Archaeological Review Committee
Thu, Feb 26, 2026 · Archaeological Review Committee
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1025

== Topics ==
- Minutes Review & Corrections
- Uzie Fiber Optic Project
- Unexpected Discoveries & Human Remains
- Archaeological Monitoring & Oversight
- Data Management & Accessibility (Archaeological)
- Consultant Performance (Minutes)
- Archaeological Review Committee Procedures
- New ARC Member Application
- New Mexico Central Railroad
- Kearney Street Digging
- Loretto Church Electrical Line
- Bridge Construction

== Full Transcript ==
Call the chairing of the Archaeological Review Committee of February 26, 2026 to order. May we have the roll call, please?

Member Trice: Present.

Chair: Present.

Member Bessel: Present.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Yes. Maryland. Agenda. Are you square with the agenda? Anything to change on it?

No change on the chat.

All right. Any thoughts?

I have a motion.

Move to approve the agenda.

Second. Sorry.

Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Three to them. I can count that. Minutes. May 22nd, 2025. Okay. Okay.

There was a gender issue when we were describing a particular voice. An architect started as a he and became a she. I don't think that was intentional.

Not an architect, an archaeologist. Yes.

It's on page nine of the 24 pages presented. It's the third paragraph down, starts out with Dr. Selzer Rogers, etc. He's here. Since it was this gentleman who was here and not his dear wife, it should say that he submitted the revised versions of the work chart.

So not the chair will change that.

Right. A typing error on page 13 at the bottom, a run together of "without relevant information." The paragraph starts with "Member Pierce pointed out." Ah, yes, it's the middle line of that paragraph. Yeah, "without relevant information" is run together. And on page 16 of the PDF, Pierce asked if there's certainty that the FAA does not have jurisdiction or possibly some other agency. And then Mr. Duran states that they need to meet FDA regulation. So, I think we're talking FAA. I think this is regarding the airport. I don't think it would have the FDA involvement in that.

Right. So that's paragraph 3, paragraph 4 on page 16. The reference to the FDA in the fourth paragraph is incorrect. Make it FAA.

Okay.

And on page 17, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Paragraph down. Chair X said his main, "my main concern." Maybe he did say that way, but we may not want to write it that way. I would suggest "work."

Yes.

Fix the English or what approximates English. And on page 22, there's a reference to Member Pierce, but nothing after yet. There's something missing. There's a second paragraph, second line that has nothing but Member Pierce's name.

Okay. And on page 23, letter F, paragraph F, we have a run-on again. "Development code" is one word where it should be two. First line, that member back.

As a general comment, I just felt like these were just a mishmash of what's the point of these, but I didn't, other than to note that we voted, who seconded, and what the vote was. But I did find one thing on page four in the middle of that big paragraph. It just stopped making sense to me. So now PY Homes is in litigation with Santa Fe Architect and Engineering. I don't know if that's a firm or if it is, then maybe "Architect and Engineering" need to be capitalized. And then with this other issue, they are not mitigating the, so if since I was at this meeting, I know what it should say. What the idea is that they're not mitigating the damage that they did or the destruction that they did of the ASAP. And I just don't know why we can't say it that in plain English as opposed to this kind of

Verbose.

Yes. So that's all I have.

Comment more than a

And I would like to strongly echo the point about mishmash. And I want to ask one unkind question first. Does AI have anything to do with the production of this document? We are now using a minutes consulting and we send them our YouTube and they produce this record for us.

Yes.

And how and how that is done. I couldn't say if it was done AI or not, but it's taking the information.

You're not getting your money's worth. Yes, sir.

Period. And they'll hear that on the next recording. Yes.

Yes.

Page two. Third paragraph unkindly misspells the name of Dr. Selzer Rogers. There is a T in there. Page six paragraph. Well, seven. I guess it's the big one. It's me holding forth at great length about whatever. Third to last night. Wayne Hill's name is misspelled. It's P I L Z P H I L apostrophe S. Since it ends in a Z, it should be "Pills'" apostrophe so that it reads without having to stand on one's head. Page nine already have mention of gender columns in paragraph three. Page 10, last line, last word. It is a NIA. N I AF increase information abstract form and I realize if you're contracting with these people they haven't got a clue what the heck we're talking about but they need to educate themselves and pay attention because elsewhere in the document it's correct. So duh do the spell check please. Yes, sure.

Page 11, the first paragraph. Me again holding the board. The last sentence of that paragraph is clearly not a complete thought and it does not convey the discussion at time. It's a statement, but it's not relevant. I think where is the full citation would make some sense there. If there was a citation given would make better sense. Thank you, Trice, for noticing all these things that I didn't notice. Unlike me, but I think I was sneezing too much at the time. Uh, page 18, fourth paragraph, fourth line. The word "vector" is useful in terms of air traffic control and mathematics, general navigation, but I don't think it belongs in that paragraph. Somebody needs to relisten to that and figure out what was actually said. Page 19, seventh paragraph. "Niad" again appears instead of NIA. It must be an F as it means nothing. Page 22, first paragraph, "NIAD" equals NIA. Fix it now and forever. And if I ever see it again, I want you to fire your consultant. Thank you. That is all.

Would you, I move that we accept the minutes with the changes that we have specified.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Motion carries. Three to them. Matters from the floor. Ely Fiber and Shaman Environmental Research and Consulting LLC discuss the proposed citywide fiber optic project.

Sir, you skipped over the second minutes that were on your agenda for October 14th, 2025.

Since I did not possess them, I didn't notice that they were not there and didn't notice they on the agenda. So, can I

Was not in your packet?

No, ma'am. Till next time.

Yes, sir.

Matters from the floor as read.

Do we have a presentation?

Easy Fiber.

Yeah.

Go ahead and step forward. Somebody interviews person.

Oh, excuse us. This is Amanda Mather and she is potentially seeking to be on the ARC committee and she is going to fit in for the hearing. Just kind of see how it all works here while her application is pending.

She's actually an archaeologist.

Not an act. It stops the way.

All right.

All right. Hi. We're back.

To talk more about, we, after our last meeting, we just started working on the overall plan that we had discussed last time and we wanted to talk to you a little bit more about it today. Veronica is going to present Dr. Pogblin. I'm going to hand it out. First, let's introduce Richard and Aaron who are here from Uzie Fiber.

Thank you, members. Thank you, Chair, again for your time today. We appreciate it. We're here mostly to answer any specific questions regarding the construction aspect as we were last time. So, please feel free to ask.

Sure, guys. Thank you. So, we really appreciated being able to talk through our approach with you last month. And like Brenda said, we're working on the overall plan, which we plan on submitting next month in March, along with a detailed plan for our first area that we've identified, which is on your map. This area is fiber distribution area 8. It's roughly south of Rodeo Road and north of I25, west of St. Francis. And so last time, you know, we listened to your concerns about the volume of data that you might be expecting for such a project. And this area here, our first area represents the largest area we would propose doing. Like we mentioned before and before we presented our methodology on how we selected the location and size of these areas. And if you recall compared to the rest of the city, this area has a rather low probability for encountering buried cultural deposits. And not many previously known resources have been identified there, although some have been. So, we took kind of a deep dive into this area and last time, Chair EC, you said that you were looking at one tiny portion of one section and counting up the number of potential bore pits. So, this this area does have a lot lot of bore pits. We estimate with the help of the engineers that it's 146,000 linear feet here for proposed buried lines and about 3,000 pits. 75% of those pits would be less than 12 in. So probably not profilable.

Deep or wide diameter. Okay.

And 25% would be more than 12 inches. And those would be the ones that would qualify for profiling. So when you do the math on that, it's about 750 large pits. So we were trying to think how to approach an area like this. And we'd like to bless you.

Pardon me. That's even

I haven't taken as much for that tolerate. So

Do your pardon me.

So we were, we would like to discuss the possibility of doing a creative mitigation strategy here. And what we've been thinking about is how can we profile a sample of this area for example and take the resources that we would have used to do the whole sample 750 or 3,000 pits and and take that and and use it creatively to help contribute to the archaeological record in Santa Fe in a way that might be more useful assuming that most of these pits would be sterile. So that's something we'd like to see if you'd be amendable to discussing. Our approach would be to take a sample of this whether it's 10% or 20% to do the profiles and then and then do a brief geomorphological report on on that those that sample and then also do a creative mitigation piece that consists of survey and updates to the New Mexico Central Railroad and there's an old road segment from Agua Fria to Galast O that goes through a portion of this area as well. So we would like to propose that those three things together would compro constitute our creative mitigation for this area. So what that would look like specifically would we would take our sample and it would be a judgmental sample and it would be sort of based on soil type. We brought in the NRCS data here and it seems like there's about 12 soil units in this area. And they range from 3% to just over 50% of this area. And we would choose a sample to cover every soil type if possible depending on the placement of these bore pits and handles. And we understand that this level of the NRCS data may not be accurate. So we would then analyze our soil samples and prepare a geomorphological report of this area to try to refine the NRCS data if possible and also to try to relate it to encount the likelihood of encountering cultural buried deposits in this area. So that would be one piece and then the other part of the creative mitigation would be to conduct kind of a survey where possible of on your map you can see there's two segments of the New Mexico Railroad alignment that have been previously documented. And we would update those segments and see if we can find segments in between or to the north there. And we would also there's on the bottom left there's a little segment of an old road. We could try to see if we could using you know historic maps and and also on the ground survey see if we have any more of that that road that we could update. And also we'd provide a historic context in the final monitoring report for this segment for this area. And in addition since we would even with a sample we would still have a very large amount of profiles and a larger report for you guys.

We're going to try to develop a reader-friendly monitoring report template that has a tabular approach by bore pit. We haven't done that yet, but we thought maybe we could try to do something like that. So that's our proposal, and of course, we would refine it in next month's submission, but we just wanted to see if this was even a possibility, what you guys thought about it. Okay.

City Member: I appreciate the effort. I'm not, if you had presented this information alongside an aerial photograph, perhaps a historic aerial photograph, so you could see the land uses that were over the years. I know that that's more historical than archaeology. The pit thing, I mean, I need you to talk about the pits. I'm, so I can't really say that I, I mean, it's such a big, when you say 3,000, oh my god. Yeah. It's like, yes, please, let's figure this out. So I would say yes, and it's just like when you get a variance from the city and they say, "And this doesn't let your neighbor do the same thing." So don't think this is carte blanche, it's just for this particular thing. And so that was kind of the place where my brain was like, yeah, okay, maybe for this section.

And this was just tailored for this section. And also that level of detail you're requesting would be in our submission next month.

Yeah. Yeah, for the aerials and all that stuff, I figured. So I'm certainly amenable to it, just the sheer volume of this work in this situation. Thank you.

Observations.

Member Trace: I think to say that you would take a sampling of 10% or 20%, I'm not sure how that would have to be distributed pretty widely. And I think that as your, I mean, I kind of, I don't, I'm not the dirt expert. That doesn't come to standing things up on it. Exactly. Will this, can I compact it? Yeah. I kind of feel like you're going to have to look at a lot of them anyway. You may not have to report on all of them, but you're going to have to look at all of them and you go, "Oh, that one's different. Let's report that one." That might be the way it goes. Maybe that's what's in your mind, I don't know. But, you know, when I hear something like, "Well, do a percentage," you could do a percentage all in one little subsection. So,

We were thinking about organizing it by soil type, which is spread out through the whole area. It's kind of hard to see here because it's just different colors. There's no legend, but yeah, I think that's something we would really have to think about carefully for our next submittal, exactly how the judgmental sample would lay out to make sure that we're covering all the different areas. And logistically also how that would work. You know, if we're going out for a day monitoring and they're just in one small area, right? So we'll need to kind of talk to Easy more and lay out a real strategy for that sample.

And I think from the engineering perspective, the nice thing is that the distribution of pits that would qualify for monitoring are pretty evenly distributed throughout the architecture, just by basis of the architecture itself. So it is, you know, 25% based on knowing that that hole is going to tie in architecturally to other non-qualifying.

Correct. Exactly. Right. And they're, yeah, they're generally small. So I think that identifying it evenly throughout the project shouldn't be a problem either, depending on if you guys are looking for equal diversity across the monitoring versus soil sample. Both of those should be easily achievable based on the work that's being done. Yeah, if that makes sense, if I'm understanding the request correctly.

Yeah. How long do you think this section would take?

So, it's contingent on a couple of things, right? One of the things that Chama and Easy have been working through is the speed of construction is entirely contingent upon the pace of crewing that we have. Right? So depending on how many monitors we will have working with us and how much needs to be monitored per run will dictate how many crews we can appropriately staff to keep them going. I think that we would normally in a conventional build like this, we would likely staff four to six crews in an area like this, something like this, 146,000 square feet. In a normal conventional build, they're doing about 350 feet per day per crew. So we can back that math up and reverse engineer that. I would say that monitoring as a layer of complexity that will likely throttle back the speed a bit. The question that I have is I don't know exactly what that looks like.

Yeah. And we would only, we would only staff to the point that we could continually keep the crews steadily progressing.

Yeah. We don't want to staff up so much on the front side and then get back on runway space, right? And then end up having to have idle crews.

Right.

But that's also an adjustable part of our side of business, right? Yeah. We can, we can, we can time that appropriately to match the monitoring requirements as dictated by the ARC.

So when you do this, how do you go about doing it? I mean, do you just drill a bunch of pits and then shoot your cable through boring it?

Not exactly.

You just like, boom, boom.

Yeah, it tends to be a contiguous build, right? So we build on an order. Our design calls for an architectural backbone, a core path that feeds the light to the locations, and then we build off of that core path, two different legs, let's call them, off of the board path, but it is built continuously. So it would be built.

Yeah.

Okay.

And we would usually build an area at a time, right? So this, you can see the borders in here. Something that Shamba brought up during the meeting that we had last time. We would identify the order based on the for path that feeds in. So from the source of light, we'd be building section by section.

Yeah.

So it seems to me that would help them.

It would and and, right, because our crews would be staffed in the location where the monitors would be. There wouldn't be a lot of space that the monitors have to jump back and forth to be able to remain close to the crews that are working. I think to your point, if they identified something, it's much easier to pivot, stop, pause because you'll have monitors close.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. Let's go back the other way.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Okay. Well, yeah, it's still sort of hard to wrap my head around.

For us as well. For us as well.

So, but I mean, I think, you know, one step at a time and we'll get there.

Yep.

But first of all, while it's fresh in my mind, all ground disturbance will be monitored. Monitoring will produce a different product under a different condition. Yeah, might be an observation and stuff that's suitable for presentation in a table saying what the stratigraphy observed was, but it's in this little dinky hole and I can't take a picture. Great. But it's just like that one over there. So your table can refer out to relevant illustration and solve your problem in terms of overwhelming data presentation.

Yeah, that's.

Who would be doing your geomorphology?

Not sure yet. Do you have any recommendations?

Uh, we cannot.

Oh, you cannot. I know there's a local group around here that I don't know, but I know somebody down south, so I'm not sure. We haven't figured that out yet.

Oh, I think that might be.

That's appreciated.

It just took a powder. You said the magic blade sample. Expand your area of inquiry per soils by a couple of hundred meters in all directions. Identify anything in that fringe that isn't in your area. Observe in the detail of all your soil descriptions which odd, little, undefined, unmapped, and completely expected small areas of other soils are expected. If those are them, learn about so you know what you're looking for. So that, how many soils did you say you had?

There were 12.

Yeah, you might have 30 that you have, I think. Yeah.

Mhm.

But 12 are mapped.

Because a lot of them are grouped under that urban complex, so we don't really know.

Look in the old soil survey.

Okay.

For something beyond urban, which is not very helpful. But there is some more detail in the old soil survey.

Okay. Okay.

And both the modern classification and the old one will key out those other soils that are included in the area but not specifically mapped. So forewarned is forearmed. If you find something, you go, "What the hell is that?" Oh, well, that's that's soil. You already know what you're looking at. You can shift your focus and look for nuance that is other than what that soil might be. And I think if you're going to find archaeology anywhere here, you're going to find it some service. So I would say unlike the characterization of low potential for varied cultural causes, I can almost guarantee you there's something out there because of that area.

Enough humans have been doing enough things on that landscape for long enough that somewhere,

Yeah.

There's evidence.

It's like between a royal Honda and the river, basically. If you end up with X number of soils, if it's possible to coordinate which area you're going to start on first and have the particular line cross-cut as many of those soils as possible. Just intend to profile in detail as much of that as possible so that you have a sample. And if you get two subsections over and you see the same thing, well, okay, then we can argue whether or not you need to do another profile of that.

Okay. So, judgmental as we go.

Varies in depth of stratigraphy. I would submit that you should probably have another profile if it's same, same. Well, okay. If it's 30 centimeters of this and 80 centimeters of that and then you hit Kichi and that's over 90% of the area. Okay, don't knock yourself out profiling a bunch of extra stuff. Do what you need, but cover all variability. And if you can get to the point where you have a good profile of each and every one of the soils and you feel like you can actually recognize in your profile characteristics that are said to apply to that soil, I think your problem becomes much smaller and you could find yourself within anywhere between 100, 200 profiles, feel like you know what's going on and you don't need to do anymore. You don't need to do anymore and you don't. Any variation should be noted and if it's significant variation it should have.

And Chair, members, one question for me is, layman, is there something that in your experience in the past that a crew that's operating the drill, doing the work, would be able to spot visually if they were performing excavation at a location that would be able to, you know, we could have trauma consult with them, trigger them, and then they could say, "If you see this variability, the soil type of its color or, you know, type," that they could raise their hand, get monitoring out to capture it? Is,

Monitoring will be there anyway.

Right. Everything will be monitored.

Right.

And,

So there's no,

There's no need for,

There's no cross-training of people to increase what their search image is. They should concentrate on what they're doing.

Yeah.

And when the archaeologist waves a red flag or whatever color you use,

They know.

That's, that's all they need.

So they're,

The obvious things they'll notice. Somebody's head falls out of the trench.

Again, as it were. Yeah.

Yes.

And it happens.

Yes.

So you would not consider doing a sample of monitoring a sample?

No. Okay. I shall monitor all ground penetrating documentation and vary as you suggested. Yes. Perfectly logical for that to happen.

Okay. If we have a table with 3,000 entries and 100 pictures similar to this and that and the other thing, and it all refers to a subset of things that are actually photographed, profiled, and described in detail, as it's a loamy sand or a loamy fine sand or a sandy fine, whatever, then we've got something. But if you don't monitor everything, you haven't done.

Yeah. See, that's where the creative mitigation card comes in. But I'm all for creative mitigation, but I cannot see them monitoring for something that sounds good.

I wasn't sure if the city ever did that before because I do know that some agencies do do that. The city may have done that before, but never in my presence, which has been 16 years in this committee and another six years of being in the peanut gallery. Sounds good.

I think we have a good compromise, though. And in exchange for the exhaustive detail of profiles and photos that the things that you determine are the same as that, your creative mitigation, that was a wonderful suggestion. And it need not take a tremendous amount of time. Go look. If you succeed, great. Tell us about it. If you go look, maybe you can't succeed. Tell us about it. Stuff happens. Not a big deal. I suspect you will have a hard time finding continuations of that old road because of all the fun stuff that happened.

Yeah. And as far as the railroad goes, anything you can do will be a help because it's known, it's documented, but it is not fully documented. Therefore, you could fill in some blanks and that would be good. Okay. I think that's...

Thank you, Chair. Just because I like being very careful, this alternate approach, is there any way we can get that written down so that we can all know what the expectations are?

They're going to write it down and present it next time they come along with the...

Okay.

...the background of area photos that Beal member vector requested.

You can call me EC, but you have to call her or Matt, whichever is...

Okay. So, I just wanted to be sure. Thank you.

All right. Now, I rely on our contractors who are going to be the presenters to do all that work.

Okay. Yeah, I wasn't implying that it would be us, but I just want to make sure...

...there's no questions as to what the approach is going to be. Because when a plan is presented and we are in agreement, we find ourselves able to give a consensus, then we can go forward. Unless, of course, it comes to us as a case, in which case we'll get into the weeds and everybody will dig into it. But at present, it seems like it's going to come as matters from, at least for the foreseeable future.

I think it's going to be a case.

I think so. Yep. We're hoping the plan will be part of the case proposal next time.

Next time.

Correct.

March 10th.

Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. I think we're also next on the agenda. Mammoths, mastodons...

That would be cool.

Even older. He's an optimist. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

I like the way you guys are.

Well, we appreciate your time.

I don't want to just always be a wet blanket.

Favorite type of blanket. We're just...

Yeah.

Oh, okay. They all hang out. Happen to know something.

There being no old business, so we'll move on to new business. Case number 2026-111948. Tom Environmental Research and Consulting, agent for Easy Fiber, applicant, requests approval of an archaeological monitoring plan for approximately 1,110 feet from subsurface fiber optic line at 1790 St. Michael Drive in the Suburban Archaeological Review District. Thank you for your staff support. Anything to add to that?

No, Chair.

Thank you, ma'am. We have presenters. Identify who's going to talk. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

Um, 149 Kohan.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Anybody else who's going to be speaking?

Speak. I'm Brenda Bleti, 829 West Manhattan Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

I may have to speak. Richard Estrada, 1932 Rowan Oak Drive, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, 87568. Abidon Avenue Southeast, Albuquerque.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of truth?

I do.

Yes, sir. An extra seat here.

I can roll it over.

Sure.

You couldn't get to...

Face. You need to speak. You're talking to the microphone.

So, we usually give you all the floor to start. Is there anything you feel like you need to add to what you submitted?

Yes, there was a mistake. Figure four was the wrong figure, and I did change that this morning and send it back over to Paul, but I don't think you received that probably yet.

If you send it to Paul, it's the wrong audience.

Uh, Paul is still with historic preservation. So, yes, but in the future, you can send all your documents to HPD submittal. Okay. Actually, yeah, HPD submittal probably would be the best.

Okay, good to know.

Is there a replacement for Paul?

Not at this time.

So, if we have general questions, sometimes we reach out to Paul with questions. Would we just reach out to HPD submittal, and yes, someone will respond?

