Rules committee opens inquiry into Board of Appeals member Daryl Honda, continues matter

The Rules Committee held an inquiry Jan. 10 into allegations that Board of Appeals member Daryl Honda failed to disclose conflicts of interest in some matters and into a whistleblower allegation that information had been removed from a file.

Chair Aaron Peskin reviewed prior correspondence, including a President Walton letter and a Dec. 31 response from Mr. Honda. Peskin summarized that Honda has recused on many occasions and filed numerous disclosures; he cited specific matters raised in media coverage and asked whether Honda treated SIA Consulting and its principals as the same entity for disclosure purposes.

Mr. Honda answered committee questions in detail. He denied transacting with a named individual (Freydun Ghaz Ghazamzada) and said he had not marketed or sold property for that person. Honda said he had retained CA Consulting for engineering or architectural services on several projects and that no discount was offered; he said he paid standard fees. Regarding Form 700 filing questions, Honda said he had amended filings after contact from the Ethics Commission and had retained counsel to review transactions.

Peskin also asked about an allegation reported in the press and in litigation that an employee alleged Mr. Honda removed a text or other material from a file. Mr. Honda denied removing or causing removal of any file information and said he was not involved in the Board of Appeals’ day‑to‑day staffing or file maintenance.

Members of the public called in during the hearing to urge clearer or stronger Form 700 requirements and to suggest interagency transparency improvements. After discussion, Chair Peskin moved to continue the inquiry to the call of the chair while the city attorney and counsel for Mr. Honda work out a method to provide confidential access to requested documents; the roll call recorded Chan, Mandelmann and Peskin as "Aye" and the motion passed without objection.

The committee did not make any disciplinary finding at the hearing; the matter will return for further consideration after counsel and the city attorney agree on a document‑review process.