Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Are we recording? Call to order. Good evening, greetings. We are holding a hybrid meeting with some participants in the council chamber and others who have joined virtually via Zoom. Please be aware that Commissioner Goodbuddy is participating remotely according to just cause dash government code section 54953.82 this meeting is being webcast on comcast tv channel 15 and live streamed on the city's youtube channel and on the city's website join me for the pledge of allegiance Senior Secretary, can you please take a roll?

Commissioner Goodbody, she's not showing online, but if she does join, I will read it into the record. Commissioner Hammond?

Here.

Commissioner Hardy? Present. Commissioner Low?

Here.

Commissioner Myers is absent. Commissioner Stephens?

Present.

And Commissioner Yorgo.

Present.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to the public comment part of the meeting. The public comment section provides an opportunity to address the Planning Commission on items not listed on the agenda. The commission welcomes comments and requests that speakers present the remarks in a respectful manner within established time limits and focuses on issues which directly affect the city or are within the jurisdiction of the city. As the commission is prohibited by state law from discussing items not listed on the agenda, your item will be taken under consideration and may be referred to staff for further action. Speakers shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language which disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a Commission meeting. The City is committed to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that the City staff regularly attend Commission meetings. Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, oppressive, or abusive are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated. Senior Secretary, please call on speakers in the order appearing in Zoom. In-person speakers should be called first and Zoom participants next. We are using a timer in the council chambers for both in-person and Zoom participants. Zoom participants will be able to see the timer in the council chambers via my video. Speakers will have three minutes unless you indicate otherwise. Do we have any public?

We do not have any speakers online.

Okay. So we'll move on to the next item.

Commissioner, Chair Hammond, someone just raised their hand.

Oh, okay. You have three minutes.

It'll be, the speaker's name is Jenny Tran. Give me a moment, please. Ms. Tran, can you test your speaker? Hi, yes, can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. We will start your timer now.

members of the Hayward Planning Commission. My name is Jenny Tran. I'm a public health student at UC Berkeley and a resident of the Hayward area. I'm speaking today in support of the enforcement of Hayward's tobacco retail license ordinance. As someone who studies public health and works with our community, I understand how important local policies are in preventing tobacco use and protecting young people from nicotine addiction. According to the staff report, multiple retailers have repeatedly violated the tobacco license ordinance over several years by selling prohibited labor tobacco products.

I'm sorry, this is public comments for items that are not on the agenda. You'll have an opportunity to speak later.

All my apologies.

No problem. So that's all the speakers that we have? Okay, so now we'll move on to the revocation hearing. This item includes city-initiated revocation proceedings for tobacco retailer licenses for six commercial establishments and 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. The Planning Commission will consider each tobacco retailer's matter separately. All who are providing testimony tonight shall follow the general hearing rules outlined in attachment nine to the staff report and are as follows. All testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation if sworn testimony is taken. The technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply. However, evidence must be relevant and reliable. All materials presented at the hearing become part of the official record. The retailer has the right to be represented by legal counsel or another authorized representative. Time limits will be enforced. The chair may extend time in unusual circumstances at their discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. Statements provided by non-attorneys in relation to each case will be taken under oath. I am directing Ms. Schmidt to please administer the oath to all potential witnesses at this time.

Just before the oath, I just wanted to read into the record that at 7.06, Commissioner Goodbody joined.

Will anyone who's going to be testifying on behalf of a business that is not an attorney come forward to the front of the room to take an oath and say it into the record? Good evening, Commissioner. Anyone who wants to speak during the eight minutes? Come forward now and just, you can take the oath, and then if you decide not to speak, you don't have to. No, okay, come forward. Please put up your right hand. Do you solemnly swear, do you solemnly affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Yes.

Yes, and then say your name into the record.

Nazir Ahmad.

Zayden Saleh.

Thank you.

Leah, I believe we have someone online on Zoom that may take notes.

If someone's going to give testimony online, please turn on your camera and raise your right hand.

Okay, there we go. He's on the screen now.

Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time, we'll move on to staff general presentation on tobacco revocation purpose and process in general. There will be no time limit.

Good evening, chair and commissioners.

My name is Jesse Prince, code enforcement inspector two with the City of Hayward.

The item before you tonight is a tobacco retail license review involving city-initiated revocation proceedings for tobacco retailers that have accumulated three or more violations of the tobacco retail ordinance within a five-year period. These proceedings are being conducted pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794. Before discussing the individual retailers, I will provide a brief overview of the purpose of the Tobacco Retail License Program, the ordinance requirements and the city's compliance and enforcement efforts before moving into the individual cases. The city's tobacco retail license ordinance was adopted to protect public health by reducing tobacco use and its associated health impacts. The ordinance is intended to reduce youth access to tobacco and nicotine products, prevent the initiation of tobacco use amongst young people, and restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products and electronic smoking devices that have historically appealed to youth. The ordinance also helps ensure compliance with local, state, and federal tobacco regulations while providing a framework for inspections, enforcement, and accountability for tobacco retailers operating within Hayward. Retailers who repeatedly fail to comply with these requirements may be subject to penalty fees, special assessments, and ultimately revocation of their tobacco retail license. Before discussing the individual cases, I would like to briefly review the portions of the ordinance most relevant to tonight's hearing. The city's tobacco retail ordinance establishes the operational standards and licensing requirements for businesses that engage in the sale of tobacco products within Hayward. Section 10-1.2783 outlines operational requirements related to licensing, product sales, packaging standards, advertising restrictions, and other regulated activities. Section 10-1.2785 requires retailers to maintain a valid tobacco retail license and prominently display all required licenses and permits within the business. These include the City of Hayward Tobacco Retail License, the City of Hayward Business License, California Tobacco Retail License, and California Seller's Permit. Continued licensure is dependent upon ongoing compliance with these requirements. Since implementation of the City Tobacco Retail License program, code enforcement staff have conducted annual inspections of licensed tobacco retailers throughout Hayward. These inspections serve both as an enforcement and educational purpose. Staff routinely review ordinance requirements with business operators, provide educational materials, answer questions, and offer opportunities to voluntarily correct violations. The city's goal has consistently been to achieve compliance through education and outreach whenever possible. Despite these efforts, some retailers continue to accumulate violations over multiple years, resulting in the revocation proceedings before the commission tonight. This map displays all currently licensed tobacco retail holders within the city of Hayward, and there are currently 100. The six retailers currently before the commission for potential license revocation are specifically labeled for reference. The purpose of this map is to provide a visual representation of the geographic distribution of tobacco retailers through the city and to illustrate the locations of the retailers under review in relation to other licensed tobacco retailers. As shown on the map, licensed tobacco retailers are distributed throughout Hayward and serve a variety of commercial areas and neighborhoods. The retailers before the commission tonight are likewise located throughout the city and are not concentrated within a single geographic area. This slide is intended solely to provide geographic context before the staff discusses individual cases. Despite ongoing education and compliance assistance, the following retailers continued violations that meet or exceed the criteria for revocation under the Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794. Mount Everest Smoke Shop, attachment three. Heart of the Bay Smoke Shop, attachment four. All Star Service Incorporated, attachment five. Hip Hop Smoke Shop, attachment six. Stack City Smoke Shop, attachment seven. And Stop and Save number 106, attachment eight. The staff report before the commission includes compliance histories, documented violations, inspection records, and photographic evidence collected during inspections. These materials document the enforcement history for each retailer and provide the factual basis supporting staff's recommendations. Next, I would like to briefly review the order of proceedings for tonight's hearing. Each retailer matter will be considered separately and will be deliberated independently by the Commission. For each matter, staff will first provide a summary of the evidence and the retailer's violation history. Commissioners will then have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of staff. The retailer or their representative will then be provided up to eight minutes to present their testimony and any information they would like the commission to consider. Following that presentation, the commissioners may ask clarifying questions of the retailer. Staff will then have an opportunity to respond to any factual matters raised during the retailer's presentation. Once again, excuse me, once all testimony has been received, the Commission will deliberate, consider any motions, and take a vote on that specific matter. After the Commission has concluded its deliberation and vote, the process will be repeated for the next retailer. This slide summarizes the legal standard that applies to tonight's proceedings. Under Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794, the city bears the initial burden of proof. Staff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a retailer committed three or more violations within a five-year period. A preponderance of the evidence means that it is more likely than not that the violations occurred. In other words, the evidence shows that the violations were more likely than not committed by the retailer. If the Planning Commission finds that three or more violations occurred within the applicable five-year period, the municipal code provides that the tobacco retail license shall be revoked unless the retailer demonstrates that a lesser penalty is warranted. At that point, the burden shifts to the retailer who must establish by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser penalty should be imposed. This is a higher standard of proof and requires evidence that creates a firm belief that a lesser penalty is appropriate under the circumstances. Possible lesser penalties may include suspension of the tobacco retail license, abatement measures, administrative citations, or penalty fees. Staff's presentation this evening is intended to provide the evidence and documentation necessary for the Commission to make these findings. The following slides address each retailer individually. After each matter is presented, the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to ask questions and deliberate. Each matter will be considered separately before proceeding to the next. I will now begin with attachment three, Mount Everest Smoke Shop located at 2470, excuse me.

