Archaeological Review Committee Thu, Mar 26, 2026 · Archaeological Review Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1026 == Executive Summary == The Archaeological Review Committee (ARC) held a meeting where significant discussion revolved around archaeological testing and monitoring for a large housing development by Homewise, Inc. The committee conditionally approved an interim report for this project, requiring the applicant to add a permit number and a final report schedule, and expanding the monitoring plan to cover all ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of any archaeological site. Concerns were raised about the interpretability of raw 3D data for mitigation and the need for thorough documentation of sites that will be impacted by development. Additionally, the committee addressed several other archaeological reports and monitoring plans, postponing some for further information or applicant presence. They also discussed plans to revive the "Archaeology in Your Backyard" conference through a Certified Local Government (CLG) grant, and received an update on the discovery of human remains during utility work. The meeting concluded with an emphasis on clear communication of permit conditions and the importance of comprehensive historical and environmental context in archaeological reports. == Key Decisions == - Approved the meeting agenda by an 'Aye' vote. - Conditionally approved the interim report for archaeological testing by Homewise, Inc., requiring the inclusion of a permit number and a final report schedule, and expanding the monitoring plan to 100 feet around sites. This approval was unanimous. - Postponed consideration of Case 012091 (Pino/Pinos) to April 23rd, 2026, unanimously approved. - Approved the archaeological monitoring plan for electrical wiring installation at 120 Lincoln Avenue (Case 012087) with suggested staff changes, unanimously approved. - Postponed consideration of Case 012090 (Archaeological Reconnaissance Report for 3471 Serius Road) to April 23rd, 2026, unanimously approved. - Approved the monitoring plan for 1709 Serio Road with the addition of climate and soil conditions in the final report, unanimously approved. - Expressed support for applying for a CLG grant to produce the "Archaeology in Your Backyard" conference. - Adjourned the meeting until April 23, 2026. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed by 'Aye' vote. - Motion to approve the interim report for archaeological testing with specified conditions and to withhold approval of the greater project until the final report is submitted, reviewed, and approved — Passed unanimously 'Aye'. - Motion to postpone consideration of Case 012091 to April 23rd, 2026 — Passed unanimously 'Aye'. - Motion to approve Case 012087 with suggested staff changes — Passed unanimously 'Aye'. - Motion to postpone consideration of Case 012090 to April 23rd, 2026 — Passed unanimously 'Aye'. - Motion to accept the monitoring plan for 1709 Serio Road with the addition of climate and soil conditions in the final report — Passed unanimously 'Aye'. - Motion to adjourn until April 23, 2026 — Passed. == Public Comment == Jennifer James (Homewise) stressed the urgency of the housing project and the interconnectedness of roadway and drainage construction. An unidentified public commenter reiterated the importance of the project for Santa Fe's housing crisis. A committee member expressed concern about the lack of interpretability of raw 3D point cloud data for mitigation, calling it "pretty worthless" without further analysis, and questioned the adequacy of 3D models as a sole mitigation measure given the impending obliteration of sites. Another committee member expressed mystification at the "convenient view" that the state is only concerned with specific properties, advocating for broader monitoring. Committee members also raised questions about the clarity of maps and photos, the accuracy of historical claims, and the importance of involving the Mayordomo for acequia-related projects. Nat Barber and Antonio Cruz provided testimony for Case 012087, confirming their roles and readiness to answer questions. == Topics == - Homewise Infrastructure Project - Archaeological Site LA54777 - Interim Report Approval - Meeting Postponement - Human Remains Discovery - Archaeological Review Committee Membership - Staff Report and Conditions - Archaeology in Your Backyard Conference - SHPO Communication - Archaeological Fund Monies - Agenda Approval - Swearing In Presenters - Staff Background and Experience - Easy Fiber Monitoring Plan - Roll Call == Full Transcript == Go ahead, Cherrick. Chair: Call this hearing of the Archaeological Review Committee of March 26, 2026, to order. And we have the roll call, please. Member: Here. Member: I'm here. Okay, here. Perfect. That's it. Sorry. Please. Two more saints. We'll take centers. First item is approval of agenda. And staff, anything to note about the agenda? No, Cherrick. I'll note that we don't have any minutes, so that won't be a blank spot. Member Beck. Yes. Anything about minutes? No. Number two. No motion. Move that we approve the agenda as presented. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Skipping over approval of minutes, we will go to matters from the floor. Anybody here have a matter to bring? Seeing none. Hearing none. Skip over old business because there is none. New business, page number 202612088. Ron Winters, agent for Homewise, Inc. Applicant requests review and approval, if applicable, of an interim report for archaeological testing, data recovery, and monitoring sites LA 54763, 5476577, 54785 A through C, and LA 202469 for Tier Phase 3 development. Thank you for your staff report from Heather. Chair, she went to print some stuff from her office and she'll be here shortly if we could refer back to her when she arrives. Okay. But as far as you're aware, there's nothing there. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing. I think there was a document added, but she is going to bring a physical, and you guys received an email regarding that. With us. For that document. So I believe that that's what she's doing. Not so much added as enhanced. Enhanced. Additional. In addition to what was already submitted. So Ron, presenter, you'll need to advance and be sworn in. And if you're going to speak, you'll have to be sworn in as well. If you will please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. If you want at a time. Yes, please. Go ahead. Go for it. Ron Winters, 109 Kipala, Santa Fe, New Mexico 8750. 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 penalty of? Thank you. Jennifer Jenkins, 130 Grant Avenue. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in record items the truth and nothing but the truth and beyond? I do. Thank you. Blessing Glass, 1301 Siler Road. 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 penalty of her? I do. There's one more. One more. Oh, my appeal direct. Oh, you state your name and address for the record. Emily Branch, 8508. Thank you. Please 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 penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you very much. Ma'am, you know she's tougher than we are. Oh, okay. Sorry for my tardiness for printing that map for you so that she'll have a copy in your hands. We have extra copies of the puke. That would be helpful. Sure. If you, that's a bigger copy than that. Um, and maybe what we could do is we'll share on the screen. I'll email it to you so that I'm having to share. Please don't share on the screen. It shows information that's confidential and this is public meeting. Oh, okay. Yeah, actually, would you have and member Beal has a reminder. Member Beal has a copy. Yeah. Excellent. Okay. Great. All right. So, with reference to staff report, you may have noted that there is a condition of approval that is suggested. Staff has concern that the area of the impacts to the site is, and that there's multiple sites that we don't want any confusion about what can be done. And I also think that as the individual subdivisions come in or with the final report, they can also more thoroughly address the other sites outside of the area that's highlighted for infrastructure. My condition was really just for this roadway here, the construction of the roadway. But the applicant is requesting actually to also include the drainage and the infrastructure, off-site infrastructure as well. So, first of all, I found that out relatively recently. So I think it would be good for the Archaeology Archaeological Review Committee to know what is the timing of construction relative to those sites because it does impact identified sites. Whether they, and this is what staff feels comfortable with, in terms of a conditional approval, they would just consider the roadway for now with the 25-foot buffer and wait on those other improvements until they have the final approval from the committee and the final report. Staff has concern that that is too much opportunity for there to be a mistake or, you know, because certainly everybody in this room can say, "Yes, we commit to not disturbing these sites." But the concern is that not everybody who will be impacting the landscape is in this room. So, and that concludes my presentation. All right. Thank you, Heiling. This is useful to have that. Um, okay. I'm going to start with the CPRC and the states involved in the project. I wanted to let you know where that was at. And I met with the CPRC and who concluded in the end that I might not need a project specific and burial permit. The questions they asked is if I was working under my general permit and they knew that I held an unmarked burial permit. I replied yes to both. Their only concern was a site LA5477 or the two sites on in New Mexico School for the Deaf land. They asked what percentage of site LA5477 I had excavated. I told them it was 0.17%. They remarked that that was way under what was permitted under my general permit and advised me to meet with Michelle Enzy to see what she required on the School for the Deaf lands. So, what they were concerned about was just, you know, that property. So, on February 17th, I met with Michelle to discuss the project. And as the CPRC had already approved SWCA's data recovery plan, her only concern was that the two sites was with the two sites on on School for the Deaf land. I explained to her that the School for the Deaf had granted Homewise an easement for the extension of Po del Sol and that's in my report on page 58 and 59. You'll see the area in question and the letter from them. She wanted those sites monitored and the results written up during the initial phase of construction of the of the roadway and infrastructure. I've included the monitoring plan and the report is page 45. That said, I just received this map showing the exact areas that would be impacted by this initial phase and if approved, we'll add those additional areas that would require monitoring. So there that would include the northern extent of 54785A, the southern extent of 54785B, and the midsection of LA 54785C. If you can see on the map, those are shown in the area that that Homewise wants to do infrastructure in the roadway. So, enough of that. All all the test units that were in the approved scope of work have been excavated and are described in this report. As I had said in before at LA5477, we went beyond the scope of work to confirm the depth and nature of the low mounds. This is the only place where we vary from the scope of work. Addressing that last question that we talked about in the last meeting, in terms of tribal consultation, it is not state trust land for one thing, but more importantly, Michelle said it wasn't required. So that is was not addressed in the report. The final report is in the early stages of write-up. The ceramic funnel and the vicidian sourcing sourcing analysis is complete. The lithic analysis is in progress and the soil and C14 samples have been processed and I'm waiting for the results of the analysis. Until those results are complete, I can't make conclusions or eligibility recommendation. Although I'm following a couple lines of research and interpretation and I just on the right over Emily and I were talking, Emily Brown is doing the the lithic analysis. And something, you know, I think I've expressed before on 54777 that the lines of research that we've been following determining that that may well in fact be not in situ and have been dumped there. And there's a couple of couple of reasons why we believe that. And then we think with this final with the soil analysis, we can tie it all together. And what Emily was telling me on the way over where the lithics on those other sites don't compare with with 5477, there's an inordinate number is a Madera chart, you said, yeah. Right. There's a very high proportion of Madera chert at 54777, whereas the other sites contain primarily chert and related chert that are very clearly present in the local gravels. And Madera chert is present in the local gravels, but in very limited amounts. So that's a bit of a novel. So open to questions and would you guys like? Yeah, I'd like to, if I may. Cher E and members of the committee. I'm Jennifer James with Li Scott on behalf of Homewise, and we want to start just by saying how much we appreciate staff and the committee's consideration of a what we, I guess we call the conditional clearance permit or preliminary clearance permit to allow the infrastructure to proceed on this very critical project. One of the elements that I think is important to recognize is is the is the sequence of construction. We can't build a road without building the drainage structures associated with that. You can't, so we have to build just enough so we can get access into the fossil, right? And so those drainage areas on the south that have been identified are critical and because we have to protect our downstream neighbors from storm water. And so we have to, you know, those those detention areas are constructed, they're not finished, but they are constructed to a to a degree that allows them to collect runoff as we start disturbing natural ground for the construction of the roads. And so those are those additional areas because it it it's it's hard to bifurcate roadway construction from the drainage improvements necessary to support that roadway construction. And then you notice across the north we have a sewer line that is pretty early in in the construction phase process as well. And so we ask for consideration to move forward with these elements with the monitoring plan that has been submitted to you. We've also stated that the other sites will be will be fenced on site and that and that and his team will inspect that fencing to ensure that the sites are are protected. And I think it's also important to recognize that the testing is complete and so the any material to be gleaned from these sites has has been gleaned. So there's so we're just in the analysis phase and so there's nothing more to do on site at at this point. And so again, we greatly appreciate your consideration and are anxious to start generating some housing. So be happy to stand for any questions. Yes, sir. Could you please point out where the sewer line is? Yes. If I may reach over this blue line across the north side. Along this trail. Well, it's going to be a we're a sewer line. Okay. Which is the best thing? Yeah. It's just labeled as. Yeah. Do you have anything to offer? Well, I'm not an expert on archaeology. I just want to state that this is a very important project for Santa Fe and the best projects, the best chance we have to address the housing crisis that we're in right now. So, we'd appreciate any consideration you give. We consider all projects equally. So, thank you for your efforts and we will try to move this thing forward as smoothly as possible. Would any of the communications between the SHPO and presenter filter through to you in a letter or phone call? No, I'll double-check my inbox just to be sure, but I didn't get any direct communication from the SHPO other than a phone call where it came up tangentially. Okay. So, nothing written. Okay. But the phone call was really, "Oh, that was happening," or "It happened," but I was not present at the meeting. Okay. And there was email communication following the meeting to report to staff the results of that. Is that from Michelle and Z? No, there was an email, I think from Lisa, that reported, "We, you know, because we were given some tasks following the last meeting, you know, Ron and his team did some additional testing out at 477." And then we were told we needed to consult with CPRC and SHPO, and we did report back that those steps had been taken and the results of those interactions. David, I did forward this to Michelle because she hadn't commented, but I addressed what she asked for, which was monitoring those two sites on School for the Deaf land. But she has the full text of... Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sort of where I was going. Oh, no. No. The desk rule indicates the preliminary reports that are considered by the agency and then forwarded by the agency to the SHPO, but you've already done so. So, great. Okay. So, is the sewer line the main thing, the main utility line that you're thinking of putting in in this phase for our consideration? Is there other stuff that's going under these other blue roads? Correct. Yes. So, that sewer line is the main piece of utility infrastructure that happens to not be under a roadway. So, yes, there are utility lines, water and sewer lines, that are primarily water lines that are associated with the roadway construction and will be within that corridor. And those are going to be typically four to five feet deep on the water. Correct. And are you going to then just stay on the roads with those utilities? Are you going to stub out into all these various tracts? There are, yeah. No, it's a great question. There are stub-outs. And so, as we, you can see some of them if you look inside the loop, you can see those. Those are kind of future, going to be future driveways or roadways into those tracts. Yeah. And you can see they're marked. So, yes, there will be some extensions that will go beyond the roadway to allow for future connections. What's the density in these tracts? They're all various sizes, and I'm just wondering... It's going to vary. I think our densities, the whole phase is, we're approved for up to 1,500 homes, which can include multi-family, single-family, and everything in between. So, each tract is going to be quite different based on its terrain. So, for example, the tracts on the south side of the loop, that's some of our flattest area. So, we might see some higher densities. You could see more multi-family type on the south side of the loop. And then on the north side, we're getting into a little more terrain. And so, you'll probably see lower density single-family, you know, maybe four dwellings per acre, something like that. So, Ron, we're out there. Yes. Some of these, well, 54785, all of those are wagon trails. Camino General. How do they show up on the terrain? Do they show up at all? Some better, not some are obliterated by modern two tracks, but there are some. We map them. But you want to talk about that? Well, the ones that are actually marked, those are those are more visible or not? Yeah, those are more visible. And even within those, there's areas that are greater, have more greater and lesser visibility, but they've all been mapped and documented, which is really... Did you do photography for them and develop a 3D model of each so that... There are pictures. Yes. Okay. One other thing, Tom, I want to add is in '86 when Hannerford was out there, they collected the artifacts along those roads. So, which I thought was interesting. Yeah. Have you obtained those collections? No, I'm sure they're... Well, we will because, yeah, but they're probably in the museum at this point. I... OAS. I hope that they're sitting in OAS. Yeah. No. Well, certainly, certainly for the final report. Yeah. Well, that is considered because we had, you know, that wasn't part of our project. But they, it's been noted in a couple places that Hannerford collected the roadways. Yeah. But no, good point. So, like photographs, we have photographic record. We have artifacts collected from a previous... I wonder, did those... Chair, I'm going to step out of my construction boots here for a minute. Would that, would those artifacts then be incorporated into a report final on this whole property then? Well, this work, the artifacts from these sites would be included in the analysis and the report for this work. Okay. It won't be a comprehensive report for everything that was out there. Okay. Okay. That's what I'm asking. And so the other, so 54777, we talked about a trash dump and some assorted artifacts. But are you going to monitor that as the utilities and road go in? Yes, that's what I say