Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the July 1st, 2026 Airport Land Use Commission meeting. For those of you here for the Planning Commission, that will follow immediately after this meeting.

And Ms. Vega, would you please do roll? Yes. Commissioner Richmond?

Present.

Commissioner Moran-Williams? Present. Commissioner Walker?

Present.

Commissioner Brooks?

Present.

Chair Dameron?

Present.

And let the record reflect that Commissioner Brunzel will be excused from today's meeting.

Thank you. And Commissioner Walker, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? The Commission invites public comments and recommendations concerning current problems and future prospects of a planning nature which are within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission. Anyone who wishes to speak to the Commission on such a matter, if it is not on the agenda, may do so at this time. Okay. It looks like no one in the room. And do we have anyone on Zoom or the phone?

No public comment.

All right, thank you. The clerk of the commission requests approval of minutes for the meeting held on April 15th, 2026. Commissioners Brunzel and Moran Williams were excused. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And any abstentions? Okay, the minutes are approved. And we will move on to the agenda review. And Ms. Atkins, would that be you or would that be you, Ms. Morrison? That would be Wendy.

All right, excellent. Thank you, Chair Dameron. This morning we have one item on the agenda today, and that is the City of Napa annexation, pre-zoning, a biomass gasification facility, and the airport land use consistency determination.

Thank you so much. And on to disclosures. And we'll start with you, Ms. Moran-Williams.

I just wanted to mention that through my consulting I work on it I work with companies outside of Napa County that deal with waste management and technology in waste management and none of them are related to this project but I thought I would put it on the record since I have at times met with city officials about various topics related to to waste great thank you so much Commissioner Walker

Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner, excuse me, I guess we don't have our expertise. Commissioner Gaines. And on to Commissioner Brooks.

I have no disclosures.

Thank you. Commissioner Richmond.

I have no disclosures.

And I also have no disclosures. All right. So that brings us to our public hearing item 7A. And Ms. Atkins, it's all yours.

