Use Permit #2026-001 appeal

Described the mom-and-pop operation, the indoor pour-away stations, tonnage diverted, and the family sacrifices behind the project.

The Blue Water Recycling owner argued the building could be built by right anyway, described the grant-funded phases, and said the machines pay per container to prevent fraud.

Opposed the location, saying it's more industrial than the CT zone intends, and argued a recycling center belongs closer to Susanville where walkers can reach it.

Preserved on the record his argument that a majority of board members had conflicts related to the project.

Argued the board must make the mandatory no-detriment finding on substantial evidence and that a 12,000-square-foot processing facility exceeds 'light commercial' character.

Compared the project to the Verizon tower, which got full environmental review despite lower impacts, and questioned the CEQA exemption's consistency.

Focused on scale and questioned whether the noise analysis matched the actual equipment, noting backup alarms can hit 97-100 decibels.

Cited 113 signed petitions, private wells as sole drinking water, and the single access road shared with emergency services and funeral processions.

Argued the county's own documents call it a 'commercial industrial building' and that bailing and sorting align with the industrial-use definition.

Asked for consistency with the Verizon review level and careful evaluation of the findings, noting primary residences on three of four sides of the site.

Said he built his home across the road in 2010 and the facility would destroy his view, quiet, and property value; questioned equipment breakdown risks.

The Susanville Supermarket store director stayed neutral on the location but reminded everyone recycling is everyone's responsibility and clarified the CalRecycle retailer penalty rules.