Okay, great.

And Amanda also, if you want to email her, we'll email you directly a response. So, figure four on page 19 is the wrong figure, but luckily there was an appendix B that has that figure that's supposed to be there in it. So, everything's there. There's just a mistake that I did fix already. Just so you know.

I think that's it. It's in the appendix, you say?

It's the last page.

Okay. The subject matter intended for that figure that was on...

And that brings up a question for me. Would you prefer to have resource locational information in an appendix or in the body of the report, or it doesn't matter?

Well, personally, I like it in an appendix because it makes life easier for staff if they need to provide anybody with copies that don't have to redact.

Okay.

If it's just all in the appendage...

All of our figures go in the appendix then, would that be easier for you then?

Only if it shows resource location.

Okay. Got it.

And in some cases, you can have a generic military illustration in effects that convey some part of the intended information, but the resource detail is back on it.

Okay. Thank you. So, if there's nothing else...

I don't think so. Unless you want us to present the proposal.

No, we don't need to spend the time. We just don't either have a chance to say whatever. I forget that we should remember back. So, I... Y'all ever heard me talking about the fact that the railroad used to also be part of the Atomic, or was owned by the Atomic Energy Commission? I'm happy to provide this document to whoever wants them. But it was just that it was odd that it just said Brown General Hospital because there was subsequent things that happened there, and one of which was the pieces were parceled out of the run through the different agencies, including the College of Santa Fe, but the Forest Service got some of it, the State Highway Department, the Atomic Energy Commission. So, it's just there's a little bit more story there. You referred to Ron Winter's report, and so maybe he covered that in his report.

Detail that you are.

Yeah. Member, how can we get that from you? Should we email? I don't know. Or could we write down the title of... Is it on... Is it somewhere...

State archives? It should be in the state archives. It's a report done in 2012, but I'm happy if you do email me, I can provide you with...

Okay, that would be great.

It could distribute.

I'm happy to give it to the City of Santa Fe, to Heather, or...

Take a picture.

HPD submittal seems like a black hole to me.

Yeah, you can email me. No. It's just I don't often get the response I want. But so, nothing to do with that email address. The other things on page 25, the orientation confused me, the way the north arrow, because it gets it... The bottom one, figure nine, north is not up, and so I was trying to twist it so that it would orient the same. So, St. Michael is not east-west, or it is east-west, but the other one is not, or I don't know which way it goes. That's right.

I think it's you figure...

Or figure nine.

Well, then figure eight is wrong. One of them is not...

Figure eight looks correct because the grant boundary does go north-south. Figure nine is tweaked a little bit by making only 10 degrees, but it's not work as depicted.

So, it's just... It's just a map off because of the way that St. Mike's run goes across, and then the Arroyo goes across, and then the train tracks go across, and so my brain couldn't compute like the location of Yano Street. Is that what we want? The location of street.

It's Fifth Street in that purple. It's actually Fifth Street that they're on, and Fifth Street's not there on many of these maps.

Okay.

Like Fifth Street's not on page eight or figure eight, and that's not on figure nine. So, it's just... It's just because it's the street, but the street's not on these maps.

Yeah, that's my point is...

Yeah.

I couldn't follow the boundary block. So...

Okay, we'll shift. We'll figure that out and shift it.

Yeah, just shift it.

It might be just a tiny bit, but...

Yeah, that's really all I have for that. Member Trice.

I guess I should ask maybe you about... It seems like a long race between your manholes, connection holes. And I noticed on another report that it was a long ways between, and they were whole points too, except they had done a lot of hydro-backing to make sure they weren't going to hit on the utilities, and I just wonder, are you anticipating some of that as well?

Absolutely. Yeah. In fact, that's the preferred method for us to be able to core and identify the existing facilities. So, traditionally, that would be the main method that we would use.

So, usually that's just goop that comes out of there. They don't... They don't do anything with that. Is that correct?

It's almost impossible to do anything with goop. Size.

Do you have a typical, how many per between your pearl points?

So, generally what will happen is we end up having to identify and locating the facilities that we're going to be crossing. Once that is mapped out, right? So, once the design locates are in place, it'll be a core hole for every one of those facilities to be exposed. Sometimes they overlap, right? There'll be multiple facilities with one core hole space, but generally it's going to be one per crossing.

I don't know, Erin, if you were to guess how many on average do you think between our points?

So, it depends on if we are on an arterial or a collector roadway. We're always looking for efficiency and production, right? If we have an area that is congested, let's say five feet away from the sidewalk or curb line, but there's open right-of-way here that is 10 feet, we'll often opt to go there from just looking at average builds, which I've not built here inside Santa Fe yet. But when we look at Rio Rancho, when we look at Albuquerque, just south of here, if on our arterial and collector roadways out there, we are often seeing three of those per every 100 feet.

And what about I'm looking specifically like where you cross Fifth Street and also where you cross Warner Avenue.

I'm imagining that. Yeah.

Yeah, pretty significant scene.

Yes, sir.

Yeah. Generally, what will happen is at those four intersections, that's usually where facilities are already pre-planned and pre-existed as well. So, typically, the volume goes up in those locations just because they're already facility points of interest. Right.

Right. And I can tell you, whatever worked at Real Ranch won't work here. I've worked in Real Ranch a long time. This doesn't lend to the immediate municipality. In this case, you're taking the old saw about the state and revising it. Do you even know what the Pacific? Yes.

That's all I got. Okay.

Sure. If I might just have a couple of suggestions here. GR's Army Hospital is spelled incorrectly on 4.6 on page 17. And then also, you omit the College of Santa Fe. There was a lot of change in that cultural landscape with the construction of the College of Santa Fe. A lot of change. And I'm not sure, I mean, it was decommissioned in the early 2000s, maybe. So it just might be a thing to acknowledge that there could be changes as a result of the college's actions. So, and then SWCA, I think is what it's intended to be on page 20, first line of the table under previous surveys. Okay. Unless there was SWAC.

Oh, there is an SWAC.

Oh, there was. Oh, okay.

Southwest Archaeological Consultants.

Okay. So,

Cherry Shake.

Yeah, that's I thought she was. Okay, never mind. I remember.

Good catch.

Yes. Okay, time for the pedantic one. Title page. City of Santa Fe does not issue permits to do archaeological work. The state issues permits to do archaeological work. Therefore, mention of the fact that you're listed with the City of Santa Fe should specifically say that City of Santa Fe. Page one. It ends with an incomplete statement. Handful and approximate or pit locations are depicted on appendix. I think it's both in figure three and figure, but you said that earlier, but you say it again.

Okay.

Or you refer to them earlier. In this case, you're talking about the locations that fill out that reference.

Okay.

Page five. Your first reference, Books 1975, does not appear in the reference cited as.

Okay. I don't understand page one.

Can, sorry, page nine on the PDF, but page one, I don't see an incomplete sentence.

Paragraph appendix, second to last paragraph. Oh, okay. Second to last paragraph. Okay. Got it. Sorry. I just messed through that. And the next one is, Folks, is not in the references. Okay. Got it. Third paragraph. If one uses medical names, they should be italicized.

Right.

Unless you're going to anglicize them, then you don't have to italicize them. Since you fix figure 4, but if they're going to put it in appendix B because it has a bunch of resource locations, then it needs to be appendix B, not a reference to figure 4.

Yeah. Are you okay with it being figure four for this report? Sure.

Okay, that's how it is now. Just randomly. Yeah. So, if that's the way that's going to go, does figure four come out and everything else gets renamed or think that's why she doesn't disappear? So for this one, I'll put the right figure in it and it's going to show the information that normally would be affected.

Yeah. But in future that will be, I can't wait for page 22. And all these old maps, just taking it on faith that North is actually up on the page. But as long as you're putting a little circle on there, you could also put a little arrow on there. Question. And on page 22, there's a scale inherent in the figure. It's got mile posts on the boundary of the guy. The next page 23 would really help if there was a scale even if it's approximate because it is a bunch of little lines on a piece of paper. Page 24. Ditto. Rough scale would help. Page 25, figure eight, rough scale would help. Figure nine, rough scale would help. And you know, we already had a discussion about the north arrow. The aerial photos, just having spent part of one week looking at aerial photos, the real thing from USGS, it is often not presented north up. So, the chance of a photo getting out of whack is high. So, if they're all north up, maybe you could just say that, you know, otherwise they're putting little red ovals on it. Put a north arrow on it.

Check.

Just to be sure.

Page 27 was the first place I noticed that was misspelled. In some cases, it has an H floating in there and it does not have one. So do a spell check search on all variations of Burns and get rid of the H. That's the second paragraph. Same paragraph. Second to the last line. Base course. I'm pretty sure that's misspelled.

It is coarse, but I think refers to a course of material. It's texture. Yes.

Next paragraph. Is it not a Deos Chisos instead of Chisos a Royal?

Couldn't it be both?

Well, naming it what the USGS names it is the safest because that's on the map.

Okay.

Yeah, it can be both. But on the other hand, as we'll hear in a later case, anglicizing things is not necessarily a good idea. The Yankees have been doing that ever since they invaded. And I should know, I'm one of them. Page 28, the first line in the paragraph, sixth paragraph, profiles of the soils in hand holes and war pits will be drawn and photographed unless you can say this one's just like that one that I already did because the representative doesn't cut it. Do it.

Okay.

You're there. You're observing. Do it every time. And as soon as you have a body of data to refer to it, happy to encourage you to refer to and say it's just like that and not have to draw and do everything again. This being pedantically redundant is not what we're after. Page 29. The paragraph on personnel. The parenthetical led me astray in that first sentence and it just needs to be rewritten.

Okay. You can ditch the parenthetical or you can change the wording. Keep the parenthetical. But right now, so and so parenthetical and will serve as doesn't read. Okay. I didn't go through page by page in the report for the missing references, but in the references cited, we will do so. Page 30, the reference to Alacronic is not in your references cited. You mention it in the text.

Usually is.

There's a misordering of reference material attributed to Linda Cordell for some reason in 1997. Well, okay. It's an orphan on the next page. You got it.

Okay.

Fix the format. And then page 31 in the middle, Folks, have already pointed out is not there. And then on page 32, they mention use of the soil survey information online, but we don't actually get citation. It should be Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey and so that should be in the reference cited.

Isn't it? We usually do on their web page, they request that it's cited Web Soil Survey. So might is it under missing there too?

Are you okay with us citing it the way that they want it on the?

That way? Great.

I know. They know. I think it's weird. They don't know about that. It is at cross purposes with the American Antiquities Style Guide as far as I know. So, three.

That should be it.

Three references missing. Something happened with the environment.

Move to approve with corrections. 202611948. That's all you have to say. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion carries three and nothing. Next case. The letters case number 202611949. Nine Strong Environmental Research and Consulting, agent for Entities Development Group, applicant requests approval of an archaeological recon report for 6.2 acres of proposed ground disturbance at 4680 Sunseio Road in the Suburban Archaeological Review District.

Thank you for staff report. Anything change or add?

No, I have something to add, Chair. In research for a particular case. So the current airport location is the third location of the airport, but I believe that there was an airport in this area generally. And so I don't know if there was a relationship between these buildings and the airport and I couldn't see it report. So just just nuggets of research.

Was probably the source of the first complaints to the city. Been having trouble with that noisy airport ever since we came to this country. Well, it was there before you built the house.

Right.

It's not probably, but worth thinking about related. Okay. And I know one thing about your staff report says the archaeologist recommends the site is not eligible for listing and recommends clearance of the archaeological investigation. We approve permits for development, but we don't give clearances for archaeological investigation. It's an approval perhaps would be a better word, and you use that word later. So,

Okay. In future.

All right, you have the floor. Is there anything you need to add or wish to expound on?

I don't think we have anything to add to.

I spent a lot of time looking at pictures and maps and orientations on roads and and then your findings and I had I couldn't make sense of any of it. As a remodeler, I would look at some of the things that you found and I go, there were a couple of different building episodes going on here and especially with regard to the stuff that you found. Even though in your report you say pentile was used in the 50s. I haven't seen any 50s era house that had pentile in it. That doesn't mean anything. But I was just confused by that. It seemed like there needed to be more investigation on that piece of property. Both through the county resources to see, you know, you're not going to find building permits because but there should have been some something somewhere that showed somebody was going to knock down everything and clear it, I would think. And so if you had a set date for when that was demoed, you could go back and say, "Well, maybe there's some other pictures besides one from 1969." I there there was, you know, the that stem wall that you found and apparently there may be some anchor bolts on the top of the stem wall. I couldn't see how any part of that would be part of the house. I just couldn't, you know, seeing what the picture was in 1969 compared to what you found on the ground, we couldn't make sense of.

We couldn't make sense of the site either until we found those aerials that are in the back. What what page is that in? It's in the site description. You can see a wall around the property. And it seems like those pen tiles and also the pieces of wall are from the wall around the property, not the hat. The real the 1969 picture shows a fence.

Yeah, that's that I believe is a wall.

And I think those are little buttresses. And I feel like what we found are pieces of that wall. As far as we really know for sure.

I went I worked on Taco Sa Plaza.

Oh, really?

Years ago. Have you been to this place?

I haven't been to this place, but so you know I I did some research on the Packards and it turns out that in 1930 they were living in Amarillo, 1940 they were living in Tuki or they had a Tsuki address. So sometime, you know, then I found his obituary and it said it was wrong. I mean he was 56 years old. He died apparently in 1956, but they said he was 52 and then they said he moved 18 years before. So sometime in the late 30s he moved the family moved to Santa Fe and lived in Suzuki. By 1942, when he registered for the draft in World War II, he was living out there. Which they described as the the Albuquerque Highway 5 miles southwest of Santa Fe. And in 1950 census, it that that address was listed as Abua. So something had been there for a long time and I just you know I was intrigued. I mean what started me down that rabbit hole was your 3-inch cap.

I know. I know. And then I saw that other orange thing over there. I go, "What is that?"

What orange thing?

There was another orange, I don't know. Maybe it was somebody's thermos. I don't know. There's an orange thing in the paper.

Oh, that was our GPS. That was our GPS. Okay.

A receiver. So, the 3-inch pipe would make sense if it was a wellhead. They had to have water up there.

Was it probably somewhere where there was a septic system? That usually shows up by a nice set of weeds. I don't know how big that property was when they owned it, but it was certainly more than just that corner. One of the things I was looking at was how on the ground didn't necessarily, you know, orientation again, trying to figure out which something went off one way and it was just hard. I don't envy your situation trying to figure out what was going on out there, but I feel like you should know more. That's just me. But I could not locate where the house would be with the picture of Suros Road and the 1969 picture. It didn't look like it. It looked like other properties had started to encroach on where their house might have been.

I think on the right-hand side on the 1969 aerial,

Please.

Page 34.

34.

It seems to us like looking at that aerial versus the aerial today that there's a building that may be encroached into the yard a little bit, but we believe our feature one was part of the foundation of the house.

Yeah, I can't make sense of that and the other light outlines of what's going on around there. You certainly wouldn't have the wellhead that close. I mean, in those days, it probably would have been a wood.

Which there were pieces of concrete. It looked like around that.

There's concrete all over the place. Yeah.

So, you're trying to rectify page 27 to 34. Is that what you're trying to do, Tom?

I was looking at page 27, but then I also pulled up Google Maps because I wanted to see it without all the notes on it. The aerial photos from the Highway Department, but it seemed to me, unfortunately, the 1951 aerial photo shows some blobs that may be trees, but they don't show much of anything else.

You know, show sort of the general outline of that property.

Maybe.

Yeah, it's such a bad resolution. The bottom picture on page 34, the '69 aerial, I can see where there are some telephone poles, but then I don't know if those were the things that you're saying poles cut or not. Yeah, I would think they do kind of look like they're in the same alignment.

And if that's the case, I couldn't figure out too. Also, on your page 27 of your report, there are these three little pieces of fence, F4, and I don't see that anywhere.

Oh, the posts.

Yeah, because that's a straight line. Yeah.

Yeah, I can't really see that on aerial because it's in the tree line, sort of. I think that might be obscured by the tree line on some of those aerials.

They're just really confused.

There's a picture of it on page 31, one of the posts.

Yeah, but yeah, it was a head-scratcher too.

And you know, I don't know if parcel, if that, I guess you never really located a whole lot that just showed their original property. No.

Less than wonderful experience.

It was just, it was just a very confusing property history to try to work through by myself and then with the county. The people at the county spent a lot of time with me and it was very challenging. It used to be real nice when you could go in and open a folder and go, "Oh, yeah, that's it right there." And now you've got to go through this nonsense.

Yeah.

This is one where I agree with you that the paper was much better.

We were lucky because we had a plat that had a lot of information on it already.

Yeah.

Yeah, our recent thought that took us back in the initial, you know, references that you could call and back and then we just, that's how we tried to keep doing it was just following everybody back as far as we can go, but most things just ended up as a dead end.

It's in an appendix.

Yeah, and they said at the county that a lot of times the surveyors, because they do property history, they have more information than the county does.

They do the title search. They were like, "Yeah, for you, for us it's just better math."

That almost seems like an impossibility. Instead of researching county records, do the title search.

I think sometimes it just goes through the title companies or something.

Yeah, they said sometimes people don't register stuff that goes through the title companies with the county and their...

Isn't there a law something? But yes, thank you for chasing the rabbit hole. That is what we are faced with.

I have, she could be some other picture. I think was this another, the 1935 aerial photo on page 18. Unfortunately, your circle maybe badly placed. I don't know. It just maybe it needs to be bigger just so it gets out of the way of stuff. But it seemed like there's something there, a light colored something on the lower right-hand segment below halfway, you know, where people pulled over and threw out the beer cans. Yeah, these early areas, it was just really hard to discern anything. And that, that trail that, you know, or road or whatever it is that goes over to Agua. I mean, it seemed like there's a driveway or another light colored area that comes off of that that goes toward those. It looks like an eight or a V or something like that. I mean, it's, you know, it's just unfortunate we don't have very good, the plane was holding steady. So, but, you know, I just feel like I, I wanted more information and maybe you tried to find it that wasn't there, but I don't know whether that's, I don't know how, you know, I go through this with my genealogy research too. Who is that guy? That's all I got. I, I don't, I can't really come to a, to a point. You spent so much time.

You made multiple. What it boils down to is you really want, yeah, which may or may not be available.

Yeah, we wanted more information.

If you're done, I'm done. You had a shot.

No, and I really didn't have that many comments. I guess I was sort of just like a wall of like, "Oh, okay." You know, but the Packard connection, I mean, they were important on the plaza for decades, and I guess I would, that would be nice to know more about their family and not sort of, "Oh, he really wasn't that important." So,

All their, all their references in the census data showed that he was an entrepreneur on the plaza. So they opened that store all time.

Yeah. So I, I guess same, there's not quite enough to just say, "Oh, we couldn't find it."

Yeah.

It's like anything, you know, once you bulldoze over it and they're gone forever, you know,

And it's obliterated, right? But it's already been bulbed is what I'm saying. You know, now at least there's some stuff there on the ground.

Once they put those houses up there, gone.

And also the explanation of this connection to come to Rio. I mean, you know, I, I don't know since it follows that land pattern, I guess. Yeah, there's more to, there's more to say about the land pattern, how the water got from the, the fields, how this was an edge of town. I just feel like there is more to say because this is our shot. This is our shot.

Yeah.

Yeah. Historic archaeology. I like rocks and grass, so I have to climb out of my comfort zone. I really want to know more about the Japanese.

I know. Now under your state permit, you are allowed to dig testing under survey permit with certain limitations.

Yeah.

Why not? Is it attached to something? It continues. What is it? Is it just there? Is it a buried time capsule with somebody's ashes in it? What, what the heck is it? Can we find out? Meanwhile, page three of the NIA environmental setting.

Is that an F or a D?

Mine has an F on it.

Two, three, four. Fifth line. It's the Panky Py complex. And I would encourage you to always look back at the earlier edition of the soil survey because it's much more informative than the online thing.

Okay.

Page five of the NA, where you recommend it is not eligible. I'm not sure I'm ready to go there. I'm on page eight of self-service deposits and artifacts are liable. Yeah. Septic system, the cesspool, if that's what it was.

Oh, you're looking at the LA form.

Okay. Sorry. Transition to the LA.

Sorry. Yeah, we got, we couldn't find.

Yeah.

Whether or not the subsurface deposits are in fact insignificant is unknown without further testing. That's a very succinct one-sentence argument for the status of not determined.

Okay. Right. So we, that was a mistake, I think.

Well, actually, I think it was correct because

That was our firsting your bet.

That was our, yeah. First we, we wanted to say first that it was until we found out more information about it. We didn't know. We thought it would be, it would be undetermined. But then we did find out more information to, to our satisfaction that we thought that it would be not eligible.

Okay.

That was our recommendation.

Just to be clear, you do not have to say what we think.

Mhm.

But we think as a group and we will say what we think about the eligibility of this site at the end of all of this.

Yes. And I just wanted to give you our, our status as committee members of City of Santa Fe to make those determinations.

Right.

So, I just want to get, I just want to give you a background on our thinking because at first we didn't have enough information until then we did find information that for us that would make it not eligible. But of course, it's your call in the end. But that was our recommendation and I think that that LA form did not get revised properly.

Okay.

Yeah.

Reference my earlier commentary about north arrows. It applies almost everywhere, especially on the captures from the 1969 area image. Ring was presented this way and that way. It's actually something else. So north arrows, please. Glossing over what's already been mentioned. Fanatics, page seven of the report, first paragraph. The four references at the bottom of that paragraph do not appear in my copy of the references cited. Second paragraph, Irwin Williams, 1973, not appear in my copy of the references cited. Page eight, first paragraph, Elliot 1998 does not appear in my version of the references cited. Second paragraph, last line, Pike 2015, ditto does not appear. Page nine, first paragraph, last line, Winter's 2009. In the reference, second paragraph, middle of paragraph, the reference to Lang and Shik or Shik in this case is not in the references cited. Last line of that paragraph, me 2024, it is not in the references cited. It needs to be middle of the next paragraph. The reference to Okun is incomplete. It's Okun and Sel 2019. That's at least what the reference is cited. Next paragraph. The reference to snow is not in reference to sight. Lots of figure north, which you can fix. Page 34 in the two versions of the '69 aerial image, I'm presenting north arrows, of course, but the aerial image as provided by an N dot, you ought to be able to derive some sort of scale from them either from the image itself if there's metadata, which hopefully Highway Department, or by reference to things visible in the image that you could go out and measure. Then you could draw this property and then you could fit it on your site map and see if you could make sense of that because I think without doing that, we're going to have a hard time.

