Board rejects Paradise Park approval

The owners of the long-closed Paradise Park will have to seek state approval again to develop a tourist attraction with commercial hula shows and other Hawaiian cultural elements in a garden setting on their Manoa Valley property.

The state Board of Land and Natural Resources voted unanimously Friday not to extend an approval for the work that it OK’d in 2014, in part because it seemed that the public was left out of presenting views on the plan two years ago.

Suzanne Case, the board’s chairwoman, said it didn’t seem that BLNR’s 2014 approval was made with full public input.

“Obviously, there’s a need for deeper community engagement,” she said.

Case made her comment after four hours of public testimony and debate where mostly Manoa residents complained that they weren’t properly advised of the board’s 2014 consideration of the Paradise Park improvement plan. The previous approval expired in October.

About 15 people expressed opposition to the plan, though at least as many or more who signed up in person to testify weren’t able to because earlier items on the board’s agenda took more than five hours to get through.

Ellen Watson, a Manoa Neighborhood Board member who said she can see Paradise Park from her kitchen, said a presentation to the community board from a park representative in 2014 was vague and gave residents no idea the extent of what was planned.

“We didn’t even see it coming,” she said. “We never had the time to say anything.”

Dale Kobayashi, another neighborhood board member, said four letters about the plans in 2014 that the state Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands indicated it sent to the Neighborhood Commission Office, which routes material to neighborhood boards, weren’t received.

He questioned why that was so, and suggested that it could be because Paradise Park operators and its supporters know that many Manoa residents have long resented an attraction that brings tour buses through their neighborhood.

“There is a 50-year history of community opposition to Paradise Park,” he said.

Friday’s BLNR action did not decide on the merits of what is proposed. But clearly, there are many residents — old ones and new ones — willing to fight the plan.

Mike McFarlane, Manoa branch representative for the Outdoor Circle, said the organization delivered a petition to BLNR with 1,694 signatures opposing the Paradise Park renewal plan.

Lucy Inouye said it was one of the best days in her life when Paradise Park shut down in 1994. She said tour buses used to stop outside her home on Oahu Avenue to let passengers take in the view, and that her kids couldn’t play outside for fear of being run over.

“We don’t want to listen to their hula shows,” added Daniel Trockman, who moved into Manoa three years ago and has complained about noise from the existing Treetops Restaurant at the old park operating until 10 p.m.

Paradise Park opened in 1968 as a botanical and zoological garden on conservation land before many of the Manoa homes nearby were built. Local developer James W.Y. Wong, now 96, created the park as an exotic-bird attraction that included aviaries, duck ponds and a 300-seat covered amphitheater.

The state approved a conservation district use permit for the operation in 1966 — and that permit is still valid long after the park’s closure.

In 2014 Paradise Park Inc., now led by Wong’s son, Darryl, applied to modify the permit to allow a “Hawaiian Cultural Center” that would qualify as a botanical garden and only require renovation of existing facilities and redoing landscaping.

The $15 million project includes nine gardens with indigenous and nonindigenous plants, Hawaiian cultural displays, a descriptive history of Manoa Valley with a replica summer home of Queen Kaahumanu, a hula museum and hula shows.

A luau is also part of the plan but was not included in the application because it was expected to be in a third phase.

Derwin Hayashi, a local attorney representing Paradise Park, told the state board Friday that two luau buildings were in the 1966 master plan and could be added later because they are allowed under the existing permit.

However, some board members questioned whether an environmental impact statement would be required for new construction. Many Manoa residents asked for an EIS for the initial phases of the proposed work, though that is not deemed by the state to be necessary because renovation work is generally exempt.

BLNR board member Chris Yuen said it didn’t seem right to have three phases planned while seeking approval for only two so that the issue over whether an EIS is required doesn’t come up until much of the project is done.

“I have some serious questions,” Yuen said.

Thomas Oi, another board member agreed. “I think that this is the cleanest way to do it,” he said.