Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Miscellaneous Permit for Memento Rosa Tattoo and Body Piercing Studio

• Staff recommended approval of the permit for a tattoo and piercing studio, citing consistency with permitted personal services in the C-1 zoning district.
• The commission discussed the condition limiting active stations to three to manage parking demand and the need for separate review of exterior changes.
• Commissioners noted concerns regarding the building's exterior condition, suggesting code enforcement action might be appropriate despite it being outside the permit's scope.
• The motion to pass the resolution as written was seconded and approved.

Tentative Parcel Map for 216 Park Avenue

• Staff presented a request to subdivide a parcel into three lots and extend Olive Street, noting the project generates minimal peak hour trips.
• Significant discussion focused on the consistency of the traffic impact analysis with General Plan policies regarding incremental traffic on Highway 33.
• Commissioners identified unresolved threshold questions concerning housing unit counts, utility letters, pedestrian safety, and neighbor outreach.
• The motion to continue the item to December 2, 2026, to allow staff to gather additional information and county input was approved.

Future Agenda Items

• Staff outlined upcoming regular meetings scheduled for November 4, November 18, and December 2.
• Design Review Permits for the Wildflower Hotel, Ojai Roots, and the Humane Society are scheduled for late November and early December.
• A concept review for a 38-unit residential building at 325 Bryant Street is set for November 18.
• A Design Review Permit for the Ojai Valley Inn is scheduled, with the Oak Grill building requiring prior review by the Historic Preservation Commission.

Director’s Report

• Staff reminded commissioners of a virtual Alcoholic Beverage Control workshop scheduled for the following Wednesday.
• A variance denial at 204 Lark Allen has been appealed to City Council.
• A new appeal regarding cottage phasing at 312 Aliso was received and will be forwarded to City Council.

Commission Member Reports

• A commissioner reported on a Metropolitan Area Council meeting discussing an AutoZone proposal and community concerns about signage and parking.
• The City Council liaison highlighted a MAC proposal to exempt commercial properties from peak hour traffic calculations and raised concerns about evacuation routes.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 21, 2026

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance

• The meeting was called to order. Roll call was taken, noting the absence of Commissioner Hanson. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by a staff member.

2. Approval of Agenda

• The agenda was reviewed. No changes were requested, and the agenda was approved as written.

3. Consent Calendar and Minutes

• The minutes from the October 7, 2026, meeting were reviewed. A correction was noted regarding the roll call, specifically adjusting the attendance status of two commissioners who had been incorrectly listed. The minutes were approved as corrected.

4. Disclosure of Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts

• Commissioners and staff disclosed their site visits and ex parte contacts. Several members reported visiting the sites associated with the evening’s agenda items. No ex parte contacts were reported.

5. Public Hearing: Miscellaneous Permit for Memento Rosa Tattoo and Body Piercing Studio (305 East Matilija Street)

• Staff Report: Staff presented a request for a miscellaneous permit for a tattoo and body piercing studio in an existing commercial space (approx. 535 sq. ft.). The proposal includes three tattoo stations, one piercing station, and retail sales. Staff determined the use is consistent with "personal services," a permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, via a similar use determination. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including a limit of no more than three active stations at any time to manage parking demand.
• Discussion: Questions were raised regarding the zoning clearance process, exterior maintenance responsibilities, and parking calculations based on the station limit. Staff clarified that exterior changes would require separate review and that the parking analysis was based on the three-station limit.
• Applicant Presentation: The applicants, Robin Farrell and Chance Robles, presented their business plan, emphasizing the artistic and community aspects of the studio. They explained that the fourth station would serve as a "guest spot" for visiting artists and that the piercing station would be used intermittently. They stated operating hours would be 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Wednesday through Sunday.
• Public Comment: Multiple members of the public spoke in support of the project, citing the applicants' local ties, the artistic nature of the work, and the potential for community benefit. One neighbor expressed support, noting the positive impact on the plaza. Another resident raised concerns about the cumulative traffic impact of this project and a future proposal on Olive Street, arguing that the intersections are already risky.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioners discussed the fit of the use within the zoning code and the condition regarding the number of active stations. One commissioner raised concerns about the exterior condition of the building, suggesting that code enforcement or a formal letter to the property owner might be appropriate to address deterioration, though staff noted this was outside the scope of the current permit.
• Motion and Vote: A motion was made to pass the resolution as written. The motion was seconded. The roll call was taken, and the motion passed.

