Archaeological Review Committee
Thu, Jan 22, 2026 · Archaeological Review Committee
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1024

== Executive Summary ==
The Archeological Review Committee (ARC) meeting primarily focused on two major projects: a citywide fiber optic installation by Easy Fiber and Environmental Research and Consulting LLC, and the Vericon Tempra Phase 3 development by Homewise/Cher Cana Development. For the Easy Fiber project, the committee reviewed a proposed archaeological monitoring methodology for their extensive underground and aerial fiber network. While no immediate decisions were made, the committee provided feedback on the phased approach and the need for manageable documentation.

The Vericon Tempra Phase 3 discussion was more contentious, revolving around archaeological work already conducted without proper permits. The committee expressed significant frustration with the lack of permitting and the quality of the interim report. They ultimately tasked the project archaeologist with obtaining the necessary permits, conducting additional required excavations, and providing a more thorough presentation. The committee also reviewed and approved several archaeological monitoring reports for smaller projects, with conditions for revisions on one report concerning historical eligibility and property documentation.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the meeting agenda by an 'Aye' vote.
- Approved Archaeological Monitoring Report 011796 (South Guadalupe Street) with conditions for revisions regarding historical eligibility, property documentation, and other corrections.
- Approved Archaeological Monitoring Report 011797 (West Galisteo Road) with a recommendation for adding more maps.
- Approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan 011811 (Camino de los Marquez) as presented.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Approval of Agenda — Passed by 'Aye' vote.
- Archaeological Monitoring Report 011796 (South Guadalupe Street) — Approved with conditions.
- Archaeological Monitoring Report 011797 (West Galisteo Road) — Approved with potential addition of maps.
- Archaeological Monitoring Plan 011811 (Camino de los Marquez) — Approved as presented.

== Public Comment ==
During the Easy Fiber presentation, a committee member clarified that Easy Fiber purchased physical assets from Canara, not the company itself. Questions were raised about the meaning of 'FDA' (Fiber Deployment Area) and the excavation methods for pull boxes. For the Vericon Tempra project, Homewise requested conditional approval for infrastructure work due to time constraints and funding, and the archaeologist detailed preliminary findings. During the discussion on documentation volume, a participant expressed significant concern about the overwhelming amount of information, stating, 'this frankly scares the hell out of me... there is no way in hell I'm going to be able to read it.' There was also a strong sentiment of frustration with bureaucracy regarding permitting issues, with a call for SHPO to provide clear written clarification on their jurisdiction. For the South Guadalupe Street report, a committee member strongly disagreed with the archaeologist's recommendation that the 'Chile Line' track segment was not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, citing extensive historical information. Concerns were also raised about the encroachment of modern structures into the historic railyard space. A committee member highlighted the inconsistency of mixed measurement units in reports and questioned the long-standing rule against visiting project areas.

== Topics ==
- Citywide Fiber Optic Project
- Archaeological Monitoring Report Approval
- Archaeological Monitoring Plan Approval
- ARC Member Replacement
- Agenda Approval
- Archaeological Review Districts Ordinance
- Meeting Quorum
- Visual Presentation Quality
- Ex Parte Communication and Site Visits
- Historic Preservation Awards
- Measurement Units Consistency
- GIS and Map Accuracy
- Subcommittee Formation

== Full Transcript ==
Call the viewing of the Archeological Review Committee of January 22nd, 2026, to order. May we have the roll call, please?

**Speaker:** Yes, sir. Chair.

**Speaker:** Present.

**Speaker:** Member Tree.

**Speaker:** Present.

**Speaker:** Member Beo.

**Speaker:** Present. You have a quorum.

**Chair:** Thank you, ma'am. The first thing for us to consider is approval of the agenda.

**Speaker:** Just a note, Chair, we will only have a quorum until 6:30.

**Chair:** All right. Let me remember that. Thank you. Do I hear a motion?

**Speaker:** So moved.

**Speaker:** I move that we approve the agenda for today.

**Speaker:** Second.

**Chair:** All right. All in favor, signify by saying "Aye."

**Speaker:** Aye.

**Chair:** Motion passes. Thank you. We have an agenda approved. There are no minutes, so we'll skip to item five, matters from the floor. A is Easy Fiber and Environmental Research and Consulting LLC. Discuss the proposed citywide fiber optic project. Okay. And whoever is going to speak, please come and sit at the table so you can actually be recorded.

**Speaker:** And we have Paul Duran on the line, sir.

**Chair:** At least seeing the list on the right. Fuzzy little thing on the left. Take my glasses back off so I can read.

**Speaker:** I do have a slideshow presentation. How would be best to present?

**Speaker:** Probably if you'd like to log on to the Zoom and then you can maybe share screen, or do you have it on a flash drive?

**Speaker:** I have both.

**Speaker:** I don't know if I have any port.

**Speaker:** Yeah, we got to log on to the Zoom.

**Speaker:** Yes, you have.

**Speaker:** Yeah, I should go ahead. Second, and I'll get there. My computer is just so firing.

**Speaker:** I may need to log in so it's encrypted.

**Speaker:** So when you bring it up, what I'll do is I'll just save that to my desktop. Okay.

**Speaker:** Okay. Sure.

**Speaker:** If you don't mind doing that.

**Speaker:** Yeah. No, that'll be perfect. Yeah.

**Speaker:** All right. And I do have some hard copies of a copy that you guys always prefer. Absolutely.

**Speaker:** Okay.

**Speaker:** You never know when somebody might want to know more about these photos. So, it's currently in use. Let me see. I saved it to the desktop, so it should be fine.

**Speaker:** Okay. Trying to eject your device.

**Speaker:** Perfect.

**Speaker:** Yeah.

**Speaker:** So, I just hope I will find it. Not good.

**Speaker:** While she's pulling that out, you'll be there. Yeah.

**Speaker:** Okay.

**Speaker:** You guys want a copy?

**Speaker:** Thank you.

**Speaker:** Yeah. Here you go.

**Speaker:** Thanks.

**Speaker:** Sure.

**Speaker:** Sorry, I had meetings back, so that's why I showed up like you were very last minute.

**Speaker:** I imagine you are busier than you. I can't imagine.

**Speaker:** Well, it's not too much of an oxymoronic statement. I know it's more.

**Speaker:** I see a raised hand.

**Speaker:** Paul, go ahead.

**Speaker:** I don't have my hand raised.

**Speaker:** Oh, thank you.

**Speaker:** It's the cursor. Yeah.

**Speaker:** At least we know.

**Speaker:** On in a sentence.

**Speaker:** I can't see that much. Can't read it. But did it save? Okay.

**Speaker:** Yeah, it saved just fine. I'm just trying to get on the Zoom right now.

**Speaker:** Oh, no. You're good.

**Speaker:** So, maybe if you start, I can get you. I mean, if you want to just, yeah, it should be.

**Speaker:** If you guys want to follow along with the hard copies for the, the.

**Speaker:** Yeah, appreciate it. So, first slide, guys, just the agenda, right? So, just information. Yeah, we're just providing information today. So, on the agenda, you can see some of the things we'll talk about today. Just a brief description of the project background, right? Go through the project plan as it currently sits. We'll talk a little bit about the methodology that we're proposing, and that's Easy Fiber and partnering with Chama Consulting, and then the proposal, and then some feedback and some Q&A from the audience. So, in regards to the project background, the initial project that we had, so we got a franchise in 2024 in the city of Albuquerque. This led to us going through and identifying a couple of.

**Speaker:** No, you're good.

**Speaker:** Thank you.

**Speaker:** Nobody say anything until we get that crap fixed. My fault. Sorry.

**Speaker:** No, you're good.

**Speaker:** Okay.

**Speaker:** Okay. So, once we had the franchise in place in Santa Fe, the first thing that we typically do when we enter a market is go through and engineer from a transport point in Santa Fe. Easy Fiber was unexperienced with going through and going before an archaeological review committee for proposal for build. We went through and we submitted, I think, back in April. This is before my time, so full disclosure, this is pre-Estrada, just so everybody knows. But we submitted three different FDAs, fiber deployment areas, that totaled in at about 612,000 feet of construction. And that's pretty typical for us going through a market like Albuquerque, for instance, or a market like Houston, Texas, where we were currently in. This did incorporate, it did encompass 33 smaller segments, right? So, they're micro segments that we have within a fiber deployment area that was part of the proposal that we had in April. That proposal was rejected because of the size, the scope, and the location of the proposal. So, what we did then was we regrouped. I came aboard. We partnered with Chama Consulting in 2025. Oh, and we can go to slide number three. There we go. Yeah. So, we partnered with Chama Consulting in 2025 and Q3. We also re-engineered our designs to be able to propose something to the archaeological review committee that was a little bit more respectful of the process in Santa Fe, understanding the nuance between the different districts. In November of 2025, we did begin the build project. So, we got an initial approval from this committee in October for a commercial installation of a power box. We did get that work completed, and we've since been working on an aerial overlash project on our Cana asset of about 42,000 feet, and we're currently working on that. Now, we want to go to the next slide. So, a little bit about the project plan overview. So, the project scope and structure, Santa Fe build is about 10 fiber deployment areas for us that incorporates about 3 million feet of total construction all said within Santa Fe proper. We're working off an initial transport entry point. So, one of the reasons that we did do that project where we started, which is just in the Dongas Bar area off of East Baronado, was because that was where our transport location was allowed for us to meet, right? So, we're taking transport from Lumen at that location. We have a backbone and distribution strategy that's built off of the Canara network that we currently have. That Canara network allows for us to use the transport where we're tied into the Lumen backbone and allows for us to access other parts of the city without having invasive construction. The deployment sequencing for us is to prioritize fiber deployment areas based on the backbone proximity, right? So, what we're doing from an engineering perspective, and Chama will get into the archaeological methodological perspective, but what we do is we will prioritize the build off of our transport location and identify places to build out from there. The scalability and future expansion for us allows for us to utilize our network, the existing Contra asset that we purchased, which currently feeds all of the Santa Fe public schools, all of the anchor points within the city of Santa Fe as deployment areas. So, we're going to be utilizing that network not just as an overlash tie-in point for us, but also as an access from a network perspective. A little nerdy, a little bit in the weeds. Wanted to give you guys a little bit of background. I'm in a different field, so forgive me if I go too deep into the weeds, but any questions on that so far? Okay, we want to go to the next slide. I wanted to highlight on this next slide the Canara asset that we purchased. So, we purchased this at the beginning of 2025. We did purchase Canara's assets in Santa Fe, Rio Rancho, Albuquerque, and Los Lunas. And again, what this does is Canara had an asset already feeding through the city of Santa Fe, already constructed primarily aerial, to feed all of the anchor locations of the Santa Fe public schools. This asset again, from our perspective, allows for us to leverage aerial transport. So, when we're deploying throughout the city of Santa Fe, we don't have to go through and have invasive underground construction throughout the entire city. We're able to use this backbone and leverage it from an access perspective as well as an overlash perspective because we do own that facility on P&M's poles, right? We also are using Canara's asset where it's feasible. So, if we have to go under a railroad, for instance, something that would pose a lot of difficulty in digging, if we already have the Contra asset there, we will use the physical fiber to access our network and tie into it. And then again, we're working with anchor facilities like the schools to be able to place locations for our electrical equipment. So, we have a cabinet in each deployment area. That cabinet runs off of electricity. So, we work with PNM to power it up. It's got a couple of HVAC units on it. It sits on a 9x9 pad approximately, depending on the size of the cabinet. So, we'd like to keep those in areas where it's less residentially focused and more tied towards industrial complexes or anchor points for the city. From that, I kind of want to pivot over to the crux of the meeting. I want to give it over to my friend, the Chama, so they can run you through the archaeological methodology that we're developing for selection process.

