Santa Fe historic-review board clears State Executive Office Building design, reserves right to revisit changes
Loading...
Summary
After a lengthy public debate over height and collaboration, the board found the State’s revised Executive Office Building plans resolved its prior concerns and declined to invoke a joint city‑state committee, while reserving the right to review any substantive future changes.
The Historic Districts Review Board on Jan. 27 voted that revised plans for the State Executive Office Building at 130 South Capitol have resolved the board’s previously raised issues, but the board reserved its right to require additional review if substantive changes are later made.
Jennifer Jenkins, representing the State of New Mexico, told the board the project team had “made modifications that we have made to the design in response to those comments” and presented adjusted elevations, reduced window openings, added pediments and a single stucco color to address earlier concerns. Jenkins also said the team was relying on a height calculation previously prepared in 2011 and confirmed by city staff, which the state’s architect and staff reported as roughly 57 feet (about 57 feet 6 inches) for the allowable institutional‑building standard.
Members of the public and several preservation advocates disputed that calculation and criticized the outreach process. Beverly Spears said the state’s method “was not in compliance with city code” and alleged the allowable height should be closer to 37 feet, while Frank Katz and others urged the board to require further collaborative sessions or alter the building footprint to meet lower height limits. John Murphy and other historians and neighborhood representatives told the board they either had not been adequately consulted or that alternatives had not been fully explored.
City staff and the board’s counsel explained the project is governed by a distinct subsection of the historic‑district code that treats state capital outlay projects differently from residential streetscapes; staff said their calculation follows that subsection and that it included institutional buildings in the streetscape average. The state said it would not make substantive design changes without prior notice to the review board.
A board member moved that findings be entered showing the state followed the procedures in section 14‑5.2(m), that revised plans had been submitted and that issues identified by the board were resolved. The motion—stating the board would not notify the state that unresolved issues remain but reserving the board’s right to invoke procedural safeguards if substantive changes are later made—passed on a roll‑call vote.
The board’s action allows the State to proceed with the presented design under the current procedural posture. The decision preserves a procedural path for the board to require additional review if the State alters the design in ways the board later deems substantive.
