This source cluster preserves the governing-code layer used for the June 23,
2026 Project Taurus policy/code assessment. It separates current official code
text from City-record findings and from appeal argument.
The current UDC text materially supports the procedural concern at the center
of the appeal: UDC 7.5.516.B.2 says a Major Modification may only be approved
by the decision-making body that approved the original permit or approval,
using the same procedure. The inspected City memo and approval letter confirm
that City staff administratively approved Project Taurus as a Major
Modification, but they do not identify the original approval body or same
procedure.
That is not enough, by itself, to say the City violated the code. The missing
source is the original entitlement chain: prior Corporate Ridge approvals,
decision body, procedure, conditions, and any later modifications. Without that
chain, the strongest supported status is a plausible procedural violation
theory with an incomplete record.
The completion pass added two important source layers. First, official
Legistar records for Ordinance No. 23-18 now confirm UDC transition context and
an Exhibit A row converting PIP-1: Planned Industrial Park to BP: Business Park (Planned District). Second, the approved plan's M201 sheet now supports a
record-based power-capacity reconciliation issue because it shows two data
halls labeled 50 MW each and related UPS/generator details. Neither source
confirms a code violation: Ordinance 23-18 does not identify the original
Corporate Ridge approval body, and M201 does not prove final CSU contracted
demand or operating load.
The later June 23 source-hardening addendum preserved a current Accela case
page still showing Approved, type Major Modification, existing zone BP,
and associated record AR DP 00-00177; City search no-results pages for
Project Taurus / appeal / unresolved code-section strings; and Legistar API
screens that did not surface a Project Taurus appeal or outcome. These are
source-state and routing findings. They do not prove no appeal was filed or
confirm any City code violation.
A later June 23 KRDO article changed the appeal-status lane but not the code
merits lane: KRDO reported that the City confirmed five appeal applications met
filing requirements and will move forward through the appeal process. That
supports attributed appeal-status wording while leaving City-native appeal
files, hearing records, outcome, and legal merits unresolved.
The current code pages captured or checked in this pass include:
7.5.516, Modification of Approved Applications.7.5.515, Development Plan.7.5.409, General Criteria for Approval.7.3.201, Base and NNA-O District Use Table.7.3.303, Commercial and Industrial Uses.9.8.103, Classification/Measurement of Noise.9.8.104, Permissible Noise Levels.The completion pass also captured the official Legistar matter, history,
attachment list, signed ordinance PDF/text, and Exhibit A workbook for
Ordinance No. 23-18.
The pages identified themselves as 2026 S-20 (current) with no earlier
versions shown in the comparison selector for the captured pages. This pass did
not capture historical versions for March or June 2026.
The inspected City record supports several facts:
7.5.516.D criteria.50 MW data hall labels andThe governing text confirms several rules or criteria that are relevant to the
appeal, but not all alleged violations are confirmed:
7.5.516.B.2.7.5.516.D supplies specific modification9.8.104 includes residential and light-industrial9.8.106 / 5 dB periodic-noise penalty was not found in7.2.401 page was not captured.7.2.401.C.1 text was not captured, so the Land Use Plan /7.2.401.C.1, direct 7.5.514, any operative 9.8.106, or official appeal7.2.401.C.1.The next pass should retrieve the original entitlement chain and the still-open
direct official code pages:
00-00177 and earlier Corporate Ridge approval records.7.2.401 page and any 7.5.514 Land Use Plan text.9.8.106 periodic/impulsive23-18 transition