Hayward City Council
October 13, 2026

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 1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEAL

AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF TOBACCCO RETAILER LICENSE
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,
Appellant,
vs.

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

Permit No. CE-TRLPMT-22997

APPELLANT EZZADIN ALI DBA THE
GR8 SMOKE SHOP’S NOTICE OF

APPEAL AND APPEAL OF DECISION

TO REVOKE TOBACCO RETAILER

LICENSE
Appeal Hearing
Date:

Time:

Location: Hayward City Hall
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Attachment VII-c
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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
2 I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Ezzadin Ali, dba The Gr8 Smoke Shop (“Appellant”) submits this Notice of Appeal and Appeal (the “Appeal”) regarding the revocation of that certain tobacco retailer license under License No. CE-TRLPMT-2297 (the “License”). The instant Appeal challenges the basis of which the City of Hayward (the “City”) revoked Appellant’s License, and the manner in which the City proceeded with the revocation. Specifically, the City conducted and rendered a decision at the revocation hearing despite various deficiencies in its notice(s) and fundamentally unfair procedures. By proceeding with the hearing notwithstanding the procedural defects, the City deprived Appellant of fundamental due process and a fair opportunity to challenge the revocation.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Appellant has operated the Premises as a tobacco retailer business since at least as early as March 1, 2019.

A. First Violation Notice
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 Appellant violated City of Hayward’s Municipal Code (“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.

The City’s evidence confirms that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2023-00001 is “Closed – Resolved”.

B. Second Notice of Violation
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 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
3 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 Appellant or sent to the Premises. Appellant, therefore, had no notice of the Second Violation Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware of its existence.

The City’s evidence confirms that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2024-00072 is “Closed – Resolved”.

C. First Administrative Penalty Notice
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 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 First Penalty Notice. The City’s own evidence also shows that the First Penalty Notice was never served on Appellant or sent to the Premises. Appellant, therefore, had no notice of the First Penalty Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware of its existence.

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 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
4 for a first offense of the Tobacco Ordinance is “$1,500.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension”. The City’s own assessed penalty confirms that the First Penalty Notice is Appellant’s first offense of the City’s Tobacco Ordinance.

Upon information and belief, the First Administrative Penalty Fee was paid. The City’s evidence confirms that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2025-00105 is “Closed – Resolved”.

D. Second Administrative Penalty Notice
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 Appellant or sent to the Premises. Appellant, therefore, had no notice of the Second Penalty Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware of its existence.

On or about April 10, 2026, the City issued Invoice No. EG26-2737 for Case No. CETRLENF-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 evidence confirms that Case No. CE-TRLENF-2026-00006 is “Closed – Resolved”. / / /
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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
5 E. Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License
On or about May 14, 2026, Appellant received a Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License dated May 14, 2026, alleging violations which purportedly 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 17, 2026, Appellant received a second Notice of Revocation of Tobacco Retail License dated May 14, 2026, alleging violations which purportedly 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 Appellant at the Premises, despite the City being aware that Appellant is represented by counsel. Further, the City did not provide a copy of the Second Revocation Notice to Appellant’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 further 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 Appellant that the Second Revocation Notice was the same as the initial Revocation Notice, when clearly, such representation is incorrect and in fact, a material misrepresentation.

G. Revocation Hearing
On or about June 25, 2026, the City proceeded with the revocation hearing and voted to revoke 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
6 Appellant’s License despite Appellant’s presentation of arguments identifying the various constitutional defects in the notices provided and the hearing procedures.

III. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPEAL IS TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE On or about June 26, 2026, the Firm contacted the City to inquire whether there was a specific form required to file an appeal, and the appeal fee required by the City to submit an appeal. That same day, the City confirmed that no specific form is required, and the appeal fee will be disclosed after the appeal is filed. See Declaration of F. Michael Ayaz, ¶2.

The City’s Staff Report states that “[t]he Planning Commission decision starts a 10-day appeal period Purusant to City of Hayward Municipal Code (“HMC”) Section 10-1.2825 and 10-1.2845.

If no appeal is received, the Commission’s decision will become final. If an appeal is filed, then the City Council will schedule a hearing for a date to be determined”. The Planning Commission’s decision to revoke Appellant License was rendered on June 25, 2026, accordingly the last day to file an appeal is July 5, 2026. As the instant Notice of Appeal and Appeal were filed within the 10-day appeal period, this Appeal is timely.

Furthermore, HMC 10-1.2845(b) states in relevant part that: “[a]ll appeals must be filed by the Planning Division prior to the effective date of the decision being appealed.” Accordingly, the instant Appeal has been submitted to the Planning Division with electronic copies also sent to City Council, City Planning Commission, City Attorney’s Office, City Manager, and City Clerk’s Office.

IV. CITY’S FAILURE OR DELAY TO DISCLOSE APPEAL FEE SHOULD NOT

RENDER APPEAL UNTIMELY
At the time this Notice of Appeal and Appeal is filed, Appellant is prepared to submit the required fee but cannot do so without knowing the amount. Any delay by the City in providing the fee amount should not prejudice Appellant or impair Appellant’s appeal rights, nor should it be used to deem the appeal untimely.

Furthermore, under these circumstances, any delay by the City in providing the fee amount should extend Appellant’s time to submit payment and cannot be used as a basis to deem the appeal 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
7 untimely or defective. Fundamental fairness requires that the City not benefit from its own delay in providing necessary filing information.

V. THE CITY’S DECISION TO REVOKE THE LICENSE IS NOT FINAL Sec. 10-1.2825(b) of the states in relevant part that “[d]ecisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be made after the conduct of a noticed public hearing by the decision-making body. Unless appealed, a decision of the Planning Commission shall become final on the 11th day following the day the decision is rendered. Decisions by the City Council are effective immediately or upon the effective date of a given ordinance, if applicable. When the day on which a decision would be final is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the decision shall become final on the second business day thereafter”. Here, the City’s Planning Commission rendered its decision on June 25, 2026, making the eleventh day following its decision July 6, 2026. Thus, the City’s decision to revoke the License does not become final until July 6, 2026, and Appellant’s License remains in effect at least until July 6, 2026, provided Appellant timely files an appeal on or before July 5, 2026. During the appeal period, the City lacks authority to treat its decision to revoke the License as final before July 6, 2026.

VI. THE FILING OF THE APPEAL STAYS THE REVOCATION
HMC 10-1.2845(c) states that “[t]he timely filing of a notice of appeal shall cause a stay in the operative effect of the actions, Permit or decision from which the appeal has been taken until a decision on the appeal is rendered”. The purpose of this stay is to preserve the status quo while appellate review is pending and to ensure that the right to appeal is meaningful rather than illusory.

As the instant appeal is timely filed (filed on or before July 5, 2026), the City’s decision to revoke Appellant’s License is automatically stayed as a matter of law and cannot lawfully take effect until a decision on the appeal is made. Thus, the License remains in effect.

VII. BASIS FOR APPEAL
A. 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 suggesting that the City’s enforcement actions are motivated by 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
8 financial incentives rather than consistent regulatory standards. See Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz, 170 Cal. App. 4th 229. 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 of Justice’s website does not show that City received comparable funding, or any funding, in the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, or 2025-2025 grant cycles. The City’s delay substantially prejudiced Appellant’s ability to defend itself. Over time, memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, and evidence becomes more difficult to obtain, increasing the risk of an erroneous deprivation of vested property rights and impairing a meaningful defense.

B. The City’s Revocation Notices Violated Appellant’s Due Process Rights The City’s revocation proceedings deprived Appellant of due process because Appellant did not receive constitutionally adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

First, the Revocation Notices failed to identify the dates on which the alleged violations occurred. Instead, they listed only the dates on which violation notices were purportedly mailed.

A mailing date is not the operative date of the alleged misconduct. Without the actual dates of the alleged violations, Appellant could not identify witnesses, preserve or obtain surveillance footage, review relevant business records, or prepare factual defenses. This omission violates California Government Code §11503, which requires that the accusation itself set forth the acts or omissions constituting the alleged violations, and deprived Appellant of fair notice of the charges.

Second, neither the original Revocation Notice nor the Second Revocation Notice identified the time or location of the administrative hearing, despite HMC section 10-1.2820 expressly requiring notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing at least ten days before the hearing. The City’s failure to comply with its own notice requirements rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair.

Third, the Second Revocation Notice materially altered the basis for revocation by adding an additional alleged violation that was absent from the original Revocation Notice. Although dated May 14, 2026, the Second Revocation Notice was not served until June 17, 2026, only eight days 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
9 before the hearing, and therefore failed to satisfy the City’s mandatory ten-day notice requirement.

The inaccurate mailing date further obscured the true timeline of the proceedings and undermined the reliability of the City’s representations regarding notice.

These defects were not harmless. They deprived Appellant of a meaningful opportunity to investigate the allegations, preserve evidence, identify witnesses, and prepare an adequate defense.

Because the City failed to proceed in the manner required by law and denied Appellant the procedural protections guaranteed by due process, the revocation decision should be reversed.

VIII. THE CITY’S FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR PROCEDURES
The City’s procedures created an unacceptable risk of erroneous deprivation of Appellant’s property rights in violation of due process.

A. Inconsistent Burdens of Proof
The City applied fundamentally inconsistent burdens of proof within the same administrative proceeding. The City asserted it was required to establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence, while simultaneously requiring Appellant to rebut the City’s case by clear and convincing evidence. Imposing disparate burdens of proof on the parties distorts the adversarial process and improperly shifts the risk of error onto Appellant. Due process requires fundamentally fair procedures where the government seeks to deprive an individual of a protected property interest, including a neutral allocation of evidentiary burdens.

B. Unequal Disclosure Obligations and Deadlines
the City’s procedural framework imposed unequal disclosure obligations and deadlines that materially disadvantaged Appellant. While Appellant was required to submit all documentary evidence at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing, the City withheld its staff report until only five (5) working days before the hearing. The unequal deadlines deprived Appellant of a meaningful opportunity to review, investigate, and respond to the evidence against it, thereby undermining the fairness of the proceeding. Courts have recognized that due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which includes adequate time to prepare a response to the opposing party’s evidence. See Miller v. Dep’t of Real Estate, 84 Cal. App. 5th 141 (2022). 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
10 C. The City’s Consideration of Untimely Allegations Was Improper This imbalance was further compounded by the City’s issuance of a Second Revocation Notice adding new allegations only eight (8) days before the continued hearing date, notwithstanding the City’s own fourteen (14) day submission requirement. The City’s inconsistent enforcement of its procedural rules and late introduction of material allegations effectively altered the governing framework midway and prejudiced Appellant’s ability to prepare a defense.

D. Unreasonable Time Limitations
Finally, the City abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable time limitations on Appellant’s presentation of its defense while permitting the City to present its case without comparable restriction. The City’s Revocation Notice indicates Appellant was allotted approximately eight (8) minutes to address the Planning Commission. Although administrative bodies possess discretion to manage hearings and impose time limits, that discretion must be exercised reasonably and in a manner consistent with due process. See Toda’s Fresh Start, Inc. v.

L.A. Cty. Office of Educ., 57 Cal. 4th 197 (2013). The City asserted that the time limitation was based on the time necessary for a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). That comparison is designable because a CUP applicant seeks discretionary approval, whereas Appellant, License holder, is presenting evidence in defense of its existing license. Moreover, any time limitation must be tailored to the specific circumstances, including the nature and number of allegations and the extent of the evidence and defenses to be presented.

Here, the time restriction was so severe that it prevented Appellant from meaningfully presenting evidence, examining witnesses, and responding to the City’s allegations. Such limitations constitute an abuse of discretion where they deprive a party of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See People v. Bedrossian, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1070 (2018). The combined effect of these procedural constraints rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair and violated Appellant’s right to due process.

E. Mischaracterization of Alleged Violations
The City repeatedly characterized Appellant’s alleged violations as “first offenses” and 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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
11 imposed only the $1,500.00 penalty applicable to first offenses under the City of Hayward’s Master Fee Schedule. At no time did the City classify any violation as a second, third, or fourth offense, or provide notice that the violations would be aggregated for purposes of enhanced penalties or revocation.

Based on these representations and the City’s repeated designation of the matters as “resolved,” Appellant reasonably understood that each violation had been fully addressed and would not later be used to support escalation or revocation. Due process requires fair notice of both the nature of alleged violations and the potential consequences of those violations.

The City’s attempt to later recharacterize prior “first offense” violations as repeat offenses to justify revocation is inconsistent with its own notices and penalty assessments, deprives Appellant of fair notice, and violates fundamental principles of due process.

Accordingly, based on these fundamentally unfair procedures, and potentially other procedural defects, Appellant appeals the City’s decision to revoke Appellant’s License.

IX. APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO

REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT AND BE HEARD
This Appeal is not based on the merits of the revocation, but the treatment of Appellant and its due process rights in the revocation of its License. Appellant was not provided an opportunity to review all the evidence relied upon by the City supporting its decision to revoke Appellant’s License. Concurrently submitted herewith is Appellant’s request for documents and information in support of the City’s revocation of its License.

X. CONCURRENTLY SUBMITTED BRIEF AND RESERVATION OF RIGHT

TO FURTHER BRIEFING
Concurrently submitted herewith is the brief presented to the Planning Commission at the June 25, 2026, administrative hearing, which is incorporated into the administrative record. Appellant further reserves the right to submit additional briefing and argument in support of this appeal, including any matters raised during appellate proceedings. / / /
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 OF APPEAL AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF

TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE
12 XI. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Appellant respectfully requests that the City rescind its decision and order revoking the License. Appellant was not provided sufficient notice of the revocation hearing, was subjected to fundamentally unfair procedures, and was denied a meaningful opportunity to review all evidence relied upon by the City as a basis for revocation of the License.

Dated: June 30, 2026 BLAKE & AYAZ
_______________________
F. Michael Ayaz
Attorney for Appellant
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 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ ISO NOTICE OF APPEAL

AND APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF TOBACCCO RETAILER LICENSE
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 duly licensed to practice in the State of California, and I have personal knowledge of all facts contained herein and if called as a witness I would and could testify thereto.

2. On or about June 26, 2026, I contacted the City of Hayward to inquire whether there was a specific form required to file an appeal, and the appeal fee required by the City to submit an appeal. That same day, the Miriam Lens, City Clerk confirmed that no specific form is required, and the appeal fee will be disclosed after the appeal is filed. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the email exchanges wit the City Clerk dated June 26, 2026.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the brief submitted on behalf of Appellant at the June 25, 2026 hearing.

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 30th day of June 2026 at Santa Ana, California.
________________________
F. Michael Ayaz, declarant

EXHIBIT A
TO DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ

IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
1 From: Miriam Lens <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 5:17 PM
To: Mike Ayaz; Michael Lawson; CityClerk
Cc: Litigation
Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request ; Case No. CETRLPMT-22997 The Gr8 Smoke Shop Mr. Michael Ayaz
The City does not require a specific form. Planning staƯ will follow up with you regarding the appeal filing fee after the appeal is filed.

Regards,
Miriam Lens, MPA, MMC
City Clerk
City of Hayward | 777 B Street | Hayward, CA 94541
 Phone: 510.583.4401 | * Email: [email protected] Website: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/
From: Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 1:22 PM
To: Michael Lawson <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Miriam Lens <[email protected]>
Cc: Litigation <[email protected]>
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.

What is the appeal filing fee? Is there a specific form you require or in any written manner in compliance with SEC. 10-1.2845.

F. Michael Ayaz
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477

EXHIBIT B
TO DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ

IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP 1090 LA PLAYA RD
Date: June 25, 2026
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Hayward City Hall – 777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541 Description Tab
BRIEF
…………………………………………………………………………………..
1 DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ ……………………………………….… 2
EXHIBIT A – Demand Letter Dated May 29, 2026 ……………………….………... A EXHIBIT B – Email exchanges from May 21 – June 24, 2026 ………….…………. B EXHIBIT C – City’s Evidence Produced on June 5, 2026 …………………………. C EXHIBIT D – Tobacco Grant Program ……………………………………….…….. D • Exhibit D-1 Fiscal Year 2025-2026 ………..………..………..………... D-1 • Exhibit D-2 Fiscal Year 2024-2025 ………..………..………..………... D-2 • Exhibit D-3 Fiscal Year 2023-2024 ………..………..………..……….. D-3 • Exhibit D-4 Fiscal Year 2022-2023 ………..………..………..………. D-4 EXHIBIT E – Hayward Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 ……….. E DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALI ……………………………………….………. 3
EXHIBIT A – Video Surveillance Footage …………….…………….……………… F 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
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 ALI 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
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
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
1 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
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 of Hayward (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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
2 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 of Hayward (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 #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 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., ¶4.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
3 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 17, 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 of Revocation 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
4 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.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
5 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
6 B. Second Notice of Violation
On or about March 25, 2024, the City conducted an inspection of the 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 of the 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 of its existence.

The City’s Summary also includes photographs purportedly taken during the March 25, 2024 inspection. None of the 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
7 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the report, coupled with the lack of notes, supporting materials, or other evidence produced during discovery, raises concerns regarding the reliability, accuracy, and evidentiary value of the 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
8 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 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
9 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 of HMC 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 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 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 of the report, and the issuance of the Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice raises concerns regarding the reliability, accuracy, and evidentiary value of the 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 of the Second Penalty Notice and no reasonable means of becoming aware of its existence.

On or about April 10, 2026, the City issued Invoice No. EG26-2737 for Case No. CE- 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
TRLENF-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 17, 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 of the 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 further 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
11 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. ARGUMENT
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 Cal.3d 392, 396 [188 Cal.Rptr. 891, 657 P.2d 383]. Clerici v. Dep’t of Motor 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. App. 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 of Educ., 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 of this 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 of the 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. / / /
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
12 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 available1. 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 of Justice’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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
13 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 of the City will not be tolerated by those attempting to defend themselves.

C. THE CITY’S REVOCATION NOTICES VIOLATE DUE PROCESS
“The protections of procedural due process apply to administrative proceedings.” Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly 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 of Licensee’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); Traverso v. Dep’t of Transp., 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 of the 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 of the 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. 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
14 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 of these requirements is to enable the accused party to prepare a meaningful defense.

Notice comports with due process where it provides sufficient information, in light of the particular circumstances, to “fully and fairly apprise[] [an administrative litigant] of the charges with sufficient certainty to prepare his defense thereto.” JMS Air 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 of the 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 of Theta XI v. Univ. of S. 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 of the City’s allegations, and raise factual defenses related to the particular circumstances.
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 of Hearing Due process requires that notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the 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 17, 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 of the 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
16 the date, time, and place of hearing. 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 additional 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 of the 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 of the 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 if the violation notices themselves specify the dates of the alleged conduct, requiring 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
17 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.” 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
18 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Water Resources Control Board (2009) 731 Cal.4th 737. When local agencies act in a quasi-judicial capacity, they must afford parties a reasonably fair hearing. Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly 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 of Los 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 “fair tribunal” and “level playing field” that due process demands.

Shaw v. Cty. of Santa 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 of this 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 of the 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 of O.B., 9 Cal. 5th 989 (2020). 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
19 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 Com., 187 Cal. App. 4th 688 (2010). This standard requires a finding of “high probability” of the truth of the facts asserted. In re Angelia P., 28 Cal. 3d 908 (1981), Conservatorship of O.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. N.S., 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 proof to ensure fairness and compliance with constitutional protections. / / /
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
20 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 of Real 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 of the 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 if the 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
21 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 if the 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 of Educ., 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 of San Francisco, 16 Cal. App. 5th 779. Continuances may not be denied where doing so results in substantial 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
22 prejudice or injustice to the affected party. See Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's 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 of Corporations, 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 of Real Estate, 84 Cal. App. 5th 141. The City has not produced the complete administrative record, including investigative reports, witness statements, photographs, recordings, communications, 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
23 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 of the 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 of the 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 reversed as not being supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Clerici, supra, 224 Cal.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 of the 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. 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
24 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of first-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.

If the City intended subsequent offenses to constitute second, third, or fourth offenses, it 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
25 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 of imposing 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 if that 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 of the City’s enforcement of the summary revocation of the 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 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
26 deprivation of the 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 of the 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 of that 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 of the 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.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
27 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 of the business under the license.

Petitioner faces substantial harm if the hearing proceeds as scheduled: potential revocation of a vested business license, loss of business 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 if the 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. 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
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 of this 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 of the 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 of producing 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. / / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP BRIEF
29 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
_______________________
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
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 duly licensed to practice in the State of California, and I have personal knowledge of all facts contained 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 of the 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 30 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 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.

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, 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.

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 of the 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 31 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
32 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF F. MICHAEL AYAZ
award from the California Department of Justice 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 of the relevant portions of the City of Hayward’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 of June 2026 at Santa Ana, California.
__________________________
F. Michael Ayaz, declarant

EXHIBIT A
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
May 29, 2026
File No. ALI01-5000
Via E-mail Only
City of Hayward
Attn: Amy Rothman, Deputy City Attorney II
[email protected]
Re: The Gr8 Smoke Shop | 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 of the 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 of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.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 of travel 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 of Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858.).

City of Hayward
May 29, 2026
Page | 2
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 of discretion 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 Cal.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 of justice. (Forrest v.

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

The City’s reliance on the availability of a “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 of Hayward
May 29, 2026
Page | 3
The City’s position regarding evidentiary disclosure is equally problematic. Mohilef v. 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 of formal 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 Com. 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 of reasonable 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 of the evidentiary record, with sufficient time thereafter to permit meaningful preparation and presentation of Respondent’s defense.

City of Hayward
May 29, 2026
Page | 4
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 of Respondent’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 & AYAZ
F. Michael Ayaz

EXHIBIT B
TO F. MICHAEL AYAZ DECLARATION
From: Michael Lawson
To: Mike Ayaz; 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.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
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 | CITY ATTORNEY
777 B Street, 4th Floor | Hayward, CA 94541
O: 510.583.4455 | F: 510.583.3660 | E: [email protected] 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 <[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
CAUTION: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
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 5:40 PM
To: Mike Ayaz <[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
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 | DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor | Hayward, CA 94541
O: 510.583.4456 | F: 510.583.3660 | E: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 4:49 PM
To: Amy Rothman <[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
CAUTION: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
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:03 PM
To: Karen Adraneda <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Litigation <[email protected]>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Notice of Revocation Continuance and Document Request ; Case No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 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 proceedings.

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 | DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor | Hayward, CA 94541
O: 510.583.4456 | F: 510.583.3660 | E: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:09 PM
To: Amy Rothman <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Litigation <[email protected]>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>; Karen Adraneda <[email protected]>
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
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 5:24 PM
To: Litigation <[email protected]>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>; 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 date 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 relief.

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

Best regards,
AMY ROTHMAN | DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor | Hayward, CA 94541
O: 510.583.4456 | F: 510.583.3660 | E: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>; Jesse Prins <[email protected]> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>; Litigation <[email protected]>; Karen Adraneda <[email protected]> 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
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | 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 <[email protected]>
Date: May 29, 2026 at 4:06:46 PM PDT
To: Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>
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 | DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
777 B Street, 4th Floor | Hayward, CA 94541
O: 510.583.4456 | F: 510.583.3660 | E: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 2:16 PM
To: Amy Rothman <[email protected]>; Litigation <[email protected]>
Cc: Jesse Prins <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer <[email protected]>; Planning Division <[email protected]>; Legal <[email protected]>; Karen Adraneda <[email protected]>
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:

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
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:58 AM
To: Mike Ayaz <[email protected]>
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-93C4-0CCF21DD457A&Search= .

Please also see the following link for additional information:
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/planning-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 | Hayward, CA 94541
O: 510.583.4456 | F: 510.583.3660 | E: [email protected] <image002.png>
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:24 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Sara Buizer
<[email protected]>; Planning Division
<[email protected]>; Legal <[email protected]>; Karen Adraneda <[email protected]>
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 of Revocation 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 of this nature, my participation is essential to ensuring an orderly and efficient presentation of the issues. Granting a continuance will serve the interests of fairness, completeness of the record, and administrative economy.

Separately, and of equal importance, our client advises that he has received only the Notice of Revocation, but none of the underlying materials upon which the City relies. This omission is highly problematic. Fundamental principles of due process, as well as the integrity of the administrative record, require that a licensee be provided with full and timely access to all evidence forming the basis of the 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 of the 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 prerequisites 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 of the 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 | Santa Ana, California 92706 P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | 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
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 �irst 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 �lavored tobacco products, electronic smoking devices, and �lavored 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 $1500.00
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 of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Exhibit VII: Notice of Violation (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 �lavored
products.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Numerous vaporizers models and
types.

Caption: Flavor enhancers meant to add
�lavor to un�lavored cigarettes.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Flavored vape liquid.

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

Exhibit I: Photos
0 Caption: Several different types of vape
devices.

Dsfd
Caption: Juul menthol �lavored vape
devices.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Flavored nicotine pouches and vape
devices.

Caption: Menthol �lavored vape devices and
several different �lavored tobacco products
being con�iscated by California Department
of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

Exhibit I: Photos
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.

Exhibit I: Photos
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.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Out of state, missing the California
cigarette stamp, menthol �lavored cigarettes.

Caption: Several menthol �lavored vape
device cartridges.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Several �lavored cannabis vape juice
cartridges.

Dsf
Caption: Flavored tobacco
cigarettes/shisha.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Edible items containing psilocybin. Caption: Edible items containing psilocybin.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Several different models of vape
devices.

Caption: Several different models of
vape devices.

Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Hemp products. 3/20/2024
Caption: Flavored tobacco products and
hemp products. 1/25/2023
Caption: Expired/not posted
licensing. 3/20/2024
Caption: Flavored tobacco products
and hemp products. 1/25/2023
Exhibit I: Photos
Caption: Flavored tobacco products and
hemp products. 1/25/2023
Caption: Vape devices and electronic
smoking devices. 1/25/2023
Exhibit I: Photos

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.

Parcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 La Playa Dr, Hayward, CA 94545
6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Zone:

Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 VAPE
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Contacts:

Activity Type Comments User Created On
Case Notes 01/26/23 Spoke with Code Manager P.Nichols and confirmed Notice is to be issued for next re-inspection.

Caitlyn Murray 01/30/2023
Email <[email protected]>Good Afternoon,
Please see the following link to the City of Hayward Tobacco Retail Sales Establishments ordinance as we discussed today:
https://library.municode.com/ca/hayward/codes/municipal_code? nodeId=HAYWARD_MUNICIPAL_CODE_CH10PLZOSU_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
Caitlyn Murray 01/25/2023
<[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
Caitlyn Murray 02/02/2023
Inspection 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.

Caitlyn Murray 01/25/2023
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 02/09/2023
Notice of Violation Letter Sent Caitlyn Murray 02/02/2023 May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit II: Case and Inspection 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

RETAIL STANDARDS
Violation Status: Resolved Citation Issue Date: 02/02/2023 Compliance Date: 02/09/2023
Code Description: Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Resolved Date: 02/09/2023 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.It 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_1803.jpg
IMG_1801.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1804.jpg
IMG_1802.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1805.jpg
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Exhibit II: Case and Inspection Details (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001) Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1808.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
Notes: 01/25/23
IMG_1810.jpg
Notes: 01/25/23
Notes: 01/25/23
EB14C3E8-4A46-4DE7-9B00-
5D3D407B615D.jpeg
Notes: 02/09/23
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 4
Exhibit II: Case and Inspection 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
ICODE-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
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Exhibit II: Case and Inspection Details (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)

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
Parcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 LA PLAYA DR, HAYWARD, CA 94545
6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Zone:

Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Contacts:

Activity Type Comments User Created On
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.

Phil Nichols 02/06/2024
NOV sent 4-10-2024 Ashley Silva 04/10/2024
PO came by to pay the tobacco invoice for 1090 LA PLAYA DR. Stephanie Toong 04/16/2024 All fees paid as of 04/22/24. Current TRL certificate emailed to business owner <[email protected]> and attached to case.

Angelica Ventura 04/23/2024
Inspection On 3-25-2024 at time of inspection tobacco products were in compliance but permits were not all posted or up to date.

Ashley Silva 04/10/2024
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.

Jesse Prins 05/13/2024
Notice of Violation Letter Sent Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Ashley Silva 04/10/2024 Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO

RETAIL STANDARDS
Violation Status: Resolved Citation Issue Date: 04/10/2024 Compliance Date: 04/30/2024
Code Description: Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Resolved Date: 05/02/2024 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.

Attached Images
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit III: Case and Inspection Detail (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
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 3
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)
Exhibit III: Case and Inspection Detail (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
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 3
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)
Exhibit III: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072)

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
Parcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 La Playa Dr, Hayward, CA 94545
6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Zone:

Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Contacts:

Activity Type Comments User Created On
Case Hold Business not in compliance due to unpaid fees and no current TRL Certificate.

Angelica Ventura 11/13/2025
Citation Issued 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.

Jesse Prins 11/26/2025
Inspection Written at time of inspection:

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.

Jesse Prins 04/10/2026
Written at the time of inspection:

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.

Jesse Prins 04/10/2026
Other Activity 2025 TRL paid 12/10/25. Current certificate attached. Angelica Ventura 12/18/2025 Invoice 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 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Grand Total for Code Case $3,000.00 $3,000.00
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit IV: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2785 - TOBACCO

RETAIL LICENSE
Violation Status: In Violation Citation Issue Date: 11/26/2025 Compliance Date: 12/10/2025
Code Description: Expired or Lack of Tobacco Retail License Resolved Date:

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.

Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO

RETAIL STANDARDS
Violation Status: In Violation Citation Issue Date: 11/26/2025 Compliance Date: 12/10/2025
Code Description: Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Resolved Date:

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.

Attached Images
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (4).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (7).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (5).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (8).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (6).jpg
Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (9).jpg
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
Exhibit IV: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (1).jpg Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (2).jpg Photo Taken 11-17-2025 (3).jpg May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 4
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
Exhibit IV: Case and Inspection Detail (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
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)
Exhibit IV: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105)

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
Parcel: 442-0038-003-00 Main Address: 1090 La Playa Dr, Hayward, CA 94545
6 (Fire District)
X (Flood Zone)
Code Enforcement Area: 6 (Code
Enforcement Area: 6)
Zone:

Business Owner/Agent: THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
Property Owner: SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
Contacts:

Activity Type Comments User Created On
Case Notes Per inspector J. Prins, create a 2026 tobacco case for the following:

The Gr8 Smoke Shop
1090 la Playa Dr
Stephanie Toong 02/25/2026
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.

Stephanie Toong 04/22/2026
Citation Issued Please email your inspector if you have any questions. Thank you! Jesse Prins 04/10/2026 Inspection 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.

Jesse Prins 04/10/2026
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 1 of 8
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) Inspection On April 22, 2026, I conducted a reinspection related to the 2025 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.

Jesse Prins 05/18/2026
Invoice No. Fee Name Fee Amount Amount Paid
EG26-02737 CE Tobacco Ordinance 1st Offense $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Total for Invoice Number EG26-02737 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Grand Total for Code Case $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2785 - TOBACCO

RETAIL LICENSE
Violation Status: Resolved Citation Issue Date: 04/10/2026 Compliance Date: 04/22/2026
Code Description: Expired or Lack of Tobacco Retail License Resolved Date: 04/22/2026 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.

Violation Code: HMC SEC. 10-1.2783 - TOBACCO

RETAIL STANDARDS
Violation Status: Resolved Citation Issue Date: 04/10/2026 Compliance Date: 04/22/2026
Code Description: Violation of Tobacco Retail Requirements and Operational Standards Resolved Date: 04/22/2026 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.

Attached Images
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 2 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (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
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 3 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (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)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (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
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 5 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (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
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (32).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (35).jpg
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (2).jpg
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)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (3).jpg
May 29, 2026 777 B St, Hayward, CA 94541 Page 7 of 8
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) Inspection(s)
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
CASE AND INSPECTION(S) DETAILS (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006)
Exhibit V: Case and Inspection Detail (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
NOV-000930-2023
Property Owner: Bhupinder Bhandari
Mailing Address
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Property Location: Parcel
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. 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.It 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
Exhibit VI: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
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
Exhibit VI: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
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
[email protected]
Printed: 2/2/23 Page 3 of 5
Exhibit VI: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
NOV-000930-2023
LAST INSPECTION IMAGES:

CASE 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
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1804.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1805.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1808.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
IMG_1810.jpg
Notes:01/25/23
Printed: 2/2/23 Page 4 of 5
Exhibit VI: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2023-00001
Date Case Established: 01/25/2023
Compliance Deadline: 02/09/2023

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 01/25/2023
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
Exhibit VI: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2023-00001)
Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2024-00072
Date Case Established: 02/06/2024
Compliance Deadline: 04/30/2024

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 04/10/2024
NOV-003958-2024
Property Owner: Bhupinder Bhandari
Mailing Address
Bhupinder Bhandari
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Property Location: Parcel
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. 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
Exhibit VII: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072) Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2024-00072
Date Case Established: 02/06/2024
Compliance Deadline: 04/30/2024

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 04/10/2024
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
Exhibit VII: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072) Violation
Notice
Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2024-00072
Date Case Established: 02/06/2024
Compliance Deadline: 04/30/2024

CITY OF HAYWARD
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards
Last Inspection Date: 04/10/2024
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
Exhibit VII: Notice of Violation (CE-TRLENF-2024-00072) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2025-00105
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Next Inspection Date: 10-Dec-2025 10:00 am
Failed Inspection Date: 11/17/2025
Date Case Established: 11/07/2025
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-015067-2025
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
Hayward, CA 94545
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: 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
Exhibit VIII: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2025-00105
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
Next Inspection Date: 10-Dec-2025 10:00 am
Failed Inspection Date: 11/17/2025
Date Case Established: 11/07/2025
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

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

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-015067-2025

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
Exhibit VIII: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) INVOICE (EG25-26369)

FOR CITY OF HAYWARD

SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Bhupinder Bhandari

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

TO PAY IN ONLINE: Go to https://www.hayward-ca.gov/epermits and search for the Invoice number Printed: 11/26/25 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit VIII: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2025-00105) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
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
Hayward, CA 94545
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 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
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
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
CASE IMAGES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (10).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (11).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (12).jpg
Notes:

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 3 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (13).jpg
Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (19).jpg
Notes:

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

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (21).jpg
Notes:

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 4 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (22).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (23).jpg
Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 5 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (31).jpg
Notes:

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (32).jpg
Notes:

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

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

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

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

Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (37).jpg
Notes:

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

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

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 6 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026
Photo Taken 1-28-2026 (3).jpg
Notes:

Printed: 4/10/26 Page 7 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) CITY OF HAYWARD Case Number: CE-TRLENF-2026-00006
Development Services Department
Code Enforcement Division
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541-5007,
(510)583-4143 - Fax: (510)583-4994 -
www.hayward-ca.gov Next Inspection Date: 22-Apr-2026 9:00 am Failed Inspection Date:

Date Case Established: 02/25/2026
Case Type: CH- Tobacco Retail Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEE NOTICE
CIT-004844-2026

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
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) INVOICE (EG26-02737)

FOR CITY OF HAYWARD

SUMITRA PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 2701
FREMONT , CA 94536-0701
Bhupinder Bhandari

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

TO PAY IN ONLINE: Go to https://www.hayward-ca.gov/epermits and search for the Invoice number Printed: 4/10/26 Page 9 of 9
Exhibit IX: Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice (CE-TRLENF-2026-00006) 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 gram box of Joker King Vape
7 1.5g box of joker 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
Exhibit X: Hayward Police Department Inventory of Unpermitted or Illegal Items 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 Déjà vu food bar 4g
9 odyssey food bar 3.5g
Exhibit X: Hayward Police Department Inventory of Unpermitted or Illegal Items 3 mushlover raw mushrooms 3.5 grams
6 DJedi Mind trips chocolate 22g
6 DJedi vegan gummies 4.5g
Exhibit X: Hayward Police Department Inventory of Unpermitted or Illegal Items

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

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.

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

AWARDEE 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.

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

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

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 shoulder 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.

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
Office
Will fund tobacco retailer inspections, minor decoy operations, undercover buy operations, retailer 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 Sheriff’s 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

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.

MARIN COUNTY

APPLICANT SUMMARY OF AWARD AWARD
Marin 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 enforcement of non-compliant retailers.
$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

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

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

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
Effective July 1st, 2025
2 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& Environmental Services................................................................................................... 63 Glossary of Terms.................................................................................................................................... 77 3 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 of job 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.

Proposition 26 Review and Compliance
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. 4 All City Departments
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 $100.00

2. Second Violation $200.00

3. Third and Subsequent Violations $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 $25.00 + check amount

2. If paid after 30 days of notification, subject to
forgiveness of all or a portion of the fee by the
Director of Finance.

E. GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME
As authorized by
California Civil Code
1719, but notless than
$25.00
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: Due on its effective date and delinquent at 5:00 PM on due date.

MONTHLY FEE: 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.

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

ANNUAL FEES: Due on the first day of the established annual period and delinquent at 5:00 PM on the tenth day of the 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 of the 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. 5 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
or 8½ x 14 inches
$0.50 per page for first ten (10) pages of
each document
$0.10 each additional page of same
document

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 – 8½ x 11 inches or 8½ x 14
inches
$0.75 per page

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

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

1. Smokers Violating the Ordinance

2. Fines for businesses thatfailto enforce the smoking ordinance $50.00 per violation
(1) First Offense $1,000.00
(2) Second Offense $1,500.00
(3) Third Offense $2,000.00
J. TOBACCO ORDINANCE

1. Offense Fees
(1) FirstOffense $1,500.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension (2) SecondOffense $3,000.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension (3) Third Offense $5,000.00 penalty/30 day TRL suspension or revocation

2. Reinspection Fee $117.00 per visit
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
33 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALI

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:
x 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.
x Violation #2: 11/26/2025 – Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted licensing.
x 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 17, 2026, the City caused to have served another Notice of Revocation, alleging the following basis for revocation:
x 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.
x Violation #2: 11/26/2025 – Flavored tobacco products, hemp wraps, and mushroom gummies. Expired or not posted licensing.
x Violation #3: 4/10/2024 – Hemp products, expired/not posted licensing. x 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 
! 


"












  
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
34 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALI
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 of the video surveillance footage of the 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. If the 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 of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on this ____nd day of June 2026 at _________________, California.
(City)
________________________
Ezzadin Ali, Declarant

! 


"












  
$#


EXHIBIT A

TO DECLARATION OF EZZADIN ALI

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
______________________________________________________________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE
14 PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106, Santa Ana, California 92706. My email address is [email protected].

On June 30, 2026, I served true and correct copies of the foregoing document(s) described as:

APPELLANT EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

AND APPEAL OF DECISION TO REVOKE TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE on the interested parties in this action as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) to the notification address(es) of record and transmitting via:
[X] FEDEX OVERNIGHT: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by FedEx Overnight delivery. I am “readily familiar” with the firms practice of collection and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the envelope(s) are deposited with FedEx on the same day they are placed for collection, in a sealed package designated for overnight delivery, with delivery fees fully prepaid, from Santa Ana, California.. [ ] FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: I caused a true copy thereof to be served via facsimile machine to the notification facsimile number(s) of record before close of business. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.301(2), and the transmission was reported as complete and without error by a transmission report issued immediately upon completion of transmittal.
[X] ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I electronically transmitted a true and correct copy thereof to the email address(es) of record before close of business for the purpose of effecting service and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. [ ] PERSONAL DELIVERY: I caused a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the persons stated above and the address stated above.
[X] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the above is true and correct.
[ ] FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on June 30, 2026 at Santa Ana, California.
__________________
Miranda Ortega
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 15
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

SERVICE LIST

SERVICE LIST
City Council Members City of Hayward
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via e-mail only
City of Hayward City Attorney’s Office
c/o Michael Lawson
[email protected]
Via e-mail only
City Planning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541-5007
[email protected]
Via FedEx Overnight and e-mail
City of Hayward Planning Commission
c/o Leigha Schmidt, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Via e-mail only
City of Hayward City Manager’s Office
c/o Jennifer Ott, City Manager
[email protected]
c/o Mary Thomas, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
Via email only
City of Hayward City Clerk
c/o Miriam Lens
[email protected]
Via email only
ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
In the Matter Of:

THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
CE-TRLPMT-22997
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
June 25, 2026
·1· · · · · · · · · CITY OF HAYWARD PLANNING COMMISSION ·2
·3· ·EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE· · · · Permit No. CE-TRLPMT-22997 ·4· ·SHOP, an Individual,
·5· ·Petitioner,
·6· ·vs.
·7· ·CITY OF HAYWARD, DOES 1-10
·8· ·inclusive,
·9· ·Defendants.
10· ·_______________________________
11 12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·HEARING
13· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
14 15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Thursday, June 25, 2026 16· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·7:01 p.m.
17 18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Hayward City Hall
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·777 B Street
19· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Hayward, California 94541
20 21
22 23
24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Latysha Godwin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Notary Public
25· · · · · · · · · · · · · Commission No. 2428963
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
1 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES
·2· ·On behalf of PETITIONER, EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP, AN · · ·INDIVIDUAL:
·3
· · · · ·F. MICHAEL AYAZ, ESQ.
·4· · · ·BLAKE & AYAZ
· · · · ·2107 North Broadway
·5· · · ·Suite 106
· · · · ·Santa Ana, California 92706
·6· · · ·714-667-7171
· · · · ·[email protected]
·7· · · ·APPEARED VIA IN PERSON
·8· ·Also Present:
·9· · · · CHAIR: Karla Goodbody
10· · · · Sol
· · · · · Carl Mills
11· · · · Tatia
· · · · · Amy Rothman
12· · · · Briggitte Lowe
· · · · · Anika Hardy
13· · · · Steve Kowalski
· · · · · Michael Vigilia
14· · · · Elizabeth Blanton
· · · · · Robert Stevens
15· · · · Vasko Yorgov
· · · · · Jeffrey Haman
16· · · · Jesse Prins
· · · · · Christina Mills
17· · · · Gabriel Wright
· · · · · Sandra Archilet
18· · · · Ron Meyers
· · · · · Tyler Dragoni
19· · · · Mimi Dean
· · · · · James Anthony
20· · · · Ariz
· · · · · Douglas Perez
21· · · · Lilia Corral
· · · · · Negoci Ta
22· · · · Haroon Ahmed
· · · · · Aziden Ali
23· · · · Sarah Archileta
24 25
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
2 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Attend commission meetings. ·2· ·Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, ·3· ·intimidating, oppressive, or abusive are per se,
·4· ·disruptive to the meeting and will not be tolerated. ·5· · · · · · Our first item -- our first item is PH 26- -- ·6· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Oh, Chair Goodbody?· There is ·7· ·three people on Zoom that have their hands up for
·8· ·public comment.· The first speaker is Sol.
·9· · · · · · Can you test your mic, please?
10· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Hello.· Good evening.
11· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Okay.· Sol, your 3 minutes start 12· ·now.
13· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Okay.· So, here's -- here's my
14· ·husband.· He's going to speak for us.
15· · · · · · MR. MILLS:· Hello.
16· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Say your statement about the
17· ·complaint.
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Go ahead.
19· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Just a moment, please.· Just have a 20· ·few minutes.· Just read it.
21· · · · · · MR. MILLS:· All right.· So I have some
22· ·concerns about the data center campus.· Beginning with 23· ·the -- the diesel generators, they -- they produce well 24· ·documented health hazards, diesel particulate matter, 25· ·which is classified as a toxic air contaminant,
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
3 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·nitrogen oxides.
·2· · · · · · Let's see, it's -- it's near a residential ·3· ·neighborhood, and it's also near the bay.· And so it ·4· ·was a concern about the environmental impacts.
·5· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Ecological reserve, too.
·6· · · · · · MR. MILLS:· Right.· The ecological reserve is ·7· ·right beside it.· Diesel generators create carbon
·8· ·monoxide, black carbon, other climate harming
·9· ·pollutants.· It's going to need continuous cooling and 10· ·power for that project, and which will increase local 11· ·electricity demand and require more fossil fuel
12· ·generation to come from the grid.
13· · · · · · The facility's water management use might 14· ·conflict with the city's climate goals and also
15· ·statewide decarbonization targets.· Hayward has
16· ·committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as has 17· ·California.· And so approving a project with a lot of 18· ·diesel backup capacity undermines those commitments. 19· · · · · · The third item is the noise pollution and 20· ·various quality of life impacts.· Backup generators and 21· ·cooling systems produce a lot of noise.· They can reach 22· ·industrial level decimal ranges.· It can affect any 23· ·homes or schools nearby.
24· · · · · · There's also wildlife in the -- in the
25· ·preserve that would be affected by the noise.· Let's EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
4 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·see.· Yeah.· They -- it would be basically chronic ·2· ·noise exposure for the -- the neighbors and the
·3· ·wildlife.
·4· · · · · · Number four, is issue of water use and the ·5· ·strain the local resources.· Data centers require a lot ·6· ·of water for cooling down on the technology used.
·7· ·We've had a lot of droughts, you know, as like much of ·8· ·California, and making large industrial water use is a ·9· ·long-term concern.
10· · · · · · Increased water demand make -- strain
11· ·municipal systems and require costly infrastructure 12· ·upgrades.· Wastewater discharge from the cooling
13· ·systems may contain chemicals and high --
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
15· · · · · · MR. MILLS:· -- temperatures that require
16· ·management.
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· You --
18· · · · · ·MR. MILLS:· The question, where all that water 19· ·is going afterwards?
20· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Sir?
21· · · · · · MR. MILLS:· You know, if it's going into the 22· ·bay, that would [inaudible 00:04:04] wildlife.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Your 3 minutes are expired. 24· ·Could you wrap up your comments, please?
25· · · · · · MR. MILLS:· Yes.· So, I just ask the City EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
5 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·Council to prioritize the health and well-being of our ·2· ·community by fully evaluating the data center campus ·3· ·and ensuring that the approval is contingent on strong ·4· ·environmental concerns and safeguards.
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you very much.
·6· · · · · · MS. SOL:· I just want to add also --
·7· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Sorry.
·8· · · · · · MS. SOL:· -- that I'd like --
·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I'm sorry, you need to --
10· · · · · · MS. SOL:· -- to find out --
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- you need to sign --
12· · · · · · MS. SOL:· -- (crosstalk) --
13· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- up for a public comment. 14· ·MS. SOL:· -- (crosstalk) impacts were
15· ·done, yes.
16· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· If you want to speak, please go 17· ·ahead and -- and sign up.
18· · · · · · We're going to move on to the next speaker, 19· ·Mr. Tyler Dragoni.
20· · · · · · Tyler, go ahead.
21· · · · · · MR. DRAGONI:· Hi.· Can you hear me?
22· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yes, I can.
23· · · · · · MR. DRAGONI:· All right.· So yeah, this is 24· ·also about the data center and putting aside what Sol 25· ·and her husband said, and then also putting aside that EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
6 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·essentially, the data centers are going to talk to the ·2· ·Flock cameras, that -- and the Flock cameras are
·3· ·eventually going to talk to our phone.
·4· · · · · · So putting aside also that this Planning
·5· ·Commission facilitated the building of the panopticon. ·6· ·And if you don't know what panopticon is, I'm sure ·7· ·you've read 1984, essentially the facilitating of the ·8· ·security state.· So, putting that aside as well, it ·9· ·really was disappointing to see the Planning Commission 10· ·completely advocate their role in advocating for the 11· ·residents and even the City of Hayward.
12· · · · · · The benefits package was absolutely paltry. 13· ·San Jose and other cities have gotten 35, 50 million. 14· ·I've read about $100 million benefit packages for these 15· ·data centers, and it -- and it seems that I read that 16· ·some of you were uncomfortable getting any sort of 17· ·benefit for the City of Hayward and its residents at 18· ·all.· That is absolutely disqualifying.
19· · · · · · It's disqualifying for a planning deficiency. 20· ·It's disqualifying for city -- a city council seat. 21· ·That is absolutely horrendous.· The city is in a $30 22· ·million deficit, and you're uncomfortable asking some 23· ·of the most profitable tech companies to do business in 24· ·Hayward.
25· · · · · · I mean, it's just -- it's just remarkable.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
7 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·And, you know, the environmental impacts alone.· Next ·2· ·to the bay, we have a natural gas power plant, you ·3· ·know, we're putting in this data center.· We get some ·4· ·of the most clear, clean water in the world untracted ·5· ·into the Hayward water system.
·6· · · · · · And it seems like this Planning Commission ·7· ·really didn't take into account anything like that. ·8· ·Did any of you actually do any research for those that ·9· ·voted for this data center?· Did -- did you actually 10· ·ask your neighbors?
11· · · · · · You're appointed, and I was an appointed
12· ·member of the Eden Municipal Advisory Council for five 13· ·years.· That made me want to go talk to neighbors even 14· ·more because I did not have a mandate to be up there. 15· ·I was appointed by somebody else.
16· · · · · ·So, you need to go and talk to your neighbors. 17· ·If you don't know about a situation, you need to get 18· ·more perspectives.· You need to ask more people because 19· ·it's obvious the way in which that data center was 20· ·approached was completely reckless.· Thank you.
21· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· Our next speaker is 22· ·Mimi Dean.
23· · · · · · MS. DEAN:· Hello.
24· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Go ahead.
25· · · · · · MS. DEAN:· Hello.· Can you hear me now?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
8 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· We can hear you.
·2· · · · · ·MS. DEAN:· Wonderful.· All right.· So I'd like ·3· ·to pretty much echo what both of the other speakers ·4· ·said.· You know, this whole debacle with the data
·5· ·center, I was one of the two people that did come to ·6· ·the meeting last March and said, this is ridiculous, ·7· ·that we're going to allow this thing to come into our ·8· ·community.
·9· · · · · · You know, I cannot understand why we would 10· ·allow something like this in our community and so close 11· ·to people's homes.· If you do the radius of how close 12· ·that data center is to people's homes, there are tons 13· ·of people's homes within a one-mile radius.· It is 14· ·absolutely ridiculous.· And I really agree with Tyler, 15· ·like, did you guys go out and talk to anybody?· You 16· ·know, it's just crazy that we're putting in this data 17· ·center.
18· · · · · · I drove past it the other day, and I can see 19· ·it's well under way of construction.· And that was the 20· ·same day I went on a walk down to the Shoreline
21· ·Adaptation Center with Dr. Quack from East Bay Regional 22· ·Park District, and we were looking at all the turns and 23· ·all the endangered birds that are down at the
24· ·shoreline.
25· · · · · · So, my big question is:· Why are we putting EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
9 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·things in once again for people that do not live in ·2· ·Hayward, they do not live in our communities, and we ·3· ·are once again allowing land use decisions to be made ·4· ·to benefit people that do not live here.· We are
·5· ·throwing our residents under the bus.· We're throwing ·6· ·our animals under the bus, we're throwing our habitat ·7· ·under the bus.
·8· · · · · · I don't -- I -- I really hope that you guys ·9· ·understand what you have done, and I know that all 10· ·future data centers will be out of your hands.· But it 11· ·really saddens me as I have sat on other boards, and I 12· ·currently sit on a different board.· You know, you got 13· ·to hear more.· You got to understand what the -- all 14· ·the implications are.
15· · · · · · And I'm really sad that you guys voted 7-0 to 16· ·approve this data center.· So, please, I hope you're 17· ·going to think about your votes in the future, and 18· ·you're going to think about the people that live here, 19· ·not the people with the money who do not live here. 20· ·Thank you so much.· Good night.
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
22· · · · · · Ms. Corral, are there any other speakers in 23· ·the chamber that would like to --
24· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· We have not received any cards. 25· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· All right.· I'm going to close EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
10 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·public comments seeing no --
·2· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Oh, sorry, Chair Goodbody.· One ·3· ·more person has raised their hand.· The speaker's name ·4· ·is Belin (phonetic).· They just raised their hand. ·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Please approach the podium if ·6· ·you wish --
·7· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Oh.· She's on Zoom.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Okay.· Go ahead, Belin.
·9· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Belin, can you hear us?
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· We can hear you.
11· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Your mic.· Seems she left.
12· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Belin, are you there?
13· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· We also have two more speakers. 14· ·The next speaker is James Anthony.
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony?
16· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· There we go.· Hi.· I actually 17· ·want to address a matter that is unclear if it's on the 18· ·agenda or not.· We have tobacco hearings, but before 19· ·you have the tobacco hearing, I have a request for a 20· ·continuance of the --
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. --
22· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- Hesperian Boulevard.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· We -- we can address that
24· ·during the tobacco hearing.
25· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· [Inaudible].· But it is
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
11 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·not part of the 8 minutes.· It is --
·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
·3· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- procedural matter before you ·4· ·begin the hearing on --
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
·6· · · · · ·MR. ANTHONY:· -- Hesperian Boulevard.· But any ·7· ·way you want to do it is fine with me.
·8· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Okay.· Let us call up the item. ·9· ·Then you can address the commission during public
10· ·comment for that item.
11· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Okay.
12· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· And then we have Belin back on. 13· ·Let me see it.· Belin, can you test your mic?· It
14· ·doesn't seem like it's working.
15· · · · · · And then the user Sol also raised their hand 16· ·up again.· I'm not sure if it's the wife who would like 17· ·to speak this time.
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I just want to check.· Belin, 19· ·are you able to check in?· Can we hear you?· We can't 20· ·hear you right now.
21· · · · · · MS. SOL:· This --
22· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· All right.· We'll come back to 23· ·the Belin.· Let's go to Sol.
24· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Hi.· Yes.· Thanks for allowing me 25· ·to -- to participate.· I'm very new to these -- these EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
12 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·situations, and I'd like to know what kind of due
·2· ·diligence in terms of impact studies were done and how ·3· ·can we get access to that information.
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· We are not able to respond to ·5· ·public comment, but we can refer your question to City ·6· ·staff.
·7· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Yeah.· I just like to know -- I ·8· ·would appreciate it.· I already had sent a email about ·9· ·this, trying to see what this Planning Commission used 10· ·as data to make their decisions.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· They will contact you offline, 12· ·separately.
13· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Okay.· Well, thank you very much. 14· ·That's all I wanted to find out.
15· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· And then Sol, just for the
16· ·record, could you state your husband's name since he 17· ·was a separate speaker?
18· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Yeah.· Carl Mills.
19· · · · · ·MS. CORRAL:· Carl Mills.· Thank you.· And then 20· ·you are Sol?
21· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Sol (inaudible).
22· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Okay.· Thank you so much.
23· · · · · · MS. SOL:· Thank you.
24· · · · · ·MS. CORRAL:· And then we have another speaker, 25· ·Tatia's iPhone.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
13 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. TATIA:· Hello.
·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Tatia, go ahead.
·3· · · · · ·MS. TATIA:· Hi.· I also would like to speak to ·4· ·the data center issue.· I was actually sent by
·5· ·Francisco Zermeno, the state planning, the report that ·6· ·was done, and some of the numbers actually conflict ·7· ·other state -- California State Energy Commission, ·8· ·their -- their information online.
·9· · · · · · And I just wanted to speak to everyone else 10· ·this point that I can't believe that all seven of you 11· ·guys made such a huge decision for the future of the 12· ·city.· I understand that we already have data centers 13· ·here, but this data center in particular is planning on 14· ·using 56,000 gallons of water a day.· And, like, I 15· ·previously said, we have this beautiful clean water in 16· ·this city.· It's like, did the -- do none of you even 17· ·live here?
18· · · · · ·Like, why would you just decide, just seven of 19· ·you, that we can trade our clean air, our clean water 20· ·for what, a $2 million benefits package, which is
21· ·basically, like, crumbs, considered -- considering 22· ·everybody else.· It's like, purposefully putting us on 23· ·the map to say, hey, data centers, come here.· We're 24· ·cheap.· We don't care about our people.
25· · · · · · Like, it -- it's really disheartening that EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
14 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·only seven of you.· And I read that Commissioner
·2· ·Roberts in one of their statements that you don't think ·3· ·we deserve a benefits package at all because it'll stop ·4· ·other data centers from being built here.· We don't ·5· ·want data centers.· We -- I -- I just don't understand ·6· ·why you think that.
·7· · · · · · It's a 72 megawatt capacity.· That's like, ·8· ·1,612.4 megawatt hours.· Like, the average house only ·9· ·produces 20 to 30 kilowatt hours.· Do you guys go over 10· ·these numbers before you can make these decisions? I 11· ·honestly think it would be best for all of you to
12· ·resign.· Like, this is ridiculous.
13· · · · · · For our children, for our community.· This is 14· ·ridiculous.· And I -- I have nothing else to say.
15· ·Thank you.
16· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· The next speaker is Belin. 17· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· I think she actually exited the 18· ·Zoom.· So there are no other speakers.
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· Okay.· That
20· ·concludes the public comment section.
21· · · · · · (Exit Public Session; enter Executive
22· ·Session.)
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· And we move on to the first 24· ·agenda item, which is PH --
25· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Chair?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
15 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yes?
·2· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I do need to recuse myself in ·3· ·this item because my -- my firm does business with the ·4· ·applicant.· So thank you.
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· I've noted that ·6· ·Commissioner Stevens is recused from Item 1.
·7· · · · · · And now we have item PH 26-033, Eden Ranch. ·8· ·And this item includes proceedings for tobacco retailer ·9· ·licensees for four commercial establishments and
10· ·properties within the City of Hayward, where license 11· ·holders committed three or more violations within a 12· ·five-year period pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code 13· ·Section 10-1.2794.
14· · · · · · The Planning Commission will consider each 15· ·tobacco retailer's matter separately.· All who are 16· ·providing testimony tonight shall follow the general 17· ·hearing rules outlined in Attachment 7 to the staff 18· ·report.· And they include, all testimony shall be given 19· ·under oath or affirmation, if sworn testimony is taken. 20· · · · · · The technical rules of evidence do not
21· ·strictly apply.· However, evidence must be relevant and 22· ·reliable.· All materials presented at the hearing
23· ·become part of the official record.· The retailer has a 24· ·right to be represented by legal counsel or another 25· ·authorized representative.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
16 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · Time limits will be enforced.· The chair may ·2· ·extend time in unusual circumstances at their
·3· ·discretion, and the time limits for this item is 8 ·4· ·minutes for the each retailer, and cross-examination of ·5· ·the witnesses will not be allowed in this hearing. ·6· ·Statements provided by non-attorneys in relation to ·7· ·each case will be taken under oath.
·8· · · · · ·And if Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia, ·9· ·if you can administer the oath to all the potential 10· ·witnesses at this time.
11· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· And then just for the record, 12· ·Commissioner Stevens is back in the chambers.· He
13· ·returned at 8:12 p.m.
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· Welcome back,
15· ·Commissioner Stevens.
16· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Okay.· Thank you, Madam Chair. 17· ·Is there anyone in the audience who is not an attorney 18· ·who is going to give testimony on behalf of the
19· ·business this evening?· If you could stand up?
20· ·Also this is for -- this is going to be for city staff 21· ·who's going to be giving testimony.
22· · · · · · Can you all raise your right hand, please? 23· · · · · · · · · · · · ·WITNESSES,
24· ·having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
25· · · · · · (Ayes were heard.)
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
17 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · (Witnesses sworn.)
·2· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Thank you.· They've been sworn. ·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· And I just wanted to add that ·4· ·for the second item for Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts, ·5· ·they have requested a continuance of their item, and ·6· ·then we can consider that as the -- when they come. ·7· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· And for the two gentlemen in the ·8· ·audience, if you could give the courts your name for ·9· ·the record so that they can record that.· That would be 10· ·great.
11· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Haroon Ahmed.
12· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Thank you.
13· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Would they mind saying it on the 14· ·record so the recorder can get it?
15· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Okay.· If you can step forward 16· ·and state your name on the record so that the court 17· ·reporter can record it.
18· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Haroon Ahmed.
19· · · · · · MR. ALI:· Aziden Ali.· Aziden Ali.
20· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Excuse me?
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Is that everyone?
22· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· I'll -- I'll ask city staff to 23· ·identify themselves as well.
24· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· I believe -- is it RZ QA
25· ·(Phonetic), are you a business owner?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
18 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Yeah.· Yes.· I'm representing ·2· ·the Hayward Gas and Food.
·3· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· Okay.· Were you able to hear the ·4· ·administration of the oath, sir?
·5· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Yes, sir.
·6· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Okay.· And so if you are sworn. ·7· ·Could you state your name for the record, please?
·8· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· My name is Risk Alprisey.
·9· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Thank you.
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Is there anyone online that is 11· ·representing any of the retailers?
12· · · · · · Okay.· We will now be moving to --
13· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Oh, sorry, Chair Goodbody,
14· ·someone just raised their hand, James Anthony.
15· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Yeah.· I just want to clarify 16· ·that I represent SNA Trading, Inc., on Hesperian
17· ·Boulevard, but I represent them as their attorney. I 18· ·will argue, and I will reference the facts.· I don't 19· ·think I need to be sworn, but I'm not sure what your 20· ·procedure is.· So if you like that, let me know.
21· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· No.
22· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· I'm also waiting to hear the 23· ·names of the staff that were sworn.· Thank you.
24· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· Yes.· And attorneys, do not need 25· ·to be sworn, and I'll ask staff to quickly identify EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
19 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·themselves as who were sworn in.
·2· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Jesse Prins.
·3· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· Christina Morales, Deputy
·4· ·Director of Development Services.
·5· · · · · ·MR. WRIGHT:· Gabriel Wright, Senior Vice Intel ·6· ·Detective for the Hayward Police Department.
·7· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you, everyone.· We're now ·8· ·going to move to the staff presentation.· And this will ·9· ·include a general -- an overview presentation on the 10· ·general purposes and our process of the -- under
11· ·revocations of the tobacco retail licenses.
12· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Thank you very much.· Good
13· ·evening, Chair and Commissioners.· My name is Jesse 14· ·Prins, Code Enforcement Inspector II with the City of 15· ·Hayward.
16· · · · · · The item before you tonight is a tobacco
17· ·retail license review involving city initiated
18· ·revocation proceedings for tobacco retailers that have 19· ·accumulated three or more violations of the tobacco 20· ·retail ordinance within a five-year period.· These 21· ·proceedings are being conducted pursuant to Hayward 22· ·Municipal Code, Section 10-1.2794.· Before discussing 23· ·the individual retailers, I will provide a brief
24· ·overview of the purpose of the tobacco retail license 25· ·program, the ordinance requirements, and the City's EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
20 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·complaint and enforcement efforts before moving into ·2· ·individual cases.
·3· · · · · · The City's tobacco retail license ordinance ·4· ·was adopted to protect public health by reducing
·5· ·tobacco use and its associated health impacts.· The ·6· ·ordinance is intended to reduce youth access to tobacco ·7· ·and nicotine products, prevent the initiation of
·8· ·tobacco use amongst young people, and restrict the sale ·9· ·of flavored tobacco products and electronic smoking 10· ·devices that have historically appealed to youth.
11· · · · · · The ordinance also helps ensure compliance 12· ·with -- with local, state, and federal tobacco
13· ·regulations while providing a framework for
14· ·inspections, enforcement, and accountability for
15· ·tobacco retailers operating with their neighborhood. 16· ·Retailers who repeatedly fail to comply with these 17· ·requirements may be subject to penalty fees, special 18· ·assessments, and ultimately revocation of their tobacco 19· ·retail license.
20· · · · · · Before discussing the individual cases, I 21· ·would like to briefly review the portions of the
22· ·ordinance most relevant to tonight's hearing.· The 23· ·City's tobacco retail ordinance establishes operational 24· ·standards and licensing requirements for businesses 25· ·that engage in the sale of tobacco products within EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
21 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·Hayward.
·2· · · · · · Section 10-1.2783 outlines operational
·3· ·requirements related to licensing, product sales,
·4· ·packaging standards, advertising restrictions, and ·5· ·other regulated activities.· Section 10-1.2785 requires ·6· ·retailers to maintain a valid retail -- excuse me, ·7· ·tobacco retail license and prominently display all ·8· ·required licenses and permits within the business. ·9· ·These include the City of Hayward Tobacco retail
10· ·license, City business license, California Tobacco 11· ·retail license, and California Seller's permit.
12· ·Continued licensure is dependent upon ongoing
13· ·compliance with these requirements.
14· · · · · ·Since the implementation of the City's tobacco 15· ·retail licensing program, code enforcement staff have 16· ·conducted annual inspections of licensed tobacco
17· ·retailers throughout Hayward.· These inspections serve 18· ·both as enforcement and an educational purpose.· Staff 19· ·routinely review ordinance requirements with business 20· ·operators, provide educational materials, answer
21· ·questions, and offer opportunities to correct
22· ·violations.
23· · · · · · The City's goal has consistently been to
24· ·achieve compliance through education and outreach
25· ·whenever possible.· Despite the City's educational EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
22 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·efforts, compliance assistance, and opportunities to ·2· ·correct violations, some retailers continue to
·3· ·accumulate violations over multiple years, resulting in ·4· ·a revocation proceeding before the Commission tonight. ·5· · · · · · This map displays all currently licensed
·6· ·tobacco retail holders within the City of Hayward, and ·7· ·there are currently 104.· The six retailers currently ·8· ·before the Commission for potential license revocation ·9· ·are specifically labeled for reference.· The purpose of 10· ·this map is to provide a visual representation of the 11· ·geographic distribution of tobacco retailers throughout 12· ·the city and to illustrate the locations of the
13· ·retailers under purview in relation to other licensed 14· ·tobacco retailers.
15· · · · · · As shown on the map, licensed tobacco
16· ·retailers are distributed throughout Hayward and serve 17· ·a variety of commercial areas and neighborhoods.· The 18· ·retailers before the commission tonight are likewise 19· ·located throughout the city and are not concentrated 20· ·within a single geographic area.· This slide is
21· ·intended solely to provide geographic context before 22· ·staff discusses the individual cases.
23· · · · · · Despite ongoing education and compliance
24· ·assistance, the following retailers continue --
25· ·continued violations that meet or exceed the criteria EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
23 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·for revocation under Hayward Municipal Code Section ·2· ·10-1.2794, referring -- excuse me, requiring that their ·3· ·tobacco retail licenses be revoked.· Mobil Hayward Gas ·4· ·and Food, Attachment 3, Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts, ·5· ·Attachment 4, Master Shell, Attachment 5, and the GR8 ·6· ·Smoke Shop, Attachment 6.
·7· · · · · · You may hear one or more of these retailers ·8· ·claim they did not know flavored tobacco, or other ·9· ·illegal substances such as hemp, cannabis, and shrooms 10· ·are illegal to sell.· However, lack of knowledge is not 11· ·a defense to violations of the tobacco retail
12· ·ordinance.· The responsibility to understand and comply 13· ·with all applicable tobacco regulations rests with the 14· ·tobacco retail license holder.
15· · · · · · You may also hear one or more of these retail 16· ·owners claim that they were unaware of the illegal 17· ·conduct of their employees and therefore should not be 18· ·punished.· However, a business owners claim -- claimed 19· ·ignorance of what occurs at the business is not a
20· ·defense to revocation.· It is evidence supporting it. 21· ·Business owners have a duty to ensure their businesses 22· ·operate lawfully and they are charged with protecting 23· ·the community.
24· · · · · · An owner's admission that they do not know 25· ·what is happening on their own premises does not excuse EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
24 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·a violation.· It confirms the very failure of oversight ·2· ·that revocation exists to address.· This same lack of ·3· ·oversight explains why the violations have reoccurred ·4· ·and demonstrates a likelihood that they will continue ·5· ·absent revocation.
·6· · · · · ·Ultimately, the issue before the Commission is ·7· ·not whether the violations were intentional, but
·8· ·whether it is more likely than not that they occurred. ·9· ·The City has provided ample evidence that these
10· ·violations have recurred over multiple years and will 11· ·continue unless these retail licenses are revoked. 12· ·This pattern of repeated violations over numerous years 13· ·demonstrates that no lesser penalty, such as brief 14· ·suspension will correct the problem.· Revocation is -- 15· ·is necessary to protect public safety and the safety of 16· ·the youth in Hayward.
17· · · · · · The staff report before the Commission
18· ·includes complaints histories, documented violations, 19· ·inspection records, and photographic evidence collected 20· ·during inspections.· These materials document the
21· ·enforcement history for each retailer and provide a 22· ·factual basis supporting staff's recommendations.· I'm 23· ·also here to answer any and all questions the
24· ·Commission may have and to respond to any arguments 25· ·raised by the retailers during their presentation.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
25 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · ·Next, I would like to briefly review the order ·2· ·of proceedings for tonight's hearing.· Each retailer ·3· ·matter will be considered separately and will be
·4· ·deliberated independently by the Commission.· For each ·5· ·matter, staff will provide a summary of the evidence ·6· ·and the retailer's violation history.· Commissioners ·7· ·will then have an opportunity to ask clarifying
·8· ·questions of staff.
·9· · · · · ·The retailer or their representative will then 10· ·be provided up to 8 minutes to provide -- present their 11· ·testimony and any information they would like the
12· ·commissioner -- Commission to consider.· Following that 13· ·presentation, commissioners may ask clarifying
14· ·questions of the retailer.· Staff will then have an 15· ·opportunity to respond to any factual matters raised 16· ·during the retailer's presentation.
17· · · · · · Once all testimony has been received, the 18· ·Commission will deliberate, consider all motions, and 19· ·then take a vote on that specific matter.· After the 20· ·Commission has concluded its deliberation and vote, the 21· ·process will be repeated for the next retailer.
22· · · · · · This slide summarizes the legal standard that 23· ·applies for tonight's proceedings.· Under Hayward
24· ·Municipal Code Section 10-1.2794, the City bears the 25· ·initial burden of proof.· Staff must demonstrate by a EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
26 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·preponderance of evidence that a retailer committed ·2· ·three or more violations within a five-year period. A ·3· ·preponderance of the evidence means that it is more ·4· ·likely than not that violations occurred.
·5· · · · · · In other words, the evidence shows that the ·6· ·violations were more likely than not committed by the ·7· ·retailer.· If the Planning Commission finds that three ·8· ·or more violations occurred within an applicable
·9· ·five-year period, the municipal code provides that the 10· ·tobacco retail license shall be revoked unless the 11· ·retailer demonstrates that a lesser penalty is
12· ·warranted.· At that point, the burden shifts to the 13· ·retailer must establish by clear and convincing
14· ·evidence that a lesser penalty should be imposed.
15· · · · · · This is a higher standard of proof and
16· ·requires evidence that creates a firm belief that a 17· ·lesser penalty is appropriate under the circumstances. 18· ·Possible lesser penalties may include suspension,
19· ·abatement measures, administrative citations, or
20· ·penalty fees.· Staff's presentation this evening is 21· ·intended to provide the evidence and documentation 22· ·necessary for the Commission to make these findings. 23· · · · · · The following slides address each retailer 24· ·individually.· After each matter is presented, the 25· ·Planning Commission will have an opportunity to ask EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
27 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·questions in deliberate.· Each matter will be
·2· ·considered separately before proceeding to the next. ·3· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Chair, if I -- if I could,
·4· ·before we proceed on the first retailer.· So, I just ·5· ·want to orient the Commission, as the sort of the
·6· ·different roles of staff here, myself, and Ms. Blanton, ·7· ·are here to support you in your role as the decision ·8· ·makers this evening.· We're not -- we don't have any ·9· ·involvement with any of the presentations that you're 10· ·going to hear.
11· · · · · · A separate attorney from my office,
12· ·Ms. Rothman, is on the line, and she is supporting 13· ·staff with respect to those presentations.· So if you 14· ·have questions regarding process, procedural issues, 15· ·Ms. Blanton and myself can -- can try to answer those. 16· ·If you have questions about specific cases, those will 17· ·be directed to staff.· So I just want to make sure that 18· ·was clear for the record.· Thank you.
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· And which is the 20· ·staff member from your office?
21· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· The attorney?· Amy Rothman, and 22· ·she should be online.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
24· · · · · ·Okay.· Now we're going to move to -- thank you 25· ·for that very thorough presentation.· We're going to EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
28 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·move to planning commissioner questions.· And at this ·2· ·point, the questions of staff about general purpose and ·3· ·the process of tobacco, retail license revocations ·4· ·is -- is the time that we would ask them.· And specific ·5· ·questions about each of the retailers will be -- will ·6· ·be allowed later on as they following the presentation ·7· ·of the retailers.· So these questions are just for ·8· ·general -- general review and process questions for ·9· ·staff.
10· · · · · · Commissioner Haman.
11· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yeah, a couple of clarifying
12· ·questions.· I guess I had from the last time too.· In 13· ·general, how much city or state revenue is lost due to 14· ·out of state purchases tobacco products?
15· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Staff does not have that
16· ·information in front of them at the moment.· I can get 17· ·you that information on a future date.
18· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Okay.· Thank you.· I -- I
19· ·appreciate that.· And then, how long does a retailer 20· ·need to wait in order to reapply for the TRL after 21· ·revocation?
22· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· It's my understanding that the 23· ·revocation of the license is permanent.· Also, all of 24· ·the -- the business owners that currently have a TRL 25· ·under the ordinance have -- would require a conditional EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
29 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·use permit.· So they're currently conform legal
·2· ·non-conforming uses and revocation of the license, they ·3· ·would use that -- they would lose that status as legal ·4· ·non-conforming.
·5· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· So, once it's gone, it's gone? ·6· ·Okay.· Thank you.
·7· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Lowe.
·8· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· Thank you.· So my question is for ·9· ·the city attorney who's here for us.· And you just 10· ·described the process where you're here for us.
11· ·Ms. Blanton is here for us, and then there's a separate 12· ·city attorney who's advising staff.
13· · · · · · And I just want to make sure for the record, 14· ·for all of the public to hear, what is the current 15· ·state of the law as it relates to having the city
16· ·attorney sort of divide itself in that way as opposed 17· ·to having outside -- an outside firm, for example, 18· ·advising one or the other.
19· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Yeah.· So, it's done for due 20· ·process purposes.· And as long as the two attorneys are 21· ·basically don't -- what we've done is we basically 22· ·walled each other off from our duties.· So as long as 23· ·there's separation within the office with the attorneys 24· ·who are handling the different duties, that's been 25· ·determined to be consistent with the due process.· And EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
30 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·that's -- so that's what we have done with these cases. ·2· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· Thank you.· Another question about ·3· ·the process is one of the letters that we received ·4· ·today in the packet that we received after 4:00,
·5· ·said -- or suggested that 8 minutes for the retailer ·6· ·was -- wasn't -- wasn't fair.· Can you address how ·7· ·staff came up with the hearing procedure and
·8· ·specifically the 8 minutes?
·9· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· Yeah.· I think that it's -- it's 10· ·somewhat -- so it's within the discretion of the
11· ·commission to sort of set limits on presentations.· The 12· ·8 minutes is somewhat consistent with how we -- the 13· ·time limits that we've given to developers with
14· ·projects.· So that's how we came up with that number. 15· · · · · · It's -- typically, it's 3 minutes for public 16· ·comment, things like that.· And for developers on
17· ·development projects, we often afford them a longer 18· ·time.· So we sort of use that as a guideline.
19· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· Does -- do the retailers have an 20· ·opportunity to provide written materials to the
21· ·Planning Commission before the hearing?
22· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Yes.
23· · · · · ·MS. LOWE:· And are there limits on how many or 24· ·how -- the volume of what they can provide to us?
25· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· I don't believe so.· We've never EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
31 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·limited that.
·2· · · · · ·MS. LOWE:· Okay.· So, every developer here had ·3· ·an opportunity to provide as many written materials or ·4· ·documents, submit that ahead of time, if they wanted ·5· ·to?
·6· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Yes.· Correct.
·7· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· That's all the questions I have ·8· ·right now.· Thank you so much for your attention.
·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Yorgov.
10· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Just a quick follow up to
11· ·Commissioner Haman's question.· So the revocation
12· ·prohibits the business from receiving a future license, 13· ·but is that the LLC, the business itself, or is it 14· ·the -- any business owner associated with that LLC as 15· ·well?
16· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· I think I'd have to review the 17· ·ordinance in more detail, but I do think it includes 18· ·the business entity or the proprietor, and it's clearly 19· ·defined in the ordinance, and I think it does include 20· ·the -- the members of the ownership entity, but I would 21· ·have to review.
22· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Thank you.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Meyers.
24· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Thank you, Chair.· I have a few 25· ·questions here.· So, I think you said you had 104
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
32 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·smoke -- smoke shops or that type in -- in Hayward, ·2· ·right?
·3· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· 104 tobacco retailers, licensed ·4· ·and have been distributed.
·5· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Oh, okay.· And then I'm
·6· ·wondering, have you gone through pretty much -- do you ·7· ·do, like, three a year or, I mean, is everybody equally ·8· ·inspected?
·9· · · · · ·MR. PRINS:· Yeah.· So the City of Hayward Code 10· ·Enforcement, it inspects each of those retailers at 11· ·least once a year.
12· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.
13· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Unless a complaint is received 14· ·regarding that specific location, then it will have 15· ·a -- its own inspection for that complaint.
16· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· And then is that done by 17· ·our staff code enforcement or HPD, or who does that? 18· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That's done by a staff code
19· ·enforcement.
20· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· And is that -- do they 21· ·know about that before you come, or is it just a pop 22· ·up?
23· · · · · ·MR. PRINS:· Typically, it's just a pop in on a 24· ·random day during business hours.
25· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Oh, okay.· Excellent.· And then EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
33 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·when the business owner initially gets their license ·2· ·and establishes this company, how -- how was the
·3· ·information conveyed to them that should they create ·4· ·more than three violations in five years, that they ·5· ·will be possibly revoked?
·6· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· I believe the expectation here ·7· ·is that as Jesse actually pointed out in his
·8· ·presentation, that it's the responsibility of the
·9· ·business owner to understand the laws that are
10· ·associated with the operation of their business.· So, 11· ·while code enforcement did go out and provide lots of 12· ·education regarding what is and isn't allowed at the 13· ·beginning of the -- the implementation of the
14· ·legislation, it is the obligation of the owner to
15· ·understand what regulates their -- their business. 16· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· And I think the Hayward 17· ·Municipal Code goes without saying that that goes along 18· ·with the business owner, correct?
19· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· Correct.
20· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· And then I guess it does 21· ·say it's permanent.· That was one of my questions. 22· ·I -- I noticed quite a few violations where there was 23· ·no license hanging.· Is that typically because and I 24· ·know we can't -- it's not all cases, but is that
25· ·typically because they just forgot it?· It's in the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
34 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·drawer in the back, but too late, you didn't put it up, ·2· ·or is it because they just haven't paid and -- and ·3· ·don't have it?
·4· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Speaking personally as a code ·5· ·enforcement inspector who does the backup inspections, ·6· ·I -- if a retailer has a copy of that license, whether ·7· ·it's in a drawer, on their phone, and they're willing ·8· ·to print it out there on the spot and hang it, that ·9· ·will -- that will be considered a pass inspection, 10· ·given there's no other violations.· Typically, it's an 11· ·expired license or just a missing license from the 12· ·business where it should be posted publicly.
13· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· Thank you.· That's all. 14· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Thank you.
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Hardy.
16· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· We spoke about this 17· ·some the last time we were talking about this a couple 18· ·of weeks ago.· But could you again speak to the
19· ·difference between a tobacco license and a business 20· ·license because there seems to be some confusion around 21· ·shutting down a business and revoking a license.
22· · · · · ·MS. MORALES:· So, correct, this really -- this 23· ·action tonight only deals with the tobacco retail
24· ·license, so that would affect their ability to sell 25· ·tobacco products in the City of Hayward.· They could EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
35 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·still operate their business.· So, if they're -- they ·2· ·have a business that is both selling tobacco and is a ·3· ·mini market, their mini market business would still be ·4· ·allowed to operate.· They just would not be allowed to ·5· ·sell tobacco from that business.
·6· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· And then this may be ·7· ·for staff on this end.· Could you speak to the presence ·8· ·of the court reporter just because we didn't have a ·9· ·court reporter here previously?
10· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· Yes.· I think she's here for one 11· ·of the businesses.· I believe counsel for one of the 12· ·businesses requested that she be here.· So she's here 13· ·for that.
14· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· And that was it.
15· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Is there any other commissioner 16· ·questions?· Commissioner Stevens.
17· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Just to confirm, during the 18· ·inspection, there's -- there's a bit of leniency.
19· ·Initially, you go to the sites, you look at them.
20· ·They're not -- they might get a citation, but they 21· ·don't necessarily receive a fine.· Is that how that 22· ·operates?
23· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Because businesses are paying to 24· ·the -- to have a tobacco retail license, it's assumed 25· ·that they have the understanding of the municipal code EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
36 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·that -- that pertains to the tobacco retail license. ·2· ·Any violation of that constitutes a fine upon finding a ·3· ·violation and documentation.
·4· · · · · ·MS. ROTHMAN:· If -- if I may, Commissioner Amy ·5· ·Rothman here on behalf of the code enforcement
·6· ·division, the City Attorney's Office.· I think perhaps ·7· ·the inspector misunderstood the question.· A lot of ·8· ·education is provided by inspectors before retailers ·9· ·are cited.· A lot of leeway is provided.
10· · · · · · Perhaps Inspector Prins can -- can touch on 11· ·that a little bit more.· I think that's kind of what 12· ·was being asked.
13· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yeah, I apologize. I
14· ·misunderstood -- misheard the question.· Typically, 15· ·when a tobacco inspection is ensuing, the education 16· ·aspect is typically heavy.· When I'm going through, I'm 17· ·showing them any violations that may be present and 18· ·explaining why.· I'm showing them how to use tools such 19· ·as the California Department of Justice unflavored 20· ·tobacco list to potentially identify products that are 21· ·prohibited within the state.
22· · · · · · And it -- there's a lot of education that 23· ·occurs on these inspections, and I attempt to work with 24· ·the businesses to either pass the inspection if there 25· ·are no violations, or help them pass the next
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
37 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·inspection using the education that I provided them ·2· ·during that inspection or during phone calls or emails ·3· ·after that inspection.
·4· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you.· That's exactly
·5· ·perfect.· Just one other question.· Can you provide a ·6· ·brief overview of the regulatory landscape?· It looks ·7· ·like maybe there's a federal government, state
·8· ·government, plus at the local level, there's, like, ·9· ·a -- a licensing requirement.· How does the state and 10· ·federal government pertain to this whole system?
11· · · · · ·MS. ROTHMAN:· Commissioner, I think -- I think 12· ·the question goes to sort of some of these joint -- are 13· ·you -- are you asking about some of the joint task 14· ·force inspections conducted by the -- the State
15· ·Department along with the code enforcement team?
16· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Yeah.· I'm just curious if the 17· ·State or the federal government does its own
18· ·inspections separate from the city, or is that -- is 19· ·that a joint operation thing?
20· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· Jesse, are you able to provide 21· ·some information about some of the -- the joint
22· ·inspections and how those happened?
23· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yes.· So I -- I appreciate the 24· ·clarification.· The California Department of Tax and 25· ·Fee Administration is a state department.· They have a EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
38 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·tobacco branch that regularly does tobacco inspections ·2· ·of tobacco retailers and enforces the, excuse me, state ·3· ·tobacco law.
·4· · · · · · We reached out to the CDTFA for a joint
·5· ·inspection, and -- and therefore, we were able to do ·6· ·multiple inspections of retailers, specifically in ·7· ·Hayward.· And that's how the -- at least the joint ·8· ·inspections occurred.· But they do have their own
·9· ·tobacco branch and do their own inspections as well. I 10· ·cannot speak to the federal level myself though.
11· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you very much.
12· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· I also had
13· ·questions about the education but they were answered 14· ·in -- in this last few minutes.· My question is
15· ·regarding the fees.· How -- where are the fees, the 16· ·violation fees allocated?
17· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· How are they allocated back to 18· ·the city?· All the fees are paid back into the general 19· ·fund.
20· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
21· · · · · · Now, at this time, we -- are there any other 22· ·commissioner questions?
23· · · · · · Commissioner Haman.
24· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Just one more question.· So, if 25· ·the retailer's TR, tobacco retail license is revoked EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
39 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·and they still maintain their business, does code
·2· ·enforcement typically go back and do follow-up
·3· ·inspections to make sure that they're still in
·4· ·compliance?
·5· · · · · ·MR. PRINS:· So, yes, that would need to occur. ·6· ·Staff would have to go out and do inspections of the ·7· ·business to ensure that no tobacco products were being ·8· ·sold after revocation, if that were to occur.
·9· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Great.· Thank you.
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions?
11· · · · · · Okay.· At this time, we are going to move to 12· ·public hearing.· And the public comments on -- we'll 13· ·accept public comments on the general purpose and the 14· ·process of the tobacco retail license revocations that 15· ·the staff presented earlier.· This is -- would not be 16· ·the time for comments on the individual retailers.· We 17· ·will get to those when the items -- when each
18· ·individual retailers license is considered.
19· · · · · · Ms. Corral, do we have -- or yes, Ms. Corral, 20· ·do we have any --
21· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· We do.· We have two speakers 22· ·online.
23· · · · · · (Exit Executive Session; enter Public
24· ·Session.)
25· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· The first speaker is Sarah
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
40 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·Archileta.
·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Go ahead.
·3· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· Hello, can you hear me?
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yes.
·5· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· I just wanted to really
·6· ·commend the city code enforcement and just this action ·7· ·that's really just a great thing for the community. I ·8· ·was here at the last hearing.· I've reviewed the
·9· ·current hearing.· And I think it's a good thing for our 10· ·community to be addressing this issue.· I think it's 11· ·easy to just kind of let it go, you know, be
12· ·sympathetic to retailers.
13· · · · · · But I think that the position of, like, it is 14· ·their responsibility.· They, you know -- having this 15· ·license is a privilege.· These are harmful -- harmful 16· ·products to our community, especially to youth.· And 17· ·so, having retailers that are responsible and holding 18· ·them accountable and not letting them be like, oh, hey, 19· ·you know, my -- my staff didn't know.· I didn't know. 20· ·That's just not an excuse.
21· · · · · · And I think that having that hard line is 22· ·something that should really be commended.· I -- like I 23· ·said, I was here at the last hearing, I was really 24· ·happy to see the strong enforcement.· And I think that 25· ·it also sends a signal to other retailers that you need EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
41 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·to be in compliance or you're going to lose your
·2· ·license as well.· And so, like I said, I'm very much in ·3· ·favor of the revocation of these licenses and of the ·4· ·process of being taken.· So yeah, thank you.
·5· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· The next speaker is James
·6· ·Anthony.
·7· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony?
·8· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Hi.· What are we looking at 3 ·9· ·minutes, and I'm restricting myself to sort of what's 10· ·just been presented on the sort of overview of the -- 11· ·of the regulatory and enforcement system.· I think 12· ·going backwards through my notes from the latest
13· ·exchange, and -- and I do want to thank the Commission 14· ·for the -- the careful questions of staff.· I think it 15· ·was Jesse, the code inspector, was talking, but also 16· ·some of the other staff.
17· · · · · ·I mean, it's -- part of the thing with Zoom is 18· ·I can't really tell who's who or who's talking, but 19· ·possibly, excuse me, Jesse's supervisor, that there 20· ·seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to what is 21· ·education, and it's great.· We're glad that they're 22· ·educating.· That was certainly what was happening, you 23· ·know, at other times.
24· · · · · · But there's the education, and then there's 25· ·the notice, and then there's the compliance.· They come EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
42 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·back and do another inspection.· And then when you ·2· ·start getting pieces of paper, it's not clear what they ·3· ·are.· It sounds like they don't feel that they have to ·4· ·say that, hey, three strikes in five years and you're ·5· ·out, right?
·6· · · · · · It sounds like they send something called an ·7· ·administrative penalty and fee notice.· So, it's not ·8· ·clear what counts as a violation.· Jesse mentioned ·9· ·that, you know, he tries to work with them.· And so if 10· ·the license isn't hanging up, if they can print it out, 11· ·and hang it up, then he'll consider that a passed
12· ·inspection.· But it's hard to tell.
13· · · · · · Maybe he might want to count that as a,
14· ·"Violation" because, hey, it wasn't hanging up and it's 15· ·supposed to be.· So, you know, what counts as a
16· ·violation, what counts as notice and then correction 17· ·later for compliance.· So, then that doesn't count as a 18· ·violation.· I'm confused.
19· · · · · · Also, just because of the -- your -- your 20· ·attorney mentioned that 8 minutes comes from what is 21· ·given to developers, that's a very different standard, 22· ·right?· Developers are asking for something.· They 23· ·don't have anything.· They're asking for a CUP or a 24· ·permit or a variance.
25· · · · · · And so, you can give them less due process.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
43 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·But in this case, nobody is asking you for permission ·2· ·to do anything.· Rather, staff is asking you to assume ·3· ·a judicial function and terminate a right.· The -- the ·4· ·retailers currently have rights, not privileges.
·5· · · · · · And it just seems that if you're going to ·6· ·terminate a right and shut down a business, that you ·7· ·owe them, you know, more than you owe a developer who's ·8· ·just rolling the dice, right?· Maybe I get a CUP, maybe ·9· ·I don't.· That's how that works.
10· · · · · · And in that case, you're sitting quasi
11· ·legislative.· You're deciding, yeah, yes or no, we can 12· ·give it to them or not.· But in this situation, you're 13· ·deciding, oh, we're going to take out a 15-year-old 14· ·business.
15· · · · · · Thank you.· I think that's my time.
16· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
17· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· The next speaker is Ne (phonetic). 18· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· If -- if I may, Commissioner, 19· ·before we move to the next comment, on behalf of the 20· ·code enforcement division, we would object to the
21· ·attorney representing one of our -- one of the
22· ·retailers using the public comment portion of this to 23· ·surpass the 8-minute time limit given to all retailers. 24· ·So, we would just put that on the record.
25· · · · · ·Mr. Anthony is not a member of the public.· He EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
44 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·is an attorney representing one of the retailers, and ·2· ·we believe he's misusing the public comment process. ·3· ·So, thank you.
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Noted.
·5· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Ne?
·6· · · · · · MR. TA:· Hello?· Can you hear me?
·7· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Go ahead.
·8· · · · · · MR. TA:· Good evening, members of the Hayward ·9· ·Planning Commission.· My name is Negoci Ta, and I'm a 10· ·student researcher at Chabot College, studying tobacco 11· ·control and tobacco retail policies in Hayward.· Thank you 12· ·for the opportunity to speak today.
13· · · · · · I'm here to express my support for the
14· ·consistent enforcement of Hayward's tobacco retail 15· ·license ordinance.· As outlined in the staff report, 16· ·these cases involve repeated violations over several 17· ·years, some of the sale of prohibited tobacco and
18· ·nicotine products, sales of individuals under 21,
19· ·failure to verify age, licensing violations, and/or the 20· ·continued possession of prohibited products.
21· · · · · · These regulations exist for a reason.· They 22· ·help reduce youth access tobacco and nicotine products, 23· ·promote responsible retail practices, and create clear 24· ·expectations for every licensed retailer.· And when 25· ·businesses repeatedly fail to comply, it undermines the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
45 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·purpose of the ordinance and places responsible
·2· ·retailers at a disadvantage.
·3· · · · · ·Consistent enforcement helps ensure that every ·4· ·retailer is held to the same standards, and that the ·5· ·ordinance is applied fairly across the city.· It also ·6· ·sends a clear message that remaining violations have ·7· ·meaningful consequences, and that protecting the health ·8· ·and well-being of our community, especially our youth, ·9· ·remains a priority.
10· · · · · · So, I respectfully ask the Commission to
11· ·uphold the intent of the tobacco retail license
12· ·ordinance through your decision today.· Thank you. 13· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· The next speaker is Douglas
14· ·Perez.
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Go ahead.· Douglas, are there? 16· · · · · · MR. PEREZ:· Hello?
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yes, hello.
18· · · · · · MR. PEREZ:· Hello?· Can you hear me?
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yes.
20· · · · · · MR. PEREZ:· Awesome.· Okay.
21· · · · · · Good evening, members of the Hayward County 22· ·Commission.· My name is Douglas Perez.· I'm a student 23· ·at Chabot College and Haywood resident.· I'm here to 24· ·share serious concerns regarding local tobacco
25· ·retailers that appear to be violating the tobacco
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
46 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·retail license ordinance.
·2· · · · · ·I want to bring attention to tobacco retailers ·3· ·in Hayward who are not allowing the TRL ordinance -- or ·4· ·not following the TRL ordinance by selling items like ·5· ·vape devices, flavored tobacco and cannabis products, ·6· ·imitations psychedelic mushroom products, and out of ·7· ·state menthol cigarettes.
·8· · · · · · On top of that, some retailers are selling to ·9· ·people under 21, not checking IDs, operating with
10· ·expired or unposted licenses, skipping out on TRL fees, 11· ·and hiding prohibited products on site.· As someone who 12· ·lives and studies here in Haywood, this is close to 13· ·home.
14· · · · · · When these violations are unchecked, it makes 15· ·it way too easy for young people to get their hands on 16· ·harmful products and honestly undermines a lot of the 17· ·work the city has already put into public health.· I've 18· ·talked to classmates and people in my neighborhood 19· ·about this, and it's something a lot of us have noticed 20· ·and care about.
21· · · · · ·Overall, what I've observed suggests that some 22· ·retailers may not be fully following the tobacco retail 23· ·license ordinance, which raises concerns about how 24· ·consistently it is being applied and what that means 25· ·for youth access and community health.· I appreciate EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
47 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·the work the Commission is doing and encourage
·2· ·continued attention to supporting clear and consistent ·3· ·implementation moving forward.· Thank you again for ·4· ·your time and consideration.
·5· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· That is the last of the public ·6· ·speakers online.
·7· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Can we take a break?
·8· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Or if the vice chair could take ·9· ·over briefly?
10· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· So we've heard from public
11· ·speakers.· So now, I guess, we'll be --
12· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· We should see if --
13· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Are there any more speakers?
14· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· -- (crosstalk).
15· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER 1:· Yes.
16· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Okay.
17· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· There are no more public
18· ·speakers.
19· · · · · ·MR. HAMAN:· There are no more public speakers? 20· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· No.
21· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· And then I guess we'll be moving 22· ·on to hearing on specific businesses.
23· · · · · · (Exit Public Session; enter Executive
24· ·Session.)
25· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Do we have a staff presentation EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
48 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·for the first retailer?
·2· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yes.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · I will now begin with Attachment 3, Mobil ·4· ·Hayward Gas and Food, located at 391 West A Street. ·5· ·This matter is unique because the property owner has ·6· ·fully cooperated with code enforcement throughout this ·7· ·investigation once they were notified of the code case. ·8· ·Upon learning of the retailer's continuous violations, ·9· ·the property owner worked with code enforcement staff, 10· ·provided photographs and videos documenting prohibited 11· ·vape sales occurring at the business, and is currently 12· ·pursuing eviction of the tobacco retailer due to these 13· ·repeated violations.
14· · · · · · Many of the photographs presented today and 15· ·included within Attachment 3 were provided by the
16· ·property owner as part of that cooperation.· Mobil 17· ·Hayward Gas and Food accumulated a total of six
18· ·violations within a five-year period and was inspected 19· ·on multiple occasions by code enforcement staff over 20· ·that time period.
21· · · · · · Over the course of those inspections, staff 22· ·documented repeated violations involving prohibited 23· ·tobacco products and licensing violations.· The
24· ·retailers violations included flavored tobacco
25· ·products, electronic smoking devices, vape products, EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
49 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·hemp products, discounted tobacco products, and expired ·2· ·or lack of displayed licensing.· The business was also ·3· ·cited for -- excuse me, cited by the United States Food ·4· ·and Drug Administration, or FDA, in August 2025 for ·5· ·selling a flavored vape product to a person under 21 ·6· ·years of age and failing to verify identification
·7· ·during a compliance check.
·8· · · · · ·In February 2026, the business was again cited ·9· ·by the FDA for selling cigarettes to a person under 21 10· ·years of age during a separate compliance check.· These 11· ·two FDA violations occurred approximately six months 12· ·apart and demonstrate that the retailer continued
13· ·violating federal law even after receiving prior
14· ·enforcement action.· No appeals were filed regarding 15· ·any of the documented violations.
16· · · · · · The violations before the Commission occurred 17· ·over a three-year period between May 2023 and April 18· ·2026, and demonstrates a continuing pattern of
19· ·non-compliance with the City's tobacco retail license 20· ·ordinance.· Code enforcement initially documented
21· ·violations involving prohibited flavored tobacco
22· ·products, hemp products, and licensing deficiencies. 23· ·Subsequent inspections continued to identify prohibited 24· ·vape devices, electronic smoking devices, discounted 25· ·tobacco products, and additional expired or not posted EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
50 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·licensing violations.
·2· · · · · · During a code enforcement case initiated in ·3· ·response to an anonymous complaint regarding vape
·4· ·sales, State -- staff became aware that the retailer ·5· ·had also received two separate citations from the
·6· ·United States Food and Drug Administration for unlawful ·7· ·sales for a person under 21 years of age during
·8· ·compliance checks.· Because the City's tobacco retail ·9· ·ordinance requires retailers to comply with all
10· ·applicable federal, state, and local laws, those FDA 11· ·violations also constituted violations of the City's 12· ·ordinance.
13· · · · · · The April 2026 investigation also confirmed 14· ·that the prohibited vape sales were continuing.· With 15· ·the full cooperation of the property owner, staff
16· ·obtained evidence demonstrating that vape sales were 17· ·being sold from both inside the business and eventually 18· ·from vehicles located on the property, resulting in 19· ·additional violation.· Taken together, these documented 20· ·violations established a continuing pattern of
21· ·non-compliance and resulted in six violations within 22· ·the applicable five-year period, making the retailer -- 23· ·excuse me, eligible for tobacco retail license
24· ·revocation proceedings before the County Commission. 25· ·These violations are documented in Attachment 3 of the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
51 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·staff report.
·2· · · · · · The photographs displayed here provide
·3· ·examples of the prohibited tobacco products licensing ·4· ·violations and evidence collected during the
·5· ·investigation.· The photographs also document a
·6· ·transaction in which the sale originated inside the ·7· ·business, but it was deliberately completed outside the ·8· ·storefront.· After a customer requested a prohibited ·9· ·vape product inside the business, a store employee exited 10· ·the premises, retrieved the product from a vehicle 11· ·associated with the employee, and distributed the vape 12· ·product to the customer outside the business.
13· · · · · · This conduct demonstrates more than an
14· ·isolated mistake.· It -- it reflects an intentional 15· ·effort to continue selling prohibitive products despite 16· ·the City's tobacco retail license ordinance and after 17· ·prior enforcement actions have already been taken
18· ·against the retailers.· The photographs presented today 19· ·were collected by code enforcement staff during
20· ·inspections and were also provided by the property 21· ·owner as part of their full cooperation with the City's 22· ·investigation.· Together, they form part of the
23· ·evidentiary record supporting Attachment 3.
24· · · · · · Despite years of inspections, compliance
25· ·assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
52 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·correct violations, this establishment continued to ·2· ·violate the City's tobacco retail ordinance.· The
·3· ·business owner of Mobil Hayward Gas and Food, 391 West ·4· ·A Street has accumulated six violations within a
·5· ·five-year period, meeting the criteria for revocation ·6· ·of the tobacco retail license under the Hayward
·7· ·Municipal Code, Section 10-1.2794.
·8· · · · · · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ·9· ·finds that Mobil Hayward Gas and Food located at 391 10· ·West A Street, has committed at least three violations 11· ·in a five-year period and revoke the tobacco retail 12· ·license for the Mobil -- for Mobil Hayward Gas and 13· ·Food.
14· · · · · · This concludes staff presentation regarding 15· ·Mobil Hayward Gas and Food.· I am available for any 16· ·questions from the Commission.
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any questions from
18· ·commissioners regarding this retailer?· No questions. 19· ·Okay.· We will now move to the retailer presentation. 20· · · · · · Is there somebody representing Mobil Hayward 21· ·Gas and Food?
22· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· I believe it's RZ QA.· I'm
23· ·allowing them to speak and they are promoted to
24· ·panelist.· Can you turn on your screen?
25· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Hello?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
53 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Yes.· We can hear.
·2· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Good evening, Commissioners. ·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you please turn on your ·4· ·screen?
·5· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· And I appreciate this
·6· ·opportunity to speak today.· I just want --
·7· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Could you --
·8· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· -- to let the Commission know ·9· ·I'm representing Hayward Gas and Food, and then that we 10· ·have made the decision --
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you turn on your screen, 12· ·please?
13· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· -- to cease doing business at 14· ·this location.· And our last day of operation is going 15· ·to be June 29th of 2026.· So we have four days on
16· ·Monday.
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Excuse me.
18· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· And -- yeah?
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you turn on your screen, 20· ·please?
21· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· I have no presentation. I
22· ·don't know if --
23· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· I believe that's part of taking 24· ·the oath, you have to be able to see the person who 25· ·took the oath.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
54 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Oh, you have to see?· Okay. ·2· ·Sure.· Can you see me?
·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yes, we can.
·4· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Yes.· So, as I was saying, we ·5· ·have decided to cease operations at this location on ·6· ·June 29th.· So, the business asks if we voluntarily ·7· ·surrender our tobacco license on that day.· That is all. ·8· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Does that conclude your -- your ·9· ·presentation?
10· · · · · · MR. ALPRISEY:· Yes.
11· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Okay.· Now, we're going to move 12· ·to Planning Commissioner questions of staff or the 13· ·retailer.
14· · · · · · Commissioner Haman?
15· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Well, I guess the -- he asked the 16· ·question, can he?
17· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· If I may respond, the -- the 18· ·sale of tobacco would need to cease at the moment the 19· ·revocation is -- at the moment the Commission moves to 20· ·revoke the license, so they would not be able to
21· ·continue selling through the 29th.· Sales would need to 22· ·cease immediately.
23· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Okay.· Thank you.
24· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Hardy.
25· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· I also just wondering what the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
55 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·implications would be of surrendering a license versus ·2· ·revoking a license in terms of, like, this location ·3· ·versus other locations and kind of the discussion we ·4· ·were having earlier and just wondering what that would ·5· ·be, if anything.
·6· · · · · ·MS. MORALES:· I don't identify anything in the ·7· ·code that talks about surrendering of the license.· It ·8· ·doesn't seem to be contemplated, so it's something that ·9· ·we would have to research.· Again, the statement by 10· ·City Attorney Rothman, I think the -- the answer is -- 11· ·is the -- the ordinance specifies revocation based on 12· ·three violations in a five-year period.· So, it doesn't 13· ·really give us an alternative except for a lesser
14· ·penalty if the Planning Commission determines that it's 15· ·warranted.
16· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· And if I may add, we would not 17· ·recommend allowing the business to surrender the
18· ·license.· We would recommend revoking the license on 19· ·the record based on the evidence being presented and 20· ·based on the fact that the retailer has not provided 21· ·any opposition.· We believe the revocation makes it 22· ·clear for the record that this business has conducted 23· ·illegal activity, and we believe that the actual
24· ·revocation is required as a deterrent, as well as the 25· ·punitive measure for the actions taken.· On top of the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
56 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·fact that it could provide legal protections if this ·2· ·retailer were to attempt to reestablish a tobacco
·3· ·licensing business in Hayward.
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions?
·5· ·Commissioner Stevens.
·6· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So, if -- if their license
·7· ·becomes invalid after relocation of the Planning
·8· ·Commission's motion, what happens during the ten-day ·9· ·appeal period?· Are they not allowed to sell or if they 10· ·do appeal, how -- how does that work?
11· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· That is a great question.
12· ·Christine, did you want to -- did you want to take that 13· ·answer?
14· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· Oh, I was just going to say my 15· ·understanding is the license is revoked immediately 16· ·unless they appeal within that ten-day period.· So, the 17· ·presumption is that it is revoked unless we receive an 18· ·appeal.
19· · · · · · Amy, the --
20· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· Correct.· That's -- that's what 21· ·I was going to say.· Thank you.
22· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So they -- so they still can't 23· ·sell until City Council makes the decision?
24· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· So -- so if -- if the decision 25· ·is not appealed, the revocation is immediate at the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
57 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·time of the -- at the time the Commission moves to ·2· ·revoke.· So, it would be immediate starting tonight. ·3· ·If within the ten-day period, the -- the decision is ·4· ·appealed, it's likely that the -- the revocation would ·5· ·be stayed until City Council can hear the appeal in ·6· ·September.
·7· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other commissioner
·9· ·questions?
10· · · · · · My question is -- I just wanted to jump back on 11· ·Commissioner Stevens' question, is that, given if -- if 12· ·there was an appeal following a revocation, and if 13· ·that -- if the -- it would stay then until the City 14· ·Council could hear it, how -- what -- in terms of
15· ·process, does -- does -- do -- does code enforcement 16· ·then just default back to their -- their inspections to 17· ·ensure compliance or how -- how -- what happens in 18· ·terms of staff activity during that period?
19· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· When any violation is appealed, 20· ·all enforcement activity ceases because we still have a 21· ·pending decision regarding the -- the status of the 22· ·license.· So, I don't believe that we would conduct our 23· ·regular inspections at that time, but I think we would 24· ·still have to evaluate because this is not typical, 25· ·like our code enforcement cases where we're looking at EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
58 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·correctable violations.· These violations, they occur. ·2· ·You can't undo having sold illegal products to a
·3· ·minor.· So, it's a violation that happened.
·4· · · · · · It's -- it's static in time.· You can't
·5· ·correct it like you could go back and fix a water
·6· ·heater in rental housing, and then you've addressed the ·7· ·problem.· So, this is a different nature of the
·8· ·violations.· I do think we would want to evaluate with ·9· ·the City Attorney's Office whether or not, during that 10· ·period, while we're waiting for there to be a hearing 11· ·with the City Council, whether we would continue
12· ·ongoing inspections.· It's a good question.
13· · · · · ·MS. ROTHMAN:· And I -- I can address that.· We 14· ·would continue ongoing inspections, especially with a 15· ·retailer who has, you know, violated the ordinance 16· ·numerous times.· And a clarification I'd like to make 17· ·on the record is that these violations occurred over 18· ·years, of periods of years.· Each violation was
19· ·appealable ten days after the retailers received
20· ·notices of violations.
21· · · · · · That's the time when these retailers had to 22· ·come and contest these violations.· At this point, none 23· ·of these violations can be contested by the retailers. 24· ·The time to appeal the citations has long passed.· As 25· ·you'll hear, one of these retailers did appeal, but I EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
59 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·think that goes to a better understanding of how this ·2· ·process works.· What we're doing here is just
·3· ·confirming that there were three, at least three
·4· ·violations.· This is not about relitigating the
·5· ·violations.
·6· · · · · · Once revocation is ordered, even if the
·7· ·retailer appeals, we would still continue to inspect ·8· ·and enforce the ordinance.· And so they could
·9· ·accumulate more violations in that period, more
10· ·penalties.· And actually, at this point, I think the 11· ·question of whether or not the revocation could -- 12· ·could maintain -- could be -- could continue during the 13· ·period between this hearing and the appeal is one that 14· ·potentially Senior City Attorney Vigilia should respond 15· ·to.
16· · · · · ·It would be our position that the dispensaries 17· ·should be prohibited from continuing to sell tobacco 18· ·while waiting for their appeal, which -- which likely 19· ·will not be held until sometime in September, given the 20· ·council closure.· And -- and I think perhaps that's 21· ·something the Planning Commission can decide, but
22· ·that's a question that I think Senior Assistant City 23· ·Attorney Vigilia would need to respond to.
24· · · · · · Good questions, though.
25· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Can you restate the question? EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
60 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· My question was:· If a retailer ·2· ·during the -- if a retailer appeals the revocation ·3· ·of -- of a license, what is the staff activity between ·4· ·the -- during the time that the license is revoked and ·5· ·the appeal hearing of the City Council?· Does the City ·6· ·continue its enforcement or during the -- during the ·7· ·stay?· I mean, we're talking about two -- two,
·8· ·two-and-a-half months.
·9· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· Apologies, Commissioner.
10· ·That -- that's more than I can answer, and we will 11· ·continue to enforce the ordinance.· I -- I thought that 12· ·you were asking whether or not the revocation order 13· ·would be stayed during the time between now and when 14· ·the appeals will be heard.· But yes, the code
15· ·enforcement team will continue to enforce against these 16· ·retailers as long as these retailers are continuing to 17· ·sell tobacco.
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Got it.· Thanks.· And -- and I 19· ·did ask -- my first question was about if it would be 20· ·stayed, if it -- if the revocation would be stayed 21· ·during -- during the period between, you know, the 22· ·decision and -- and the appeal hearing.
23· · · · · · So yes, thank you.
24· · · · · · Commissioner Yorgov.
25· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Thank you, Chair.· I just ask a EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
61 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·quick follow-up question.· So, if none of these
·2· ·specific offenses are at this point appealable, and the ·3· ·language of the statute is that three separate offenses ·4· ·over a period of five years are grounds for revocation, ·5· ·does the Commission have -- what would an applicant ·6· ·need to demonstrate actively in order to qualify for a ·7· ·lesser punishment if each of those offenses have
·8· ·already been proven?
·9· · · · · ·MS. ROTHMAN:· So -- so things that you've been 10· ·hearing from retailers or what they're, you know -- 11· ·retailers can present kind of whatever they would like 12· ·to in order to show that potentially revocation is too 13· ·harsh of a penalty.· And you'll hear some of that
14· ·argument today from some of the different retailers and 15· ·attorneys, but that's the issue here today.· It's
16· ·whether -- it's what the penalty will be, not whether 17· ·or not there will be a penalty.
18· · · · · ·It's whether or not the -- the license will be 19· ·revoked or a lesser penalty will attach.· The question 20· ·is not whether or not the violations were correctly -- 21· ·were -- were lawfully noticed or inspected, that time 22· ·for challenging that has -- had long passed.
23· · · · · · I -- did I -- did that answer the question? 24· ·Okay.
25· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· It did clarify.· Thank you.· And EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
62 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·that's it for me.· Thank you.
·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions,
·3· ·Commissioners?
·4· · · · · · Okay.· At this time, I'm going to open public ·5· ·hearing.· And this is an invitation for the public to ·6· ·comment on this specific business, the Mobil Hayward ·7· ·Gas and Food.
·8· · · · · · (Exit Executive Session; enter Public
·9· ·Session.)
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· And Ms. Corral, do we have any 11· ·speakers on Zoom or in the chambers?
12· · · · · ·MS. CORRAL:· We do.· We have Sandra Archileta. 13· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Ms. Archileta?
14· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· Hello?
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Go ahead.
16· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· Okay.· I -- so, I think
17· ·there's a couple of points here.· The first one I'd 18· ·like to make is I definitely agree with not letting the 19· ·retail -- retailer surrender his license.· I think that 20· ·it is very important that the license is revoked, so it 21· ·does go on the record.· Because part of the revocation, 22· ·I think that is important for this enforcement action, 23· ·is that these retailers are not allowed to set up shop 24· ·somewhere else.
25· · · · · · This retailer in particular has, like, a very EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
63 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·big pattern in -- of violations.· I think, at this ·2· ·point, I think, flavored tobacco, vapes, all that has ·3· ·been -- the law changed, like a long time ago, right? ·4· ·It's been a few years.· I work in prevention.· I'm part ·5· ·of the Alameda County Tobacco Prevention Coalition.· We ·6· ·do state conferences.
·7· · · · · · So, this has happened a long time ago.
·8· ·Retailers have the knowledge at this point.· And so, ·9· ·for this retailer to continue to -- to violate, have 10· ·the serious violations, to sell to minors, that's one 11· ·of the big ones for me because kids know the retailers 12· ·that are going to sell to them.· They share that
13· ·information amongst themselves.
14· · · · · ·And one of the biggest issues in our community 15· ·around tobacco is accessibility, right?· It's easy for 16· ·kids to get it.· You ask -- you look at the California 17· ·Healthy Kids Survey.· It literally says it in there, 18· ·kids all say how easy it is to access tobacco, to
19· ·access these flavor -- the vapes, all of that.· And so, 20· ·when you have a retailer that is knowingly selling 21· ·these products, selling to minors, just surrendering 22· ·their license with the potential of setting up
23· ·somewhere else, is something that we should really not 24· ·discourage.
25· · · · · · And I also want to say that these retailers EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
64 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·should not be allowed to operate while they are on ·2· ·appeal.· They have proven that they are harmful to our ·3· ·communities.· And the fact is, they've had -- they've ·4· ·had this pattern of behavior for a long time.· And so, ·5· ·I think it's really important that we do close these ·6· ·retailers that are accumulating all these violations, ·7· ·that are selling to kids, that are selling products ·8· ·that they know are illegal.
·9· · · · · · You can say education, you're going to hear 10· ·them say that.· But it's been several years now that 11· ·the laws have changed around these issues.· And I'm 12· ·telling you I -- my family, you know, we have a beer 13· ·and wine license.· We owned a restaurant.· When you 14· ·have those licenses, I heard someone say it's a right. 15· ·It's not a right, it's a privilege.
16· · · · · · And that privilege comes with a lot of
17· ·responsibility.· And you have to know -- every single 18· ·years laws change.· A good retailer knows when those 19· ·laws change, and they talk to their business and
20· ·their -- I'm sorry, their staff.
21· · · · · ·I know it because my family owned restaurants. 22· ·We had one of those licenses, and there are good
23· ·retailers out there that do things right, and we need 24· ·to stop these retailers that don't.· Thank you.
25· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· And just a
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
65 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·clarifying question, Ms. Archileta.· Are you speaking ·2· ·as an individual or -- or on behalf of your employer? ·3· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· I am speaking as an
·4· ·individual, but I am a -- a prevention professional. ·5· ·So I'm here as a community member.· You know, my kids ·6· ·go to high school.
·7· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· I'm a mom.· So that's it. ·9· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· The next speaker is James
10· ·Anthony.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony, did you have
12· ·comments on this?
13· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Yes.· When I last spoke as a 14· ·member of the public regarding the initial staff
15· ·presentation, the prosecuting attorney, Ms. Rothman, 16· ·then objected to my speaking, and I was not given an 17· ·opportunity to counter that objection.· Although I 18· ·did --
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· This -- this is --
20· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- try to raise --
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- for the staff comments. 22· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- my hand on Zoom, one of the 23· ·many infirmities of Zoom.
24· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony?
25· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· I did want to note that as far EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
66 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·as I know, I'm a member of the public.· I don't know -- ·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
·3· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- if the Hayward Planning
·4· ·Commission has --
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
·6· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- some kind of definition of ·7· ·who is public enough to be public.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
·9· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· But if so, I'm not aware of it. 10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· This -- this is for the
11· ·retailer.· Do you have comments --
12· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· What's happening --
13· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- (crosstalk) --
14· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- here is that this discussion 15· ·is bouncing all over the place.· For instance, the 16· ·issue of whether or not a retailer can stay open after 17· ·the Planning Commission --
18· · · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
19· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- decision during the ten-day 20· ·appeal period, after they appeal, right?· All of that 21· ·is on the table.
22· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
23· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· So I just want to -- to weigh in 24· ·that those are very important issues.
25· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I -- I will --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
67 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· I'm glad that the Planning
·2· ·Commission --
·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony --
·4· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- (crosstalk) --
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- please.
·6· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· It would be great to hear from ·7· ·your attorney, and you will hear from me again.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
·9· · · · · · Do we have another speaker for this retailer? 10· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· We do not.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Okay.· Now, we will move to -- 12· ·we will close the public hearing on this item and go to 13· ·the Planning Commission discussion.
14· · · · · · (Exit Public Session; enter Executive
15· ·Session.)
16· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I'd like to make a motion.· I'd 17· ·like to make a motion that the Commission finds that 18· ·Mobil Hayward Gas and Food, located at 391 West A
19· ·Street, has committed at least three violations in a 20· ·five-year period, and thus their tobacco license should 21· ·be revoked.
22· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· I'll second that.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· It was moved by Commissioner 24· ·Stevens and seconded by Commissioner Haman.
25· · · · · · And the motion has passed.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
68 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · The decision of the Planning Commission is ·2· ·final unless appealed.· The appeal period is ten days ·3· ·from the date of the decision, which is tonight.· If ·4· ·appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the City ·5· ·Council for a final decision.
·6· · · · · · Now, we can move to the second retailer.
·7· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Oh, the applicant -- sorry.· The ·8· ·business owner of the first business has their hand ·9· ·raised.· Oh, he just lowered it.
10· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· So now we move on to the second 11· ·retailer, Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts.· And I wanted to 12· ·also just remind the counsel that the -- this retailer 13· ·has asked for a continuation of the hearing on this -- 14· ·on their item.
15· · · · · · So we are ready for staff presentation.
16· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Thank you.· I will now move on to 17· ·Attachment 4, Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts, located at 18· ·25088 Hesperian Boulevard.
19· · · · · · Before proceeding, staff acknowledges and 20· ·appreciates the numerous public comments submitted in 21· ·support of this business.· Many commenters describe a 22· ·positive customer service, friendly staff, and the 23· ·business's contributions to the community.· While these 24· ·comments speak to the retailer's relationships with its 25· ·customers, they do not alter the requirements of the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
69 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·City's tobacco retail license ordinance.
·2· · · · · ·Compliance with the ordinance is mandatory for ·3· ·all licensed tobacco retailers, regardless of customer ·4· ·satisfaction or community support.· A business's
·5· ·reputation is good -- for good customer service does ·6· ·not authorize the sale, storage, or possession of
·7· ·products prohibited under the City's tobacco retail ·8· ·ordinance, including flavored tobacco, products and/or ·9· ·imitation mushrooms, nor does it exempt the business 10· ·from enforcement when violations are identified.
11· · · · · ·Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts have accumulated a 12· ·total of five violations within a five-year period and 13· ·demonstrated continued non-compliance despite multiple 14· ·inspections conducted by staff and years of leeway. 15· ·Violations documented during inspections include
16· ·flavored tobacco products, vape products and electronic 17· ·smoking devices, hemp products, CBD products,
18· ·prohibited cigarillo packaging, and most recently, 19· ·imitation mushroom gummies.
20· · · · · · The business demonstrated on -- an ongoing 21· ·pattern of non-compliance despite inspections,
22· ·compliance assistance, and opportunities to correct 23· ·violations.· This retailer previously appealed a
24· ·violation issued by the City in 2022 for selling
25· ·flavored tobacco products, parts, components, or
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
70 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·flavored tobacco paraphernalia, electronic smoking ·2· ·devices, electronic nicotine delivery systems,
·3· ·e-cigarettes, vaping devices, including all parts and ·4· ·components, electronic smoking and vaping products, and ·5· ·vaping paraphernalia, including but not limited to ·6· ·devices, parts, and components, e-liquids,
·7· ·concentrates, waxes, et cetera, and CBD or hemp
·8· ·products, or any products made from derivative of or ·9· ·containing any amount of cannabis plant intended for 10· ·human consumption.
11· · · · · · After the City presented to evidence, the 12· ·hearing officer upheld the City's citation finding that 13· ·the business was, in fact, in violation of Hayward 14· ·Municipal Code Section 10-2783.· At that time, the 15· ·business was also -- also filed a lawsuit against the 16· ·City, claiming that the City's tobacco ordinance was 17· ·unconstitutional.· In those proceedings, the business 18· ·was represented by the same attorney appearing on its 19· ·behalf today, a case in which the City ultimately
20· ·prevailed.
21· · · · · · This further demonstrates that as of 2024, 22· ·both the business and its attorney were fully aware of 23· ·the sale of illegal tobacco, cannabis, and other