Thank you, Chair Demmerin and members of the commission. I'm Wendy Atkins. I'm the staff liaison to the Airport Land Use Advisory Commission, and today I'll be presenting this item. The City of Napa has submitted an application for consistency determination and a special conditions exception for a biomass gasification facility. Here's the agenda for today. Staff will present the project, discuss the consistency with the airport land use compatibility plan, explain the special condition exception, summarize the coordination with the airport manager, and present staff's recommendation. The proposed action is for the airport land use commission to approve the special conditions exception request and find the project consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The California Environmental Quality Act review and land use aspects, such as building permits and planning entitlements, are under the jurisdiction of the City of Napa. The only reason this project is before this commission is because the property is located within the airport compatibility zone of B1 and B2. The proposed City of Napa annexation pre-zoning of a biomass gasification facility project consists of a request to approve a special conditions exception and find the project consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. The 45-foot-tall biomass gasification facility is proposed just south of the existing recycling and compost facility. The airport land use compatibility plan restricts building heights to 35 feet. The city's land use regulations allow for process for structures to exceed this height within the airport influence area, subject to a consistency determination by the ALUC. A Federal Aviation Administration determination of no hazard to air navigation was issued in July of last year, which concluded that the proposed structure does not exceed obstruction standards and does not present a hazard to air navigation. This project, it's not very clear on the screen, but it's in airport land use compatibility zone of both B1 and B2. The project proposes the annexation of a 2.87-acre parcel and the construction of a new biomass conversion facility. The project would increase permitted throughput at the existing Napa recycling and compost facility to an average of 1,000 tons per day. to meet new state regulatory demands. This commission is only evaluating the consistency of the proposed project in regards to the airport land use compatibility plan and is not analyzing the CEQA analysis for the project, nor the land use aspects of the project. The project also proposes to use a portion of the parcel to the north, at 600 Tower Road for inert concrete, dirt, and gravel material processing and storage. These proposed expansions beyond the existing diversion facility are subject to ALUCP review as these uses were not entitled, established, or existing prior to the adoption of the 2024 ALUCP. While the project provides greater flexibility in developing and implementing processes and operations that ultimately divert organics from the landfill, decreases greenhouse gas emissions, increases the recovery of materials and energy from waste, and allows the facility to operate more efficiently and economically. The project is technically incompatible with the airport land use compatibility plan. So chapter five of the handy-dandy Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and includes compatibility policies for the Napa Airport. Exhibit 5.1, which is displayed on the screen, contains the basic compatibility criteria. And as you can see, if you look down the column at the top for B1 and B2 and go down, you can see that power plants on the left-hand side and other utilities are typically not allowed in the B1 and B2 compatibility zones and are noted as incompatible uses. So the ALUCP defines incompatible as the land use should not be permitted under any normal circumstances. Limited exceptions are possible for site-specific special circumstances. The intent of this criterion is to facilitate evacuation if a building were to be hit by an aircraft. The current airport land use compatibility plan has a provision for a special condition exception. And there may be specific situations where a normally incompatible use can be considered compatible because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the site. After due consideration of all these factors involved in such situations, in consultation with the airport manager, the ALUC may find a normally incompatible use to be compatible. Under the special condition exception, this commission may consider the project's following benefits. It reduces greenhouse gases and produces carbon negative byproducts, limits the number of employees, up to three employees at a given time, inside the building, and allows for faster egress from the building in the event of a potential airplane crash. Incorporates special building measures to reduce risks to building occupants in the event of an aircraft crash. avoids increased bird attraction to the area by using non-attractive woody feedstock. An LRAD system will be installed, which may reduce the number of birds on site. And the project complies with the national standards, as the Federal Aviation Administration issued a determination letter which concluded that the proposed structure does not exceed obstruction standards and does not present a hazard to air navigation. and no risk to national security. The project was referred to the Napa County Airport Manager, which resulted in a letter of support for the goals of the proposed Napa Renewable Resources Project and its plan to divert landfill disposal of local organic waste, recycling greenhouse gas emission, and producing carbon negative byproducts. The airport manager proposed that the potential risk from bird strikes to aircraft should also be a goal of the expansion. And as such, a condition of approval has been included that the project shall complete a wildlife hazard assessment leading to a wildlife hazard management plan to include baseline data after the implementation of the NRRP1 modifications expected to reduce wildlife attractant and access data after the proposed City of Napa current plan project is implemented at the recycling facility. The plan will be prepared using the same biological expertise as the Napa County Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, and the airport or will update its 2017 plans. And the plans will identify relevant species and populations posing a danger to aircraft in the area, characterize the habitat, water, and food sources that are attractants to significant animals and bird populations, and identify recommended approaches based on data to coordinate habitat modification, hazing, and depredation activity. And the scope of the work for the airport wildlife hazard management plan will adhere to FAA advisory circular. So at this time, the commission has four choices of action when making a consistency determination on a major land use action. One, you can approve the special conditions exception and determine the project consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. subject to recommended conditions of approval. You can add specific additional conditions that should be limited in scope and described in a manner to allow compliance to be clearly assessed. You could continue the project to a future date if more information is found to be needed, or you can deny the project provided you make specific process findings. And thank you. That concludes staff's report. The applicant's team is here to present their project and answer any questions. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Atkins. Do we have any questions for staff?

Could we hear the presentation?

Sure. And then do questions afterwards? Yeah, absolutely. All right. We'll move on to the applicant's team for their presentation.

There was no presentation, but I will just add a few comments related to the work that's gone into this project and perhaps a little overarching concept of where this project has come from. Excuse me. Could you state your name for the record? Of course. Thank you. My apologies. Joy Eldridge, Utilities Director for the City of Napa. And so the existing materials diversion facility has been on site, established, well established there since 1993. Existing operations have... I've been serving the city of Napa and Napa County, many surrounding areas, for these many years. There are new state requirements requiring more organics to be, it's SB 1383, requiring organics to be brought to the facility. And in concept, as the state law requirement has been in place, These proposed facilities, there's a first phase, if you will, that was approved by the city somewhat recently which will produce anaerobic digestion, AD, which will take the existing conditions And really what a lot of the conversation has been around is the wildlife management in the area. So anaerobic digestion already approved is one thing that is essentially going to change existing conditions today, make those better. It's essentially post-processing of material that's brought on site and encapsulates it and removes the energy from that. So if you will, you could look at this site as in that's an early phase of this digestate processing as it is. And then what we're here to talk about today is biomass, which is another phase of that essentially could look at it as post-processing as well of woody debris and waste. So where those areas may result in current wildlife attractant, it actually encloses that and processes it in a different manner, pulling energy from that and then left with an inert substance at the end. So hopefully that's helpful just in larger concept of material that's brought to the site today and essentially will be processed in a different and more robust manner as we move forward with these multiple projects.