Chair Hammond, I think we were gonna do general public comment.

Thank you for your presentation. Now we will be asking commission questions of staff about general purpose and process. No time limit. Anybody would like to speak? Commissioner Low.

Thank you and thank you for your presentation. My question procedurally is are we, if staff meets their burden and if the retailer meets his or her burden regarding clear and convincing evidence that a lesser penalty should be imposed, is the commission deciding just whether a lesser penalty should be imposed or are we also deciding what that penalty is?

Thank you for that question. The commission would be deciding on both matters, on both of those. So they would be deciding on whether the revocation would occur or if a lesser planning penalty and what that lesser penalty would be.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions? So anyone here that would like to comment on the item in general? I have some cards here. I guess it'd be time for, was it Ms. Tran? Is she still online?

Yes, she is.

You wanna go ahead and start with her?

Yes, I can start.

Give me one second, hold on.

Okay, go ahead, your time is starting.

planning commission. My name is Jenny Tran. I'm a public health student at UC Berkeley and a resident of the Hayward area. I'm speaking today in support of the enforcement of Hayward's tobacco retail license ordinance. As someone who studies public health and works with our community, I understand how important local policies are in preventing tobacco use and protecting young people from nicotine addiction. According to the staff report, multiple retailers have repeatedly violated the tobacco retail license ordinance over several years by selling prohibited flavored tobacco products, vape products, cannabis-related products, or restricted items despite receiving notice, inspections, and opportunities to come into compliance. These businesses have accumulated between four to eight violations within a five-year time period. These laws exist for a reason. Flavor tobacco products and vaping devices continue to heavily be marketed towards young people and can contribute to lifelong nicotine addiction. when businesses repeatedly choose not to follow local and state regulations that undermines years of public health efforts and sends a message that protecting the youth is not a priority. I appreciate the community's and city's commitment to enforcing these regulations fairly and consistently. I encourage the Planning Commission to uphold the intent of the tobacco retail license ordinance and prioritize the health and safety of Hayward residents, especially our youth. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Chandler Kim. You'll have three minutes.

Your microphone?

Hello everyone, my name is Chandler. I'm commenting on behalf of Eileen Villanueva and her comment reads, good evening members of the Hayward Planning Commission. My name is Eileen Villanueva. I am part of the Youth Advisory Council. Selling vape devices can put our community in harm and can cause a spike in crime as they are addicting substances. There are multiple smoke and convenience shops with violations and when the city takes no action or minimal action, it is basically saying that the city does not care. I would like the Planning Commission to remove these stores licenses. Sincerely, Eileen Villanueva. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next speaker we have is Cesar Velazquez.

Good afternoon. Happy first day of the World Cup. My name is Cesar. I'm speaking in regards on behalf of Sandy Figueroa. Good evening members of the Hayward Planning Commission. My name is Sandy Figueroa. I live in Hayward. I am a rising junior and I'm part of the Youth Advisory Council. I would like to raise concerns towards the tobacco retailers violating the tobacco retail license ordinance by selling flavored bait products and cigarettes. I'm submitting this comment because tobacco and vape products can harm the health of young people in our community. It is important that retailers follow the tobacco retail license ordinance so that prohibited items are not available to youth. Sincerely, Sandy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next speaker is Luis Santos.

Good afternoon. I'll be speaking on this on behalf of Mio Coronado. So my name is Mio Coronado and I attend Hayward High School. I'm in a program called Eden Youth Advisory Council in Hayward. I would like to raise concerns regarding tobacco retailers violating the tobacco retail license ordinance by selling vape devices, flavored tobacco products, and much more products. Multiple violations over the time are being violated that should be noted. It's very important for our program to make a positive impact here in Hayward. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I think that, do we have any other speakers?

We have a couple who raised their hand on Zoom. The first speaker we have is labeled iPhone. iPhone, can you test your mic? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Your time will start now.

My name is Sandra Archuleta. I am a prevention professional. I work a lot with youth in terms of civic engagement, and we work around tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol-related issues. And I think that the violations that I saw in this report are extremely egregious. I mean, you have your violations that are against the TRL, you know, around the flavored tobacco, prohibited use, selling to minors. Those are all extremely egregious, and they should lose their license just on that. But multiple of these retailers were selling cannabis. You know they're selling that to kids. One of them, I think, had an illegal firearm that had to be confiscated by the police department. We have seen an uptick of these smoke shops being used for these illegal uses, right? Selling cannabis. guns, things like that. And I think that the code enforcement has done such a good job at identifying these locations as problem locations, right? If you're a good retailer, you're following the TRL. We've got no beef with you. We would prefer that you didn't exist, but that's the nature of work, right? Responsible use is still the law of the land. And if you are not a responsible retailer, you should not have that license. You know, that is a privilege. You are selling a substance that is harmful for our community. And with that comes these restrictions and the responsibility to have, you know, to be following the law. And not only are they not following just the basic regulations around, you know, like I said, not smoking or not selling stuff that's got flavors you know all those things right the advertisement all those you know violations but the cannabis spilling to minors the guns that is you know something that should really trigger us as a community and you as a planning department to say this is not acceptable in our community we will take swift action because i will tell you we do a lot of work in the unincorporated area right next door and we have an even stricter tobacco retail license over there that we advocate for and we have seen violations that were at like 80 percent down to almost nothing because of our strict uh enforcement over there enforcement is key because it doesn't matter how good your policy is if it's not enforced if people think they can get away with things then it's not going to be effective So I really do urge you to follow the recommendation of staff and strip these licenses from these folks because those violations are extremely serious and they are definitely impacting the well-being of our youth and of our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next.

The next speaker we have is Douglas Perez-Balton. Can you test your mic please?

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, your time will start now.

All right. Good evening, members of the Hayward Planning Commission. My name is Douglas Perez. I am a student at Chabot College and a Hayward resident. I'm here to share serious concerns regarding local tobacco retailers that appear to be violating the tobacco retail license ordinance. I would like to raise concerns regarding retailers selling vape devices, flavored vape products, flavored tobacco, cannabis products, out-of-state menthol cigarettes, and even psilocybin mushroom items. In some cases, these products were kept in hidden or restricted areas, which raises concerns about intentional noncompliance. These practices don't align with the intent of the ordinance or the protections it's meant to provide. As a student and a community member in Hayward, I'm concerned about what this means for young people in Hayward. These kinds of violations can increase access to nicotine and other substances, normalize harmful habits, and weaken the public health efforts our city has put in place. From conversations with peers and neighbors, it's clear that this is something people are noticing and worried about. Overall, what I've observed suggests that some retailers may not be fully following the tobacco retail license ordinance, which raises concerns about how consistently it's being applied and what that means for youth access and community health. I appreciate the work the commission is doing and encourage continued attention to supporting clear, consistent implementation moving forward. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other speakers?

We do. The next speaker is Nancy Respaldiza. Can you test your mic, please? Do you hear me? Yes, we can. Your time will start now.

Okay, good evening, commissioners. My name is Nancy Respaldiza, a Hayward community member, and I strongly support the revocation of these licenses. Public health must remain the top priority for our community. We know that flavored tobacco products, vaping devices, and related products increase the risk of addiction among youth and have harmful impacts of the health and well-being of our residents. The business involved in this process accumulated multiple violations related to the sale of prohibited products. In addition, several were found to possess cannabis products and other items that should not be available in this establishment. Most concerning is that this violation continuing to occur despite years of inspection, compliances for an educational outreach conducted by the city. When a business repeatedly demonstrates an unwillingness to comply with the law, the city has responsibility to take action to protect its residents and uphold public health standards. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Do we have another speaker?

We do. The next speaker is Marcia Lopez. Can you test your mic, please? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Your time will start now.

Good evening, Commissioner. Because I want my children to grow up in a safe and healthy community. As a parent, we do everything we can to teach our children about the dangers of tobacco, vaping, and drugs. We expect local businesses to do their part as well to protect our youth. Unfortunately, the establishment identified in this report this exactly the opposite. The documented violations show that they continue to sell prohibited products, even after receiving multiple warnings and opportunities to correct their behavior. For that reason, and fully support the staff recommendation business. That follows that the law should not have to complete with those that repeatedly choose to ignore it. Thank you. Thank you everyone for your consideration. And I respectfully ask you to vote in favor of the revocation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have another speaker?

We do. Our next speaker is Teresita De Jesus. Can you test your mic, please?

Yes. Hi, do you hear me? Yes.

Your time will start now.

Good afternoon, Commissioner. My name is Teresita De Jesus. I'm a leader of community. Cephali is our... in the community is very important. And support to the revocation of this license because this matter also concern to, according to the report present. Some of these business were likely not only do violation, related to tobacco, also to illegal products, cannabis, and another concerns activities. An unregistered firearms was even founded in one of the establishment. This should be concerned us all. Those businesses operated near to our families, schools, and community space. Residents observed businesses that contributed positive on our neighbors and respect the law. Decided to protest public health and safely, the city was being passion, and it has offered education, expression, and opportunities to correct this violation, whatever. However, not complains continue. This is why unconsidered revocation to be inappropriate and necessary measure. Thank you so much, and I would like to add something if you have, you know, if it's hard for us, like English, if you had, and interpretation in Spanish, that'll be great for us, especially in the soon, that'd be great. Thank you, and language justice. Thank you so much for hearing.

Thank you very much. Do we have another speaker?

We do. Our last speaker is Matias. Can you test your mic, please?

Do you hear me?

Yes we can.

Your time will start now. Good evening commissioners. My name is Matias and I am a SLAM youth leader and I live in Hayward. I'm here because residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe healthy and welcoming. The businesses identified in this report demonstrated repeated disregard for local laws. Beyond tobacco violations some were found with cannabis products prohibited products concealed storage areas and other serious violations. The city spent years attempting to bring these retailers into compliance. These were inspections, notices, educational efforts, and repeated opportunities to correct violations. Despite those efforts, the violations continued. At some point, enough is enough. The city's tobacco retailer licensing system exists to ensure accountability. If businesses can repeatedly violate the rules without meaningful consequences, then the licensing system loses its effectiveness. I appreciate the work City staff have done to document these violations and protect our neighbourhoods. I encourage the Commission to support relocation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is that, that was the last speaker?

Yes.

Okay, we'll now move on to Staff will present evidence on tobacco retailer revocation in order of attachments, no time limit.

Thank you. I will now begin with attachment three, Mount Everest Smoke Shop located at 24703 Amador Street. Mount Everest Smoke Shop accumulated a total of four violations within a five year period and was inspected on multiple occasions by code enforcement staff. Over the course of those inspections, staff documented repeated violations involving prohibited tobacco products and licensing violations. The business demonstrated an ongoing pattern of noncompliance despite inspections, educational outreach, and opportunities to voluntarily correct violations. No appeals were filed regarding the documented violations, and at the time this report was prepared, approximately $4,500 remains owed in penalty fees. The violations before the commission occurred on four separate occasions between March 24th and April, excuse me, March 2024 and April 2026. Violations documented by staff included flavored tobacco products, flavored vaping products, vape accessories, hemp products, CBD products, THC products, prohibited cigarillo packaging, out-of-state stamped cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, and expired or missing licenses. In January, 2026, code enforcement staff conducted a joint inspection with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, or CDTFA. During that inspection, staff located several prohibited products concealed within the business and not readily visible to customers, including products stored behind a concealed door. The presence of these concealed storage areas, particularly after multiple years of inspections and documented violations, demonstrates that the violations were not isolated or inadvertent, but rather a part of an ongoing pattern of noncompliance with the city's tobacco retail ordinance. These violations are documented in attachment three of the staff report. The photographs displayed here provide examples of the prohibited products, concealed storage areas, and licensing violations observed during inspections. These photographs were collected by staff during inspections and form part of the evidentiary record supporting attachment three. Staff finds that this retailer accumulated at least four violations within a five-year period, meeting the revocation criteria established under Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794. Despite years of inspections, compliance assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to correct violations, this establishment continued to violate the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Based on the documented inspection history, enforcement record, and continued violations observed at this location, staff recommends revocation of the tobacco retail license for Mount Everest Smoke Shop. This concludes staff's presentation regarding Mount Everest Smoke Shop and I'm available for questions from the commission.

Thank you very much. We'll move on now to commission questions for staff about evidence presented. No time limit. Do we have any questions from commissioners?

Just a quick clarifying question if I could. Is it retailer presentations first or is it questions first?

We'll just take general questions on the presentation and then we'll go to the retailer presentation and then you'll be able to ask questions of the retailer and then you'll deliberate afterwards.

Thank you for the clarification.

Commissioner Goodbody has her hand up.

Commissioner Goodbody?

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and the summary of the numerous violations. My question is regarding the concealed doors and the storage areas that were mentioned in this and with this business and I think another one or two that we are going to be reviewing tonight. And I wanted clarification on whether this would whether the concealed doors and storage areas also violate the the CUP that was issued to this business. And if that would take if that is under consideration tonight, or if that will be at all considered in the future.

None of the businesses that are under consideration tonight have conditional use permits. These were all businesses that were like operating when the tobacco retail ordinance was adopted and I believe it was 2014 and so they were allowed to obtain a tobacco retailer license in order to continue to operate without a conditional use permit.

Okay, and then were the doors part of the conditions? I mean, was this known as a part of the retail license? I mean, was the license approved with these storage areas? And if you can't, you know, need to do some more research or if you can't answer that tonight, that's fine. I can take my answer offline.

I wouldn't be able to answer that at this time.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Just to clarify, the concealment and the part of the structure is not part of the licensing that is associated with the tobacco retail license. I think we bring up the concealment and the fact that the items are concealed because it demonstrates that they're not displaying the materials the way they're required to under the ordinance, that they're keeping it in a separate location and they can only access it or people know about the product if they know to ask for it.

Thanks for clarifying that.

And to introduce myself, I'm a deputy city attorney here. From our perspective, these enclosed areas, they prove intent. They prove an intent by these retailers not just to sell these products, but to sell them without us knowing about it. and to make sure that when when code enforcement conducts their inspections that these products are not found so uh from our perspective this evidence is not just the fact that they're violating these but they're intentionally violating these tobacco let me interrupt you just for a minute we seem to be having some technical difficulties

Do you have an echo?

I think the noise is coming from Commissioner Goodbody's Zoom.

Okay. Commissioner Goodbody, do you want to continue?

I'll unmute myself so you don't hear it, so you don't hear me.

I can hear you. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner? Okay, many other commissioners have a question for staff on this related item. Okay. So now's the time for the retailer to present evidence or their argument in their behalf. You have eight minutes. Do we have the owner of Mount Everest Smoke Shop here?

He is on Zoom.

On Zoom, okay. We have eight minutes.

Senior Secretary, can you... Can you hear us, or can you test your mic, RFP?

Yes, I'm here.

Okay, you have eight minutes. Your time starts now.

All those violations happened when my partner was in charge of the business. He's no longer in charge. He's no longer part of the business at all. Now I have kicked him out and I'm, And the violations I have fixed because they said most of the violations was because of the license was not shown or not up to date. They have been I have updated and I put them in stores in front of the customers. They could see them and I have fixed the if you see on April 26 when the inspector came, I have cleared out everything. all the violations and corrected because I did not know we had violations before from my partner. He had kept that from me. So if you could give me another chance just to keep my license and not be running it myself personally, and I will keep, I will not have any more violations going on from now to future. Because it was my partner that was running day to day. I had no clue there was violations going on in the business. And I did not get, one more thing, I did not get a warning that my license was gonna be revoked in any way through mail or anything. Do you have any questions for me?

Is that your statement?

Yes.

So we have commissioner questions of staff or the retailer on his comments. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Jorlaff.

Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question to staff regarding the retailer's last comment about noticing. What kind of notice is typically given when a license is going to be revoked?

In the case a license is going to be revoked, a letter was mailed, I believe, over 21 days prior to the hearing today. A hand-delivered notice was also taken to the business itself, I believe, three days after the mailing of the initial letter.

Thank you for that. And then if I could address the retailer, did you not receive the licenses? Were you not aware that they came?

Or could you speak to that? I just received the one for like I had the hearing about you guys might revoke my license. But that was the only thing I have received that I got it by hand. But anything before that, or like that I will lose my license from this court hearing after this, I did not know. I didn't even know we had, my partner has been caught three times before. I had no clue about those.

Could you then speak a little more to your relationship with your former business partner? You know, being a partner to them, it seems like these violations affecting your business, obviously if you have a business relationship with them, it's something that you should Could you maybe speak to that change? Because the last of the, you know, there was an expired license on April, but the long list of violations is.

I have fixed the expired one. I have updated and it's active at the moment.

Understood, sir. But speaking to the one before that, that was in January. That's only five months ago. So has this change happened really recently with your partner?

Yes, I have kicked, when I took over in March, when I came back to go, because I was running my family business and I have left that demo to come back to my own business. And when I took over and I seen all this stuff, I have updated the license and I found all his, what he has done and I have kicked him out of the whole partnership. He is no longer part of the business at all. So I had, cause he kept all this stuff hidden from me. I had no clue. He is a friend of mine that I went to school with and know, but I didn't know he had all this stuff problems going on. He was doing this from the side. Because every time I come there and talk to him, I don't, he kept, he hit those stuff and I have never seen him. That was why I was one, I had no, I was surprised with all this violations was going on. If I knew he was doing this, I should have sold the business or shut it down a long time ago.