If the fence in question, on whichever figure that is, page 27, figure 12, four fence posts, if that is indeed outside the walled perimeter, and you are correct that that's a wall, that wall piece is not in C2 next to the post.

**Corrected:** This is a wall.

Oh, okay. Right.

If it's outside that wall perimeter, then it might make sense with the sort of jungle of trees and stuff southwest of the end of the part that fronts the major streets. If it's inside the area as depicted here, then it's something else. Maybe that wall is more insubstantial than you thought it was. I think you're right that the first two probably represent a gate because of the chiseled characteristics. And if it's a gate, it might more or less match up with what seems to be a gap in that white thing that might be a wall near the southwest. Depends on which way north is. There's a gap that seems to be apparent on the corner of the white, and that might be that gate. But I think it all starts with figuring out the scale of your aerial probes and then plunking the plan as given anyway by this area onto the other things.

Mhm. And then I think you'd be in a position to know more about how things may or may not match up. Because if your location is indeed the house foundation, that implies that those weak posts are nowhere near where I thought they were. You know the dimensions of the house foundation. If it's a partial house foundation, that would be nice to know because then maybe things could be rectified again. How big is the house? How does it match up with your feature? Does it match up with your feature? Or is it something else? Is it some other construction that doesn't happen to appear on a photo? I think we covered all the references cited.

Have one more comment.

One last thing. I really want you to go dig a hole around that pipe.

Okay.

And be careful because we don't know what's down there. Do you have any references of what, do you know what happened to the Japanese after the internment camps? Are there any resources there you could point us to, to where people may have moved after that era?

Good question. There's been a lot of things in the media recently about the Japanese internment camp in Santa Fe in particular. So if you start there, I don't know personally what happened.

I do believe that we have some information in our resources folder in historic preservation in regards to, I'll see what I can find for you.

Great. Thank you.

I don't know how helpful it will be, but some stuff. Census records would help. Sure they would, because if somebody became a resident, they would have been counted. I mean, beer records. I kind of doubt that a Japanese person did something on this specific spot. I think this thing came to us by a strange. I disagree that it was stamped after its installation. It looks to me like it's factory marking. It's very, very precise. It's lined up, clear. It's not somebody with a hammer, ding marking thing.

I think Packard was the jeweler, knife. It could be an art project.

Wow. There's another choice. Back to the person that is associated with the site.

So this was the first time I recognized what the site was on this, and no other place on this report do I see that outline. Like it's not here on our survey area at the beginning.

Back toward the beginning.

Yeah.

Back for the project area. Yeah. On page three, there's a general depiction of the project area.

I missed it, I guess.

Oh, three of the report.

You have to get past the nit. There you go. Here's the next.

Okay. Because I was trying to make sense of it with this photograph.

H3 is the detail there.

Yeah. So, how, I guess it's like there's no correlation between the two, but I see now where it was.

Thank you. That's helpful.

And I do think that building to the north is the optics business.

I think they encroached on part of the depicted.

Yes. Thing from the '69. And then the other end of the property, I think, got nibbled away by some modern.

But that's why I'm building a scaled version of it and I'm plunking it on the thing to help me figure where things are. Or might still be, is if there is a downhill and a downwind, that's where the septic system should be, or cesspool. If there's not a downhill or downwind, out back literally is the usual. On old photos, suspicious clumps of trees. Did you mention that should be where the septic system occurs?

Yeah.

Any exuberant growth, grass is always greener over the septic tank. Yeah.

We want to look for such features to the extent possible. I'm not asking you to go out there and spray, just asking you to think about it and go look in like places and see if there's anything there to suggest there might be such a system. Usually involve concrete cap. It usually would involve some sort of an alignment of the pipe connecting house to questionable feature. There's probably several building episodes, too. I mean, that's another. You found pieces of what you described as slab. Now, I don't know how big those pieces were or if it was a very big piece.

But, you know, three, what was it? Two. Yeah, like two by three, and one was a little bit smaller.

But I mean, part of that house could have been built on a slab in more modern times, whereas the other part, an older part, could have been built with a crawl space because that's what we used to do.

Yeah. There was another article that I came across in the New Mexican that talked about their son's wedding in 1948, and they referred to the house as the Blue Mountain Ranch. The Packards live on the Blue Mountain Ranch outside of town.

So, there are references to them that you could, might help. I don't.

Yeah, we didn't research the Packard family too extensively. We could.

I know that one of the archaeologists that comes in here has somebody else do house research because apparently some privilege skewed their access to that the rest of us online do not have. So it might be worthwhile and it's turning around.

So are you thinking this is significant under criteria B?

I think it's possible, but I think we haven't demonstrated that it's not. And then we can go on to talk about A and C. Well, one other thing. You're poking around that pipe, and if it just goes straight around and keeps going, borrow a pipe wrench, take the lid off. Keep the lid. I think we want to see it. Is it a well? Drop a rock down. If it takes 10 seconds to hit bottom, like it's a good well. It's probably something else, and this could be a cleanout access or a septic system because before PVC pipe and the ubiquitous white stuff sticking up out of the ground, a piece of steel, likely. So you think it might be eligible under D because it would contribute important information to our understanding of that era of building technologies?

Pool. Yes.

Okay.

If there's features with anything in it, yes. Okay. Because we don't have that much documentary evidence associated with the house, at least so far at this point. So I guess I could see that logic or deed. So here's a decision point. We can make a motion with a whole bunch of, and we want to save it. Or we can make a motion just to postpone to the date certain that you think you can have the additional work done. Or you could just choose to withdraw it and bring it back when you feel like you've got the work done at your convenience.

Well, this project is moving forward. I know we have Jennifer Jenkins. Oh, she's not on anymore. She was on. So this project is a development, low-income housing project that's moving forward. Okay. Just on behalf of my client. And I think if we want to assume it's unevaluated or ineligible, we can move forward like with that. That pretty much forces us into a situation where we need to be expected to produce a testing plan and they need further work on the site. Well, if it, okay, so you're saying we have an opportunity to go do some testing at the site now, survey level testing, and maybe make a case that we have enough information here to say that we don't have any intact subsurface deposits, for example. That would be important. So you're suggesting we do that first.

To C, because that would be an easier road path forward.

Unless Packard is under your permit.

But I guess if Packard is eligible under B, we could, that could, we could make a case that there's documentary evidence that we could find that would be more important than material remains. Yes, you could address that importance with research as opposed to excavation.

Okay. So, if we go that route, would we resubmit in March?

That's why I wanted you to have the option because if we postpone to a date certain, you have to be ready, or if you're not ready, you're going to get kicked to a further date certain. But if you just withdraw it and resubmit it when you think you've got it together, that puts you in control of your schedule.

Okay, let's do it that way.

What do you think, Brenda?

I think so.

So, the record will show that you've withdrawn the case for now, pending some further investigation.

Yes. Yes, ma'am.

Might I suggest that this was also part of Route 66, the transportation route, and so I don't know, we might pick something up related to how this property may have related to Route 66, and Packards was a merchant at the start here.

Good. And you might find a picture of somebody's grandmother standing out in front of the house because they stopped the car there to rest.

Having seen several pictures of somebody's grandmother on our historic preservation posters.

Well, I mean, another thing that it could have been is a gas storage tank. It could have been a gas station at one point. Last gas out of town before you hit Albuquerque. That would be a twist.

We probably wouldn't want to wrench open the top, right?

Well, you wouldn't want to heat it with a torch to loosen it up.

Mhm.

But I do think you can turn that cap off the wrench fairly easily because, as you pointed out, it's not rusted.

No. No.

All right. Give it a shot.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Just lose their place.

They know.

We should name.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dr. Albert. This is case number 202610950. Chronicle Heritage, agent for Public Land Country New Mexico, applicant, request approval of an archaeological monitoring report for the installation of approximately 1,186 feet of subsurface electrical service lines and 1,600 St. Michael's Drive in the suburban archaeological review district. Thank you for the staff report member. Anything to change or?

No trick.

I just have one.

Oh, go ahead.

I just wasn't 100% clear about how this related to the Midtown project, other just because this is so far off of that. So my only comment is just to, because 1,600 St. Michael's Drive is Midtown.

Yeah. One end of it is. Yeah, and this is, that was it. Sorry. Identified this morning.

Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Patrick Rogers, 1050 Hackmore Place Southwest, Albuquerque, New Mexico 8721.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes, I do so swear.

Thank you. Pat, anything to add? And we might want to just address the address immediately.

Yes.

Since it's been.

Yes, we had that question regarding also the monitoring plan. That is just the name of the project per PN for our client.

It has nothing to do with that. That's just the name of it.
Yes, I understand. It's bizarre.
I do have a variety of changes.
Okay.
One of which is chronic errors to dispel the agenda.
That's it.
It is not chronic. It is chronic cold.
Why? I didn't see that.
Page seven. Agropyron is prone. There is no H in that. I have had this struggle with my copy editors repeatedly and will continue to do so. Tamarisk is misspelled on page eight. I will also have that fixed. Should have an X in the...
Like agri.
Yes.
Yes. Page 17. It refers to LA2 agree schoolhouse site and ends in the 2010s. That is inaccurate. There has been client's work in 2020s. I know that because I monitored that project. Additionally, there's no reference to any of those reports. I will add those references for those that are available. Most of them are not available in person. Second up, page 17 as well. Glaze wares is an inaccurate statement for glazeware. There is only Rio Grande glazeware or glaze. There's not plural. So, it can be types. And additionally, I will change it to be specific, which would include aquafer glaze red, also loaded glaze polyro, now glaze polychrom erroneous on that. Page 17, there is a comma after Tonque Pueblo that should not be there. I will fix that. Page 19, glaze is misspelled. Additionally, on page 19, it says plain is included. That is inaccurate. It should say planeware types included. They are all the same type of plain wear or various types of other miscellaneous types, but they are not plain wares. Those are types of ceramics. That's inaccurate. Additionally, it says shortly after AD 1300, red glaze wares. That is inaccurate. It's not just red slipped glaze wares. There is also yellow slipped glaze, yellow glaze that replaced it, black on white throughout the area. So then there is also space missing between 1630 and 1680 on the same page later on down there, about right above the letter three where it says convention show three. I will add that space in there. De Vargas is variably spelled with a capital D or a lowercase D. I will get that standardized throughout the document.
Page 22, it says Treaty of Hidalgo. That is an inaccurate thing. There's the word missing with Guadalupe. Yes. And then page 23, it says that the project is in northeastern Santa Fe. That is an active or described as in central, and that is what I found in the past 15 minutes.
See who makes use of the time available. Never tries. I have some notes I need. I didn't have any real issues with anything. I noticed that, you know, obviously I referenced all the hydrovac to the easy powder people, and yours was the project that I was referencing. Did you, were you expecting them to do that much less?
No, we did not anticipate them to do. They were, as per the approved monitoring plan, they were supposed to do about one-third of the amount of hydrovac. That said, I was out there for most of, for nearly all of them. The vast majority of hydrovacs ended up finding existing infrastructure PVC piping about directly at the base. So that's interesting. But no, we did not anticipate them doing that much.
You know, it's helpful stuff, but boy, we really almost would have paid to trench.
I would have preferred that as well. We did, when I was out there, I did halt them halfway through each hydrovac to be able to assess and ascertain if they impacted any cultural materials that were subsurface.
Yeah. That's all I got on this one.
Thank you.
I don't have any comments.
Okay. And I only have one and it involves page 29 and page 36. Figure 5.7. The figure refers to the National Historic Trails and the text, the end of the text on page 29, refers to the National Historic Trails. One branch of El Camino Real passes less than 100 meters from the project. Just minor little changing. Exactly why that happened is they didn't produce the map right the first time and I told them to fix it and they never changed the text.
And the text was stuck in time when, and now it's time now.
Yes.
Okay. That's minor, but it is right there.
Yes.
And outside the project area just barely. So that is all. Motion please. I move that we accept, let's see, I lost my page here. I move that we accept number 011950 Chronicle Heritage report as written with the chain case that both he and we have together.
Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carries three. Next.
Antonio.
Page number 202611951 for Public Service New Mexico, Vietnam, request approval of an archaeological monitoring report for the installation of approximately 865 of subsurface electrical lines at Camino from Texas and River District. Anything to add or change? I don't have anything.
No.
All right. Presenter will be identified this morning. Please.
Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.
My name is Antonio Dunzo. Address is 4725 Guyetta Road Northwest, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87120.
Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of truth?
Yes.
Thank you very much. So, what do you need to add?
Not much. I would actually like to start out. I meant to bring this up during the issues or things from the floor. Big thanks to Paul Durant for actually getting me listed on the city's list of approved archaeologists. Even though it's been six years that I have been approved, I did not show up on the list until the most recent edits, which he made sometime in the past couple months. So, thank you to him. And then other than that, oh, actually, and I did just pay the invoice fee for this thing because there was an issue with the invoicing system. So, I can just email you folks a copy of the receipt and it'll be okay.
You don't need to email it. We see it on our site that it's...
All right. Yes, there was technical difficulties.
It was a wild.
As far as the fieldwork, you know, went out there, pre-installation survey, nothing much, you know, it's near the, the posted little trail segment of the community royale. There's a little sign. I think I've included the photo that in there. Some, you know, non-diagnostic bottle glass and earthenware ceramic in the far southern portion of the area was not diagnostic, so it was not noted. There is that large sort of nebulous site to the south and east that was originally recorded and Ron went back in and tested and is now not eligible and it seems like it's a, you know, late historic into recent, you know, trash deposit. I, you know, none of this was, was diagnostic, diagnostic in the sense that I felt like I could add it to that site boundary. Then we did the monitoring. Did the two profiles and this maybe ties back into something we were talking about earlier. Both of those profiles are drastically different even though they are on the same mapped soil. I never trust NRCS data, but that's just me.
No, that's three. And, and I guess interestingly that second profile further south, you know, you see a lot of khichi coated gravels that are very, they're rounded, but they're very tabular in nature. I couldn't, that, that hole was excavated before I was out there. We had another monitor. So I, I would have liked to have stopped them mid excavation to actually get in there and take a look at that. But I'm pretty sure that's just, you know, gravel point bar or, or, you know, sand or not sandbar, but, you know, gravel dip that's associated with that nearby arroyo. You know, I guess I can wax poetically about the dirt and the topography. But that's probably neither here nor there. So, okay. If that's all.
No comment from here.
Remember Chase? The only issue I had was figure nine on page 37. I guess it's 46 of the PDF, but page 37 of the report is about showing the excavation route. My problem is with the yellow dots which say infrastructure installation removal point and I guess I would have preferred it was an installation or removal or both and some kind of a distinction with the colors. I, I guess I'm just not, I know, I guess the stuff was taken out according to the report and changed out, but I don't know where that was because we only had installation and slash removal.
Yeah. In essence, I wasn't out there the entire time myself. I don't know which one's which. I know the, the northern point, they added a utility pole at that location. The southern point, I think they put in a, one of those above ground boxes. I think, I think those are the only two that I'm, I'm confident on. I, I'm not sure what exactly they did at the other three. You know, and, and the points that we have there, you know, that's what's provided to us from PM.
That's all I had. Page one of field personnel names mentioned other monitor several times. Who was that? Was it the help of one person? Just one other person. Our sister employee search has a list member listed on the city of Santa Fe list, Chelsea Winter. So her name should go on there as well.
Is that popped into my brain? Need to make sure that personnel are present. The only thing I have is page 35. Is your description of profile. And the text under descriptions ends with Arroyo de los Pinos, the street of. So there, I think that that's, I got that from somewhere, but I think where I got it from is incorrect.
And actually what's, as a sidebar, what's interesting is that arroyo is actually referred to as a different arroyo in Ron's report on that site that's right over there.
But the Pinos is from either Google Maps or Bing Maps.
Okay. One of them has it mislabeled and that's, I trained from them. But whatever you find, but do let us know because it is often the case that an arroyo is labeled as one thing someplace on its channel and it's actually got two different names above the conflict.
So we don't know which is in play because if Google is right.
Then I, I spent quite a bit once I realized Ron referred to it as a different name. I spent like 15 minutes looking at different maps trying to figure out what was going on and I, I couldn't arrive at a reasonable answer, but I, yeah, there's something we were going on there, but I'll, I'll double check that.
Okay, one, that's all. Motion.
I move to approve or accept the report, 2026011951 arc.
Second. Moved and seconded. Only signify by saying aye.
Motion carries three. Thank you.
Thank you all.
Thank you for your patience.
I hope it was entertaining. It was worth up here. I'll tell you number 202695 speed. Westland Resources Incorporated, agent for Public Service Company, New Mexico, PNM, African, request approval of an archaeological monitoring plan for the installation of approximately 1,700 feet of subsurface electrical service lines along Cimarron and Roja Road and suburban review districts report. Anything to add or change?
Not to the staff report. And I also want to note that Jeremy Leven is online for this project.
So he'll have to be enabled and then identified and sworn in.
Jeremy, can you hear us?
Yes, I can. Can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
Hi, Jeremy. Will you please state your name and address for the record?
Yes. My name is Jeremy Leven. I live at 12353 Tierra Volcan Avenue, El Paso, Texas 79938.
Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do the penalties of perjury?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Jeremy, it's your floor if there's anything you need to add or change.

Yes, in the expected findings section on page 21, I would like to add that the project area is on land that was formerly Boyd Field, which served as an airfield for the US military during World War II and subsequently was the site of the Santa Fe Municipal Airport from approximately 1945 to 1957. So there is potential that we could find cultural materials associated with the US military occupation of Boyd Field as well as the City of Santa Fe's operation of the airport. I would suspect anything we would find would be subsurface as the entire area has been residentially developed.

Fair enough. Yeah, that is.

And I would also add, sorry, I would also add that based on the photos I've seen, it doesn't look like any structures were ever built within the project area. The terminal and hangers all appear to be to the northeast and to the north. So, I wouldn't expect us to find any foundations or anything associated with a building. I would expect anything, if we did find it, would probably be trash or other smaller debris. Thank you.

Aircraft parts potentially. It seems like it's away from garages and stuff, so that's probably a little bit unlikely, but you never know.

That's right.

Well, I say that because I surveyed a certain parcel of land directly south of the Albuquerque airport and it was absolutely covered with airplane parts.

Things fall off historically and in modern time. So, it wouldn't be surprising, although unlikely given the development of the area.

Member Ger: I'm glad you said that because on Figure D1, the overlay 1951 aerial photograph, there were a lot of unidentified features on this photograph, including what looks like a ball field or a racetrack, not to mention the airway. So, I would like more information about the historical use of this property. So maybe just identifying those objects or those features on that aerial photograph would be common.

Yeah, absolutely. The racetrack was the former Santa Fe Rodeo Grounds, was used mostly for equestrian events and horse racing. So I can definitely add that to the report for sure.

Yeah. Yeah. And it would be nice to know what, I mean, I know Zia Road is still Zia Road, it looks like, but

Road, just to clarify.

Zia, Zia, right? Radio might be Rodeo at that point.

It's Rodeo.

That's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Following the theme of the last presentation, personnel, your paragraph beginning on page 23 and ending on page 24, mentions listed personnel in the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office directory and supervised by Westland Archaeologists on the City of Santa Fe list of qualified archaeologists. Can you clarify that please?

Yeah, from my understanding is that you can have a supervisory level archaeologist from the New Mexico who's listed on the New Mexico SHPO directory conduct the monitoring as long as they are overseen at least partially each day from someone who's listed as an archaeologist on the City of Santa Fe list of approved archaeologists.

I was afraid of that. We do not list people so they can supervise remotely. We list people who perform on the ground. So if someone is not listed, I would question whether they can do the work appropriately. And most people who are supervisory archaeologists, and that normally is the people who get listed, that and above, not true members. I don't know. I just fear that if someone who is not a supervisory archaeologist and is not listed on the City of Santa Fe's list of approved folk, that we're not serving the city's requirements appropriately. So, I guess my follow-up question would be, would you like me to revise that to state that it would be someone who's listed on the City of Santa Fe's list of approved archaeologists?

Yes, I think you should.

Okay.

And follow up on previous case wherein the personnel actually present doing some of the work had not been mentioned on the documentation either in a report or on the NAV. So you need to have that person or persons listed on the NIF as field personnel.

Okay.

That is all.

Okay, easy enough. So will someone craft a motion, please? In the case of, here we go, 011952. I move that we accept the request for approval of this monetary plan.

With the changes.

With the stated stipulation of a registered with the City of Santa Fe and the suburban district on site monitoring all the time. Okay. Okay.

Motion.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying I.

I.

Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a good night.

You too.

Thank you. Item F, case number 202611953 ARC, New Mexico Gas Company. As request approval of microlological monitoring and discovery demand for the installation of approximately 352 feet of subsurface gas line at 545 Canyon Road in the historic downtown archaeological review district. Thank you for your staff report, Amanda. Anything to change?

No changes, chairs.

All right, we have a presenter that'll have to be identified in.

Shelby, will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

Shelby Magison, 3724 Alta Street Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 8711.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you. Don't you have the.

So, this is my first time. I didn't come as prepared with a list of things to discuss, but I did want to say that I would be happy to add north arrows and scales to the historic maps and aerial photos as I believe I don't have those. I think this past week I noticed that I had some typos that I corrected. Notably in figure 4.1, I call Office of Archaeological Studies, Office of Archaeology Studies. So I corrected that and then I had mistyped, I believe, one of my post intex citations to have the wrong year. So I caught that but not in your version and then other small typos.

Okay.

Remember back.

I didn't find any.

Oh, go. Sorry. I did also want to click that I will be overseen by Robin Ferdo. He's not on the call anymore, but.

He is, he's there. And if you want to speak, Robin, we'll go ahead and swear you in as well.

I'm here.

Do you need to speak, Robin?

I do not.

Okay, then we won't swear you in. Following the map 4.1.

It is that big staggered time chart of the ceramic ceramic types. So in the.

And the cultural history, I think after the classic period discussion.

I felt like it was thorough. I feel like I have any questions about you. You know what to expect. You're giving it our most precious places and so good luck.

And you're trenching and you're trenching. So that's, I appreciate that. It won't be goop that comes out of the ends.

Yes. No, I just see what's coming out.

My gosh. Remember Chase? I just have a question about the way the historic or prehistoric information is broken down, early archaic, you know, middle archaic and late archaic, I guess makes sense. I didn't realize this must be something fairly new. We haven't seen this before. I don't know if this is going to be the way it is going forward or if it's just a trend that is coming out of this company. I don't know, years ago when I was reading about certain my periods, they were referred to as PBLO 2, PBLO 3, PBLO 4. So I just want to figure out what's what's going on there. May I?

Sure.

The detail of the pre-ceramic discussion is commendable. It's above and beyond what many people do. They usually gloss archaic into one paragraph. But this is pre-Pueblo. So it's open and has its own reason for being important. Although however unlikely it is that we find such a thing in this context.

Yeah.

But you never know. Buried features are buried features.

I thought for some reason that part was too short, too hard.

No, actually as far as I know, the discussion here is accurate.

Okay. You know, you get forget things.

Well, you're outside your wheelhouse.

Not talking about things up on shaky dirt.

We're talking about shaking the house on shaky dirt. Yes. They are going to be very careful and you're going to be outside all the time.

Yes. I think maybe the chair has some question. I've got one little spelling item that you didn't mention. You may have caught it already. On page 57, it's your caption for figure 5.11. I think the last S disappeared because it is a sketch of grants within the Santa Fe branch singular. And then the other under field methods, there's the discussion of personnel. And as we've heard in the last two cases, a person not listed for downtown could not be by themselves in the dirt downtown. So, Robin, can you actually be there? And now you'll have to be sworn in.

Hi, Robin. Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, it is 21101 Dorothy Street Northeast and that's Albuquerque.

Do you need, can I get your full name?

Robin Cordero.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do.

Thank you.

Good scare.

Okay, sir. You have the floor. You have my question.

Yes, I can be. I have the ability to be in the field for this as Shelby needs, or as needed.

We're not questioning her abilities. We're pointing out that not carry the credential necessary for the district involved. So thank you for that and that is all a little motion. I propose that we accept for a monitoring plan this 953.

Yes. 011953, the plan for El Zaguan. I move that we pass with the stipulation that Robin oversee more than oversee on site. Very good.

Okay.

Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying I.

I.

Motion carries. Thank you for that.

Yes. I would like to ask permission. The background research you did was amazing. And so I would like to add that background research to our historic cultural property inventory packet. Would you be, I just want to ask permission to do so?

Yes. I'd be honored. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yay. Yes, we need to grab every good thing we see go by so that we can use it. All right. So, this is case number 202611954. New Mexico Gas Company agent for 456 and 462. For the sake of Madre owners request approval of an archeological monitoring and discovery plan for the proposed installation of approximately 116 feet of subsurface nest lines at 456 and 462 of safety in the historic downtown. We thank you for the staff report, Amanda. Anything you need change?

No, I'm sure.

All right.

Thank you. So I just, I didn't see anything about contacting the ditch, the ditch mayordomo, which is Bill Bet, but I think his daughter is helping with that right now. So just to make sure that there's no major impacts or they're aware of work being done in the area.

Okay.

Good catch. And can I reach back out to Amanda to get their contact information?

Yes, I have their contact information.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Number three.

I didn't have anything other than to notice this was on the previous one too. And I think one of the references is for Jim Sneed and I used to sing with his dad.

Hey, his dad was a very nice and was he a baritone? Yes, he looked. That's all. That's all.

I didn't find anything particularly, but now I'm looking for where the is as it goes through here. I think it's behind your house.

It's a couple lots behind, right?

Isn't it to the south?

I mean, there was one to the north. You can still see the remnants of it.

Mhm.

No, I didn't have anything else. Thank you. Other than the listed personnel question, I have nothing to add. I assume that my will do the same thing for this project as for the previous.

You are muted, Robin.

Please unmute yourself. Thank you.

I'll be available to support New Mexico Gas whenever they need me.

Thank you, Robin.

Are we ready for a motion?

Yes, sir. I move that case number 011954 or 456 and 462 of Madre be approved as presented with the stipulation that Robin keeps on.

And the contact.

Yes, Mayor.

Second.

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

Aye.

Motion carries. Three to nothing. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I interject one quick thing?

It just needs to be somebody with the downtown permit. It doesn't have to necessarily be me because SWCA has two additional people on the downtown.

Correct. Just so they are listed and they're going to appear on the NYAP as physically present. So list everybody on that form, please.

Yes.

Well, hey, quick question for the administrative matters. Is that a closed discussion? Let's see, we've moved and voted. So we are administrative matters and communications with Amanda. But, yes, you had a question.

Oh, just with the code update, if there's a working session, I would like to be involved. Okay. I can give you a copy of, we've just made a code update for, yeah.

Yeah.

This is the one that was adopted in November. And so what we will have some working sessions as we initiate phase two. I don't know how much more. I'm sure, I'm sure acting company know what other things they would like to see happen, but we got a lot accomplished with the first round. So certainly we'll make those meetings where we discuss the archaeological district's ordinance open to the public and we can also let you know.

Okay, great. Thank you. There's the updated.

Since we're a small committee, we're kind of a handicap. We seldom, if ever, have working group sessions because it's impossible to avoid a voting quorum. So most of what we do is right here.

Okay.

Under the gun, as it were.

Yeah. They noticed.

Okay.

But if indeed there is some future working group that involves one, at this point, only one member of the committee, because it doesn't, two would be too many. We could.

Surely not to the list.

Okay. Sure. So, is it possible for me to sit in on this discussion that's happening or?

Okay.

And all of this is out here for public view. The electronic world is drooling. I'm sure they're so excited. Okay. So, Chapter 14 code update. Amanda. So the chair and members of the committee asked for a copy of the Chapter 14 codification. So I have provided that in your packet. And did you have anything to add for the Chapter 14? I can just say that we're dealing with contractual procurement type of things right now, but we will be launching into phase two. The first thing in March, the first thing that we'll be doing is an assessment report. And so we're going to be pulling together comments we received during the general plan update process as well as phase one that were comments that we decided were too big to take on at that time. And then set priorities about what we're going to start with. So, we'll bring the assessment report to you and get your feedback on what you might like to see addressed, even if it is outside the purview of the archaeological district's ordinance. We'll address them all, but what should be addressed first in essence. And also I'd like to invite the board. We are going to have a workshop on April 7th with the Historic Districts Review Board to talk about the direction of the Historic Districts ordinance and sort of the overall vision as well as, and sort of clarifying where we're going to move into phase two in terms of historic preservation, historic review. The other piece is we're going to clarify certain expectations relative to what is administrative, what is not administrative, and all that. And certainly the ARC is welcome to participate in that on April 7th. We'll send out more information to you.

So, it's a workshop.

Yes.

But it's a publicly noticed official meeting workshop.

Correct. Yes. Mhm.

And since they did not do any changes to their ordinance, correct? It didn't hoard say no changes.

To the district standards. That's correct. But there were other changes in the body of the text.

Yeah.

But nothing super substantive.

Yeah. And so is that going to change? Is that what you're working towards?

Right. And so one of the questions is when I was very young and we knew each other then too, but and we did the historic district's height ordinance. It's now had 20 years of testing and just sort of getting feedback on those things because that is a big issue in Santa Fe. Getting feedback on that and sort of taking the heavier items or addressing the bigger items in historic district's ordinance will be something that we'll do and prioritizing what should be addressed.

And you'll address the style question because that seems to.

Correct.

Sort of have the most friction.

Yes. I'm sure you're enthralled, Cher.

Well, I just, we looked at the calendar. It's been 16 years. And just to be honest, I don't know how much longer I.

We need to find some people. I'm going to be doing advertisements for people for the archaeological review committee. So if there are people, you know, live in the city, always advertising, but we'll also be doing a press release and all that.

Moving on to item B for administrative matters. I have provided you with the heritage preservation nomination form and I seek, let me just read it out for you there. The deadline is tomorrow. Archaeology is outstanding examples of archaeological preservation or contributions to the prehistory or history of Santa Fe through archaeology.

Yeah. And the most recent awardee is leaving the room.

Yes, that's right. So, anything you may have for us would be greatly appreciated.

One other item.

Someone refreshed my memory. Were there any nominations that we passed over in the last two years in favor of?

I can get that research for you and send you guys an email, see if there was anything. From my recollection, I believe that there was maybe two or three individuals that were nominated last year. Previous year before, I don't, I'm not sure, but I'll research and I'll send you three an email.

Thank you. Because if there's anybody sort of in limbo, it would be nice to.

Consider them for first before burning off into the new world.

Or potential nominees.

Yeah. But anybody that you guys have as well, we're glad to add to the list. Okay. All right. And.

And you had an item.

It was, it's not listed here, but I think it's important to raise. So as the land use director, there's different levels of permissions in the code. So the land use director can allow for some very minor modifications. And typically how land use director is defined is for designate, correct? So you have staff that acts on behalf of the line just director. Typically, I don't know everything, but they are the professional staff that advise. And so, but the code very is very limiting in how much can be done administratively to change an approval of a board or commission. So like for instance, the planning commission or, you know, the historic districts review award, et cetera. So, I'd like to get some pretty clear direction. The factor, it's, it's not very precise is 10% is typically what the land use director can do. Say for instance, for parking counts or what have you. So, but that's not really well defined here in the archaeological district's ordinance. And I just want to make sure that when there's communication in the field about expanding a project or changing a project that was reviewed and approved by the ARC or a clearance permit issued that we understand really well when to tell a consultant to come back to the board.

Yeah. Because if we do more than that, then then I am or my staff is stepping outside of their authority and we have to respect the boards and commissions and their decisions. My gut feeling is that right now you're handicapped because you don't have a staff person who is a fully qualified archaeologist. So you don't have an in-house source of help on such questions.

Yeah. But even if we had a qualified archaeologist, it's good to know like what the guard rails are.

Yeah. Well, we've always approved things with changes on the face that staff would bet the changes having been done with a new submitt showing that and it did not come back to us. So that can be almost every case.

Right.

Of every meeting or it can be rare. It just depends. And I think we're all ecstatic to have you do those approvals because we would get tired of seeing the same thing over and over again. And we.

It's sort of like boxes though. We listen to your comments and then that's pretty simple unless there's a technical issue.

