Cell tower raises concerns: Proposed project in HOVE would be located near Kahuku Park

Hawaii County Planning Department map of the project site in HOVE, with the tower location marked in green. The three orange lines and points merely reference where other reference photos of the site were taken.
Subscribe Now Choose a package that suits your preferences.
Start Free Account Get access to 7 premium stories every month for FREE!
Already a Subscriber? Current print subscriber? Activate your complimentary Digital account.

A cell tower planned to be built in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates is being challenged by residents concerned about the project’s close proximity to their homes.

At a Dec. 7 meeting of the Windward Planning Commission, Ocean View resident Colleen Conifer successfully petitioned for a contested case against a plan by Renegade Towers LLC to build a telecommunication facility — including a 150-tall cell tower and an equipment storage space — on a 4,994-square-foot portion of a parcel roughly 700 feet from Kahuku Park at the intersection of Paradise Circle Makai and Keaka Parkway.

According to documents by Renegade Towers, the project would improve cellular coverage both in HOVE and at the Hawaiian Ranchos subdivision to the south. Current coverage is provided by a tower located three miles away from the project site, and leaves much of both subdivisions with spotty or nonexistent coverage, according to coverage maps.

However, the project is not popular among some residents, dozens of whom signed petitions arguing the development is inappropriate for their rural community and that it will have negative impacts on their lives.

Meanwhile, Conifer submitted her own petition for a contested case that was signed by three other residents who live close to the proposed tower site.

“The trouble is … when they come to appraise your home, they’re looking at the home itself, what it costs to rebuild it, and what is in the neighborhood as far as things they cannot move,” said resident Donna Durgin, one of the signatories of Conifer’s petition. “94% of homebuyers are less interested if a cell tower is located (nearby). Everybody wants good cell phone coverage, but they don’t want a tower in their backyard.”

While federal laws prohibit a municipality from denying an application for a telecommunications facility solely based on health concerns — and although no positive correlation between cell tower radiation and harmful health effects in humans has been established by any health organization of repute — concerns about the tower’s radiation were a common theme in many residents’ testimonies.

Resident and fellow signatory Alan Sherman said during the commission meeting that his home is located within 70 feet of the planned project site, which he said would not only be disruptive during construction, but also would expose him to “Godzilla in (his) backyard.”

But Conifer was able to argue that she has special standing to challenge the project based on her home’s close proximity to the proposed site.

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Conifer said the tower would be less than 500 feet from her home and visible from all ocean-facing windows in her home, which she purchased specifically because of its view of the ocean.

Conifer raised several issues with the project ranging from property value and health concerns, as well as Renegade Towers’ communications with the community. She told the Tribune-Herald she first learned about the project on Nov. 1, and was required to submit her petition to the Windward Planning Commission by Nov. 30 in order to be considered.

“Absolutely NO, we do not consider less than a month’s notice to be enough time to respond in an adequate manner,” Conifer wrote in an email to the Tribune-Herald.

Conifer also raised concerns about the possibility the tower could collapse.

“Our islands have already suffered from major fire damages such that we do not believe a tower with numerous antennas plus hazardous materials such as lithium batteries and diesel fuel stored onsite should be placed on a small 1-acre lot in a high use area of dry vegetation,” Conifer wrote.

Conifer also wrote the community already “very good” cell coverage.

The commission initially moved to deny Conifer’s petition, with commission Vice Chair Louis Daniele arguing that Conifer’s proximity to the project site does not justify a contested case.

However, the commission members consulted privately and concluded that close neighbors of a project do have sufficient standing for a contested case and therefore granted Conifer’s petition.

With the petition granted, Conifer and Renegade Towers must next participate in a mediation session, which has not yet been scheduled. Should mediation fail to reach an amicable solution, a contested case hearing will be held at a future date.

Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.