The draft of a bill designed to crack down on Oahu’s illegal large-scale houses, or so-called monster homes, is already drawing fire — and it hasn’t even gotten its first public hearing.

The influential Building Industry Association of Hawaii said the Department of Planning and Permitting’s proposal misses the mark, addressing symptoms of the problem but not the cause.

Marshall Hickox, BIA Hawaii president-elect, said there’s very little in the DPP bill that his organization can support.

To BIA Hawaii, the problem is the number of large-scale houses being converted to illegal apartment dwellings. “There’s nothing in that bill that addresses illegal apartment rentals, which was the whole, initial complaint,” said Hickox, co-owner of Homeworks Construction.

To enact stronger legislation on floor-area-to-total-lot-area percentage, also known as floor area ratio or FAR, is an attempt to curb the consequences not the root of monster houses, he said. “All they do is try to solve the problem by going after what are the symptoms of that issue, and it doesn’t make any sense to do that.”

Meanwhile, the DPP proposal could hinder those who legitimately want to accommodate family members moving in as a result of the expensive housing market, Hickox said.

The city should instead be enforcing existing law intended to prevent illegal apartments, he said. “All those laws are on the books already.”

A surge in monster homes in older Oahu communities first drew the attention of city officials after irate neighbors brought their concerns to City Hall. Critics say large-scale houses are unsightly, could cause water runoff, increase property taxes, and impact street parking and sewer capacity.

Adding to the fears are confirmed reports that many of the large-scale houses violate current building and land use laws by creating dormitories, vacation rentals, care homes and other illegal living situations.

The DPP draft proposal attempts to limit the size of houses through a cap on FAR of no more than 0.7. That would mean the owner of a 5,000-square-foot lot would be able to build a house with a living area of up to 3,500 square feet. The bill also requires those who choose to build between 0.6 and 0.7 FAR to meet additional parking and setback requirements.

The 0.7 FAR measure is already being used as a limit for residential building permits under a temporary moratorium of up to two years on large-scale houses under a bill that the Council passed in March designed as a stop-gap measure. No building permits are being issued for houses with a FAR greater than 0.7 during the moratorium.

The city Planning Commission will take public testimony on the bill at a hearing 1:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Mission Memorial Auditorium.

Hickox, a member of a task force selected to advise the Department of Planning and Permitting, said the process was rushed and that the views of the members were ignored.

The DPP draft being submitted to the Planning Commission “remained virtually unchanged” from the one submitted to him and other task force members at the outset of their meetings, Hickox said. Notes that came out of the task force did not include any of the input that differed from what DPP was proposing, he said.

Trisha Kehau Watson- Sproat, another member of the task force and also of the group HI Good Neighbor, said she never saw any minutes or notes from any of the meetings.

“The process was highly problematic,” Watson-Sproat said, noting that the task force met only three times. DPP issued a draft to the task force at its first meeting, she said.

“Despite being told that our input would be considered in the draft, they very clearly were not,” she said.

Kathy Sokugawa, acting DPP director, said task force proceedings were rushed because the Council’s timeline for DPP to submit a draft was tight.

“It was difficult for us to do more than we had done,” she said. “We didn’t have enough time to explore alternate ideas like the impervious surfaces idea.”

She added that the draft also considered the hours of testimony given at Council meetings where legislation dealing with large-scale houses were discussed.

Sokugawa suggested the Council, on its own, ask the task force to continue meeting as it goes through its deliberations on a final plan.

The response to DPP’s proposal, however, hasn’t been all bad.

Members of HI Good Neighbor, formed by Honolulu residents who want stronger regulations of large-scale houses, said the DPP bill coupled with elements from an earlier proposal from Councilman Trevor Ozawa are a good starting point.

Current law says the maximum lot coverage, or footprint, of a dwelling in a residential zone cannot exceed 50 percent. The structure must also be set back 10 feet from the front edge of the property and 5 feet from the side and rear. Height cannot exceed 25 feet, 30 feet if the lot is sloping.

Additionally, two on-site parking spaces are required for each lot plus one additional space per 1,000 square feet of floor area over 2,500 square feet. There’s also an increasing height setback requirement for any portion of a structure taller than 15 feet.

The DPP proposal ditches using maximum lot coverage percentage as the means to determine a house is too large, replacing it with the FAR criteria. “This will directly tie the mass or volume of the building to its lot size,” according to a DPP staff report prepared for the Planning Commission.

The draft bill also increases the parking and setback requirements for those seeking to build to an FAR of between 0.6 and 0.7. Homes of that size must provide two additional on-site parking spaces beyond the standard two stalls. The side and rear yard setback requirement would increase to 8 feet from 5 feet. The front setback for those structures would stay at 10 feet.

Sokugawa said the formulas used were based on an analysis her staff conducted using building permits issued between 2007 and 2018.

“We were able to, in our report, share data about historical development and what’s currently going with some factual information as opposed to anecdotal information,” she said.

The median size, based on floor area, of homes built during that period was about 3,000 square feet. The greatest number of single-family lots are 5,000 square feet so a 3,000- square-foot house on such a property would carry a 0.6 FAR, Sokugawa said.

Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, a member of HI Good Neighbor, said his group supports the 0.7 FAR.

“It’s a clear, reasonable standard,” Dos Santos-Tam said, adding that a majority of homes on the island fall under a 0.6 FAR.

UPSIZING

What the law says now about house size and what DPP is proposing to deal with large-scale houses.

Current law

>> Size: Maximum lot coverage, or footprint, of a dwelling in a residential zone cannot exceed 50 percent of lot size.

>> Setback: 10 feet front yard, 5 feet side and rear.

>> Parking: 2 on-site for each lot, 1 additional space per 1,000 square feet of floor area over 2,500 square feet.

DPP proposal

>> Size: Maximum 0.7 floor area ratio (FAR), the floor area divided by lot size.

>> Setback: If between 0.6-0.7 FAR, 8 feet side and rear. (Still 10 feet front)

>> Parking: If between 0.6-0.7 FAR, two more stalls.