The Honolulu City Council chair is urging the city Building Board of Appeals to give greater public transparency over its case decisions.

That includes the final determination in a recent case involving alleged “monster home” developer Christy Zeng Lei, and revocation of Lei’s building permit linked to a massive dwelling she’d built above Kaimuki.

But Tommy Waters — whose East Honolulu Council district includes the Kaimuki area — says the board’s process to disclose its final decision in that high-profile case was flawed.

“The board normally reads the decisions of order at hearing, but they did not do so with the latest decision on the Kaimuki monster house property (at) 3615 Sierra Drive, which triggered questions and concerns from my district,” Waters told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser via email.

He added that “residents want to know when a project or item is being heard and what the board’s decision is,” particularly with regard to monster home builders.

“This information has been hard to find, and our request is to develop a way to inform the community and stakeholders when a decision is announced,” he said.

To that end, the Council’s Committee on Zoning voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend adoption of Waters’ Resolution 46, which seeks to improve the way the board notices meetings and makes available its decision for public scrutiny.

Introduced on Feb. 16, Waters’ resolution seeks to address “methods whereby the public may obtain information or make submittals or requests to public agencies and the availability for public inspection of all public agency final opinions and orders.”

Resolution 46 also asserts that “according to a recent media report on a Board contested case hearing, the Board approved its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, but did not release the document publicly.”

It further notes that “the Board, on occasion, conducts hearings on matters that generate considerable public interest, such as the revocation of building permits for projects that are alleged to violate the City’s ‘monster home’ ordinance.”

Typically, the Board of Appeals — which comes under the purview of the city Department of Planning and Permitting — hears and decides on appeals following decisions of DPP’s director in administering building, electrical, housing, energy, fire codes and building standards as well as city laws pertaining to related fees and permits, the city says.

The nine-member board usually consists of four licensed engineers or architects, two members qualified in fire safety, one qualified in electrical work, one qualified in plumbing work and one licensed general contractor. Members are appointed by the mayor, approved by the Council and serve five-year terms, the city says.

All decisions made by the volunteer Board of Appeals are final. Those wishing to appeal the board’s decisions must do so in state Circuit Court, the city says.

In early February the board held its hearing regarding Honolulu resident Lei and revocation of a building permit at her Sierra Drive property, which the city alleged is a monster home.

According to DPP, Lei, developer of the project, provided incorrect information on her permit application.

Criticized for monster home development in the past, Lei allegedly misrepresented the project’s building density and violated the thresholds established for setbacks, rear and side yards, and the number of bathrooms, among other discrepancies, the city says.

DPP chose to revoke Lei’s permit as a result, while Lei appealed that decision.

But on Feb. 9 the board upheld the city’s revocation of Lei’s building permit for three two-story houses, with 17-1/2 bathrooms, on a single 19,000-square-foot lot. The project also has four wet bars, which exceeds the two allowed for a single zoning lot of more than 10,000 square feet.

Afterward, DPP Director Dawn Takeuchi Apuna said Lei will have to demolish portions of the three buildings to come into compliance with the law.

Lei had testified she’d already spent $1.5 million on a project now determined to be noncompliant and illegal, Takeuchi Apuna said.

Meantime, Waters’ resolution requests that the board take steps to better inform the public about its decisions, like the Lei case.

Those steps include posting the board’s agendas on its own web page; providing the public an email subscription option to receive meeting notifications and agendas; reading to the public its decisions of orders upon approval; and making all findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decisions and orders available for public inspection immediately following their approval, the resolution states.

At the Zoning Committee meeting, Christopher Hong, chair of the Building Board of Appeals, reported that his panel is making strides toward transparency, including posting board agendas on its web page.

“That is now done, so people can see that our next meeting on March 8 will be posted there,” Hong said. “We’ve also created a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ that is attached to the application. … It’s a one-pager that basically explains what the process is and helps to aid any applicants to see whether or not it is worth them pursuing” an appeal.

A dedicated online link to the one-page FAQ is forthcoming, he added.

“And we will also make sure that from now on, starting on our next agenda, that all agendas will remain up on the website so people can look at the past agendas,” he said.

But Hong noted setting up an email subscription option for the public is still a work in progress.

“As of right now we don’t have the initial capacity to manage and maintain our own email database, but this is something we’re looking into and then we’ll continue to discuss with DPP overall,” he said.

And as far as the board announcing its decisions upon approval and making those decision available to the public, Hong said, “On the last three board meetings … I have read (the) board decision at the hearing itself.”

The board is also looking at “emailing the appellant right after the meeting,” he added.

“After it has been emailed, we feel that that fulfills the requirement to notify the appellant first, and from there we will then make copies available per request,” said Hong. “As of right now … I am unaware that our administrator has received any requests for any of those copies.”

Waters later thanked Hong and his board for their efforts.

“And it sounds like we’re on the same page,” Waters said, adding, “You know exactly what I was talking about after the last appeal that went through, and appreciate the decision as well.”

Meanwhile, on Feb. 28, Waters, along with Council member Tyler Dos Santos-­Tam, saw final adoption of their introduced city measure to crack down on builders of monster homes.

As approved, Bill 44 will prohibit giving false statements to city planners by imposing penalties — including two-year building permit moratoriums and hefty civil fines — on violators who seek to build monster dwellings.

———

Honolulu Star-Advertiser staff writer Leila Fujimori contributed to this report.