement activities including shoulder tap operations, retail inspections, and minor decoy details, and training to staff regarding results of tobacco related operations and retail establishments out of compliance.
$70,110

LASSEN COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Lassen County Sheriff's Office Will fund tobacco prevention education to youth within the public school system, conduct tobacco retail compliance checks and enforcement, including minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, retailer education in partnership with local youth, and to provide public education outreach in a variety of settings throughout the county.
$794,237
Continued on next page.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Downey Police Department Will fund law enforcement activity to identify and target problematic retailers of tobacco products through undercover enforcement operations including minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, education and outreach to youth, retailers, and the community to prevent tobacco initiation among youth and young adults, and to provide training to law enforcement staff.
$88,560
Gardena Police Department Will fund enforcement efforts including minor decoy operations and retail license inspections, and community education to address the problematic issue of tobacco use amongst youth.
$123,276
Inglewood Police Department Will fund targeted enforcement activities, including minor decoy and shoulder tap operations, to increase compliance with laws pertaining to the sale/use of tobacco, conduct retail and community education sessions, and provide training to patrol officers to increase knowledge of tobacco related laws and trends.
$245,346
Long Beach City Prosecutor Will fund the creation of a multi-agency task force with local government agencies to strategically target youth-sensitive retailers and increase compliance with tobacco related laws, enhance tobacco retailer diversion through additional education and engagement, increase prosecutions of repeat offenders, increase outreach to retailers and improve community relationships, and provide training to city prosecutors from both local and regional jurisdictions. $505,146
Los Angeles City Attorney Will fund personnel to case manage the city's retailer education program, prepare legal filings, and support the implementation of new tobacco-related laws, and to design and implement new retailer signage citywide to accurately and consistently communicate tobacco retailer laws and smoking prohibitions.
$347,033
Los Angeles County
Department of Public Health
Will fund efforts to increase enforcement operations of all retailers, including minor decoy operations, increase retailer education and compliance checks, develop an integrated and centralized tracking system for enforcement and compliance checks, and to develop a regional taskforce to coordinate policy enforcement methods within the county.
$1,696,968
Monrovia Police Department Will fund enforcement operations, including minor decoy and shoulder tap, retail compliance checks, and education to counter protobacco marketing influences to underage youth. $571,876
Port of Los Angeles High School Will fund the procurement and installation of vape/smoke detecting cameras and anti-tobacco signage on campus to deter students from utilizing tobacco or engaging in tobacco sales. Will also fund tobacco awareness education.
$233,237
Santa Monica Police
Department
Will fund tobacco-related enforcement operations targeting licensed and Internet retailers, locations where minors are likely to be present, identify problematic retailers of tobacco products, conduct local tobacco retail license inspection operations, and conduct retailer education meetings.
$115,983

MADERA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Madera County Sheriff's Office Will fund personnel to provide education to minors focused on the effects of tobacco use and strategies for prevention, conduct retail inspections and enforcement operations, community education, and provide tobacco related training to all sworn staff.
$847,391

MERCED COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Dos Palos Police Department Will fund education for students regarding the dangers of tobacco, conduct retail compliance checks, enforcement efforts including undercover and shoulder tap operations, provide information to parents and school staff about the signs of tobacco use amongst minors and how to prevent it, and provide officer training. $137,367
Merced County Department of
Public Health
Will fund partnerships with local law enforcement agencies to conduct minor decoy operations at tobacco retailers, provide retailer education, conduct retail observations, provide law enforcement training and technical assistance, and engage youth in the creation of a tobacco prevention campaign.
$994,626

MODOC COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Modoc County Sheriff's Office Will fund education to reduce smoking rates among the population, community enforcement operations, retailer diversion program, provide retailer education, law enforcement staff training, establishment of a multi-agency committee, and the creation of an anti-tobacco community outreach campaign.
$351,702

MONTEREY COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Greenfield Police Department Will fund decoy and shoulder tap operations at tobacco retailers targeting illegal tobacco sales to minors, and to create educational materials in coordination with Greenfield High School students to be shared throughout the community to raise peer-to-peer tobacco awareness among youth.
$56,155