Understood. Thank you, sir. And if I could just address one final question to staff. These violations are attached to the business and the business license, correct? It's kind of independent of who is party to that business.

Yes, that's correct.

And that's it for my questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Lowe.

I think all my questions were answered, thank you.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Stevens.

So when I look at the notification, it says it's to, there's a property owner, so it's mailed to the property owner, is that how that works? of the subdivision, it says OIC California LLC, which is the property owner that I assume owns the building?

Yes.

So yes, the code enforcement holds property owners responsible for the business that occurs on their property, whether it is a business or land. Any violations that occur there, we are going to send a notice to the property owner. Since I have taken over as... God. Code enforcement holds property owners responsible for their property. A copy is sent to the business as a courtesy. At times, since I have taken over the tobacco program, I have made sure of that. That has been since January of this year. But legally, the notice goes to the property owner for correction.

So technically, because the tenant of this space is paying rent, to this ORIC California, we would hope that ORIC California would be enforcing an action against its tenants.

That's correct.

Okay. And then when we talk about the business relationship, here of the Mount Everest Smoke Shop. The gentleman that spoke, I forgot your name. So you said you had a business partner. Was this a sole proprietorship or is this like a limited liability company or is it a corporation?

Limited liability LLC.

So you and your partner were co-owners of this?

Co-owners.

And so who was, when, like, was this individual the day-to-day manager of it?

Yes, because he owns 30%. He had control of day-to-day management because I was, at that time, was running my family business to the side. So he was 30% owner, and he had control of day-to-day management.

And so did he, was he paying the rent?

He was paying the rent and everything.

Did the property owner send you notification?

For?

These violations?

No, no.

Thank you.

I haven't seen anything from the property management.

Is that your questions? Okay. Commissioner Hart.

A question for the owner. So when was the last time that you were at the property before March?

Before that, I was in an outcome like for a day, for like a couple hours, because he will manage the whole day to day. I did not manage or do anything much until March 2026. Before that, it was my partner that was managing everything.

You were there for a couple of hours when?

A couple hours, just talk, do the paperwork for the taxes, all that, get the license, give them the paperwork for the license, all that.

When was that? Can you say a month?

I'm the majority owner, and all the license was under my name.

Can you say what month that was, what year it was?

It was just random days. It was just random days. I just go in and out for...

Were you aware that there was not a license posted?

I gave him, I printed out and gave it to him directly to his hand and told him to post it and put it on top to show it. He said he'll do it. I know he put it before. I did once for, I think, was it 2024? I put the whole license all on top. But after that, I used to just give it to him, his hand, and he will do it. But it looks like he didn't do it. He didn't show it all. But they were all up to date.

So you were not aware of anything concealed? There were no products concealed when you were there?

No, when I was there, I didn't. I know he changed the door because somebody tried to break in. And there was at that time when I seen it, there was no shelves on it until March when I came, took over. I seen the shelves and all that because those were new.

So, I mean, it's hard to believe that you were there and saw absolutely nothing, or it seems somewhat negligent that you were there and saw nothing, and that you can't really nail down anything until March.

Because I was busy with my other family business, so most of my time was on that. So that's why, it was negative from my side, that's true, that I should have took more time and stayed in the business and seen what's going on. But it was negative, but he did hit a lot of things for me. Right now when I took off for March and I've been going through the paper, all that, I see a lot of stuff, all the violations he had, I had never, I didn't know about him at all. He has hit him for me. until like when I just came in and I had received the envelope with all the violations and all the pictures.

So did you ask him to come to this hearing tonight so he could testify to his involvement in this?

Yes, he's outside the country. I told him he has, on March when I took over and he left the business, I took him out of the business, out of the partnership, he went back home. He's not in the country at the moment.

He couldn't write a letter or anything?

Go through Zoom from back home, but it looks like he didn't sign in or anything.

Okay, thank you.

So I have a question. Of all of the years that you've been associated with this business, this is the first time you've heard of these violations?

Yes.

Okay, staff, did you give the owner every chance to comply?

A property owner has every chance to comply to a notice of violation that they receive. Without resolving the violations listed on the notice, continuous notices will occur with failed reinspections. And so, yes, every chance was given. Okay, thank you.

If we have any, no other comments, we'll move on. Do we have?

Chair Hammond, Commissioner Goodbody has her hand up.

Oh, that's right, I'm sorry. Commissioner Goodbody.

Thank you. My question is to the owner. Whose name is on the license now?

It is my name on the license.

And whose name was on the license prior to March?

It was still mine because I put all the licenses under mine because I own 70% of the business. So all the license was under my name. And he had 30%, but he was in charge of day-to-day management, everything.

So is it your name that's on the license or is it the LLC that's on the license?

LLC and the business license, they're under my name. His name is only under the LLC as in a partner.

Okay. And then how many employees work at the smoke shops?

There was two. It was him and another person. I said like a part-time worker.

Okay. And at no time did the other worker, the part-time worker, bring it to your attention that there were potential violations?

I asked, but they didn't tell me. They said they came, but didn't tell me there was a violation. Because every time, when I looked at every time that I got, there was a violation, it was my partner that signed the violation in the ticket. It was all under my, the partner that got caught with the violation, and he was the one that signed.

And you were never notified of that?

No, because when I looked through the paperwork, and through the store, all that I found the tickets, the previous tickets, and I seen that he signed for them. They're all under his name. When they came in, like for January, when they came in, he's doing a sign in the year before. But he's the one that signed off for it. He's the one that got busted. Thank you. What were you saying?

Commissioner Lowe.

My question is for staff and I wanted to ask, can you confirm what he is saying about all of the contact being with his partner and who is that?

Not at this time. I would have to look through past documentation and past case history, but not at this moment.

Our position is that it's irrelevant. This goes to the business. It's a business license. The business was out of compliance. The business was given numerous opportunities over years to come into compliance. I believe there's... There are several notices in the attachments and evidence that can be reviewed. Inspections are done in person. Code enforcement officers walk with the people at the business to go over everything. The photos were taken with members of the business. The businesses were all very aware of these violations. And again, we just think it's irrelevant that he's saying he did not know about this. And in fact, I think that would be an argument as to why this owner should not have a license. As an owner of a business, he's got a duty to make sure that his business is conforming to the laws of the city he's licensed in. And he has not been, by admission. So that would go to our argument as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all I have.

Any other commissioner questions? Okay, then I guess we will move to public comments. Names of members wishing to speak will appear in I legislate, and you would have three minutes. Do we have anybody?

We do not.

Okay, then we will move on to commission discussion. Names of council members wishing to speak will appear in, I legislate. Do we have any, any discussion? I'm not seeing, Commissioner Low.

Thank you. Once again, I want to thank everyone, the city attorney, deputy city attorney, everyone up there for really being patient and answering our questions, as well as the retailer. Thank you very much for showing up and answering all of our questions. I really have to go back to, what the public comments were earlier, which is it's really all about public safety and making sure that we are holding the businesses accountable because we care about the community and the public safety of our community. And what was very persuasive to me is how many youth wrote letters and spoke on behalf of the youth of the community saying, we do not want businesses that are noncompliant to continue to have these licenses in our community as well as other community members. And then also the, I'm sorry, the deputy city attorney, what was your name?

Amy, Amy Rothman.

Okay, I feel like your last comments were very persuasive and I appreciate you being here and making those comments and for those reasons, I am in favor of revoking the license.

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner Vasco Yorga is next. I can read them off to you. Oh, okay. I can see them on my screen. Thank you very much. No problem.

Thank you so much. Thank you to staff for your presentation, for answering our questions, and thank you as well to the retailer for coming. I don't want to speak for everybody else here, but I don't think this is an easy decision for anybody. Obviously, taking the step to revoke the license of a business is a major action, but the staff report guided us to look for preponderance of evidence. I think just the volume of cases here. I do want to highlight that staff did take the conservative approach that for a single inspection, if there were multiple violations, that was classed as one single incident. And many of these violations have multiple, multiple different instances. I'm sympathetic to the points the retailer made about business partner, but I do echo what Commissioner Lowe said. At the end of the day, the license is to the business, and as a business owner, especially a majority business owner, 70% of the business, as you said, the responsibility lies with you to make sure that your business is being run above board. I mean, these violations go back to 2024, but I know enforcement has only stepped up very recently, and so I just, I don't see a way that we can do anything but revoke, at least that's my position, so thank you.

Thank you, next.

Commissioner Stephens.

I'm prepared to make a motion to revoke the license for the mount, whatever it is, smoke shop. I think if you look in the California Corporation's book, you can clearly see that Mr. Alwadee is the chief executive officer, and that person is ultimately responsible for a business. If you're gonna form a business and operate a business, you're responsible for all operations. So I am in support of revocation.

