This restricted-source chapter summary covers pages 5-49 of the appeal package:
the Notice of Appeal, the seven appeal grounds, the requested remedies, and the
notice's source list.
The section directly supports what appellants argued and requested. It does not
establish that the City accepted the appeal, that the claims are legally correct,
or that every cited record is authenticated in native official form.
Included:
Excluded:
7.5.415.The claim catalog identifies the Notice of Appeal as the source for the main
legal and procedural allegations. Many of these are classified as requires legal judgment or requires missing source because the appeal's legal conclusions
depend on official UDC text, complete administrative-record review, City
sufficiency/docket records, and, for power/noise issues, technical records not
yet fully authenticated.
DEPN-26-0039The notice works through administrative appeal, land-use review criteria, zoning
intent, noise regulation, public-utility adequacy, and remand/remedy mechanisms.
The package uses those mechanisms to argue that the decision should not survive
without further findings or a different approval body/procedure.
| Source | Target | Mechanism | Flow | Evidence strength | Source basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appellants | City Planning Commission | UDC Section 7.5.415 appeal notice |
Requested review of administrative decision | direct evidence for package contents; official status unresolved | Notice of Appeal pages 5-49 |
| Appeal notice | Project Taurus approval | Seven legal/procedural grounds | Challenge to land-use approval | direct evidence for allegations, not their merits | Notice of Appeal pages 7-42 |
The notice's strongest unresolved tension is the difference between official
project-file 50 MW framing and appeal/power-overview/M201 claims pointing to
larger capacity scenarios. The record also contains tension between modeled
noise compliance and appellant low-frequency / periodic-noise critiques.
See the raw appeal package page text and the structured claim catalog listed in
source_refs.
The notice should be cited as an appellant legal/procedural argument unless and
until official City, UDC, CSU, plan, technical, or appeal-outcome records confirm
specific claims independently.