2026-09-24 - Archeological Review Committee

00:00He's muted.

00:06>> Call this meeting the archaeological

00:07review committee September 24th, 2026 to

00:11order. May we have the roll call,

00:12please?

00:14>> Member Majes

00:15>> here. Chair Ed

00:17>> present.

00:18>> Member Trice

00:20>> here.

00:22>> Member Beal

00:26>> excuse.

00:28>> Chair, you have a quorum.

00:31Thank you. First item for our attention

00:35is approval of agenda.

00:37Staff, anything to

00:40add or change?

00:43>> No, chair.

00:44>> Thank you.

00:49>> Second. All right. I move to approve the

00:52agenda.

00:57>> So you won't be able to hear it.

01:02I see that member responded to

01:05>> affirmatively, but I can't hear it.

01:11>> Can you hear me? No.

01:13>> Yes, we can hear you now. We fix it.

01:15Thank you.

01:16>> Okay.

01:16>> So, we have a motion.

01:20>> Uh second

01:23move and seconded. All in favor signify

01:25by saying I. I. I

01:29>> I motion carries. Thank you. We have no

01:33minutes. So we'll move to matters floor.

01:36First item is Georgia O'Keeffe Museum

01:39for Marcy quarters briefing.

01:43>> Miss Nicole RmIrez Thomas.

01:45>> Chair F. Uh Nicole Ramirez Thomas is

01:48unable to be here but she wanted to

01:51provide you Ricken documentation but she

01:54is not here to answer any questions that

01:56you may have. She just wanted to give

01:57you a written update.

01:59>> Excellent.

02:01Then committee, do you have any comments

02:04or questions to pose that we could

02:07eventually get answered?

02:12I was curious um from the standpoint of

02:16uh these uh quarters if they were

02:22typical of uh military quarters of the

02:26time and maybe um maybe what their

02:29comparison to quarters similar quarters

02:32at Fort Union. That was that was all I

02:34really was curious about was how how

02:36they related to other officers quarters

02:39around the southwest.

02:43Not part of their presentation, but just

02:45a curiosity from my part.

02:50Excellent question. And I think staff

02:52could forward that to

02:54the company in question and they could

02:57incorporate discussion of same in their

03:00actual chapter on this matter when they

03:04create it.

03:06We will chair.

03:10>> No, I didn't have anything.

03:13>> I just wanted to note that it reads very

03:16much like a

03:20proposal of work as opposed to a report

03:24of work accomplished. The use of the

03:27future tense

03:30is a little odd in some places.

03:34I imagine that will all get rectified in

03:37the final report.

03:39All right,

03:42we can move on to the second item from

03:44the floor regards Mark Grant Park.

03:49Donald Purdan of WSP has

03:55sent a letter

03:58to Mr. Purdan.

04:02He is one moment please chair.

04:08>> Hello Donald Purdan here.

04:11>> Hello.

04:13So thank you for sending us in. Do you

04:15have any further verbiage to offer?

04:20Um

04:21yeah, just the main question of whether

04:23or not we would have to, you know,

04:25update the current HCPIs

04:28along the park or andor, um record new

04:33HCPIs along the length of the park. Um

04:37there's no plan on impacting any of the

04:39houses. All the disturbance is going to

04:42be staying within the park. Um, so I

04:45just would like some clarification on

04:48whether we even need to update the

04:50houses or not.

04:54>> All right. Thank you. Um, member Trace,

04:56do you have some thoughts?

04:58>> Uh, no, I really don't. Um

05:03uh when you say all the disturbance will

05:05be within the park, do you mean not in

05:07the roadway but actually in the like

05:11channel of the aoyo or whatever?

05:14>> Correct. It'll be entirely in the park.

05:16Um I guess it's just a you know park

05:18improvement project and not anything to

05:20do the roadways or the sidewalks. Um, I

05:23think there was a nearby project, a

05:25previous survey where the project

05:27actually did impact, you know, sidewalks

05:29and

05:31front front yards. Um, however, this one

05:34will not be doing that. So,

05:36>> okay.

05:39Uh, nothing further.

05:42>> Okay. Thank you, member Madison.

05:44>> Yeah. I was curious what the actual size

05:47of the work to be done was.

05:52>> What the the size of it?

05:54>> Sorry.

05:54>> Yeah.

05:56>> Um it um

05:59it's pretty much just the park. Um wish

06:03I could share my screen. Can I share my

06:05screen?

06:07>> So, are they doing work on the entire

06:11park or just parts of the park? Like

06:14what is the actual size of the work?

06:16>> Yeah, the entire park as I know it. So

06:18it'd be going from um Richard's Avenue

06:23across Camino Consuela and all the way

06:27to the intersection of

06:31you know almost to Stringo Road and

06:34is it Aanita Deos

06:39was it Companion.

06:43So yeah, the entire length of the park.

06:47>> And what kind of drainage improvements

06:48were going to be done?

06:50>> Um, it's just park like actual park

06:52improvements. No drainage improvements

06:54or anything.

06:57>> Okay.

07:01>> And what are those going to be?

07:03>> Um, that is not something I'm clear on

07:06right now. Um,

07:08all I was told by our engineers was that

07:11all the, you know, the entire

07:12undertaking and all the improvements

07:14would be within the park boundaries.

07:19>> Okay.

07:26>> I'm aware survey might be needed

07:28regardless, but yeah, I just wasn't

07:30sure.

07:32Okay. [laughter]

07:39Mr. Purden. Um,

07:40>> yes.

07:44>> My question was the same as what you've

07:46already heard. What are the actual

07:48drainage improvements of

07:51somebody busting out old grain

07:54orififices and replacing them is one

07:56thing or rebuilding the whole thing from

07:59stem to stern is another thing. So, it's

08:02really helpful to know what the

08:04undertaking consists.

08:09Yeah, as far as I know, from what the

08:11engineers told me, it's mostly just park

08:13improvements. I don't I'm not aware of

08:15any drainage improvements or any, you

08:16know, necessarily infrastructural

08:19improvements. Uh I'm sorry, I don't have

08:21any more information than that. Um but I

08:25do know it won't be crossing the streets

08:26into the properties.

08:31>> All right.

08:34>> Yes. Go ahead.

08:39>> Um, the email says the project inc uh

08:43includes drainage improvements or

08:45involves drainage improvements, but

08:47you're saying it doesn't. Uh, I think

08:49we're confused.

08:51>> Yeah. Um,

08:53I I must have gotten confused about

08:55that. I apologize.

09:01>> I think we need a plan. I I I don't

09:04think we're ready to do anything about

09:06this.

09:08>> Okay, that's

09:10that's okay. I will let the engineers

09:12know and have and ask for a little bit

09:14more clarification on what's actually

09:15going to be done in the park and then

09:17I'll reach back out to you all.

09:19>> Thank you.

09:21>> Right. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

09:25[clears throat]

09:29It is the case that we typically do not

09:32include consideration of extra property

09:37historic structures

09:39because we're focused on the

09:41archaeology, not the architecture.

09:46And we've had numerous projects that

09:48came through where

09:51did update HCPIs, but the vast majority

09:54of them people did not update ACPI

09:58phones.

10:00I guess it all kind of depends.

10:04>> So when we know more, we'll know more.

10:09>> Can I a question on that? Based on that

10:11comment is another matter from the

10:13floor.

10:14>> Yep.

10:15>> Um we're currently doing a survey of the

10:17Midtown campus, an archaeological

10:20survey, but there are as we know many

10:21buildings on that campus. Should we

10:24update this HCPI forms for those

10:26buildings or based on what you just

10:29said, is that not necessary because

10:31we're focused on the archaeology

10:34or is that not enough information?

10:36>> Oh, that's plenty of information. And if

10:39staff hasn't weighed in on that already,

10:42somebody needs to talk to somebody on

10:44the historic sign whatever board they

10:46call themselves now and find out because

10:49that should have been specified in your

10:51contract.

10:54follow up with you.

10:55>> Yeah, we can we can discuss it, but I

10:58think it was contemplated that at least

10:59the Foglesson would have an HCPI and um

11:05Garrison

11:07as well.

11:07>> I think John Murphy just did those.

11:10>> He might be involved already. I think I

11:13had a couple conversations with him, but

11:15let's have a let's talk. Okay, we can

11:19figure it out. Okay, great. Thanks.

11:28Thank you.

11:31>> Anything else?

11:35>> Then we will move to old business

11:38which is case number 202612632.

11:47Joshua Vos Engineering Company agent for

11:50the city of Santa Fe public utilities

11:52department requests approval of a

11:54revised archaeological monitoring

11:55results report for the installation of

11:58water infrastructure in the vicinity of

12:00Rancho Seringo Drive in the suburban

12:02archaeological review district.

12:05Thank you for your staff report.

12:06Heather, is there anything else you want

12:10to add? Uh, you know, chair, I just

12:14follow up on what was pre previously

12:17identified as needed additional

12:19information.

12:21>> Have you communicated the substance of

12:23this report to Mr. Bios?

12:28>> Uh, I think we have.

12:31>> Yes, this is updated.

12:33>> So, I ask because otherwise I feel like

12:37I should read the report into the

12:40record. But if he already knows then

12:43Okay.

12:48So, is he present?

12:51>> Yes. Josh, will you please unmute

12:53yourself? Thank you.

12:54>> Yep.

12:57>> All right. Josh, anything you want to

13:01add to all of this?

13:05>> As of right now, no.

13:07>> Okay.

13:08>> Do I have to be sworn in? Yes, you do.

13:10Please state your name and address for

13:12the record.

13:13>> Uh Joshua Viaos, 1010 Parkland Place, uh

13:17Albuquerque, New Mexico.

13:21>> Do you solemnly declare and affirm the

13:23testimony you have in reference to this

13:25item is the truth, the whole truth, and

13:26do this under the penalties of perjury?

13:29>> Yes.

13:31>> Thank you.

13:33>> You have the floor, sir. If there is

13:36anything that comes to mind

13:39or we can proceed with committee

13:41commentary and question.

13:43>> Uh say proceed with committee commentary

13:45and questions.

13:47>> All right. Member Majes

13:52I see that you did expand the

13:53strategraphy section which I appreciate.

13:56However, um it doesn't seem like you

14:00described the actual straighta observed.

14:03you liken them to what is

14:07known from the USGS soil reports but not

14:10actually what you observed and I

14:12understand that might not be possible at

14:14this point but I think in future reports

14:16I would like to see the actual

14:18descriptions for each straighta um

14:20rather than generalized zone

14:21descriptions especially as your trench

14:24photos show a wider

14:27variety of soils than is fully captured

14:30by the zones

14:32um especially if you compare the zones

14:36one and two and profiles five and six

14:38versus those zones in profile one.

14:41They're very different looking.

14:43Um

14:45and then um

14:47some grammatical corrections on page 23.

14:51Paragraph 3 um last sentence doesn't

14:54have a period and neither does paragraph

14:574.

14:58really

15:16>> member trace.

15:18Um

15:22I uh

15:26I'm confused by what this uh additional

15:33onepage

15:36map we got is.

15:40And I'm I'm not quite sure how that fits

15:42in with this other, you know, I I just

15:47don't know what that's for.

15:50>> Which page are you referring to, sir?

15:52>> I was going to ask that same question.

15:57>> Uh

15:59I don't know. I just um

16:02it says a web app builder by Arc GIS. it

16:07and it just it's streets and and the

16:10neighborhood and I guess it probably

16:12shows

16:14uh

16:16I don't know but it was just like an uh

16:18in it was a an item in the

16:23uh new business

16:27um package

16:30or matters from the floor. That's what

16:32it was. Matters from the floor.

16:35Suringo neighborhood waterline project.

16:38Uh, did that did am I the only one that

16:40got that?

16:43>> Uh, sir, I think you might be in the

16:45wrong piece of the

16:48of the packet.

16:53>> In in old business, there's the this

16:55complete report and then in matters from

16:58the floor, there was just this one

17:00single page.

17:05But I don't know. I don't know how that

17:06relates to anything.

17:09>> Well, in fact, the matters from the

17:12floor do not relate to this

17:15project and report in question.

17:18>> Okay.

17:21Uh I have

17:23I I will

17:27say no comment further.

17:32>> Thank you, sir.

17:36Um

17:40the the one thing that the staff report

17:43mentions um

17:47is the reference to the Asakia M

17:52and

17:57you know it would help to clarify which

18:00iteration of the Asakia Madre is being

18:03referred to.

18:05Um, there have been many over the years

18:08and the references are all over the

18:11place in terms of their precision. So, a

18:14little clarification there would be

18:16helpful.

18:19Um,

18:22other than that, I applaud your efforts

18:24to try to update this thing and make

18:27sense out of the some degree of chaos

18:30presented in first iteration of this.

18:33And we realize that you didn't do it. It

18:36was sort of handed to you. So,

18:40thank you for your efforts. hang in

18:42there and address that one list or the

18:45several little additional things that

18:47have been mentioned in the staff report

18:49and staff can verify that they've been

18:52done. And my personal opinion is that

18:56that should take care of it, but we will

18:59await motion and voting to actually get

19:02there.

19:06Which sets the stage for are we ready

19:09for a motion?

19:14I I think so. Uh

19:17I move to approve this report

19:21with the provided edits from the city of

19:24Santa Fe Histo Preservation Division.

19:31>> Second.

19:31>> We have a motion and second. All in

19:34favor signify by saying I. I. I.

19:38>> I. Motion carries.

19:41Thank you, John.

19:43>> Thank you. Have a good day.

19:49>> New

19:52case number 202613167.

19:57Vincent S. Murray, applicant, requests

19:59approval for listing as a historian for

20:01the river and trails and suburban

20:02archaeological districts on the city of

20:04Santa Fe's list of approved

20:06archaeologists and historians.

20:10We have a staff report from you, Lauren.

20:13Anything you wish to add to that?

20:15>> Uh, no. Sher,

20:18>> thank you. Is

20:20>> Murray in the room

20:22>> right here?

20:23>> Come on, please, and be sworn in.

20:25>> Do that. I want to have to talk behind

20:26people's backs.

20:30>> Hello.

20:30>> Please raise your right hand and state

20:32your name and address for the record.

20:33>> My name is Vincent Smith Murray. My

20:35address is 2711

20:38Camino Ardisano, Santa Fe,

20:42New Mexico 857

20:4687505.

20:47>> Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and

20:50affirm that the testimony you have in

20:52reference to this item is the truth, the

20:54whole truth, and do this under the

20:55penalties of perjury?