**Speaker:** Okay. First question.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Before we get too far. Yeah. Canara was a previous fiber optic. I don't know.

**Speaker:** Yeah.

**Speaker:** Okay.

**Speaker:** Yeah, they were. So, they were branded UPN. So, Canara came in as UPN primarily to sell to schools. So, Canara is as a company is a vendor of commercial internet and internet to school districts. And what they do typically is they'll propose to a public school district connectivity of via fiber optic ring to tie in all their focal points. So, if you've got 10 schools in the district, they will tie in all the schools off their fiber network. So, that was what they did here in Santa Fe.

**Speaker:** And you bought their.

**Speaker:** We bought their physical assets.

**Speaker:** Okay. Yep.

**Speaker:** You didn't buy the company, just what they had.

**Speaker:** Correct. Yeah. So, they sold the physical assets in New Mexico to Easy Fiber. They retain operating it, but they actually lease the fiber from us. Yeah.

**Speaker:** Great question, by the way. That's a good one.

**Speaker:** Okay. I'm Barona from Chama Consulting. This is Brenda, Chama Consulting, and we'll tag team this part of the presentation. So, basically, the objective here is to give a status update on where Easy Fiber is in their planning process and also to discuss and hopefully come to some agreement on how the review process is going to look for a project of this scale. So, we've thought through that a little bit, and we're going to present sort of our proposal, which is in a nutshell, preparing a high-level monitoring plan that covers the whole planning region, which you can see is pretty much all of Santa Fe plus some. And then have standalone monitoring plans that are specific to specific areas. And one of the problems we had was coming up with what size should these areas be and how do we define what these areas are. So, this map here you can see shows the archaeological review districts, and it's kind of small, but what I did is I plotted just the proposed buried fiber here. There's a whole lot of aerial there that's not on this map. Would you say it's like half aerial, half?

**Speaker:** Yeah, it's pretty close. It's about 40% aerial, 60% underground for the proposal in Santa Fe currently.

**Speaker:** Those dark lines.

**Speaker:** The red line.

**Speaker:** The red little red line where you're going to bury.

**Speaker:** That's the proposed burials. Yeah.

**Speaker:** That's the proposed burials. And so, in the aerial, I understand they're going to be all using all existing infrastructure and poles, or if they replace poles, it'll be replacement in kind.

So there won't be a new visual element in the landscape that isn't already there. So we're not

**Speaker 2:** Aerial and burial. You're going to have to be really clear.

**Speaker 3:** Visual. I mean, aerial and burial.

**Speaker 4:** You just talked about aerial or you just talked about burial.

**Speaker 3:** I'm just saying we're not considering aerial because it's not going to have a visual impact on the landscape that isn't there already. So we're concerning ourselves with the buried lines here.

**Speaker 5:** Yep. And those little black lines are what Easy Fiber calls segments. And there's about 8 to 12 segments in each FDA.

**Speaker 3:** Yep.

**Speaker 5:** So that's what those are. So we were looking at it in the scale of the FDAs, which are larger areas in the segment and also sub-subsegment. So with that, I'll hand it over to Brenda for the next slide.

**Speaker 6:** FDA means?

**Speaker 5:** Fiber Deployment Area.

**Speaker 6:** Thank you.

**Speaker 5:** Yeah. And the Fiber Deployment Areas are pretty big. If you go back, if you look at the map that we were just looking at, each little black polygon is part of a broader FDA. And when this project first came before the ARC in April, yeah, in April 2025, with OCA, they were proposing a monitoring plan that covered multiple FDAs at once. I think there were three FDAs in their plan, segments, so 33 segments. So it was a very, very large plan. And the ARC rejected that plan, and then Richard kind of gave you that history. So we were trying to figure out what would be the best way to determine the size of the monitoring plants. And if you go to the, we're on the next slide now, we thought that it made sense to consider, no, sorry, the one before.

**Speaker 7:** The next slide in my mind.

**Speaker 5:** And this is very, we thought it would make sense to consider four parameters. One is how dense the fiber optic development is in any given segment and FDA. The second one is which archaeological review district it's in. And then the third is the actual previously recorded site density and the previous, what the survey coverage is and how many sites have been developed in those areas, the significance of those sites, etc. And then the other, any other important kind of qualitative aspects, like what is the actual archaeological and historical context of that area that will help us to figure out how probable it is that we're going to be encountering it. And we thought that taking the four of those into consideration, we could come up with proposed plans for monitoring that we would float by you guys before we actually make the plan to make sure we're all in agreement that yes, this is the right size and location for the next monitoring plan. And just to kind of give you a visual example of what that looks like, if you go to the next slide, do you want to explain this actually?

**Speaker 8:** Sure. And your next page where we have two areas where we were thinking of doing early work and highlighted the Baron will explain.

**Speaker 5:** So it's kind of hard to see there, but on the bottom there's a yellow outlined area. So that's FDA 8. That is one that we from an archaeological perspective thought would be a good place to start. And then, and we'll dive into that in the next slide. And then the green area is FDA 3, and that's a more complicated area that kind of encompasses suburban rivers and trails and a little bit of the historic district. So next slide, please.

**Speaker 9:** Well, and the reason that FDA 3 is one for early consideration is because the earlier monitoring project that we did that was referenced earlier, Easy Fiber put in a cabinet there. So that's a good tie-in location for them. Yeah. And that's why FDA 3, which is more complex, we're still considering doing that.

**Speaker 10:** Still a practical place.

**Speaker 9:** Yeah.

**Speaker 11:** And my point of clarification, you said earlier, OCA. Did you mean O?

**Speaker 12:** OS.

**Speaker 13:** Go ahead.

**Speaker 5:** So this is a close-up view of FDA 8. And this is sort of bounded on the south by I-25, on the east by St. Transit, and on the west by, I think, Richard's Avenue.

**Speaker 14:** Yeah.

**Speaker 5:** So this is an area that's pretty far from the historic district. It's outside of the Agria or historic Santa Fe, outside the agricultural areas. Those darker brown areas are areas that have been previously surveyed. So it looks like about a quarter of that FDA has had some kind of previous survey. Comparatively, it has very low known site density compared to other parts of town. We do have historic linear resources going through there. It's kind of hard to see, but we have two segments of the New Mexico Central on the west end, and then on the east end it goes into Rivers and Trails, and we have the Santa Fe Southern and associated resources with that. So, and just as a note, we actually recently did a historic context for the New Mexico Central for Santa Fe County. So, we have some good background on that resource.

So in looking at this FDA, is there a second slide of there is slide? Can we go to the next slide? What we would propose in this FDA would be to kind of split it in half and focus on the western half, which is all in the suburban area. So this is combining a number of segments here. These are seven segments, and this would represent sort of our largest scale area we would do as a standalone monitoring plan in the whole planning area. And then down the road we could shift to the eastern half, which is a few less segments there, and leading into the Rivers and Trails district. So that's just a place that we thought might be a good place to start. So on these maps, all the little brown lines, are those roads or are they where you're thinking the trenches are going to be?

**Speaker 15:** The trench where the trenches are, that's where the boring.

**Speaker 16:** The boring. Yeah. So it's directional boring, and they do generally line up with street locations, right?

**Speaker 17:** You have pull boxes and stuff like that.

**Speaker 15:** They will be, there will be hand holes and pull boxes.

**Speaker 17:** Periodic. Yeah.

**Speaker 18:** Do you do that hand by hand? Are they big enough to do by hand or small enough, I guess, or do you need a backhoe?

**Speaker 15:** Yeah. Excellent question. So, there's typically three different sizes of pull box or hand hole. Most of them are an 8-inch or a 10-inch round flower pot. Those are small. Obviously, those are dug in by hand. So the directional bore machine, the requirement on directional boring is that you have a small to medium-sized pit for entry and exit. So at every location where one would be, you would still have a pit, but that's dug by hand.

**Speaker 18:** So it's a hand-dug pit at each entry and exit location.

**Speaker 15:** Yeah.

**Speaker 18:** Okay.

**Speaker 15:** Okay. Any other questions? And I do have some other slides in the appendix that might get a little bit more detailed on some of this stuff if you guys have questions. So if you'd like, we can go through it, and then if you guys encounter anything, we can follow up with the questions afterwards if we haven't answered them for sure.

**Speaker 19:** Okay, we can go to the next slide. Thank you.

**Speaker 5:** So this is the northern part of FDA 3. Like I said, it's a little more complicated. We have plotted on here. The red are known ARC sites that have been previously documented. We've got some historic districts. The red on the north is the archaeological review district boundary. And like was mentioned previously, Easy Fiber recently put a cabinet on East Coronado, which is just outside of the historic district boundary. And from there they would want to go south. So we were looking at this area as an example of an FDA where we would kind of maybe use different strategies in different parts of the FDA. So for example, south of there, we're in suburban area. We have much less density of known resources. So in an area like this, we could potentially combine two segments as one standalone monitoring plan just south of their cabinet there. And then, of course, on the east side, the segments are larger. There's more resources. It's more complicated. We would probably look at splitting a segment there and looking at it more contextually down the road because we're really just trying to focus on areas that are low probability of significant deposits and that we can start going through the process and seeing how it works before we definitely before we get anywhere near historic downtown. So that's just a different model that kind of shows you a different scale that we were looking at. And then the next slide.

So this is obviously historic downtown, and I've removed all of the cultural resource data because you wouldn't be able to see anything because we know it's a culturally rich area and significant resources there. And this is really just to show where the currently proposed buried fiber is in downtown and how the segments are mapped out. And of course, this is complicated by the fact that multiple FDAs kind of meet, merge in downtown. So I mean, this is something we would like to have more dialogue with ARC and how to approach construction and monitoring in these areas down the line. We'll probably look at splitting segments and looking at these runs individually and coming up with a plan together how of us to proceed there. But this is just kind of to show the three different scales, three different areas, types of areas we'd be looking at. And with that, I'm passing it back to Brenda.

**Speaker 20:** So we were thinking that for the, or we wanted to propose for the actual review process that our first submittal be an overview of the whole project, the whole, a general overview of the entire plan along with our monitoring methodology. Then that would be, and it would also include, like, so we would talk about this methodology or whatever we agree with for determining the areas. We would also include the detailed methodology for how what's actually going to happen during monitoring. And then we also wanted to include one detailed monitoring plan for the first area, likely the western half of FBA, which is that first slide that we showed to you. And then once we got through the process with that initial submittal, then we thought that the subsequent submittals could be sort of addendums to that initial report that would be submitted for ARC review and permitting and approval on a cadence of every month to every few months depending on how the project goes and how complicated the areas are. And we thought that within each monitoring plan submittal, we could also include an informational piece proposing the next areas that we're going to do and the rationale behind that so that we could all be in agreement in advance, like, yes, the next monitoring plan is going to cover this area. It's going to be this big. This makes sense. And before we move ahead with actually determining the area or writing.

**Speaker 21:** Sorry, don't mean to crash your meeting. I just want to say hello. Thank you.

**Speaker 20:** That's the first. And that's our idea. And the point of this conversation is to propose our idea, get your feedback, and hopefully come to an agreement on how this process, how we can move forward with this process in a way that everybody's comfortable with and confident in that makes a good phased approach to getting this project going.

**Speaker 22:** And I think that's it. You guys have anything else?

**Speaker 23:** I think the next slide is just a highlight of our ask. So again, as Brenda and Baronica indicated, I think what we're looking for from the ARC is just some feedback on your thoughts on how we're selecting it. So obviously again, way out of my depth, which is not unusual for me, but what we're doing from a business perspective is we're trying to overly Venn diagram of engineering requirements, construction requirements, logistical planning on our side with the nuances that are involved in archaeological significance and determining areas that make sense for us to build that we can build.

So, I think from our perspective, what we're looking for is, do you guys have thoughts on the methodology on how we're selecting them? Because again, looking through the four criteria that Chama has outlined for us, what we're doing on that perspective is we're engineering from a pretty flexible standpoint, I would say. So, if you guys came back to us and said, "FDA is a great place to start," I think if we move into FDA3 where we've got existing transport and feedback on there, I think that if you guys indicated, "We want to start with, you know, a half of this location so that we can see exactly what this looks like," especially while we're still learning the nuance of the monitoring plan, the pace of construction, the requirements in there, we'd be able to be flexible enough to identify that from an engineering perspective to tie that in.

So, if you guys think that the methodology by which we're using to select areas and to select build proposals to the ARC is the right approach, we'd love to hear your feedback on that as well. And then, see what you guys think about a phased approach to construction because that's really what lines up our ability to intelligently design on the back end, proposed to you guys for future construction projects. And then again, if you guys have any feedback or questions, we did leave some room in there for that. We do have some slides in the appendix as well if you want to look through those. But if you guys have any questions from the engineering, the construction, the company perspective, feel free to ping me, let me know here. And then obviously, Baronica and Brenda can answer from the archaeological perspective as well.

Okay. Any questions this morning?

I guess my question would be, it makes sense to me that sort of large scale of the FDA seven section or eight section.

Yeah.

That it, you know, there's not a lot of cultural resources to hit down there.

Yep.

And so I'm like, okay, well, you know, a neighborhood monitoring plan. I don't know how you do that. How do you, like, do you have multiple machines and multiple archaeologists? Is there monitoring?

Yeah, it's an excellent question. So, from a construction perspective, we need to make sure that we're lined out with Chama's resource availability from a monitoring perspective. Ron Winters is here. He's willing to help us out on the historical front, obviously, but from a monitoring perspective, we would line out from a logistical front what the pace of construction is to align with the resource availability for monitoring. So, even if we did propose, you know, the larger segment in the suburban district in FDA88, for instance, what that would allow for us to do is securing that approval from the ARC would allow for us to go through permitting, make sure that our stakeholders, Paul Duran is on, he's been extremely helpful from the city's perspective, helping us to align what areas look like they make sense, but also lining out all the back-end processes that require for construction projects, right? The notification. We have levers for community notifications. We do town halls with community members. We do prep for the permitting side. We do all of that stuff. Site review, contractor verification, all of that stuff. So, if we got all of FDA8 lined out, what we would do is line those pieces out with Baronica and Brenda and Ron, and we would ensure that we had the schedule lined up for our crews to match the monitoring plan.

Right. Okay. So, that, that, you know, that's easy. Yeah. Logically for my little brain to go, okay, that could probably work.

But then when I get to even touching downtown,

Yeah.

I mean, it took me a while to review just the trench that they did behind the Gross Kelly warehouse in the railyard, which is not even in the historical district.

Right. Right. Right.

And it's a, it's a lot of pages and it's a lot of information and there's a lot of things nearby. And so, so then I don't know, you know, if you have to chunk it down to even smaller

We think so.

pieces.

So that, so we as an archaeological review committee can be confident

That the, the right things are being monitored as this process continues. Yeah, that's sort of, that's exactly what we want to propose that, right? That like for, for, because there, the city's got so much different stuff going on all over the city that like that before we put any monitoring plan together, we come in, we talk with you guys about what makes sense before we even move forward with that. And we think in the historic downtown and we're starting out further where the resources probability is lower, right? So we can get this process really nailed down and then, you know, when we get to the, by the time we get to the historic downtown, we'll have gone through this a lot together and we, you know, will have to consider a different and really limited, I think, scope of work for any monitoring plan once we get to those resource areas.

Yeah. No, thank you. I mean, I, it makes

I appreciate your trying to figure this out, you know.

And then from a construction standpoint, too, we, we understand fully from our perspective that the pace of construction also changes based on the district that we're in, right? So, the way that we plan crews, the way that we have those crews vetted and staffed, it's a different process in different parts of Santa Fe. So, I think for us, learning the experiences in places where we have less, maybe possibly archaeological significance like FDA8, for instance, makes a lot of sense from us from a learning perspective to ensure that like Brenda is saying, we follow the process correctly. We understand what the ARC requires from us and then it helps us to scale a bit of pacing as well, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I appreciate that you've come back with the plan.

Yeah. And so, just as a matter of perspective, I'm going to call back to one of the things that we talked about at the, at the first side, which was Easy Fiber. Again, I'm going to say it's because I wasn't there, but all things considered, they, they had little to no experience approaching a project of this magnitude in a place like Santa Fe. I grew up 20 minutes north of here. I understand how much Santa Fe means to the state, to the community, and to all of us. And because of that, I think that we're trying to approach it in a very respectful way. We want to make sure that we're doing this construction project as uninvasively as possible, knowing that construction itself is quite invasive. So, all that to say, the plan for us is important for us to be able to go through and produce in a way that makes sense to the city of Santa Fe and to the residents that are here. One of the things that I didn't mention that Baronica and Brenda were smart enough to call me out on after I had sent them the copy of the deck was we do also have anchor points for commercial projects that are slated. So, we have a, we have commercial customers that are already proposing to sign up with us. Those would likely be submitted in on the initial front as one-off submittals to the ARC for review. They're much smaller in scale. They're a couple of thousand feet possibly. So, significantly smaller in scale. The monitoring requirements would be developed by Chama on a case-by-case basis for those on the front side and possibly, you know, every now and again afterwards. But by and large, what we're trying to do is also combine those into the monitoring plan for an entire area that we're doing. So, we're going to try to align those as we go forward.

Yep. I just like to kind of piggyback on what Gayla was talking about regarding especially reports. You know, there's no telling how many reports we would get each month.

Right.

We have a report which is sort of similar to an area that you guys are talking about first and that is about half a mile of electrical, some sort of electrical, and that's an 80-page report. We don't want you guys to have to pound out a 500-page report and expect us to read it in a weekend because that won't happen.

So, yes. So, the thing is is that, you know, you got to keep it in segments that we can deal with.

Well, from a construction standpoint, I know that once you get something started, you want to keep going. You don't want to be held up, you know, by the same token, we have to review all this stuff. I think it's really important that you don't, archaeologists 100%. Yeah. And I think I, I, I won't speak for Chama, but I think I've tried to be as mindful of their resource capabilities as possible as well, just because to your point, one of the things from a construction standpoint, you're absolutely right, pacing is important just from a planning and efficiency standpoint. But more so than that, if you overshoot pacing, you actually slow down projects quite a bit, right? So, it's important for us to factor in a reality of what construction in Santa Fe looks like. Again, we do have some other alternatives. Once I came aboard, I mentioned that we were leveraging aerial assets. We have lots of construction that we can still do that does not require uninvasive or invasive construction underground. So, what we're likely going to be doing is overlapping additional fiber on our existing Canara backbone, trying to reach other parts of town. But we would like to align those with what the ARC approves. So if that's FDA8, for instance, then we'd like to do that on the front side while you guys are, while Chama's doing the monitoring plan, while you guys are reviewing it, while we're getting our permitting set up so that we can be well planted and well set up to be able to actually construct and turn on residents and customers when we're there. I know that, you know, kind of some every month or every couple of months or something like that, but I, you know, like also with regard to just the amount of data that might be coming.

Yeah.

And that you guys can produce makes sense to keep that in mind. I mean, you know, every month works for us.

Yeah.

We're here.

Well, and, and for us, oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. I was going to say that our approach kind of front-ends a lot of the, the normal monitoring plan stuff in the beginning. So, we would have an overarching plan and then for each segment, it would basically be a smaller addendum. So, you, you know, I think the first push is going to be the biggest where we're all aligning on like what the methodology is for site selection and for the monitoring itself. And then of course, we would have these smaller addendums for each area that would be mostly doing the, you know, the record search, the previous research, contextualizing and, and maybe like if we're going to change the monitoring approach for this area for whatever reason, that would be in there. But we imagine that those addendums would be much shorter documents. I would ask the boss if

For your going wise is, is the way that we would want to continue. I, I have no idea because this is old Greek to me.

Well, no, it's not. You are always insightful with your questions and I am not the boss who holds a handful. He seldomly ever gets. So, it all sounds doable, but just to try to get a handle on

How many operations going on at the same time and how many different places and how many people that requires and all the scheduling. I'm just looking at FDA SF8.12. Yeah, just on a quick thumbnail count, I see something on the order of 20 to 25 locations where there will have to be a hole in the ground that will make a moniker. The space between those points would theoretically be an uninterrupted bore unless you bump into a dead dinosaur.

Absolutely. Yeah. In which case, we'll be grilling. Yeah. Yeah. But is that approximately the level of effort that seems to be involved here? If you look at that and tell me, am I off by an order of magnitude, or am I probably...

Which one are you looking at?

SF812. It's your 10.

Yeah, on the bottom left.

And your question was what again? Sorry.

How many holes in the ground running monitor? Yeah, we don't know that yet.

Well, I'm assuming that there's going to be a hole at every corner.

It'll enter. Yeah. So, likely what it'll require is a bore pit at every entrance and exit point, which is generally about every 150 feet, right?

Yeah. Increase my numbers.

Yeah. Yeah. So, it's generally every other property, right? So, you have an entry and exit point for conduit to come in, generally at every other home. So that is correct.

Okay. So we're now up to the order of 40, maybe 50 holes that are going to get monitored in one sub-segment of...

Correct.

...really nicely rendered profile drawings of same with appropriate photographs. That alone is a bunch of pages. And if there's text to describe all that, we're already knocking on the door of how much can we actually read. So, this frankly scares the hell out of me. It all sounds good. We have three years. And if I were really retired and I didn't do anything but this, I think I could probably usefully read all of your output, but I'm not really retired and I do have a million other things to do, and there is no way in hell I'm going to be able to read it. Like he said, it's not happening. So, you're going to have to do it very tightly and not miss anything. If there's a way to present it in small format that's still clear enough to look at and read and just reduce the overall volume of things...

Maybe we can develop something like that.

That's really...

Like a table.

Well, tables are good for some information, and they're absolutely lousy for other information, like robot profiles.

Yeah. Most of what's been done out here is survey, almost no testing, and as far as I can recall, no data recovery. So what we know about this area, and I like to voice the area, there doesn't seem to be a lot there, but I would caveat that with the next phrase, which is that we know...

That we know, right?

Yeah.

I think we did always say no.

Yeah. Yeah. Exactly right.

Yeah. Can I ask a negligent question just from outside the industry? What's typically done for, you know, Santa Fe obviously expanding quite a bit. There's a lot of new development in Santa Fe as well, especially towards the south end of town. If dry utilities are being put in, open trench at the front side, and you have facilities going in afterwards, right? So individual services perhaps, you know, because that's typically how construction works in a residential area. What is what does monitoring look like on that type of scale? Because it'd essentially be very similar with regards to the type of work and the scale and scope of work, right? Is that is that handled differently or...

No, the monitor is there for the entirety of the ground disturbance from beginning to end.

Yep.

Monitor inspects all exposed surfaces created by said ground disturbance.

Yeah. And in an ideal world, records information about all that. Now this is far from an ideal world.

Yeah. Yeah.

In practice, what that means is, okay, here's a 100-foot trench, and then it turns and it goes that way for 600 feet, and then it turns again and it goes 12 feet.

Well, there's at least three profiles in this representative of that trench, assuming there is absolutely no variability in what's observed in that trench. If there is variability, there are more profiles. If there are cultural things, there are yet more profiles. So it...

Yeah, it depends on what you...

The whole idea is the same.

Yeah.

You observe and document, and it is not acceptable to say this is the same as the last one and check off a box in a table and go on.

Yeah.

It needs a profile, needs a photograph, it needs a description. You can use the same description if it's true.

Sure. It has to be described. It can't be glossed over.

Yeah.

Because we don't know anything about the subsurface reality in this area.

Yeah.

We think we know something about general geological, geomorphological, and soil formation processes. But throw all that out the window because somebody has been out here doing something with this landscape for a very long time.

Right. Term that moved, redeposited, and otherwise modified. The modifications in some cases are the important archaeological information. The fact that it got modified is not a reason for no concern. But the world is very different. You cannot look at the publications and say we expect this stratigraphy in this area because the geologists agree and the geomorphologists agree and the soil scientists agree. They all don't know anything because they haven't ever looked at the universe in this detail. What they know is vast area.

Yeah. Gotcha.

Soil science.

Yeah.

When they dig a pit and it's enormous, you lock them 10 or 12 feet deep. Don't tell OSHA. Unsure of protected and vertical.

Yeah, definitely don't tell OSHA.

And they get in there and they talk about the dirt and the soil formation processes. And the next one is eight miles away.

Yeah.

What happened in between? Nobody knows.

Yeah.

Nobody ever looked. You are going to be the first people to know what happened to this landscape in intimate detail. So, it's important that it all gets documented.

Yeah.

And when you get closer to downtown, it's even more important because in downtown, what happened to this dirt since 9,000 years ago, right on up to yesterday, is an important aspect of what you have to observe. Santa Fe muck that got yanked out some place and redeposited someplace else upside down is interesting. I can walk you to a hundred places where that has occurred and nobody knows anything about it because they haven't looked. So you guys are going to be ready.

Yep.

Now all that just to say, have to read and understand all this, but your proposal sounds like a very reasonable way to attack figuring out which part of the elephant they're holding on to, right?

Yeah.

And then we'll find out what happens and, yeah, watch out.

Absolutely.

And I think to your point, I think it will be a bit of a learning experience, right? Because it's certainly learning from our perspective, you know, from my organizational perspective, from my background, knowing exactly what a construction project like, I'll tell you what, I promise if I can figure this piece out, I will be worth my excessive weight in gold, right? So, all of that to say, all of that to say, I do think that it is valuable in Santa Fe because there's also a need, right? One of the things that we encounter frequently is that there is a there is a pretty desperate need for the service that we're providing. I think that we're one of very few companies that has an opportunity to come in and actually meet the need with the requirements that needs to happen to to turn that into something that's valuable to the community. But it's also something that matters to all of us in this room, I think. So, yeah, I have another just construction question. Yeah.

The, I mean, if I was asked to do this, I would say I probably get a Bobcat with a drill.

Yeah.

And how deep am I drilling? And I just start boom, boom, boom. Needs a lot of work for you because you can do a lot of those holes in a day. And depending on how wide the drill is, that also kind of determines how easy you'll be able to see, you know, what the stratigraphy is. I mean, I I forget the first presentation.

Yeah.

How deep they were going. Was it 30 inches?

That's. So, it's typically somewhere between 30 and 48, sometimes 52. It does depend a little bit on on what the existing facilities are in place. So starting in a part like FDA8, they may very well have some newer facilities that were open trenched in, but there there's also definitely going to be places where they were placed in a long time ago and they're pretty shallow. So we generally want to keep the requirement of at least 18 inches from other facilities. So that dictates the depth, but it's typically right around that 36-inch mark that we shoot for.

Okay.

Okay. Are you going to be able to go into existing trenches, like trenches that...

We can we can directionally bore with with vertical and horizontal spatial differences between the other UFOs. So for instance, if you've got a JUT, a joint use trench that's in place and it's got, you know, power, gas, water in it, we typically will opt for a for a horizontal difference of space, right? So that we're sure just because every piece of equipment that we currently use and that locators use to judge depth on things can be mildly inaccurate, right? So, it's always best from a construction perspective to give you lateral distance, but we also can direct depth. So, there's a lot of places where we'll attach our equipment to places where storm sewer is seven feet deep. We know that we're going to be riding above that. So, we will we will self-project where we're going to be digging within the same vertical line. Yeah.

Okay. Just to remind everybody, the word he used was mildly with an M, not wildly.

Yeah. I mean, like we have GPR now. We use GPR pretty pretty frequently in the industry now. So that might be some place where there's a bit of Venn diagram overlap to the archaeological kind of aspect of the build and the construction aspect of the build. But GPR is being used quite a bit more. It's something that we've introduced in New Mexico as a first as a first provider. It's something that we're also going to be deploying in Santa Fe. So, primarily because for us it does matter to know where something is as close to accurate as possible. So,

I have firsthand evidence of that because I spent a day monitoring a certain crew with a certain machine putting in a water line.

Yeah.

And we knew where the water line was. We dug a hole to find it.

Yeah. And then he forgot that it crossed the hole at an angle. Assumed it went 90 degrees or blew a hole in a 10-inch water main. Yeah. With a backup.

Believe me, I I wish I could say we're immune to that, but unfortunately...

Yeah, it was water. I was thinking of you and others. Yeah, it was water.

It is. Construction is difficult. It's a difficult business for sure. All that to say, I mean, there is there there are ways to do it safely. There's ways to do it prudently. There's ways for us to be able to work together and and find out, especially if it's valuable for you guys to know what is underground, right? We pothole every utility. So, if that pothole provides relevant information for the work that you guys do, I mean, all the better. We have to do it anyway. So,

Peering in potholes is something that you guys have to consider. Most of the time, the wet slime left behind by the pothole creating...

Makes it makes it up through...

The actual boring is also...