NAPA COUNTY
,

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Calistoga Police Department Will fund community outreach, partnership with local agencies to develop anti-tobacco educational resources for students, training for police officers, city staff, and school staff regarding tobacco related issues and current laws, and retailer education.
$278,141

NEVADA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Nevada City Police Department Will fund enforcement activities including sting operations targeting businesses selling tobacco products to minors, an information campaign targeting youth and those working with youth, and tobacco-related training to patrol officers.
$111,835

ORANGE COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Buena Park Will fund personnel to conduct enforcement operations targeting non-compliant retailers, local tobacco retail license and flavored tobacco inspections, and a public education outreach campaign aimed at reducing tobacco sales to minors.
$296,387
Fullerton Police Department Will fund directed enforcement efforts to include shoulder tap operations, minor decoy operations, and retailer compliance inspections.
$702,271
Los Alamitos Police
Department
Will fund tobacco related outreach and education, creation of a tobacco retailer education and compliance program, and
enforcement operations.
$436,361

PLACER COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Rocklin Police Department Will fund community education, retail compliance checks, retail inspection and license checks, enforcement operations including minor decoy and shoulder tap, and officer training.
$379,102

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Bernardino Police
Department
Will fund personnel to increase tobacco enforcement efforts, provide reoccurring training to all patrol officers related to tobacco enforcement and education, and increase retail site visits to ensure compliance and to provide education.
$1,097,375

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
San Diego County Health and
Human Services Agency
Will fund efforts to increase enforcement activities to resolve retail violations and increase the percentage of retailers in compliance, ,develop a new data management system to track retailer activities, creation of policies and procedures for retail application processing, license issuance, compliance inspections, and enforcement, and the formation of a new multi-agency Tobacco Retail Licensing task force to identify and address local enforcement issues.
$1,624,706

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Paso Robles Police Department Will fund decoy operations and walkthrough inspections to ensure local tobacco retailers are not selling to minors and are in compliance with city ordinances as it pertains to signage.
$30,492

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY I

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
City of Santa Maria Will fund personnel to enforce the city's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance and Flavors ban, in which minor decoy and shoulder-tap operations on tobacco retailers and online/delivery services will be conducted, retailer training and compliance, and to educate and enforce tobacco laws in the community.
$441,460

-o

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Fremont High School Will fund the procurement and installation of on campus vape detectors to deter and detect e-cigarette use.
$69,480

SHASTA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Columbia and Junction
Elementary School Districts
Will fund the procurement and installation of on campus vape sensors to reduce the use of e-cigarettes and tobacco related products within the districts' middle schools.
$14,697
Cottonwood Union Elementary
School District
Will fund the procurement and installation of on campus vape sensors to reduce the use of e-cigarettes and tobacco related products within the junior high school.
$18,477
Shasta County Health and
Human Services Agency
Will fund partnership with local law enforcement agencies to conduct minor decoy operations, retail compliance inspections and education, and increase compliance with smoke-free policies in workplaces and public spaces.
$379,354

SONOMA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Sonoma County Department of
Health Services
Will fund retailer compliance visits and undercover operations, tobacco retailer education and technical assistance, collaboration with local enforcement agencies to improve local retail compliance, and public education.
$646,804

STANISLAUS COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Turlock Unified School District Will fund the procurement and installation of on campus vape sensors to reduce the use of e-cigarettes and tobacco related products within the schools.
$189,275

TEHAMA COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Tehama County Department of
Education
Will fund retailer education and compliance checks and tobacco education events to bring community awareness to the issue of tobacco use amongst minors.
$699,175

End

EXHIBIT E
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
Adopted Master Fee Schedule
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Interim Director of Finance: Sharif Etman
ri HAYWARD
Effective July 1st, 2025
Table of Contents
Introduction
3 Proposition 26 Review and Compliance
3 All City Departments
4 City Clerk
6 City Manager
8 Development Services Department
9 Engineering and Transportation Services 28
Finance 35
Fire Department 37
Information Technology 49
Library and Community Services 50
Maintenance Services Department 53
Police Department 56
Utilities 8z Environmental Services 63
Glossary of Terms 77
Introduction
The Master Fee Schedule Resolution reports fees for services that are provided to our citizens. Fees that do not recover the full cost of providing the service result in a subsidy which shifts funds away from the critical, high priority needs ofjob creation, public safety initiatives, utility services, and neighborhood programs.