20:57>> Yes, I do.

20:57>> Thank you. May proceed.

21:01>> Do you wish to make a statement into

21:03order of your application?

21:05Um, actually I'm relatively new uh here,

21:08so I don't um

21:13>> All right,

21:14member trees.

21:17>> Uh,

21:20well, I found it interesting, uh, Reed,

21:22since I know something about some of the

21:25buildings you talked about in Phoenix.

21:27And uh while I didn't know I' I've been

21:31to Prescott a number of times, I never

21:34really paid much attention to the

21:37buildings that you mentioned there, but

21:39uh uh

21:42I was very curious about why you

21:44investigated the Celebrity Theater. I

21:46think that's the one on uh on Van Beern,

21:50is it? Uh in Phoenix, the the theater in

21:53the round.

21:55the Van Beern and and 32nd Street. Yes.

21:58Yes. I was actually asked by the

22:00Celebrity Theater to to do a National

22:03Register of Historic Places nomination

22:05for them. Um and that was fortunate for

22:07them as well. They were listed on the

22:09city's historic register on under their

22:12um architecture and their association as

22:15an entertainment uh venue. However, they

22:18did not meet the standards of the

22:20National Register under that. So, uh, in

22:23doing the research and tracking down the

22:24original plans, I was able to get them

22:26listed under their engineering instead,

22:28which worked out quite well for them

22:30because they wanted to do some

22:31remodeling, which did not affect their

22:33engineering, and it worked out really

22:34great. And I did get some free concert

22:37tickets in the process.

22:40>> Always

22:42I saw some great shows there during the

22:4470s,

22:46many great shows, actually.

22:48and they're still putting them on and

22:51they they still have a revolving stage.

22:53So when you're there, they'll have, you

22:55know, somebody playing and everybody

22:57gets to watch them and there's no seat

23:00that's more than 75 ft from the stage

23:02for that reason. So it's it's pretty

23:04cool. It's very intimate when you're

23:05watching a concert there.

23:08>> Yeah. Yeah. It was a little confusing

23:10for some of the rock musicians back in

23:12the 70s.

23:14[laughter]

23:16>> Good.

23:18>> That's all I got.

23:20>> I'm one of the others perhaps

23:22exacerbated by many others.

23:25>> All right, Tom. Thanks, Madison.

23:28>> Yeah, I I didn't have anything. It seems

23:30like you're well qualified and yeah, it

23:32was a great

23:35>> I don't have anything either. So we can

23:37entertain a motion.

23:41>> I move to approve Vincent S. Muriki for

23:44listing as a historian for the rivers

23:46and trails and suburban archaeological

23:47district districts.

23:50>> Second hold on

23:52>> hold. I'm sorry.

23:53>> We have a motion and a second, but we

23:54have

23:55>> I apologize. Further input.

23:56>> For the record, can you please read out

23:58the case number so it can be uh on the

24:02record of all uh motions made? Of

24:04course. Thank you. I case 2026 013168.

24:11Uh I move to approve Vincent S. Murray

24:15for lifting at the historian for the

24:17rivers and trails and suburban

24:18archeological 167. I believe

24:21>> it's 167 on

24:23>> the agenda.

24:25It's 168 on the staff.

24:28>> I believe it's 177. Yeah.

24:31>> Correction.

24:32>> That's correction.

24:342026 013167.

24:38>> Thank you.

24:40>> So with that correction, the motion

24:44member Trace, you seconded.

24:46>> Yes, I second that the correction.

24:53>> All in favor signify by saying I.

24:56>> I.

24:56>> I.

24:58>> I. Motion carries. Thank you.

25:02I look forward to seeing something from

25:04you.

25:05>> I look forward to providing something to

25:07you.

25:09>> Thank you.

25:12>> Okay. Case number 202613170.

25:16Paul Duran, agent for the city of Sen

25:18Water Division applicant, requests

25:20approval for an archaeological

25:21monitoring plan for installation of

25:242,000 ft of a new water man in the

25:27vicinity of Camino Corales, Camino

25:29Ponones, and Old Santa Fe Trail in

25:31Rivers and Trails Archaeological Review

25:34District

25:40Reports.

25:43>> Lauren, anything to add to that? Um if

25:47um Paul uh I would staff would request

25:50uh if you could include an existing

25:52waterline image. Um and

25:57also if you could clarify whether or not

25:59there has been previous soil disturbance

26:02um which may have occurred with the uh

26:05previous previous utility line

26:06installations

26:08and that all from staff.

26:12>> Thank you Laura. Is Paul present?

26:15>> Paul is present. Paul, will you unmute?

26:17Um I also have um I will not be swearing

26:20Paul in because he is a city staff

26:22employee.

26:23>> Oh, that's right.

26:24>> For the record,

26:26>> Paul,

26:28members of the ARC,

26:34>> Paul, is there anything you want to add

26:35to what we've got in front of us?

26:39Uh, Cherk, no sir, but could Lauren

26:43share the information staff is

26:44requesting.

26:47>> I didn't hear that. I'm sorry.

26:49>> That's okay. I'll I'll repeat myself.

26:51Um, if you could uh we would request

26:53that you include an existing waterline

26:55image in the report. And then also if

26:58you could clarify whether or not there

27:01um is a previous soil disturbance which

27:04may have occurred um with previous

27:07utility line installations.

27:10>> Uh thank you Lauren Chair members of the

27:13ARC. I will provide that. Yes ma'am.

27:16>> Thank you.

27:17>> Thank you Paul.

27:20>> Anything else Paul?

27:22>> No chair. Thank you.

27:27All right. So,

27:29committee member Madison.

27:32>> Yeah. Uh, only comment I had was on page

27:3549 when you discuss um the

27:39qualifications for the personnel in

27:42paragraph

27:44four is to also make sure that they are

27:49on the Santa Fe list of qualified

27:50archaeologists

27:53as one of their qualifications.

27:56Great. Thank you.

27:59>> Great. Thank you, Member Madison.

28:06>> All right. Member Trees.

28:08>> Uh

28:10uh this uh work is being done in a

28:14combination. Is it are they all dirt

28:17roads, Paul, or are some of them paved

28:19and and some of them dirt or are they

28:22all dirt? It's not clear to me whether

28:26whether there's some pavement to deal

28:29with.

28:31>> Chereek member Trice,

28:33most likely there'll be pavement on Old

28:35Santa Fe Trail and the intersection of

28:37Camino Ponones, but at Camino Corales

28:40and the intersection of Camino Ponones,

28:43it's gravel. So that entire road is a

28:45gravel dirt road. Uh-huh.

28:49Um,

28:51and all the uh

28:54all of the construction, all the

28:57excavation will be in the road. Is that

28:59right?

29:01>> It'll be in

29:04most likely center of the roadway on

29:07Camino Ponis.

29:09>> Uhhuh. Okay.

29:13Um, I know that when we were talking

29:16about the work on uh

29:20Garcia and Monte Soul that uh there was

29:24an anticipation of rock

29:26uh I don't know whether they actually

29:28got any but do they have any

29:31expectations over in this part of town

29:33too sort of similar

29:36chair member tric there'll be some rock

29:40but I believe As this aluvial fl kind of

29:47flows southwesterly, I think we're going

29:50to see more of a silty and sandy lom.

29:56>> Okay.

29:58Thank you.

29:59>> Yes, sir. Thank you,

30:09>> Paul. I have no questions.

30:12So, thank you.

30:15>> Thank you, Chair.

30:21>> Case 2026 013170.

30:26I move to approve the monitoring plan

30:28with the

30:30recommended

30:33edits.

30:36>> Second.

30:38moved and seconded. All in favor signify

30:40by saying I

30:42>> I

30:44>> I motion carries.

30:48>> Thank you, Paul.

30:49>> Thank you, chair. Thank you, members of

30:51the ARC.

30:52>> May you not encounter bedrock.

30:59We look forward to hearing a report of

31:01how you dealt with all that bedrock on

31:03the project he referred to.

31:11So case number 202613186

31:16SWCA agent for PNM requests approval of

31:19an archaeological monitoring report for

31:21installation

31:23of 6,63

31:25ft of conduit at Foothills Road and

31:27Alazonal Drive in the River and Trails

31:29and Suburban Archaeological Review

31:31Districts. Thank you. for your staff

31:33report. Are there other things to add?

31:36>> Thank you, Ter. I did want to note that

31:39the staff report was requ provided to

31:41the applicant and so they are already

31:45aware of my comments relative to some

31:49labeling, but also it's just I want a

31:52bit more clarification on what was

31:53surveyed by post back in 1988 just so

31:57that we could be abundantly clear.

32:00It just

32:02and maybe the rationale for why it

32:04wasn't surveyed currently and just so

32:06that we know we didn't miss anything

32:08basically.

32:11>> Thank you.

32:15>> Who is presenting on behalf of

32:18>> Please raise your hand if you're here

32:19for uh SWCA.

32:22>> It's Alisa.

32:22>> Oh, it's Alisa.

32:23>> Yeah.

32:28Please go ahead and unmute and uh uh to

32:32be sworn in.

32:36Alicia.

32:39>> Yes.

32:40>> Okay. Thank you. Um please state your

32:43name and address for the record.

32:45>> Alyssa Healey, 1832 Saint Northeast

32:50Albuquerque, New Mexico.

32:54Do you um do you solemnly declare and

32:58affirm the testimony you have in

32:59reference to this item is the truth the

33:01whole truth and do this under the

33:02penalties of perjury?

33:04>> I do.

33:06>> Thank you. She has been sworn chair.

33:08>> All right, Alyssa, you have the floor.

33:10Is there anything you wish to add at

33:12this point?

33:14>> Uh nothing at the moment.

33:18All right,

33:20member trice.

33:23>> Um,

33:26I don't I don't think I have any

33:28comments on this one.

33:31I thought I did, but I guess not.

33:35I'm not seeing them.

33:39>> All right. Thank you, sir. Member

33:41Madison.

33:44>> Okay. So, I was curious as who was the

33:48principal investigator who oversaw the

33:50report due to Robin Cordera's departure.

33:57>> I believe I can confirm that for you.

34:00I'm standing in for the the individual

34:01that normally attends these meetings,

34:03but I can make a note. I believe that

34:07Joe Burkeman was the author and

34:12I will confirm the PI.

34:15>> Okay. Because they will need to be

34:17listed.

34:19>> Yes.

34:21Um,

34:29and then

34:33I had questions about the isolate

34:36results, especially in conjunction with

34:40the was presented in

34:45in table 52, the the big table for the

34:48results. Um,

34:52were the other IO's besides IO7 found on

34:57the surface or in excavations?

35:01>> I will make note of that and ask the

35:04team that was out there.

35:06>> Okay. And also, I was curious if this IO

35:10account includes the cultural pill that

35:12was found in TI18.

35:17in TI18.

35:20>> Yes,

35:21>> I will make note of that as well and

35:24we'll find we'll get an answer for that.

35:27And then uh TI16

35:30is listed is identified as a feature in

35:33table 52,

35:35but there's not a discussion of it

35:37anywhere else. And it there's no

35:39discussion of why it does not qualify as

35:41an intact cultural deposit.

35:47Okay.

35:51And then uh just going back to um

35:57table 52

35:59um

36:03in pothole 82 you say you have no data

36:06but then you say no cultural material is

36:08observed. If you don't have data you

36:10can't confirm that no cultural material

36:13was observed.

36:20uh pothole 110. It says that it's an

36:23expansion. Um I'd really like to know to

36:26what size and what depth and if any

36:28cultural materials were observed in the

36:30expansion.

36:34Um

36:36yeah, I guess clarification if pothole

36:39137 is a mistakenly collected point or

36:42not. It just says not a pothole.

36:48>> Okay.

36:49>> Then

36:52um and

36:55oh is sorry the TI6

36:58with the feature is table 51 not 52. Um

37:05>> got it. Okay. Thank you.

37:07>> For then table 51, TI21 and TI22.

37:12Uh

37:15by fines are you referring to silks and

37:18clays in that?

37:25>> Silts and clays. You said

37:27>> yeah it says uh that the soils in TX 21

37:31and 22 are loose of co loose decomposing

37:34granite and pines.

37:37I mean that can refer to salts and

37:39clays, but that's usually when you've

37:40been sorting out the soils into their

37:43different.

37:46>> Yeah, it's a bit odd to refer it to that

37:49way here unless you've been sorting the

37:51soil.

37:52>> Okay, we will correct that.

38:00>> Uh yeah, those those are my

38:04>> Okay, thank you very much.

38:11Um,

38:15staff

38:17noted the

38:21need for some clarification about

38:24the previous survey and the fine

38:28distinction between what was monitored

38:31and what wasn't monitored. And I would

38:35really like to know all of that.

38:38And I would just like to point out that

38:39here is one of the conflicts between

38:42state regulation and the city of Santa

38:46Fe's ordinance.

38:49Um, this survey is rather ancient and

38:54under state regs,

38:58one would expect a reervey. In this

39:01case, it's a monitoring plan or a

39:04report. Um,

39:07just sort of seems like the same

39:11general approach to cultural resource

39:15identification and protection would be

39:17in order.

39:19Uh

39:22obviously we can't force someone to

39:26monitor in an area that's previously

39:28been surveyed because the city ordinance

39:31is in the way.

39:34But I would submit that it would be good

39:36practice for a company doing monitoring

39:41to monitor it if indeed the survey in

39:45question is older than

39:50Well, in this case, it's really old. U

39:54but older than 10 years is a good rule

39:56of thumb.

39:59I realize it's water under the bridge,

40:01but uh I would encourage SWCA to put on

40:05their best practices glasses when they

40:08do this the next time.

40:11>> Understood.

40:14We will address that.

40:16>> All right.

40:19All that being said, do you believe

40:23Anderson that the directions you are

40:26anticipating in response to your

40:28comments are something staff can deal

40:31with verification and

40:34further handling or whether we need to

40:36see it again.

40:38>> I would like to see it again. Um

40:42especially since I have downsized a

40:44negative report with the potential

40:46feature.

40:47>> Y uh and sorry I forgot to say this

40:49earlier. If there are photos of the

40:51isolates really like those included as

40:53well

40:56and the feature.

40:59>> Okay. staff has been taking copious

41:00notes on what further information we're

41:04anticipating and so

41:07please get all that fixed and bring it

41:10back for another official

41:15uh new business well old business

41:18consideration.

41:20>> Okay, we will do that. Thank you for

41:22your review.

