State and Santa Fe board press for more design work on Executive Office Building ahead of Feb. 6 deadline

Santa Fe — The Historic District Review Board spent the bulk of its meeting pressing the state’s design team for clearer drawings and more detail on a proposed Executive Office Building at 130 South Capitol, and directed staff and the state to continue negotiating before the city’s 60‑day review period ends Feb. 6.

The hearing centered on massing, the building’s tower and how large areas of glazing and window details would meet the Historic District code. John Benvenu, who read a subcommittee’s set of 11 discussion points to the board, said the committee intended the list as “talking points” rather than final recommendations and emphasized questions about stepbacks on upper floors, whether the north and east elevations met the 40% fenestration limit, single stucco color, and whether the tower’s proportions were appropriate.

Jennifer Jenkins, representing the state, told the board the team had already begun revising the design. “We can confirm that all the windows are recessed,” she said, and the state said it would roof the single‑level portal on the east facade and consider a single stucco color. Jenkins also confirmed the building’s parapet height would top out near 50 feet and that the tower’s open cupola reaches roughly 77–78 feet. Architect Art Tatum described the tower as a functional element that contains elevator overrun and mechanical components and argued it also helps locate the building entry.

Board members and members of the public pushed back on aspects of the design. Several board members said they wanted an exact proposed height for the tower and clearer drawings showing whether pedimented window trim or recessed windows would be used. Member Cherry said window recessing and pediments conflict for some window types and asked the state to clarify which windows would be recessed and which would receive trim. Members also requested precise calculations about whether the northwest facade meets the code’s 40% window‑to‑wall rule.

Public commenters were divided. Preservation advocates urged stricter limits on height and fenestration, citing the building’s relationship to the Capitol, while some neighborhood and development voices argued further delay would raise costs and hamper a state capital‑outlay schedule.

Legal counsel reminded the board that NMSA 3‑22‑6 establishes a 60‑day comment period and a subsequent five‑day window to determine whether outstanding issues require formation of a joint state‑city committee. That timetable is driving a push to get revised plans into the board packet in time to review before the statutory cutoff.

Outcome and next steps: The board did not issue final written recommendations at the meeting but directed the state and staff to meet with the subcommittee, prepare revised renderings and aim to place the revised materials in the board packet for the next hearing. Several board members said they expect a short follow‑up discussion (or a special meeting) to confirm whether the state’s revisions address the board’s concerns before the statutory deadline.