Chester Residents Seek Review of Asphalt Plant

QUINCY — During the public comment period at the beginning of the November 10 meeting of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, four Chester residents representing the Almanor Action Group aired concerns about alleged health and environmental impacts of an industrial asphalt and concrete plant near their neighborhood. The plant, owned by Sierra Cascade Aggregate and Asphalt Products, Inc., is located on First Avenue south of a residential area and between Chester Airport and Lake Almanor.

The group reported that people living up to a mile from the plant have complained of odors, particulate residue, noise and traffic, and have experienced health issues, including headaches, sore throats, coughing and nausea. Although the plant has been in operation since at least 2014, it was not immediately clear when those complaints first arose. Speakers asked the county to review whether the plant is properly permitted and in compliance with permit requirements; determine whether changes to the operation since it was first permitted require additional review, and provide public accountability by placing their concerns on the board’s formal agenda for discussion and possible action.

Speakers for the group said they had requested time on the agenda, but had been denied with no reason given. Board Chair Mimi Hall said the appropriate action would be for the board to follow up with staff about the citizens’ concerns. Supervisor Tom McGowan, who represents the Chester area, said discussion of the concerns had been ongoing for two years and asked for a commitment to put the matter on the agenda. Chair Hall declined to discuss the matter further during the meeting.

In other action Tuesday, the supervisors voted to request an exemption from new state recycling mandates and to terminate the county’s participation in the proposed Indian Valley Public Safety Center in Greenville.

On the recycling issue, the county’s Solid Waste Program Manager, Sean Graham, recommended that the county seek an exemption from certain requirements of the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) that expand the categories of plastic waste that must be recycled. The law allows counties with fewer than 70,000 people to request an exemption from the new requirements by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Graham said that without the exemption, the county would be required to recycle and report on additional types of plastic that are not currently recycled. “Recycling is complicated,” she said, because “each type of material has a different end-of-life pathway” with different potential for re-use. Supervisor Kevin Goss called the new requirements a “one-size-fits-all” state mandate that wouldn’t work in Plumas County and moved to approve requesting the exemption. Supervisor McGowan said of the new requirements, “We just don’t have the ability to do it; although most of us would love to, it’s just not feasible.” The board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution requesting the exemption.

County Administrative Officer Dan Pargee presented a proposal to formally terminate the county’s participation in the Indian Valley Public Safety Center planned for Greenville and withdraw the county’s $1.5 million funding commitment to the project. The proposed facility was conceived in the aftermath of the Dixie Fire, which destroyed public buildings including a county-owned Sheriff’s substation, as an integrated location for public safety services, including fire, emergency services, and law enforcement. It would have been built on land owned by the Indian Valley Community Services District and jointly operated by the county and the district. Plans to build the facility were formalized in a 2024 agreement between the two entities, but county officials subsequently reviewed the agreement and identified unresolved concerns about ongoing financial responsibilities and occupancy and decision-making rights on property outside county ownership, according to a memo accompanying the draft resolution. Supervisor McGowan moved to approve withdrawing from the agreement, commenting that plans for the center made sense at the time they were made, but no longer did because of changed financial circumstances. Supervisor Goss, who represents Greenville and previously championed the project, agreed and seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. In place of the proposed joint center, the county plans to build a Sheriff substation on county-owned land.