Before a fee increase was considered the Department responsible for the service demonstrated that the services are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible. There are a minimal number of fees that were considered for an increase in this year's amendment. For these fees, each respective department demonstrated that services are provided in a best practice manner, and that all reasonable opportunities for savings have been exhausted. As a result of this critical analysis, only fees for new programs or services have been added. Additionally, other fees have been lowered, deleted, or to clarify actual fees charged for services.

Pro I osition 26 Review and Corn eliance
In November 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which amended Article's XIIIA and XIIIC of the state constitution regarding the adoption of fees and taxes. Proposition 26 seeks to assure that taxes, which must be approved by the voters, are not disguised as fees, which can be approved by legislative bodies, such as a city council. The proposed Master Fee Schedule (MFS) was reviewed for compliance with Proposition 26, and in the City Attorney's opinion, the MFS is compliant. 3 11 City Des artments
A. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS - Authorized by Hayward Municipal Code (HMC) Article 7 - Administrative Citations have fines set pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 53069 and 36900. Unless otherwise specified by Ordinance, Fee Schedule or Code, the fine amount for any violation of any section of the Municipal Code shall be:

1. First Violation

2. Second Violation

3. Third and Subsequent Violations
$100.00
$200.00
$500.00
B. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FEE $761.00
C. USB FLASH DRIVE $20.00 each
D. DISHONORED OR RETURNED PAYMENT FROM BANK OR CREDIT CARD

1. If paid within 30 days of notification

2. If paid after 30 days of notification, subject to
forgiveness of all or a portion of the fee by the
Director of Finance.
$25.00 + check amount
As authorized by
California Civil Code
1719, but not less than
$25.00
E. GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The State of California annually publishes an Official State Income Limits guideline for each county.

This document is available through the California Department of Housing and Community Development website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ . Municipal programs offering income-based discounts will use the 'Alameda County - Very Low Income' figures to determine eligibility.

F. LATE AND DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
Unless specifically provided otherwise, the manner of payment, delinquency status, and assessment and collection of penalties for delinquent payment of the fees imposed or reflected by this master fee schedule shall be as follows:

DAILY FEE:

MONTHLY FEE:

QUARTERLY FEE:

Due on its effective date and delinquent at 5:00 PM on
due date.

Due on the first day of each month for which licenses,
permits, fees are sought and delinquent at 5:00 PM on
the tenth day of the month.

Due on the first day ofthe yearly quarter period and
delinquent at 5:00 PM on the tenth day ofthe first month in which the quarterly fee is due.

ANNUAL FEES: Due on the first day ofthe established annual period and delinquent at 5:00 PM on the tenth day ofthe first month in which the annual fee is due.

A late payment fee of $5.00 per month shall be applied to all accounts paid after the established due date.

The delinquent account(s) shall be assessed an interest charge of one percent (1%) per month ofthe unpaid delinquent balance and related interest charge. The interest charge shall be applied to all accounts delinquent for any calendar month or portion of such month and shall not be prorated. 4 If the delinquent payment is paid within 30 days of notification, the interest fee may be subject to forgiveness based on hardship. The Director of Finance shall review and document all interest fees not collected.