41:24Well, we have to make an official motion

41:26here first, but uh

41:29>> uh do you think you'll be able to have

41:31this ready in time by next meeting or do

41:34you want another date?

41:39>> I believe we can get it ready for the

41:41next meeting. Um

41:45hold on one moment. Let staff verify

41:47when the submission date for next

41:49meeting is.

41:50>> That's October 6. Sure.

41:54It's three weeks.

41:56>> If we could have until the following

41:58meeting,

42:01>> that would be helpful.

42:01>> The deadline is October 6th for that

42:04meeting.

42:06>> For the following meeting after

42:08>> would be

42:09>> Oh, the November 3rd for November 19th

42:13meeting.

42:14>> November 3rd. Okay.

42:15>> November 3rd deadline.

42:18>> Postponed. Alissa, the reason we asked

42:21all that is we're supposed to postpone

42:23to a date certain rather than just table

42:25it nauseam. So we're trying to give you

42:29a hard date and don't want to compromise

42:31your ability to react.

42:34So that's why we did all that.

42:37>> Appreciate it.

42:40>> For case

42:42>> go ahead. for case 2026 013186.

42:47I move to postpone until the November

42:4919th 2026 meeting.

42:53>> Second.

42:55>> Moved and seconded. All in favor

42:56signified by saying I.

42:58>> I.

42:59>> I.

43:01>> I. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you,

43:04Alyssa. Thank you, Ch.

43:14>> I have this problem with this short name

43:17sounded like chicks.

43:20[clears throat]

43:22Next case 2026

43:25013187

43:29heritage agent for PNM applicant

43:31requests for exemption from submitt of a

43:34monitoring plan and instead provide a

43:36class one desktop survey for a 980 foot

43:39electrical power conduit at New Mexico

43:41599 interchange along Northage Road and

43:47Via Veteranos Barrosa old interchange in

43:51the suburban archaeological review

43:53district. Thank you, Heather staff

43:56report. Anything you want,

44:00>> Adam?

44:02>> Um, at this point, no. I would like to

44:05have seen what the archological we've

44:07made with this,

44:12>> but that's why staff. Okay.

44:22We have representative of the applicant

44:24who will need to be identified on the

44:26form in please

44:29>> please state your name and address for

44:31the record.

44:31>> Patrical Rogers 10505 Hackmore Place

44:34Southwest Albuquerque, New Mexico 87121.

44:37>> Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and

44:39affirm that the testimony you have in

44:40reference to this item is the truth, the

44:43whole truth, and do this under the

44:44penalties of perjury?

44:45>> Yes, I do so.

44:46>> Thank you. He has been sworn.

44:49>> Thank you.

44:51That

44:53what do you have to say?

44:54>> Um I understand that this one is a bit

44:57of a unusual

44:59submission. Um

45:02Oh, there's already a spelling error. I

45:04see copy editing gets to get yelled at

45:06again for the wrong s in effect non

45:11section 106 project. But that's fine.

45:13Um, one of the things I just want to

45:15point out is what we're requesting is

45:17using um an if old, very old, so old

45:23there's not even a real map and Nimris

45:25is wrong. Um, that's why the site the

45:27the map is in there. Uh, OAS survey for

45:29the interchange where this is going to

45:31be along. Um, which was done to modern

45:33standards which is the state rule. It

45:35doesn't actually specify any time

45:36period. um that is why SLO and others um

45:40routinely allow 20 25 year surveys

45:42depending on how they were handled

45:43nowadays depending on who's reviewing

45:45them. We're just asking that to be

45:47considered as well as if there does need

45:49to be monitoring given it is along the

45:50interchange. That said, we are welcome

45:54to input from the ARC and if this does

45:56need um to go through the standard

45:58compliance measure, we will just convey

46:00that up and act it accordingly.

46:05Okay.

46:06You conveyed a lot of information there,

46:09most of which I've never heard of

46:10before. So, thank you for that. I will

46:12inquire of the parties you mentioned

46:15what the heck they're thinking. Um

46:19because

46:21it wasn't that way

46:25when I was there.

46:27Uh

46:30remember Madison

46:33So from the description, I think this

46:40it does fit as being covered by survey.

46:44However, that is hard to determine

46:46without a map of the surveys like the

46:49Nimris map. Um, also you say there's no

46:53state register of cultural properties or

46:54national register, but you also don't

46:56include that map. Um

46:59then I guess it would also be nice to

47:01have the HTTPI map just to make material

47:03that HTPI um

47:06>> there is one in A1 in the uh

47:09confidential appendix that has all

47:11cultural resources would be there but we

47:13didn't have any

47:18>> oh okay

47:20>> and as noted um please note that the

47:23that the survey associated with the OAS

47:25activity is misplotted as being in

47:28not on the interchange but actually

47:30being plotted on as if they surveyed the

47:33highway which was completely separate

47:34project that was an independent letter

47:35report they just never uploaded GIS in

47:381988.

47:39>> Okay.

47:54So

47:59is there further description in OAS's

48:04report how wide they surveyed?

48:06>> They they state that they um surveyed um

48:10two two of them. They didn't specify

48:12which one from 99 to 457.2

48:15m using 50 meter transvals up to the

48:18edge of the right of way.

48:20That is all that they state.

48:23>> And will PMM's work be entirely within

48:25the rightway?

48:27>> No. There is a small snippet um as you

48:31can see on figure 4 where they jut out

48:34of the rightway um onto private land for

48:38a very small extension and I believe I

48:41call I did I call it out um yes it ends

48:44approximately 11 meters on private land.

48:46So it jumps out on that and that's

48:48called out on the first page for for

48:50your review.

48:51>> Okay.

48:52>> Otherwise, it's the most of the what

48:54would be the buffer that actually is

48:56making it larger than it is.

49:21I'm just thinking this one over.

49:25>> Yeah, maybe.

49:27Member Trees.

49:28>> Member Trees.

49:30>> Um, I have no comments other than it's

49:33going to be exciting working out there

49:37[snorts]

49:41>> or not, depending.

50:01I don't suppose

50:05when you called OAS if you called OAS

50:09that they could actually produce a

50:15big file of what they did look at

50:19>> having worked there. Not a chance they

50:22have those records in any reasonable

50:24format. Um, unfortunately, no. I wish

50:30that they had made a better map for the

50:32appendum report. This would simplify it

50:35much more sinly rather than a

50:37description that they surveyed the right

50:39away and start end dots. Um but no they

50:44they don't have

50:47>> Yeah.

50:50>> So that being said, I think I have no

50:53further comment.

50:57So

50:59do folks want to make a motion.

51:18I'm just also having a hard time.

51:22>> Thank you.

51:26>> I have a question shar um you know I can

51:28understand the motive behind doing this

51:31wanting to simplify things and but you

51:34know it's we have very specific

51:36standards in the archological districts

51:38ordinance and um they're

51:42In my

51:44view, there were still things to be

51:47learned um beyond what was presented to

51:50us. And I don't know if we want to help

51:53to accommodate the applicant. Maybe

51:55allow him not have to do monitoring

51:58plan, but just do a monitoring report

52:01might be a a path forward if it's a

52:03pleasure of the committee. But but um

52:06yeah that when it comes to waving our

52:08standards that's that's I had a bit of

52:10concern with

52:17>> member trace.

52:19You follow all that? Do you have any

52:21questions?

52:25>> Uh I I didn't quite catch uh

52:30all of it. it seemed like uh are are you

52:36not calling for monitoring of the

52:39project or

52:41I I guess that that's what I didn't

52:43quite catch.

52:45Uh well so member trice chair e staff is

52:49of the opinion that there has to be I

52:52mean there's enough holes in the

52:54information that we don't have that

52:57there needs to be at least monitoring

52:59and then possibly to help expedite the

53:02process or but we don't have anything

53:05specific in code. So that's why I'm

53:07struggling here a little bit about

53:09waivers. So if there's a way in terms

53:12the process can be made more efficient

53:14through um just a monitor monitoring

53:18monitoring report instead of having to

53:20produce a plan as well. That may be the

53:23pleasure of the committee but um yeah

53:26the concern

53:31>> GL

53:34>> um

53:38>> I guess I'm still not following what

53:41the path forward is. I mean, he's

53:44presented a plan and

53:50uh we're questioning whether

53:54Go ahead, help me out here.

53:57>> Uh Don, we have not been presented with

54:00plan. We have been presented with a

54:02request for a waiver.

54:06What staff has articulated is that given

54:11how we've got to this juncture, it might

54:14be the pleasure of this body, the three

54:18of us, to allow them to proceed with

54:23just monitoring without the production

54:26of a plan beforehand and accept a report

54:30of monitoring after the fact. as

54:34sufficient compliance with the city

54:36ordinance. Is that a fair summary?

54:38>> Yes, sir.

54:41>> Okay, that's clear. Um,

54:46I don't know how I feel about that. It

54:48seems like an exception and I don't know

54:50how I feel about exceptions.

54:53Uh, I I I I

54:56guess I don't like exceptions because

54:59then somebody else can come in and say,

55:01"But you did this."

55:04Um,

55:09[snorts]

55:11I don't know.

55:14>> Well, fair enough. We'll go back to

55:16Madison. She's been thinking all the

55:19time we've been talking.

55:21I I think how clearer mapping I'm

55:25of the OAS project. I'm just not

55:31comfortable with agreeing that it covers

55:33the project.

55:35Um

55:37and also clear mapping is part of the

55:39SLO standard. So technically this is not

55:41SLO stand. Well, it's it would just be

55:44state standard 410.15.64,

55:48I think, is the one,

55:50>> but no,

55:51>> but that's also part of the exemption.

55:53>> Well, technically that rule would

55:55require me to ask the land agency for

55:58>> Yeah.

55:59>> I don't know who I ask in this case. We

56:01have a local ordinance.

56:04>> Yeah.

56:07Yeah. I think without clearer mapping of

56:10where the OAS project is, I I have a

56:12hard time agreeing that it does

56:15adequately cover

56:20this project.

56:25>> Thank you for articulating our

56:27collective qualms.

56:31>> You want to offer anything else?

56:34This was a request by our client to

56:37submit this forward to see and

56:39specifically um the provision regarding

56:42exemptions.

56:43Whether or not this would sufficiently

56:45fit under that with the understanding

56:46that if not we would certainly proceed

56:48as normal. What we would possibly

56:49request is if we could possibly expedite

56:51it without needing to submit a

56:52monitoring plan and instead move forward

56:54with a we would include the

56:55reconnaissance survey as part of this

56:57and the full documentation and a full

56:58monitoring report. We would be very

57:00gracious to do that and then skip the

57:02monitoring plan step if the RC would be

57:04still coming. If not, we understand as

57:05well.

57:10>> So, we still have ball hovering

57:12somewhere over

57:14in or out of our court. Um,

57:19basically this boils down to do we want

57:21to see a monitoring plan anyhow?

57:28And I see member Tre is feeling fairly

57:31happy about that possibility.

57:35So a motion made should specify whether

57:39we need to see a monitoring plan

57:46or not.

57:53I

57:55>> I I think uh member Magnus should make

57:58that uh make that motion.

58:04>> Thank you, John.

58:05>> I'm going to punt to her punt to the

58:07archaeologist.

58:11>> Um

58:14I think I would like to see a monitoring

58:16plan because

58:18if the survey is misplotted, the sites

58:20might be misplotted, too. Um,

58:25yeah. So,

58:29I'm going to motion that for case

58:332026 013187

58:37um

58:40that uh

58:42this be resubmitted as a monitoring

58:44plan.

58:47The work be monitored.

58:52Second. Yeah.

58:54>> Hold your fire, Tom.

58:56>> We have a motion and a second. The staff

58:58has some further information.

59:00>> Yeah. I just wanted to um if we can have

59:04a a withdrawal of the application or I'm

59:08sorry um or just motioning because this

59:11um we it had to come in for a with a new

59:15case number. So we can't uh do any type

59:19of postponements. We would have to

59:21motion it.

59:23>> So would it be fair to amend the motion

59:25to say something

59:27>> to the effect that we deny the request

59:30for exemption and require a monitor?

59:33>> Thank you.

59:33>> In simple terms, does that meet your

59:36intent? Tom, are you happy with that?

59:39>> Yes.

59:40>> Okay. If that works for staff,

59:43>> thank you.

59:44>> We have a motion and a second.

59:47All in favor signify by saying I.

59:49>> I.

59:50>> I.

59:52>> I. Motion carries.

59:58>> Thank you.

59:58>> Thank you.

1:00:00>> Yeah. November.

1:00:03>> Not October. [laughter]

1:00:10>> All right. Case number

1:00:142026 013168.

1:00:18Ronald Winters, agent for a Christopher

1:00:21Pervvis Architects applicant, requests

1:00:24approval for an archaeological

1:00:25monitoring plan for installation of 230

1:00:27ft of a proposed new water man and

1:00:30electrical line in the alley ray at 107

1:00:34East Palace Avenue in the historic

1:00:36downtown archaeological review.

1:00:40For the staff report, Lauren, anything

1:00:42to

1:00:44expand upon in what you've raised here?

1:00:47I have to be swarming.

1:00:50>> Go ahead.

1:00:50>> Why don't you swear?

1:00:52>> Just go ahead and

1:00:53>> um uh Yes, Cher. Um I would wanted to

1:00:57point out on page two, um if you could

1:01:00please update the code, uh reference to

1:01:04the new chapter 14

1:01:07>> which is that is specified in the staff

1:01:12report.

1:01:13>> Yes. again as

1:01:15>> you know I will send that to you

1:01:17tomorrow.

1:01:18>> Okay. Um and on page 14, if we could get

1:01:24uh staff would request clarification and

1:01:26expansion um of the section on urban

1:01:29development uh within the time frame

1:01:32following the playfield playbook revolt

1:01:34and prior to Spanish reoccupation of the

1:01:37area

1:01:39>> and uh which

1:01:40>> on page 14

1:01:42>> but which

1:01:43>> it's the it is the second and third

1:01:46paragraphs. Got it. I think mostly the

1:01:48third paragraph.

1:01:49>> Okay.

1:01:51>> Um and then on page 25,

1:01:55uh it dates the development over the

1:01:59past 30 years. Um and we just want to

1:02:02clarify whether or not that's 30 years

1:02:05or um if that fits within the last 50

1:02:08historical year time frame

1:02:10>> on p on page 25.

1:02:12>> 25. Mhm.

1:02:16And if you could just clarify,

1:02:18it's the first paragraph.

1:02:21>> Oh, got it. Okay.

1:02:24And that is all from staff.

1:02:25>> Thank you, Lauren. I would suggest that

1:02:28probably he mentions 30 years because

1:02:30that's about the age of the ordinance

1:02:32profession and maybe to actually do

1:02:36something in the city of Santa Fe.

1:02:39>> If you would, but you can make that

1:02:40clear.

1:02:41>> Okay.

1:02:45All right. So, they'll have to be

1:02:46identified with sworn name, please.

1:02:49>> Please state your name and address for

1:02:51the record.

1:02:52>> Ron Winters, 109 Kala, Santa Fe, New

1:02:55Mexico 505.

1:02:57>> Thank you, Ron. Do you solemnly declare

1:02:59and affirm the testimony you have in

1:03:01residence? Do these items are the truth,

1:03:03global truth, and uh do this under the

1:03:06penalties of perjury?

1:03:08>> I do.

1:03:08>> Thank you. has been sworn.

1:03:12>> All right, Ron,

1:03:14what do you need to know?

1:03:15>> Well, a couple things. One, u I was feel

1:03:19fortunate enough to found

1:03:22through John Murphy the hippie on this

1:03:25property. And uh one thing I wanted to

1:03:29mention that his the date of the form is

1:03:32three years into the future. at the very

1:03:35top he has December 30th of 2026.

1:03:39So disregard that because he did say

1:03:42later where below that date of the

1:03:44survey was 2020. But uh yeah before you

1:03:48caught it I pointed that out. The other

1:03:51thing is uh in my um NCS uh reference at

1:03:57the back I did not put the citation in

1:04:00the references. I missed that. Well, but

1:04:05um and one other thing um

1:04:09boy this is a busy area. I mean I think

1:04:12105 sites within 500 meters

1:04:16and um as I stated I I could count at

1:04:20least seven that were in or over

1:04:22overlapped it. Uh what I do before in

1:04:26construction is I'm going to try and

1:04:28find those site forms because we all

1:04:31know that in Nimrist it doesn't really

1:04:34necessarily depict the site boundaries.

1:04:37But uh I I'd like to look at those site

1:04:39forms or the site maps and see how they

1:04:44really impact the project area.

1:04:47>> Yeah.

1:04:48>> Need to do that?

1:04:49>> No. No. I and that will be done before

1:04:51you know any construction

1:04:53>> and staff over there are happy to scan

1:04:55things that haven't been scanned yet if

1:04:57you just identify to them what they

1:05:00need.

1:05:00>> Yeah. Yeah. Bridget was

1:05:04great and help has helped me out before.

1:05:07One last thing that I just found out

1:05:09today. One of the contractors uh on the

1:05:13project [gasps]

1:05:15contacted me because

1:05:17the uh 107 East Palace, the Rainbow Man,

1:05:22that building does not have heat.

1:05:24There's a problem with the gas line.

1:05:27And so uh what I would do I normally say

1:05:31in my proposals that if the route or

1:05:34scope of work changes I always you know

1:05:38report that in the final report but I

1:05:40just wanted to give you a heads up. It's

1:05:42it's a it's a trench that will intersect

1:05:46what I'm already monitoring and it's 20

1:05:48additional feet that for the gas line

1:05:52that it will add. But since I found out

1:05:55this information today, I thought I'd

1:05:57share it with you and let you know that

1:05:59of course that monitoring would be

1:06:03reported

1:06:04along with the the other utility lines

1:06:07that are going to be, you know,

1:06:09installed. But uh yeah, it's a a short

1:06:12distance. So it would take it up to 250

1:06:14ft, I guess.

1:06:18And yeah, I can I can leave this I can

1:06:20supply you with but uh yeah, this was

1:06:23information as of this afternoon.

1:06:27So I'm I'm glad I found that out before

1:06:31um

1:06:33I think that's I think that's it.

1:06:38Welcome your

1:06:42>> member trees.

1:06:45Um, I have uh a question for staff

1:06:50regarding their

1:06:53uh comment about codes.

1:06:56Um, and

1:06:59um,

1:07:01God, I hate this. Um the uh reference

1:07:07that you're um saying needs to be

1:07:11changed, Lauren, is regarding which

1:07:14which uh

1:07:18first off, which reference are you

1:07:20referring to? Uh because there's two

1:07:23references to codes in the staff

1:07:25recommendations.

1:07:27And also when you say the new code, what

1:07:32what do you mean?

1:07:35um the um uh the new chapter 14

1:07:40um and it is so on page two um the city

1:07:45of Santa Fe ordinance is references

1:07:4814-3.13

1:07:51um and in the city of Santa Fe um code

1:07:57it should reflect 14-4.2D

1:08:00archaeological clearance permit

1:08:02required.

1:08:05Okay.

1:08:06Now, once again, when you say new code,

1:08:09which one

1:08:11what what are you talking about? Because

1:08:14we're still developing a new code,

1:08:16right? We don't have a an accepted new

1:08:19code. So, you're not referring to that.

1:08:20Is that correct?

1:08:23>> It's on our on our site. It says chapter

1:08:2514 new,

1:08:28>> which is

1:08:29>> so it's the most current revised code.

1:08:32Yeah, that was the one that was adopted

1:08:34November 2025.

1:08:36That was phase one of the code update.

1:08:39>> I I [laughter]

1:08:41[gasps]

1:08:42uh as I know, you know, we're going to

1:08:45go into the weeds on this for a little

1:08:47bit. I thought we had another shot at

1:08:50reviewing that before it was accepted.

1:08:55>> Oh, there's going to be

1:08:56>> I don't believe we had any more than one

1:08:58review of that. So, I'm a little I'm

1:09:01confused because I know that when you go

1:09:04online, it says the new code, but

1:09:08I don't I don't know that we've signed

1:09:12off on that.

1:09:15>> Well, we did, Tom. It's Think of it as

1:09:18an interim iteration of code. It's not

1:09:22the old code and it's not the it's going

1:09:25to be the new new code. It's the thing

1:09:28in between. We're supposed to play by

1:09:30this interim set of rules because

1:09:34there was a presentation and a hearing

1:09:37and a vote to approve

1:09:41in

1:09:43>> November

1:09:43>> November of 2025 as Heather pointed out.

1:09:48>> Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, I thought we

1:09:50were going to get another chance at it,

1:09:52too. Uh

1:09:54>> that was just

1:09:55>> because we will when it's phase two

1:09:58because that's the actual new new code

1:10:00that has yet to be reviewed and

1:10:02approved.

1:10:05>> How can anybody do anything?

1:10:10Uh

1:10:11>> okay. Uh it's very confusing. Uh I can

1:10:15see why Ron would make a mistake. I can

1:10:17see why I would make a mistake. Uh

1:10:21maybe one day we'll actually have

1:10:22something that refers to the code. Um

1:10:27other than that, um because that was my

1:10:30main question about

1:10:32uh Ron's report. Um, it took me a little

1:10:36while, Rod, to figure out where we were

1:10:38talking about cuz there's not very many

1:10:40maps and the uh the plat of the alleyway

1:10:45doesn't really show very much in in its

1:10:50um location that I can tell. But um I

1:10:54eventually figured out that we were

1:10:56talking about the building that the shed

1:10:59was in. But um I don't know, maybe I

1:11:02just was being dumb as I often am.

1:11:09So that's my

1:11:12>> that's my only

1:11:14>> I can give you some better

1:11:16locationational information in the in

1:11:18the final report if that

1:11:21>> Yeah, that would be better. Yeah.

1:11:26Thank you.

1:11:28>> That's all. Okay, member majesty.

1:11:32>> Uh, only comment I had was that I

1:11:35couldn't locate the nimris map server

1:11:38check map.

1:11:40Um, so it be nice to have that in the

1:11:46in the plan.

1:11:49>> Yeah. When I certainly will do that in

1:11:52part because as we heard tonight, it it

1:11:55changed a little bit. Yeah. Too.

1:11:57[snorts] So yeah,

1:12:00>> I appreciate the discussion of previous

1:12:03research, but the map really is kind of

1:12:06critical to following along.

1:12:08>> Yeah.

1:12:09>> To read this, I had to actually follow

1:12:11it up on the computer screen.

1:12:14>> Got it. Got it. Got it.

1:12:15>> And that's not fair to staff because

1:12:16they can't do that.

1:12:21>> So you need to have the stuff in the

1:12:24document.

1:12:25>> Got it.

1:12:26>> Sorry. Anything else?

1:12:27>> Nothing.

1:12:30>> Um,

1:12:33she stepped on the only thing that I had

1:12:35to say, which was

1:12:38the empress. Um,

1:12:44and you can't fix it, but I will go

1:12:46ahead and be teething

1:12:49on. No,

1:12:54I am sick of death of engineers and

1:12:57architects producing crappy maps with

1:13:00crap you can't find

1:13:03and burying a north arrow in the middle

1:13:05of the depicted information.

1:13:07There's a beautiful open space in the

1:13:10lower right hand corner where you should

1:13:12put all of your

1:13:14map legend related stuff. Okay. I also

1:13:18detest the sloppy use of

1:13:23a measurement equals a measurement. And

1:13:26after it's been reproduced two or three

1:13:28times, it tells me nothing whatsoever.

1:14:34505

1:14:3531655

1:14:3804. Please leave a message. Thank you so

1:14:41much.

1:14:43>> The mailbox is full and cannot accept

1:14:45any messages at this time.

1:15:03Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.

1:15:13>> Oh, are we back? We're back. I was

1:15:15frozen for a while.

1:15:19>> I I lost What?

1:15:21Uh I lost most of uh chair X's uh

1:15:28uh

1:15:30discussion about 1 in equals a foot

1:15:35>> and then

1:15:39>> we need we there's a motion

1:15:42>> there is a motion to approve with the

1:15:45requested corrections.

1:15:47>> Okay.

1:15:48>> I second then. I didn't hear what the

1:15:50motion was, but I second.

1:15:55>> Moved and seconded. All in favor signify

1:15:57by saying I.

1:15:58>> I.

1:15:59>> I.

1:16:01>> I. Motion carried. Thank you. Let's hope

1:16:04we don't have any further technical

1:16:06difficulties.

1:16:09Case number 20263169.

1:16:15Ron Winters, agent for Weston Glass for

1:16:18Homewise Tiiera 3APM.

1:16:24Applicant requests approval for an

1:16:26archaeological monitoring plan for

1:16:27installation of 1110 ft of new

1:16:29electrical line in the vicinity of Po

1:16:31del Soul and Hava Drive and Po Deloul

1:16:35and Jaguar Drive in the suburban

1:16:38archaeological review districts. Thank

1:16:40you for the staff report. Lauren,

1:16:42anything to add?

1:16:45Um just the um code reference update on

1:16:50page four

1:16:53>> to reflect to reflect the um reference

1:16:57of the new chapter 14

1:17:00>> which does appear in your staff report

1:17:02but again if it hasn't been shared.

1:17:05>> Yes.

1:17:19Yes, I see.

1:17:24We have the same.

1:17:26>> Okay. 313.

1:17:29Fix it.

1:17:35>> All right.

1:17:36You're still sworn in.

1:17:39This is Yes. Weston Glass from Home Wise

1:17:41and he'd like to talk after I make a

1:17:44couple comments and Weston would like to

1:17:46>> Okay. Be sworn in.

1:17:47>> Yeah.

1:17:48>> Please wait your raise your right hand

1:17:50and state your name and address for the

1:17:51record.

1:17:52>> Weston Glass 1301 Salor Road Santa.

1:17:57>> Do you solemnly declare and affirm the

1:17:59testimony you have in reference to this

1:18:01item? Is the truth the whole truth and

1:18:02do this under the penalties of perjury?

1:18:04>> I do.

1:18:05>> Thank you. It's been sworn chair.

1:18:07>> All right. Thank you, sir.

1:18:09>> So, um have the floor.

1:18:11>> Yeah, this uh there was one site that I

1:18:13I noticed that uh overlays the project

1:18:17area 54778,

1:18:19which was a Hannerford site from 86. Uh

1:18:22since that site was recorded, there's a

1:18:25sidewalk in now the um the Po day, not

1:18:32not Soul, but Hetta Drive. And I would

1:18:37uh as I suggested we'll see if there's

1:18:41any messages of it left if there are um

1:18:46um remap it and probably possibly test

1:18:49you know for elig eligibility. Um, there

1:18:53are two other sites that are in

1:18:55proximity to the project area. And

1:18:57again, like with the previous report, I

1:18:59would look at the site maps for 54779

1:19:03and 54785,

1:19:05which is Camino de los Kados and uh that

1:19:09uh if it's that portion still exists is

1:19:12over the fence

1:19:14beyond the the fire station.

1:19:18And uh again, I would investigate to see

1:19:22I doubt that that you know would be in

1:19:27the project area. There's a short

1:19:28section that we're doing on Jaguar Drive

1:19:31there in Po Doul. So uh just those

1:19:38things I think for for now but I will

1:19:41investigate the two that are in

1:19:43proximity and the one that overlaps

1:19:50>> sure members of committee thank you for

1:19:53hearing our case so just to uh explain a

1:19:56little bit what's happening here we came

1:19:58back we were here in March getting our

1:20:00monitoring plan for the tier content uh

1:20:02spine infrastructure approved And this

1:20:06is for PNM's [snorts] connection into

1:20:09that project. This is work that will be

1:20:12performed by PNM or by their own

1:20:15internal contractors. But um because we

1:20:17already have Mr. Winters doing our

1:20:19monitoring plan, we offered to have him

1:20:23do the monitoring for their scope on

1:20:26their behalf. um just to keep it all

1:20:28under one person, simplify things and uh

1:20:33saves us a little bit of money if they

1:20:34don't do it as well. So, I just wanted

1:20:36to say that um everywhere that they are

1:20:40proposing work here is within developed

1:20:43roadways, mostly under sidewalks, but in

1:20:46a couple cases it crosses the entrance

1:20:48to the fire station and the entrance to

1:20:50Nina Elementary School. So um because

1:20:54this is area that's already been

1:20:56disturbed by the development of these

1:20:58roadways as the um public utility

1:21:00easements exist under the sidewalk in

1:21:03both at both ends. Um we feel that

1:21:05boring is the appropriate

1:21:09approach for this and because we don't

1:21:11want to trench and block off entrance to

1:21:14the fire station and the elementary

1:21:16school as well.

1:21:20>> Cool.

1:21:22Fair enough.

1:21:25>> Member Majesty,

1:21:27>> I have no comments in this.

1:21:31>> Member Trace.

1:21:33Uh

1:21:36so uh

1:21:39the

1:21:41the scope of work calls for a couple of

1:21:44uh bore pits

1:21:46uh 5 by seven but no

1:21:49uh depth. Do we know what the depth is

1:21:53or did it just get left out or

1:21:57is that to be determined in the field?

1:22:00This would be on page four

1:22:03of the report or of the plan

1:22:09and it continues the last paragraph.

1:22:13>> Yeah, the pull box. Um

1:22:18>> Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm sorry, Tom. was on

1:22:20the plan and I didn't catch that. Uh

1:22:23it's a 54 inch minimum.

1:22:26>> Okay.

1:22:29Yeah. It's not in the written part. Uh

1:22:33>> you're saying it's on

1:22:35>> it's on the plan in uh of that area on

1:22:40page eight.

1:22:46>> Okay.

1:22:54Okay, [clears throat]

1:22:56>> that's all.

1:22:58>> The final report.

1:23:06>> I see you're done, Tom.

1:23:10>> Yeah, that's it. I'm sorry. Yeah,

1:23:13>> words appeared on the screen, but I

1:23:15didn't actually hear you. So the entity

1:23:20that may or may not be AI heard you but

1:23:23I didn't.

1:23:25>> I have no comments. We can make a

1:23:28motion.

1:23:32>> It's a 2026 013169.

1:23:37Uh I move to approve the plan with the

1:23:40requested edits.

1:23:43>> Second.

1:23:45Moved and seconded. All in favor signify

1:23:47by saying I.

1:23:48>> I.

1:23:49>> I.

1:23:51>> I. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

1:23:54>> Thank you.

1:23:55>> Ronnie, you're still in the hot seat.

1:23:56>> Okay.

1:23:57>> Page number 20263172.

1:24:02Ron Winter's agent for Roshelle Aeta for

1:24:04Lumen. Applicant requests approval of an

1:24:06archeological monitoring plan for

1:24:08installation of 750 ft of the proposed

1:24:12new fiber optic line in the vicinity of

1:24:15498 North Gualupa Street in the river

1:24:17and trail.

1:24:20Thank you for your

1:24:23staff report.

1:24:26Anything to add?

1:24:29>> Um yes, chair. Uh again, if we could

1:24:32revise the code referenced on page five,

1:24:34please um to update and match the

1:24:36chapter 14 new um and then as well as uh

1:24:41expand on the clarity of historic

1:24:43development time frame um whether that

1:24:46be the 30-year or the 50-year.

1:24:49And I'm so sorry, but I cannot

1:24:53page that is on

1:25:15Uh that is on page 26. Got it.

1:25:24Okay,

1:25:27>> Ron, you have four. Um, as I do when I

1:25:31get this kind of of

1:25:34request for a bore, I

1:25:38within the historic downtown, I I always

1:25:41talk the people that traffic control and

1:25:44the traffic, you know, the engineers

1:25:46there and they're requesting this. So

1:25:50we might have to

1:25:53shut down part of um se de paralta in

1:25:57this area because of the entrances to

1:25:59the devar center and the amount of

1:26:02traffic that goes through there. They

1:26:04would be as in the last project boring

1:26:09under the sidewalk.

1:26:11Um

1:26:13I uh I didn't go into great depth rather

1:26:17with the

1:26:20[clears throat] with Sandborn maps yet

1:26:22but I will expand on that in a final

1:26:24report you know to just to show how that

1:26:27that area has changed over time

1:26:31>> if the sandborns even cover that area.

1:26:34>> Yeah. I don't know. I'll see about early

1:26:37aerials if I can.

1:26:39You might be in the fridge area for

1:26:41sandborn. Yeah. The aerials will be

1:26:44>> important,

1:26:45>> right?

1:26:45>> And if you can see those before you

1:26:47start,

1:26:50>> that would be good.

1:26:51>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:26:55>> All right. Here. You have nothing else?

1:26:58>> Not really.

1:26:58>> Member Trace.

1:27:00>> Uh,

1:27:03no comment.

1:27:05>> All right. never messed

1:27:09>> again. It's missing the Nest map server

1:27:11check.

1:27:14Make sure that's in the final report.

1:27:15>> Got it.

1:27:19>> Yeah, Shelby. Normally I would end up

1:27:23because of things do change. In fact,

1:27:26you'll see a report next month on P liar

1:27:30at 1323

1:27:32where in the field on the fly they

1:27:35changed the route

1:27:37and uh I in that report I'm including

1:27:41the old route but I'm including a new

1:27:45aerial showing exactly where they did go

1:27:49just for your benefit so you can see

1:27:51both and that's what you know will go

1:27:54into nucress. Yes.

1:27:56>> Yeah.

1:28:00>> That's all.

1:28:02>> Yeah. Thank you for that. And

1:28:05presenting the as builds

1:28:09is always a good idea.

1:28:11>> Yeah.

1:28:11>> And

1:28:13if it's a major variation from what was

1:28:19I think it would be good to have a

1:28:20little bit of discussion of that and

1:28:22show both. This is what we thought and

1:28:26this is what we did.

1:28:27>> Yeah.

1:28:27>> And present all of that with

1:28:29explanation,

1:28:30>> right?

1:28:30>> So it's clear to everybody who reads

1:28:34this in the future that things were not

1:28:38always as they seem. Well, in in fact

1:28:42what you'll see on 1323

1:28:45that intersection of Dangaspar and Pio

1:28:48de Bralta when they did the locates I

1:28:50mean it was like spiderweb you know and

1:28:53and so what they did a more direct route

1:28:56from 1323 across to the median and then

1:28:59to the manhole and uh but it was made a

1:29:03decision some bitty staff was out there

1:29:06I mean it didn't wasn't wasn't just the

1:29:09contractor But uh that's why I'm

1:29:12including both so you can see how we

1:29:15change because that also also changed

1:29:18the the length

1:29:20>> slightly. Yeah.

1:29:23>> All right. We can have a motion

1:29:28>> for case 2026 013172.

1:29:33I move to approve the plan the requested

1:29:35edits.

1:29:37>> Second.

1:29:39moved and seconded. All in favor signify

1:29:42by saying I.

1:29:43>> I.

1:29:44>> I.

1:29:46I. Motion carries. Don't be wrong.

1:29:48>> Thank you guys. We'll see you next month

1:29:50and thank you always for your comments

1:29:54and suggestions,

1:29:57>> which were hopefully helpful.

1:29:58>> No, they they are. They really are.

1:30:16Thank you.

1:30:17>> What? You didn't want to watch us until

1:30:20now.

1:30:24>> Go ahead.

1:30:25>> We feel slighted. It's like you came in

1:30:27for the encore and missed the whole

1:30:38>> Okay, we're ready for case number

1:30:40202613185.

1:30:44China Environmental Research and

1:30:46Consulting Agent for EV fiber applicant

1:30:49requests approval for projectwide

1:30:51archaeological monitoring plan for

1:30:531,70,811

1:30:56linear feet in all archaeological

1:30:58districts, including historic downtown,

1:31:00suburban, and riverlanding trails

1:31:01archaeological review district.

1:31:05also proposed an archaeological

1:31:07monitoring plan for 1,00 excuse me

1:31:11138,880

1:31:13feet of fiber optic line for area 1 FDA

1:31:177 west in the suburban archaeological

1:31:20review district

1:31:23I didn't see a staff report

1:31:26>> yes chair that's that's odd um did they

1:31:29get the electronic version

1:31:31>> so did you get it in your um in your

1:31:34packet

1:31:35version. Actually, no. In your digital

1:31:37packet. Oh, jeez. Oh, jeez. Sorry. Um I

1:31:41can

1:31:43>> just hold forth as long as you need to

1:31:45to convey whatever it is you had to say.

1:31:48>> And and Sherik, I did share the staff

1:31:49report with um the consultant so they

1:31:52they have a copy. Uh the

1:31:56so the background is that a while back

1:31:59this group came to the ARC to talk about

1:32:02how they were going to do the project

1:32:05because it is a lot of line and a lot of

1:32:08work that's being done across the city

1:32:10in all of the archaeological review

1:32:12districts. So uh therefore there was

1:32:15some agreement that there would be an

1:32:18overall monitoring plan which part of

1:32:20this is being proposed and then

1:32:23addendums for the individual projects

1:32:26that they do throughout. So the overall

1:32:29monitoring plan is sort of zoomed out at

1:32:32the regional level and then the

1:32:34individual plans like as you see in this

1:32:38packet for the first um FDA7 monitoring

1:32:42plan provides additional context

1:32:44specific to that area and additional

1:32:46information. So uh the so there will be

1:32:50two items for consideration. That is

1:32:53that the overall monitoring plant

1:32:55covering the over million um linear feet

1:32:58of fiber installation and then that

1:33:02second um sub area for area one of FDA

1:33:067. staff recommends approval of the

1:33:11report subject to clearance um provided

1:33:15or subject to comments and um conditions

1:33:19required by the AR and I'm sorry that

1:33:20you I'll email this to you so that you

1:33:23can have it.

1:33:25>> Excellent.

1:33:28Oh, and there's um sorry, chair, there

1:33:31was some confusion on city of Santa Fe

1:33:34land, which I think is within the city

1:33:37Santa Fe boundary. So, because otherwise

1:33:39it's some people could confuse it as

1:33:41city land when it's not city land. So,

1:33:43there were a couple cases. So, just take

1:33:46a look at that.

1:33:49>> That's it.

1:33:50>> Okay. Thank you.

1:33:54Um,

1:33:56I know at least one of you will be

1:33:58talking. How many of the other folks

1:34:00will be talking because everybody who

1:34:02talks needs to be identified and sworn

1:34:04in?

1:34:04>> Yeah. Um, I just wanted to say something

1:34:07if it's possible.

1:34:08>> Um, not until you're sworn in. Are are

1:34:10you going to speak for the anything in

1:34:12the hearing? So, if you're going to

1:34:13speak, uh, raise your right hand and

1:34:15then we can get swear you all in

1:34:17together. Okay. So, um I will um if

1:34:20you'll go through and uh would you like

1:34:22a chair? You can come sit up right over

1:34:24here if you're gonna

1:34:26>> come on over. I have an extra chair here

1:34:28for you and we'll square

1:34:32[clears throat] we'll go through and you

1:34:33just state all of you state your name

1:34:34and address for the record and then I'll

1:34:36do the squaring. Okay. So, we'll start

1:34:38there and just go all the way down and

1:34:40then we'll do

1:34:41>> Okay. Bashki 563 Delorte Lane, Santa Fe,

1:34:45New Mexico 87501.

1:34:47>> Okay. And just make sure you speak up so

1:34:48the speaker can catch you. Okay.

1:34:50>> Go ahead.

1:34:51>> Brenda, 829 West Manhattan Avenue, Santa

1:34:54Fe, New Mexico 87501.

1:34:56>> Joshua Williams, 7115 South Mason Road,

1:35:00Richmond, Texas 77407.

1:35:03>> Pedro Czecho, 10419,

1:35:07um, Crescent Valley Drive, Richmond,

1:35:09Texas.

1:35:11>> Matt Deurro, uh, 1840 Deer Drive,

1:35:15Social, Mississippi.

1:35:17Carlos Rosas 6301 Cal Circle Northeast

1:35:21Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111.

1:35:25Garner Duncan 3015 Kismmet Lane,

1:35:29Houston, Texas 77043.

1:35:31>> Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and

1:35:33affirm the testimony you have in

1:35:35reference to this item is the truth, the

1:35:37whole truth, and do this under the

1:35:38penalties of perjury?

1:35:40>> Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you. They have

1:35:43all been sworn.

1:35:47Whoever wants to go first, you had the

1:35:49floor.

1:35:49>> I will start off. Yeah.

1:35:52>> Oh, did you want to go?

1:35:53>> Uh, yeah. No, I just what I wanted to

1:35:55say is uh I wanted to thank everyone

1:35:57here for the opportunity uh to uh

1:36:00present this plan to you and um you

1:36:03know, we are very excited to bring

1:36:04connectivity to the city of Santa Fe. Uh

1:36:07the team is super committed to uh making

1:36:09sure that we do a good job across the

1:36:10board. So, I just wanted to say that to

1:36:12everyone in the room.

1:36:14Thank you.

1:36:15>> Thank you.

1:36:18>> Okay. Um well, so Heather gave the

1:36:22background on the plan. Thank you. Um

1:36:24and so today we have given you the fruit

1:36:27of our conversation, many months of

1:36:29work, many months of hard work with the

1:36:31engineering team, you know, at Easy

1:36:33Fiber, figuring out exactly what this

1:36:36project is going to look like. Um, and

1:36:39we have before you our general plan

1:36:41which we in which we try to give a scope

1:36:44of the overall project. When we're

1:36:45asking you to approve the general plan,

1:36:47it's not to approve monitoring for 1

1:36:49million ft. It's just to approve the

1:36:51framework that we're working in. Um, the

1:36:54general plan, as you saw, lays out our

1:36:56methodology for area selection. It lays

1:36:59out a broad environmental and uh

1:37:02cultural background for the city and

1:37:04flags the things that we'll be looking

1:37:06for in every area right land grants as a

1:37:09roads all the important things that

1:37:11we'll be looking at when we zoom down to

1:37:13the um FDA or sub FDA level. Um it also

1:37:18lays out in detail our monitoring

1:37:20methodology

1:37:21uh that we also came to after our

1:37:24discussions uh member Madison you

1:37:26weren't here but through our discussions

1:37:27with the rest of the committee um about

1:37:30you know what we need to profile and our

1:37:32profiling plans and all the details of

1:37:34our of our monitoring plans and then FDA

1:37:387 West gives you an example that we

1:37:41think I think every addendum is going to

1:37:43look different depending on the area but

1:37:46this is a a general generally the model

1:37:48that we hope will work for the ARC and

1:37:50that we plan to implement as we move

1:37:51along.

1:37:53>> Did you want to add anything?

1:37:57>> I would just like to add that this area

1:37:59one is probably our largest area that

1:38:02we'll be presenting to you is a very

1:38:03large area and every area after this

1:38:09um and I think we put rationale in there

1:38:12for why we chose this scale um for this

1:38:15first one. Uh, we did also find a couple

1:38:18of typos as we were looking through

1:38:21here. Um, I I think we cited the old

1:38:24plan, the old code.

1:38:27We'll fix that. We also have a typo in

1:38:29the years on Pylo

1:38:32which you know put 1300 to 1350 instead

1:38:35of 1,200 I think. So for that I know it

1:38:39wasn't occupied for only 50 years.

1:38:43Oh,

1:38:44>> and also there we had an appendix here

1:38:49in FDA in area one from John Murphy

1:38:53>> and some of the formatting um of his

1:38:56figures didn't come out that well. So

1:38:59that's something we're going to ask him

1:39:00to fix.

1:39:02That's another

1:39:05formatting issue. But in terms of like

1:39:08our general approach, I think

1:39:11that's all we wanted to

1:39:13layout at the onset unless easy wants to

1:39:17say anything

1:39:19else.

1:39:23>> Cool.

1:39:27>> A tremendous amount of work.

1:39:33>> Member Trace, can I bother you to be

1:39:36first?

1:39:37>> Sure. Um, so,

1:39:40uh, I I'm glad, you know, this was

1:39:44really easy to read. Uh, I want to I

1:39:47want to congratulate you on presenting a

1:39:50a plan that was simple to follow in its

1:39:54sort of complexity

1:39:56because this is going to be a really

1:39:59wild job.

1:40:00uh you'll have an opportunity to find uh

1:40:03things because you'll be working all

1:40:05through the city uh that you know I mean

1:40:10it's going to be uh really cool for you

1:40:14guys uh people should be envious of your

1:40:18position

1:40:20not of how much work you're going to

1:40:21have to do but you're going to be able

1:40:24to see things that other people won't.

1:40:26So getting to what I have questions

1:40:29about. So FDA7 is u our first uh area

1:40:35that we're going to be working with and

1:40:37you've split that into two major

1:40:39sections east and west and will

1:40:43you present I mean uh and then I noticed

1:40:48that that itself is broken into a lot of

1:40:51little blocks. Uh how

1:40:55how do you

1:40:57uh so those little blocks within FDA7

1:41:00east are uh the work areas that will be

1:41:06worked on individually through the

1:41:09months that you're figuring FDA7 will

1:41:12take or weeks I guess months

1:41:17you said 23 weeks I

1:41:23Yes. Anybody?

1:41:24>> I mean, I think that's more of a

1:41:26question for Easy Fiber, uh, because

1:41:28that's the an engineering breakdown.

1:41:31>> Yeah, I can shed some light there, sir,

1:41:32for you. Um, so the FDA is the larger

1:41:36area, project area, right? So, FDA 7

1:41:39West we will be starting in and then

1:41:42each of the smaller, call them project

1:41:44areas, we call them segments, right? Uh

1:41:47and that's how we break it out uh for

1:41:50construction purposes as well as more

1:41:52than anything permitting purposes,

1:41:54right? Instead of having a big blanket

1:41:57area permit, uh it also helps us with

1:42:00lining out the different crews to not

1:42:02overwhelm one area, right? Break it into

1:42:04smaller segments so that they have their

1:42:06assigned area. Um and FDA, for those who

1:42:11don't know, fiber distribution area, uh

1:42:14is what FDA stands for, the acronym. So

1:42:17hopefully that provides a little bit of

1:42:20clarity for you at this point.

1:42:22>> Yeah, it does. And so that will allow

1:42:24the archaeologist to uh monitor smaller.

1:42:29You're not going to be working on all of

1:42:31them or even more than one at a time. Um

1:42:34that will allow the archaeologist to

1:42:36monitor those sections individually. And

1:42:40um uh at at the time that you're

1:42:43installing that fiber, will you be

1:42:46installing

1:42:48individual homeowners as well or just

1:42:51the main uh trunk that the homeowners

1:42:54will then

1:42:56uh plug into at some point?

1:43:00>> Uh so we won't be installing the

1:43:03homeowners right off the bat. The

1:43:05construction process is a process to say

1:43:09the least. Um so we can really break it

1:43:11down into two

1:43:14uh areas. One is our backbone fiber,

1:43:16right? Which is our let's call it the

1:43:19main core route. And then from there we

1:43:22distribute off of that main core route

1:43:24into the neighborhoods. Once we're done

1:43:27with that distribution in the

1:43:28neighborhoods, then we have one more run

1:43:30that's done by our installation team.

1:43:32Once construction is complete, uh

1:43:35customer, a resident want service, they

1:43:38would call us, get them scheduled, uh

1:43:40send out our installation team and they

1:43:43won't run one single fiber to the actual

1:43:46home to provide the actual internet

1:43:49service to that particular resident or

1:43:51address.

1:43:53So that is not part of this uh reporting

1:43:58or anything that the archaeologists are

1:44:00going to be monitoring. That's a

1:44:01completely separate thing that um then I

1:44:05don't know whether you know land use

1:44:07will tell you whether you have to permit

1:44:09that separately or whatever. I don't

1:44:10know. That's not my problem right now.

1:44:13Uh back to uh our uh our archaeologist

1:44:19presenters. Um

1:44:22the are you anticipating doing

1:44:27uh I think I've read in in your u main

1:44:32outline report that you're anticipating

1:44:34uh somewhere 12 to 14 maybe a few more

1:44:38maybe up to 16 different reports. Is

1:44:41that right?

1:44:43So

1:44:43>> yeah, that's

1:44:44>> it might be it might be FDA7 will get

1:44:47two different reports, one for the west

1:44:49and one for the east. And you'd kind of

1:44:52track that as depending on how complex

1:44:55the next areas get. Uh that will

1:44:58determine how how many reports you make

1:45:00for each area.

1:45:03>> Exactly.

1:45:04>> Fair understanding.

1:45:06>> Yeah. We'll use the methodology that we

1:45:07laid out in the general plan to select

1:45:10the next area and we'll think ahead to

1:45:13the overall project to decide that as we

1:45:15go. So in this plan, we gave you FDA

1:45:17West with an actual plan and at the end

1:45:20of FDA West, we presented FDA East,

1:45:23which will be our next area, and we

1:45:25provided a justification for that,

1:45:27showing the fiber that's going in there,

1:45:29the pre and the previous research that's

1:45:32been done to to explain kind of why we

1:45:36think that that's an appropriate area to

1:45:38continue into next.

1:45:41>> Okay, great. And then our next the next

1:45:43plan that we submit will be for FDA7

1:45:46East.

1:45:49>> And do you think you'll have a report

1:45:51before you present the plan or will you

1:45:53just wait until the whole FDA7 is done

1:45:56and then move on to the next one and

1:45:58work on FDA7 as in those two reports

1:46:02while the next phase is going on or how

1:46:05how do you anticipate that?

1:46:08I think we're probably going to need to

1:46:10have parallel tracks. We're going to

1:46:12have to do the plans and the reports

1:46:13simultaneously once we get started.

1:46:17>> Huh. Okay.

1:46:17>> Yeah. I don't I don't anticipate that we

1:46:19would finish reporting on FDA West

1:46:22before we started FDA East. The idea FDA

1:46:257 east the idea is that we'll kind of

1:46:27start these going and as we start to get

1:46:30the data in for a complete FDA then

1:46:32we'll start the writing as we are also

1:46:35working in other parts of the city.

1:46:37Okay. So, we can anticipate a bunch of

1:46:39plans first and then we'll get reports

1:46:42as as you can complete them.

1:46:45>> Exactly. Yeah.

1:46:47>> And they will correlate plan. So, area

1:46:50one plan will have area one report.

1:46:54>> Right. Right. Okay.

1:46:57>> Well, that's all I got.

1:47:01>> Thank you, Tom. bad or something.

1:47:04>> I I didn't have any comments that was

1:47:07very thorough. Thank you.

1:47:12>> You must have done really well.

1:47:14[laughter]

1:47:18your host.

1:47:20>> Yeah,

1:47:25>> I'm a travel day. So, I do everything on

1:47:29paper and

1:47:32I was all the way up to page 46 before I

1:47:35saw an editorial thing and that almost

1:47:38never happens.

1:47:41Um the last line above figure 12

1:47:48although open terrain continues

1:47:50southwestern Srios road and south of

1:47:53that area there's something missing

1:47:55there continues something

1:47:59>> and I'm thinking along or

1:48:03whatever southwestern Sus Road

1:48:05>> the open train

1:48:06>> yeah I think it should be maybe

1:48:08southwest along it should be southwest

1:48:10along

1:48:14Fair enough.

1:48:16Um, is this thing

1:48:20>> already in the hands of HPD?

1:48:22>> No.

1:48:23>> And so it will be after

1:48:25>> after you approve. Um,

1:48:31just maybe to save yourself some time, I

1:48:34would excerpt the section discussing

1:48:38human remains and send it to Courtney

1:48:42and see if it meets all of the

1:48:45expectations. So, you can submit it one

1:48:48time to HPD instead of twice.

1:48:51Um, it makes sense to me, but it seems

1:48:53like there might be some things that

1:48:55they

1:48:57will want tweaked.

1:48:59>> Okay.

1:49:00>> And that's just me reassociating.

1:49:02>> Okay.

1:49:04>> Um,

1:49:06and something that Heather said now

1:49:10casts further light on my next comment,

1:49:12which is about collections and analysis

1:49:14of recovered material.

1:49:18When I read this, I thought it's all

1:49:19city property.

1:49:21But now I understand it's not all city

1:49:23property.

1:49:25>> So if it's city property, collections

1:49:30will be curated. They don't you don't

1:49:32need to encourage the owner to do so. So

1:49:34you might need to expand upon that

1:49:36section to speak to the fact that

1:49:39potentially multiple ownerships

1:49:41involved.

1:49:43>> I have a question about that. If it's a

1:49:45roadway easement, is it city property?

1:49:49Not necessarily. It's some I would say

1:49:5399% of this is city property and that

1:49:56it's city rightway, but there might be

1:49:58some areas that are, you know, either on

1:50:01the edge and not on the rightway or uh

1:50:05if it's a runway like a private road, we

1:50:07have those as well. And that's not city

1:50:10property.

1:50:13Well, I imagine Easy Fiber will need to

1:50:15know all that information before you

1:50:18start.

1:50:19>> Correct. And and with private roads, um

1:50:23unless we receive obviously permission

1:50:25to build down them, we won't be going

1:50:27down them.

1:50:28>> We would have to obtain uh easement in

1:50:31order to build down private roads. So,

1:50:33there would be legal communication and

1:50:35agreement in place for that to be to

1:50:37occur.

1:50:38>> Unfortunately, we don't have many of

1:50:39them.

1:50:40It's just along the edges where they

1:50:43were previously in the county and they

1:50:44come into the city.

1:50:46>> So we can assume most of the project

1:50:48will be on city ground.

1:50:50>> Yes,

1:50:52>> the vast majority

1:50:55and you already pointed out the

1:51:00citations to city code.

1:51:02>> Yeah,

1:51:04>> they occur in lots of different places.

1:51:06So you'll have to do some

1:51:09seeking and finding.

1:51:11>> No problem.

1:51:13>> So,

1:51:14thank you for the extensive glossery of

1:51:18all of these.

1:51:18>> Well, thank you for wonderful.

1:51:23>> Um,

1:51:26and so I made it all the way to page 11

1:51:28of the addendum before I found another

1:51:31editorial.

1:51:34Again, it's the last line on that page.

1:51:37And you'll know why I probably

1:51:41>> read it more closely.

1:51:45>> The last sentence,

1:51:47she identified one prehistoric and one

1:51:50historic roaded.

1:51:52And she identified one prehistoric site,

1:51:54LA49764,

1:51:57and one historic roaded LA49765.

1:52:01this word

1:52:03>> site

1:52:04>> and LA number

1:52:05>> mean chocolate come down to San

1:52:10um it also is the case that uh

1:52:16I was there

1:52:18>> you were on the site form but you were

1:52:20not in the report

1:52:22>> yeah if I just make the maps I don't get

1:52:25any credit so

1:52:29I also don't get paid

1:52:31There you go.

1:52:32>> Yes.

1:52:38>> Then we get into

1:52:41this Murphy's

1:52:43discussions.

1:52:44>> Yeah. We have a summary of Murphy's

1:52:46discussion and then we have Murphy's

1:52:47discussion. Yeah.

1:52:48>> Okay. On page 30, I think. Is this in

1:52:51the summary of

1:52:52>> Okay.

1:52:57>> It's the second to the last paragraph.

1:53:03compiled USGS topographic maps, etc.

1:53:08There's a reference to section 4

1:53:10containing scattered buildings, yada

1:53:12yada, but no figure reference. And when

1:53:15I looked on the compiled USGS

1:53:21quadrangles, I didn't see any scattered

1:53:24buildings unimproved. Well, I do see

1:53:26unimproved rows of tracks, but I didn't

1:53:28see any scattered buildings. So,

1:53:32if those scattered buildings show up in

1:53:34some other figure,

1:53:37>> you might add a figure reference. But if

1:53:40they if this is indeed referring to

1:53:42figure 11.

1:53:44>> Oh,

1:53:45>> section four contains no buildings.

1:53:48>> But yeah, section 33 contains building.

1:53:51>> Yes.

1:53:52>> And section 30 contains.

1:53:55So maybe we'll just change that.

1:54:04Um

1:54:08monitoring expectations page 37

1:54:13um

1:54:18second paragraph

1:54:24I think it's the sixth sentence

1:54:27beginning with the word offerings.

1:54:30things.

1:54:32I'm absolutely mystified what that

1:54:34sentence is seeking to say.

1:54:36>> Yes, I I wrote that. Um, this one

1:54:43>> I was referring to

1:54:49offerings that along so like ceramics,

1:54:54ceramic bowls, other sacred objects that

1:54:58often get offered along drainages or

1:55:01left along drainages.

1:55:04I'm very I was using words that we use

1:55:08at San Deono. So that could be

1:55:11clarified.

1:55:12>> Yeah, I get it because the reader won't

1:55:14know that you're talking about that kind

1:55:16of an offering.

1:55:17>> Yeah.

1:55:18>> So you'll have to expand upon that a

1:55:21bit.

1:55:21>> Yeah, they are related to

1:55:24death usually.

1:55:26>> So related to the burials,

1:55:28>> but yeah, I could expand on that.

1:55:33Okay. And I flipped through here too

1:55:36fast. I missed

1:55:39one on page 20 of the addendum.

1:55:43And you will know why I noticed this. Uh

1:55:47is the third line of the second

1:55:49paragraph has a misspelling.

1:55:54>> Page I'm sorry, page 20. also

1:56:08Alicia.

1:56:09>> You cast Alicia.

1:56:10>> I know.

1:56:12>> I guess it's supposed.