Yeah, it's pressurized with...

Slurry of pressure that comes out and you can't really see anything. So where you see the most...

Spoil pile.

Is in all the handholds.

Got it.

Big pipelines, pig launchers, big. Yeah. Up. So, what we're going to get is a bunch of little windows, and very rarely will we get something bigger.

Yeah. Right.

I think your average big hole is going to be what? Three or four feet long.

Exactly. Yeah. It'll be the largest hole that we typically will dig, four feet by four feet by four feet.

Right. So, yeah.

Close to a meter.

Exactly. Yeah. Right. No, I like the way you're thinking about it, and I think putting together a draft of your overarching plan is a good way to step forward, and then we can agree on how you're going to nuance it and how you're going to attach the addenda. Okay, great.

Perfect. Any other questions, James? I mean, like I said, I know nothing about what you guys do outside of I know construction that can help with that, but if there's anything on that front, I'd be happy to answer anything else.

Well, just a word of warning. This much can make all the difference.

Oh, believe me, I know. I live my life half inch at a time, to be honest with you. So I completely...

When you get downtown, be prepared to be...

Well, and truth be told, that is one of the reasons, and I greatly value the contribution that Chawa has given us just from a planning perspective on our side, because they were the first to say, you know, again, occupational hazard, but we look at things from a deployment perspective. This is where the plant actually is. We have to build out from there. And it wasn't until Chawa made the suggestion, "Hey, you know what? This might be a better place for you guys to start. Is there a way that you can physically do it?" And then we go back and we solve for that problem. That's a much better approach to building in a place like Santa Fe. So I think it's going to be a good partnership from my perspective.

All right.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you guys, because it's 5:28. So 5B rather presents the Vericon Tempra Phase 3 interim report. How many?

No. Cherrick.

Okay. Thank you for what he provided us. So without further ado, what do we need to know?

Well, just a few points. As you see, it's kind of skinny, but there's a reason. I'll start by saying that we've met with Michelle Anzy and Jessica Badner to see what their requirements were for the project, and that by provided them with what they needed. I've also reached out to the tribal liaison, the State Land Office a couple of times, but have not received a response at this point. So I will continue to...

Just, I happen to know if you had reached out to a certain person, that certain person is no longer with...

Well, I saw on this website it said vacant, so I will find out who to talk to, I guess, over there.

Talk to the boss.

Okay.

Always better.

Okay. Yes, so in terms of the interim report, as you've read, I've only reported on what's been conducted to, you know, adhering to SWCA's approved scope of work. I have gotten a letter, I don't think we provided that to you, from Weston Glass at Homewise, authorizing me to take over the project because that wasn't enacted when Robin submitted it. So, as I want you to know, I've not come to any conclusions or made any recommendations. Those will come with the when the different forms of analysis are completed by the various experts. Again, until those samples are processed, the findings made, and the results written up, the data is not complete, and the interpretations can't be finalized. That said, I'm following a few lines of research on LA54763, LA54777, and LA 202469 as to the nature of those sites and how and why they're there. The final report is in the beginning stages of write-up, and we're waiting for the data to come in in order to make interpretations and draw conclusions as to what was found during testing and data recovery. I want to say my job as an archaeologist is to fill the requirements of the statutes for cultural resources administered by the ARC and Shipo. But I do understand my client's urgency in getting the infrastructure in place and will facilitate that in any way that I'm able. So, I'll answer questions later, but I'll hand it off to my client.

Hi.

Hi.

Familiar, babe.

It's good to see you guys.

So, I'm here on behalf of Eyes, having started working with them in October. And I don't know how much background you have on Cher Cana as a development, but this is the third and final phase of Chair Contenta, roughly 200 acres. We have this major infrastructure extension that has to be done before any homes can be built. It is a massive undertaking for an organization like Homewise. And we are moving swiftly towards being able to begin horizontal construction of this infrastructure. And we are here tonight seeking your feedback on the interim report, to also give you, as Ron just did, an update on interactions with Shipo regarding the state land involved in the project. But also to request that on the next agenda, you might consider having action items, perhaps considering a conditional approval that would allow some of the infrastructure work to begin, given our extreme time constraints associated with public funding that's been appropriated for the project, and just the sheer scale of the project. We would like to also get your feedback on if you are willing to give us a conditional approval that would allow us to proceed to permit a monitoring plan to be submitted for your review. That would cover protection of all of the sites that have been for which data recovery and testing has been required, but in particular, monitoring of the sites that will be particularly impacted by the construction. So that would be primarily LA5777 and LA54785C. It seems like we'll be able to avoid LA54765, but the margins are a little close there. So we would propose fencing that site and protecting it during construction. So, I'm going to put that out there and would be happy to receive any feedback that you might have, please.

Member Trice, do you have any questions at this point?

So just to, because this is the first time I've seen this, this is what we're talking about for, I mean, this isn't there right now, is that right?

No, that's not there right now. Correct. So this is what you're asking about is to be able to put this road and the...

Electrical underneath the road.

Right. So what you're seeing from the roundabout at Herrera Drive to the current terminus of Pad del Sol at Jaguar Drive, all of that infrastructure, the roadway and utilities in between is what we need, need to begin construction on as soon as we can reasonably. And Ron, what have, when you did this preliminary, did you, were you walking the road or were you looking specifically at the sites and how they'd be impacted by the road?

Yeah.

This area is surveyed, and all the sites were recorded previously, and it's actually been surveyed a couple of times.

Yeah.

And we reviewed that report, the survey report. It might have been just before you joined the committee. Then we looked at the update, and you were on the committee when it was presented and looked the documentation of these sites and discussed the generalities of what involved testing those sites.

Did China make that presentation before?

SWCA. Oh, Robert.

Okay. And so on the basis of that discussion, he prepared a test plan by this committee and this committee. So Ron now is involved with the actual testing of individual sites, a way past survey and walking these lines.

Okay. So his document presents some information about what was done on these sites.

So all of the testing that was that was presented in the testing plan has been conducted to this point. So the interim report gives you a sense of the methodology that was used and a bit of a sense of the results. Although, as Ron had stated, we're awaiting the analysis. So, and you want to get a preliminary approval so that you can start this before Ron gives us the final report on what he found. Is that, is that where we are?

In a nutshell, that seems to be where we are.

That is where we are. Yeah.

We have no, I think that's outside of my job. Okay. I mean, I would say, sure, go ahead. But I think it's kind of not my... You promise, Ron? You know, I mean...

Well, I would, no, I would say you know my work, and you know, I will be thorough. I've made this caveat that there's a lot I don't know until I get soil samples, C14 samples, you know, the funnel, ceramic, lithic analysis. I need all that information to be able to make draw conclusions and make recommendations. I am exploring, just based on what I saw in the ground, a couple of avenues where I don't totally agree with what was recorded in '86 and then two years ago. I have a different theory, especially at 54777, as to how and why those artifacts are there.

And that's the densest concentration, you know, of any in on the whole project area. But I have some stuff that I think, you know, when I get the rest of the analysis back, that I think you'll find interesting, and I can, I can make, you know, some solid points as why I think that that site is there. I do think it's worth qualifying a little more what you did see in the field, particularly at 54777, so that the committee can be a little more informed in how...

Well, I think it would, well, I think in SWCA's data recovery plan, testing data recovery plan, they stated that they thought, rather than Hanniford's projected interpretation of that it was a fieldhouse or a pueblo, they saw it as push piles. And with the work that I've done, I don't agree with either of those. I think it was dumped there, and I'm exploring a few different episodes in Santa Fe where that happened. One with a project in the '40s down on between Palace and Marcy where dirt was hauled off in trucks and dumped out near Vista Linda. And another one that Schmader noted in College of Santa Fe in the Forest Service offices where they brought in dirt and dumped it there to grow buffalo grass supposedly. And when he recorded, did the survey, he had a thousand shards, but they were not in situ. And I think, I think that's what I've got in this case, because when I got below the original ground surface, that was sterile. And in those, that one profile you see of the west wall of the east trench, you'll see not complete adobe bricks, not a structure, but chunks of brick. I've got gypsum plaster. I've got rolled roofing all intermixed with the lithics and ceramics. And even right on the surface of that original ground surface, I've got rolled roofing laying there. And I have a theory that that material was brought somewhere over in the Agua region, because I've got apricot seeds. But more importantly, I just found this out from Gwenneth Duncan, I've got two faunal bones. One is sheep goat, but the other is turkey. And I, I, I think either somebody was remodeling their old adobe or they were getting rid of a site. I'm not sure which, but I think there were two episodes where they dumped, you know, because they're linear features and they're offset from one another. I really think I'm going to be able to make a strong argument that that material is not in situ. I have a theory about the, the, in 54765, those thermal, the thermal spot features in the A01 that I, when I excavated that, the one, one and feature one. When I got down, there was no, there was no living surface. There were no charcoal flecking. There's no FCR. It's just that ash stain. And I'm, I want to get these tests back because I think it could have been a brush fire, because when you look at that, it's not a continuous, it's not a living surface, not a cross, you know, they're not connected. They're just spot, you know, ash lenses. So, I don't know.

Those are some things I'm pursuing. Lisa made me say it, but I can't prove it at this point. I think I will become, I can come up with evidence to support those arguments in those two sites in particular. Also, I didn't say that, but in 202469, Robin stated that they thought there was not much depth to this site. I saw when we did the testing, we hit the kiche after 10 centimeters, and I went down through that. Then in each one of those units, I went down below that. So now I was in three sterile levels, and two of them were into the kiche. So I did that in a couple of areas, and there's, I know these aren't deep units, but I think I can provide evidence that that is mainly surficial, those sites out there.

Question: Under what method would we do this kind of approval of an interim report?

We would have to have an acceptable submittal or an action item so that we can actually consider and vote on those things.

Yes, Chair. One of the reasons that you have an informational item is that we felt it was important for the ARC to review the issue and listen to the presentation and determine the most appropriate course of action. Then staff will put it on an agenda. But we were uncertain about whether a conditional approval would be a process that the ARC would want to entertain. So we wanted to respect your opinion on that matter.

And in my recollection, once or twice in the last 20 years, this thing has been entertained. That was all before my term on this committee, so I honestly don't know what the outcome was.