in this report, that that will be monitored because it cuts right through the northern extent of it. And so I would be there on the ground any kind of ground disturbance. And because part of that is right in the roadway, the rest of it's going to be fenced off so that it doesn't get disturbed. And that'll be the case everywhere, even though we don't have necessarily anything that you found on the circus. And you did do some one by one. Well, we addressed all the sites in the original approved scope of work. So, all of these sites, they've actually, we remapped them all. We've collected all the artifacts. We've tested them all. What I did say, and I wanted to add on these areas that are shown in blue, if that gets approved, I would also monitor those sections that I just said. And but besides just monitoring in there, I would probably document with length, width, depth, like I would do any road or a seakia because, you know, we have them mapped, but, you know, and if they're going to be disturbed or destroyed, I want more detailed analysis than just the mapping. And but we are proposing to fence all of the sites because it's important with contractors being on site and, you know, everybody just needs to be fully aware of where they are forbidden to, you know, disturb. So, even if it's something is kind of outside of the infrastructure activity, everything will be fenced. Sure. Sorry, I just, I have a quick question for the applicant team. Do we have an overview or a timeline of the project, the infrastructure? Yeah, we are hoping that we're going to record the plat here in the next, I'm hoping next two or three weeks. They're just fine. We have an approved cost estimate. So, they're just working on getting the financial guarantee in place. And then we're ready to, you know, plot my... I'm actually like spade in the ground. What? Yeah. Spade in the ground. What do you think your best guess is right now? Where we are in March? I mean... I'm hoping for July. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, the reason, Chair, I was asking that question was just, and you know, when it comes to giving the consultant the opportunity to go out and do extra work if that's what the committee wants, it seems like we have a little time before we grant clearance. Okay. So, leaving this aside for now, to looking at the report, I think it's on page 13 of your report, page 16 of the PDF. I'm wondering if the direction sign is... Oh, I realize it's, it looked like your excavation was on an angle and it seems like a north pointing arrow, maybe not pointing... Oh, I see what you say. Or the right direction. I'd have to check on that, Tom, but I certainly can. No, no, the arrow on the drawing as opposed to on the photo on the ground is what you're saying. Which page are you referring? Page 16. Looks like it's 15 of the PDF, 13 in the report. Well, they're saying that you've been given it's on... Oh, your PDF's different than my PDF. Sorry. The way the pages fall out, it goes haywire. That's the content of phase three unit EU3 feature one is what I'm looking at. Okay, thanks. Got it. I'm just curious if the, if the north arrow is really pointing the right direction for that particular because it looked like it was going like this. Yeah. And the ground... It's like 45 degrees. I'll blame it on my still. And, you know, no, I, I can. So that's a, that's the other thing that I noticed was that in some of your, some of your drawings, you were labeling excavation units and then in other places they're test units. And I just wonder if that's a different thing or if they should all be kind of uniformly excavation units or test units or what. It is based on the original scope of work, and we place those units, you know, where they were approved. And if they were a test unit, it was marked. So if it was an excavation unit, it was marked. So those are two different things. That's the only thing I'm asking. All two different things. But there to be me, there are holes in the ground. If I recall in the data recovery plan, there was some uncertainty as to whether some sites had subsurface cultural deposits present. And so those were slated for quote unquote testing, whereas others there was some certainty that buried cultural deposits were present. And so in the plan, they were called excavation. I think that's the origin of that. Like the hearth on page, my page 34, it's called EU1 because they identified on the surface, you know, this rock concentration and a stain. And so that's the one of them I took C14 samples from. That's the one I did, you know, excavated half, did a profile and a plan view on both halves. But that was one they identified as a feature and called an EU and not a TU. Yeah, I just didn't know if there was... Yeah, there was, I think there was a method to their madness. It seems internally consistent. Yeah. EU when there's a feature of some sort. When you don't know. This is a likely area as opposed to investigating that. It's a bit more directed. Yeah. All right, that's all I got. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to, I think I misspoke. I should have said early June is really when we would ideally be under construction. That would be the best case scenario would be like late May, early June. Or started construction for the ground. Okay. Yeah. That with the entitlements and procurement that we need to go through and we would like to get started as soon as possible with us and you will do so as soon as you get the flat file. Given all other permission. Right. Okay. Chair, before any permit can be released, there is a review by staff to ensure that there, the scope of work is just within what's been cleared by the ARC. So, just wanted to let you know that no permit will be issued until we know. Yeah. So, probably within that scope of work, we would include a new sheet in the set that would delineate that and create those guardrails around that. Yeah, that makes sense. Absolutely. Yeah. Like that's what you're allowed to do. Yeah. All right. Member back. I have some pretty detailed things and then I have some questions about the mapping documentation and mitigation. I guess I'll start with the nitpicky things. So, page six, where it says the non-eligible sites, it seems there's some missing LAs in the last paragraph on page seven. And after your conversation about this is not a requirement per Michelle Enzy, will that be documented or will we just take your word for it? Like, do you have an email from her that says not required? Oh, no. I think those are two separate things. I think we're going to determine eligibility, but based on what the testing told us, when I said Michelle was only concerned, not that she wasn't concerned about the rest of the sites, but in terms... The School of the Deaf property, that's what we were asking you about, right? Oh, the School of the Deaf property. And she says it's not a requirement. So I just wanted to see that in writing or I didn't understand exactly the conversation. So we'll have some confirmation written from her. Yes. But that was only, "wasn't a requirement" was referring to tribal consultation, not monitoring the sites. She said tribal consultation was not... And it's not required. Okay. So you'll have that in writing. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Page nine. I have a lot of questions about these 3D road segment model high resolution. Basically, they're point clouds. And so, unless you know what you're looking at or it's interpreted to the naked, you know, to someone like me, it's kind of meaningless to have these point cloud documents. So I would like to see either archival prints or something that's more than that. The information needs to be interpreted so that these become meaningful because if you hand me a file of point cloud, I have a program that will open them and they're still pretty worthless, you know, in terms of showing something. So if there's a signature profile, there's subsurface things that we can't see now that, you know, the ruts that are deeper. I mean, I just, I would like to, I don't feel like that, that just because you have a 3D model of it, it's not mitigated in my opinion. I mean, all of these sites will be obliterated eventually. Maybe not by the road construction. And I understand we're in, you know, different phasing, but the tracks, once those houses start going in, these road segments will be obliterated. And so you're suggesting that this 3D model, and I'm asking the question, that the 3D model is the mitigation measure. I would say you have to go further than that to interpret it for someone in the future. Speak to that, Ron. Yeah, I wanted to, have you, do you know Emily Brown? Yes. I've not ever met her, but yeah, I do know her. Okay. Well, her husband, her husband Jeff Brown, flew to this site with his drone and Emily can talk about that. Okay. Like what's the... Yeah. So, you're right that there is a point cloud that we have, but there's also associated aerial high-resolution aerial photographs. And so what we did was generate a georeferenced aerial photograph, an orthomosaic. And so that's some of the graphics that we have for the report. It's possible to put the point cloud file and all the associated photographs on files so that future researchers that did have the right software could take those data and if they want to view it from different angles or generate digital elevation models or other kinds of products from those data, they could do that. That will be on file. And also, if I recall correctly, the data recovery plan only specified a 3D model. They didn't specify any additional analysis. So we can certainly do additional analysis if that's what the committee desires. That's definitely possible. But we've met the spirit of that and all those data will be on file where other researchers can make use of them. But this is not, like when the, let's say number 4785B, you know, once that tract gets taken down by the contractor or the developer, will you be out there monitoring when that happens, Ron, or are we just talking about your monitoring plan for just the road construction? No. In the plan, it specifies 5477 and 54785B. But as I said in the opening remarks, because that area that would be impacted in this initial phase, I would monitor all of those that are all of those other road segments that are in the path of the road or infrastructure. And I would take it besides what we've done with Jeff and Emily, I would also photograph them and measure, I mean, do measure drawings probably of length, width, depth of these, not just rely on the photographs alone. Okay. And I appreciated that you said that about the fact that since they're going to be demolished, that you're going to do a little bit more reporting on them. Of course. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Page 13. So I'm mystified by these gorgeously drawn plans. There's no legend. There is a north arrow, but I don't know where this relates to anything in space. And I just don't know what this even means other than it's a beautiful drawing. Well, I, I, yes, I could have identified them as rocks. That's what they are. Oh, they're rocks. Okay. Yeah. I didn't include, I didn't include photographs yet. We have photographs of all of these test units before and after and that will be in the final report. It just gets so cumbersome by the time you put all those in this kind of report. But those are all my drawings and that is, you know, feature one at 54763 and they didn't know exactly what it was, but it looks suspicious and you want to comment on that? Yeah, I think on the surface you could see a number of exposed cobbles and the hypothesis was that it was a possibly agricultural feature. Upon excavation, it turned out just to be a concentration of naturally occurring alluvial cobbles that ended up in that spot. So yeah, not a few people could identify. There is a drainage adjacent to it with the same type of rock. Maybe not in this type of concentration, but it's there. There were no artifacts found in or around. They were not grouped. They were not assembled. They were not sorted by size, nor were they configured in any particular way that was recognizable. Okay, it is a gorgeous drawing. Thank you. All right. Then, page 19, I guess. How will you identify whether the adobe that you found is modern or ancient since you would think it would be from the dirt that's available? How would you identify that? Well, that's one of the things I mentioned earlier. I took, we took soil samples above in the low mounds in both of them, the east and west. And we took soil samples below the original ground surface. And that's one of the things that samples have been run. And what I was told by the lab was they will be able to tell us if in fact that dirt came from the same, from the original ground surface or not. They can't necessarily tell us where it came from, but he said he could pretty much tell if that soil was from there. We don't think that, we don't think that those artifacts are in situ. And so I'm anxiously awaiting that test result. Okay. Thank you. And so I guess, like on page 34 and 35, there'll be a slightly more description. So that would be obvious what these drawings are of is what I'm gathering from your previous comments. Okay. Well, I mentioned earlier, if you read, you know, if you read the unit by unit, Right. thing, you'll see that, you know, unit 1A is, they thought was a heart. And so that's why I took, I took the C14 samples there. And I did, I did a cross-section. I did excavated half and did a profile and then I did land views of all that. But again, there, that's multiple photographs and then we excavated all of the eight units around it. They had wanted nine excavation units, 3x3 meters to cover that area because David said you can't just look at the donut hole. You have to look at the donut and which made perfect sense. Unfortunately, and you'll read on one B through, what, B through I, there were no artifacts found in the excavations and the that stain did not extend beyond that one by one. Right. Okay. And so we do have good samples for, you know. Okay. Thank you. And you've answered that question. And I think this, my next question is for staff. Is page 57 in my booklet is the notice of action and it just says with condition revisions be made to staff. Do we not list what the conditions are in our communications to the archaeologist? We, it's, do they have to go back and listen to the YouTube? What, how is that communicated? I've lost you. I'm on the Zoom. Do you want me to unmute? If you elevate me as a panelist, maybe I can unmute and we could hear her. Yeah. So much. I can't see you. Yes. For a moment. Can you hear me? Okay. So, it's being transcribed, but we can't hear her. Yeah. It's like watching those captions that when you're watching TV. Welcome to digital tele. Sorry, guys. I can... Remember, we're going to try to get you to another way here. Okay. Do this. Okay, look. Can you hear us? Yeah, I can hear you. There we go. Let me just turn my mic. Can you please repeat? You had a question for staff is where we lost you. Okay. My question is, how are the conditions communicated to the archaeologists when we approve something with conditions? It just, because the letter that I see just says, it's very vague about, oh, just, you know, make the revisions that we said, kind of thing. And I just wondered if there was something that we give a more detailed direction to an archaeologist. We will be issuing a letter that's much more detailed, I would imagine, based on the conversation here. We would actually include an image so it can be abundantly clear. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Got that again, Kayla. Yeah, that, that's me. I was just trying to get rid of the feedback. There we go. Okay, thank you. That's all I got. All I got. Oh my God, I heard that. Yeah. I'm going to hit pause here until we get this sound figured out. Yes, member chair. I mean, chair. I like that. There we go. That should take care of it. Okay. Do you think you have it? We have, we got rid of the, we turned down our volume so we could use your... I'm not willing to use my project. I just wanted to make sure. But I'm still... You can hear us, Gayla. I can still hear you. Great. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Gayla. A plan was submitted to the CPRC and they issue the project specific permit for this project. But from what I heard you say regarding your conversations with Michelle, she said you didn't need a project specific permit. No, the CPRC said, they said you may not even need a project specific permit. You should talk to Michelle. And then I met with Michelle and, you know, on the 17th of February and she relayed what she was concerned about. Okay. But nonetheless, they did consider and approve a permit. No, SWCA had an approved permit. And what they told us in our meeting was that that couldn't operate under that, that they wanted a project, me to apply for a project-specific permit. And when I went before the CPRC, that's when they asked me those questions that I talked about in the beginning of this. And they said, "You might not even need a project-specific permit, and you should talk to Michelle Enzy, talk to Shipo, and see what she requires." That conversation with the CPRC, when did it occur? I'm trying to think. It was the last meeting of their... February 13th or something. Yeah, that sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The work was already done. Not completely, no. Everything but what we indicated you had to go back and do. Yeah. Was done. And that's why David asked me very specific questions about, you know, was I operating under my general permit? And I said yes. And they said, "And you rolled an unmarked burial permit?" And I said yes. And they asked on the school for the land 54777, what percentage I had tested. And I gave them that, you know, 0.17%. And they said, "Oh, that's way under what you're permitted to do." And then they said, "You need to talk to Michelle and see what she requires." So they didn't, they didn't make a ruling. They kind of punted. That's a very polite way of putting it. Oh, very good. But I have kept Michelle in the loop on what's happened to date. And as I said, she has this document. And, you know, I can get, you know, a letter for the committee, for staff, you know, based on what we had said and then what, um, you know, what I had addressed after her comments, you know, in this report. Okay. I know it's not kosher. It's a Chicago meat plant, is what it is. So thank you for obtaining an interest number and registering this with ARMS on the understanding that this was being done under a project-specific permit. The interim report lacks a couple of things that state rights say are supposed to be given, and they conveniently put all that on the title page. So you really only need to change the title page to fix all this. It's prepared for your client. Yes, but it's submitted to City of Santa Fe Historic Preservation Division and New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. Those are the agencies receiving. And it should have a permit number on it. I realize that permit wasn't issued to you, but you undertook the work under the plan that was approved for that permit. And I cannot get away from the fact that the permit exists, work was done, and that permit number should be cited so that it relates to something on paper that the CPRC looked at, talked about, and approved. The other thing that the state requires is that you must present a schedule for completion of the final report. The approved plan says within 12 months, which is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the regulation says within 12 months. So an actual days would be wonderful if you could do that. What I, for my client, in the proposal, I said within six months of completion of the field. And I can, we can put a date to it, and those changes should be provided to Michelle as well. Yes. I am mystified by the convenient view that the state is only concerned with what happens on the things on school for deaf property. But that being said, I'm concerned with all. I think this committee is concerned with all. As are we. And so I think your monitoring plan should be included to monitor all activities during this phase of work on all sites, and that includes 54765, which is being 15% interrupted by a proposed work. Well, I possibly, I, that is, that was one of the three that major ones that we addressed that were going to be fenced. Okay. So you're saying the blue line does not cross through. Oh, no. I see where you're saying that very edge there. Okay. So, So that's an overlay. But it's actually an exclusion. Yeah. It's not being crossed by the road. Well, I didn't plan on, I, as I told you, I saw this yesterday, and so the original plan that that put forth to me was to fence all these other sites. And if I may clarify, Chair E, so what we see here is this is, this, the whole area outlined in blue is an open space tract. Within the southern portion of that open space tract, we're going to be receiving some storm water. So there's actually no work that is going to be happening. And we have drilled down on this very carefully and we studied this little kind of connection area and we confirmed that we can stay out of that site during, during the construction. So I just, we just highlighted the open space tract, but the work is happening to create the ponding to the south. But this, this drainage, That's part of, that's going into it, but nothing, nothing over here is going to happen. Is that right? Yeah, that's, we, that is, that is a protectable thing. We studied this. We got, we zoomed in really carefully on that to make sure that we could fence that off. It's, but it's protected for only the road and infrastructure construction. Eventually it will be obliterated. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. One legally, I can't hear anything. Contents listing. For instance, it refers to the monitoring plan on page 41. It's actually on page 45. So, minor details. No, no, I'll take care of that. I'm not worried about it. Michelle can figure it out. She's probably already has. Archaeological monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. The sort of implication of you saying, "Well, I'll also monitor these other places," is that you're only monitoring the activity within the sites. Anywhere. Well, initially it would be anywhere where ground disturbance would occur during this initial phase. Anywhere. And, That means all of it. Well, it means any, yeah, where it crosses. And like I said, I initially addressed what Michelle had wanted, which was A5B and 777. But when I saw this today, and that's what I talked about in my introduction, was that these other sites absolutely need to be monitored if they're going to be impacted by this. Right. And you've spoken about the alignments. What about 54765? It'll be fenced. All three of them will be fenced. No disturbance during this phase at all. And you're not going to monitor the disturbance that's 26 feet away from the fence or one foot away from the fence. If the fence is at 25 feet, No, there'd probably be, I'd probably put a buffer, you know, fence. I wouldn't put the fence right on the property. I mean, right on the site boundary. Pull it back. What I'm after here is that normally when people are monitoring, they monitor within and some feet either side of site boundaries. Right? So if you're monitoring all ground disturbance, I'm happy because that's everything in blue. But if you're not monitoring all ground disturbance, I'm not happy because there will be things that are within X number of feet of a site that will not be monitored. So can we rectify that? Well, I, I'm at this point saying not, not the total roadway or infrastructure. I'm saying any, any place where a site occurs and there's ground disturbance would be monitored. Can we agree then on, is there like a zone? Distance? Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Yeah. Anything within 100 feet of a site boundary? Sure. Be monitored. Absolutely. And that way you have adequate opportunity for full warning. And then as usual, your monitoring will include photos and profiles of trench walls since utilities are going in there. Right? So we'll have all the stuff we normally get from it. Hand-drawn. Yes, you will. So Gayla will be happy with beautiful. I hope so. Gayla's going to get her beautiful drawings. Thank you. So staff, have you captured to your satisfaction the lengthy list of conditions that you want to put on paper? Chair. Yes. And I, I'll actually send a draft of this letter to you first before it goes to the applicant just to be double sure. But they're, Everyone possibly. Yes, absolutely. They would be qualified to address their commentary. And see that it's reflective. Yes. Okay. And I haven't captured everything, but I will make sure that it's right. That's cool. So, having said all that, would someone want to take a stab at a motion, which could be more or less to the effect of removing the interim report with the conditions specified and withholding approval of the greater project till such time as the final report is submitted, reviewed, and approved by this committee. So moved. That sounds like something you can say. You just said it. Well, you could just say so moved. I did say so moved. Sorry, but I had you turned off. You were on mute. Oh, so moved. Okay, second. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Greatly appreciated. Thank you all very much. I really want to get the results of soil and C14. Me too. Me too. And, Because if it was somebody's Saturday chicken dinner 30 years ago. Oh, it would have been a turkey dinner because the two bones we found in 777, one was a caprine sheep or goat. The other was turkey. Turkey. That's why I'm thinking, Remembered bird. I just didn't remember. That's why I did it. I'm thinking somewhere in the indie area. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, am I okay to take the sound away? And it's possible that everything will work again. Okay. Gotcha. Might be reading the way. Member Beal. Yes. Can you hear me? Okay. I can hear you. Still can't hear her. She's not coming through. You can't hear me. Member Becko, can you hear me? I can hear you. Can still. So, let's just change the speaker to like which. Can you hear me now? I can still hear you. Yes, you can. Yes. Chair E, if you could please just give me one moment. All the moments you need because I'm not going anywhere and we can hear. So, I, I can't see you. It's just a gray screen. Can you turn up your volume here? Let me turn this back off. So probably, okay. So you have, So you have, Hold on just a moment. I hated this microphone on. Member Beal, can you hear me? I can hear you, but it's echo. Hear you. But, Let's, let's just take this off and then we'll just turn the computer into them. We'll turn your computer to the committee. Now we need to do this. Remember, can you hear us? I can see you anyway. Member Becko. Yep. Can you hear me? You're very quiet. She can hear. We just can't hear her. Can you hear me now? I can hear you. You can? Yes. I can't hear you. So, give me a second. Just try that. Can you hear me now? I can hear you. And I can hear you. Have a kickback. Are you hearing multiple Amanda? No, I just hear one. Okay, great. Beautiful. Thank you for working your magic. Thank you, Terra. Thank you. We'll move on. Page number 202612089. Ron Winners, agent for Cablecom, applicant, requests approval for archaeological geometry plan for 240 feet of fiber optic line under 530 South Lupe 3 to 549 South Walup 3 and North downtown review. Thank you for putting that. You want to expand on? No, Chair. Thank you. Here you go. You're, Okay. Short and sweet. So, I did ask the City of Santa Fe traffic engineer, and he had no appetite for closing Guadalupe to trench there. I don't understand why, you know, after two years of, I, I know because I was on that project. A flyover. Yeah, a flyover. But anyway, it's a short segment, three bore pits. I monitor each one, and especially because LA 14649 is shown within the project area boundaries. I would be on high alert in those bore pits to see if there was any evidence of that. And again, like always, hand-drawn profiles for those. I could do it for all three, actually, because it may change. Okay, that's all. That's it. Member Beal, while we can hear you, please hold for... Which one did you just say it was that you were expecting to find? What number? In the introduction, it's LA14649. And if you look at the very last, the map check, Nimris map server map check on page 46, you can see that site where it intersects with my project area. The only caveat was that a lot of these sites, it doesn't depict the actual boundaries. Oh, right. Yeah. So, I would watch closely in that. Not that I don't anyway, but in those bore pits when they dug them, I'd be looking for evidence at that site. So, if you find something as they're boring, then do they stop and trench? Well, as I said, the City of Santa Fe does not want to do that. Yeah. Not shut down Guadalupe after the grief they caught for the reconstruction project. Member Beal, his only chance to see anything are in the several pits. I see. Okay. Once the boring starts, aren't going to see anything, but... That's it. Okay, thank you. If he sees them in the pits, then yeah, they're going to have to figure out how to avoid damage until such time as he can deal with it. But the boring will be boring in all senses of the word. Thank you. I have nothing. I just want to ask why. For over 20 years, I've seen you submit to such things, and you've always got a segment on the environment, and it's not here. Oh, how did I... At least in what ended up in my possession. Oh, you're kidding. You mean it's not here, this area? You mean it's not here? It's not. No, I... Oh, I'm sorry, D. So, please take pains to look at the soil maps. Yes. In the same way you have in recent times, and be aware of the naturally occurring soils that were there before everybody hammered it with whatever. And so, if you see remnants of natural soil, you'll not be forewarned. And then if it all turns into an urban flood, which is a polite term for the soil produced by development, you'll know. Well, absolutely. It'll be in the final report. Yeah. I don't know how I got away with that this time. Member Back, can you hear us? I can now. I'm sorry, it went out. Member Trice has made a motion. Member Trice, could you please repeat your motion? Sort of. So many words. I'll paraphrase it. I move that we accept the monitoring plan with the addition of climate and soil conditions in the final report. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." Aye. Next. Okay. So on this one, for the record, it is case number 202612091. Ron Winners, for City of Santa Fe River and Watershed Section, applicant requests approval for archaeological reconnaissance report for 6.89 acres at 1709 Serio Road in the Suburban Archaeological Review District. We have a staff report. Amanda, anything to add? Yes, I believe Lambo has something she wishes to add. Thank you. So my comments are, and I'm sorry I didn't get to all of these before this, but anyway. The Santa Fe Grant map, there's a lot of discussion about the map and about the Sienna map, and it's there. It would be great to have an image of the Santa Fe Grant map. And also, there are a lot of historic maps depicting acequias, and I didn't see any historic maps as an attachment to this report. So I think that's important to include. And then a lot of the reference to the Mayordomos, it seems to me that, you know, there was a 2017 report that was referenced, but I think it would be important to interview Phil Bove, if possible, because he maintains all, and his daughter's actually helping out. She's the Mayordoma. I don't know, but she's doing that. She has that role now. And I think in terms of maintenance practices and maybe just getting some additional information, it would be helpful if you included him and have an interview with him. Got it. Okay. Members, wait, you jump ahead. Go ahead. So I am principal investigator on this project, and I actually did the survey, and Emily wrote the report. So I think questions you have, you want to address Emily, and she's ready to answer anything and everything. That's my ability. Since you wrote it, do you want to add anything before we charge ahead? I don't believe so. The only note that I have in the committee, after I submitted this to you, the engineers came back with a clarification of the design, and it was the main thing of note is that the material of the diversion structure within Ashbot Channel has yet to be determined, whereas in my report, I believe if I stated it would be concrete. So a little less clarification there. That remains to be determined, but that's my only... Do you want to talk about the channel? I keep talking about... The channel, the Ashpot Channel. We couldn't find information on its date of construction beyond that it predates 1935. And it would appear to have been part of a broader system in the area when that portion of the city was used agriculturally. I suspect that any excess water from those would have been fed into that drain, which in turn would have conveyed that water into the Arroyo San Antonio, which is both an Arroyo, but also part of the Madre system in the sense that other branches of the acequia downstream drew water from that. So it's a funny hybrid type of feature in the sense that it's a drain, but also part of the older acequia system, now currently just a storm drain. So for that reason, it's been difficult to determine its potential eligibility. Right now. When I was just reading this, it's very confusing because there are these three converging waterways which have different names sometimes. And I was surprised that we didn't see some older maps of the acequia. I think that would be very helpful. Both Gayla and I live in this neighborhood, Cassra. You know, we're pretty familiar with how the channels run over there. But some of the pictures, I had some confusion just trying to figure out which is this, is this the channel? I think yes, math will really help a lot because not only that, but because when you look at Google Earth pictures of it, parts disappear and then they appear again. It's kind of hard to tell which is which. But I did have, there was a statement made on page 30 of my PDF, which is page two of the report. The acequia Madre Santa Fe, part of the oldest impacted acequia system in the Southwest. Say that again, Tom. You're on page two. Second last paragraph of page two. There's, it says, "The Acequia de los Pinos Pio is a segment of the Acequia Madre of Santa Fe and part of the oldest intact system in the Southwest." I just wonder if that's actually true or if that's just something that we say in Santa Fe. I know that there's... It was, that was information was taken from the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Downtown Historic District. So it has to do with Santa Fe. Yeah. But I think there's places in the Phoenix area, whole irrigation systems that are still being used. Okay. So maybe one of the oldest instead of the oldest, qualify that. You could probably verify that one way or the other. I mean, you know, verbally right now, but... I spent a lot of time in Phoenix area growing up, and I'm really fond of the whole thing. You should put my head. I think Silver Project actually does use similar their... Okay. Channels for their current irrigation. Page 39 is six or something. Here's my version technology. Okay, that's, I was really happy to see this. Actually, this whole paragraph, legal rights to access water for the sake of Pinos, that whole, that whole paragraph is, I was happy to see that. I haven't had a problem with it. I was just happy to see it included in... Thank you. Page 51, which is pictures, and that's where I was having problems once again, just trying to identify what, which one is which. And that would be CA233 of the report. So, it looks like there's two parallel water channels there. And I don't know which one is which. Okay. And then flows into the Arroyo at the end. But maybe that thing on the extreme right side of the picture isn't really a channel. Exactly. It's just a depression or... That like it's a channel of some sort. So I know what you're talking, which picture are you referring? The top, the figure seven. On page 23. Isn't that along the fence line? Because there was a footpath through there. I didn't identify that as a channel. That's the channel that goes all the way to the Arroyo. It's the last half of it or the last bit of it. Is that, is that the Ashwalk Channel with the rocks in the bottom? Oh, are you talking about, are you talking about this? No, I'm talking about both of actually. The one in the middle. The channel. Is that the Ashwa Channel? You were there and I was... Because it's described as being rock wide. Yeah. No, that's the channel. I thought you were talking about, talking about that. No, that... Have any idea what... That, that wasn't... That's nothing. No. Okay. It's just... The grass is just, the grass is just beaten down. There were along the fence lines on both sides, there were foot traffic, you know, that followed the fence lines. It just gets really confusing, you know, especially when you have the acequia crossing the, crossing the Arroyo. I guess... It crosses the channel just above where the channel empties into Arroyo, but they're all three very close together at that. Yeah. Also, I looked up flume because I didn't know what a flume was. And I'm not sure where, I'm not sure that's a flume. Looks to me like a culvert, but you know, a flume in the definitions I saw was an open channel, you know, or open like a sluice almost, but I don't, you know, I don't know if there's a better word or not. Is so it, to me that picture, it looks like there's a big culvert and then it goes into a smaller culvert. And is there like concrete or something around packed around the bottom so the water doesn't leak out? Is that what that is? Is that what that is? Yeah. It rests kind of in a, yeah, concrete. It's in so that the water doesn't go out the ground over... You're talking about right here. Yeah. Yeah. So, after I got done reading everything, and I just, you know, wanted to reiterate as Director Lamboy said, it would be nice to include the Mayor, Mayordomo, in any of these discussions, especially considering the problem that we had down the road a little bit. Try to avoid that because there's going to be significant work done here, and it would be bad to have to come after the fact and say, "Well, what happened to the..." Is there any of this that can be fenced while they're under construction, do you think? So the Acequia de los Pinos proper, they've specifically designed it so that the ground disturbance will not extend as far as that, and they intend to fence the acequia. It's the channel, they intend to install a diversion structure into. So we could ask them to fence the portions that aren't going to be impacted by their project if that's a concern, but the channel itself will be altered. Yeah. The last thing, it kind of looks like it disappears from the Indian School head. I mean, I believe it's still there. Still there. But it's still okay. Yeah. Yeah, you can see it. You can follow it, especially when they turn the water on. You can really see where it goes. My daughter and I used to play boat races in that on the Indian land behind the, or right behind the Indian School. Okay. It just crosses that corner. That's all we had. Okay. Forgive me. I've forgotten. Gayla, did you have a chance to speak already on this one? No, I have just one more question. I mean, I agree that the acequia maps, I mean, why not include them? But also the diagrams on nine and 10 of 10, and the impress number. So it's flipped because the channel is on the other side than where it's shown. Like the shape of the, yeah, the channel is on the south side of the park, not the north side of the park. Can you point us to the page? It's page 10, and it's this little, this little leg right here. The channel is on this side, but you're showing it on this side. I still don't know where I can page. It's under the, it's under the MERS. Okay. Gayla, that's an image just of the area we surveyed that was generated by the Nimrist database. So that extension indicates an access road. It's not meant to depict the channel. But the channel extends to Serrios Road, correct? It does, but that map doesn't show the channel at all. It shows only the area we surveyed. Oh, I see. So you didn't go all the way to Serrios. We surveyed only the area of potential effect. So when we defined the channel as a cultural resource, we did extend it all the way to Serrios Road. But this map that you were looking at only shows the survey area, not anything that we found. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So that part that goes to Fuser Road from the park, kind of next to the fire department, isn't going to be touched. Is that line in this? Right. Okay. I surveyed it. Okay. All the way to the, yeah, confusing. So, but I don't guess you have that. Yeah. Right. Yeah. It's just how the database generated it. Right. Yeah. That's all I have. Yep. That's all. Thank you. Two things. The language you said you lifted from the National Register nomination. Depending on how you change it and match earlier commentary, you may or may not benefit from a citation to the actual form. Okay. For the language in question. But how you do that is up to you. Page 21 of God knows what. That's the paper I'm looking at. In figure five, there's a date structure illustrated. The captions has the ACPI number rendered 53355. And that's really all given the amount of additional work that's kind of requested staff and echoed by the members of the committee. I'm at a loss for a simple way to proceed here. I think the committee needs to see this again once you've done all of that. So, we get approved with the condition that approval is pending receipt of the modified report for further consideration. That was very stupid. Or you could just say, you want to postpone it, or you could just say you want to draw it so you can fix it and bring it back. If we need to make a motion, it's going to be postponement to the date certain because we can't, I think, usefully approve something that needs modification to this extent because what you find out may very well change what you have to say about project and its effects. So could you do all that by the next meeting? We could postpone to the next meeting and Amanda will give us the date certain. I am searching that right now. Chair, the 23rd of April. Yes. Can you do that? Yes. Okay. So, I'm suggesting that a motion to postpone to 23 April is the easy way out. Heather, My apologies, Chair E, but I've been, I speak Spanish, but I had to research this. I don't think it's Pino. I think it's Pino because Pino is the term for pine trees. And I looked at some historic maps and it says Pino versus, Yeah. And I don't know if it's, yeah. And of course, you know, if you think of the surname, it's also just Pino. True. But the name may have been by somebody in the state engineer's office who rendered it as Pinos in the records. So dive into the records and find out what the darn thing's real name is. And the best person to ask is Bill. So Heather, is he, the last time I saw him, he wasn't doing much, but you said his daughter has taken over that mantle. Yes, that's correct. And I have her information if you need that. Oh, yeah. I'll get it. I have it at my desk. Okay. If she doesn't have it at her fingertips, she'll ask. Yeah. But no, that's a great idea. So, committee members want to take a crack at anything? Do you guys want, is that your thinking? Yeah. To the next meeting. Well, did they just withdraw it? No, that was why I was speaking because I wanted to determine whether they could, Next meeting. So if we postpone the day certain, I want to make sure they have certainty they can get us here in time for the next meeting. Okay. I move that we postpone the consideration of this case number 012091 to the next meeting in April of this year, the 23rd, April 23rd, 2026. Second. Motion seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, guys. That's all right. Thank you. Thank you all for your, You're leaving us so soon. This is for not being here for like 10 years. Yeah. With a long vacation. Okay. Number 202612087, archaeological studies agent for the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs facilities management applicant requests approval of an archaeological monitoring plan for the installation of electrical wiring of the exhibit services building located at 120 Lincoln Avenue in the downtown district. Well, thank you for the staff report, Heather. Do you have anything you want to add to this before we, Yes, Chair, I put the wrong person for the applicant. So, as you just stated, I can update my memo. I just realized that. And then I just had some edits and I realized I didn't email y'all my report. So, I'm going to give you a copy. Just minor stuff like Stephen Post's work. You have 200x and it was 2011. So, just make those updates and there are several in your list of projects, things that have changed and have been completed. So, if you could just update that to sort of like Loy was one of them. Okay. So, your removal of that applicant name solves, All right. My questions. Presenter be identified and sworn in. Please. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Nat Barber, 725 Camino Allejo, Santa Fe, New Mexico. You want to go ahead and speak? Yeah. Antonio Cruz, 725 Camino Allejo. 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. Yes. Thank you, Chris. All right. Chairman EC, members of the committee, the office of archaeological studies was not able to come here today. So, John Taylor Montoya was sick, so I apologize that he was not able to make it here. He did prepare the report. I did review it as the principal investigator. And I do stand for any questions. We are looking at pretty much in essence, I will keep it very, very short because it's been a long meeting, and I'm sure you guys are ready for it. We're looking at complete 100% monitoring of project, the proposed project area with stoppages for discovery of any archaeological features and hand excavation and reporting of those features using the standard forms and analysis methods utilized by the office of archaeological studies. With that, I'll stand for questions or whatever you guys can say. You want to add. I just, I'm just here to answer questions on the project and the new facilities manager. So, if you guys have questions on what exactly what we're doing, then just let me know and I can answer those questions for you. Thank you. And back. All right. Member back. No questions. Number three. On, let's see, page 12 of the report, page 16 of the PDF, the second paragraph of a brief history of the subsidio that starts with I, the time of the federal law. I, there's something wrong there. Not going to presume what it is, but, Fair enough. Fair enough. I will, we will get that corrected for you. Just off the top of your head, what's it trying to say? I think that word, it looks like that word can just be, the I can be removed. The time at, at the time of the Pueblo Revolts, the Casas Reales had a wall surrounding it and two towers. So I think the word there is actually at, but I will ensure that that gets fixed for the final or for the updated monitoring report. And then toward the end in the next section. So what page are you on? I'm on page 28. Okay. The Sanborn map says 1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance map, but the map itself says 1930. I don't know the Sanborn maps that well, but I would think that if you're talking about the 1948 map, you would have 1930, 1938 map. I don't know. I was just confused by that. I don't know what to think there. You're talking about 1913, 1920, and 1930. And you have the 1930 map, but you have, So, you're talking and it says portion of the 1948 map. Yeah. But up in the right hand corner, it says 1930. So this is, the residences have been demolished. So I'm wondering if this is the 1948 map, then it's revised from the 1930, then that what you're seeing there is the earlier proposal, but we can get that looked into and modified for the report. The last comment that made in her memo says, Exactly the same thing. The Sanborn map. Oh, I show all. I noticed there was something, yeah. And we have those, the city. Oh, we have them too. I apologize. We'll get them added into. Okay, great. All I got. Yes. Okay. And I would just suggest that if the latest one shows what you want to show and showing early ones is just to illustrate that nothing much was happening, you could make them smaller. No. Well, we'll put them in anyways. It's just good for, for report. I don't have anything to add. Thank you. Someone take a crack at a motion. I move that we approve with the suggested changes by staff. Case number 012087. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful evening, guys. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Okay. Our last case, 026012090 SWCA Environmental Consultants agent for Dominion Due Diligence applicant requests approval for archaeological reconnaissance report for 6.5 acres at 3471 Serius Road in Suburban Archaeological Review District. Thank you for the staff report. Amanda, anything you need to add to that? Yes, I have just two things. Chair, first of all, I have Robin Cado, the architect. Can you raise your hand? Actually, Robin is no longer working with SWCA. Okay. Is there a representative on SWCA's behalf? Raise your hand. I don't see anybody. Is that, let me see, Gill's iPhone, S.P. Gill's iPhone. Do you want to unmute yourself? Are you on behalf of the applicant? Chair, I do not have anyone shown for this applicant. Would I wish to possibly move it to a future, the next hearing if possible? Committee members, what's your feeling here? Do you want to postpone this until someone can represent it, or do you feel you know enough to proceed? I didn't have any comment on the report other than I was surprised they didn't find anything. So I'm okay with it. Well, page two, the stripes, the form is obliterated or amassed of ten, an impressed form. And I couldn't understand about the historic buildings that must have been there. Are they already gone? So they were never surveyed, I suppose. And then on page A1 in the appendix, under all the cultural resources, there's a whole bunch of buildings that say "data entry in progress." So I don't know what that is. So there's, I don't know how many, is that 10, 12, 15 Hickpies that are pending? Do you all see that on A1? I do see it. Those are all, I believe, said to be outside the project area. Project area. Okay. So that doesn't matter so much. With one exception, HCPI 54243, there's no notation of in or out, which implies that it's both. So, also, Chair, if we are going to hear this case, Director Lamboy has something to add for it. Correct? If it is going to be heard. It was just Robin. Okay. Oh, that's okay. Thank you. So you got me ahead. Okay. Well, just personally, I think I have questions that I'd like to actually ask somebody who's at least digitally present, if not physically present, before I would feel comfortable moving forward on this thing. Staff agree. Okay, that's six or eight of us. So again, it's your pleasure, folks. Do you want to postpone or do you want to forge ahead? I'm okay with postponing, especially if there are questions. I didn't have any questions, but that doesn't mean anything. Once you sleep on it, you may have a question. Postponed. Good for me. Okay. Then a motion to postpone to April 23rd will be the simplest. Okay. I make a motion that we postpone 012090 until April, when we can ask questions that may be answered by a present human being. I second. Moved and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying "Aye." Aye. Aye. It is postponed. Thank you. Administrative matters and communication. Yes, Chair. So one thing that came up is, and this is on us, we missed adding an item to this agenda, and it's Easy Fiber. And I was wondering if you would be willing to hear it on the 9th, which would be the second meeting of the month that you typically have scheduled but don't do, or if you would just prefer to take it at the regular time. Is it a case? Is it a case or an informational item? A monitoring plan. Oh, so it should be on the regular night, in my opinion. Okay, very good. What do you think, Tom? What day are you talking about as an alternate? The 9th of April. Yes. 7th, 8th, 9th. That's a Thursday, right? Correct. Yeah. I am open to either option. He's flexible. I'm sort of with Kayla. I'd rather just do it at the regular meeting. It's only two weeks. Yeah, that's the only difference. Okay, I'll communicate that. Thank you. Appreciate that. I also want to let you know that Shelby Mason applied to be one of the archaeologists on the committee. She's with New Mexico Gas, and you may have seen some of her work. She did most recently the Elagwan report. So, for New Mexico Gas in collaboration with Robin Cordero. So, we have forwarded her resume. I checked in with the Chair, and we have forwarded her resume to the Mayor for appointment. So, hopefully, we will have another Archaeological Review Committee member by next time. So that'll provide a little relief. And then, the only other thing that I would like to bring up is the Certified Local Government Grant Program. You know that there are grants that are available. One of the things that I've had on my work plan for quite a while is a conference that was wildly popular back in 1997 when we organized it. It was called "Archaeology in Your Backyard," and a lot of the local archaeologists presented on their findings in the area. I think Alicia Abbott was one. And I don't know if this committee has the appetite for us to seek a grant to produce another one, and then the papers were also produced as a publication for the public. So I wanted to get your feedback on that. It wouldn't happen until probably May or June next year if it were to happen. I think it's a great idea, though. The Historic Preservation Alliance will have their conference again in 2027. I think it's going to be in Albuquerque next year, and I think it might be May or June also, Heather. So it would be nice to coordinate with them, but I think it'd be a great idea. All right. So I will apply for a grant. In the past, in the '90s, we used some of the archaeological fund as well. So if we don't get the grant, then maybe it's not a dead thing, but it's just a different type of funding. So, and then finally, I just wanted to provide a little background on me because you all know that there's been a staff change. So my undergraduate is in Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin, and I have two masters, one in Community Regional Planning and the other one in Latin American Studies with a history emphasis. I am a wannabe archaeologist. I took an elective in my undergraduate with Dr. Linda Sheiley, and she studies, she was a Maya scholar, and so I did fieldwork at Chichén Itzá and Izamal, Yucatán. And I've also done fieldwork at Chaco Canyon and the like. So most of my experience is in Mesoamerica, but I take seriously this committee, and I will be more diligent about getting these reports read in time. So that's it. Thank you. I've appreciated your suggestions and the reports, which we haven't had before, as far as changes or additions. That's nice to have. Oh, great. Yeah. The person, the next archaeologist, was the young lady that Robin said he was going to monitor whenever she... Correct. But not the woman that sat in for a partial meeting and then... No, not Amanda either. Okay. We asked for some additional information. We haven't received it yet. So, once we receive something, then we will maybe pursue that, but it seems like Shelby's qualifications were greater than Miss Mathers. Nice to have somebody that's young. Yes, I agree. Not as old as us, young Tom. Yeah. Got her hand up. Oh, yes. There she is. I have a question if it's, I don't know if it's in the time of the... Oh, you're going to... Sorry. Oh, hold on just one moment, Member Beal. Shelby, you can unmute yourself if you wish to speak. Okay. Heather, is this the time when you wanted me to talk about the Kearney anode installations? Yeah, that would be great. Just this is an administrative matter and a reporting out. So sorry to make you wait so long. No worries. I just wasn't sure when that would happen. Okay. Yeah, I can go ahead with that. So at the recommendation of Heather, I wanted to, I just, sorry, it's been a long day. I decided to come here this afternoon to tell you about some best management practice monitoring I was doing under the supervision of Paul Duran on Kearney Road and Kearney Avenue. So New Mexico Gas Company was installing anodes on an existing mainline, and so that provides protection for the line to prevent corrosion. The work was not big enough to require monitoring. We had discussed this a lot with Paul previously in the months leading up to it, but we decided the best course of action was to have me be out there to watch the work. And of course, it being the Kearney Road area, we did find human remains. This happened on February 25th, and March 5th and 6th was when the excavations were happening. You know, on the February 25th one, I reported it to Michelle Enzy and also Santa Fe Police. And Santa Fe Historic Preservation Division was notified after the fact, but talking with Michelle, since it was a partial femur that was, and some small, less than one centimeter pieces of bone that were found basically right at the end of the day, as we were done excavating, it was decided that, you know, I would clean up the area so the crews didn't have to dig anymore. It was like less than an inch that was excavated and screened. And then they installed the anodes, and everything was reburied under the line. And then the other burials were even more partial on Kearney Avenue for another anode. It was a partial tibia and then some other small fragments. Yeah, and that one, though, was associated with quite a bit, quite a few coffin nails. Those were found much earlier in the excavation. So the rest of that was hand-dug, not with the bulldozer, but with the shovels, and everything was screened after finding the bones. I'm going to be writing a formal report on this, and I can submit it to the ARC for your reference. Thank you, Shelby. Yes, a report for reference and HPD's files would be wonderful. I think often these things disappear into the state, and people who need to know sometimes don't know. So it would be very helpful if you did exactly as you said, as long as that is allowable on all sides of this issue. I can't speak for HPD. They obviously have jurisdiction on the human remains and may have an opinion as to sharing reports. This was conducted in city right-of-way where the digging took place. I had heard from Paul that this had happened and was invited to make a visit. And as it turns out, I arrived from a certain cemetery in a certain city east of us precisely 30 minutes after you had left. I had a great conversation with the crew who were standing around waiting for somebody to come and load up that enormous chunk of steel plate that had been protecting the opening. So it wasn't a waste because one of the gentlemen actually was knowledgeable about what I'm doing in the certain city east of here and some interesting insights into how things do or do not work the way they should or shouldn't in several jurisdictions. So I'm glad I made the effort. So we can compare notes someday. Sure. Yeah, that sounds great. Yeah. If that's all, we'll move on to matters from the committee. Gayla, anything you need to bring up? There are two things. One is I will find a way to get my Bronze Army Hospital documents to you and to the city. And also, I was wondering about the LAR that we pay for. We said we'd pay for adjacent to the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum. If that's ever happened, did that ever happen? Chair, Member Beal, it hasn't happened yet. Our procurement processes have been going back and forth. It's like, no, we don't need three quotes. No. So, fortunately, just last night, I mean, this is like the part of bureaucracy that drives me nuts, but last night, there was a bill that was introduced and approved by the City Council where we have one quote for something like this. We can do a contract. So, since that was approved last night, I'm going to be moving forward because we have the quote already. So, but I'm sorry for the delay. It's been a lot of back and forth with procurement. Thank you. It would be fair to say when the ducks are in a row, it will arrive here for our consideration as to whether or not we think we should spend the archaeological fund monies to support such things. I think we already voted yes on it, didn't we? Yes, we did. You all did approve the quote. Okay, my memory is failing. I don't remember actually voting because I don't remember it actually having been introduced as a case. I'll send you the quote. From my recollection, you guys approved that you would do it, but we were going to bring you back what the actual quote would be. I'm not mistaken, but from my recollection, you approved that you wanted to move forward with it, but for us to bring the quote to you. Okay. If I'm wrong, we authored the quote, but we did. We had a consensus approval for pursuing the question. We didn't approve. Sorry, it's my partial memory. Yeah. Yeah. I'll just get the minutes. Yeah. Yeah, I'll get that one. Thank you. I don't have anything. I'm excited to have another committee. It's kind of small. It would be nice to be bigger. Yes. Yes. And more diverse. Yes. Small but mighty. I don't have anything to bring up. I think I'm around. I don't plan on going anywhere. I was to Texas and back. Austin in my case. Where are you, Gayla? I am in Canyon, Texas, or between Amarillo and Canyon. I'm going to College Station tomorrow to see my daughter get her white coat from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M. Yeah. Congratulations to her. Congratulations. Thank you. Yeah, big deal. It's a big deal. Even though we've never met her, give her an extra hug because we think it's great. I will. Oh, thank you. Yeah, she did it all on her own. Okay, we know already that the next meeting is April 23, 2026. So that takes care of item 10 on the agenda. We're to item 11. I move we adjourn until April 23. Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks, you guys. See you later. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye.