1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chair Goodbody. The Planning Commission held a hybrid meeting in the Council Chambers and virtually via Zoom.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: CHAIRPERSON: Goodbody
COMMISSIONERS: Haman, Hardy, Lowe, Meyers, Stevens, Yorgov
Absent: COMMISSIONER:
Staff Members Present: Allen, Blanton, Chang, Corral, Kowalski, Morales, Ochinero, Prins, Rothman, Saebi, Tabari, Tang, Terentieff, Vigilia, Wright
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individuals opposed data centers, citing concerns about environmental impacts, high water and energy use, proximity to homes and wildlife habitat, and limited community benefits; criticized the Planning Commission's review process; questioned the adequacy of the recent data center project's analysis and public outreach; and called for greater transparency and stronger consideration of community interests before approving similar projects:
Carl Mills
Tyler Dragoni
Mimi Dean
Sol Solizano
Tatia’s iPhone
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Eden Ranch: Proposal to Subdivide an Existing 4.8-Acre Site to Allow for the Construction of 72 Three-Story Townhouse-Style Condominiums, Including Eight Affordable Units, Requiring Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes (Tract 8766), Site Plan Review and Density Bonus Application No. TM-25-0006 and a Finding that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Applicant/Developer: Kian Malek of City Ventures; Property Owner: Pristine Homes LLC. PH 26-033
Staff report submitted by Senior Planner Kowalski, dated June 25, 2026, was filed.
Attachment X
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Stevens recused himself from the chambers at 7:22p.m.
Commissioner Meyers asked for clarification on the proposed subdivision referenced in the staff report. Senior Planner Kowalski explained that the units will appear as townhomes but will be condominiums with airspace ownership.
Commissioner Meyers asked if each unit would be individually subdivided. Senior Planner Blanton explained the project would be developed as condominiums, with individual unit ownership and shared common areas maintained by the homeowners association.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski explained that the proposed open space would remain private because providing public access would require significant improvements and additional site disturbance.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski confirmed that the developer indicated the eight ground-floor units would have 36-inch interior doorways to meet ADA requirements.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Developer Malek explained that pad-mounted transformers are anticipated due to PG&E requirements and the limited availability of underground transformers.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski confirmed that the project conditions require underground transformers where feasible but allow padmounted transformers when necessary.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski explained that each garage space would be wired to support a Level 2 EV charger, but the chargers would not be installed by the developer.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Developer Malek explained that one surface parking space would include a Level 2 EV charger, while the residential garages would be EV-ready for future charger installation.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether the moderate-income unit would also remain affordable in perpetuity, to which Senior Planner Kowalski replied yes.
In response to Commissioner Lowe's inquiry, Developer Malek explained that the affordable and ADA-accessible units would be separate and distributed throughout the project to avoid management challenges.
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Lowe asked what strategy was used to determine the placement of the moderate- and low-income units. Developer Malek explained that there was no specific placement strategy and that the team is flexible, with final locations to be determined in coordination with the Housing Department.
In response to Commissioner Lowe's inquiry, Developer Malek explained that the placement of the affordable units was influenced by site constraints, including a fault zone and steep hillside.
Commissioner Lowe asked whether the City determined if any requested waivers could have environmental or public safety impacts, to which Senior Planner Kowalski replied no.
In response to Commissioner Hardy's inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski explained that although a potential closure of the South Hayward BART station could affect future City planning standards, it would not impact the project's requirements or approvals.
Commissioner Hardy asked the developer to discuss the proposed open space amenities and whether any additional voluntary amenities could be provided. Developer Malek explained that the project will include additional open space amenities, including a shade structure, shade tree, barbecue island, two picnic tables, four Adirondack chairs, a lounge table, and two benches overlooking the hillside.
In response to Commissioner Hardy's inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski and Temporary Senior Transportation Planner Chang explained that bike lanes along Mission Boulevard are planned through the City's long-range transportation planning process and are not required as part of individual development projects
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Developer Malek explained that removing Building 6 would make the project financially infeasible, necessitating the requested waiver.
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Senior Civil Engineer Saebi confirmed that the project site is not located within a flood hazard area.
Commissioner Haman asked whether the storm drain could be relocated to avoid the setback waiver. Developer Malek explained that the storm drain is located at the lowest point of the site, which is the most efficient location for drainage. He noted that moving it would require additional systems and reduce site efficiency, and the landscaped basin will also provide a visual buffer for the project.
4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Senior Planner Kowalski explained that although the City prefers a looped water system, studies determined it was not necessary to meet domestic and fire flow requirements, supporting the requested waiver.
Commissioner Haman asked whether the City supports the waiver. Senior Planner Kowalski explained that while the Utilities Division preferred a looped system, they determined it was not necessary, so the City is comfortable with the waiver.
Commissioner Haman asked whether all proposed trees are native or adapted to Hayward’s environment. Developer Malek explained that the proposed trees will be drought-tolerant, meet state and WELO standards, and be California native, though not necessarily specific to Hayward.
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Senior Planners Kowalski and Blanton explained that affordable housing units already pay a reduced park impact fee and that state law limits the use of park impact fees to park development.
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Senior Civil Engineer Saebi explained that the hillside open space would be maintained by the homeowners association unless it is later incorporated into the City's open space system.
Commissioner Haman asked whether City Ventures could develop the hillside in the future, to which Developer Malek replied no.
Commissioner Yorgov asked for clarification on whether the City now has a complete map of all water lines throughout the City, to which Senior Civil Engineer Saebi replied yes.
In response to Commissioner Yorgov's inquiry, Development Services Housing Management Analyst Tang explained that the developer would market and conduct the initial eligibility screening for the affordable units, subject to the City's final approval of eligible buyers.
In response to Commissioner Yorgov's inquiry, Development Services Housing Management Analyst Tang confirmed that resale buyers for the affordable units would be subject to the same City approval process.
Chair Goodbody opened the public hearing at 8:04p.m.
Ro A supported the application, stating that it helps the City meet state housing requirements, uses density bonuses consistent with efforts to address the housing crisis, and aligns with General Plan goals; and encouraged the City to incentivize more diverse housing 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
developments that include a mix of affordable and market-rate housing types and income levels.
Chair Goodbody closed the public hearing at 8:07p.m.
Commissioner Haman expressed support for the project, while noting a desire for additional open space, affordable housing, and improved transit along the Mission Boulevard corridor, and supported the proposed approvals, waivers, and CEQA exemption.
Commissioner Yorgov expressed support for the project, thanking the applicant for adding needed housing in Hayward, including affordable homeownership opportunities, and noting the value of providing more housing options as the City grows.
Commissioner Hardy expressed support for the project, thanking the applicant and staff, and highlighted the Craftsman-style design, housing diversity, and added amenities.
Senior Planner Kowalski stated that the developer requested confirmation that revised Condition 72 from the addendum provided to the Commission would be included in the record, which Commissioner Hardy added to the motion as revised Condition 72.
It was moved by Commissioner Hardy, seconded by Commissioner Yorgov, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan Review and Density Bonus Application No. TM-25-0006 and find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, based on the Findings in Attachment II and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment III.
AYES: COMMISISONER Haman, Hardy, Lowe, Meyers,
Yorgov
CHAIR Goodbody
NOES: COMMISSIONER
ABSENT: COMMISISONER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER
RECUSED: COMMISSIONER Stevens
2. City Initiated Revocation Proceedings of Tobacco Retailer Licenses for Commercial Properties Within the City of Hayward Where License Holders Committed Three or More Violations Within a Five-Year Period, Pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.2794. ACT 26-034
Staff report submitted by Code Enforcement Inspector II Prins, dated June 25, 2026, was filed.
Commissioner Stevens returned to the council chambers at 8:12 p.m. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Chair Goodbody directed Senior Assistant Attorney Vigilia to administer an oath to the following individuals: Haroon Ahmed, Ezzaddin Ali, and Rizq Alkrizy Code Enforcement Inspector II Prins introduced the item and provided a general synopsis of the staff report.
Senior Assistant Attorney Vigilia clarified that he and Senior Planner Blanton were present to advise the Commission on procedural matters, while Deputy City Attorney Rothman participated remotely to provide legal support on case-specific issues.
Commissioner Haman asked about the amount of City and state tax revenue lost due to residents purchasing tobacco products out of state, to which Code Enforcement Inspector Prins replied that staff did not have that information available at the time but could provide it at a later time.
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Development Services Deputy Director Morales explained that revocation of a Tobacco Retailer License is permanent and results in the loss of the retailer's legally nonconforming status.
Commissioner Lowe asked for clarification on the legal basis for having separate City attorneys advise the Planning Commission and City staff, rather than using outside legal counsel for one of the parties.Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia explained that separate legal representation is maintained for due process purposes. He noted that the attorneys handling different roles are separated within the office to ensure appropriate boundaries and compliance with due process requirements.
Commissioner Lowe asked how staff determined the allotted eight minutes for retailers to present their case. Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia explained that the Commission has discretion to establish presentation time limits. He noted that the eight-minute allotment was based on similar time limits provided to developers during project hearings and was used as a guideline for this process.
In response to Commissioner Lowe's inquiry, Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia confirmed that retailers may submit written materials and supporting documents to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing and that there are no limits on the amount of materials submitted.
Commissioner Yorgov asked whether a license revocation applies only to the business entity (LLC) or also extends to any business owners associated with that entity.Development Services Deputy Director Morales stated that further review of the ordinance is needed but noted that 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
the revocation provisions appear to apply to the business entity, proprietor, and possibly ownership members as defined in the ordinance.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that the City has issued 104 Tobacco Retailer Licenses.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that tobacco retailers are inspected at least annually, with additional inspections conducted in response to complaints.
Commissioner Meyers asked which department conducts the inspections. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that the inspections are conducted by Code Enforcement staff.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether inspections are scheduled in advance or conducted unannounced. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins stated that inspections are typically unannounced and conducted during business hours.
Commissioner Meyers asked how business owners are informed at the time of obtaining their license that three or more violations within five years may result in license revocation.
Development Services Deputy Director Morales explained that business owners are responsible for understanding the laws and regulations governing their operations. She noted that staff provided education during the initial implementation of the ordinance, but it remains the owner’s responsibility to comply with applicable requirements.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether compliance with the Hayward Municipal Code is understood to be the responsibility of the business owner, to which Development Services Director Morales replied yes.
In response to Commissioner Meyers' inquiry, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that violations for failing to display a tobacco retailer license are typically due to expired licenses or failure to publicly post a valid license, and that retailers with a valid license who promptly display it generally pass inspection.
Commissioner Hardy asked for clarification on the difference between a tobacco retailer license and a business license. Development Services Deputy Director Morales clarified that the action only affects the Tobacco Retailer License, meaning a business may continue operating but would no longer be permitted to sell tobacco products in the City of Hayward.
In response to Commissioner Hardy's inquiry, Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia explained that the court reporter was present at the request of counsel for one of the businesses. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
In response to Commissioner Stevens' inquiry, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins and Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that inspections emphasize retailer education and compliance assistance, while documented violations of the Tobacco Retail Sales Establishment ordinance are subject to fines.
In response to Commissioner Stevens' inquiry, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration conducts independent tobacco inspections and also coordinates joint inspections with the City.
Chair Goodbody asked how tobacco violation fees are allocated and where the collected funds are directed. Development Services Deputy Director Morales explained that all violation fees are deposited into the General Fund.
In response to Commissioner Haman's inquiry, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that follow-up inspections are conducted to ensure businesses with revoked Tobacco Retailer Licenses no longer sell tobacco products.
Chair Goodbody opened the public hearing at 8:45p.m.
The following speakers expressed support for strong and consistent enforcement of Hayward’s Tobacco Retail Sales Establishment Ordinance, emphasizing that retailers should be held accountable for violations such as prohibited sales, underage sales, and licensing issues, and noting that consistent enforcement protects youth, promotes community health, and ensures compliant retailers are not disadvantaged:
Sara Archuleta
Nay Myo Kyi Tha
Douglas Perez-Baltrons
Attorney Anthony, on behalf of Smokey's Smoke Shop and Gifts, expressed concerns regarding the tobacco enforcement process, including violations and notices, and emphasized the importance of due process in license revocation proceedings.
Deputy City Attorney Rothman objected to a retailer’s attorney using the public comment period to exceed the established time limit, stating that the attorney was representing a retailer and should not receive additional time beyond the allotted limit.
Chair Goodbody closed the public hearing at 8:56p.m.
Code Enforcement Inspector Prins provided a presentation on Mobile/Hayward Gas and Food’s violations.
9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
As part of the public hearing, Mobile/Hayward Gas and Food owner Alkrizy addressed the commission. Mobile/Hayward Gas and Food owner Alkrizy informed the Commission that the business has decided to permanently cease operations at the location effective June 29, 2026, and requested to voluntarily surrender its tobacco retailer license on that date.
Chair Goodbody confirmed with the business owner that the presentation had concluded.
Commissioner asked staff whether the business owner could voluntarily surrender the tobacco retailer license. Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that if the Commission revokes the license, tobacco sales must cease immediately and cannot continue through June 29.
In response to Commissioner Hardy's inquiry, Development Services Deputy Director Morales and Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that the ordinance does not specifically address voluntary license surrender and recommended revocation to establish a record of violations and enforce the ordinance.
Commissioner Stevens asked whether a business may continue operating during the 10-day appeal period after its license is revoked and how filing an appeal affects the license's validity.
Deputy Director Morales stated, and Deputy City Attorney Rothman confirmed, that the license is revoked immediately unless an appeal is filed within 10 days.
In response to Commissioner Stevens' inquiry, Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that filing an appeal within the 10-day appeal period would likely stay the revocation until the City Council considers the appeal.
Chair Goodbody asked what enforcement process would apply during an appeal period if a revocation were stayed, and whether Code Enforcement would continue inspections to ensure compliance. Deputy Director Morales explained that enforcement activity typically ceases during an appeal, but noted this case may require further evaluation with the City Attorney’s Office due to the nature of the violations. Deputy City Attorney Rothman clarified that inspections and enforcement would continue during the appeal period. She noted that prior violations were no longer appealable and that the revocation hearing was to confirm the violations, not relitigate them. She added that additional violations could result in further penalties and stated that the dispensaries should likely be prohibited from selling tobacco while awaiting the appeal decision. Deputy City Attorney Rothman clarified that Code Enforcement would continue enforcing the ordinance against retailers who continue selling tobacco during the appeal period.
Commissioner Yorgov asked what an applicant would need to demonstrate to qualify for a lesser penalty if the three offenses required for revocation have already been established. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that retailers may present arguments demonstrating why revocation may be too severe, but the issue before the Commission is the appropriate penalty, not whether the violations occurred.
Chair Goodbody opened the public hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Sandra Archuleta urged the Commission to revoke the retailer’s license rather than allow surrender, citing a pattern of violations, sales to minors, and the importance of preventing retailers from reopening elsewhere; stated retailers should not be permitted to operate during an appeal; and emphasized that tobacco licenses are a privilege requiring compliance with changing laws and community responsibilities.
Chair Goodbody advised Attorney Anthony he would have time to address the Commission during their designated public hearing.
Chair Goodbody closed the public hearing at 9:22p.m.
It was moved by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Haman, to revoke the Tobacco Retailer Licenses for Mobile/Hayward Gas and Food that committed three (3) or more violations within a five (5) year period, satisfying the criteria requiring revocation under Hayward Municipal Code Section 10 1.2794.
AYES: COMMISISONER Haman, Hardy, Lowe, Meyers, Stevens, Yorgov CHAIR Goodbody
NOES: COMMISSIONER
ABSENT: COMMISISONER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER
Code Enforcement Inspector Prins provided a presentation on Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts’s violations.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether the absence of violations listed in 2023 indicated that no inspections were conducted or that no violations were found. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins clarified the absence of violations in 2023 meant no violations were identified that year.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether “to be determined” for 2026 indicated that an inspection had not yet occurred, to which Code Enforcement Inspector Prins replied yes.
Commissioner Meyers asked for clarification on whether “no notice sent” meant a violation occurred but the retailer was not notified. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins clarified that no notice was sent for that case, so it was not counted as a violation against the retailer. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Lowe asked whether, under the law, a retailer has the right to have their attorney appear in person or if a virtual appearance is sufficient. Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that retailers were given the opportunity to appear in person, with remote appearance available as an accommodation for attorneys unable to attend in person.
Commissioner Lowe clarified that the question was whether a retailer has a legal right to have their attorney appear in person or if a virtual appearance satisfies the requirement. Deputy City Attorney Rothman confirmed that a virtual appearance is sufficient under the law and stated she could address issues raised by Attorney Anthony in prior communications when appropriate.
Commissioner Lowe asked about the legal rules and regulations governing continuances of the hearings. Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia explained that continuances of Planning Commission agenda items are at the Commission’s discretion and require a motion and second.
Commissioner Haman asked whether a continuance would allow the retailer to continue selling tobacco products. Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that the Planning Commission would decide on a continuance but stated the City would object to any continuance unless the retailer was ordered to cease all tobacco sales during the interim period.
In response to Commissioner Stevens' inquiries, Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that a revocation decision may be appealed to the City Council and that the anticipated appeal timeline, including the Council's summer recess, would provide the applicant additional time to prepare.
In response to Commissioner Stevens' inquiry, Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia clarified that cross-examination is a legal term, but the hearing is conducted through presentations to the Commission rather than an adversarial court-style proceeding.
Commissioner Stevens asked whether the applicant had the opportunity to appeal the other four violations, in addition to the one they appealed and lost, to which Development Services Deputy Director Morales replied yes.
As part of the public hearing, Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed was given an opportunity to address the commission. Attorney Anthony, on behalf of Smokey's Smoke Shop and Gifts, requested a continuance. Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia advised that the request was at the Chair's discretion, and Chair Goodbody deferred consideration of the request until after the public hearing and allowed the remaining presentation time to be used.
Attorney Anthony, on behalf of Smokey's Smoke Shop and Gifts, raised due process concerns 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
and requested that the Commission consider the continuance request before proceeding with the hearing. Chair Goodbody deferred consideration of the continuance request and directed him to proceed with the remainder of his presentation.
Attorney Anthony, on behalf of Smokey's Smoke Shop and Gifts, objected to proceeding with the hearing before the Commission considered his continuance request and raised due process concerns regarding the consideration of prior violations.
Chair Goodbody allowed Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed three minutes to speak.
Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed stated that he promptly corrected identified issues and believed the 2022 violations resulted from a period of changing regulations and compliance guidance. He requested that the Commission consider the context of the 2022 inspections and appeals, noting that the store had no violations in subsequent years and should not face revocation based on those earlier issues.
Commissioner Hardy asked why additional violations were found after the retailer had already completed the 2022 appeal and compliance process. Smokey's Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that the mushroom products in question were not available in 2022. He clarified that only legal imitation mushroom products were sold at that time and emphasized that they did not contain psilocybin. He added that similar mushroom products became widely available at liquor stores, convenience stores, and other retailers at a later date.
Commissioner Hardy questioned why the original products remained on the list despite the appeal. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed requested clarification on which items were being referenced, stating that many of the photos shown were from 2022 rather than 2025. Commissioner Hardy questioned why similar flavored tobacco products were found again in 2025 following the prior appeal, to which Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed replied it was a mistake.
Commissioner Stevens expressed confusion regarding the missing page and the notice of violation documents, stating that the violations and corrective actions appeared clear. Attorney Anthony on behalf of Smokey's Smoke Shop and Gifts asked if he was referring to Attachment 425088, to which Commissioner Stevens replied yes. Attorney Anthony on behalf of Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts explained that business owner Ahmed believed the notice only required correction and payment of the penalty, calling the failure to appeal an honest mistake. He argued that staff’s actions improperly targeted a legally nonconforming business.
Commissioner Stevens asked staff to clarify the document and explain how it relates to the overall matter. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins asked for clarification on which document was being referenced as the administrative penalty and fee notice, to which Commissioner 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Stevens replied yes. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that the administrative penalty and fee notice was issued with the penalty fee due to documented violations observed during the inspection.
Commissioner Haman asked whether any fees remained due. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that he still owes the $1,500 penalty fee. Commissioner Haman asked why the $1,500 fee had not been paid before the meeting. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that he had not paid the fee due to budget constraints. Commissioner Haman questioned whether paying the fee would have demonstrated good faith given the potential license revocation. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that the $1,500 fee was not an issue and that he could pay it, but he had not yet completed the payment.
Commissioner Haman questioned why the fee was not paid earlier given the seriousness of the decision. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that budget constraints, including legal expenses and business costs, delayed payment of the $1,500 fee, but assured the commission it would be paid.
Commissioner Meyers asked staff to clarify the validity of the 2022 violations disputed by the owner. Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that the business had multiple documented violations, which were upheld through an independent administrative hearing. She explained that Code Enforcement worked to achieve compliance rather than punish the business, but violations continued, including illegal imitation mushroom products in 2025.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether the business could continue operating the store by selling other products if the license were revoked. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that the business could not survive without its tobacco license, provided photos showing tobacco inventory, and requested a lesser penalty. He emphasized his efforts to comply with regulations, requested consideration of the business’s history, and argued that many cited violations stemmed from 2022 changes to tobacco regulations.
Commissioner Meyers expressed concern about the 2022 violations and previous issues with license posting and renewal compliance. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed stated that his license had never expired or failed to be posted. He noted that the issue may have involved a fee, which he was not aware of.
Commissioner Meyers asked Ahmed to address the repeat issues that occurred in 2025.
Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed acknowledged responsibility for the cigar package discrepancy, noting that it contained three cigars instead of five. He clarified that the products labeled as flavored were tobacco blends and explained that the items were removed once identified. He added that the products arrived through supplier deliveries and were placed on shelves by employees.
14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Yorgov asked staff to clarify whether operating a business constitutes a property right in California and whether that changes when the business involves regulated substances.
Deputy City Attorney Rothman explained that the business was operating as a legal nonconforming use and that revocation of the license would prevent reestablishment due to zoning restrictions. She noted that due process requirements were satisfied because this hearing addresses documented violations and penalties, not whether the violations occurred, which had already been decided.
Commissioner Stevens asked staff whether the photographs in the 2025 administrative penalty and fee notice showed flavored tobacco products and requested clarification on the documented violations. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins clarified that the photos were general documentation images and that not all items shown represented violations.
Commissioner Stevens asked what portion of the photographed items represented actual violations. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that upon review, approximately 85– 90% of the photos showed prohibited products that constituted violations.
Commissioner Stevens asked Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed to clarify whether products were ordered by the store or solely delivered by the supplier. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that suppliers add new market items to orders and that suppliers outside Hayward may not be familiar with local restrictions.
Commissioner Stevens asked whether flavored tobacco is illegal in California. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that pipe tobacco is exempt.
Commissioner Stevens asked how non-pipe tobacco products that appeared to violate regulations ended up in the store.Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed stated that the cigars shown were not flavored products but were labeled by tobacco origin and blends, which he believed were allowed.
Commissioner Stevens asked whether flavored and unflavored tobacco products were sold at the same price. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that flavored and unflavored tobacco products are sold at the same price, with pricing based on the supplier cost.
Commissioner Meyers asked whether a future violation within five years of renewal would return to the Commission for possible revocation, to which Deputy City Attorney Rothman replied yes.
Commissioner Lowe asked how prohibited products could end up on the sales floor if the retailer determines which items are stocked. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that unopened products could have been returned to the supplier, but because the 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
prohibited items had been opened and placed on the shelf, they could not be returned and remained in the store.
Commissioner Yorgov asked whether the California Unflavored Tobacco List is the official list of legal tobacco products. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that the California Unflavored Tobacco List is useful, but that the City of Hayward's regulations are more restrictive than the state's.
Commissioner Yorgov asked whether any tobacco product not listed in the database is prohibited from sale in California. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that products not listed in the database are likely flavored products or products not tested by the DOJ.
Commissioner Yorgov asked why products that appeared to be illegal for sale in California were found in the store in 2025 and whether the manufacturer or supplier should have been aware of their status. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed asked which specific item was being referenced. Commissioner Yorgov showed Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed pictures and, for the record, noted that he indicated rolling papers would not be included on the referenced list. Commissioner Yorgov asked staff to provide clarification on the matter.
Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed clarified whether the UTL list applies only to tobacco products and does not include items such as rolling papers.
Commissioner Yorgov asked staff to identify a specific flavored product shown in the pictures for clarification. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins identified a Fiesta-branded product labeled “sweet” as an example of a flavored product because “sweet” indicates a characterizing flavor.
Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed explained that the product should be on the UTL list and stated that the “sweet” label does not indicate a flavored product because it is a regular product.
Commissioner Yorgov asked staff whether the City's perspective, the product in question would be considered flavored, to which Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed it was. Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts owner Ahmed added that, similar to “Swisher Sweets,” the word “sweet” is part of the product name and represents the original flavor rather than a flavored product.
Chair Goodbody opened the public hearing at 10:24p.m.
Sandra Archuleta reiterated her previous position and advocated for revocation of the license rather than suspension.
Chair Goodbody closed the public hearing at 10:24p.m.
16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Stephens stated that this was the sixth similar case and emphasized the need for consistency in enforcement. He noted that while some other stores had more egregious violations, this store still violated a clearly stated rule and that business owners should understand there are consequences for noncompliance.
Commissioner Meyers expressed being conflicted, acknowledging the importance of enforcing the rules while noting that the owner appeared to have made efforts to comply over the past four years. He stated he was considering a partial suspension rather than revocation but remained open to other viewpoints.
Commissioner Lowe acknowledged the owner's character but emphasized the need for consistent enforcement, noting that five violations are significant. She noted that the Commission must consider community concerns and its duty to enforce City regulations.
Commissioner Haman acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, supported revocation for consistency, and expressed hope for a favorable outcome through the appeal process.
Commissioner Yorgov acknowledged the difficulty of the decision but emphasized business accountability and the seriousness of the violations.
Chair Goodbody acknowledged the owner's long history in business but emphasized the seriousness of the violations.
Commissioner Hardy acknowledged the impact of the decision but expressed hope that the owner could find a path forward, noting the quality of the business location and that the action would not eliminate the overall business license.
It was moved by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Haman, to revoke the Tobacco Retailer Licenses for Smokey’s Smoke Shop and Gifts that has committed three (3) or more violations within a five (5) year period, satisfying the criteria requiring revocation under Hayward Municipal Code Section 10 1.2794.