6. Public Hearing: Tentative Parcel Map for 216 Park Avenue (Subdivision and Olive Street Extension)

• Staff Report: Staff presented a request for a tentative parcel map to subdivide one parcel into three and extend Olive Street (currently a paper street). The project involves market-rate housing. Staff noted that the site meets subdivision standards for area and width. The traffic analysis indicated the project would generate 3 AM peak hour trips and 5 PM peak hour trips. Staff stated that the project does not trigger CEQA impacts for vehicle miles traveled.
• Discussion: Significant discussion occurred regarding the traffic impact analysis and its consistency with the city’s General Plan policies, specifically regarding incremental traffic on Highway 33. A commissioner cited a 1990 policy prohibiting incremental traffic on impacted roadway segments unless for affordable housing. The traffic engineer argued that the trips were local and fractional, not daily commutes to Ventura. Staff acknowledged the need to verify the current status of this policy with Ventura County.
• Applicant Presentation: The applicant, Andre Sayer, and his engineer, Daryl Nelson, responded to questions. They confirmed that fire access requirements were met and that the city engineer had reviewed the improvements. They explained that "will serve" letters for utilities are currently in letter form and will be finalized with full plans after tentative map approval. They stated the intent was to develop the lots themselves.
• Public Comment: Comments were mixed. One resident supported the project, arguing the need for housing and noting that ADUs could be built on the existing lot without the subdivision. Another resident opposed the project, citing traffic safety concerns at the Olive Street/Grand Avenue intersection and the cumulative impact of a future 10-lot development nearby. A homeowner within 500 feet requested postponement or denial, citing inadequate analysis and concerns about the paper street. A City Council member, speaking as a resident, clarified the context of the MAC meeting regarding traffic policy exemptions.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioners raised several "threshold questions" that remained unresolved, including:
• The total number of potential housing units (up to 4 per lot, including ADUs/JADUs).
• The status of the traffic policy regarding Highway 33 and the need for county clarification.
• The finalization of utility "will serve" letters.
• Pedestrian safety and street design details (e.g., rolled curbs, bioswales).
• The lack of neighbor outreach.
• Staff suggested treating the meeting as a concept review and allowing time for staff to gather additional information and county input.
• Motion and Vote: A motion was made to continue the item to December 2, 2026, to allow staff to provide responses to the raised questions and obtain county input on the traffic policy. The motion was seconded. The roll call was taken, and the motion passed.

7. Future Agenda Items

• Staff provided an overview of upcoming items:
• November 4: Regular meeting.
• November 18: Regular meeting.
• December 2: Regular meeting (including the continued item from Park Avenue).
• December 4: Design Review Permit (DRP) for 923 East Ojai Avenue (Wildflower Hotel) and Ojai Roots.
• November 18: DRP for 402 Bryant Street (Humane Society) and a concept review for a 38-unit residential apartment building at 325 Bryant Street.
• Ojai Valley Inn: A DRP for 905 Country Club Road is scheduled, with a note that the Oak Grill building is a landmark and will go to the Historic Preservation Commission first.

8. Director’s Report

• ABC Workshop: Staff reminded commissioners of a virtual ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) workshop scheduled for the following Wednesday.
• Appeals: Staff reported that a variance denial at 204 Lark Allen has been appealed to City Council. A new appeal for 312 Aliso (cottages phasing) was received and will also be forwarded to City Council.

9. Commission Member Reports

• MAC Meeting: A commissioner reported on the Metropolitan Area Council (MAC) meeting, noting discussion about an AutoZone proposal and community concerns regarding signage and parking.
• City Council Liaison: The liaison reported on the MAC meeting, highlighting the proposal to exempt commercial properties from peak hour traffic calculations and concerns regarding evacuation routes and traffic safety.

10. Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 PM.