24· ·substances at this business was unlawful.· Yet, as the 25· ·evidence here demonstrates, they intentionally
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
71 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·disregarded that knowledge and continued selling
·2· ·illegal products that target youth.
·3· · · · · · At the time this report was prepared,
·4· ·approximately $1,500 remains owed in penalties from a ·5· ·prior tobacco enforcement case.· The photographs shown ·6· ·on this slide were taken by code enforcement staff ·7· ·during inspections and depict prohibited electronic ·8· ·smoking devices, vapes, edible hemp products, and
·9· ·edible CBD products that were observed and offered for 10· ·sale in violation of the City's Tobacco retail license 11· ·ordinance.
12· · · · · · The violations before the Commission occurred 13· ·between 2022 and 2025.· Violations documented by staff 14· ·include flavored tobacco products, vape products, and 15· ·electronic smoking devices, hemp products, CBD
16· ·products, and prohibited cigarillo packaging, and
17· ·mushroom gummies.
18· · · · · · Several inspections in 2022 identified
19· ·substantially similar violations prior -- after prior 20· ·enforcement actions had already occurred, demonstrating 21· ·a continuing pattern of non-compliance despite repeated 22· ·enforcement efforts and educational outreach.· These 23· ·violations are documented in Attachment 4 of the staff 24· ·report.
25· · · · · · The photographs displayed here provide visual EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
72 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·documentation of the products and conditions observed ·2· ·during inspections.· These photographs depict examples ·3· ·of prohibited products identified during enforcement ·4· ·activities.· Included are flavored products -- excuse ·5· ·me, flavored tobacco products labeled with
·6· ·characterizing flavors such as sweet, prohibited
·7· ·cigarillo packaging that does not comply with
·8· ·applicable packaging requirements, and edible mushroom ·9· ·gummies that imitate psilocybin, a Schedule 1
10· ·controlled substance under federal law.
11· · · · · · Products that imitate controlled substances 12· ·are prohibited under the City's Tobacco Retail License 13· ·ordinance.· The photographs illustrate the range of 14· ·violations identified by staff during compliance
15· ·inspections and enforcement activities.· The
16· ·photographs form part of the evidentiary record
17· ·supporting Attachment 4.
18· · · · · · Staff finds that this retailer accumulated 19· ·five violations within a five-year period, meeting 20· ·the -- the revocation criteria under the Hayward
21· ·Municipal Code, Section 10-1.29 -- excuse me, 2794. 22· ·Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds 23· ·that this -- that Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts located 24· ·at 25088 Hesperian Boulevard has committed at least 25· ·three violations in a five-year period and revoke the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
73 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·tobacco retail licenses for Smokey's Smoke Shop &
·2· ·Gifts.
·3· · · · · · This concludes the staff's presentation
·4· ·regarding Smokey's Smoke Shop & Gifts.· I'm available for ·5· ·further questions from the Commission.
·6· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· Do we have any ·7· ·commissioner questions on evidence presented on this ·8· ·specific retailer?
·9· · · · · · Commissioner Meyers?
10· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Thank you, Chair.· I noticed in 11· ·2023, there's none.· Does that mean that there was no 12· ·inspections done or no violations that year?
13· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That just means there were no 14· ·violations that year.
15· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· And then when it says, in 16· ·2026 to be determined, does that mean that we have yet 17· ·to do an inspection on that property?
18· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That is correct.
19· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· And finally, no notice 20· ·sent, unpaid TRL.· So, no notice sent means that they 21· ·were in violation, but they weren't told that they were 22· ·in violation.· Can you -- can you kind of clarify that? 23· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Within the documentation of that 24· ·specific case, there was no notice sent informing the 25· ·business or the property owner of the violation, and EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
74 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·therefore, was not counted as part of the total count ·2· ·of violations against the retailer.
·3· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Oh, I see.· Okay.· So they kind ·4· ·of got a free pass on that one because.· Okay.· Thank ·5· ·you.
·6· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Lowe.
·7· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · Thank you again for the presentation again. ·9· ·My question is:· Under the law, does the retailer, and 10· ·this is obviously more for a city attorney, I think, 11· ·but under the law, does the retailer have the right to 12· ·have the lawyer appear in person, or is a virtual
13· ·appearance sufficient?
14· · · · · ·MS. ROTHMAN:· I can handle that.· The -- we've 15· ·given all retailers the opportunity to appear in
16· ·person, but the opportunity to appear remotely is
17· ·provided as an accommodation in case lawyers are unable 18· ·to appear in person.
19· · · · · · ·Was that the question?
20· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· The question is really more:· Does 21· ·the retailer have a right to have their lawyer appear 22· ·in person, or if the lawyer is able to appear
23· ·virtually, is that sufficient under the law?
24· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· That is sufficient under the 25· ·law.· There is no absolute right that an attorney be EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
75 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·here in person.· And I'm happy to touch on some of the ·2· ·statements provided by Mr. Anthony and some of the ·3· ·communications that I believe were sent at a time when ·4· ·the Commission would welcome that.
·5· · · · · · I have a lot of information.· I have a lot of ·6· ·responses to some of the issues he raised.· Would you ·7· ·like me to present that now?
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I think we should go through ·9· ·commissioner questions first.
10· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· Okay.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· And then -- and then perhaps 12· ·maybe we can call on you to clarify things during our 13· ·discussion.
14· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· Perfect.
15· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· So then my next question is:· What 16· ·are the legal rules or regulations regarding
17· ·continuances of these hearings?
18· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· So the -- the continuing item, 19· ·an item on the agenda for the Planning Commission is in 20· ·the discretion of the Commission, and it would be
21· ·subject to the typical way that you take action, which 22· ·would be by motion and a second.
23· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· Thank you very much.
24· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions from
25· ·commissioners?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
76 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· I have a question.
·2· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· All right.· Commissioner Hardy. ·3· · · · · ·MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· Is there someone from, ·4· ·like, the retailer or is it just the attorney who is ·5· ·present?· Because I have a question for them.
·6· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· The -- the owner is here.
·7· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· The owner is here.· Okay.· I'd ·8· ·like to ask a question of the owner.
·9· · · · · · MS. BLANTON:· Can I add, there will be an 10· ·opportunity for additional planning commission
11· ·questions following the retailer's presentation, so 12· ·that might be the more appropriate time to ask
13· ·questions of the retailer/and or their representation. 14· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Okay.· I'll wait for that
15· ·question.· Thank you.
16· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Are there any commissioners who 17· ·wish to ask any questions of staff at this time?
18· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yes, I would.
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Haman.
20· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yeah.· Does the continuance mean 21· ·that the retailer can still continue to sell tobacco 22· ·products?
23· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· If -- if I may, it would be 24· ·the -- the City -- so -- so that decision would be up 25· ·to the Planning Commission, I believe.· It would be EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
77 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·from -- from the prosecuting agency's side, we would ·2· ·object to any continuance without the obligation and ·3· ·requirement that the retailer be ordered to cease all ·4· ·tobacco sales in the interim, for numerous reasons, ·5· ·which I'm happy to explain.
·6· · · · · · It is -- and -- and Senior Assistant Vigilia ·7· ·can respond as to what the Planning Commission may do, ·8· ·but we would object to any continuance without the ·9· ·condition that retail sales cease during the interim. 10· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Thank you.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other commission or
12· ·questions for staff?
13· · · · · · Commissioner Stevens.
14· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I'm just -- I'm confused.
15· ·I'm -- I'm confused by -- so if Planning Commission 16· ·makes a motion to revoke the license, doesn't the
17· ·applicant have the right to appeal this in front of 18· ·City Council, which will give this applicant more time 19· ·to prepare?· Isn't that how this works?
20· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· That's correct.· As with any 21· ·other Planning Commission decision, there's a ten-day 22· ·appeal period.
23· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So, City Council's out in July. 24· ·They're out in August.· So this wouldn't be heard
25· ·likely until September-ish.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
78 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Yeah, most likely.
·2· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So that seems like there'd be ·3· ·plenty of time to -- to prepare for that -- for appeal, ·4· ·correct?
·5· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Yeah.· That's a -- that's a ·6· ·decent amount of time.
·7· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· And I -- I guess I also don't ·8· ·understand this term cross-examination of witnesses. ·9· ·That -- that doesn't make -- I don't understand what 10· ·that means.
11· · · · · ·MR. VIGILIA:· It's a legal term.· It's -- it's 12· ·a term that describes a certain type of questioning 13· ·that an attorney will do, usually directed towards 14· ·witnesses for the adverse party.· So, what we want -- 15· ·typically, the way we wanted to -- the -- the hearing 16· ·would run is we would want just presentations made 17· ·directly to the Commission and not have it be any sort 18· ·of adversarial -- traditionally adversarial process 19· ·that you would likely see in court.· Staff makes the 20· ·presentation to you, retailers and their
21· ·representatives make the presentations to you,
22· ·everything is directed to the attention of the
23· ·commission.
24· · · · · · So that's how -- that's how we would -- we 25· ·structure the proceedings.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
79 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So just to clarify, the
·2· ·applicant had several violations.· They appealed one of ·3· ·the violations and lost; is that correct?· But -- but ·4· ·the other, it looks like one, two, three, four, five, ·5· ·there were five violations.· They could have appealed ·6· ·the other four too, right?
·7· · · · · · If -- if they felt that the inspection was ·8· ·improper or some process was followed incorrectly, they ·9· ·had four more opportunities, correct?
10· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· That's correct.
11· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you.
12· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions for staff? 13· ·All right.· At this time, we'll move to the retailer 14· ·presentation.
15· · · · · · And is there someone -- there's someone here 16· ·for on behalf of the retailer?
17· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· We have James Anthony.
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Okay.
19· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· I just unmuted.
20· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony, you have 8 minutes 21· ·to --
22· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· No.· I -- no, no.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- your presentation.
24· · · · · ·MR. ANTHONY:· Just a moment.· I do not want to 25· ·start running that 8-minute clock.· I am not yet
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
80 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·appearing at the substantive part of the hearing.· We ·2· ·are still dealing with my procedural request for a ·3· ·continuance because, as you can tell, you can't see me, ·4· ·I can't see you.· This is a completely unfair method of ·5· ·extinguishing a right.
·6· · · · · · There is a property right here.· And,
·7· ·therefore, due process requires a higher standard than ·8· ·if you're just deciding to grant or deny a CUP.· Your ·9· ·lawyer, Mr. Vigilia, keeps talking about, oh, it should 10· ·be like developers and we don't want it to be
11· ·adversarial.· It is necessarily adversarial.· You are 12· ·trying to deprive the owner of a property right.
13· · · · · · You are sitting quasi judicial, and hopefully 14· ·your lawyer can explain that to you.· It is very
15· ·different from when you are sitting quasi legislative 16· ·just deciding to give or not give a -- a permit, right? 17· ·Because you don't have to give them a permit, right? 18· · · · · ·But in this case, we're not asking you to give 19· ·us anything.· Staff is asking you to take something 20· ·away.· That is a very, very different standard.· And 21· ·it's what I explained in my email first to your staff 22· ·and to your attorneys who refused to hear my request, 23· ·and instead made the same sort of nonsensical
24· ·recommendation that Ms. Rothman just reiterated, which 25· ·is that, oh, yeah, give up your right before your
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
81 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·hearing, and then you can have a continuance, right? ·2· · · · · · That is not how due process works.· We get ·3· ·notice and a hearing before the deprivation, and that ·4· ·is what we are asking for.· So, if you have more
·5· ·questions about that, it's covered in the email I sent ·6· ·you last night and also this afternoon.
·7· · · · · · It's -- it's just a matter -- and -- and
·8· ·Mr. Vigilia, I think, did mention that this is at your ·9· ·discretion.· You can consider whether or not to grant a 10· ·continuance, and you can also decide what level of 11· ·process seems reasonable to take a right.· You are not 12· ·married to 8 minutes.· I think Mr. Vigilia will say, 13· ·you can make it 7 minutes or 9 minutes, or you could 14· ·order a full hearing and give it however much time it 15· ·needs and allow cross-examination.
16· · · · · · When we did appeal, just a suspension, and we 17· ·went in front of a hearing officer, I got to
18· ·cross-examine city staff, including Amber Green, who is 19· ·all over the staff report and who apparently is no 20· ·longer with the City.· And yet, we need to clarify with 21· ·her whether those were educational correctable notices, 22· ·is how Mr. Ahmed will -- will explain to you, he
23· ·understood them, or not, right?
24· · · · · · And again, I object that you are running this 25· ·8 minutes.· I need you to pause that timer and reset it EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
82 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·and make a decision on the procedural request for a ·2· ·continuance.· Please check with your attorney,
·3· ·Mr. Vigilia, on how to proceed.
·4· · · · · · MR. VIGILIA:· Chair, it's up to you how you ·5· ·want to --
·6· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· We -- we will consider the ·7· ·continuation after the public hearing.· So, if you want ·8· ·to run out your remaining 4 minutes?
·9· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· No, no.· I -- I apologize, Chair. 10· ·I have not yet agreed to appear at this hearing.· I am 11· ·challenging your jurisdiction to proceed without proper 12· ·due process.· If you are violating the Constitution, as 13· ·I allege, you cannot hold this hearing, and I will not 14· ·appear at it.
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony.
16· · · · · ·MR. ANTHONY:· I need you to decide first, will 17· ·you give me a continuance, in which case we are fine. 18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony (crosstalk) -- 19· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· -- or you have decided not to give 20· ·me a continuance, then please let me know and let's 21· ·start the 8-minute clock so I can make my substantive 22· ·presentation.· Please check with your attorney.
23· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Anthony, we -- this is your 24· ·presentation on behalf of the retailer.· You have -- 25· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· This is not my --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
83 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- 3 minutes.
·2· · · · · ·MR. ANTHONY:· -- presentation on behalf of the ·3· ·retailer, and I don't mean to be argumentative, Chair, ·4· ·but I need a clear record for appeal because we are ·5· ·going up to Superior Court to require you to follow the ·6· ·Constitution.· And I need to reiterate that I am not ·7· ·appearing, right?· I am still talking about a
·8· ·pre-hearing procedural issue.· Do you have jurisdiction ·9· ·or will you give me a -- a continuance?
10· · · · · · However, if you're telling me that you are 11· ·going to cut me off at 3 minutes and 35 seconds and 12· ·having lodged those objections, I will continue. I 13· ·will just remind you that as Mr. Vigilia said, this is 14· ·all at your discretion.
15· · · · · · Again, I object to the absence of -- of Amber 16· ·Green, and I also sent you all a questionnaire about 17· ·possible bias because as we know, smoked tobacco is 18· ·addictive and deadly, and it has impacted millions and 19· ·millions of families, American families, including my 20· ·own and possibly including some of yours.
21· · · · · · I would like to know if that's true, right? 22· ·If your grandmother died of a smoking-related illness, 23· ·as did mine, it might be difficult for you to be
24· ·unbiased in these hearings.· I know it would be
25· ·difficult for me.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
84 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · Let me see.· I want to point out that, yes, ·2· ·the understanding for the 2022 violations, while the ·3· ·City and the various tobacco retailers were sorting out ·4· ·how did the state law work?· How did the local law ·5· ·work?· What counted?· You know, multiple flyers went ·6· ·out listing different pictures of what was legal and ·7· ·what was not illegal, and then another one would come ·8· ·out and they would contradict themselves.
·9· · · · · · And if we had Amber Green, she could tell you 10· ·what was happening here in 2022.· So, I would ask that 11· ·you disregard those three violations, which leaves you 12· ·with two, which is short, of what you need.
13· · · · · · Now, I want to save a minute for the owner, 14· ·Mr. Ahmed, so he can confirm all of that.· I want you 15· ·to look carefully, though, at the bottom of the staff 16· ·report at Page 209.· Take a look at that.· And here, 17· ·I'll pull it up for myself.· Again, I can't see any of 18· ·you.· I cannot tell if you are listening to me, if we 19· ·are connecting, if you're rolling your eyes, if you 20· ·have questions, right?
21· · · · · · I would not never ever appear in a -- in a 22· ·courtroom this way or in an administrative hearing, and 23· ·that is what this is.· You are about to take away a 24· ·property right.· Okay.· So, to my invisible decision 25· ·maker, take a look at Page 209, right?· This is the EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
85 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·2015 so-called violation.
·2· · · · · · It doesn't say violation on top of it.· It ·3· ·says, administrative penalty and fee notice.· And if ·4· ·you look down through it, it does say, okay,
·5· ·violations, corrections, corrective action, and a
·6· ·compliance date of December 10.· How does the business ·7· ·owner look at that and not think, okay, we're still ·8· ·figuring it out, you know, imitation mushrooms are a ·9· ·new thing, legal under state law, apparently not in 10· ·Hayward, whatever.
11· · · · · ·But they're going to come back on December 10, 12· ·and I will have already, you know, disposed of all 13· ·these things.· I'll start right now while Jesse is 14· ·standing there in the store.· How -- how are you to 15· ·know that this, right, is going to lead to this, to 16· ·this notice of violation?
17· · · · · · Mr. Ahmed, please confirm what I've said and 18· ·talk about how confusing this is, the definition of 19· ·education and compliance and corrective and violation. 20· ·Sorry, you've got 15 seconds.
21· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So --
22· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I -- I'm sorry, the -- the 23· ·clock has run out.
24· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Yes.· And it is at your
25· ·discretion to allow him to speak.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
86 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So --
·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I -- I will allow -- I will ·3· ·allow you 3 minutes.
·4· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So, at -- on that day --
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Turn on the -- the microphone ·6· ·so we can hear you.· There we go.· Thank you.
·7· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So, on that day, when I was
·8· ·notified that those items needed to be removed, I
·9· ·removed those right away.· So -- and even for the
10· ·inspection process, re-inspection, code enforcement 11· ·came and that everything was clear.· So, I did not know 12· ·that that item was going to lead to a revocation.
13· · · · · ·And going back to 2022, in 2022, our store was 14· ·very involved with code enforcement and figuring out 15· ·what was going to be allowed, what wasn't going to be 16· ·allowed.· If you look through the staff report, there's 17· ·areas where Amber documents that notice of violation 18· ·provided an effort to provide additional clarity and 19· ·direction for compliance.· There's over here it's
20· ·documented that Green will not be inspecting the
21· ·property as scheduled to not interfere with the
22· ·hearing.
23· · · · · · So throughout that whole -- whole year, we 24· ·were figuring things out on what was going to stay, 25· ·what wasn't going to stay.· At the end of the hearing, EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
87 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·when she came and I complied with everything, and this ·2· ·was all peacefully.· A lot of her notices, like, at the ·3· ·moment, they weren't violations.· And on today's date, ·4· ·like, when this revocation letter is sent, I'm being ·5· ·hit with them as violations.
·6· · · · · · ·At that time in 2022, when this was going on, she ·7· ·would actually visit my store frequently.· She actually used ·8· ·my store as, like, an example store.· She would take pictures, ·9· ·take them back to the City, and go back and forth. 10· · · · · · In the staff report, if you look at the
11· ·pictures taken in 2022, those pictures consist of the 12· ·whole store of even down to an ashtray, lighters.
13· ·Those pictures are not just only a vape product or a 14· ·tobacco product or -- so, she was actually using my 15· ·store as an example, and the information was brought 16· ·back to the City, and that's how things were ironed 17· ·out.· When the hearing process was completed, she came 18· ·and inspected my store, and we were clear after that. 19· · · · · · And if you notice, from 2022, all the way up 20· ·to this '25, there's zero violation.· The one that's 21· ·dated as '23, that's include, that's probably the
22· ·inspection date that she came and cleared my store. 23· ·So, before City Council makes any decision, I'd like 24· ·them to look into what really happened in 2022.
25· · · · · · And in 2022, like, for me, at that time, we EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
88 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·opened in 2011.· I've been in business 15 years.· So, ·2· ·in 2022, when we did this appeal, I started as a smoke ·3· ·shop, then vaping came around, then we became a full ·4· ·vape shop.· Now, in 2022, when we went through this ·5· ·appeal --
·6· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Sorry.· Please, just finish up ·7· ·your comment.
·8· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· When we went through this appeal, ·9· ·this -- these -- the violations that are showing for 10· ·2022 should not be held against me.· This was actually 11· ·a learning process --
12· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
13· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· -- for code enforcement.· So, 14· ·Amber would come by --
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.
16· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· -- and I would tell her what these 17· ·items are, and we would go back --
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Your time has ended.
19· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· You get what I mean, right?
20· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· Yes.
21· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· And then I shouldn't be lose a 22· ·business for appealing something --
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· All right.· We're going to 24· ·now --
25· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· -- that happened in --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
89 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- move to Planning Commission ·2· ·questions.· And this is where we can ask questions of ·3· ·staff and/or the retailer.
·4· · · · · · Commissioner Hardy.
·5· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· So, I will now ask my ·6· ·question of the retailer.· So if you could come back up ·7· ·to the -- to the microphone.· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · So, you were just talking about the hearing ·9· ·that you had in the appeal.· So could you just speak to 10· ·just a little -- I don't really understand why, if you 11· ·just went through that whole process and had the
12· ·appeal, why when you were reinspected, there were even 13· ·more things that were discovered with the mushrooms and 14· ·things later on.· It seemed like that would have been a 15· ·learning experience.
16· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Later on?
17· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· And there would have been less. 18· ·Yes, in 2025.
19· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· In 2025?
20· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Yes.
21· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So, in 2022, there was no product 22· ·like that.· There was no mushrooms.· There was -- those 23· ·are imitation mushrooms.· Those are illegal to sell. 24· ·These are not the psilocybin ones that you have to make 25· ·that clear.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
90 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · ·So and these products came along later.· There ·2· ·was being sold at liquor stores, convenience stores. ·3· ·I've even seen some mushroom products being sold at the ·4· ·Dollar Tree in the snack aisle.· So it's like these ·5· ·items weren't around in 2022.
·6· · · · · ·MS. HARDY:· But then there were still also the ·7· ·same items that were on the list from when you did your ·8· ·appeal.· So why were --
·9· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Which -- what items?
10· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· The -- the list, it looks like 11· ·it's the same list plus additional items.· So it's -- 12· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· You need to identify those items 13· ·because a lot of the pictures, the way the presentation 14· ·was put, a lot of the pictures that were being shown 15· ·were for 2022, not this 2025.· So the items --
16· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· The --
17· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· -- from --
18· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- it looks like flavored tobacco 19· ·was still being sold.· I think things that -- it just 20· ·seems that if you went through all that with an appeal 21· ·and you learned from it, that there wouldn't have been 22· ·the same things found again in 2025.
23· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Right, right, right.
24· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· So I just wanted to know what 25· ·your -- your take was on it.· So thank you.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
91 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Some of the items were just an ·2· ·honest mistake.
·3· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions?
·5· · · · · · Commissioner Stevens.
·6· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So -- so I -- I'm confused. ·7· ·I -- I couldn't find Page 209, so Mr. Anthony or the ·8· ·owner.· I just -- is it the notice of violation that's ·9· ·confusing?· Because I see a series of notice of
10· ·violations and tobacco retail license to Smokey's Smoke 11· ·Shop.· It seems pretty clear to me what the violations 12· ·and corrective actions were.· I'm just -- I'm lost. 13· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Commission Stevens, are we
14· ·looking at Attachment 4, 25088?
15· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Yes, that is correct.
16· · · · · · MR. ANTHONY:· Okay.· So, that on my copy is a 17· ·total of 218 pages.· And starting on Page 209 is what 18· ·is titled Administrative Penalty and Fee Notice for 19· ·November 17th.· And it has the next inspection date, 20· ·December 10th, which is also referred to lower down as 21· ·the compliance date, just underneath the corrective 22· ·action.
23· · · · · ·So, this looks like a notice to correct, which 24· ·is what he did.· And he also agreed to pay a $1,500 25· ·penalty thinking that that was what was being asked of EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
92 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·him, right?· He did not, in addition, call me, his ·2· ·sometimes very expensive lawyer.· It's not like I sit ·3· ·around the smoke shop waiting for jobs, right?
·4· · · · · · He has to come to me with money and hire me. ·5· ·And so, when he thinks he's just being asked to correct ·6· ·something and comply, he doesn't come to me and spend ·7· ·money on an appeal.· And that seems to me like another ·8· ·honest mistake.
·9· · · · · · And frankly, you know, Jesse is very charming 10· ·and hangs out in the store and says, oh, this has to 11· ·go, that has to go.· I'll be back in a month, I'm sure 12· ·they'll all be fine.· And then he turns around and sits 13· ·up there and tries to take out a 15-year-old business 14· ·and end run that, you know, that your planning code 15· ·describes these businesses as being legal
16· ·non-conforming.
17· · · · · ·So, this entire process is an attempt by staff 18· ·to end run a constitutionally protected land use right. 19· ·Just a thought.
20· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Could -- could staff clarify 21· ·this -- this document and how it all fits into the 22· ·whole mix here?
23· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Can you clarify which document is 24· ·that the administrative penalty and fee notice?
25· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Correct.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
93 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· An administrative penalty and fee ·2· ·notice is typically sent when it accompanies an invoice ·3· ·with a penalty fee or administrative fee.· In this ·4· ·case, an administrative fee was administered due to the ·5· ·violations being present during the inspection, and ·6· ·that's why they received that specific notice.· It ·7· ·still constitutes violations that were observed and ·8· ·documented.
·9· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you.
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other commissioner
11· ·questions?
12· · · · · · Commissioner Haman.
13· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· So, are there still fees due? 14· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· I still owe the 1,500 bucks.
15· · · · · ·MR. HAMAN:· And is there any particular reason 16· ·why you didn't pay that before you showed up tonight? 17· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· I -- I'll get that taken care of. 18· ·I was just trying to budget --
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you speak into your mic? 20· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· I'm -- I'm sorry.
21· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Just short on budget, trying to 22· ·budget things.
23· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· But knowing that you were up
24· ·against having your license revoked, wouldn't it have 25· ·been prudent to have paid that fee to show that this is EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
94 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·all been paid?
·2· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· I -- I have the notice with me. ·3· ·That's one of the things that I was going to state, ·4· ·that that 1,500 bucks is not a problem, and I can clear ·5· ·that out, but I just haven't gotten into it.
·6· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· But given the gravity of this ·7· ·decision, why would you not have taken care of that ·8· ·earlier?
·9· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Just the, I guess, budget
10· ·constraints.· Right now, I had to pay a lawyer and all 11· ·these things.· The business, I mean, we have some slow 12· ·times too, right?· We're going to have to pay employees 13· ·and this was not expected.· This 1,500 bucks was not 14· ·expected to be an expense.· And when this popped up -- 15· ·but I can promise that it will get paid.
16· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Okay.· Thank you.
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Meyers.
18· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Thank you, Chair.
19· · · · · · So, it looks like in 2022 is the bulk of the 20· ·violations.· And I may be paraphrasing wrong, but I 21· ·believe the owner here stated that in his eyes, they 22· ·were never fully violations that should be marked
23· ·against him.· And if it's not for those, then I only 24· ·see one violation.
25· · · · · · Can you guys speak, maybe, code of
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
95 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·enforcement, on the validity of that understanding, ·2· ·maybe?
·3· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· You know, I can -- I can speak ·4· ·to that.· I was around.· I handled these.· This
·5· ·business was in non-compliance on numerous occasions. ·6· ·Our code enforcement division had to spend an ample ·7· ·amount of time at this business, conducting
·8· ·inspections, educating the owner to make sure that ·9· ·these violations did not reoccur.
10· · · · · · That the owner did not know that these were 11· ·violations is, again, not a defense, but it's also just 12· ·not credible at this point, given the way that code 13· ·enforcement inspectors handle inspections.· Again, 14· ·these particular inspections were actually appealed and 15· ·heard by an independent neutral hearing officer, an 16· ·administrative officer.
17· · · · · · As you heard Mr. Anthony say, he had an
18· ·opportunity to cross-examine the inspector about all of 19· ·these issues that are now being raised at that
20· ·administrative hearing.· The neutral hearing officer 21· ·heard all of those arguments and found that the
22· ·violations occurred and should be upheld.· I would also 23· ·note that the way that the code enforcement team issues 24· ·violations is very lax.
25· · · · · ·Every product that they saw at the store could EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
96 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·have been counted as an individual separate violation. ·2· ·But Inspector Green and the way that other inspectors ·3· ·enforce, the goal is to get compliance.· It is not to ·4· ·punish.· And so, they did not do that.
·5· · · · · · They would visit, they would see violations. ·6· ·That would be a violation there.· That does not mean, ·7· ·though, that the violation does not need to be
·8· ·corrected.· And I think what's happening is that this ·9· ·retail owner is -- is saying that he believed he
10· ·thought that because he corrected these, that they were 11· ·not violations, but that is just not the case.
12· · · · · · And again, these -- these arguments were, in 13· ·this case, actually heard by an administrative hearing 14· ·officer at that time.· And then, again, these -- the 15· ·entire ordinance was appealed to the Superior Court by 16· ·Mr. Anthony and this retail establishment, and the 17· ·Court heard of this.
18· · · · · · So, I, you know -- we would disagree in the 19· ·way that the inspections are being characterized.· We 20· ·would note that the City did not learn from having to 21· ·go and conduct these inspections.· It took a lot of 22· ·staff time, a lot of oversight, a lot of hand holding. 23· · · · · · And what we see today is that nothing really 24· ·came with it as the illegal activity continued into 25· ·2025, at which point, the shop is now selling imitation EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
97 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·mushroom, which are illegal in Hayward.· And so, I hope ·2· ·that answers the question, but if not, hopefully,
·3· ·there's additional information that the inspector can ·4· ·provide.
·5· · · · · ·MR. MEYERS:· No.· I -- I believe that answered ·6· ·it perfectly.· Thank you for that.
·7· · · · · · I guess I just have one more quick question ·8· ·for the owner.· I actually -- I've been in your store ·9· ·quite a few times and, you know, it's a very nice
10· ·store.· I -- I'm kind of a fan of your store, and I 11· ·hate to see you in this position.· Should you -- should 12· ·your license get revoked today, will -- you sell a lot 13· ·of other products.· Will you still be able to -- I 14· ·mean, without the smoking, are you still okay in that 15· ·store?· I know it won't be as lucrative.· I'm not
16· ·saying it's lucrative.
17· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· No.· I don't think it will be 18· ·able to survive at all.· That's the reason I took
19· ·photos of the store because I wanted to show the
20· ·commission if they ever seen it, and know what they're 21· ·talking about, if they have a visual, maybe they can 22· ·make a better decision.· If I can pass these around, 23· ·the amount of tobacco products, and then these -- it's 24· ·a really big store.
25· · · · · · And -- would you pass these around?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
98 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · But just to get an idea of how big the store ·2· ·is, what kind of investment is in it, and I've --
·3· ·it's --
·4· · · · · ·MS. CORRAL:· Can you please go back to the mic ·5· ·and then you can also project the images as well so ·6· ·that the public can see it.
·7· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Yeah.· It would be impossible ·8· ·for -- to stay in business without selling tobacco. ·9· ·There's -- it's a smoke shop, is a smoke shop because 10· ·of tobacco.· Otherwise, you know -- and another thing 11· ·I'd like to just throw out there is there's people 12· ·opening just gift shops and they're selling everything 13· ·without any license.· So, taking a license away, you 14· ·know, I'd like to request a lesser punishment.
15· · · · · · Okay.· I'll start with this.· There you go. 16· ·I'll start with this.· This is our cigarette area, 17· ·tobacco area.· This is easily --
18· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Sorry.
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you speak into the
20· ·microphone, please?
21· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Because we can't hear you.· Yeah, there 22· ·you go.
23· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Okay.· This is our tobacco area, 24· ·and this is easily about 25 feet of the whole wall is 25· ·just tobacco.· Just this picture itself, this shows EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
99 800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·about 30 grand of the tobacco.· This is our storage area. ·2· ·And just all the stock right here, this is a -- easily ·3· ·probably another 20 to 30,000.
·4· · · · · · This is -- this is a picture from standing in ·5· ·the back of the store to the front.· From the back of ·6· ·the store to the front, this store is easily 50 feet ·7· ·long.· And wide is maybe like, maybe 30 to 40 feet ·8· ·wide.
·9· · · · · · That's a picture of one side of the wall with 10· ·all the products.· And the store is fully inventoried. 11· ·Combined, we're maybe talking about $200,000.· So
12· ·without a tobacco retail license, without being able to 13· ·sell tobacco, it would just kill everything.
14· · · · · · There's just a few more pictures.· This is 15· ·standing from the front to the back.· This is also 16· ·standing front to the back.· I wanted to show you these 17· ·pictures because maybe the counsel doesn't know what 18· ·we're really talking about.· If they haven't seen the 19· ·place, you can't tell.
20· · · · · · And it's always kept clean, nice.· And I try 21· ·my best to follow all the rules.· If something I don't 22· ·know or a mistake, then I -- I admit to it, but I can't 23· ·lose my whole business over mainly, all the violations 24· ·that are being shown is for 2022 when I was in that 25· ·hearing process.· So, should I lose the business
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
100
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·because I went through a hearing?
·2· · · · · · And at that time, that was an adjustment in ·3· ·the TRL.· The TRL really started in 2014 or '15.· And ·4· ·at that time, there was no such thing as vapes.· And I ·5· ·was the -- I was -- that was the TRL.· At this point in ·6· ·2022 is when they made modify it.· So this is when ·7· ·vapes were made -- were banned and stuff.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· I believe Mr. -- ·9· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Before that, there was no vapes. 10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- Mr. -- Commissioner Meyers, 11· ·has he answered your questions?
12· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Yes.· Thanks for those pictures. 13· ·I think that is helpful.· And -- and I do believe you 14· ·that you are in good faith, trying to do the right 15· ·thing.· I'm just a little bit challenged because even 16· ·though you had those 2022 violations, you also failed a 17· ·couple of years with your license posting and renewal 18· ·and -- oh.· Oh, that one, I guess you got a pass on 19· ·that one.
20· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Yeah.· No, I -- I never had my 21· ·license expired or not posted.
22· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Oh, okay.· So, then, I guess, in 23· ·'25 --
24· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· And that was maybe a fee, but I 25· ·was never aware -- aware of it.· And that's a $400 fee.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
101
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Sure.
·2· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· If I knew I need to pay it, I can ·3· ·pay it.
·4· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Right.· Right.· And then, again, ·5· ·I think Commissioner (inaudible) mentioned that in 2025, you ·6· ·did have repeat issues.· Do you care to speak about how that ·7· ·came by?
·8· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So the first picture, so those ·9· ·items is the first picture -- it's the three pack.· On 10· ·that one, my fault, I didn't take fault.· It's a three 11· ·pack.· It should have had five cigars in it.· The part 12· ·where that's flavored, those are not flavored.· Those 13· ·are the straining or the origin from where the tobacco 14· ·came from.
15· · · · · · Now, the tobacco company makes the packaging 16· ·all colorful and that's -- that's not on me.· But my 17· ·fault is that instead of having five cigars in the 18· ·package, it had three cigars in it.· There's another 19· ·picture that is pipe tobacco.· And for the rest of the 20· ·whole California, pipe tobacco is exempt.
21· · · · · · There are flavors and blends in it.· But for 22· ·California -- I mean, for Hayward, I guess it's banned. 23· ·So -- but I removed all those products as soon as he 24· ·told me to.· And how those products got to the store is 25· ·we have our supplier that sent a weekly delivery.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
102
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·They're outside of Hayward.
·2· · · · · ·So whatever new items show up, they send it as ·3· ·part of the delivery, and they arrived to the store as ·4· ·part of the delivery.· The employees opened it up and ·5· ·put it on the shelf, and that's how they ended up
·6· ·there.
·7· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· Thank you very much. I ·8· ·have no more questions.
·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Are there any other
10· ·commissioner questions?
11· · · · · · Commissioner Yorgov.
12· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Thank you, Chair.· Just quickly, 13· ·the -- thank you for appearing for answering our
14· ·questions.· But the retailer's attorney has a couple of 15· ·times referenced a business being a property right. I 16· ·just want to get clarification from staff, and I'm not 17· ·sure who exactly that would be.
18· · · · · · Is running a business considered a property 19· ·right in California?· And on top of that, is running a 20· ·business distributing a restricted substance?· Does 21· ·that change the answer at all?
22· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· I think I'd have to refer to 23· ·Deputy City Attorney Rothman.
24· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· So, I think that what you're 25· ·hearing from Mr. Anthony is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
103
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·This case was -- the constitutionality of the ordinance ·2· ·was -- was actually brought to the Superior Court by ·3· ·Mr. Anthony over an argument that the City essentially ·4· ·didn't have a right to enforce against these
·5· ·businesses, and that the ordinance not allowing
·6· ·flavored tobaccos were illegal.· It is.· It -- it's ·7· ·legal.· We prevailed in the Superior Court.
·8· · · · · · If you're just -- if you're talking about his ·9· ·reference to legal non-conforming use, and perhaps 10· ·that's what you're referencing.· What happened is the 11· ·zones in which these tobacco retail establishments are 12· ·located are currently not -- they're currently not 13· ·allowed to run tobacco businesses there.· And the only 14· ·way that these businesses were running is essentially 15· ·they were grandfathered in as a legal non-conforming 16· ·use.· If the retail license is revoked, they would not 17· ·be able to reestablish businesses there because of the 18· ·zoning issue.
19· · · · · · If you're referring to Mr. Anthony's argument 20· ·that there should be a bigger due process procedure in 21· ·this case because establishments are considered
22· ·property and we are taking away a -- a business's due 23· ·property, that's something I would like to address. 24· ·Mr. Anthony's due process argument rests on an
25· ·erroneous premise that every quasi judicial
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
104
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·administrative hearing, which is what this is, includes ·2· ·a constitutional right to present unlimited testimony, ·3· ·evidence, and cross-examination.
·4· · · · · · It does not.· Due process is a flexible
·5· ·concept, and the procedures do require on what is
·6· ·happening in the administrative proceeding.· It depends ·7· ·on the nature of the issue being presented.· And that ·8· ·is a standard that's established by a California
·9· ·Supreme Court case, Matthews v. Eldridge.· Actually, it 10· ·is a US Supreme Court case.
11· · · · · · There's also California Appellate case law 12· ·that's very clear on that issue.· Because the scope of 13· ·this hearing does not get to the evidentiary basis of 14· ·whether or not the violations were proper, that time 15· ·period for contesting the violations has long passed. 16· ·There is no opportunity to relitigate, and, therefore, 17· ·this particular proceeding does not require an
18· ·opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.· The evidence 19· ·being presented here is documentary.
20· · · · · · It's the evidence that these establishments 21· ·have had for years.· It's the notices of the
22· ·violations.· It's the photographs.· And because it is a 23· ·limited hearing, you have -- due process does not
24· ·require a full procedure.· The 8-minute hearing, the 25· ·8-minute presentation is sufficient to do what is being EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
105
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·done here, talk about the evidence that's being
·2· ·presented, discuss it, and there would be no need to ·3· ·cross-examine because, again, whether or not the
·4· ·violation occurred is not an issue.
·5· · · · · · The time period to look into that has ended. ·6· ·The issues that remain are the two questions, whether ·7· ·or not we have established, and by we, I mean, the code ·8· ·enforcement division, has established, more likely than ·9· ·not that the retail -- that this retailer violated the 10· ·ordinance three times within a five-year period.
11· ·That's all that the City needs to show, and we only 12· ·need to show that it's more likely than not that it 13· ·happened.
14· · · · · · The only thing the retailer here can do is 15· ·show by a clear and convincing -- by clear and
16· ·convincing evidence that a lesser penalty is warranted. 17· ·And that is the reason why there is not a full
18· ·procedure, jury trial.
19· · · · · · You heard Mr. Anthony trying to question you 20· ·about jury bias.· That's not allowed in an
21· ·administrative hearing because these aren't quasi
22· ·judicial hearings.· These are not trials.· Given the 23· ·narrow issues here, due process does not require months 24· ·or even weeks to prepare, even though such was offered 25· ·to Mr. Anthony and this retailer, which they denied EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
106
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·because they did not want to cease sales until
