Planning commission recommends keeping Building Appeals Board, urges reconstitution of board members

The Ojai Planning Commission on July 16 conducted a conceptual review of options for the city’s Building Appeals Board (BAB) and concluded it will recommend to city council that the BAB remain a separate board and that its seats be reconstituted and filled.

Community Development Director Lucas Seibert presented three options for the commission’s consideration: (1) delegate BAB authority to the city council; (2) transfer BAB authority to the planning commission (expanding the commission’s responsibilities into City of Ojai Title 9 building‑code appeals); or (3) maintain the current structure (status quo) and reactivate/reconstitute the BAB. Seibert said the BAB has not met regularly in recent years and that the existing membership terms have expired.

Speakers and former BAB members who addressed the commission urged keeping the board intact. Steve Quillese, who previously served on the BAB, explained the BAB’s role is distinct from the planning commission because BAB rulings on building‑code appeals are final (not appealed to city council) and because the body handles technical building matters. Public commenters and commissioners expressed concern that transferring the BAB’s functions to either the council or the planning commission would either politicize technical building decisions or impose a substantial additional workload and technical learning burden on a body already tasked with land‑use decisions.

Commissioners and several public commenters also identified practical problems to fix: the BAB has not met since 2022, all BAB seats are technically expired, and the city clerk’s office should advertise and interview candidates so the board can be reconstituted and available should an appeal arise. Several commissioners said the building official and city inspectors would continue to provide technical expertise to any reviewing body, and that staff would provide any necessary orientation for new members.

The commission did not adopt a formal ordinance change; rather, commissioners expressed consensus to recommend that council maintain the separate BAB structure and to advise the city to restart the appointment process to ensure a functioning board. Commissioners also asked staff to report back with additional context if the council requests further analysis (for example, why the issue was raised at council and whether a charter or policy change is intended). The commission discussed recent state law changes that limit the scope for municipalities to adopt building‑code deviations and noted that any future code revisions would be narrowly constrained by state requirements.

Ending: The commission’s discussion will be forwarded to city council as a recommendation to keep the BAB structure intact and to reconstitute its membership; staff said it will follow up with the city clerk’s office to restart appointments and to provide additional information to the commission if council asks for further analysis.