Abatement Appeals Board previews formal procedural rules requiring earlier filings from appellants and DBI

The Abatement Appeals Board on a virtual meeting reviewed proposed procedural rules that would formalize long-standing practices and set new deadlines for submissions in appeal cases. Deputy City Attorney Coriander told commissioners the draft chiefly adds two deadlines: appellants may file a written statement explaining the basis for their appeal 21 days before a hearing, and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) must file its staff report one week before the hearing so the board and appellant can review it in advance.

Why it matters: Advocates of the change said earlier exchange of written materials should streamline hearings, let staff and board members prepare more effectively and, in some cases, eliminate the need for an in-person appearance. Vice President Tam praised the proposal as an efficiency improvement that could reduce unnecessary appearances and help staff better understand cases ahead of hearings.

What the draft does: Coriander summarized that the notice-of-appeal form and related materials are expected to be overhauled after the rules are finalized. The new rules would:
- Allow appellants to submit a written statement three weeks before the hearing documenting the basis for appeal.
- Require DBI to deliver its staff report at least one week before the hearing and provide a copy to the appellant.
- Preserve the board’s existing options (uphold, not uphold or continue for good cause) and maintain current code language on consequences when an appellant fails to appear.

Questions and clarifications: Commissioners pressed for more precise language on several operational points. Commissioner Epler asked that the rules allow flexibility when meeting start times change (the draft sets a 9 a.m. start but the meeting began at 9:30 a.m.) and proposed an explicit duty for commissioners to forward any appellant communications to the board secretary so all commissioners receive them. Coriander agreed to add clarifying language addressing business-day definitions and a requirement to forward correspondence to the secretary. Epler also asked for a specific hard-copy delivery point (staff suggested the fourth-floor reception area as a practical example).

Commissioner Sommer asked whether appellants consistently address the applicable standard—showing "substantial error" by DBI—rather than simply recounting project facts. Coriander said the top of the appeal form already cites the applicable building-code standard and that revising the form to make the standard clearer will be part of the next step.

On rehearings and failure to appear: Commissioners asked who approves rehearing requests and what standard applies. Coriander said a rehearing notice form exists and the board votes to grant rehearings when appellants show additional evidence that might change an outcome. He also noted that the provision making an order effective when an appellant fails to appear is taken directly from ordinance language, though the board has provided leniency recently in virtual settings.

Next steps: Coriander said the draft rules are open to board amendments and public comment; if no additional amendments are proposed the rules will be posted in January for formal adoption at that meeting. He said the notice-of-appeal form will be overhauled after the rules are formalized.

Votes at a glance: The board recorded a motion, second and unanimous voice vote to adopt minutes for prior meetings and later moved to adjourn; no formal roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript.