After nearly two years of debate, the Brentwood City Council has given direction to move forward with changes to its Downtown Specific Plan that would allow a limited number of tattoo and body art businesses in downtown Brentwood.
The council approved the direction on a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Jovita Mendoza and Mayor Susannah Meyer voting no. The motion directs staff to classify body art as a separate land use, prohibit body art businesses within the first 65 feet of first-floor storefronts along Oak Street and First Street, and establish an administrative licensing process.
Under the direction, the two existing downtown body art facilities with county approvals would be able to seek city licenses, while two additional establishments could eventually be permitted, creating a cap of four downtown body art establishments.
The decision does not immediately change the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff said an amendment and new licensing system will require ordinances to return to the council. The earliest the Downtown Specific Plan amendment could return is Oct. 8, with a separate licensing ordinance and fee potentially coming back in November.
Councilmember Jovita Mendoza asked staff about the analysis used to come up with permitted downtown.
So, since it’s currently not a permitted use, it is prohibited. Um, nothing in our analysis says that it is permitted. The county licensing is very distinct in that it only reviews and approves the health safety aspect and does not provide any land use approvals. No businesses in downtown are currently permitted in any shape or fashion in terms of land use regulations. There are two current approvals for county health and safety approvals, but that does not constitute a city land use approval.
Mendoza then asked about what analysis was done on financial impact on sales revenue for the city by allowing four.
Staff said the four was based on council direction at the last meeting. Staff has not done any financial analysis.
Mendoza said at the last meeting there was only one and now there is two with a county license.
“I don’t think it’s fair to say that there’s two because there wasn’t two when we last approved it. They just got that health from the county. So, I think that’s misrepresenting a little bit what exactly is happening,” explained Mendoza.
Staff was unclear Tuesday when the licenses were approved and permits issued—just that they currently have a license. Mendoza also confirmed when they had their last meeting, they did not have a license.
Councilmember Tony Oerlemans asked about the language where it requires a license excluding the first 65 ft on the first floor as me as measured perpendicular to the street front. What does that mean?
Staff explained from the property line along the street, you would make a “T” from the property line and 65 ft directly back from the street on First Street. Within that first 65 ft, that’s typically what we call in our downtown specific plan our retail zone. Within that first 65 feet, it is meant to be regulated in a way that has more pedestrian activity and provides more back and forth daily traffic outside of that. So, if you have a building that’s 100 feet deep and you have tenants spaces within the first 65 ft, if you have a tenant space that starts at 70 feet that that doesn’t have its actual storefront, doesn’t have a window directly facing the street, you could have it in that location in that suite in that building. But you can’t have one that has an actual window or door that fronts on the street within 65 ft of the street.
Alexis Morris further added this policy is already being used in the Downtown Specific Plan to limit office space from being directly on the street – meant to keep an active street front.
Councilmember Faye Maloney asked that Contra Costa County has two separate licenses, one for body art and one is specific to semi-cosmetic or permanent cosmetic and why didn’t Brentwood define it – adding that is something the council asked for.
Morris said while the licenses are different, they are regulated the same license.
Mendoza argued they are different based on the fees — $430 is the body art facility tattoo, body piercing, branding permit while $370 is the body art facility semi-permanent cosmetic permit.
“They might be different fees, but my understanding from talking to the actual county inspector is that they’re the same county regulation,” said Morris.
The council also had a discission over enforcement and fourth amendment – entering businesses and what code enforcement can and cannot do – Morris added that they are a complaint based enforcement and its administrative where they have to observe it, its not criminal process.
Vice Mayor Pa’Tanisha Pierson asked Morris of the three recommendations “A, B or C” for the definition… staff confirmed it was recommendation “B”.
Estrella Juarez, of Golden Heart said the information on one business being registered was not true, she had her business registered at 737 Second St since opening in August 2025 – including facility permit and practitioner permit for cosmetics – noting for tattoos, they are the exact same documents.
She also shared there was an event downtown on Friday advertising tiny tattoos out of a salon – she said tattoos or permanent cosmetics, they are the same and could not separate them.
“There’s no way to separate the two. So, either you allow them all or you allow none,” said Juarez.” I don’t know where the targeting is happening. This is two years in. Like, make a decision. Yes or no.”
Chris Juarez said he hopes this moves in a timely manner stating its been 20 months since it brought up and 16 months since voted on.
“I feel like we had talked about having a target on your back. I feel like it’s been nothing but that, the harassment of our business is it’s getting a little too much. I just hope that this moves in a timely manner so everyone is operating similar to us and we operating like everyone else and everyone is on the same page,” said Juarez.
Meanwhile, Tom Gregory pointed out the Juarez family had been crucified and while the city is suggesting grandfathering in ones doing it illegally – noting the Juarez brought this to the attention of the city to make everyone do it legal.
“Everyone has been violating the zoning for months or years,” said Gregory. “But this is the couple that wants to make that legal for them and everyone else that we’re going to put through the ringer for 20 months over this stuff. It’s completely ridiculous in my opinion. There are people in downtown, people, you know, people that are friends of yours that are not just doing cosmetic tattooing. They’re tattooing. We’re not trying to hurt anybody else. That’s ridiculous. So, what we’re trying to do is make them legal.”
After public comments, Councilmember Tony Oerlemans said he didn’t see the difference between applying tattoos to somebody’s body or putting temporary tattoos for makeup.
“It’s the same business,” said Oerlemans. “We have many studios in the city of Brentwood that are applying permanent makeup, permanent art and I don’t know if they have conditional use permits (CUP), but everything outside of the downtown that applies tattoos is supposed to have a CUP.”
Oerlemans questioned if they change the definition, is the city going to run around the whole city of Brentwood and shut down all the salons that are applying permanent makeup?
“All this was brought forward for was the downtown specific plan being separated from the rest of the city. I just wanted it to be the same as the rest of the city. I don’t see a difference of the downtown specific plan being an amazing place that has to be protected from these horrible businesses that are called tattoo parlors. I don’t see that. It doesn’t appear that way to me. It appears that everybody in Brentwood would like to go where they want to go to get the services they want to get. And if one of those businesses are in the downtown where they should be permitted, just like the rest of the city with a conditional use permit in the downtown, then let them be in the downtown. Why is it different? What’s separate about the downtown specific plan that is so different that we have to give it its own zoning and make it different than the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan that we have to make it different than how many planning districts do we have? 72 or 85 or something that we all have to be different and they all have to be different because who said so? Let’s make them the same, which is what I originally tried to do anyway was draw all the planning districts into and have a common planning district to make it easier for small businesses to come to Brentwood. Give the small business all the rules laid out in front of them. Give them to them in advance and let them do their job, which is open a business,” shared Oerlemans.
He added, they just had Maganos Well tell the council how hard it was to open a business in Brentwood. in here telling us how hard it is to open a business in Brentwood.
“But we’re going to continue to make more rules to make it harder for more businesses to want to come to Brentwood because the downtown is so great and so different than the rest of the city. We have to treat them differently,” Oerlemans continued. “Alls we’re trying to do, my original intent was to make the citizens of Brentwood the same no matter where they lived. No matter which side of Brentwood Boulevard they lived on, no matter which side of Sand Creek they lived on. All the businesses, all the all of them are the same. But we’re going to continue to separate it. Doesn’t make doesn’t make any sense to me. I would like to see this move forward.”
He laid out what he would like to see happen:
- Define body art separately and classify it as a separate land use
- Prohibit body art within the first 65 ft of the first floor along Oak Street and First Street.
- Consistent with the DSP retail required measurement and then required administrative body art license permit.
- The two existing downtown body art facilities would continue allow two additional body art establishments for a total of four.
Meanwhile, Mendoza said she disagreed with everything Oerlemans said.
“Downtown is such a special place and it needs to be treated differently,” explained Mendoza. “I said it before when we look at our downtown, it is an economic driver. You need to look at it
as a mall kind of when you do the zoning and what you desire to have in there. You want to create an area that fits what you want for your downtown. That’s why most downtowns don’t have tattoo parlors downtown. They don’t bring in traffic, and we’ve said that. I mean, people can say they do, they don’t. They don’t bring in sales tax revenue. People can say they do. They don’t. I just I am not okay with having tattoo parlors downtown.”
She added, she would be to having them on the second floor, but cautioned a major landowner said three other tattoo parlors want to come downtown.
“This is more Tom’s fault because he rented in the place before they had the license. You’ve been tattooing in there already,” said Mendoza. “So my thing is I’m not going to reward bad behavior.
I want to follow the rules and I’m not I don’t think that we should reward bad behavior.”
She said by making this change, it will change the downtown going forward.
“Some people might think we make it hard to do business in Brentwood. It’s because we have high standards. We should have high standards for our town,” said Mendoza. “I don’t see anything wrong with having standards. I don’t want to dummy them down, which is what I feel like we’re doing. and we are sacrificing our downtown financial vitality when we do that.”
Mendoza also said she had video that has been given to staff of tattooing downtown and reiterated the license were not in place at the last meeting.
Meanwhile, Councilmember Faye Maloney reiterated comments from the last meeting.
“I do believe that we need to be very thoughtful on what we do in our downtown because it is the center and the heart of our city. I don’t believe that every single area needs to be treated the same. We have industrial zoning, we have commercial zoning, we have our downtown, we have Streets of Brentwood, we have PA-1. Everything has to get treated the way that it needs to. And I do agree with what we have in the general plan and the downtown specific plan,” explained Maloney. “ But I do believe that it I am okay with having tattoo parlors in our downtown, but it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner. Especially knowing that there is zero tax generated revenue from a tattoo parlor. So, I wouldn’t want to see five or six next to each other in our center of our city, basically in our heart of our city to take away from um businesses that would allow for foot traffic, whether it’s restaurants or clothing or whatever the situation is.”
Maloney said she was okay with two and grandfathering in what they had previously.
Pierson was over the conversation.
“I’m a little over the conversation as well because I’m still why we go we’re going so hard on this one,” said Pierson.
Mayor Susannah Meyer said she agreed this has taken way to long.
“This has never been about tattoo parlors for me as far as like not being appropriate walking spaces or inappropriate around schools or any of those things. And I’ve said that before. I still feel really strongly about that. It’s self-expression and I think that is absolutely something that people should celebrate,” said Meyer while noting her hesitations around amending the Downtown Specific Plan and the cap of four. “So, I’m not good with a free-for-all. I think if I’m hearing correctly, what is probably going to end up happening, and I could be wrong, is that your business would be approved to finally be legal. I would say I really prefer the 65 ft out, not in the downtown core or the second story. That’s my personal preference.”
She continued.
“I will say I very definitely think downtown does need to be treated differently based on the
it is the heart of the center of the city. The amount of people it brings in um economic development wise the fact that it brings people in here that then go other places. It’s tied to our agricultural tourism like all there’s so much about downtown that needs to be held up high to a different standard in my opinion,” said Meyer.
She added, “I feel awful this process has taken this long. I would prefer second story 65 ft out, but not in the downtown core. I don’t think I’m going to win this. I think there’s going to be a different vote. Again, speculating. I don’t know anybody’s vote for sure. But if you do end up becoming legal, congratulations. This has been a long hard battle.”
The council voted 3-2 in favor of allowing tattoo and boy art businesses with Meyer and Mendoza dissenting.
Staff Report – click here
Previous
- Sept. 7, 2026 – Brentwood Set to Talk Tattoos, Body Art in the Downtown Area
- July 2026 – Brentwood Set to Talk Winter Market, Tattoo Parlors, Cannabis Fines and More
- May 2025 – Brentwood Agrees to Allow Tattoo Studios in Downtown Area
- Jan 2025 – Tattoo Shops Could Be Coming to Downtown Brentwood