Thank you, Ms. Eldridge. You're welcome. Any questions for our staff or the applicant's team? Yeah, I do. Can you? Sure. Yeah, we'll get you a microphone.

Joy, you said it's going to bring new organic matter into the facility. So will that matter? Does that attract birds?

So today, matter is being brought into the facility. We're required by state law for home, basically, organics to be brought to the facility. That's happening everywhere across the state.

Okay. And then you said then it becomes encapsulated in the building. So do we see that as potentially making it harder for the birds or –

Exactly. Where items are gathered on site, they're then essentially more quickly brought into an encapsulated facility that heats it up. In this example of the biomass, it's essentially biochar will be the end result, which almost looks like coal.

So ultimately, the birds might not be attracted to this as much as they are currently. Right.

And the exposure would be there for a shorter amount of time, too, prior to the processing. And to step back a bit from where we've been within these processes many years ago. And we've been making steps in this manner through the years of getting better and understanding what's going on. And that's part of working with the airport manager to say, how do we handle these things? And how do we work together as we go forward? Again, it was mentioned by Wendy, we'll be using the same consultant so that if we're taking actions, it's not working against what's happening at the airport to dissuade the foul from the area. So I think by having greater coordination, we can make greater gains within protecting the area.

Great. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Brooks?

A couple questions. One, in reading through it, it looked like was this approved in 2014 or something? I thought I saw and why the lag from 2014 to now to implement this?

Sorry to interrupt. There are two aspects of, and as I mentioned, I'm kind of stepping back to these multiple phases of work on almost consider it a master plan for the facilities and the ongoing operations related to handling material as it comes in so in 2014 there was work related to the anaerobic digestion as I mentioned as a first phase of also processing material in an enclosed manner and then biomass was mentioned but there's been a change to the size of the biomass aspect which is more about the woody debris and And we're constantly looking at, does this make business sense? So looking at what are PG&E rates? What does it take to make this capital expenditure? And what is the energy output for that? So there's, over time, there's been a look at what's the optimal size for this.

And then there's a reference to an LRAD system that would be used. And reading up on that, it sounds like, and maybe this is done at larger airports, there's actually a radar system that focuses on avian birds. And you could actually, when you see something like that happen, you would use an LRAD system like that in a very focused and direct way. to clear that. And it wouldn't be something you were using all the time. It would be something that's triggered by a bird event. I mean, I'm trying to understand that more. Because LRAT does have some negative impacts, too, on other wildlife and even on people sometimes. It's extremely loud acoustic deterrents that are used even in warfare and stuff, which is where some of those companies have developed those systems.

It came out of the military. That's why they tell it it's highly effective. And that's where we'll be working with the airport manager to understand how effective are these watching them. Our unit is more of a mobile skid mounted. So I'll say the element of surprise is in our favor because the FALT. do tend to get used to precautions that are taken or actions that are taken. So that's part of that understanding what's working and what isn't and then working together with both facilities to see what is most effective and that we're synergizing but not working against each other. by scaring them over here and then scaring them back. So we'll figure that out over time with usage.

And it sounds like that wildlife mitigation plan, which Wendy referenced and hers, and one existed already, but we're going to do one that now takes these new facilities into account, and that becomes a mechanism where you interact with the airport through that plan that you implement? Just trying to understand that.

right there's one that exists today mark may be better equipped to speak to this but there's an update that is i think approximately every 10 years or so there's an update and so it's time to update that and so we intend to do on site specific to to this property and use the same consultant and make sure that there's compatibility and the same measures are entertained and coordinated

And finally, relative to what you're intaking in waste that could be processed in this way with your biomass conversion, this one megawatt facility, what percent of the total of what you're bringing in can be processed by this facility?

I don't know the answer to that, but maybe Chris Jones does. Chris is a senior engineer for city of Napa.

Chris Jones, senior engineer with the city of Napa. So our current facility intakes about 760 tons per day is our maximum permitted limit. The biomass plant would be taking the woody fraction that's coming off our composting facility and running that back through the biomass gasification plant. So the biomass gasification plant does about, depending on the size we go with, about 10,000 tons per year. So it's a fraction of the material that we're actually getting into the facility. Most of it's still going to be running through the composting facility. That oversized fraction that would be going to the landfill as cover or having to get trucked off site will now be disposed of on site. So it's really reducing the amount we have to truck off.

Right. And then the biochar itself, which in vineyards and stuff, we are starting to use that. Is that going to be made available in the same way we can go get compost now? We can get biochar from you guys?

Exactly. We hope to mix that with the compost.

Okay.

Great. Thank you. Yep.

And then I just wanted to confirm, so there's several other facilities related to waste management that are already exceptions to this airport land use, or are they on different parcels? Is this like the first exception in this particular area?

There was an exception approved by this commission in 2012 for something I'm going to look up.

Okay. But it's adjacent to the composting facility and where the anaerobic digesting facility is.

So it looks like in 2012, this commission approved the annexation and pre-zoning of the materials diversion facility. And that was six different parcels that were merged into one. Okay. Including the property site to the north.

600? Yeah.

600 devlin yes uh just to clarify that it's thank you the annexation was for the six existing parcels that now comprise the materials diversion facility so we purchased a new parcel to the south from the napa vallejo waste transfer authority um in 2022 i believe uh

Ten years in the making, approximately.

So it's been a while, but we're looking to annex that property in with those other six parcels.

I didn't know if what Commissioner Moran Williams was getting at was, because maybe going back to your map that had all the different zones, maybe that third or fourth chart you showed us, is the diversion facility, which at least when I go down there, definitely attracts seagulls and stuff, is that already itself an exception or is that outside of our zone of influence?

was part of the 1991 Planning Commission use permit consistency determination. And that established the recycling materials transfer station.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. I think those are all our questions. Thank you so much. So now we'll open up public comment if anyone is interested on commenting. We'll start first in the room. You'll have three minutes to approach the podium. And then we'll go to the phones.

Chair and honorable members of the Air Force Land Use Compatibility Plan. My name is Mike Hackett. I'm from Angwin. Certainly what I'm going to say is not about me, but I just want you to know I've been flying since I was 18. I got 21,000 hours. We operate a CJ-2 jet out of the Napa airport.

So thank you for the Todd, et cetera, those of you who are doing the work out there, keeping us safe.

Yeah, I'm here just not to make an opinion on one side or the other. But we do really have a serious bird problem at the Napa Airport. It's not about biochar. And I don't want to be against anything Joy is ever saying. But I do think that we need to do a little more study on the LRAD system. And let's make sure that we're not making things worse instead of better. This seems a little premature, not terribly premature. But I think we all need to be concerned about the fowl out there, because there is quite a problem. And it's a safety issue. It's a serious safety issue. It's probably the most serious safety issue. And it's because the dump is right next door. It's just serious. So to make things worse, I don't think that would be good. But maybe, Mitch, maybe the airport manager would like to come and tell us about the bird strike, how often they are, because I don't have those figures. I think you do need to know that. And whether this will, in his opinion, make things worse. Obviously, he's not going to say that, or he wouldn't be here recommending it. But I'd like a little more information for the public to understand what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hackett. Okay. That's everyone in the room. Do we have anybody on Zoom or the phone?

We don't have any public comment.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So bringing it back to the commission, so our next step is to discuss if we would like to approve the special conditions or if there's any further information needed. Any comments?

I don't know if it's appropriate, but vis-a-vis Mr. Hackett's comment, I mean, you know, It always was a little concerning to me seeing how much activity we had around the recycling center and, you know, having the airport manager comment on how they feel about the current situation from a safety standpoint and whether we're going to be aggravating this or whether it actually could help. You know, I'd love to hear that if they want to comment on it.