Before we second it, is there any more comments?

I just want to make sure that we say, I'm just looking at the rules or the regulations for us, and I just want to make sure we're saying, and with your permission, Commissioner Stevens, I want to make sure that we are saying that we are finding that this retailer has committed at least three violations in a five-year period, and that is why we are moving to revoke the license, because it says here that we have to make sure we say that specifically. That's all.

I agree with you, I lost the agenda, so thank you.

And I second.

Okay, so I guess we will be taking a vote. It doesn't look like the voting's, and so we are voting.

For some reason, it's only showing me Commissioner Stephens and Commissioner Yogo as being attending, so we can do a old school vote. So I will call you out, and then you will let me know how you vote.

Sure, just to be clear, a yes vote would be to revoke.

Yes, you would be voting to approve staff's recommendation, which is to revoke.

Okay, thank you. Correct.

Okay, Commissioner Goodbody?

I'm sorry, this is Michael Vigilio from the City Attorney's Office. Yes. Thank you. We didn't have a voice vote there.

My vote is yes. Thank you. Commissioner Hardy? Yes. Commissioner Lowe?

Yes.

Commissioner Myers is absent. Commissioner Stephens?

Yes.

Commissioner Yorgo?

Yes.

And Chair Hammond.

Yes. So the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for final decision. I will be moving on to the next retailer.

Thank you. I will now move on to attachment four, Heart of the Big Smoke Shop located at 22515 Alice Street. Heart of the Bay Smoke Shop accumulated a total of four violations within a five-year period and demonstrated continued noncompliance despite multiple inspections conducted by staff. Violations documented during inspections included prohibited tobacco products, illicit drugs, and licensing violations. The business demonstrated an ongoing pattern of noncompliance despite inspections, compliance assistance, and opportunities to correct violations. no appeals were filed regarding the documented violations. At the time of this report was prepared, approximately $4,500 in penalties and fees had been previously assessed through a prior enforcement case. The violations before the commission occurred between 2022 and 2026. Violations documented by staff included excessive window advertising, tobacco advertising posted below allowable height restrictions, expired or missing licenses, flavored tobacco products, vape products, vape accessories, cannabis products, and psilocybin mushrooms. In January, 2026, staff participated in a joint inspection with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration during which prohibited products were identified, including products concealed within the business. These violations are documented in attachment four of the staff report. These photographs displayed here provide visual documentation of the products and conditions observed during inspections. These photographs illustrate examples of prohibited products and concealed items identified during enforcement activities. Staff finds that this retailer accumulated at least four violations within a five-year period, meeting the revocation criteria established under Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794. Despite years of inspections, compliance assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to correct violations, this establishment continued to violate the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Based on the documented inspection history, enforcement record, and continued violations observed at this location, staff recommends revocation of the tobacco retail license for Heart of the Bay Smoke Shop. This concludes staff's presentation regarding Heart of the Bay Smoke Shop. I am available for questions from the Commission.

Thank you. Do we have Commission questions for staff about evidence presented? Do we have, can you see?

We don't have any questions.

Any, no questions? Then we'll move on to the retailer has an opportunity to present evidence, argument. I'm sorry, Commissioner Stevens.

Thank you, I apologize, I was. So just a question, I see one of the photographs here, it says large quantities of raw psilocybin mushrooms.

Isn't that illegal in California?

Hi, good evening, Detective Gabby Wright with the Hayward Police Department. Yes, that is a felony to sell that product under H&S 11351.

And I might be asking a dumb question, so don't laugh at me, but why would that, the police don't confiscate and arrest the person that had that?

So since we did not observe the sales, we cannot truly identify who the suspect was at that time. However, the amount of the suspected psilocybin that was there proves the intent to sell. It was packaged in quantities that are not for personal consumption. So therefore, we did seize it as evidence. However, at that time, we did not take anybody to jail, we did submit a complaint to the district attorney's office for the business owner since it was at the store and like I said, it was in a manner that's consistent with selling that product.

Any other questions? Okay, then I guess we'll move on to the retailer. We'll be able to present evidence, the argument. You'll have eight minutes.

Good evening. I'm Zechariah Rabzai, and this is my brother-in-law. I was wondering if I can read his initial statement on his behalf. Is that okay? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Can I ask the name of the gentleman that you're reading this statement of?

Nazir Ahmad, the owner of the Heart of the Bay Smoke Shop.

Right, he's the legal owner of the LLC. Yes.

So is this okay for?

And I would put on the record that I had to inform the commissioner that I could not provide advice at this time. She would have to talk to a different member of our department who is independently advising, independent from the code enforcement team putting this on. So I did not provide any advice.

So it's okay for, to proceed, okay.

Good to go? Yes. Excuse me. Good evening. First, I wanted to sincerely apologize to the council and the community for the violations. I understand that local businesses have a strict responsibility to follow all city rules, and I take that full responsibility very seriously. I am not here to make excuses. I acknowledge the mistakes that were made and accept full responsibility. Since receiving the notice, I have already taken immediate steps to rectify these issues Retain rectify the rectifying these issues retain my team and ensure Retrain my team and ensure it does not happen again My absolute goal moving forward is to operate in hundred percent implied compliance and be a positive responsible member of this community I respectfully ask the council to consider my circumstances and grant me the opportunity to move forward productively. This business is my family primary source of income. It is how I provide for my household and meet our financial obligations. Facing severe penalties for losing this business would cause an overwhelming financial hardship for my family. I am completely committed to cooperating with city code enforcements, complying with every requirement, and providing that I can run this business the right way. I respectfully request leniency tonight and a chance to demonstrate that these mistakes will not be repeated. I have received some certificates of achievement as award from the Hayward Police, as you can see, from time to time that I've done a good job sometimes, but I wanted to also show this to you guys. He states that, the minors in the community were trying to buy illegal products that they are not supposed to. And the police were present and they helped the police to recognize those people and report them to the police. So it does not happen with the kids to buy those products. Therefore, he received these achievements. Actually, he was saying. Thank you for your time at the end. Lastly, thank you for your time, your consideration, and for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. We'll move on to commission questions of staff and or the retailer. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Stephens.

So I'm gonna ask the same question, you know, on the, so since Mr. Ahmed is the legal owner of this LLC. Who runs the day-to-day operations of it? This has been active. This was first filed in July of 2021.

Thank you so much. My father was running the business, and he was for a long time that Mr. Jesse knows about it. And he passed away last year ago. So he's no more longer with us, and I'm just by myself to run the business, but before he was responsible for the business.

But who is at the counter? Who works in the business?

That time my father was working. And now I have an employee that I'm working with myself, both of us.

So your father was running the business when the psilocybin mushrooms were there and the flavor?

No, no. That time he passed away, it was the employee was that there.

Oh, so there was an employee that was there.

It was a manager, yeah, manager employee.

And what year was that employee there?

I think it was like maybe a couple months ago. It was in the 26th.

Well, it looks like there was a series of incidents from November 19th of 2025 till January of this year. The first citation looked like it was back in last November, so who was running the business, who was there last November?

I was there.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome, thank you.

Commissioner questions? Commissioner Hardy?

So was your father running the business when you received those awards from the Heret Police Department?

At that time, I was, no, I was myself that like caught these people that they come, mine are supposed to purchase some stuff, and they not supposed to purchase, so we got these awards.

What year was that?

This is 2018. one in 2020, another one, and we have a few more, but I don't know.

Didn't you just say your father was running the business prior to this year?

Before, yes.

So then your father was running the business at that time, and then you've been running the business since some of these violations have been taking place?

So, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner, questions? Okay. So we will have, if there are any public comments that we wish to speak on for or against our part of the bay smoke shop.

We do not have any online.

Okay, then we're open to commission discussion. Do we have any comments from commissioners? No comments, then do we have a motion?

Oh, Commissioner Goodbody has her hand up.

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Goodbody?

I'm prepared to make a motion to deny The business, I mean, I'm sorry, I'm prepared to move with staff's recommendation to revoke this business license based on the sale of illegal and prohibited items. And levy all fines due.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Stephens seconds. We can take a vote.

Commissioner Goodbody?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardy?

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe?

Abstain.

Commissioner Stephens?

Yes.

Commissioner Yorgo?

Yes.

And Chair Hammond?

Yes.

If I may, could whoever made the motion add in the language related to the findings that are on the agenda? The specific findings listed.

Commissioner Goodbody?

Yeah, I don't have an agenda up in front of me. So do you want me to restate the motion? Or can I just say I accept staff's recommendation to include findings in my motion? Or is the reason for the revocation of the license?

I recommend that we redo the motion and that somebody who has the agenda in front of them makes the finding with the motion.

Okay, so we're gonna ask for another motion. Commissioner, you're up.

And we're exactly in the agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Lowe. I move to revoke the tobacco retail license of Heart of the Bay Smoke Shop. And then based on the findings of... Apologies, everybody. Is it in here? It's just the first one.

