Residents urge Fruita council to oppose proposed plastics processing plant, raise wetland concerns

Dozens of Fruita residents urged the city council to oppose a proposed Astera Plastics processing plant and to halt local wetland destruction at public comment during the council meeting. Speakers said the project and recent grading have harmed neighborhood wetlands and family farms and asked the council to press the county and state health authorities to block the plant.

The comments were led by Paul Schultz, a Fruita resident, who said the “obliteration of a Compton Ditch wetland and the ongoing destruction of the Skiff Avenue wetland” has removed wildlife habitat and local green space. He demanded the council “immediately cease all destructive wetland activities at the Skiff Avenue and Compton Ditch Wetland sites,” convene an urgent meeting with affected residents and develop a preservation plan. Schultz added, “We must preserve the essence of Fruita before it's lost forever.”

Janet Wyatt, speaking on behalf of some Western Slope Sierra Club members and other Fruita residents, asked the council to “lean on the county and health and air board to block the passage” of the Astera Plastics proposal. Wyatt said the company’s proposal omits detail on air emissions and wastewater and argued the facility is not true recycling: “Turning plastic into fuel cannot be considered recycling,” she said, and warned the process can generate byproducts such as benzene, toluene and dioxins. Another resident, Ellie Schultz of the Village at Country Creek, told the council the company “has never built the facility like this before” and said siting the flagship facility near agricultural land and older residential neighborhoods is inappropriate.

City Manager Shannon Vossen told council the proposed plastics facility is a county land-use matter and that city staff have been directed to provide narrow, code-based comments to Mesa County’s planning commission and board of county commissioners when appropriate. Vossen said the city will focus feedback on the conditional‑use permit criteria the county must apply and noted the county’s planning office has already begun receiving public comments.

Several council members asked staff to invite company representatives to brief the council and to notify the council when the county schedules public hearings. Staff said there is no county hearing scheduled yet and that the city will monitor the county’s timeline. Vossen reiterated staff will limit any formal city input to the narrow issues the county’s conditional‑use process requires.

The city did not take a formal vote on the proposal. No county decisions were announced at the meeting; zoning and conditional‑use approvals are the responsibility of Mesa County and state regulatory bodies.

Community members who offered written materials said they had provided photographs and other documentation of recent grading and wetland disturbance to city and county staff.