Hayward Planning Commission recommends denial of conditional use permit for Foothill cannabis dispensary

The Hayward Planning Commission voted 5–1 (one recusal) on Sept. 25 to recommend that the City Council deny a conditional use permit application to open a commercial cannabis retail dispensary at 21463 Foothill Boulevard.

Staff described the proposal as a request to retenant a vacant, roughly 15,000-square-foot former Walgreens space within a 22,000-square-foot shopping center on a site of about 1.3 acres. Senior Planner Steve Kowalski told commissioners the project met the city’s zoning rules for a retail dispensary and was found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (existing facilities). The applicant, identified in the staff report as Esther Lopez and Engelbert Sysakas of Green Enterprises Inc. doing business as Fino’s Hayward, was represented in the hearing by retail operations staff from Phenos of Hayward.

Kowalski outlined operational controls proposed in the conditional use permit: daily hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; no on‑site consumption or delivery; a minimum of three employees per shift; two licensed security guards on site during business hours; interior and exterior IP cameras with monitoring and at least 90 days of retained footage; a professionally monitored alarm; and procedures for storing and disposing cannabis waste and for secure transportation if offered in the future.

Detective Gabriel “Gabby” Wright of the Hayward Police Department described the department’s role in reviewing the security plan and said the proposed measures met HPD standards. Wright explained that cannabis retail requires security features beyond those typically required of liquor or tobacco retailers, including mandatory guards and camera access for police.

Commissioners pressed staff, applicants and security representatives on multiple operational details: whether cameras have battery backup and remote monitoring (respondents said state rules and the applicant’s plan require backup and third‑party monitoring); guard training and licensing (state guard card and, if armed, additional qualifications); whether security footage is searchable for investigations (applicant said footage is indexed and can be provided to police); and traffic and queuing plans for the large retail space (applicants said the model relies on greater floor area, more registers and additional staff to limit dwell time and line spillover). Applicants and their operations manager said they do not plan to provide delivery services at this location.

Public testimony spanned more than three hours. About two dozen speakers supported the application, saying the operator has a long local record, would invest in safety and security, and would create jobs and tax revenue. Supporters included business partners and residents who said the applicant had engaged with neighboring tenants. Opponents — including parents, students, instructors from the adjacent jiu‑jitsu school, neighborhood residents and public‑health and safety advocates — urged denial. They cited safety, traffic and “clustering” concerns (an existing dispensary is one block away in unincorporated Alameda County), proximity to children and youth programs, and the character of the corridor. Several speakers described encounters with crime and congestion on the stretch of Foothill Boulevard and urged the commission to prioritize youth safety and neighborhood character.

During deliberations commissioners referenced: the city’s 2017 cannabis ordinance and a 2020 update that expanded allowable zones and strengthened local controls; staff findings that the proposal complies with zoning and general‑plan policies; and HPD’s review of the security plan. Commissioners divided on whether the protections and conditions proposed would be sufficient to mitigate neighborhood impacts and whether the location — a major thoroughfare and adjacent to a youth martial‑arts studio — was appropriate for a second cannabis retailer in the corridor.

Chair Hardie made the motion to recommend denial to the City Council. After a second and brief procedural discussion, commissioners voted as recorded by the clerk: Goodbody — yes (recommend denial); Hammond — recused; Lowe — yes (reluctantly); Myers — yes; Stevens — yes; Yarkov/Yorgov — no; Hardie (Chair) — yes. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.

The staff report and proposed conditions of approval remain part of the public record. If the council elects to proceed with any approval, the CUP would include annual renewal and inspections, HPD access to cameras and the authority to initiate revocation proceedings if the operator generates disproportionate calls for service or otherwise violates conditions.

Commissioner and staff comments at the meeting underlined two continuing lines of inquiry for council review: (1) operational details staff and HPD can enforce (exact camera and monitoring specifications, guard company contracts and training documentation, parole of ID‑scan and queue management systems); and (2) traffic and queuing/ingress‑egress analysis if the council or applicant seek to expand hours or services in the future. The Planning Commission record will be transmitted to the City Council along with the staff recommendation.