G. PHOTOCOPYING OF FILE MATERIALS

1. Black and White Copy -8½ x 11 inches $0.50 per page for first ten (10) pages of each document
$0.10 each additional page of same
document
or 81/2 x 14 inches

2. Black and White Copy - 11 x 17 inches $1.00 per page for first ten (10) pages of each document
$0.20 per page each additional page of
same document

3. Color Copy - 81/2 x 11 inches or 8% x.14 $0.75 per page inches

4. Color Copy - 11 x 17 inches $1.50 per page
H. RESEARCH OR ANALYSIS OF RECORDS (involving more than 15 minutes)

1. $76.00 per hour
I. SMOKING ORDINANCE
(minimum charge $20.00)

1. Smokers Violating the Ordinance

2. Fines for businesses that fail to enforce the smoking ordinance (1) First Offense
(2) Second Offense
(3) Third Offense
J. TOBACCO ORDINANCE

1. Offense Fees
(1) First Offense
(2) Second Offense
(3) Third Offense

2. Reinspection Fee
$50.00 per violation
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension
$3,000.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension
$5,000.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension or
revocation
$117.00 per visit
5 )ocusign Envelope ID 84371B75-A75D-8527-83EA-DOE164C66F0F 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
11 23
24 25
26 -)7
28 DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALI
I, Ezzadin Ali, declare as follows:

1. I am the owner of the business located at 1090 La Playa, Hayward, CA 94545 (the "Premises" (the "Premises") dba The Gr8 Smoke Shop ("Petitioner"). I have personal knowledge of all the facts contained herein and if called as a witness I would and could testify thereto.

2. I have operated the Premises as a tobacco retailer business since at least as early as March 1, 2019.

On or about May 14, 2026, I received a notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License (the "Revocation Notice"), alleging the following basis for revocation:
• Violation #1: 4/10/2026 — Flavored tobacco products, out of state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, cannabis pre-rolled joints, and expired licensing.
• Violation #2: 11/26/2025 — Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted licensing.
• Violation #3: 4/10/2024 — Hemp products, expired/not posted licensing.

The administrative hearing in the Revocation Notice was originally scheduled for June 11,

3. On or about June Pi 2026, the City caused to have served another Notice of Revocation, alleging the following basis for revocation:
• Violation #1: 4/10/2026 — Flavored tobacco products, out of state menthol cigarettes, edible products containing psilocybin, hemp products, vapes and vape liquid, cannabis pre-rolled joints, and expired licensing.
• Violation #2: 11/26/2025 — Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted licensing.
• Violation #3: 4/10/2024 — Hemp products, expired/not posted licensing. • Violation #4: 1/25/2023 — Flavored tobacco products, hemp products, vape/electronic smoking devices.
(the "Second Revocation Notice")
Upon personal service of the Second Revocation Notice, the City Code Enforcement Officer 33 DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALI
Obocusign Envelope ID. 84B71B75-A756-8527-83EA-DOE164C66FDF 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
expressly told my employee that it was the same letter "same same" as previously served on May 14, 2026, and notice was only reserved because my attorney requested a continuance After my review of the Second Revocation Notice, I discovered that the Second Revocation Notice was different than the original Revocation Notice. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy ofthe video surveillance footage ofthe Premises wherein the City Code Enforcement Officer personally served onto my employee, and expressly told my employee that the Second Revocation Notice was the same letter as the original Revocation Notice.

4. Neither I nor the Premises were part of any education or compliance focused inspections conducted by the City, nor was I provided with any materials, guidance, outreach, or other communications from the City intended to educate me regarding applicable requirements or to promote voluntary compliance. I did not receive any education information or participate in any discussions, education or otherwise, concerning the requirements that the City is claiming in their Staff Report were the subject of its compliance and outreach efforts.

5. Ifthe hearing were to proceed on June 25, 2026, and the City votes to revoke my License, I would suffer great or irreparable injury which includes, but is not limited to, violation of my due process rights, loss of business and business income, reputational damage. A revocation would also jeopardize my leasehold interest in the Premises and causes significant economic harm to my employees, whose well-being and livelihood depend on the continued operation of the business under the License
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on this 22 nd day of June 2026 at Hayward
(City)
, California.
(—Signed by:
727DA60A64C04FF... Ezzadm All, veciarant
39 DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALT

EXHIBIT
A
TO DECLARATION OF EZZADIN AL!
F
J