An evidentiary hearing before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority examined Crown Castle Fiber LLC’s application to install a small‑cell wireless facility in the public right‑of‑way. Hearing officer Elizabeth Tanaka opened the record and presided over witness testimony and a brief cross‑examination.

Crown Castle counsel Mark Cook told the hearing the company had submitted a construction plan, prefiled testimony, exhibits and responses to PURA interrogatories intended to demonstrate compliance with the authority’s filing requirements and applicable technical standards. "Crown Castle will show that it has fulfilled the requirements set forth by the authority," Cook said during opening remarks.

Counsel introduced two witnesses: Michael Vandeveld, identified as a permitting specialist for Crown Castle Northeast Small Cell and Fiber Solutions, and Pragness Shah, described as a senior radio‑frequency design engineer for Crown Castle Fiber LLC. Both witnesses were sworn and adopted the prefiled materials as their sworn testimony. A witness corrected an exhibit to state the existing pole height as 34.5 feet (34 feet 5 inches), and the correction was adopted into the record.

At the hearing officer’s request, a Crown Castle witness described the public interest served by the proposed facility, saying it would provide benefit to emergency responders and the general public. Tanaka also asked whether the company’s updated calculations showed any maximum permissible exposure (MPE) values above 100; the witness confirmed none exceeded 100 and stated that "the line of sight as well as the ground plane were considered as per OET 65."

There was no response from adjoining property owners and no members of the public asked to provide comment on the record. Counsel offered three exhibits for the record and waived additional direct testimony and a post‑hearing brief. The hearing officer canceled a separate late‑file exhibit hearing scheduled for January 26 after Crown Castle raised no objection.

Tanaka announced procedural deadlines: a proposed final decision was tentatively scheduled for issuance on Feb. 10; written exceptions and requests for oral argument were due Feb. 24; oral argument, if requested, could be held March 2; and the panel tentatively planned to issue a final decision at its March 11 meeting. The hearing was then adjourned.

The record now moves to the commissioners for review, and the authority will consider the parties’ filings before issuing a proposed final decision according to the schedule given by the hearing officer.