If you look at, I believe, attachment nine under the procedures, commission, deliberation, motion, and vote.

Okay. I move to find that the retailer has committed at least three violations in a five-year period and to revoke their license. Is that sufficient?

Okay. Do we have a second?

Thanks for your patience. I second. I second.

We have a second from Commissioner Stephens. We can move on to the vote.

Commissioner Goodbody? Yes. Commissioner Hardy?

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe? Abstain. Commissioner Stephens?

Yes.

Commissioner Yergo?

Yes.

And Chair Hammond?

Yes.

I believe we'll read that appeals.

I'm sorry, I'm checking my notes here. Sorry. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for final decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move on to. Assistant City Attorney Vigilia. He has his hand up.

Yes thank you chair. Just sort of to clarify for the record effectively the Planning Commission undertook a motion to reconsider so that it could clarify the basis of the of the motion to revoke. So I just wanted to put that on the record that that's effectively the action that the commission took there.

We're going to be taking a quick break.

Thank you. So, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, it looks like we're gonna be getting back to it. Staff, will you present the evidence on the next tobacco retailer?

Thank you. I will now move on to attachment five, All Star Service Incorporated located at 1220 West Tennyson Road. All Star Service accumulated a total of five violations within a five-year period and has a history of noncompliance with the city tobacco's retail ordinance. Violations documented by staff included flavored tobacco products and repeated expired or missing licenses. The business demonstrated an ongoing pattern of noncompliance despite inspections, compliance assistance, and opportunities to correct violations. No appeals were filed regarding the documented violations, and all penalty fees have either been paid in full or transferred to the property as special assessment. The violations before the commission occurred between April 2024 and January 2026. Multiple inspections documented flavored tobacco products, prohibited cigarillo packaging, and repeated failures to maintain and display required licenses. Several inspections identified the same violations after prior enforcement actions had already occurred. These violations are documented in attachment five of the staff report. The photographs displayed here provide examples of the prohibited products and licensing violations observed during inspections. These photographs form part of the evidentiary records supporting attachment five. Staff finds that this retailer accumulated at least five violations within a five-year period, meeting the revocation criteria established under Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.2794. Despite years of inspections, compliance assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to correct violations, this establishment continued to violate the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Based on the documented inspection history, enforcement record, and continued violations observed at this location, staff recommends revocation of the tobacco retail license for All Star Service Incorporated. This concludes the staff's presentation regarding All Star Service Incorporated, and I am available for any questions from the Commission.

Thank you very much. Do we have any Commission questions for staff? Commissioner, you're up.

Just a quick general question. I noticed that the three most recent inspections took place about a month apart from each other. What's the, you know, how is it decided how frequently a business is reinspected?

A business can be reinspected as soon as 10 days after the initial inspection. We try to gain compliance. Compliance is the goal. And so we tend to give a little bit more time if necessary to retailers who express the desire to comply. And that is the reason why you have a 30 day window in between these inspections.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner questions for staff? If not, we will move on to the retailer to present evidence argument. You would have eight minutes.

Is All Star Service Incorporated here? I don't believe they're here.

They do not show up.

If you're on Zoom, can you raise your hand? I don't think they are online either. I'll give it a moment. It doesn't look like they're online either.

Well, that cuts through quite a few questions here. I guess then we'll move on to a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Commissioner Low makes a motion.

I move that the commission find that this retailer has committed at least three violations in a five year period and revoked the license for, I forgot the name, for All Star Smoke Services Incorporated.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

I'll second. I think Commissioner Stevens beat you to that one. So we have a second, roll call.

Commissioner Goodbody? Yes. Commissioner Hardy? Yes. Commissioner Lowe?

Yes.

Commissioner Stephens? Yes. Commissioner Yorgo? Yes. And Chair Hammond?

Yes.

The motion passes.

So the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed.

Commissioner, Chair Hammond?

Yes.

I just realized you didn't open for public comment.

Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have any public comment on this?

I don't believe there's any. Oh, there is one. A hand raised iPhone.

Okay. We have three minutes.

Give me one second while I add them. Okay, can you test your mic, iPhone?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Your time will start now.

I just wanted to share that while there is no more public speakers probably for the next items, we were all here kind of part of a little coalition, and we pretty much stand on what was said earlier. I think it's really important that this is happening. I think it's going to be a good thing for our community, and I just wanted to reiterate my support for the actions I've seen tonight and the strong enforcement. So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments on this matter?

I do not see any online.

Okay, so we are going to be asking for another motion, not a separate motion, but a motion to continue for this.

If Michael Vigilia could weigh in, do you believe that the commission should take another motion now that we've had that public comment?

No, that's fine. The commission took action and the public was allowed to speak on the item, so the commission can move on to the next item.

So we've already had our vote. And I think I already read that the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for a final decision. Moving on to the next. Staff?

Thank you. I will now move on to attachment six, Hip Hop Smoke Shop located at 24289 Mission Boulevard. Hip Hop Smoke Shop accumulated a total of four violations within a five-year period and was inspected on multiple occasions by code enforcement staff. Over the course of those inspections, staff documented repeated violations involving prohibited tobacco products, prohibited vaping products, hemp and CBD products, advertising violations, licensing violations, and concealed storage areas containing prohibited products. The business demonstrated an ongoing pattern of noncompliance despite inspections, educational outreach, and opportunities to voluntarily correct violations. No appeals were filed regarding the documented violations, and at the time of this report was prepared, approximately $1,500 remains owed in penalties and fees associated with a prior enforcement case. The violations before the commission occurred between 2023 and 2026. Violations documented by staff include flavored tobacco products, flavored vaping products, vape accessories, hemp products, CBD products, prohibited cigarillo packaging, tobacco advertising violations, and expired or missing licenses. In January 2026, code enforcement staff conducted a joint inspection with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. During that inspection, staff located a concealed storage area and false bookcase containing prohibited products that were not readily visible to customers. The presence of these concealed storage areas, particularly after multiple years of inspections and documented violations, demonstrates that the violations were not isolated or inadvertent, but rather part of an ongoing pattern of noncompliance with the city tobacco retail ordinance. These violations are documented in attachment six of the staff report. The photographs displayed here provide examples of the prohibited products, concealed storage areas, and other violations observed during inspections. These photographs form part of the evidentiary records supporting attachment six. Staff finds that this retailer accumulated at least four violations within a five-year period, meeting the revocation criteria established under the Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.2794. Despite years of inspections, compliance assistance, and educational outreach, and opportunities to correct violations, the establishment continued to violate the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Based on the documented history, enforcement record and continued violations observed at this location, staff recommends revocation of the tobacco retail license for Hip Hop Smoke Shop. That concludes staff's presentation regarding Hip Hop Smoke Shop and I am available for questions from the commission.

Thank you very much. Do we have any commission questions for staff? Commissioner Stephens.

Thank you for the presentation. I just would like to understand a little bit more about this hidden room here. It looks like there was some paneling and a little door. Am I looking, when I go in that little door, the bookshelf, is that behind that little door?

Yes, that's correct. It was a small makeshift closet area with two bookshelves that were containing prohibited products that are pictured there.

And that little door, when it's closed, it would just look like the paneling there, so there'd be no way of really seeing that there was a door there, right?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner questions?

And before we move on, we'd like to correct something that's in the staff report. Would you like to explain?

So there's some confusion around the unregistered firearm what was found there that there was a firearm found there and when we had contacted the individual who was working there that firearm did not belong to him and However, he said it belonged to the store employee, another store employee who then showed up and we were able to verify the identity of that individual with those businesses. The firearm was kept in a manner that they are legally to keep it. So therefore the police department did not seize it since we were able to verify that it was a registered firearm to a store employee. The employee was just not present initially at the time when we located the firearm.

So I have a question on that. Is it necessary in this business for the owners to carry handguns?

It is up to a business. If they would like to have a firearm at their premise, that's their legal right. So that's kind of just, I guess, your opinion of the business that they are choosing to keep a weapon at their premise.

OK, thank you.

If I could ask a follow-up to that. Since the individual to whom the license was registered was not present while the firearm was there, is that legal for a firearm to just be there without the individual?

because I believe that he was part of the, one of the employees that we were able to determine that that was fine because the firearm was kept in a manner that was safe and that he said he was returning to work.

Okay, thank you. Any other commissioner questions? Okay, then we'll move on to the retailer to present evidence argument. On their behalf, you have eight minutes.

Is the owner of Hip Hop Smoke Shop here? Yes, okay.

I believe the lawyer is going to speak first.

Pardon?

Our lawyer is going to speak first.

You have eight minutes. Oh, your lawyer is going to speak first. Yes. Okay. Is it John Sedet? Yes. Okay, let me promote him. Give me one second.

Is he present?

Yes, he is present.

I'm just promoting him to panelists. Give me one second.

John, can you test the mic, please?

Hello?

Okay, we can hear you.

Can you see me?

Yes, we can see you as well.

All right, great, thank you. I had my hand raised up, but no one saw me, so. I'd like to thank the Hayward Planning Commission for giving me this opportunity to present to you my client's case. I'd like to address the four violations, starting with the oldest in 2023. The business was informed that the inspector had certain products and the inspector told them which products needed to be removed due to the enacted regulations. The business immediately complied. The matter was resolved. No fine was issued and the business understood that the corrective action was satisfactory. In 2023, additional products were identified, sorry, in 2024, this is the second violation, products were identified as flavored tobacco products. The licensee was unaware that these fell within the definition of prohibited products and removed them immediately. The licensee specifically recalls informing the inspector that some of those products had been reviewed during the inspection in 2023. and were represented as permissible at the time. Additionally, the evidence packet for the 2024 violation wasn't very clear as to the products at issue that were determined to be flavoured tobacco products. No fine was issued, and the matter was closed and resolved. The business complied. So that's the first violation, 2023 and 2024 that we addressed. Now my client has four violations. In 2025, he had a violation and he was fined. He was given notice and he understands that he made a wrong decision for selling certain type of flavored products. 2026 is the bigger violation. And we'll start by acknowledging poor business judgment regarding the sale of certain vape and flavored tobaccos. The licensee doesn't dispute that this was a serious mistake. While the evidence packet references a compartment located in the premises, the existence of that compartment does not change the fact that the business made a bad business decision. Very poor. Upon receiving notice, they immediately remedied the situation. paid the assessed fine, took steps to ensure future compliance. With respect to the firearms, as the officer presented, it was... That's the shop. We have the registration here, but I don't think that's an issue because the police officer also mentioned that it was registered. With respect to, so moving forward, the business has taken substantial steps to improve compliance and reduce its dependency on tobacco-related sales. As noted by the Inspector Jess Brantz in the report, the business has been transitioning towards a grocery store model and expanding inventory related to non-tobacco products. Since implementing these changes, the business has remained in compliance and made a concealed effort to ensure future violations do not occur. The licensee respectfully asks the committee to consider the challenges small business owners have to navigate these flavored tobacco products, what's permitted, what's not. A lot of changes in the rules. Some of them are minor infractions, but they remedy the situation immediately. Revoking the license would have a severe consequence on two families which own the business and two employees. The business has taken meaningful steps to address past issues, to transition towards a business model that is less reliant on tobacco related products. And accordingly, the licensee respectfully asked the committee to consider imposing a lesser penalty, such as a fine, probation or period, temporary suspension, rather than any revocation of the license. The business owner would like to say a few words as well.

You have two minutes left, I think.

I have seven minutes.

No, I just want to say that in our business, we never have any problem with the city. We never sell to minors or sell any cabinets or anything like that. The only issue is mismanagement with the first manager, which he's already out, and I'm the owner. But I'm always... in New York or somewhere else, that's why. So I just have to take steps in the store now and remodel the whole place and we're thinking about switching it to a grocery store and just have the license just for tobacco and cigarettes. That's it, thank you.

Okay, so we will open it up now to commission questions of staff and or retailer. Commissioner Stephens?

Sir, what is your name? Okay, so you have two other partners?

Yes.

Are you the majority owner? I'm sorry? Are you the majority owner? Yes, sir. And how long have you been present at this establishment?

Say it again, I'm sorry.

How long have you been present at this store?

The store, actually, I'm never there, to be honest with you, because I have multiple stores in New York and different cities. So I usually have people managing the stores, and sometimes I don't even go there for six, three months, sometimes a year. I didn't even show up there.

Who's Mohammed Al-Khalani?

Well, that's Mohammed Al-Khalani. He's the old owner, which is I already went to the city and I changed the license under my name when I bought the store the first time. So, and I even was surprised when I saw the license, when I came, I saw the tickets, then the manager, he told me, oh, it's under Muhammad Al-Khawlaani. I was like, how come still under the old owner, which I already changed it when I took over the state, I mean the store. So he told me it's still coming under the same name. It just came probably under my name, maybe, I don't know, once or something, and then they switch it to Al-Khawlaani name. Probably when they receive bills, they receive it for both under my name, the new owner, and the old owner. And probably he sent the bill with the check to the city under the old owner, Mohammed Al-Kholani, and they switched it under his name. I don't know what happened there, actually. And I didn't even know until now it was still under his name.

Just to clarify, I mean, it looks like in 2024, the business was changed to Marwan Nagy?

Yes, he's one of the partner.

Okay, so from June of 2024 till today, you were involved with this business?

I wasn't involved. He is the one who was involved all the time in the business. I just hold it for six months, and after that, he took over everything.

But he's still an owner of the business, right?

He's still owner, yeah. Okay, thank you. He's a partner, yeah.

Commissioner Yurov.

a follow-up question to the retailer um were you made aware of the violations listed uh you mentioned you were away but did the management make you aware of them or no well honestly yes i and i spoke to one of them one time and i don't know was a lady came to the store and she was telling us she was like i'm just gonna tell you what you have to take out of the store because this is just a warning you're supposed to take this and this so i told my my guy to take everything and he said he he just clear everything while she's there and even the second one when she came probably there is another products because we cannot keep in uh keep up with the city because every time they have it you know they change the rules they change the or they upgrade the the regulation and stuff so some stuff we didn't even know it's it's illegal to have them there but once we get noticed from the city we move them the same time And I was aware, yes.

And I think your attorney mentioned that flavored tobacco product laws were difficult to navigate, but I think all flavored tobacco has been banned in California since 2022. So after these violations, can you speak to why there were still flavored tobacco found in the store?

Well, no, actually, I didn't tell them to sell it. There is some product we didn't even know, like hemp. One time we heard you can have it. at the store, it's not illegal, because it's him, it's just the paper. And then the second notice, we got it, no, you have to move all this stuff. It just, like I said, it just every time we have new regulation to move stuff, and we're just trying to keep following the rules.

Understood. That's it for my questions to you. Thank you. And one question to staff, if I could. The retailer mentioned that, you know, they're also operating a grocery store, I think, out of this. I think you, staff, in responses to commissioner questions, mentioned that as long as the business license was maintained, the retailer, even with the TBL revoked, could continue to operate a separate business, just confirming that would still be the case regardless of the decision taken here.

Yes, that's correct. So if the business includes other retail sales, such as a convenience store, then the business would be allowed to continue without the tobacco-related sales if their TRL is revoked.

Thank you so much for the clarification. Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? So I have a question. Just how extensive is the education that you give the owners?

So when I go on an inspection to a tobacco retailer, I am sharing documents from the California DOJ, which pertains to their unflavored tobacco list. This list came out this year, 2026 in January, and so it is relatively new, but it is a tool for retailers to use to identify products that are listed as unflavored to be able to sell in the store without a violation occurring from future inspections. Prior to the DOJ unflavored tobacco list, it was in-person education from the inspector to the clerk or business owner present.

And I just want to add that while the city of Hayward has a history of trying to educate first before enforcement, it still is the business owner's responsibility to understand the requirements related to their tobacco retail license. So that regardless of whether they received notification or were told about a specific violation, they still have the obligation to comply. And that all of the grounds for revoking the license are based on the actual violations and not whether or not they have cured them.

Okay, so it's kind of an ignorance of the law is no excuse. Okay, that's it for my questions. Do we have any other comments? Commissioner Stephenson.

I just have one more question. So there's all this, seems like there's a lot of flavored tobacco in these stores. Where do I get flavored tobacco? How do I get it if it's illegal in California? Do I just go on Amazon or something?

You might need to ask the retailers. I don't know.

Any other questions? Do we have any public comments?

Oh, just kidding, I thought Attorney Vigilia had his hand up. But we do not have any public comment.

Okay, commissioner discussion. Do we have any comments from commissioners? Commissioner Stephens.

I'm prepared to make a motion that the Planning Commission revoke hip hop, sorry, hip hop smoke shop tobacco retail license that had been, because of violations of the Hayward Municipal Code as detailed in this staff report and related attachments A, that include three or more violations within a five-year period under Municipal Code Section 10.12794.

Do we have a second? I'll second. Yes. Okay, we have a second. Commissioner Hardy?

Commissioner Goodbody?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardy?

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe? Abstain. Commissioner Stephens?

Yes.

Commissioner Yorga? Yes. And Chair Hammond?

Yes.

The motion passes.

So the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for final decision. We can move on to the next item, staff.