·2· ·September, nor does it require that they are given ·3· ·unlimited time to present or an opportunity to
·4· ·cross-examine.
·5· · · · · · So, to the extent your question went to that ·6· ·portion, whether or not property rights are at issue ·7· ·don't affect how this procedure proceeds.
·8· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Thank you for the very in-depth ·9· ·explanation this deep into the hearing.· And that's it 10· ·for me.· Thank you, Chair.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Stevens.
12· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I just have one question.· So, 13· ·when we go back and look at the 2025 report, Mr. Prins, 14· ·I see a lot of photographs and administrative penalty 15· ·and fee notice.· I -- I see things.· Could you maybe 16· ·describe are -- is every photograph inside there, is 17· ·that all either flavored tobacco products?
18· · · · · · It looks like I'm seeing in the second, the 19· ·middle left photograph, the three cigars or whatever 20· ·you call them instead of five.· But is everything else 21· ·something flavored?
22· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· No.· It is common for code
23· ·enforcement staff to take general photos of overview 24· ·photos of products throughout an establishment for 25· ·documentation sake.· Not all photos are violations EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
107
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·within the notice.
·2· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So if I look at this -- these ·3· ·pictures, is there -- is 10 percent of these a
·4· ·violation, is 50 percent a violation?
·5· · · · · ·MR. PRINS:· As I'm looking at the notice as we ·6· ·speak, I can say that 85 to 90 percent of these photos ·7· ·are violated -- violated -- excuse me, of prohibited ·8· ·products that are violations.
·9· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you.
10· · · · · · And then so for -- for you sir, you -- you 11· ·said that the supplier delivers these things to you. 12· ·You don't -- you don't place orders for things?
13· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Any new items that come on the 14· ·market, they add it into the order themselves.· But 15· ·those --
16· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So -- so --
17· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· -- those -- that -- those
18· ·suppliers are located in different cities, not in
19· ·Hayward, so they're not familiar to what's allowed in 20· ·Hayward or not.
21· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· But isn't flavored tobacco
22· ·illegal in California?
23· · · · · ·MR. AHMED:· The -- the pipe tobacco is exempt. 24· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So, I don't -- I don't
25· ·understand.· So I'm --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
108
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· For the rest --
·2· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· -- looking at the cigarettes -- ·3· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· -- of California --
·4· · · · · ·MR. STEVENS:· -- and all kinds of other things ·5· ·in there.· Is that not a violation of it?
·6· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Repeat the -- repeat --
·7· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I just -- I'm just confused ·8· ·because when I look at these photographs, I see things ·9· ·that don't appear to be pipe tobacco.· So how did -- 10· ·how did those wind up in the store?
11· · · · · ·MR. AHMED:· If you're looking at those cigars, 12· ·they're not flavored.· That's like the cigars have -- 13· ·if you read it, it's -- that's the origin of the
14· ·tobacco, and those are blends.· Those are allowed. 15· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So you sell flavored or
16· ·unflavored tobacco for the same price.· There's no -- 17· ·no difference in the price.
18· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Right.· Yeah, price is the same. 19· ·The price goes upon what we buy it for.
20· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Thank you.
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Are there any other
22· ·commissioner questions?
23· · · · · · Commissioner Meyers.
24· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· So, I'm just throwing it out 25· ·there.· I'm not -- I'm not saying I'm leaning one way EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
109
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·or another, but should we offer a reduced sentence of a ·2· ·suspension for X amount of months or however long, and ·3· ·there is another violation once it gets renewed within ·4· ·a five-year period, it would then come back here for ·5· ·revocation again; is that correct?
·6· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· That is correct.
·7· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Okay.· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Lowe.
·9· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· I just want to make sure I
10· ·understand what you were talking about with
11· ·Commissioner Stevens.· You were saying that the
12· ·suppliers send you all the latest products, so you 13· ·don't necessarily know if what's coming is prohibited. 14· · · · · · But once it gets to your store, don't you 15· ·decide what goes out on the floor or what -- I mean, in 16· ·other words, if I got something -- if you get something 17· ·that you know is prohibited, how does it end up staying 18· ·in your store?
19· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· If I want to return it, I can set 20· ·it aside and return it to them packed the way it is. 21· ·But these items were taken apart and opened, the
22· ·plastic torn, cardboard torn, put on the shelf, so I 23· ·wasn't able to return them.· It would have been better 24· ·for me just to trash them.· I wouldn't be in this mess, 25· ·but I didn't trash them and we left them on the shelf.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
110
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· Thank you.
·2· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· I'm -- I'm admitting to what -- ·3· ·what I did wrong.
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Yorgov.
·5· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I just -- to follow up on
·6· ·Commissioner Stevens' question, one very particular ·7· ·example that I -- I think is all of California.· And I ·8· ·have the -- I think at the last hearing, Inspector ·9· ·Prins had pointed us to the unflavored tobaccos, which 10· ·covers all of California, and lists all items that are 11· ·legal in California.
12· · · · · · I'm looking at Page 3 of the attachments, 13· ·there's a number of products from the manufacturer 14· ·called Elements.· When I searched for those products in 15· ·the unflavored tobacco list, which just to confirm, 16· ·that was every permitted tobacco product in California; 17· ·is that correct?
18· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That is correct.· Within
19· ·California.
20· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Okay.
21· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· The City of Hayward is more
22· ·restrictive than the State of California, but it is a 23· ·tool that we can use.
24· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· So, if something is not found on 25· ·that database, it is not permitted to be sold as a EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
111
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·tobacco product in California?
·2· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That is correct.· It means that it ·3· ·is likely a flavored product or a product that's not ·4· ·tested by the DOJ at that time.
·5· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Okay.· And so I guess to ask you ·6· ·specifically, I -- the points you made were about
·7· ·particular types of products that might have fallen ·8· ·afoul Hayward rules, not elsewhere, these seem to be ·9· ·products that are clearly illegal to sell in
10· ·California.· If a manufacturer of suppliers giving them 11· ·to you in California, they shouldn't be?
12· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· No.
13· · · · · ·MR. YORGOV:· Can you speak to why these can be 14· ·found in your store in 2025?
15· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Which item are you --
16· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I'll show you the picture here. 17· ·These Elements.· These ones right here.
18· · · · · ·MR. AHMED:· No.· These are -- that's a rolling 19· ·paper.· That's not even on the UTL list.
20· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Can you speak into the mic?
21· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· (Inaudible).
22· · · · · ·MS. CORRAL:· Haroon, can you speak to the mic? 23· ·Because the public can't hear your comments.
24· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· (Inaudible).
25· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· So the applicant, just since it EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
112
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·wasn't into the microphone, said that rolling papers ·2· ·would not be listed here.· Can Staff speak to that? ·3· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So the UTL list is for all the ·4· ·tobacco products.· That doesn't involve anything like a ·5· ·rolling paper or -- it's only tobacco in the UTL list. ·6· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I guess maybe I -- I might have ·7· ·muddled the situation by trying to give a specific ·8· ·example.· Just for my benefit, could you point me
·9· ·through a specific type of flavored product that is 10· ·included in these pictures?
11· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yes.· I believe there is one with 12· ·a brand name Fiesta, which has a label of sweet across 13· ·the front of it.· Because sweet is a characterizing 14· ·flavor, we would consider that a flavored product. 15· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Okay.· Global Fiesta sweet
16· ·cigarillos.· Understood.
17· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· That should be on the UTL list. 18· ·But even sweet, that's not a flavored product.· The 19· ·sweet is their regular.
20· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Okay.· So, in this particular 21· ·situation, it is a flavored product from the City's 22· ·perspective, not from California's.· Okay.
23· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Similar to how Swisher Sweets, 24· ·right?
25· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Uh-huh.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
113
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· It's just an original.· It's a ·2· ·regular flavor, but that's in the name, sweet.
·3· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Okay.
·4· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· So Fiesta Sweets is their
·5· ·original, regular.
·6· · · · · ·MR. YORGOV:· Yeah.· I see it here.· Thank you. ·7· ·That's it.
·8· · · · · · Okay.· That's it for me.· Thank you, Chair. ·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other questions?· Okay. 10· ·I'm going to go ahead and close the evidentiary period 11· ·record for this item and move to commissioner
12· ·discussion and deliberation.
13· · · · · · MS. BLANTON:· Chair, can you pause and do the 14· ·public hearing first?· If there's --
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yeah.· No problem.
16· · · · · · MS. BLANTON:· -- any public comments on this. 17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I just jumped ahead.· There we 18· ·go.· Thank you.
19· · · · · · So, I'm going to open public hearing on this 20· ·item.
21· · · · · · (Exit Executive Session; enter Public
22· ·Session.)
23· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· We have Sandra Archileta.
24· · · · · · MS. ARCHILETA:· Just for the sake of time, I 25· ·would reiterate my place from earlier, and I would EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
114
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·advocate for revoking this license, not suspending it. ·2· ·So yes, that's my comment.
·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· That is all.· Thank you.
·4· · · · · · I am going to close the public hearing and ·5· ·move to planning commissioner discussion and
·6· ·deliberation.
·7· · · · · · (Exit Public Session; enter Executive
·8· ·Session.)
·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Stevens.
10· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So, like, we're -- we're now in 11· ·the sixth one of these.· The only distinction I see 12· ·between this store and the other stores is that, I 13· ·guess -- I guess some of the other stores are a little 14· ·more egregious in that they hid products.· But I mean, 15· ·I think we have to be consistent.
16· · · · · · I mean, this -- there's a rule.· It's clearly 17· ·stated right here.· I mean, the store has violated it. 18· ·If I was in the business of operating a smoke and vape 19· ·shop, I think I would be very careful in how I operated 20· ·my business because there's definitely consequences if 21· ·you make mistakes.
22· · · · · · So that's my sort of feeling on it, but I 23· ·could be swayed if anybody else had a different
24· ·opinion.
25· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Meyers.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
115
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. MEYERS:· Yeah.· I'm really torn on this. ·2· ·I'm all for a rule of law.· I just feel like four years ·3· ·ago, we had some bad judgment calls, you know, on
·4· ·your -- on the owner's point of view.· But since then, ·5· ·it seems like he's been pretty darn close.
·6· · · · · · Again, I'm having a hard time with this one. ·7· ·I'm almost leaning towards a -- a partial suspension. ·8· ·But again, I can be swayed either way, I think, because ·9· ·it just seems in the past four years or so that he's 10· ·tried with the mistake, it looks like, of the
11· ·cigarette -- cigars from three to five and -- and the 12· ·mushroom.
13· · · · · · I mean, I'm not saying those are not serious. 14· ·Those are very serious.· I'm just -- I'm just putting 15· ·it out there that I -- I'm considering that.
16· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Can I make a comment?
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· This is commission discussion. 18· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Okay.
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Yeah.
20· · · · · · Commissioner Lowe.
21· · · · · ·MS. LOWE:· I absolutely understand why there's 22· ·so much public outcry on your behalf.· You are -- you 23· ·come across as a very nice person and very likable, and 24· ·there's nothing easy about this decision at all.· But I 25· ·agree with Commissioner Stevens.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
116
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · I do think we have to be consistent, and I do ·2· ·think that five violations is a lot of violations, and ·3· ·I don't think we can turn a blind eye to that,
·4· ·especially considering we have -- not only this
·5· ·hearing, but the last one, we've had quite a bit of ·6· ·public outcry to uphold the law in this area by the ·7· ·public, by people who are in this community and who do ·8· ·not want to see retailers who disobey the law continue ·9· ·to operate in their city.
10· · · · · ·And that's one of the things that we try to do 11· ·is to make sure that we are representing the people of 12· ·the city.· So, for those reasons, I'm leaning towards 13· ·revocation.
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Haman?
15· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yes.· I'm echoing my other
16· ·commissioners' thoughts on this.· It is a very, very 17· ·difficult decision.· I think though that we do need to 18· ·be consistent, and I think that I would also need to 19· ·vote for revocation, but that I would hope that he 20· ·might have better luck in the appeal process.
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Yorgov.
22· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Thank you, Chair.
23· · · · · · And I think my fellow commissioners have said 24· ·it really well.· It is -- it is not easy.· And we
25· ·understand the severity of this decision.· This isn't EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
117
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·something I have direct experience with, but the
·2· ·closest is I -- I work in affordable housing and
·3· ·development, and we deal with sometimes dozens of
·4· ·different overlapping jurisdictions.· The laws are ·5· ·incredibly complicated.
·6· · · · · ·My head spins when I even think about it.· But ·7· ·ultimately, when we do something we shouldn't, when ·8· ·something is done that is not permitted by regulations, ·9· ·we have to abide by.· We are held accountable for it. 10· ·And I think, especially, you know, considering the 11· ·severity of, you know -- I understand this is your 12· ·livelihood, but this is also a controlled substance. 13· · · · · · This is an incredibly serious thing, and so 14· ·the standard has to be even higher.· A business has to 15· ·be maintained.· There can't be mistakes made on this, 16· ·and I understand that it is easy.· I -- I can't imagine 17· ·having to navigate these databases, but ultimately, as 18· ·a business, it is your responsibility.
19· · · · · · So I -- I do think I would have to revoke. 20· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Anyone else?
21· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· I'd like to make a comment, if I 22· ·can.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· This is a commissioner comment 24· ·and deliberation.· We don't take any comments at this 25· ·time from the public, or the retailer at this time.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
118
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · I -- I don't make this decision lightly.· It ·2· ·was a lot of material to review, and I understand that ·3· ·you've been in business for a long time, but like
·4· ·Commissioner Yorgov had mentioned that it's a very ·5· ·serious issue to consider with implications that
·6· ·aren't, you know -- they're very serious as well.
·7· · · · · · For that reason, I -- I will be looking to -- ·8· ·for the revocation and hopefully that moving forward, ·9· ·if you choose to appeal, that you have some -- some 10· ·luck in that process as well.
11· · · · · · Commissioner Hardy.
12· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· The only thing that I 13· ·will add is that although I know you said you don't see 14· ·a way forward necessarily with the revocation, if it 15· ·does go through right now, that I hope that you would 16· ·find a path forward for the business.· It looked like 17· ·when you showed us those pictures, there are a lot of 18· ·things in your shop that are related to this industry 19· ·that aren't necessarily tobacco, and that you have a 20· ·very nice, big, clean, beautiful location.
21· · · · · · And so I hope that you would be able to
22· ·continue your business because this isn't taking away 23· ·your business license.· So I just wanted to add that as 24· ·well.
25· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I'm prepared to make a motion, EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
119
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·if appropriate.· So I would -- I would like to make a ·2· ·motion that the Commission finds that Smokey's Smoke ·3· ·Shop at 25088 Hesperian Boulevard has committed at ·4· ·least three violations in a five-year period.· And ·5· ·since because of that, the license should be revoked. ·6· · · · · · ·MR. HAMAN:· I'll second that.
·7· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Moved by Commissioner Stevens ·8· ·and seconded by?· Who was that?· Commissioner Haman? ·9· ·Yeah?
10· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yes.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· And the motion is passed.· The 12· ·decision of the Planning Commission is final unless 13· ·it's appealed.· The appeal period is ten days from the 14· ·date of tonight's decision.· If appealed, a hearing 15· ·will be scheduled for the City Council for a final 16· ·decision.
17· · · · · · MR. AHMED:· Thank you for listening.
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Now, we move on to the next 19· ·retailer.· Is that Master Shell?
20· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yes.· Thank you.
21· · · · · · I'll now move on to Attachment 5,
22· ·Master Shell, located at 22810 Foothill Boulevard. 23· · · · · · Master Shell accumulated a total of five
24· ·violations within a five-year period between April 2022 25· ·and January 2026, and has a history of non-compliance EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
120
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·with the City's tobacco retail ordinance.· Violations ·2· ·documented by staff included flavored tobacco products, ·3· ·prohibited cigaro packaging, and repeated failures to ·4· ·maintain and display required licenses.
·5· · · · · · The businesses -- excuse me, the business ·6· ·demonstrated an ongoing pattern of non-compliance
·7· ·despite inspections, compliance assistance, and
·8· ·opportunities to correct violations.· No appeals were ·9· ·filed regarding the documented -- documented
10· ·violations.· And at the time that this report was
11· ·prepared, approximately $4,500 remains due from prior 12· ·tobacco enforcement cases, and a separate prior penalty 13· ·fee has been transferred to the property as special 14· ·assessment due to non-compliance.
15· · · · · · The violations before the Commission occurred 16· ·between 2022 and 2026.· Multiple inspections documented 17· ·expired or missing licenses, flavored tobacco products, 18· ·vape products, and prohibited cigarillo packaging. 19· ·Several inspections identified reoccurring violations 20· ·after prior enforcement actions had already occurred. 21· ·These violations are documented in Attachment 5 of the 22· ·staff report.
23· · · · · · Despite years of inspections, compliance
24· ·assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to 25· ·correct violations, this establishment continued to EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
121
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·violate the City's tobacco retail ordinance.· The
·2· ·business owner of Master Shell 22810 Foothill Boulevard ·3· ·has accumulated five violations within a five-year ·4· ·period, meeting the criteria for the revocation of the ·5· ·tobacco retail license under Hayward Municipal Code ·6· ·Section 10-1.2794.
·7· · · · · · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ·8· ·finds that Master Shell located at 22810 Foothill
·9· ·Boulevard has committed at least three violations
10· ·within a five-year period and revoke the tobacco retail 11· ·licenses for Master Shell.
12· · · · · · This concludes the staff's presentation
13· ·regarding Master Shell.· And I'm available for any 14· ·questions from the commission.
15· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· All right.· Now, we can open up 16· ·questions for commissioners -- for staff.
17· · · · · · Commissioner Haman.
18· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yes.· Are all these fees still 19· ·due?
20· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Fees are still due until they go 21· ·through a special assessment, which is done annually 22· ·for past penalty fees.· Once they go through special 23· ·assessment, they end up being transferred to the
24· ·property tax of the -- of the property itself.
25· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· I guess what I mean, have they EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
122
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·paid their fees as to this date?
·2· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· No, they have not.
·3· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Thank you.
·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Anyone else?· Okay.· Is there ·5· ·a -- is the retailer present or a representative of ·6· ·this retailer?
·7· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· I do not see them online.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· We can move to planning
·9· ·commissioner questions of the staff and/or the
10· ·retailer.
11· · · · · · All right.· I'm going to open public hearing. 12· · · · · · (Exit Executive Session; enter Public
13· ·Session.)
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Are there any speakers?
15· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· There are none online.
16· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· I'm closing the public hearing. 17· · · · · · (Exit Public Session; enter Executive
18· ·Session.)
19· · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Planning commission discussion. 20· ·I will entertain a motion.
21· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I'm prepared to make a motion. 22· ·I'd like to motion that the Commission find that
23· ·Master Shell, located at 22810 Foothill Boulevard, has 24· ·committed five or more -- or three or more violations 25· ·in the past five years, and that the commission revoke EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
123
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·the license.
·2· · · · · · ·MR. MEYERS:· Second.
·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Meyers seconded. ·4· ·He got there before you did, Commissioner Stevens. ·5· · · · · ·And the motion is passed.· The decision of the ·6· ·Planning Commission is final unless appealed.· The ·7· ·appeal period is ten days from the date of the next ·8· ·decision.· If appealed, the hearing will be scheduled ·9· ·before the City Council for a final decision.· We'll 10· ·move on to the next item, the GR8 Smoke Shop.
11· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Thank you.· I'll now move on to 12· ·Attachment 6.· The -- the GR8 Smoke Shop located at 13· ·109 --
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Jesse, can you stop, please? 15· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· I --
16· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Excuse me.
17· · · · · · MS. LOWE:· -- I am going to recuse myself for 18· ·potential conflict.· Thank you.
19· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· And for the record, Commissioner 20· ·Lowe has stepped out at 10:39 p.m.
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Go ahead, please.
22· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Thank you.· I will now move on to 23· ·Attachment 6, the GR8 Smoke Shop located at 1090 La 24· ·Playa Drive.· The GR8 Smoke Shop accumulated a total of 25· ·four violations within a five-year period and was
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
124
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·inspected on multiple occasions by code enforcement ·2· ·staff.· This may be one of the most egregious violators ·3· ·given the length that this retailer has gone to
·4· ·intentionally hide illegal substances for sale by
·5· ·maintaining concealed storage areas and hidden
·6· ·compartments.
·7· · · · · · Over the course of those inspections, the ·8· ·staff documented repeated violations involving
·9· ·prohibited tobacco products, vape products, hemp
10· ·products, cannabis products, imitation psilocybin
11· ·mushroom products, and licensing violations.· As
12· ·mentioned above, the business actively maintained
13· ·concealed storage areas containing prohibited products, 14· ·including hidden compartments beneath the sales
15· ·counter.
16· · · · · · The business demonstrated an ongoing pattern 17· ·of non-compliance despite inspections, educational 18· ·outreach, and opportunities to correct violations.· No 19· ·appeals were filed regarding the documented violations. 20· ·At the time this report was prepared, approximately 21· ·$3,000 remains owed in penalties and fees for prior 22· ·tobacco enforcement cases.
23· · · · · · The photos shown on this slide were taken by 24· ·staff during a joint inspection with the California 25· ·Department of Tax and Fee Administration, CDTFA, and EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
125
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·Hayward Police Department, and illustrate the hidden ·2· ·compartments discovered during the inspection in
·3· ·January of 2026.· These concealed compartments were not ·4· ·readily apparent and could not be reasonably identified ·5· ·without prior knowledge of their existence or
·6· ·experience in locating concealed storage areas and ·7· ·expertise that the CDTFA has.
·8· · · · · ·The compartments remained locked and could not ·9· ·only be accessed using an unmarked RFID card located 10· ·near the cash register at the time of the inspection. 11· ·The presence of these concealed storage areas,
12· ·particularly after multiple years of inspections and 13· ·documented violations, demonstrates that the violations 14· ·were not isolated or inadvertent, but rather part of an 15· ·ongoing pattern of non-compliance with the City's
16· ·tobacco retail ordinance.
17· · · · · · The discovery of prohibited flavored tobacco 18· ·products and prohibited cigarillo packaging concealed 19· ·within these hidden compartments further demonstrates 20· ·knowledge that the products were prohibited and a
21· ·deliberate effort to conceal them from inspectors, 22· ·evidencing a continued willingness to violate the
23· ·City's tobacco retail ordinance.
24· · · · · · The violations before the Commission occurred 25· ·between 2023 and 2026.· Violations documented by staff EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
126
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·included flavored tobacco products, hemp products, vape ·2· ·products, and electronic smoking devices, expired or ·3· ·missing licenses, out of state menthol cigarettes, ·4· ·cannabis products, edible imitation, psilocybin
·5· ·products, and hemp wraps.
·6· · · · · · During the joint inspection with Hayward
·7· ·Police and CDTFA in January 2026, in addition to the ·8· ·hidden compartments only accessible by RFID card, staff ·9· ·discovered cannabis products concealed in a backpack 10· ·located behind the sales counter as shown in the photos 11· ·on this slide.· The products included pre-rolled
12· ·cannabis joints and cannabis vape products.
13· · · · · · The location of these items behind the
14· ·counter, rather than in an openly displayed retail 15· ·area, demonstrates that the products were maintained in 16· ·a location readily accessible to employees while
17· ·remaining concealed from public view.· The discovery of 18· ·these products during the inspection further supports 19· ·the conclusion that the business knowingly possessed 20· ·and maintained prohibited products on the premises. 21· · · · · · The violations identified during the joint 22· ·inspection conducted by California Department of Tax 23· ·and Fee Administration and Hayward Police Department, 24· ·as well as City code enforcement, have been referred to 25· ·the Alameda County District Attorney's Office for
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
127
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·review and potential prosecution.· Any criminal or ·2· ·civil enforcement resulting from that investigation ·3· ·will proceed independently of the City's tobacco retail ·4· ·license enforcement process.· These violations are ·5· ·documented in Attachment 6 of the staff report.
·6· · · · · · In addition to the concealed products shown ·7· ·previously, staff observed edible imitations psilocybin ·8· ·products, including those depicted on photographs on ·9· ·this slide, as well as prohibited flavored vape
10· ·products being offered for sale.· During the 2025
11· ·annual inspection, staff also observed multiple packs 12· ·of cigarettes displayed for sale that did not bear the 13· ·required -- excuse me, required California cigarette 14· ·tax stamp indicating the products had not been taxed in 15· ·accordance with California law.
16· · · · · ·These findings demonstrate that the violations 17· ·extend -- extended beyond the sale of prohibited
18· ·flavored products and included additional unlawful 19· ·products and untaxed tobacco products discovered during 20· ·the inspection.· These photographs form part of the 21· ·evidentiary record supporting Attachment 6.
22· · · · · · Despite years of inspections, compliance
23· ·assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to 24· ·correct violations, this establishment continued to 25· ·violate the City's tobacco retail ordinance.· The
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
128
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·business owner of the GR8 Smoke Shop at 1090 La Playa ·2· ·Drive has accumulated four violations within a
·3· ·five-year period, meeting the criteria for revocation ·4· ·of the tobacco retail license under the Hayward
·5· ·Municipal Code Section 10-1.2794.
·6· · · · · · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ·7· ·finds that the GR8 Smoke Shop located at 1090 La Playa ·8· ·Drive has committed at least three violations in a ·9· ·five-year period and revoked the tobacco retail
10· ·licenses for the GR8 Smoke Shop.
11· · · · · · This concludes staff presentation regarding 12· ·the GR8 Smoke Shop, and I am available for any
13· ·questions that the commission might have.
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you for your
15· ·presentation.· I'm going to move to planning
16· ·commissioner questions of staff about the evidence 17· ·presented on the specifics.· Any questions?· No
18· ·questions here.
19· · · · · · All right.· We can move to the retailer
20· ·presentation.
21· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Hello.· My name is -- my name is 22· ·Mike Ayaz.· I'm the attorney --
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· (Inaudible).· There we
24· ·go.
25· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Thank you.· My name is Mike Ayaz.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
129
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·I'm the attorney for the retailer.· Obviously, I have ·2· ·to talk quickly.· First, I want to just get on the ·3· ·record that you're not going to give me more than 8 ·4· ·minutes; is that correct?· Okay.· So, please answer ·5· ·verbally so we can --
·6· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· That's correct.
·7· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- get on the record.· Perfect. ·8· ·So, in talking with Mr. Lawson, the city attorney, ·9· ·we're going to submit additional documentation today 10· ·because we won't be able to get through everything that 11· ·we need to get to today.· And that's only because you 12· ·won't give me more than 8 minutes.
13· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you speak into the --
14· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· I will.
15· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- microphone, please, so the 16· ·public can hear you.
17· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Sure.· So, I'm submitting these to 18· ·each council member and counsel.· So that they can -- 19· ·they can have those, and that it should be reviewed 20· ·before you make the decision since you won't give me 21· ·the time to talk.· There you go.
22· · · · · ·Additionally, we have video footage that we're 23· ·going to submit as part of this where Mr. Prins lies to 24· ·the retailer and tells them that the second notice 25· ·received just eight days ago, which adds an additional EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
130
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·charge --
·2· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Can you please speak into the ·3· ·microphone?
·4· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- which adds an additional charge ·5· ·and should be stricken from this proceeding because we ·6· ·didn't get notice of it until our -- we got the staff ·7· ·report here five days ago.· But Mr. Prins lies to my ·8· ·client and says it's the exact same notice.
·9· · · · · · We got a second -- we got the first notice on 10· ·May 14 with three dates of violation, which are not the 11· ·dates of violation.· They're actually the dates of 12· ·notices, which is another problem.· But then he comes 13· ·by and tells the client, same, same, exactly the same. 14· ·It's for continuance.· Even though we were represented, 15· ·the City never sent us a second notice as an additional 16· ·indication of their malfeasance and their violation of 17· ·our client's due process.
18· · · · · · That being said, again, I'm going to have to 19· ·stop quickly because I'm being limited.· The City's 20· ·revocation process threatens to deprive the petitioner 21· ·of his vested property interest, and therefore, a
22· ·heightened procedural due -- due process protections 23· ·should apply.· These protections require more than a 24· ·routine hearing.· They require adequate notice of the 25· ·charges, disclosure of evidence, and a meeting
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
131
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·opportunity to be heard.
·2· · · · · · Whereas in here, the City seeks to revoke the ·3· ·license, strict adherence to these -- to these
·4· ·procedural safeguards is essential to satisfy
·5· ·constitutional due process requirements.· You'll hear ·6· ·Ms. Rothman huff and puff about with due process not ·7· ·being applicable here, we'll let the courts decide what ·8· ·due process actually means.· But when you take
·9· ·someone's livelihood away, you have to give them due 10· ·process.
11· · · · · · The timing of the City's enforcement aligns 12· ·with the availability of grant funding that was not 13· ·previously available, that's made -- made public.· They 14· ·got a grant, and all of a sudden, for years, they
15· ·tolerated these -- these basis for revocation, but only 16· ·after funding became available, then they began to 17· ·enforce things from years and years and years ago.· And 18· ·what really happened was they were coming in and
19· ·telling people, hey, just fix this and it's not going 20· ·to be a problem.
21· · · · · · And then now, as we've seen in many of these 22· ·cases, they're going backwards and saying, oh, even 23· ·though that's what we told you, that's not what we 24· ·meant, we're going to revoke your business license. 25· ·The enforcement action motivated by factors other than EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
132
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·alleged violations themselves, when decisions are -- ·2· ·are motivated -- motivated by financial windfalls
·3· ·rather than consistent application of the regular
·4· ·standards, the government has acted arbitrarily and ·5· ·discriminatorily.
·6· · · · · ·My client got two notices of violation and two ·7· ·notices of administrative penalty.· Look at the
·8· ·notices.· He always thought he was -- he never knew he ·9· ·had three, four, or even five violations because every 10· ·penalty notice he got, if you look at the papers of 11· ·their claim meeting, says first offense, first offense. 12· ·He paid first offense fees.· Every ticket says first 13· ·offense.
14· · · · · ·Most of these people, as you can tell, are not 15· ·really prolific in the English language, but they're 16· ·certainly not lawyers.· And they see first offense, and 17· ·they think that's the first offense.· Look at every 18· ·administrative penalty, please.· Look at it and it 19· ·says, first offense, first offense, first offense. 20· · · · · · We don't have a right to cross-examine. I 21· ·don't have a right to cross-examine our accuser. I 22· ·don't have the time to -- to ask the questions that are 23· ·necessary to get here.
24· · · · · · The revocation notices themselves, both of 25· ·them, are flawed.· They don't mean -- they don't tell EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
133
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·you what -- what place and date or time the hearing is. ·2· ·These may seem trivial, but when you go to a courtroom, ·3· ·they're not.· They're not just merely technical.· The ·4· ·revocation fails to state the time.· It fails to state ·5· ·the actual date of the violations.
·6· · · · · · These dates that are in the notices are not ·7· ·the dates of violation.· How is a -- how is a person ·8· ·supposed to know what they're facing if they can't even ·9· ·get it right?· This is a case of sloppiness.· It's a 10· ·case of misuse of an abusive discussion.· And instead 11· ·of money grabbed from when they got the grant, now all 12· ·of a sudden they're coming back.
13· · · · · · And -- and what education?· What proof of 14· ·education have they provided you other than a blanket 15· ·statement, I gave them a sheet of paper.· They would 16· ·come in, they would say, hey, look, take care of this, 17· ·and it's all good, case resolved.· That's -- satisfied 18· ·that's supplemented by the fact that we only got a 19· ·first -- we never received a second violation.
20· · · · · ·We've only paid $1,500 under the Hayward code. 21· ·The Hayward code says the second violation is this 22· ·much, the third violation is this much, the fourth is 23· ·this much.· But we only paid 1,500, how does my client 24· ·know that he's on a second violation?
25· · · · · · The City's new revocation notice that came on EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
134
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·June 17th, a mere eight days ago, doesn't even comport ·2· ·or comply with their own code that says ten days
·3· ·before.· They'll have -- they'll -- they'll argue that ·4· ·this is just for the continuation, but it's materially ·5· ·different.· And what's more, it's dated May 14th.· It ·6· ·said that it was sent by certified mail.
·7· · · · · · It was signed by Mr. Prins, and he on audio ·8· ·recording says, this is exactly the same thing except ·9· ·for just the continuance, when, in fact, that's a lie. 10· ·What he did was it added an additional charge.· If it 11· ·wasn't a lie, it was a material misrepresentation. 12· · · · · · The -- that -- these deficiencies cannot be 13· ·cured.· The City's improper notice is prejudicial to 14· ·the petitioner, and the City must afford a fair
15· ·hearing, which it has not done to this and all the 16· ·other applicants -- I mean, the licensees that have 17· ·been here.
18· · · · · · The next thing is that the City all -- shifts 19· ·the burden of proof.· How is it that the burden of 20· ·proof for the City is this low, and the burden of proof 21· ·for the applicant is this high, or the licensee?· By 22· ·creating this dichotomy of shifting burdens, you've 23· ·created an unplaying -- fair playing field.· How are we 24· ·ever supposed to win if all they have to do up -- is 25· ·show up, lump us all together, and then say, we've done EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
135
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·enough, and then we have to go by the -- by clear and ·2· ·convincing evidence?
·3· · · · · · The shifting of the -- the requirement of ·4· ·burden of proof violates every fair -- every thought of ·5· ·fair process and due process.· Unequal deadlines create ·6· ·risk of onus deprivation.· And again, I'm sorry, I'm ·7· ·going fast.· It's just that I don't have the time. ·8· · · · · · The City abuses its discretion with imposing ·9· ·unreasonable time limitations for their presentation, 10· ·for cross-examination.· The City's denial or
11· ·continuance requests violate due process.· The City's 12· ·failure to provide the entire administrative record 13· ·violates our due process, revocation based on technical 14· ·administrative discrepancies like not having a posted 15· ·sign is also -- doesn't fit the crime.
16· · · · · · And, in fact, on the April 10th, which is not 17· ·really April 10th, but the April 10, 2024, they say, 18· ·not posted sign in hemp.· Look at the -- the
19· ·investigative report.· There's nothing about hemp in 20· ·there.· They've added that in there to make it look 21· ·worse.· What are we playing here?
22· · · · · · Play fair.· You could have had us easily. I 23· ·mean, like I said, we will not let this stand.· But I'm 24· ·imploring you to just look at the paperwork.· How is a 25· ·retailer supposed to know that in their communications EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
136
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·with the previous code enforcement officer, that we ·2· ·don't get the question, that was telling them
·3· ·routinely, hey, just take care of this, you're going to ·4· ·be fine?· And then they get first violation, first ·5· ·violation.· He's only got two notices of violation in ·6· ·the entire time he's been there.
·7· · · · · ·And let -- let me back up.· He hasn't received ·8· ·them directly because you send them to a property owner ·9· ·at a PO box.· And they're going to say that, oh, the 10· ·property owner -- why is the TRL application required 11· ·before it's deemed complete, that you put a mailing 12· ·address for the business owner?
13· · · · · · What does the property owner have any vested 14· ·interest in for the license?· It might have a vested 15· ·interest in the tenancy, but not the license.· Now, 16· ·when you file for a TRL application, do they require 17· ·your mailing address for purposes of notice?· Yes, they 18· ·do.
19· · · · · · ·MS. GOODBODY:· Time.
20· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· That's fine.· I just want to make 21· ·sure that these videos get on the record as well.· I'm 22· ·submitting them to the clerk.· I would implore you to 23· ·watch them.· There's two copies.
24· · · · · · It's -- it's ridiculous, folks, that -- that 25· ·you -- that we can't have a fair hearing.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
137
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Thank you.· Now we can move to ·2· ·planning commissioner questions for staff and/or the ·3· ·retailer.
·4· · · · · · Commissioner --
·5· · · · · ·UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER 2:· Public -- public ·6· ·hearing?
·7· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· We can do questions first, then ·8· ·we'll do the public hearing.
·9· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· I have a question.
10· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· So I just --
11· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· I'm sorry.
12· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· So my question is for the
13· ·retailer.· I'm assuming that you're speaking on behalf 14· ·of the retailer.
15· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, I mean, it's 11:00 at night 16· ·and he has little kids, so, Yeah.· He -- he was here 17· ·and you might have noticed him in the back there.· He's 18· ·trying to make it back.
19· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· I just -- I mean, I don't know 20· ·what he was here for, but I probably did see him.· So 21· ·thank you for being here.
22· · · · · · Everything you just spoke to was about the 23· ·procedural parts of this.· Can you speak at all about 24· ·the actual violations of whether your client actually 25· ·committed any of those?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
138
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Because, I mean --
·2· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Hidden storage, any of those
·3· ·things that we are actually concerned about here -- ·4· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Sure.
·5· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- as well?
·6· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· I mean, I think the primary thing ·7· ·is, is that this isn't a fair hearing, so I
·8· ·shouldn't -- we shouldn't even be here.· I mean -- ·9· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· I'm actually really also, though, 10· ·concerned about things like hidden storage areas and -- 11· ·and illegal products.· So can you speak to --
12· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, I -- I can't --
13· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- any of those things?
14· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· I can't speak to those -- those 15· ·things because obviously, I'm not the business owner. 16· ·I can't verify the photos that are updated.
17· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· So that was that
18· ·question.· Thank you.· You did speak to some of the 19· ·other things.· Could you just point out some page
20· ·numbers as to where you saw it say that it was the 21· ·first violation because I did look that up while you 22· ·were speaking and --
23· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Sure.
24· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- I don't --
25· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· If you --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
139
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- see that.
·2· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· -- if you want to pull up my brief, ·3· ·I'll show you where those are because that's what they ·4· ·provided to us.· And it's in the staff report.
·5· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· I'm -- I'm in the staff report ·6· ·right now.· So if you could do that in the -- the staff ·7· ·report.
·8· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· I don't have the staff report, ·9· ·but --
10· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Okay.
11· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· So, I mean, it's -- it's -- if you 12· ·just look at the reports and, you know, it's -- you 13· ·guys should be looking at this before we get here, but 14· ·it's --
15· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· I mean --
16· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- it's on these invoices --
17· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- I read the staff reports so -- 18· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Yeah.· I mean, here.
19· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- I'm just trying to give you a 20· ·chance to --
21· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Sure.
22· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- to prove what --
23· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Can you turn this on?
24· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- you were saying.
25· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Joe, is it on?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
140
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. JOE:· Yes.
·2· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· I think it's on, but --
·3· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Oh.· Oh.
·4· · · · · · MR. JOE:· (Inaudible).
·5· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· Okay.
·6· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Do I hit something?
·7· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· (Inaudible).
·8· · · · · · MR. JOE:· Here you go.
·9· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Oh, thank you.
10· · · · · · Commissioner Hardy, do you see that?· Do you 11· ·see here?
12· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Yes.
13· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Okay.· That's on -- that's on the 14· ·2026 case, your most recent case, right?
15· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Uh-huh.
16· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· That's on your most recent case. 17· ·And if that's on 2026, first offense.· Again, sent to 18· ·the PO box of the landlord.
19· · · · · · Oh, this is the same one.· Bear with me.
20· · · · · · Here.· 2025, first offense.· The fee is the 21· ·same.· Under the Hayward schedule, it's 1,525 and
22· ·three, right?· So, how is he supposed to know that he's 23· ·being charged with a second offense if the City is 24· ·telling him this is your first offense?
25· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Right.

EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
141
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Right?
·2· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· So --
·3· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, there's more.
·4· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Okay.· I just want to get
·5· ·clarification now from --
·6· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, can I show --
·7· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- the City staff.
·8· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- you the rest of it?· Because ·9· ·it's not just in those two places, it's in the other 10· ·administrative penalty notices as well.
11· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Is it the same point, though? 12· ·Because I do just want to get clarification from staff. 13· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, it is the same point, but 14· ·it's also --
15· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Right.
16· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· -- it's more than just this, right? 17· ·So, it's --
18· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Right.
19· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Yeah.· I really --
20· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Right.· Well, I -- I get your 21· ·point.
22· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Okay.
23· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· So I just want to ask staff to 24· ·follow up on that.· So is there a reason why it always 25· ·would say first offense --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
142
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· Yes.
·2· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· -- when it's different offenses ·3· ·and why it's not saying second or third?
·4· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· Correct.· The first offense is ·5· ·related to the specific code case.· So, you have the ·6· ·first offense.· If we go back to subsequent --
·7· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· Oh, that is ridiculous.· That's not ·8· ·what --
·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Excuse me.
10· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- the code is.
11· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Excuse me.· The question was 12· ·directed at Ms. Morales.
13· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· And then if you go back to your 14· ·reinspection, the violation persists, then you -- it 15· ·escalates to the second violation.· That's why the 16· ·amount increases, and then it goes to the third.· So, 17· ·when we have first violation and then a new code case, 18· ·and first violation, it means they addressed the
19· ·offense, but then we get out for another year's
20· ·inspection, you have new violations again.· So, they 21· ·temporarily addressed the violation, but then it
22· ·reoccurs.· And then in this case, it escalates.
23· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· That is absolutely --
24· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.
25· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· -- incorrect.· That's not what your EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
143
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·code says.
·2· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· That answers my
·3· ·question.· That was the only other question I have for ·4· ·you.· So I -- I have one other question for staff. ·5· · · · · · So in terms of the -- the point that he asked ·6· ·about around the date of violation, so for the reports, ·7· ·is the date that the photos were taken, is that the ·8· ·date of violation or is there somewhere else?· Because ·9· ·I do see on the violation notices, it says, like, date 10· ·case established, last inspection date, compliance, 11· ·there -- there are a lot of dates.
12· · · · · · So generally, what would the date of the
13· ·violation be?· Is it usually on one of the photos? 14· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· So clarifying just that I
15· ·believe it's the date of the notice of violation that 16· ·we used to identify, which is in the lower left-hand 17· ·corner of the notices.
18· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· But that's not in the notice.
19· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.
20· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Haman?
21· · · · · ·MR. HAMAN:· Yes.· So, were you expecting us to 22· ·be able to review this in a couple of minutes?
23· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· No.· I was expecting to have a fair 24· ·hearing and be able to present my entire case.· I spoke 25· ·with Mr. Lawson or communicated with Mr. Lawson. I EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
144
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·told him I was going to need to supply additional
·2· ·documentation if -- if necessary.
·3· · · · · · I didn't realize that for a business death ·4· ·penalty case, you guys were going to limit us to 8 ·5· ·minutes.· It was up to your discretion, and it's clear ·6· ·that you're not going to use that discretion.· So, read ·7· ·it as you can.· I'll wait.
·8· · · · · · But I -- I mean, what more do you want me to ·9· ·do?· I asked for continuances.· I was gone.· The ink on 10· ·this paperwork is still wet because we just printed 11· ·this as we got here today because we didn't get our 12· ·reasonable continuance.
13· · · · · · So, I -- Mr. -- Commissioner Haman, it's not 14· ·my intent to give it to you tonight, but I'm limited in 15· ·what I can do.· My due process rights -- my client's 16· ·due process rights have been cut at the knees.· What -- 17· ·what do you want me to do?
18· · · · · · If you don't give me the time to talk about 19· ·everything, then what other option do I have?· And 20· ·literally, they knew I was not here.· I was in St. 21· ·Louis.· I tried to get a continuance, and your city 22· ·attorney tells me, yeah, give up your rights and let me 23· ·revoke you temporarily while we come and revoke you 24· ·later.
25· · · · · ·No, I'm not going to agree to that.· I'm going EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
145
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·to stay up all night and do what I need to do.· And, ·2· ·you know what?· This is part of the record.· So, you're ·3· ·going to make a decision with that as part of the
·4· ·record.· If you need to take the time to read it, I got ·5· ·all night.· So, this --
·6· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· I understand.· This is the second ·7· ·hearing.· We had a hearing on the 11th, which was
·8· ·exactly the same thing.· Were you not aware of that? ·9· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· No.· I am aware of it.· I was in 10· ·St. Louis, and I got back on the 15th, and I asked for 11· ·at least 30 days.· And they didn't give me --
12· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· But you did have --
13· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- 30 days.
14· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· -- two weeks to give this to us 15· ·knowing that you were going to be preparing for
16· ·tonight.
17· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Sir, I got back on the 15th.· It 18· ·took me that time to get it ready, right?· This is -- 19· ·this isn't something that takes -- your -- your city 20· ·attorney and -- and code enforcement took four years to 21· ·prepare.· You're giving me trouble for a week?
22· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Okay.· And well, I guess --
23· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· It's part of the record.· You
24· ·either read it now or you don't.· It -- it's part of 25· ·the record, right?· I can't -- I can't control your EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
146
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·lack of due process protections by not giving me the 8 ·2· ·minutes.
·3· · · · · · I could go through this in about 25 minutes. ·4· ·It doesn't take me that long, that, you know, to read ·5· ·it.
·6· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Continue with your --
·7· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· It's 30 pages.
·8· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- question, please.
·9· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yes.· So, I guess what we're
10· ·seeing here is that we're weighing dates and notices 11· ·versus hard evidence.
12· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· You're -- you're looking at due 13· ·process.· This is where it's being missed.· You guys 14· ·cannot make a decision if my client's rights have been 15· ·violated.· You've heard this over and over again.
16· ·You're so fixated on evidence.
17· · · · · · You -- you -- that getting here is the
18· ·problem.· You violated my client's due process the 19· ·entire way here.· You should be worried about the
20· ·constitutional rights of your constituents.
21· · · · · · Primarily, when you get a notice that says 22· ·it's your first offense, and we tell you we don't know, 23· ·how do we -- how does my client, who can barely speak 24· ·English, know first offense doesn't mean what it says 25· ·it means in plain writing?
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
147
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · ·When the fee, they can -- they can try to blow ·2· ·smoke.· Here's your fee schedule.· First offense,
·3· ·second offense, third offense.· When you're paying a ·4· ·first offense and you have a code enforcement officer ·5· ·coming in there and schmoozing with you and telling ·6· ·you, hey, just go ahead and take care of this.· And ·7· ·then a year, two years, three years later, this becomes ·8· ·now they get money and now it's a violation?
·9· · · · · · That's not just.· He -- all he received was a 10· ·first violation.· Had he known these were going to be 11· ·counted against him, you know, maybe things would have 12· ·been different.· But this is notice.· You can't ignore 13· ·notice, Commissioner Haman.· You can't ignore due
14· ·process.· You can't, right?
15· · · · · · I -- I mean, no comments about the secret 16· ·second notice?· That doesn't concern you, that they 17· ·come even though they know that they're represented by 18· ·counsel, that they go to --
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Excuse me.
20· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- deliver this to them?
21· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· This -- this is a commissioner 22· ·question so --
23· · · · · · MR. HAMAN:· Yeah.· So, I think my questions 24· ·are over.
25· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, you've likely made --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
148
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Are there anymore,
·2· ·commisioner --
·3· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· -- your decision before I got here. ·4· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- questions?
·5· · · · · · Commissioner Yorgov.
·6· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I'm reading the city code
·7· ·pertaining to tobacco, Section 10-1.2783.· I believe ·8· ·Subsection C says it shall be a violation of these ·9· ·regulations for any tobacco retailer or any tobacco 10· ·retailer's agents or employees to sell on offer for 11· ·sale -- or offer for sale, et cetera, flavored tobacco 12· ·products, parts, components, or flavored tobacco
13· ·paraphernalia.
14· · · · · · So, am I correct in understanding that any 15· ·instance of sale of those products constitutes a
16· ·violation for the ordinance?
17· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yes, that's correct.
18· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· And am I procedurally correct in 19· ·understanding that three separate violations within a 20· ·five-year period constitute grounds to revoke the
21· ·tobacco retail license?
22· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· Yes, that's correct.
23· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· That's it for my question.
24· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Stevens.
25· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I just want to make sure I
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
149
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·understand this, and I also consulted the Hayward
·2· ·Municipal Code for Section 10.2785, it says, the
·3· ·tobacco retail license conveys a limited conditional ·4· ·privilege and nothing more.
·5· · · · · ·So, as I understand this, the burden to comply ·6· ·with this, the operational standards is on the
·7· ·retailer, not the City; is that correct?
·8· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· That's correct.
·9· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Okay.· And so, is the -- the 10· ·administrative penalty and fee notice, I just want to 11· ·just reiterate my understanding of this.· So, the City 12· ·inspects, finds a violation.· It issues a notice of 13· ·violation.· There's a warning time, there's corrective 14· ·actions and the time to cure that, correct?
15· · · · · · And then the City does a reinspection of the 16· ·premise.· If it's not compliant, an administrative 17· ·penalty and fee notice is submitted; is that correct? 18· ·Is that how the flow works?
19· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That's typical for a common
20· ·community preservation type of case.· For the tobacco 21· ·retail licenses cases, because they are paying for the 22· ·tobacco retail license to be in the tobacco program to 23· ·sell tobacco within the city, they must abide by the 24· ·tobacco retail ordinance at all times.· And the first 25· ·violation would constitute an administrative fee and EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
150
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·invoice for the first offense or -- or whichever
·2· ·offense that it may be, for how many times they
·3· ·reinspected and documented violations.
·4· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Okay.· So -- so I have a
·5· ·question.· So this video evidence you have that
·6· ·Mr. Prins said something, what is that about?
·7· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· The second notice that they
·8· ·delivered, even though I was -- they knew that he was ·9· ·represented, they brought in a new notice of 6-17 that 10· ·he signed that was dated 5-14, that added an additional 11· ·violation date, which is really a report day, but they 12· ·added it.· The -- the two -- the 2026.
13· · · · · ·So, I would object to anything that -- that is 14· ·in this record from 2026 as not being properly noticed. 15· ·It's not a notice of continuation.· The video -- in the 16· ·video, he tells the clerk, hey, this is the exact same 17· ·thing, right?· Same thing.· There's nothing different. 18· ·Your lawyer just asked for a continuance, but this is 19· ·the same thing.· Don't worry about it.· That's what it 20· ·says.
21· · · · · ·And I didn't get it until the 18th, and -- and 22· ·it wasn't included in the May 14th.· Why did he -- why 23· ·did he change it, not re-date it, not send it
24· ·certified, and represent to the licensee that it was 25· ·the exact same letter, when it was materially
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
151
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·different?· It is.
·2· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· But -- but so -- so there -- ·3· ·there was a violation on January 25th of 2023.
·4· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· No.· There's a -- there's a report ·5· ·date.· There's no violation on that day.
·6· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Well, the inspector found
·7· ·flavored tobacco and hemp products --
·8· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· No.· If you --
·9· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· -- (crosstalk) --
10· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- look at the actual report, sir, 11· ·it's not that date.· That's the date the report was -- 12· ·I mean, this is how sloppy it is.· It says violation 13· ·dates, but that's the report dates.· It's not the
14· ·actual violation dates.
15· · · · · · So we've got licensees running around trying 16· ·to figure out what they're talking about.· But that 17· ·violation was not the basis of these revocation
18· ·proceedings when the notice came out.
19· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So -- so --
20· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· You're changing --
21· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· -- are you --
22· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- you're moving the goal post. 23· · · · · ·MR. STEVENS:· -- are you saying there were not 24· ·four separate inspections that found substances that 25· ·were --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
152
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· I --
·2· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· -- not (inaudible) --
·3· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- what I'm saying is that we
·4· ·didn't get proper notice to be able to defend it
·5· ·regardless.· When you send me a notice of revocation ·6· ·under the heightened requirements of due process, then ·7· ·you need to make sure that the notice is done properly. ·8· · · · · · You can't move the goal post, Commissioner ·9· ·Stevens.· If I got -- if they sent us a -- a notice for 10· ·three alleged violations or whatever they are, three of 11· ·them, right?· And then on the eve of the hearing, they 12· ·throw a fourth one in the mix.· They deny us continuous 13· ·requests, but they don't even follow their own code. 14· · · · · · The notice had to come out ten days before. 15· ·So, why -- I don't understand why you wouldn't question 16· ·why did they not send it to us knowing that they're 17· ·counsel?· Why would they represent that it's the exact 18· ·same notice when it is not?· And how do we properly 19· ·prepare for this matter, 8 -- 8 days, not even business 20· ·days, 8 calendar days before the hearing and they're 21· ·throwing new stuff in contestedly?
22· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· Just to confirm, the -- the 23· ·hidden cabinets with the illicit substance in it gives 24· ·the City the right to revoke the license, just that one 25· ·incident; is that true?· Do I understand that
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
153
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·correctly?
·2· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· No.· No.
·3· · · · · ·MR. PRINS:· There's nothing written within the ·4· ·municipal code that states that an egregious violation ·5· ·would allow the City to revoke a license.· It just ·6· ·states that a total of three or more within a five-year ·7· ·period.· Deputy Director Morales has to (inaudible). ·8· · · · · · MS. MORALES:· Just to clarify, I think the -- ·9· ·the products that were concealed were products that are 10· ·not permitted under the Hayward Municipal Code, but the 11· ·hidden compartment shows intent and knowledge that 12· ·those are not allowable products.· So that's the
13· ·significance of the -- the hidden showing that the -- 14· ·the products were hidden.
15· · · · · ·MR. AYAZ:· They could similarly show that they 16· ·were just getting it off the floor.· I mean, it -- I 17· ·mean, they just until they moved them.· I mean, you 18· ·can't -- you don't know their intent as well as I do. 19· ·But again, I'm not here to talk about that.· I'm here 20· ·to talk about the due process violations and -- and the 21· ·activity of the City getting us here.
22· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· But -- but just to confirm, the 23· ·compartments contained prohibited flavored tobacco 24· ·products, correct?
25· · · · · · MR. PRINS:· That is correct, as well as
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
154
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·cigarillo packaging violations that did not meet the ·2· ·minimum standard.
·3· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· And I believe that legal
·4· ·cannabis and -- and psilocybin imitation.· And -- and ·5· ·if I can provide some clarification.· We've heard
·6· ·Mr. Ayaz repeatedly indicate that the City denied his ·7· ·request for a continuance.· That's just false.
·8· · · · · · This establishment has been given more time ·9· ·than any other establishment here to prepare for this 10· ·hearing.· This establishment was served notice of these 11· ·revocation hearings on May 14th, over a
12· ·month-and-a-half ago.· They were originally scheduled 13· ·to be on the June 11th hearing date, but because
14· ·Mr. Ayaz said that he was out of town in mid-June, the 15· ·City worked with him, and we agreed to --
16· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· You denied my --
17· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· -- (crosstalk) --
18· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- my request first.
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Excuse me.
20· · · · · · MS. ROTHMAN:· -- to be heard, to provide
21· ·Mr. Ayaz more than sufficient time to prepare for this 22· ·hearing, as well as to provide his colleagues who work 23· ·with him time to help him if needed, given his travel. 24· · · · · · I -- I think that what he's talking about in 25· ·terms of different notices was our attempt to provide EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
155
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·an updated courtesy notice because the hearing was ·2· ·moved from the June 11th date to this date.· I would ·3· ·note for the record that many of the arguments you're ·4· ·hearing from Mr. Ayaz are nothing more than, again, ·5· ·smoke and mirror arguments that go to due process. ·6· · · · · · The indication that the dispense -- that the ·7· ·smoke shop had no idea that it committed these separate ·8· ·violations is just ridiculous at this point because the ·9· ·inspectors were there each time with members of the 10· ·shop explaining the violations.· The fees were -- the 11· ·fee issues were sent.
12· · · · · · Each case has a different caption code case 13· ·attached to it.· It's clear, based on each of these 14· ·notices, that these are different cases.· The fact that 15· ·the fee is named first fee does not mean it was only 16· ·one case.
17· · · · · · And I just -- I cannot get over the -- the 18· ·fact that this is the argument that's being presented. 19· ·This establishment has repeatedly, repeatedly broken 20· ·the ordinance, egregiously broken the ordinance, and -- 21· ·and they're not providing any explanation as to why. 22· ·And we would recommend revocation.
23· · · · · · We believe due process has been fully
24· ·satisfied, as has been communicated to Mr. Ayaz
25· ·numerous times, and we are comfortable that a Superior EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
156
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·Court will uphold the process that code enforcement ·2· ·used.
·3· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· If I may say something, I --
·4· ·there's no --
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. --
·6· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- indication from us saying -- ·7· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Right.· Commissioner Stevens ·8· ·has the -- this is commissioner questions.
·9· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· I'm good.· Thank you.
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Are there any other
11· ·commissioner questions?
12· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· May I -- may I say something?
13· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· No.· We have to move on to the 14· ·public hearing.
15· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Well, no, you -- how are you not 16· ·going to let me respond?
17· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· You had 8 --
18· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· It's not a --
19· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- minutes to respond.
20· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- matter -- it's not a matter 21· ·of --
22· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Excuse me.
23· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- saying that we didn't do this. 24· ·It's we didn't know that they were the second and third 25· ·violation because the City --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
157
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· You already had your --
·2· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- tricked him.
·3· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- presentation of 8 minutes. ·4· ·We need to move on to the public hearing.
·5· · · · · · (Exit Executive Session; enter Public
·6· ·Session.)
·7· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· Oh, this is an outrage.· That you ·8· ·guys --
·9· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Ms. Corral, is there anyone -- 10· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· -- will not give this gentleman 11· ·time.
12· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· -- here for public hearing? 13· · · · · · MS. CORRAL:· There is no one online.
14· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· All right.· I'm going to close 15· ·the public hearing and move to commissioner discussion 16· ·and deliberation.
17· ·(Exit Public Session; enter Executive Session.
18· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Mr. Yorgov.
19· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I'm sorry.· I just want to make 20· ·the point that these attorneys are doing their clients 21· ·an incredible disservice by coming in with this
22· ·attitude that ultimately, the Commission, I feel
23· ·satisfied that we, you know -- that staff have proven 24· ·this, but you're making an argument on behalf of your 25· ·client, and you're going to berate the people making EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
158
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·the decision.· It's just -- it's such a disservice to ·2· ·your client.
·3· · · · · · MR. AYAZ:· So is not giving him fair hearing. ·4· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· Okay.
·5· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Hardy.
·6· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Thank you.· I also just want to ·7· ·say that I'm very concerned with the kind of flippant ·8· ·way that you did not address the actual violations that ·9· ·took place here.· I really -- I understand how late it 10· ·is.· We all do.· I'm very concerned with how these 11· ·types of violations affect, especially the youth in our 12· ·community.
13· · · · · · So, to suggest that we don't care about the 14· ·citizens of Hayward because this affects business
15· ·owners is very disappointing and hurtful.· We care 16· ·about all of the citizens of Hayward, not just business 17· ·owners.· So, I understand that your client has
18· ·children.· Many of us also have children,
19· ·grandchildren, and we care about children in general. 20· · · · · · And so to blow off those things because of 21· ·procedural things is very just disappointing to me. 22· ·And so I just wanted to -- to state that.
23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Any other commissioner
24· ·comments?
25· · · · · · MR. STEVENS:· So --
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
159
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· Commissioner Stevens.
·2· · · · · ·MR. STEVENS:· -- you know, it's clear that the ·3· ·burden is on the business owner.· And if I'm in the ·4· ·tobacco retail business, I'd better be abreast of the ·5· ·latest rules and laws if that's my livelihood.· So, I ·6· ·would make a motion to revoke the tobacco license for ·7· ·the GR8 Smoke Shop at 1090 La Playa Road, as they had ·8· ·at least three violations in a five-year period.
·9· · · · · · MS. HARDY:· Second.
10· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· It was moved by Commissioner 11· ·Stevens and seconded by Commissioner Hardy?
12· · · · · · Commissioner Yorgov?
13· · · · · · MR. YORGOV:· I'm so sorry, Chair, to skip out 14· ·of turn.· But the -- the due process thing is really 15· ·sticking with me because if you acted like this in a 16· ·courtroom with a judge, if you spoke with the
17· ·disrespect you did to the chair and the other
18· ·commissioners here, that would never be acceptable. 19· · · · · · So, to throw that argument, and then just the 20· ·hypocrisy of it is beguiling to me.· That's all I
21· ·wanted to put on the record, especially because there's 22· ·a court reporter here recording it.· So thank you. 23· · · · · · MS. GOODBODY:· I will go back to the motion 24· ·has passed, and the decision of the Planning Commission 25· ·is final unless appealed.· And the appeal period is ten EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
160
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
·1· ·days from the date of the decision.· If appealed, a ·2· ·hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for a ·3· ·final decision.
·4· ·(End of audio recording.)
·5
·6
·7
·8
·9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
161
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
·1· · · · · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE
·2
·3· · · · · · I, LATYSHA GODWIN, a Notary Public in
·4· ·and for the State of California, do hereby certify:
·5
·6· · · · · · That the foregoing witness was duly
·7· ·sworn; that the proceeding took place before me at ·8· ·the time and place herein set forth; that the
·9· ·testimony and proceedings were accurately captured 10· ·by me with annotations using electronic recording
11· ·means not related to stenography.
12 13· · · · · · · ·I further certify that I am not related 14· ·to any of the parties to this action by blood or
15· ·marriage and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of 16· ·this matter.
17 18· · · · · ·IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set 19· ·my hand this 10th day of July, 2026.
20 21
22 23
· · · · · · · ·_______________________________
24· · · · · · ·LATYSHA GODWIN, CER
· · · · · · · ·Notary Commission California/2428963
25· · · · · · ·Commission Expires: December 3, 2026
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
162
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
·1· · · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTIONIST
·2
·3
·4· · · · · · I, Elizabeth Galippo, Certified Verbatim
·5· ·Reporter, do hereby certify:
·6· · · · · · That the foregoing is a complete and true ·7· ·transcription of the original digital audio recording ·8· ·of the testimony and proceedings captured in the
·9· ·above-entitled matter.· As the transcriptionist, I 10· ·have reviewed and transcribed the entirety of the
11· ·original digital audio recording of the proceeding to 12· ·ensure a verbatim record to the best of my ability. 13· · · · · · I further certify that I am neither attorney 14· ·for nor a relative or employee of any of the parties 15· ·to the action; further, that I am not a relative or 16· ·employee of any attorney employed by the parties
17· ·hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the 18· ·outcome of this matter.
19· · · · · · IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my 20· ·hand this 10th day of July, 2026.
21 22
23 · · · · · · · · · · ___________________________________ 24· · · · · · · · · Elizabeth Galippo, CVR
· · · · · · · · · · Certification No. 6188
25· · · · · · · · · Expiration: October 1, 2026
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
163
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
Exhibits
15079172 EZ
ZADIN.