As a concern.

Question: Why did Paul write the letter that he wrote?

What letter are we talking about?

We were handed a letter that he wrote to Heather Lamboy about.

That's a letter I requested.

Okay. Just because, certainly, and Paul, you might want to pop in here, but it would.

I wanted to know exactly what the process was, what. I read the report, and it seemed fairly small for some sort of data recovery plan as was titled on the report. So I asked him to analyze it for whether it complies with the submittal, and so we can identify what needs to be done to have a complete submittal.

And he did a thorough presentation of various languages, the various sections of applicable.

Right.

City stuff.

Yeah. And at the end of it, he says, "The current interim report does not meet specifications of the New Mexico state standards for excavation test excavation, and therefore no conditional approval can be made until blah, blah, blah." And then secondly, "Attached is the agenda," excuse me, "the agenda and meeting minutes for the CPRC meeting of August 15, 2025, at which they considered this proposed data recovery plan as submitted to SWCA." So that's why.

The minutes.

The minutes are in it, and there's really only one little section that's relevant on the last page where it says 11 of 11.

The last paragraph: "A motion was made that excavation permit and burial excavation permit," because they require that every time, "received their per the SWCA received their permit upon receipt of revisions to the satisfaction of staff."

And that was the end of that.

That was the end of that. So.

SWCA theoretically submitted the revisions. I don't know that.

That's the subject of conversation between you and Michelle.

There were no, well, no submission had been made as of the conversation I had with Michelle, and I don't know if Mr. admitted.

No.

Interesting.

That is not what she said to us.

Okay. Well, Paul, as the official archaeological liaison, Paul, did you know of any revisions that were submitted or were they shared with you?

Chair, members of the ARC, Director Lamboy, yes. Robin sent us the revised and approved plan from the CPRC, but notified me on September 9th that SWCA will be redacting their request for the plan to be reviewed by the ARC, given the contractor went with a different, went with a different approach. So, at that time, we did as requested.

Respectfully, that's not a thing. That the plan was approved. Ron followed the plan. We have a letter from the city stating that that plan was approved.

The plan the city approved is the majority of, but not all of the plan that the CPRC approved. I've not seen the revised plan.

Would it be the pleasure of the board to see a revised plan first?

I think this needs to see that. That's one. And here's the problem of A and B speaking to C independently. They leave with a different impression of the conversation. In an ideal world, I would like Michelle to be at anything. You can tell us what's going, because I do not pry into the actions of HPD and CPRC. I have not spoken to anyone over there about this who have a question, and as far as I know, only she can answer it. Did the CPRC issue a permit to Ron Winters to do this work?

So, we met with Michelle and Jessica Friday last, and they told me what they required, and I've submitted it to them to be on the CPRC agenda on February 13th. And what they were addressing was not in total, but the sites that were specifically going to be impacted on the state land, New Mexico School for the Deaf land, which is U54785B and 54777. And that's what I supplied to them. That's what they asked. That's what Michelle asked for. That's what I provided her.

Okay. Well, then now there's A, B, and C part. I'm at a loss here because there is no CPRC issued permit to do the work that you have done. So the work that was done was done without permit.

And that wasn't made clear to me when I was, when I joined the project. I was under the impression that I was working on the approved plan that SWCA had permitted. And then when we talked to Michelle, she wasn't concerned about the bigger picture, but those two sites that were on School for the Deaf lands. And that's what I mean, I have it. I can provide it to the committee, what I provided to them, how I would address those two sites. But I think there was a letter, wasn't it, that my understanding that his plan was approved by the CPRC? Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But she, she said, like you said, for those two sites at least, that's what their concern was. They wanted me to have a project specific permit for those two sites, and that's what I.

By the time this committee meets again, those permits will be approved. We expect, given what we discussed with Michelle and Jessica last week, and granted, I will, all of this transpired before I started with HomeWise. Not going to wash my hands of it. I'm here to tell you that clearly there was, there was some misstep in not getting those permits.

Let's fix that.

Absolutely.

We're doing everything we can to rectify that right now.

If the CPRC can be made sanguine and issue a permit for this work, I think this committee could see a path forward, but it's for this work. It's not for two sites that happen to be on a certain nuance of ownership.

What do you mean? The plan was submitted for the work on all of these sites.

Correct.

The work must be conducted on those sites under a permit. So until the permit exists, we have something in limbo. Actions have been taken. Progress toward the planned work has been made. But it cannot be retroactively blessed until it's complete. So then we will need a much more involved presentation of what was, what was found and what you think about it. I understand you don't have final information. That's okay. I just want you to say more. And specifically what I want them to say more about is the action on a certain feature. L54765, I believe. No. 63.

LA20469.

Which will be avoided by any construction 02 or 69.

If it was going to be avoided by any construction, I wonder why it was in data recovery.

I do too. Most of these sites will be avoided by construction, by, well, I should say by construction of the infrastructure.

Yeah.

There will be, there will ultimately be.

But no, I think it's important for me to finish my sentence if I could.

I agree.

That what we're asking for, being able to proceed on in the near term, is the infrastructure work. The housing development is at least two years away. So there will be plenty of time in that interim to receive complete qualification of these, these sites.

That is listed as a school site according to the master plan.

202469.

Yeah.

So that's on School for the Deaf.

No future school.

You're speaking of constructing a school. Yeah. Okay.

All right.

Which may or may not happen. We don't know.

All right. I'm now recalling some of the discussion during the presentation of the survey report and confusion at the time as to what was and was not, what's not going to be avoided. This is a continuation of that. Once we bless this report, the future report, the fate of these are sealed. Until we bless that future report, the fate of these remains in the balance. Okay. But now that I know we're all on the same page, I want to direct everyone's attention to page 12 of this internal report. The last paragraph, "A total of nine units were originally called for around 51."

Mhm.

But you say that because the feature was completely contained in one unit and because no evidence of a living surface was encountered, the additional eight were not excavated. Do you know why that was in the David pile?

I have no idea. I mean, you see my drawing of the feature.

There was no ash stained beyond that one by one unit. I mean, and if you look at my profile in Plan B's.

I see that.

You know, I, I don't, I have no idea. I did in another case though, in 777, where they had a 1x3 that kind of spanned the two mounds. I didn't think that was sufficient. So, I added along the long axis of both of those to really get a better picture. So in this place, I, I reduced, but I then I, and over there it was, it was warranted to add to that.

And I commend you for that. Adding is always better than subtracting.

Yes. Oh no. Absolutely. And I want to remind you of an earlier conversation that this group had with you about a decision we made in the field, and you were admonished to not do so until you have checked with staff and this committee in future. This is the future. That requirement was in the data recovery plan because it is a very standard method of investigating thermal features in the southern part of the state.

Where there is almost never anything in the feature. All the interesting stuff is in the area around it.

I see.

So if you would please go back and dig those other eight units.

Not a problem. As soon as you get your permit.

Yeah.

Before, and I want to see the documents that show that you did it after you got the permit. Then I think I will be in a position to judge whether or not whatever you submit is sufficient evidence of having met the criteria specified in the data recovery plan. Assuming I see the actual data recovery plan, too, because this is a bit.

That's right. Yes. Then I think we'll have something we can move forward and playing our cards right, fully expect we will be able to go forward.

Well, that's super.

I tend to, I tend to bet when the odds are in my favor. So, even though the site, just to clarify, Chair, even though the site that you're requesting additional testing on is on HomeWise land, Ron needs to have a permit in place before he excavates further.

As far as I understand, the reason for preparing this permit was not for work to be conducted on two sites on one nuance of land. It was for work conducted on all the sites. If the SHPO wants to say that's not the case, okay, but I'm still in the same place. I need to see the results of the excavation of those additional eight units because that's in the recovery plan we need approved. He can't go out there and do any more work until he has that permit. February 13th, we are on hold. As soon as he has the permit, he will submit another interim report, and I do think we will have enough information to act on whether or not to approve the infrastructure development.

I don't know. Did you mention that one of your ideas in terms of to fence all the sites that weren't going to be impacted by all to protect them?

That will be addressed in the monitoring plan as well as the measures we intend to employ to protect. So, let me be clear about this. So, a monitoring plan that...

I think a monitoring plan is a good idea if you want to make sure that nobody screws up.

Yeah, yeah, but it would not be, as far as I understand from the city's view, an expected thing that you had to produce and do because it gives clearance on the project.

Well, we're proposing that in the hopes that we might get a provisional clearance to allow us to proceed before the final report with all of the final results of artifact analysis and sample analysis is complete.

Yeah.

That would be the only reason that we would submit.

Grand idea if you want to develop that plan and submit it at the same time with the additional interim report information.

So the only issue here is that the next submittal date is the 10th for the ARC. The CPRC meets on the 13th.

But it would be in advance of the hearing. So...

I have a...

I do have the position. Can't postpone to a date certain, and then there can be like a negotiation of the submittal date with staff for after the CPRC.

Well, sure there could be, but I was going down the path. We're in a hurry to start digging and building roads, to putting in infrastructure. The timing of things is such that I don't see how we can...

And we can't postpone when there's no action item that's associated with this agenda. So...

May I ask you, if we hold confirmation from SHPO that their permitting authority is limited to the School for the Deaf property, we could get that in writing from Michelle. Then could Ron proceed with the additional testing?

The 14th? Sorry. Because we are under the distinct impression after speaking with Michelle and Jessica on Friday that what they're interested in are the two sites that are located on the school or extend onto New Mexico.

Well, they had approved, I guess, the whole...

I don't think that was absolutely necessary. We didn't create two treatment plans. We didn't create a treatment plan, but the school put up a separate treatment plan for the state. We did one plan because it was just, you know...

In a normal world, an undertaking is under one umbrella. In a normal world involving the feds, nothing happens until the feds are happy. In a normal world involving the state, nothing happens until the state is happy. If the state is willing to say that they screwed up and they considered a whole bunch of stuff for a data recovery plan and a special archaeological excavation permit and a burial excavation permit for part of the project and didn't tell the rest of us that they were only doing part of the project, then I really want to see that letter. I think don't you have the correspondence between Jessica and Robin?

We do.

I think maybe you want to see that. That would be a wonderful thing to include in your submittal.