Thank you. I will now move on to attachment seven, Stack City Smoke Shop located at 25125 Santa Clara Street. Stack City Smoke Shop accumulated a total of seven violations within a five-year period and demonstrated a continued pattern of noncompliance with the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Over multiple inspections, staff documented prohibited tobacco products prohibited vaping products, licensing violations, and concealed storage areas containing prohibited products. The business continues to accumulate violations despite inspections, compliance assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to voluntarily correct violations. No appeals were filed regarding the documented violations and at the time of this report was prepared, approximately $18,588 remains owed in penalties and fees. The violations before the commission occurred between 2022 and 2026. Violations documented by staff include flavored tobacco products, flavored nicotine products, electronic smoking devices, vape products, vape accessories, hemp products, CBD products, prohibited cigarillo packaging, menthol cigarettes, unsecured self-service tobacco displays, and expired or missing licenses. In January, 2026, code enforcement staff participated in a joint inspection with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and during that inspection, staff located prohibited products concealed within a trap door hidden in the floor of the business. The presence of these concealed storage areas, particularly after multiple years of inspections and documented violations, demonstrates that the violations were not isolated or inadvertent, but rather part of an ongoing pattern of noncompliance with the city's tobacco retail ordinance. These violations are documented in attachment seven of the staff report. The photographs displayed here provide examples of prohibited products, concealed storage areas, packaging violations, and licensing violations observed during inspections. Those photographs form part of the evidentiary record supporting attachment seven. Staff finds that this retailer accumulated at least seven violations within a five-year period, meeting the revocation criteria established under Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794. Despite years of inspections, compliance assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to correct violations, this establishment continued to violate the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Based on the documented inspection history, enforcement record, and continued violations observed at this location, staff recommends revocation of the tobacco retail license for Stack City Smoke Shop. This concludes staff's presentation regarding Stack City Smoke Shop. I am available for questions from the Commission.

Thank you very much. Do we have commission questions for staff on this item? Commissioner Stephens.

So it looks like from the photograph that you have here, it's not easy to get into this hidden compartment. Is that true?

Is this specifically regarding the trapdoor in the floor? Yes. Yes, this was unknown to code enforcement staff prior to the joint inspection with CDTFA who located this area.

And so just do you know how this works? Do I go in there and do I just ask, do you guys have any flavored cigarettes here? Is that how this works?

I do not have that information.

Thank you. Any other commission questions for staff? Commissioner Hardy.

Just wondering with the amount of money and fees that's still owed, what does a collection of that type of amount look like?

Typically unpaid penalty fees will be, they will move to special assessment on the property and end up on the property tax for the property owner to eventually pay.

Any other commissioner questions? So I have a question. I noticed that 2026 there was not a annual inspection done. Is there any reason why there wasn't an inspection done prior to this commission meeting?

For 2026? That's what it shows on the attachment. Yes, that's correct, and I can speak to that. The notice that was sent to the retailer had a reinspection date that was past today's meeting. They reached out to me days ago requesting a reinspection early, which I provided to them today, and they did pass. And they did, okay.

Any other commissioner questions? Commissioner Urquhart.

One quick one on that. Would that at all change your recommendation, today's passage or no?

Unfortunately, no. The violations remain that have been documented. It would not change my recommendation. Thanks for that clarification.

If there are no more commissioner questions, do we have any more commissioner questions? Okay, then we'll move on to the retailer to present evidence and argument for their case. You would have eight minutes. Do we have any representatives from the Stack City Smoke Shop?

We also do not have anyone online.

So there are no public comments for this?

No, so the owner's not online. Would you like to open for public comment?

Yeah, well, I would like to hear from the owner if they're available.

They're not online.

And they're not present?

No.

Okay, well, then we'll move on to public comments.

I don't see anyone online either for public comment.

Okay, let's open for commission discussion. Commissioner Stevens.

I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission revoke the tobacco retail license for Stack City Smoke Shop because it's committed violations of the Hayward Municipal Code as detailed in the staff report and related attachments. This includes the three or more violations within a five-year period, which satisfies the criteria requiring revocation under Hayward Municipal Code section 10.12794.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Commissioner Yerdoff is second. We take a roll call.

Commissioner Goodbody? Yes. Commissioner Hardy? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Abstain. Commissioner Stephens? Yes. Commissioner Yorgoff?

Yes.

Commissioner Hammond?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much. Staff would move on to the next item.

Thank you. I will now move on to attachment eight, stop and save number 106 located at 338 West Tennyson Road. Stop and save number 106 accumulated a total of eight violations within a five-year period. Unlike several of the previous cases, the majority of the violations associated with the retailer involved repeated failures to maintain and or display required licenses as required by the tobacco retail ordinance. These violations continued despite multiple inspections, notice of violations, invoices, compliance assistance, and opportunities to correct the violations. The business demonstrated an ongoing pattern of noncompliance over several years. No appeals were filed regarding the documented violations, and at the time of this report being prepared, approximately $10,892 remains due from an ongoing enforcement case. The violations before the commission occurred between 2022 and 2026. Staff documented repeated expired or missing licenses over multiple inspection cycles. Additional violations included flavored tobacco products, hemp products, and prohibited cigarillo packaging. Several inspections identified the same licensing violations after notices and opportunities to correct had already been provided. These violations are documented in attachment eight of the staff report. Staff finds that this retailer accumulated at least eight violations within a five-year period, meeting the revocation criteria under the Hayward Municipal Code section 10-1.2794. Despite years of inspections, compliance assistance, educational outreach, and opportunities to correct violations, this establishment continued to violate the city's tobacco retail ordinance. Based on the documented inspection history, enforcement record, and continued violations observed at this location, staff recommends revocation of the tobacco retail license for stop and save number 106. This concludes the staff's presentation regarding stop and save number 106. I am available for questions from the Commission. Thank you very much.

Do we have any Commission questions for staff? Looks like we don't have any questions from commissioners. We can now hear from the retailer to present evidence or argument in their favor. You have eight minutes.

Is the owner of Stop and Save either online or in person? I don't believe they are online or in person.

Okay. Then we'll open up for public comments on this. Do we have any public comments? Yes. You have three minutes.

Yes, I just got one question for the staff. When you guys go to the stores and you guys give out these violations.

Sorry, before you start, can you give us your name and then so we can put the timer on?

My name? Ali.

Ali? Okay. And then give me one second. Okay, your time is starting now.

Okay, so these inspections, when they are being done, are you guys giving them the violations at the moment as it's happening, or after, like a month after, or are they just not being notified until now?

So we're gonna refrain from responding at this point, because there's no cross-examination allowed at these hearings.

Okay, thank you. Oh, okay. I'm sorry?

The question could come through the chair to staff if you want to hear an answer to that question.

would you like to answer that question? Yes, I can provide an answer.

Thank you. So after an inspection that is considered failed with violation of licensing or prohibited products found, a notice of violation or administrative penalty fee is written and sent to the property owner and in many cases the business owner as well to the business itself for correction. On that notice there is a re-inspection date of which the business needs to be in compliance by. And so that is sent for each inspection that is considered a fail. That is all.

Okay, thank you for that answer. Yes, Commissioner Stevens.

Just just to clarify I've heard you say many times this evening that you try to work with the businesses So maybe maybe walk us through you you go in the first day. There's a there's an issue How do you like like give us a give us a 30-second spiel of how you work that situation?

When I approach a clerk or business owner during an inspection I I am very willing to work with a clerk or business owner if there's one or two items that they were unsure about. Tobacco laws, there's a lot of tobacco products that are playing the game of changing names to conceal a flavored product as something else, as a non-flavored product. And I do understand that that can be confusing. I will always give out the Department of Justice unflavored tobacco list document so that they have a tool to check every single product to see if it is allowed to be sold within California. Along with that, if it is only one product that is on the shelf and everything else is within compliance, all licensing is posted and current, and it is a single product that they may not have known about, I will give them the opportunity, as most inspectors would, to remove that product from the shelf and storeroom and cease sale of that product without issuing a notice of violation or moving forward with enforcement.

Thank you. Thank you for that comment. Do we have any other commissioner comments? Do we have a motion?

I can motion.

Commissioner Yurov.

So I move that the commission finds that the retailer stop and save number 106 has committed at least three violations in a five year period and that the commission revoke their license.

And I would like to second that motion but I'd also like to mention that you know There's a lot of effort and time that went into this. It looks like the staff has done a Herculean job to try to work with these businesses to correct actions. There's a ton of unpaid fines that are shown here. if you're gonna run a business, an operated business, especially selling a tobacco product, you gotta know the business. You gotta study the business. That's your livelihood. You gotta know it. I don't think there's really an excuse for this and it's really disappointing that we're here right now because this is taking a lot of time that we could all spend doing much more beneficial things. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Any other comments? So we have a motion and we have a second. Roll call.

Commissioner Goodbody? Yes. Commissioner Hardy?

Yes.

Commissioner Low? Yes. Commissioner Stephens? Yes. Commissioner Yorga?

Yes.

Chair Hammond?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you. So the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for final decision. It looks like that's the last of our retailers. Okay, then it looks like we'll be moving on to the approval of the minutes.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for April 9th, 2026.

Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, we'll give that to Carla. Commissioner Goodbody is second. That's for the April 9th. Do we have, for the April 23rd, do we have an approval of the minutes?