Council rejects land-use hearing officer's recommendation on Mesa Film Studio site plan, sends project to full hearing

The Albuquerque City Council on March 17 voted 8-1 to reject the land use hearing officer's recommendation to grant an appeal of the Environmental Planning Commission's approval of a site plan for the proposed Mesa Film Studio on Double Eagle 2 Airport property.

The issue before the council was whether the EPC erred by allowing a film studio land use in the airport's NRSU zone district after the city amended the Double Eagle 2 master plan in August 2024 to allow certain non-aeronautical uses. Planning staff and the land use hearing officer (LUHO) summarized that while the master plan amendment allowed non-aeronautical uses by resolution, the property's IDO zoning remained NRSU and the allowable uses table (Table 4-2-1) does not list film studio or light manufacturing as permitted primary or accessory uses in NRSU.

Ms. Koleda, a planning staff member, told the council the LUHO found one of the appellants' claims had merit: the LUHO concluded the film studio could not be treated as an accessory use to the airport and that the EPC's approval was therefore an error. "The LUHO recommends approval, granting the appeal and reversing the approval of the site plan," Ms. Koleda summarized.

Councilor Lewis moved to reject the LUHO's findings. "I don't agree with the recommendation. Move to reject," Lewis said on the floor. Councilor Champine seconded. After brief discussion, the council voted to reject the LUHO findings by an 8-1 tally; the council president announced the result as "I believe that was an 8 to 1." The council's action leaves the appeal's issues to be heard at a full council hearing; the transcript notes a full hearing is scheduled for April 7.

The site at issue is described in council materials as part of the Double Eagle 2 Airport master plan property and the proposed Mesa Film Studio would occupy airport lease area parcels. Planning staff told council members the IDO does not list film production as a permanent use in NRSU and that, where an unlisted use arises, the Zoning Enforcement Officer determines the most analogous listed use (here, light manufacturing).

The council did not take public testimony during this accept-or-reject stage; the LUHO summary was presented for council questions only. Councilors voting to reject the LUHO report did not record separate written opinions in the meeting transcript. The LUHO had recommended granting the appeal on the allowable-use ground and denying the other 22 claims the appellants raised for lack of evidence.

The council set the matter for the full hearing on April 7, where parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and public comment will be accepted in accordance with the council's hearing procedures.

Details about the project's site plan, specific conditions of the EPC's approval, or the appellants' 23 claims of error were not developed in the council summary beyond the LUHO's conclusions; the LUHO report and the EPC record provide the evidentiary support and will be part of the April 7 hearing record.

Ending: The council's March 17 action reverses only the LUHO recommendation at this stage; it does not adopt a final determination on the site plan itself. Parties and members of the public may participate in the scheduled April 7 council hearing for a full record and final council decision.