Good morning, Commission. Thank you very much for having me here. I'm Mark Woodsoe, the airport manager for the Napa County Airport. I can't unring the bell from the work that the planning commission has done or the airport land use commission has done in the past. When given the opportunity to review this particular project, I am looking to build partnerships with the city. The city and the county have operated somewhat independently. We are doing airport things and they are doing recycling things. And this was an opportunity because they need to get a special exception from your commission to try to set the path forward in a more productive manner. We do have a bird issue on the east end of the airport related to the recycling center. A lot of that is not under review today. But the concept of doing parallel wildlife hazard assessments, basically surveys with a biologist, is why are the birds there? Why do they find food sources, water sources, places to nest? in that locality, and then ways of mitigating the birds, changing the habitat, doing hazing. And if that doesn't work, then possibly even trapping or depredation. I think we can work together. Our plan works. We do still have bird strikes at the airport. Some of them are related to the recycling center. Some are related to the wildlife area that we have west of the airport. Some of them are related to the fact that we just have nearly 600 acres of nice grass. And we do our best to respond to tower requests that they see congregations of birds in and around our runways and taxiways. We look for wildlife and record not only birds but also deer and coyotes and rabbits when they are doing airfield inspections. And then we do our best at our own habitat modification and hazing to deter those from having any kind of safety impact on the activity that we have on the airport. So I was careful in writing my recommendation. I'm looking for this wildlife hazard assessment and the plan to cover the whole recycling center, including this new biomass facility, and then for us to work together to reduce any kind of adverse safety elements between our two facilities. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

That's really helpful. Just we have the Oakland Airport, you know, kind of near wetlands and the water and SFO2. Do you guys compare data? I mean, from a safety standpoint, are we less safe than those airports or more safe, you know, specifically with respect to avian problems?

When you've seen one airport, you've seen one airport. Every airport is different. We've had a biologist help us write our wildlife hazard management plan. We've invested in the resources to be able to deter birds from habituating around the airfield. We've actually even hired a service provider that has dogs and a trained falcon to go out there and scare the birds away. So we're using all the methods that are recognized by biologists as to having a good effect on improving airport safety.

Thanks.

All right. Excellent. Thank you for the added information. Any other comments from the commission? Or is there a motion?

Just a comment. I'm in favor of the project, but I do have concerns about the LRAD system and how it relates to the rest of the wildlife in the area, and specifically the beaver population that is in the sloughs in that area that are so important to the rejuvenation of that area. So I just would ask that that be considered in the process. I could attempt a motion.

The LRAD system, since that concerns have been raised, is that something that gets more addressed further in the actual project application later on? So we're doing the consistency determination for the zoning today, but I think it's nice to know what will be addressed in the future.

I can speak to that since we've, we had proposed the LRAD system thinking, hey, this is a good faith effort to put something forth that works. After discussing with Mark, he said, hey, maybe you want to put that on hold or even see, and it was a special order. So we were just chatting. I don't know the status of that, but we definitely intend to. to use that if it's recommended by the biologist and as part of the plan or to not use it or scale back the use or just ensure that it's used properly once we have that in hand again it was put on order and I don't know it was a six month lead time or something like that yeah I don't remember the actual status right now but essentially we've taken Mark's input into consideration and did try to put a hold on that so I'm just not sure of the status but that will be our intent going forward

Great, thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Walker.

Sorry, I don't know how to work this stuff. I was on the Airport Advisory Commission for 20-something plus years, and as Mr. Haskins said, yes, BERTs have been a problem out there for many years. The one thing that I see with this and with the special exceptions in these conditions is I do see the city and the airport working together, and I see that as a positive thing that we haven't had in the past. So I applaud you, Joey, for the city stepping up and maybe helping with this issue.

that's our intent and that's where we've I think we're very much on the same page we the city owns the facility we do have a contract operator but they are under our contract so let's just say it's a new day moving forward commissioner yeah yeah go ahead Commissioner Brooks

I move that with respect to the city of Napa annexation, pre-zoning of a biomass gasification facility, airport land use consistency, that we approve this special condition exception and find the project consistent with the ALUCP subject to the recommended conditions of approval that Ms. Atkins outlined for us.

There has been a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Approved. Thank you, Ms. Atkins, and thank you, Joy, for all the information and the added comments as well. All right. So that brings us to administrative items.

We have no administrative items today. Thank you.

All right. And any staff or commissioner comments or reports? Alright, well then that means we will adjourn the Airport Land Use Commission hearing and stay tuned as we shuffle to start the Planning Commission hearing in a moment.

Yes, Chair Dameron, we'd like to take a 10-minute break to set up for the Planning Commission meeting if that's acceptable. Oh, absolutely. Thank you.