ALI DBA THE
GR8 SMOKE
SHOP.

EXHIBIT1
$
$1,500
72:4
92:24
134:20
$100
7:14
$2
14:20
$200,000
100:11
$3,000
125:21
$30
7:21
$4,500
121:11
$400
101:25
0 00:04:04
5:22
1 1
16:6
48:15
73:9
1,500
94:14
95:4,13
134:23
1,525
141:21
1,612.4
15:8
10 86:6,11
108:3
136:17
10-1.2783
22:2
149:7
10-1.2785
22:5
10-1.2794
16:13
20:22
24:2
26:24
53:7
122:6
129:5
10-1.29
73:21
10-2783
71:14

10.2785
150:2
104
23:7
32:25
33:3
109
124:13
1090
124:23
129:1,7
160:7
10:39
124:20
10th
92:20
136:16,17
11:00
138:15
11th
146:7
155:13
156:2
14 131:10
14th
135:5
151:22
155:11
15 86:20
89:1
101:3
15-year-old
44:13
93:13
15th
146:10,17
17th
92:19
135:1
18th
151:21
1984
7:7
2 2
138:5
20 15:9
100:3
2011
89:1
2014
101:3
2015
86:1
2022
70:24
72:13,18
85:2,10
87:13
88:6,11,
19,24,25
89:2,4,10
90:21
91:5,15
95:19
100:24
101:6,16
120:24
121:16
2023
50:17
74:11
126:25
152:3
2024
71:21
136:17
2025
50:4
72:13
90:18,19
91:15,22
97:25
102:5
107:13
112:14
128:10
141:20
2026
50:8,18
51:13
54:15
74:16
120:25
121:16
126:3,25
127:7
141:14,17
151:12,14
209
85:16,25
92:7,17
21 45:18
47:9
50:5,9
51:7
218
92:17
22810
120:22
122:2,8
123:23
23 88:21
25 88:20
99:24
101:23
147:3
25088
69:18
73:24
92:14
120:3
25th
152:3
26-
3:5
26-033
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: $1,500..26-033
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
16:7
2794
73:21
29th
54:15
55:6,21
3 3
3:11 5:23
24:4
31:15
42:8
49:3,15
51:25
52:23
84:1,11
87:3
111:12
30 15:9
100:1,7
146:11,13
147:7
30,000
100:3
35 7:13
84:11
391
49:4
53:3,9
68:18
4 4
24:5
69:17
72:23
73:17
83:8
92:14
40 100:7
4:00
31:4
5 5
24:5
120:21
121:21
5-14
151:10
50 7:13
100:6
108:4
56,000
14:14
6 6
24:6
124:12,23
128:5,21
6-17
151:9
7 7
16:17
82:13
7-0
10:15
72 15:7
8 8
12:1 17:3
26:10
31:5,8,12
43:20
80:20
82:12,25
130:3,12
145:4
147:1
153:19,20
157:17
158:3
8-minute
44:23
80:25
83:21
105:24,25
85 108:6
8:12
17:13
9 9
82:13
90 108:6
A
abatement
27:19
abide
118:9
150:23
ability
35:24
abreast
160:4
absence
84:15
absent
25:5
absolute
75:25
absolutely
7:12,18,
21 9:14
116:21
143:23
abuses
136:8
abusive
3:3
134:10
accept
40:13
acceptable
160:18
access
13:3 21:6
45:22
47:25
64:18,19
accessed
126:9
accessibili
ty
64:15
accessible
127:8,16
accommodati
on
75:17
accompanies
94:2
accordance
128:15
account
8:7
accountabil
ity
21:14
accountable
41:18
118:9
accumulate
23:3 60:9
accumulated
20:19
49:17
53:4
70:11
73:18
120:23
122:3
124:24
129:2
accumulatin
g
65:6
accuser
133:21
achieve
22:24
acknowledge
s
69:19
acted
133:4
160:15
action
35:23
41:6
50:14
63:22
76:21
86:5
92:22
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: 2794..action
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
132:25
actions
52:17
56:25
72:20
92:12
121:20
150:14
actively
62:6
125:12
activities
22:5
73:4,15
activity
56:23
58:18,20
61:3
97:24
154:21
actual
56:23
134:5
138:24
152:10,14
159:8
Adaptation
9:21
add
6:6 18:3
56:16
77:9
108:14
119:13,23
added
135:10
136:20
151:10,12
addictive
84:18
addition
93:1
127:7
128:6
additional
50:25
51:19
77:10
87:18
91:11
98:3
128:18
130:9,25
131:4,15
135:10
145:1
151:10
Additionall
y
130:22
address
11:17,23
12:9 25:2
27:23
31:6
59:13
104:23
137:12,17
159:8
addressed
59:6
143:18,21
addressing
41:10
adds
130:25
131:4
adequate
131:24
adherence
132:3
adjustment
101:2
administer
17:9
administere
d
94:4
administrat
ion
19:4
38:25
50:4 51:6
125:25
127:23
administrat
ive
27:19
43:7
85:22
86:3
92:18
93:24
94:1,3,4
96:16,20
97:13
105:1,6
106:21
107:14
133:7,18
136:12,14
142:10
150:10,
16,25
admission
24:24
admit
100:22
admitting
111:2
adopted
21:4
adversarial
79:18
81:11
adverse
79:14
advertising
22:4
advising
30:12,18
Advisory
8:12
advocate
7:10
115:1
advocating
7:10
affect
4:22
35:24
107:7
159:11
affected
4:25
affects
159:14
affirmation
16:19
afford
31:17
135:14
affordable
118:2
afoul
112:8
afternoon
82:6
age
45:19
50:6,10
51:7
agency's
78:1
agenda
11:18
15:24
76:19
agents
149:10
agree
9:14
63:18
116:25
145:25
agreed
83:10
92:24
155:15
ahead
3:18
6:17,20
8:24 11:8
14:2 32:4
41:2 45:7
46:15
63:15
114:10,17
124:21
148:6
Ahmed
18:11,18
82:22
85:14
86:17,21
87:1,4,7
89:8,13,
16,19,21,
25 90:16,
19,21
91:9,12,
17,23
92:1
94:14,17,
21 95:2,9
98:17
99:7,23
101:9,20,
24 102:2,
8 108:13,
17,23
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: actions..Ahmed
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
109:1,3,
6,11,18
110:19
111:2
112:15,
18,21,24
113:3,17,
23 114:1,
4 116:16,
18 118:21
120:17
air
3:25
14:19
aisle
91:4
Alameda
64:5
127:25
Ali
18:19
aligns
132:11
allege
83:13
alleged
133:1
153:10
allocated
39:16,17
allowable
154:12
allowed
17:5 29:6
34:12
36:4 57:9
63:23
65:1
87:15,16
104:13
106:20
108:19
109:14
allowing
10:3
12:24
47:3
53:23
56:17
104:5
Alprisey
19:1,5,8
53:25
54:2,5,8,
13,18,21
55:1,4,10
alter
69:25
alternative
56:13
Amber
82:18
84:15
85:9
87:17
89:14
American
84:19
amount
42:20
71:9 79:6
96:7
98:23
110:2
143:16
ample
25:9 96:6
Amy
28:21
37:4
57:19
and/or
45:19
70:8 90:3
123:9
138:2
animals
10:6
annual
22:16
128:11
annually
122:21
anonymous
51:3
answering
103:13
answers
98:2
144:2
Anthony
11:14,15,
16,22,25
12:2,3,5,
6,11
19:14,15,
22 42:6,
7,8 44:25
66:10,11,
13,20,22,
24,25
67:2,3,5,
6,8,9,12,
14,18,19,
22,23
68:1,3,4,
6 76:2
80:17,20,
22,24
83:9,15,
16,18,19,
23,25
84:2
86:24
92:7,13,
16 96:17
97:16
103:25
104:3
106:19,25
Anthony's
104:19,24
anymore
149:1
Apologies
61:9
apologize
37:13
83:9
apparent
126:4
apparently
82:19
86:9
appeal
57:9,10,
16,18
58:5,12
59:24,25
60:13,18
61:5,22
65:2
67:20
69:2
78:17,22
79:3
82:16
84:4
89:2,5,8
90:9,12
91:8,20
93:7
117:20
119:9
120:13
124:7
160:25
appealable
59:19
62:2
appealed
21:10
57:25
58:4,19
69:2,4
70:23
80:2,5
96:14
97:15
120:13,14
124:6,8
160:25
161:1
appealing
89:22
appeals
50:14
60:7
61:2,14
121:8
125:19
appearance
75:13
appearing
71:18
81:1 84:7
103:13
Appellate
105:11
applicable
24:13
27:8
51:10,22
73:8
132:7
applicant
16:4 62:5
69:7
78:17,18
80:2
112:25
135:21
applicants
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: air..applicants
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
135:16
application
133:3
137:10,16
applied
46:5
47:24
applies
26:23
apply
16:21
131:23
appointed
8:11,15
appreciates
69:20
approach
11:5
approached
8:20
approval
6:3
approve
10:16
approving
4:17
approximate
ly
50:11
72:4
121:11
125:20
April
50:17
51:13
120:24
136:16,17
arbitrarily
133:4
Archileta
41:1,3,5
63:12,13,
14,16
66:1,3,8
114:23,24
area
23:20
99:16,17,
23 100:1
117:6
127:15
areas
23:17
87:17
125:5,13
126:6,11
139:10
argue
19:18
135:3
argument
62:14
104:3,19,
24 156:18
158:24
160:19
argumentati
ve
84:3
arguments
25:24
96:21
97:12
156:3,5
arrived
103:3
ashtray
88:12
asks
55:6
aspect
37:16
assessment
121:14
122:21,23
assessments
21:18
assistance
23:1,24
52:25
70:22
121:7,24
128:23
Assistant
17:8
60:22
78:6
assume
44:2
assumed
36:24
assuming
138:13
attach
62:19
attached
156:13
Attachment
16:17
24:4,5,6
49:3,15
51:25
52:23
69:17
72:23
73:17
92:14
120:21
121:21
124:12,23
128:5,21
attachments
111:12
attempt
37:23
57:2
93:17
155:25
Attend
3:1
attention
32:8 47:2
48:2
79:22
attitude
158:22
attorney
17:8,17
19:17
28:11,21
30:9,12,
16 43:20
44:21
45:1
56:10
60:14,23
66:15
68:7
71:18,22
75:10,25
77:4
79:13
83:2,22
103:14,23
129:22
130:1,8
145:22
146:20
Attorney's
37:6 59:9
127:25
attorneys
19:24
30:20,23
62:15
81:22
158:20
audience
17:17
18:8
audio
135:7
161:4
August
50:4
78:24
authorize
70:6
authorized
16:25
availabilit
y
132:12
average
15:8
aware
51:4 67:9
71:22
101:25
146:8,9
Awesome
46:20
Ayaz
18:13
129:21,
22,25
130:7,14,
17 131:4
137:20
138:15
139:1,4,
6,12,14,
23,25
140:2,8,
11,16,18,
21,23
141:2,6,
9,13,16
142:1,3,
6,8,13,
EZZADIN ALI DBA THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP
THE GR8 SMOKE SHOP V. CITY OF HAYWARD
June 25, 2026
Index: application..Ayaz
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com