Just out there in the dirt. If somebody says we're going to develop 32 acres by doing this, that the other thing, and we've got a plan that relates to that. Any change in the acreage is important and we didn't know about it because that may place it closer to or in direct intersection with cultural resources. If someone says we're going to put in 12,000 feet of fiber optic cable and it turns out that it's, you know, 13,000 because they rounded poorly and or every stub had to go an extra 10 feet because somebody didn't plan correctly. I'm not sure we care. No.

Needable thing.

So.

That's so like a small percentage, less than 10%.

Yeah. Right.

So I mean, I at least would be comfortable with maybe even a little more than 10%, but it's a moving target. It's a situational thing. Are we talking distance for monitoring or are we talking acreage for survey? We've got to do the acreage.

Okay.

But the monitoring.

We can let little things go. But if a case where the project gets 50% bigger than it, we haven't had a chance to think about those ramifications because we didn't know where it was going. Somebody decided it was going there afterwards. We need to know that.

Okay. Thank you. Maybe what I'll do is draft sort of a policy on what can be considered administrative. I just wanted to sort of introduce the topic tonight, but do a draft and have you all take a look at that and react to it and tell us what the best bet. We'll try to think Amanda and I of different scenarios. Like there's also discovery of unexpected, unexpected discoveries. And in those unexpected discoveries, do you typically want us to call you as the chair or somebody on the arc if they're just to notify about that? And then also, you know, to me, I think it's important to also notify Duk because of their relationship to this community as the ancestral homeland. And do you want the city to do that? Do you want the state to do that? So those are some of the other topics that I was going to also.

The city needs to do its own.

Stuff because.

On state property or or within private property in the city.

Within the city's jurisdiction, the city needs to do its own stuff. If it's state property, sure, state needs to do it because they would be the lead agency. It's their jurisdiction, right? It's the city's jurisdiction. I would think can take it upon itself to make those contacts. And somewhere in the ordinance, doesn't it say that in the event of a discovery, staff and a member of the archaeological review committee will make a field visit to assess the situation?

I believe so. I need to look at the code, but I believe so.

Well, discoveries. Yeah, your discoveries. They're always a surprise. And I'm mindful of the discovery of a whole bunch of debris, trash right next to the Sequoia in front of the retirement hall over here that folks doing some utility work for that project slammed into. And it just so happened that the staff noticed it. And in that case, two members of the committee and staff showed up and looked at it because it was big and not simple. I think that worked very well. The designated expert passed judgment on whether or not some of the material was human or not. And the rest of us tried to make sense of the trash deposit and debris, which is probably left over from the demolition of the school that was there. Because there was a substantial multi-story structure with a humongous basement,

right, that got torn out of there and stuff got dumped everywhere.

So, that was a good one. Everything worked as I would normally expect. In other cases, it seems like staff made visits and a course of action was determined without the direct input of the committee. So I don't know where to draw that line relative to an unexpected discovery that was

Yeah. Yes.

Human remains are a whole different thing because that's under the jurisdiction of the state. And so I see no reason for us to be involved with dealing with human remains unless it's simply, "Is this human or not?" Rather than calling the police and OMI and all of that, let's find out first if we got a problem. It's that level of involvement that could save us time and effort. I'm thinking of years ago, an archaeological contractor was contacting everybody on the Santa Fe list saying, "Can you please tell me whether or not these bones are human?" It's like, "Uh, okay. You might ought to tell staff first that you think you have a potential problem and then somebody will be happy to look at it, but until you get your act together, I don't think I want to get involved." But it depends. So it should be clear. Ordinance says, "Brief, notify city, a committee, and take it from that."

Okay. And just one related item is, you know, there was an unexpected discovery that we'd like to provide notice to you about. And Paul, if you could just provide a quick general overview. Paul, if you can unmute yourself.

Hello, Chair. Members of the ARC, can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Oh, good. Yes. Thank you, Director Lamboy. So New Mexico Gas Company in the past year has had some maintenance and emergencies with gas lines throughout the greater city of Santa Fe. I have been working with them ever since Mr. Chris Turbo has retired to help them along that process. I was working with Casey Anderson, their environmental scientist, and they had some emergencies taking place throughout the city and I asked them, "You guys need to have monitoring everywhere you're going to be potholing." And these are 4x4 kind of potholes. And Casey and his staff, I've had meetings with them, were really willing to work with us. Because the issue with these guys is they'll go out, do their work with no monitoring ever. And we want them to at least have an archaeologist on site for all their ground disturbance in Santa Fe. That's the goal. Whether it's P&M, NM Gas, water, sewer, all utilities. And so they hired Shelby recently, like in the last four months, which was great news. It's like, "All right, now they got an archaeologist that can do this work." Well, back in November when they had their plan with these emergencies, it was like, "Okay, look, I'll be out there when you have these emergencies to cover when necessary on a need basis until you get your archaeologist and with Shelby and in very highly dense problematic areas that could be problematic." And it just so happened the first, the last bucket over their gas main on Kearney, they came across an inadvertent discovery always. And so Shelby followed the protocol and you know, I worked with her and the ship was said, "You know what? Return the remains right where you encountered them. Close up your pothole." And that's kind of, that was the whole process working with NM Gas to get an archaeologist on site. And as you can see, Robin Cordderero, he's stepping up and covering for them as well to provide them the necessary means to do the work that they need to do for the community of Santa Fe. And so that occurred and I shared a detailed response back to leadership after the incident and yeah, that's all I have to report on that, but any questions that you may have, I'm here to address those.

A couple of questions.

Yes, sir. Do we know whether or not the installation of that meter the first time hit the same person?

Oh gosh. You know, I was talking to their foreman, Mr. Senna, and he's like, "You know what? I don't even know why we need an archaeologist out here. I was out here last year and we did three of these." And I was like, "Oh my gosh." And we didn't catch it on our side, right? Because these are 4x4 potholes and so it's not triggering any permit on our end. And so, and he showed me all the areas where the new asphalt was. And it's like, "Well, thank you guys for willing to work with us to have Shelby out here and allow us to do this, right?" Because generally they're not going to have an archaeologist out there. And I believe this one was hit when the original main was installed, probably gosh, it was right underneath the pipe and they had to hand dig underneath the pipe. Now, usually the gas mains are about 3 feet below, 36 inches below present ground surface. And as they were digging under it, they came across it then. And so it's just like they only needed one more, one more shovel full and they came across it. And Shelby stopped and did all the protocol correctly. And but it's bringing them to the table, right? We want to bring them to the table. "Hey guys, have an archaeologist. Have Shelby out there with you guys no matter where you pothole, whatever you're doing, that she's there available and willing." And she's so, and she's doing that, right? She just started, right? I think yesterday was her first day in the field with New Mexico Gas, right? It just so happens to work that way. But these guys have been digging up on Kearney

without any kind of oversight. Yeah.

You and everyone else who is helping with this, make sure that every minute of Shelby's time is documented so that at the earliest possible opportunity she can apply for listing in the downtown. So that will simplify all of your life.

Yeah, definitely.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It's as I said earlier, it's not a question of her ability. It's a question of the credential. And to get the credential, you need time. And so document the time.

So with this particular case, the area that they're impacting is within 25 feet of a known archaeological site, the Camposanto that was there associated with Lorita. I was involved with an unexpected discovery back in the 90s with Steven Post when that first was discovered. So, should we direct PNM or I'm sorry, New Mexico Gas to just follow up with them to make sure that they have Shelby on site? Should we connect with somebody there just to communicate that?

Well, you could probably thank them profusely for having had an archaeologist on site and thank them for having handled the situation correctly and that you look forward to this relationship. The fact that Paul has successfully lobbied them to move toward having a monitor present is good. The other aspect of my question, whether this got hit when the first installation was made, leads to unknown to me how well documented and how accessible the records of previous discoveries of human remains are available to person or persons who are out there monitoring. So they know literally 5 feet away from where I'm standing, they hit somebody. And so they know already that nobody's going to turn the machine around and extend the trench over there just because it's convenient. So we need to be sure the information that's critical is available as well. And we're talking exact locations, not within X number of feet of something. Where was the discovery made? Down to the feet and inches on the utility or a tight UTM or 12 feet from the manhole and 15 feet from the fire hydrant. There's some discussion of where is it that people know where not to go. And that's for the archaeologist.

Yes. And a company needs to be aware of the fact that the archaeologist has access to information that they don't have. And it would also behoove the company if their field personnel are inclined, ready, willing, and able to share information about their own experience. Because the story you just heard implies that this person knows in great detail what they hit, when they hit it, and where they hit it, and it just didn't get mentioned. So, if those people could provide information, that would be even better.

I'll follow up and maybe at least have a report akin to what Robin Cordiero did with SWCA and the O'Keefe site. Do you think that would be good enough or

I think the Lagarita report is at OAS. I think Eric Blman and his staff, gosh, I think in the 2010s, wrote up, it was an extensive report that they did. We used to have it. I believe there was 19

just overview of what was

Oh, sure. This, uh,

of the city. Because they need to know that because it's the city's responsibility to know where their stuff is. But it would also be, I think, necessary for that information to be in ARMS.

I believe

so that accessible to just whatever random archaeologist on the list that gets hired to go do some monitoring on Kearney knows something before they get there. Other than that, "Oh my god, we're going to hit people." Where, when, who, what, why, how, all of those details are critical. So,

we need that information at hand to the monitor.

And nobody should be digging on Kearney, period. I mean, without an archaeologist. And I think when I was looking up the Nimris site forms and all the information on the site up there, I couldn't gather them from ARMS from NIMR. So I'd have to go talk to Bridget at ARMS and see if we can pull them from there or OAS, I think. Well, I just want to say that critical information that's in the hands of an entity that is not the responsible agency somehow needs to be shared so that the responsible agencies have the information to work with because otherwise we're just going to keep slamming into people and that's not appropriate. It's not acceptable. It's not legal. And in fact, if we continue to do it, it's criminal. So we need to not do that.

Right?

So if there's information in a repository but it is not under the control of a state agency that's responsible for it, then it's inappropriately housed. It's a secret and it can't be kept a secret. It has to be shared or none of us are doing our job.

Thank you, Chair. One follow up.

The only thing that I thought about was there was a case where I think it was an electric line was going to go in front of the church at Loretto. And they went in the road. They were going to go across the lot from the parking lot. They were going to go across the yard to the transformer and they decided to go in the street instead. And I remember that caused us some

Yeah. Because we reviewed a plan for this route and it went somewhere else.

Yeah.

It was probably a wise decision.

Yeah.

But it would have been nice to have known about it.

Yeah. We have, we covered that.

Yeah. Yeah. And I'll come back with a draft document on what's administrative, what's not.

That way you all can review it and we can just have some guardrails. Regarding that, I don't know why they didn't come to us and just say we'd rather go in the street. Initially, when they looked at it, they decided to go in the road. Why did you present a plan to go through the yard then? It didn't make any sense. So, I don't know whether that would have been administrative or not.

I felt comfortable doing that administratively.

Yeah, if they're moving it three feet, I think that's administrative. If they're moving it 30 feet in Santa Fe, then I think it's probably not because it's a whole different set of variables. They're going down Old Santa Fe Trail of somebody's yard. I have one thing. I want to bring up the bridge. I see the bridge is going in.

Shall we?

Yeah.

Did we approve that?