AYES: COMMISISONER Haman, Hardy, Lowe, Stevens, Yorgov
CHAIR Goodbody
NOES: COMMISSIONER Meyers
ABSENT: COMMISISONER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER
Code Enforcement Inspector Prins provided a presentation on Master Shell. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Haman asked whether all outstanding fees were still due. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that fees remain due until processed through the annual special assessment, after which unpaid penalty fees are transferred to the property tax account.
Commissioner Haman asked whether the required fees had been paid to the State, to which Code Enforcement Inspector Prins replied no.
Chair Goodbody gave Master Shell owner Gill an opportunity to address the commission. No one was present to provide a statement on behalf of Master Shell.
There being no public comment Chair Goodbody opened and closed the public hearing at 10:37p.m.
It was moved by Commissioner Yorgov, seconded by Commissioner Meyers, to revoke the Tobacco Retailer Licenses for Master Shell that has committed three (3) or more violations within a five (5) year period, satisfying the criteria requiring revocation under Hayward Municipal Code Section 10 1.2794.
AYES: COMMISISONER Haman, Hardy, Lowe, Meyers, Stevens, Yorgov CHAIR Goodbody
NOES: COMMISSIONER
ABSENT: COMMISISONER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER
Commissioner Lowe recused herself from the room for this item at 10:39p.m.
Code Enforcement Inspector Prins provided a presentation on The Gr8 Smoke Shop.
Chair Goodbody gave The Gr8 Smoke Shop owner Ali an opportunity to address the commission.
Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop asked whether he was limited to eight minutes to present his remarks, to which Chair Goodbody replied yes.
Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop provided additional documents to the Commission.
Attorney Ayaz argued that the City's revocation process violated his client's due process rights through inadequate notice, procedural deficiencies, and arbitrary enforcement, and submitted video evidence in support of his claims.
18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Hardy asked whether Attorney Ayaz was speaking on behalf of the business owner Ali. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop replied that the business owner was present but had left due to the late hour and family responsibilities.
Commissioner Hardy asked whether he could address the actual violations, including hidden storage and other alleged violations. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop replied that the primary issue was the lack of a fair hearing and argued that the matter should not proceed due to procedural concerns.
Commissioner Hardy asked whether he could address concerns regarding hidden storage areas and illegal products. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop replied that he could not address the alleged violations because he was not the business owner and could not verify the undated photos.
Commissioner Hardy asked what page numbers show where the notices identified the violations as first offenses. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop displayed the notices and argued that the documents identified the violations as first offenses, including the most recent cases. He questioned how the retailer could know he was facing second offense penalties when the notices and fees indicated first offenses and were sent to the landlord’s PO Box.
Commissioner Hardy asked staff whether there was a reason the notices identified violations as “first offense” even when they involved different offenses, and why they did not indicate second or subsequent offenses. Development Services Deputy Director Morales explained that “first offense” applies to each specific code case. She noted that if the same violation continues after reinspection, it escalates to a second or third violation with increased penalties. She added that new violations from later inspections begin as first offenses, even if prior violations were previously addressed.
Commissioner Hardy asked whether the date of the violation is typically based on when photos are taken. Development Services Deputy Director Morales clarified that the date used to identify the violation is the date of the Notice of Violation, located in the lower left-hand corner of the notices.
Commissioner Haman asked whether the commissioners were expected to review the submitted materials within only a few minutes. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop explained that the eight-minute limit prevented a fair hearing and restricted his client’s due process rights, noting that he had requested a continuance and needed additional time to present evidence.
19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Haman asked whether he was aware that the similar matters had already been heard on the June 11th meeting and that this was the second hearing on the same issue.
Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop explained that he was aware of the prior hearing but was in St. Louis at the time, returned on the 15th, and requested at least 30 additional days.
Commissioner Haman stated that he had two weeks to prepare and submit the information, knowing he would be presenting at the hearing.Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop replied that he was not given the requested 30 days to prepare, noting that the City had years to build its case while he had limited time. He noted that restricting his presentation time prevented him from fully addressing due process concerns and requested that his materials remain part of the record.
Commissioner Yorgov asked whether, under the tobacco ordinance, any instance of selling or offering flavored tobacco products, components, or paraphernalia constitutes a violation, to which Code Enforcement Inspector Prins replied yes.
Commissioner Yorgov asked whether three separate violations within a five-year period constitute grounds for revocation of a tobacco retailer license, to which Code Enforcement Inspector Prins replied yes.
Commissioner Stevens asked staff whether, under the Hayward Municipal Code, the responsibility for complying with tobacco retail operational standards rests with the retailer rather than the City, to which Development Services Deputy Director Morales replied yes.
Commissioner Stevens asked staff whether the City issues a notice of violation, provides time to correct the issue, conducts a reinspection, and then issues an administrative penalty and fee notice if the violation remains uncorrected. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that, unlike typical code enforcement cases, tobacco retailers are required to comply with the tobacco ordinance at all times. He noted that as a result, the first documented violation may result in an administrative penalty and fee based on the applicable offense level.
Commissioner Stevens asked for clarification on the purpose and relevance of the video evidence involving Inspector Prins. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop explained that the video shows Inspector Prins telling the retailer that a second notice was the same as the original, even though it allegedly added an additional violation. He noted that the revised notice was not properly served, objected to its inclusion in the record, and contended that it was materially different from the original notice.
Commissioner Stevens asked whether there was a violation on January 25, 2023. Attorney Ayaz replied that January 25, 2023, was the date of a report, not the date of a violation. He added that 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
the notices incorrectly labeled report dates as violation dates, creating confusion for licensees, and stated that the alleged violation was not included as a basis for the revocation proceedings in the original notice.
Commissioner Stevens asked whether he was disputing that four separate inspections found products that violated the tobacco retail code. Attorney Ayaz on behalf of The Gr8 Smoke Shop explained that the issue was inadequate notice, not the number of violations, and claimed the City added new allegations shortly before the hearing, limiting his client’s ability to prepare a defense.
Commissioner Stevens asked staff to confirm whether the hidden cabinets containing illicit substances alone constituted grounds for the City to revoke the license. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins explained that the Municipal Code does not specifically state that a single egregious violation allows license revocation, but that revocation is based on three or more violations within a five-year period. Development Services Deputy Director Morales clarified that the concealed products were prohibited under the Hayward Municipal Code, and the hidden compartment was significant because it indicated intent and knowledge that the products were not allowed.
Commissioner Stevens asked staff to confirm whether the hidden compartments contained prohibited flavored tobacco products. Code Enforcement Inspector Prins confirmed that the hidden compartments contained prohibited flavored tobacco products, as well as cigarillo packaging that did not meet required standards. Deputy City Attorney Rothman added that additional violations involved illegal cannabis and psilocybin imitation products, argued that due process was satisfied, and recommended revocation based on repeated ordinance violations.
There being no public comment Chair Goodbody opened and closed the public hearing at 11:15p.m.
Commissioner Yorgov expressed concern that the attorneys’ approach was harming their clients’ interests, stating that the Commission had found staff’s evidence sufficient and that adversarial comments toward decision-makers were counterproductive.
Commissioner Hardy expressed concern that Attorney Ayaz did not adequately address the alleged violations, emphasizing the impact of such violations on Hayward’s youth and community. She stated that the Commission values both residents and business owners and found the dismissal of those concerns disappointing.
Commissioner Stevens stated that the responsibility to comply with tobacco retail regulations rests with the business owner.
21 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Yorgov expressed concern about Attorney Ayaz’s conduct and stated that disrespectful behavior toward decision-makers would not be acceptable in a courtroom. He noted that raising due process concerns while acting in that manner was troubling.
It was moved by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to revoke the Tobacco Retailer Licenses for The Gr8 Smoke Shop that has committed three (3) or more violations within a five (5) year period, satisfying the criteria requiring revocation under Hayward Municipal Code Section 10 1.2794.
AYES: COMMISISONER Haman, Hardy, Meyers, Stevens, Yorgov CHAIR Goodbody
NOES: COMMISSIONER
ABSENT: COMMISISONER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER
RECUSED: COMMISISONER Lowe
Commissioner Lowe returned to the council chambers at 11:19p.m.
COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS, REFERRALS
Senior Planner Blanton announced the Commission's next meeting would be held on August 27, 2026, following the summer recess, and would include General Plan amendments related to the Downtown Specific Plan and recent state legislation.
Commissioner Meyers announced a community celebration commemorating the United States' 250th birthday at Weekes Park on June 27, 2026, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., featuring food, booths, and prizes.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Goodbody adjourned the meeting at 11:21p.m.
APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
Ron Meyers, Secretary
Planning Commission
22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL (ZOOM)
PARTICIPATION
Thursday, June 25, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
___________________________________________________
Briea Allen
Planning Commission Secretary
Office of the City Clerk