1:56:16>> Well, it is a spelling. I know. That's

1:56:19why it wasn't

1:56:21>> and appropriate to the neighborhood, but

1:56:24she's from Texas and

1:56:28>> it's a Ys. It's those kind of spelling

1:56:30errors that are not found.

1:56:33>> Yeah. No spell check.

1:56:35>> We'll have to take all other Alicia

1:56:37Alicia out of our dictionary.

1:56:40[laughter]

1:56:42>> Search by her last name. Make sure you

1:56:44get two and then you can look at the

1:56:47word.

1:56:49>> This is speaking from experience. Spell

1:56:51check just doesn't.

1:56:55>> So, have you noticed it changes? Um, an

1:56:59shootitz.

1:57:05>> That's that's unfortunate.

1:57:06>> Yeah.

1:57:09>> A former

1:57:11assistant and deputy commissioner, I

1:57:13think I know, last name was Jenx. J E N

1:57:17Ks.

1:57:19>> Belche always insisted it was jerks.

1:57:22[laughter]

1:57:25and sometimes

1:57:27right.

1:57:30>> So,

1:57:31thank you. This is wonderful. It's a

1:57:34tremendous amount of work and I

1:57:36appreciate all the hard thought you put

1:57:39into it.

1:57:41You came back asking us for

1:57:42clarification because we were

1:57:46not always clear. So, thank you for

1:57:48interpreting

1:57:50our

1:57:52sometimes

1:57:55unintelligible

1:57:57statements. You did a good job.

1:58:00>> Thank you.

1:58:01>> You guys did a good job.

1:58:08>> Absolutely.

1:58:08>> All right.

1:58:10That said, we can have a motion

1:58:13>> for case 2026 0135.

1:58:17I move to approve the monitoring plan

1:58:19with the requested.

1:58:23Second.

1:58:25>> Moved and seconded. All in favor signify

1:58:27by saying I.

1:58:29>> I.

1:58:29>> I.

1:58:31>> I. Motion carries unanimously.

1:58:34>> Thank you. Thank you.

1:58:36>> Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

1:58:38Thank you. Thank you very much.

1:58:40>> Thank you.

1:58:41>> Thank you all. Thank you all.

1:58:44Yeah. We'll see you many times.

1:58:49Yeah. [laughter]

1:59:01Okay, next is administrative matters.

1:59:04>> Good evening. Thank you.

1:59:07>> But this deal database you're going to

1:59:10produce.

1:59:11>> Are you planning on publishing that?

1:59:16>> Publish it together. Well,

1:59:20otherwise some way of making it

1:59:22available because it has the potential

1:59:25of being a very good tool for anybody

1:59:29working anywhere in the city.

1:59:31>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:59:32>> And just to make it available would be

1:59:35>> Yeah.

1:59:35>> amazing.

1:59:37>> So I don't think about the best way to

1:59:39make it available.

1:59:42>> If nothing else, I would just beg you

1:59:45for a copy of it.

1:59:47We can do that. Yeah, it's going to be

1:59:49cool. We're gonna It's a really cool

1:59:51opportunity to be super comprehensive

1:59:54>> for the whole city. So,

1:59:56>> yeah, I'm excited.

1:59:57>> Here we go.

1:59:59>> See you guys. Bye.

2:00:01>> See you tomorrow.

2:00:02>> Okay. I'll see you tomorrow.

2:00:10>> Administrative matters.

2:00:12>> Administrative matters. There are a

2:00:13couple of things. Um, do you want to go

2:00:14first?

2:00:16>> Sure. Um we wanted to stack wanted to

2:00:18make the um committee aware of an

2:00:21administrative approval for an emergency

2:00:23waterline. I think there were six

2:00:25waterline breaks um in the Suringo

2:00:29neighborhood. It was for the city of

2:00:30Santa Fe u for Paul under the um scope

2:00:33of Paul Durant. Um wanted to bring that

2:00:37to the committee's attention.

2:00:41>> Member Trice, that's the second email

2:00:43that you received today.

2:00:46is what they're referring to.

2:00:48>> And that's the map you were mystified

2:00:50about.

2:00:52>> Oh, is that it? Okay,

2:00:56there you go.

2:00:59>> Was that

2:01:04>> And so we're just being made aware of

2:01:06this, right?

2:01:08>> Yes. I

2:01:09>> mean, we don't have any anything to say

2:01:11about it. We don't need to say anything

2:01:13about it. So, are all of these water

2:01:16lines going to be replaced or

2:01:18>> I don't think so. I think they had six

2:01:20breaks and I think they are trying to

2:01:22address the issue and um

2:01:26>> Oh, okay. So, just at the location of

2:01:28the brakes is where

2:01:29>> I think so. Yeah. Um and they needed a

2:01:33um administrative approval letter to

2:01:35submit to ship as well. Um,

2:01:40>> and the map just gives a context just a

2:01:43visual area

2:01:44>> where the brakes are and

2:01:46>> it's just Yeah, the Seringo neighborhood

2:01:47is the kind of the scope of

2:01:51the project.

2:01:52>> Yeah.

2:01:55>> Yeah. Maybe what he can do is once they

2:01:58follow

2:02:00>> note where the work was done. Would that

2:02:02be something

2:02:04>> he's going to provide a report of the

2:02:05monitoring in any case? Okay.

2:02:07>> He'll tell us all about

2:02:08>> Okay.

2:02:09>> in great detail. Paul's all over it.

2:02:13>> All right.

2:02:14>> Miss Brownboy had some stuff next and

2:02:17then I also have some stuff after her.

2:02:21>> So, um, did you need all this to tell

2:02:22us?

2:02:23>> I did.

2:02:23>> Okay. Thank you. So, this the Santa

2:02:27Regional Airport is not located in our

2:02:29archaeological

2:02:30district. It's cut short, but it is

2:02:34owned by the cities. Okay.

2:02:37And so, um,

2:02:40there is going to be some testing that's

2:02:42going to be done, some wells for

2:02:44environmental assessments and

2:02:46groundwater, make sure that there's no

2:02:48environmental contamination

2:02:51um, at the airport. And I was just

2:02:54wondering whether this committee would

2:02:57want to see anything or whether um I I

2:03:02don't have access to Empress, so I don't

2:03:04know if there are sites out there that

2:03:06we would need to be concerned about. So

2:03:09this I'm just giving this to you now,

2:03:11but if you could let me know if there's

2:03:13any concerns and whether I should direct

2:03:16archaeological work to be done, um

2:03:22I would like

2:03:26>> [clears throat]

2:03:27>> It's not in our district.

2:03:30>> The only logical district for it is to

2:03:32put it in the river and trails because

2:03:36part of the property

2:03:39bus is the river.

2:03:41>> Right.

2:03:43>> What's the matter, buddy?

2:03:45>> Various iterations of Edamino Royale go

2:03:48right through the airport.

2:03:53Um,

2:03:56and

2:04:00I can imagine there's a number of sites

2:04:02in there and I have no idea if the

2:04:05totality of the project area of the

2:04:08property has been surveyed. Do you have

2:04:11any?

2:04:12>> I don't.

2:04:17So yeah,

2:04:19somehow or other we need to get you

2:04:21reliable access.

2:04:22>> I have an imprint account.

2:04:24>> Hey, it's working cuz last time we spoke

2:04:27it was

2:04:30>> it's touch and go, but yeah.

2:04:33>> So you can potentially answer that

2:04:36question.

2:04:36>> Yes.

2:04:38>> Okay, that's great. That's great to

2:04:40know. Thank you. Yeah. Now I'll just

2:04:42show you the map. I'm sorry, Tom. The

2:04:45Um, you can't see this, but Rivers and

2:04:48Trails goes along Airport Road and to

2:04:50the north of Airport Road. Um, so there

2:04:54is like a little blue area that's

2:04:56highlighted here. It's just a

2:05:00reclamation facility that's in the

2:05:02archaeological

2:05:04um, review district, but the entire

2:05:06airport with the exception of a small

2:05:08portion that's immediately adjacent to

2:05:10New Mexico 599 is um, outside and and

2:05:15might be something we would want to

2:05:16consider to do with the code update

2:05:20>> reach out and

2:05:22make a statement about what it which

2:05:25district is in because I can see

2:05:31that there could be an argument for

2:05:34splitting it

2:05:36>> because of the way the existing

2:05:38districts approach

2:05:41boundary of the property and

2:05:44And

2:05:47but

2:05:51gut feeling is put it all on river and

2:05:53trails because we already know the river

2:05:56is a consideration and we already know

2:05:59the trails are a consideration.

2:06:02Okay, we can do that

2:06:04>> because I think just off the top of my

2:06:07head, there's

2:06:11as many as a half a dozen potential

2:06:14alignments of Elanina Royale that cross

2:06:16the airport property.

2:06:20Uh, one of which I

2:06:24followed on foot

2:06:27to the southwestern corner of the

2:06:29property

2:06:32de las.

2:06:35>> Yeah, you can go.

2:06:37>> This got reused a lot by modern

2:06:39vehicles, but there's a chamino trace

2:06:42that comes right to that southwest

2:06:44front.

2:06:46It's right next to a heavily used more

2:06:50modern two track.

2:06:53So

2:06:55you might find a lot more evidence of

2:06:57Camino on the airport.

2:07:01>> And the study boundary you can see also

2:07:03includes unincorporated areas as well.

2:07:06So I don't know if I need to collaborate

2:07:08with our county partners

2:07:10or anybody

2:07:12you

2:07:12>> recommend.

2:07:13>> That's a darn good question.

2:07:18Since it's Does the city of Santa Fe own

2:07:22the airport?

2:07:23>> Yes. Therefore, property itself. Yes.

2:07:26>> Okay. Then it seems like

2:07:30the logical solution is for the county

2:07:32to say even though it's your baby, don't

2:07:35you worry about it because otherwise

2:07:38it's administrative nightmare.

2:07:41>> Okay. To

2:07:41>> have two people involved.

2:07:46Does

2:07:47the FAA presence involve like bringing

2:07:50any section 106 National Historic

2:07:52Preservation Act complaints?

2:07:54>> If it's a federal undertaking, it

2:07:58involves

2:08:00federal

2:08:01>> projects, permits, or money.

2:08:06>> Seems redundant, but

2:08:09um they could be involved.

2:08:13um this work

2:08:17with Santa Fe County,

2:08:27having worked for the FAA,

2:08:30um I will say they're usually clueless

2:08:34about actually doing something efficient

2:08:37and logical,

2:08:39>> but

2:08:41>> might need to know what that papers

2:08:45believes

2:08:47about

2:08:49whether it's operation as city of Santa

2:08:53Fe court falls under their jurisdiction

2:08:56sufficient that they want to get their

2:08:58fingers in this pie.

2:09:00I hate to ask the question, but

2:09:04sometimes one does need to ask instead

2:09:07of just ask for forgiveness later

2:09:11>> and I was just copied on some emails and

2:09:15saw this and I was like I need to ask

2:09:18you all. So I will follow up at the

2:09:21airport. It's the project is being

2:09:22managed managed by Desiree Ring at the

2:09:26airport

2:09:28and um

2:09:32and Terra is the consultant I I don't

2:09:35see like clearly whether you know what

2:09:38entities would be involved in the

2:09:40financing either. So I will um look into

2:09:43that

2:09:45>> county money county stuff on city budget

2:09:52>> facility that's under FAA operation

2:09:54permit

2:10:01>> okay

2:10:03>> okay

2:10:04so um

2:10:07the next thing I have for uh the radar

2:10:12proposal

2:10:14for uh the continue on from the Georgia

2:10:16O'Keefe thing that we were doing. Uh our

2:10:20proposal should be received next week

2:10:23and we will have a final answer for for

2:10:26you in the month of October. We also

2:10:29have our new historic preservation

2:10:31manager starting in October. So uh you

2:10:35will be introduced to him at the next as

2:10:38well. and we will have our calendar

2:10:41ready to be go for the 2027 calendar

2:10:46year for approval. Um we are going to

2:10:50since we have a lot on our plate coming

2:10:52up this uh coming year with uh

2:10:57new code um the easy fiber uh so we're

2:11:01going to have to do a lot of study

2:11:03sessions and everything. So we are going

2:11:06to go back to uh two meetings

2:11:10>> scheduling two meetings may or may not

2:11:12use the second one

2:11:14>> right

2:11:16>> try to hold it for specific purposes and

2:11:19do the regular work.

2:11:21>> Yes.

2:11:21>> Yes. Mhm. So, uh just so you know that

2:11:24that will be coming

2:11:29>> trees is twice a month going to be

2:11:32something you can deal with.

2:11:39>> Uh yeah, we're getting paid for one of

2:11:41them, aren't we?

2:11:43[laughter]

2:11:45>> And smiles.

2:11:46>> That's a joke, son.

2:11:50Uh again, they won't be every month, but

2:11:53it'll it'll certainly be calendarized

2:11:56every month. And then uh if if needed,

2:11:58then we would we would hold them and we

2:12:01would give you advanced notice. um what

2:12:04we would have so mostly like for

2:12:06postponements if we had a postponement

2:12:08or you know a study session because it

2:12:11it's really going to be needed with the

2:12:13the new code and we have a lot of things

2:12:16uh that are going to be coming before us

2:12:18if we you know go into you know uh now

2:12:22that we have more staff we can do you

2:12:24know our SEIA studies and there's a

2:12:26whole lot of stuff that we want to get

2:12:27into and we're not going to have enough

2:12:30time to do that in uh regular hearings.

2:12:33Well,

2:12:35>> how's our how's our search for another

2:12:37archaeologist going? Because technically

2:12:40we're we're not really a committee yet.

2:12:43>> We are a we are technically a committee.

2:12:46We're just not fully membered at the

2:12:48moment, but we are still we are still on

2:12:51search. So, if you do know anybody,

2:12:54send them my way. and you got approved

2:12:57by the so you know it's you've done work

2:13:01here and I think because the and this is

2:13:04what I mentioned I was thinking back

2:13:06about conversation I had with the mayor

2:13:09>> this is a very specialized position that

2:13:12requires certain qualifications and is

2:13:15really important to the committee and so

2:13:18um

2:13:20if there's an archaeologist I mean I

2:13:23can't claim any knowledge and I don't

2:13:25any right now nobody on staff can can

2:13:28you know claim knowledge about

2:13:30archaeology and the details of all that.

2:13:33So, um, from a professional standpoint,

2:13:36so if there's somebody, we're we're

2:13:38trying to make accommodation for having

2:13:41an archaeologist on the committee.

2:13:43You've been a huge benefit to us and I

2:13:47would love to see another member join

2:13:49that has your background and expertise.

2:13:53>> And David, [laughter]

2:13:55>> sorry, you're not Chocola. I'm just, you

2:13:58know,

2:14:00[laughter]

2:14:00>> you said that was the correct I learned

2:14:03I knew it.

2:14:07>> I will testify that she filtered what I

2:14:10spouted and

2:14:12far surpass whatever I might have told

2:14:15her. But in keeping with checking in is

2:14:20two meetings a month going to be

2:14:23something that

2:14:25you can handle?

2:14:26>> Yes, I can make that work. And then also

2:14:29you guys are always welcome to virtually

2:14:31although we prefer you to be here

2:14:34physically if able. Um that's all we

2:14:37have from staff

2:14:40today.

2:14:42>> Then

2:14:43according to the agenda

2:14:46matters from the committee

2:14:49anything you need to bring up?

2:14:54Um, I don't

2:14:56>> know if um if this is something that um

2:15:02uh

2:15:04should be brought up. Um

2:15:07well

2:15:08uh I have a question specifically

2:15:13regarding um uh Paul Duran's report

2:15:18and it has to do with um some people

2:15:23specifically put uh

2:15:27uh items in the uh in the uh appendix

2:15:33that and and say this is uh in the in

2:15:36the appendix because it's not for public

2:15:39consumption or however the wording goes,

2:15:41you know. Um

2:15:44Paul

2:15:45uh listed his

2:15:48uh

2:15:50uh

2:15:51archaeological sites in his uh plan and

2:15:56was specific enough that he gave

2:15:58actually addresses

2:16:00uh for those uh uh when they were in

2:16:04somebody's house or at somebody's

2:16:06property. Um, and and that seemed a

2:16:10little too specific for me. And I don't

2:16:12know whether that's just me and that

2:16:14should have been something that should

2:16:16have been put in an appendix so that it

2:16:19didn't, you know, actually locate

2:16:22exactly where the site was or not.

2:16:29>> Um,

2:16:30>> good question

2:16:31>> for staff. Um I could say when um we're

2:16:35filling for the ARC committee we will

2:16:40provide their clearance letter the staff

2:16:43memo and um that's about it that they

2:16:47will get from the packet. Um there uh we

2:16:51do not provide any packets that are or

2:16:55any reports to the public

2:16:58uh uh in in the public record. So they

2:17:01will get the staff memo and the final

2:17:04clearance and the application if

2:17:07requested.

2:17:08So that's what they get.

2:17:10>> I guess I was just concerned because you

2:17:13know some archaeologists and and some

2:17:15reports say specifically you know this

2:17:18is confidential uh and not for public

2:17:22release. And you know I was just I was

2:17:25reading Paul's and I'm just going oh oh

2:17:28my god there we have an address. There's

2:17:30another address. There's another

2:17:31address. You know, and and I know that

2:17:34um uh uh you know,

2:17:39that was the first time I'd seen that uh

2:17:42put that way so that you could actually

2:17:45identify

2:17:46uh what was going on at that address. Uh

2:17:51so, you know, that was just something I

2:17:54thought I would try to clarify in my

2:17:56mind as much as anything.

2:17:59>> Yeah. Well, it it would it does not get

2:18:01released to the republic the any reports

2:18:04and the for public information request

2:18:09>> and Tom the official custodian of

2:18:14archaeological records

2:18:18is the archaeological records management

2:18:22section of the Mexico Historic

2:18:24Preservation Division. So if somebody

2:18:27wants to

2:18:29empath the actual report, they are the

2:18:32people who will redact and provide

2:18:35whatever it is they can provide.

2:18:38Nobody else should have to make

2:18:40decisions on behalf of arms about who

2:18:43can get to see what.

2:18:47>> Okay.

2:18:50>> Okay.

2:18:51Um

2:18:53the other thing was uh

2:18:57these last two weeks uh since we had

2:19:00that uh presentation uh about the yard

2:19:05wall, I've just been

2:19:08uh diving into the code, which is why I

2:19:11ask which code are we using and uh why?

2:19:17Um, and I really feel like there's some

2:19:21big holes in in the code. Uh, and I say

2:19:25that as a contractor,

2:19:28uh, uh, who who appreciates what's under

2:19:32the ground in Santa Fe. Um, I know

2:19:35everybody has their reasoning, but

2:19:38boy, I would really like another crack

2:19:40at it at some point. And I hope that we

2:19:43get that chance to fine-tune some of

2:19:46those things because you could drive a

2:19:49truck through some of that stuff. And I

2:19:50think that was I saw that truck two

2:19:54weeks ago and I just thought, "Oh my

2:19:57god,

2:19:59why are we doing this? Why are we even

2:20:01sitting here doing this?

2:20:04Sorry, that is the reasoning why we're

2:20:07um adding the extra meetings on the

2:20:09agenda so we can uh be able to fine-tune

2:20:13comb that and not rush it so we can, you

2:20:16know,

2:20:18>> well, I guess the problem is is that if

2:20:20we're using that code right now, then

2:20:23there's already a big hole and people

2:20:25are going to exploit it because that's

2:20:27what that's what seemed like was

2:20:29happening two weeks ago.

2:20:37A trench is a trench is a trench. It

2:20:39shouldn't matter what you put in it.

2:20:42It's still a trench.

2:20:48And if it's 60 ft or 50 ft long, then we

2:20:51should be looking at it. Uh that's just

2:20:54my my gut feeling about, you know, why

2:20:59we make a homeowner do one thing and not

2:21:02another homeowner do almost exactly the

2:21:04same thing except he's putting concrete

2:21:07in a trench instead of a pipe. That's

2:21:11crazy.

2:21:15>> You are exactly correct.

2:21:21We are crazy.

2:21:23>> [laughter]

2:21:25>> collectively

2:21:26>> if there's a quick language fix for

2:21:28that.

2:21:30Do you like a quick clarification? I

2:21:32might be able to get that done quicker

2:21:34than

2:21:36waiting for all phase two. If the if you

2:21:39feel we should do that.

2:21:43I don't know if it's quick but it seems

2:21:45like

2:21:47amending the statement

2:21:50about such trenching you say

2:21:54trenching

2:21:56or all trenching including that for

2:22:01utilities

2:22:03that exceeds this dimension requires x y

2:22:07and z.

2:22:09I don't know if that fully does it, but

2:22:11it seems like it captures your spirit.

2:22:15>> So, there's um land use directory

2:22:17determination that I can do and I've

2:22:19done this for like micro communities and

2:22:21other blinding topics, other code

2:22:24topics. I can do land use director

2:22:27determination that trenching includes

2:22:30utilities and all other trenching

2:22:34regardless of whether utilities are

2:22:35involved as a code interpretation. And

2:22:39that's what and it's published on the

2:22:42website and all of that and and it adds

2:22:46like a little bit of of of certainty

2:22:49until we can get the code right. Would

2:22:51you like me to

2:22:52>> understand that there is that it doesn't

2:22:54say trenching for utilities. It just

2:22:56says extension.

2:22:57>> Yeah.

2:22:58>> So

2:23:00and also that would require like moving

2:23:02the utility section into the rest of the

2:23:05>> Oh, right. U because the utilities is

2:23:07its own section talking about

2:23:08extensions. Um I don't think there is

2:23:12discussion of trenching in the every

2:23:14other project that needs

2:23:16>> right

2:23:16>> permitting. So I I don't think it's a

2:23:18thick fix.

2:23:19>> Okay. Yeah,

2:23:20>> I'm envisioning a new section or

2:23:23branching everything else

2:23:25>> and then perhaps under utilities

2:23:30cross reference back to it

2:23:35just so that the utilities don't stand

2:23:38alone. It's all trenching.

2:23:41>> Right. Right. And I imagine that if you

2:23:45come forward with some language, you're

2:23:46going to have to run it by the attorney

2:23:49first.

2:23:49>> Oh, absolutely.

2:23:53>> And earlier I had the little voice of

2:23:57the city attorney chirping in my ear and

2:24:00I completely lost the thread of why I

2:24:04wanted to mention that. But um

2:24:12any change,

2:24:14any interpretation that we make

2:24:19that is outside what is in the strict

2:24:24language of the code is probably going

2:24:26to be something the city attorney is

2:24:28very interested in. um

2:24:33like

2:24:34exceptions.

2:24:36I would have loved to have heard him

2:24:39or her

2:24:41since we've had one of each. Um expound

2:24:45upon what

2:24:48that actually means

2:24:50and then how it fits into the context of

2:24:54where the request was coming from. so

2:24:57that we could have a better chance of

2:25:00stating our opinion and not running a

2:25:03foul of

2:25:06anything because I can imagine certain

2:25:08people standing up and saying I'm going

2:25:10to sue and

2:25:14I can imagine the city doesn't want

2:25:15that.

2:25:19On the other hand, maybe they just say

2:25:21bring it.

2:25:25I mean, one thing that I I think uh and

2:25:28I may be wrong in in assuming this, we

2:25:31make suggestions about what the code

2:25:33what we would like to see the code be,

2:25:35but we're not ultimately interpreters of

2:25:38the code. That's staff's

2:25:41staff's uh prerogative. We we

2:25:46I mean all the time I've been on the

2:25:48committee, what we do is we look at uh

2:25:53uh plans and reports and we decide

2:25:57whether they're complete enough or not

2:25:59complete enough and whether you know we

2:26:03uh we depend on staff to tell us whether

2:26:07what we are seeing is to the code

2:26:10because we don't we're you

2:26:14We're not getting paid enough to

2:26:16interpret the code. We're pay we're

2:26:18getting paid okay to say, "Yeah, this

2:26:20plan has what it needs and this uh

2:26:24report has what it needs. Otherwise, we

2:26:27need to get more money. [laughter]

2:26:35We're not lawyers. We're volunteers.

2:26:39We're not We're not inspectors. We're

2:26:41volunteers. We're not code interpreters,

2:26:44we're volunteers.

2:26:47So,

2:26:49I did feel ambushed last the last time

2:26:52because I felt like we were being asked

2:26:54to interpret a code that wasn't our job.

2:27:02So that's my

2:27:05>> I feel like I need to apologize to you

2:27:07for that because that was my my

2:27:09interpretation was that it was an

2:27:11alteration and the applicant

2:27:15um

2:27:16>> it was absolutely an alteration and they

2:27:18were trying to pull a fast one

2:27:20>> and I don't think that they liked my

2:27:23response or what but they wanted to ask

2:27:26the committee

2:27:28um and it is Still I'm considering it as

2:27:31an alteration.

2:27:33>> I mean how many has mole worked on the

2:27:36code? She should know the code inside

2:27:38and out.

2:27:39>> You know

2:27:40>> she shouldn't be coming to us and saying

2:27:41what's the code?

2:27:43>> Right.

2:27:44>> Right. It didn't feel good you know

2:27:47because we consulted and provided a

2:27:52response but she did not want like that

2:27:54response and so that's why she wanted to

2:27:56come to the committee.

2:27:58>> Yeah. I had a meeting with them on

2:28:00Monday and then they emailed Heather and

2:28:03Amanda without me knowing with a

2:28:07three-page report.

2:28:10So, it was a little I don't know.

2:28:13>> Yeah. Well, I mean, I think our

2:28:16inclination would be to say you're

2:28:18digging in the ground. We're concerned

2:28:21with what's in the ground. Period.

2:28:23>> Exactly. Yep.

2:28:30All right. Thank you, Tom.

2:28:32>> Thank you.

2:28:35[laughter]

2:28:36>> No, I don't have

2:28:38>> Okay.

2:28:40Um,

2:28:42in so far as I know, I will be around

2:28:45for the next meeting.

2:28:46>> Okay.

2:28:48Um,

2:28:53as soon as we have the schedule,

2:28:58I will start trying to defend

2:29:01schedule dates.

2:29:04It's harder to defend when there's twice

2:29:06as many of them.

2:29:08>> Yes. So, as early as possible to know if

2:29:13we're going to use one of our wild

2:29:15cards,

2:29:16that would be better.

2:29:17>> Yes.

2:29:18>> Should we do like an every other No,

2:29:20maybe we should ask the question. Should

2:29:22we say every other month there will be

2:29:25two meetings or should we I mean, I was

2:29:29just thinking we'd hold the time and if

2:29:31we needed it, we use it. But if it's a

2:29:33scheduling thing that becomes really

2:29:35nightmarish for you,

2:29:36>> I think

2:29:39specifying the dates of the month that

2:29:42it will be if it is

2:29:46in addition to the meaning that will be

2:29:49for almost darn sure is a good idea

2:29:53because that gives a long-term

2:29:55perspective of how it might work out.

2:29:59>> Okay. voice

2:30:01to know

2:30:04say at the second meeting of January

2:30:08that we are not using the first meeting

2:30:11of February at that meeting would be

2:30:14good because okay

2:30:15>> that just makes

2:30:18scheduling in the interim much easier.

2:30:20>> Yes.

2:30:21>> But I'm in favor of naming them and

2:30:25having them ready.

2:30:27>> Yes.

2:30:28>> Yes. And we will we would have to do it

2:30:30in that way because we have scheduled

2:30:32the room and you know do all of the

2:30:34stuff that comes with an agenda. So we

2:30:37will uh definitely

2:30:39um you'll have advanced notice as we'll

2:30:42be

2:30:43>> it's basically two weeks.

2:30:45[clears throat]

2:30:45>> Yeah.

2:30:47But yeah.

2:30:49>> Okay.

2:30:50>> We'll try to communicate earlier on as

2:30:52well. Yeah.

2:30:55>> Is it easier?

2:30:57Is it easier to just say we meet every

2:30:59two twice a month and then cancel if we

2:31:02don't need to and that way we can plan

2:31:05one way or the other? I don't know. I

2:31:08mean, how do how do how do the other

2:31:09members feel about that?

2:31:13>> Well, that's essentially what would we

2:31:15be doing? We would advise if we're not

2:31:20>> Okay.

2:31:22Yeah. At least that way we can get a

2:31:24free day if we if we don't have enough.

2:31:28>> Yes.

2:31:31>> So the next meeting is 22 October.

2:31:38>> I'm here

2:31:39>> or there

2:31:42item on the agenda.

2:31:49>> I move we adjourn.

2:31:53Second move and seconded. All in favor

2:31:56signify by saying I. I. I.

2:32:00>> We're journed.