I will communicate. What I'm hearing is that there is not really an opportunity for us to get started. At present, I know of not...

I think absolutely until we have a permit and you can do the work. If SHPO wants to say differently, great, then we can act differently. This is intensely frustrating because it should not have transpired that somebody took action on anything other than a document that says you are permitted to do this action. And Ron's left holding the bag. And it should not have happened. It just should not have happened.

On the same token, it doesn't feel right to hold up this very critical project because of a bureaucratic issue. Just putting that out there.

That's fine. My opinion. We can share opinions about the project in other venues over cocktails. I don't disagree that there was definitely a misstep made. It just needs to be fixed, and this is the right way to fix it. Find out if they're willing to say they screwed up and issued a permit for something they don't have an authority to issue a permit for. And it has to be pretty much phrased that way. Or they have to say, "We're willing to say we will only look at what's on the School for the Deaf property and ignore everything else and allow it to go forward." If they say either one of those on paper, we have a way to go forward. But we still will need the work done because we approved a plan that said, and we now know why, and it's going to get done.

Yeah, I don't not at all with that.

I think they're all very... I think it's all very reasonable, and our hope would be when we come forward with the beefed-up interim report and the analysis from the additional test units, as well as the CPRC permit, then we can consider a conditional clearance permit at that time.

I do think we will be able to do so. So, David, what do you need from me exactly besides... I mean, we know what Michelle and Jessica ask of us, and I've done that, you know, but what?

For me, I need somebody who can speak on behalf of the city regarding archaeology to be involved in every discussion of every aspect of archaeology that involves the city. That means nobody has a sidebar conversation with somebody at the SHPO. Nobody says, "Well, Michelle said..." We... that's not cool.

We did not intend to have a sidebar conversation.

I know, but speaking of an ideal world, and we don't live in an ideal world, but this only works if we all work together.

I could not agree more.

And it's an...

I could not agree more. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Chair. For February 18th, Amanda and I were just talking. The packet deadline is the 10th, but we'd be happy to work with you so that maybe on the 14th or the 15th, you can submit the documentation. Well, he won't have been able to do the excavation by then.

Well, here's the deal. He wants to make a presentation about a monetary plan. Raise the titling of your monitoring plan such that it will include an interim report of work already conducted. Get it on the agenda, and whatever it includes is whatever it includes because it's just an object with a title. It's going to be on the agenda, and if it's this big or this big, it doesn't matter.

True.

That's correct. Yeah. And I think if we don't get confirmation from SHPO that they are isolating their jurisdiction through the state land, then it would enable us to go ahead and get those other test units done and get that data in the interim report.

It's interesting because I think they did approve the plan that the AFC...

Yeah.

But except change, and I don't know what those changes are.

It wasn't. We can talk more, Ron. We don't need to take up any... We just need to know that we have final word.

And just so you know, in terms of the tribal liaison, I did have a conversation with the state, and it's just strongly encouraged that you coordinate. Gary has contacted the Historic Preservation Office with PBLO, and so that might be a good place to start. So, and also for further future reference, the State Land Office federal liaison only deals with State Land Office liaison. This is not State Land Office land. It's something...

Well, that was confusing to us.

It has to be something.

It was very confusing as to why they could be a source of information called in the monitoring plan, but the approved monitoring plan, the monitoring plan called for that specifically.

Yeah. It was very confusing as to why that was the case. So, but that's what we did because that's what the office has no jurisdiction over the...

I didn't think they did either.

They don't want...

Okay. Probably they have a hard enough time dealing with the land they are responsible for. Benefits go.

Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time.

Well, thank you for coming, and it's gratifying to know that we can find a way out of the weeds.

Thank you.

Thank you.

When you need that after we have 15 minutes, y'all.

Yeah, they're done. 45. New business case number 202611796 TRC agent for Public Service Company of New Mexico applicant is requesting approval of an archaeological monitor reporting of approximately 80 feet of sub electrical island at 5:30 South. The Historic Downtown Archaeological Review. Thank you to the staff for Paul. Anything you need to add to that?

Thank you, Chair. No, sir.

All right. We have a presenter. Applicant, please raise your hand. Online agent. Chris, please unmute yourself. Have you sworn in?

You there for it? Yes, I am.

Will you please state your name and address for the record?

My name is Christine G. Ward, W-A-R-D, and I work with the Albuquerque Office of TRC. Is that the address you want?

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and you declare the penalty of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Not sure how you're going. Do you have anything you wish to offer in addition to what you've already submitted?

No, I don't believe so. I think the report was pretty thorough.

Thank you, committee members. Member Beal.

So, I have quite a few questions. Some of which may not be archaeology, but they do mostly pertain to the track next to the building. But I may... I'll go through my notes, and then I'll... What I've brought is the master plan document for the Santa Fe Railyard, which shows the lease map. And on page 11, you keep calling this private land, and this is actually, it's my understanding, that it's city-owned land that is actually leased to the Barkers for their office building. And so I'm concerned that it's being treated differently because you keep calling it private land. It may be completely just a word, and it doesn't have any meaning. But in any case, it's public land as far as I can tell. I called the Santa Fe Conservation Trust, who has, who owns the conservation easement, and there was some confusion, and she recommended that I call Christine, who is the executive director of the Santa Fe Railyard Community Corp. And I haven't done that. But I did look up the lease maps, and indeed, these are these lot areas. This is I and J, and it's lease lot I, old Sears building, lease lot J, the Morali building. Oh, no, I'm going the wrong place. Lease lot K1, L, and L1, and then the track is between those buildings. And so, I don't believe that the city would say that they're leasing that land if it's not public land. So, I'd like, I don't know how you'd prove that one way or the other. Then, oh, this was just sort of a funny thing. On page 26, under the history section of territorial section, it said that the Santa Fe organized citizens prepared themselves for a boom. Bad planning meant the main, meant the main line of the railroad bypassed the city.

I thought it was bad geography, so I don't know about that. Yeah, and so those are, I mean, that's my biggest one. The tracks are apparently not of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe tracks, but they're actually part of, or the spur of the ATSF. They're actually part of the Chile Line that went by the Denver and Rio Grande's tracks. I didn't see track diagrams in your report, so I don't know which track it is. Certainly a spur track for the Gross Kelly warehouse. And so then I guess I disagree with this idea that this track is not important, even if it's partially there, or I've forgotten what the word is, and that's why I realize I may be confused about the designations of these artifacts. What I don't want to have happen is that the tracks are taken up later because we didn't decide that they were important to keep. And I don't know if that's what your report is saying. And so that's my question for the archaeologists in the room.

On page 41, you refer to the building as the Barker Realty building, and it's the Gross Kelly warehouse or the Gross Kelly Almason building. It's never the Barker Realty building. They occupy the building. And then again, there's not much talk of the Chile Line, the D&RG. So I noticed I went over there, where I walk my dogs around that area, and so I drag them through that line, and I see that all buildings, the Gross Kelly warehouse building, the metal building that was added in the 50s, they've encroached into the alley. So, like I was thinking about it, in Los Angeles, there are these great buildings that have these huge curves because they follow the train tracks. And so even when you take out the train track, you know what happened there because the space of the building occupies that space. Here, we are just allowing this metal shed, and then this patio, and then this deck, and then this storage building to occupy where those tracks were. And so, I would appreciate if somehow we would decide what's important and not allow encroachment into a historic element that's described in our railyard master plan. And so I don't know if that's an SFRCC question or City of Santa Fe enforcement question, but having spent 20 volunteer years on this master plan, I'm like, "Well, this is not okay with me." So you can't see if you don't know anymore. It's not unlike building faux adobe buildings. You don't know what you don't know. And so if you can't see this line lines up with the Sears warehouse, the next buildings over, then eventually it will be lost, the historic nature of these, of the tracks, of the railyard. And you even talk about it in such a strange way that, "Oh, well, now we have all this modern construction, and so therefore it's no longer historic." It's like, "Well, it's the opposite for me." So anyway, that's, I'll let finish my...

Yes.

May I say something? I don't believe I ever say that it's not historic.

It's absolutely historic. I don't believe I've ever said that throughout the report. I'm sorry.

Yeah, and I'm not saying you said that, but you do say that, yes, the Gross Kelly warehouse retains its character, but this track doesn't. And what I would, you know, on page 105, "After research and documentation of this segment, it is TRC's recommendation that the resource lacks additional information potential and is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D." And I would say that it's associated with the building that it's next to, which does retain its criteria or its eligibility. And so I would include that with the building, not have it be separate. Yeah. So let's see what else do I have. Also, you say that this is a historic district. It is, this is not a historic district. The railyard is not a historic district. It's also not in the Santa Fe Historic District, and so those boundaries should be clear.

Yeah, I guess the maps I was looking at were incorrect on that. My apologies. I can correct that.

So anyway, that's mine. Those are mine.

Okay, we're going to try to get to the end here because we're going to lose a quorum.

Right. Yeah, I don't pass because I just had a quibble, and it's not worth bringing up because we need to vote on this.

Remember, Torres is passing on his quibble. I will not pass on mine. I can see no justification for any agency, be it city or state, for agreeing with your recommendation that this site is not eligible. I see 105 pages plus citations that give me adequate information to say not only is it eligible, it's pretty darn interesting, and I want to know more. And so you're entitled to your opinion, but...

Yeah.

This body and the city is entitled to the opportunity to disagree with you.

Absolutely.

Say at least I disagree with you. I think Member Beal does as well. So I don't know how the system works and who gets to enter what into the ARMS database, but somehow, somewhere, somebody is going to make an entry that says the City of Santa Fe thinks this thing is eligible. That being said, you do not need to change your recommendation. You are always entitled to your opinion.

Can I make one statement regarding that? While I agree in general about this, I don't think it's part of the Chile Line, and I think the Sanborn maps demonstrate that. However, I think the integrity of that segment behind the fence, that basically the segment that was covered by the trench, not the segment to the north going toward Manhattan Avenue, but the segment behind the fence, behind the building, between the building and the brewery, that area did not retain integrity. We didn't believe, neither Dr. Shadens nor I believed.

Then you should say that.

I can absolutely correct for that.

Larger entity, the site's eligibility is for the site, not for a portion of the site.

That's why we're so certain that we feel like it's eligible because it's still there. You can still see it. And even the part that has been blitzed has a certain that calls out to me and others. So that's why we want to say that we're seeing the whole site, not the ditch.

Oh, absolutely. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. So if you will make the changes that Member Beal has indicated.

Well, I do feel like we, that the private property piece, I mean, there needs to be plats or, you know, there weren't any, there wasn't that level of detail there to prove that it's private. And so there's lease agreements that they've made with the City of Santa Fe. You know, there's more information to be had by that token.

And we will consult on our part with our real estate manager, Ed Hill, to get the appropriate documentation and share that with Dr. Ward.

Okay. Yeah. So you know, the lease agreements, the plats, the conservation easement. And then apparently there is a railyard city staff person who has, you know, tried to keep things going or keep things clear back there because both property owners think they own that piece of property, and it's not, and that's why they built their sheds on it. Oh, they're storing peanut oil, no matter, I don't know what else.

Why would they be different?

There's lots of...

There were lots of empty kegs back there when we first arrived.

Yeah.

From the brewery as well.

6:31. We will entertain a motion. I move that we approve with any changes made to the proposed report for the trenching on South Guadalupe Street, number 011796.

I approve with, I'd like to see that report, not that it just go back to staff, but I'd like to see the corrections. Is that a friendly amendment?

A friendly amendment.

I'm all for that.

Okay. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying, "Aye."

Aye.

Motion carries. Thank you, Christine. And...

Have fun fixing.

Can I say one other thing? Somebody else will have to bring that to you. My last day of employment with TRC is tomorrow.

Huh? So I'm not sure how to communicate with you guys, who, how to get that through.

That's okay. Someone else can present it.

You did a nice job. Thank you.

Okay, we're at an impact.

And we're back to 15 minutes if we can get through. 15 minutes.

All right, we'll give it a shot. Case number 202611797, TRC, agent for Public Service Company of New Mexico. Applicant is requesting approval of an archaeological monitoring report for the installation of approximately 255 feet of subsurface electrical lines at 2401 West Galisteo Road in the River and Trails and Suburban Archaeological Review Districts. Sorry, I can't speak.

Thank you for your staff report, Paul. Anything to add?

No, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Ward is online, and she's already been sworn.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. So anything to add, Christine?

Uh, no, I don't believe so to this one either. No.

All right. Thank you. Member Beckel.

No question.

Member Trees.

No questions. I do have one question. There weren't very many maps in here. There's some aerial photographs, but there's not very many maps that I noticed. So that's all I got. Thank you. I agree with Member Trace. A couple of maps would have clarified a lot of things that I couldn't see on the aerial photos until I glitched up the digital version and peered at that with magnification. So consider your visual presentations for occasional rendering in black and white because color doesn't always propagate very well. In this case, the color propagated pretty well, but the contrast is terrible. So talk to your cartography folk.

Okay, that is all.

Yes, sir. Motion. I move that we approve 011797 with the potential addition of sub-ass.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying, "Aye."

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Christine. You are now off the hook.

So both of these need to be resubmitted with the second one with additional maps. Correct. Yep.

Okay. Thank you.

Want to try for the last one?

I'm going to come back.

Do it.

Well, we do.

Number 202611811, Wonderstone LLC, agent for Jenkins Gavin. Applicant is requesting archaeological monitoring plan for 2.5 acres located at 214 Camino de los Marquez in the River and Trails and Suburban Archaeological Review Districts. Thank you, Amanda, for the staff report. Anything?

No, Chair. Was here. Identify.

Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, it's Nicole Ramirez Thomas, PO Box 8337, South Lake Tahoe, California 96158.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item? Show me the truth and nothing but the truth and do the honor of the penalty.

Yes.

Thank you very much. Chair sworn in. Anything to add?

I have nothing to add, but happy to answer questions.

Rebecca.

Um, I just see this line that goes across these figures on page 23 and 24. Are those just a road or trails or something?

Let me get there.

On the aerial photographs from '85 and '51.

Yeah, I see it. And I do not know what that is, but it looks like it's roads to me.

And we didn't see them in other STS.

Right. And there's always a problem with historic maps because if you're off by a hair, you end up off by a mile.

Yes.

And there are roads in similar configurations that do appear on the historic maps. It's just not where the GIS maybe thinks the project area is. It's probably the road indicated on, for instance, the map on page 21.

That starts at the south limit of the circle and goes on. Yes.

And that's probably it. It's just...

Well, so...

Registry is a little...

Yeah. Yes.

And we live with that.

Mhm.

Similar problem on the next page. Okay.

The project area is south of what's labeled "Arroyo?" And I know that it's actually north of the Arroyo because I saw the mountain line in that, and I remember... I remember exactly where I was. You mentioned that there's this possible Arroyo...

A...

Pardon?

Anakya that's, yeah, just a small one. But we don't see any connection on either side of the property. It's all been paved over, but no name. It doesn't show up anywhere on a map anywhere with it.

It is on this one.

Yeah, it's labeled here as one of the... Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, it's like one of the... And you know that labels are terrible. He pointed out it's labeled, I think, "Marie" on one. Speak Spanish, make a student strange studies.

That's it.

Okay. All I wanted to quibble about is registry leading to confusion that led to the two questions.

Oh.

All right. Motion. I move that we approve 011811.

As it is.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying "Aye."

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks for... We are not considering any other action items, so the lack of a column should be...

Okay.

Not a factor.

And just so you know, for next time, the code is in effect. The updated archaeological district's ordinance is in effect. And so we'll be reviewing applications on that basis. And so there, I'm happy to send you a copy of what finally happened with the code. The only changes that were made that weren't the results that were made was the distances, linear distances, in the suburban and river trails districts, but all other changes that were recommended by the ARC were accepted and incorporated.

Thank you.

Be careful.

Thank you. Yes, I was happy to help. Yeah, I was happy to do that. Thank you, guys. See you later. Bye. Anything else from staff that we need to know about?

The only thing for staff matters and communications, we are going to have our historic preservation awards in May, and I will be sending the Archaeological Review Committee a form for you guys to make nominations. So look for that. That is all.

Committee, anything that you need to bring up? Are you going to be absent today?

No, actually, I thought I might be next month, but it's late enough. So, my quibble about the other report was the mixing of metric with English measurements on a form, which I found inconsistent. It is true that everyone is admonished to do it one way consistently, but humans being what they are...

It's easier to say 4 feet than it is to say 3.2 meters. Yeah. Geez, I think I did the conversion on the fly. It was all about, you know, centimeters in one column below surface, and then everything else was in inches. And I go, and even sometimes it would be centimeters below, and then below that it would say somewhere inches below, and I just go, you know, it's hard enough to convert from one to the other, but don't think you do it...

How much we would just do...

Well, someday, probably not before I die, the US will adopt a metric system.

Fortunately, by that time, I will not be doing construction.

And just, Chair, just so you know, we are placing, we're nominating Amanda Mather for the archaeologist role for Christine Mather's daughter. She worked at Blandrinas for the archaeology role for this committee, and we just have to have Counselor, oh, I'm sorry, Mayor Garcia make the appointment with the...

Totally unfamiliar with her. So...

Would you like to interview her? Would you like for me to coordinate something?

I don't see that I need to. Just kind of a, I'd really like to know...

To make an introduction. Yeah.

Because in the event that some idiot in a truck drives me off the road between here and Las Vegas, this person will be the only archaeologist on the committee. And I just like certain echelons of government were concerned about who gets to replace who is of paramount importance. I realize I'm just a small bump on the landscape, but for the city's business, this is important. It is very...

So where she's been...

Recommendations of others because I have to plead ignorance as to who other archaeologists might, what other archaeologists might be available, which should have required Member Wans and Member Pierce to find a replacement for...

If the city thinks it can do that, it should have done that about 12 years ago.

I wish we could.

It can't.

It can't.

It doesn't. And even though the folklore is that you can't leave the committee until you either die or find a replacement or piss off, you're stuck. So I need two people beside me. We got one. We need another one.

Yes.

So that even in the event, it still has four legs and can serve as a ticket.

Agreed. I know we talked about the requirement that they had to live in the city and that we would need to change the code in order for that to happen.

They can work in the city and live or work in the city. So we have tried to broaden that to allow for on the Historic Districts Review Board. We have a member who lives in the county but works in the city. So...

Scott Sherry.

And...

Yeah, so...

That's acknowledged and approved. The appointment happened.

Yep.

Now we have a president.

Okay. So I will widen my area of contact because I restricted it to the city on purpose.

Right.

So we shall see. Okay. Anything else? I just want to say that I appreciate everything that staff is doing all remotely. You're not here. But thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Tes, because you keep me in line. But I always want more. And in the last few days, I've been wondering what are the true limitations of communication? Because when I started, we were preached out about ex parte communication. We were preached out about discussing things outside meetings and such that it could be considered not appropriate. We've been enjoined to not visit project areas. And as you just heard, a member just said that they did. It's perfectly innocent, perfectly logical, but in theory, according to what we were preached about...

Not allowed. There's nothing in the ordinance that states anything that is not allowed as long as you have permission by the property owner. Our Historic Districts Review Board does have visits the day of, but those are unofficial.

Noticed. There is a line somewhere in that stinking ordinance, and I don't know if it's in the new one, that says specifically, "Members are not to visit project areas, period." It doesn't use those words, but it's a very short sentence, and it just says that. And so I had never had... I have seen them as I drive by. I have seen them as I walk by. But I have never gone and stood on a single project area, any matter that came before this committee.

I'll research the code. I'd like to know because if it's okay, since they get from the agenda that I'm going to start doing a lot. So, and also, might I suggest, when we get the new ARC member, maybe we can have an overview and overall, because I know we haven't had the opportunity to do with Member Trees, is, you know, go through the dos and don'ts of the committee with maybe our legal representative or with staff, just separate from the hearing. For instance, at this point, even with a fourth member, it is impossible for us to have a subcommittee of more than one.

Right.

Right.

And we have in the past had many needs to have a submit, which was trying to redo the...

Right.

Sorry. That is all. Next meeting is on February 26th.

So we're lacking the quorum. We're just going to go. We're just ask questions.

That's right. Keep going.