Toolkit & Government Contacts

Templates

Feel free to copy, modify as appropriate, paste it into your favorite email editor, and send it to the individuals listed below.

  • Developer Recipients:

    Scott Alexander

    Constellation Operating Group

    250 Fillmore Street, Suite 150 #42

    Denver, CO 80206

    Jeremy Giles

    Constellation Real Estate Partners

    2021 McKinney Ave. STE 300

    Dallas, TX 75201

    Hien Le

    Constellation Real Estate Partners

    750 Town and Country BLVD

    STE 970, Houston, TX 77024

    Landowner & Co-Developer:

    Scott Carlson (scott@carlsonland.net)

    The following introduction and bullets have been crafted with the developers', land owners and co-developers audiences in mind. Please draw on the following bullets or any additional concerns that you may have to customize your own letter for each audience member.

    Dear [Recipient] -

    As a local community member and resident of [neighborhood], I have significant concerns with the proposed development of a 500,000-square-foot logistics distribution center (LDC) at 5902-5950 McIntyre St in Jefferson County, CO. My concerns can be summed up as a Wrong Development, in the Wrong Place, and at the Wrong Time for our community.

    Below, I outline my key concerns and requests for changes, should the project continue.

    1. Wrong Development

    Your proposed LDC is far larger than traditional light industrial warehouses and operates 24/7. This scale and intensity of operations are incompatible with the surrounding area.

    Current Classification Misalignment: I strongly believe the current “light industrial” classification is inappropriate, based on comparisons with similar projects. Your proposal either understates the impact of the development or seeks to bypass critical formal reviews that are necessary for a project of this magnitude.

    Widespread public opposition: Over 5,000 people have signed a petition opposing your project due to its potential health, environmental, and traffic impacts. Local officials have also called for stricter setbacks and limits on truck traffic. You must address these concerns and consider the community’s strong opposition

    Key Request: We ask for a reclassification of the project or, at minimum, a formal review process to ensure the community's health and safety are adequately protected.

    2. Wrong Place:

    The chosen location for the LDC is unsuitable for such a large-scale project. Due to the expected heavy traffic of diesel trucks, distribution vans, and cars, it poses significant risks to residents and wildlife due to air pollution, noise, and other sensory pollutants.

    Public Health Risk: Large trucks comprise about 10% of vehicular traffic (in general) but are responsible for up to 60% of the harmful PM2.5 pollution that is responsible for measurable increases in morbidity and mortality. Heavy-duty trucks are also the biggest producers of NOx (ultimately ozone).   This development, located near suburban communities with families, children, and elderly residents, will risk impacts on both human health and the environment, specifically as a result of air pollution. If you proceed with this development, you are knowingly introducing proven health risks into an area surrounded by residential communities and families.  Air pollution is now recognized as a well-documented, serious health risk, supported by extensive high-quality data showing its significant impact on public health. Our community’s location, bordered by foothills to the west and areas with poorer air quality to the east, makes our air quality especially vulnerable. The possibility of 24-hour operations, including heavy-duty truck idling and frequent ingress and egress, would only exacerbate this issue. We already experience numerous red flag air quality days in this suburban area and this type of development would inevitably increase their frequency.  

    Community Evolution: Our community is no longer a rural landscape, and permitting decisions must reflect this change. There is widespread recognition that the existing land use standards and regulations are outdated and no longer serve the needs of our current and future community.

    Environmental Impact: The project poses serious risks to the environment, including the potential contamination of Hyatt Lake, a backup drinking water source. You must also address the concerns about toxic soils being disturbed during construction and how you plan to protect wildlife in the area.

    Key Requests:

    Soil and Environmental Testing: We ask for unbiased soil testing at a depth of at least 5-6 feet (below the freeze threshold for pipes).

    Environmental Impact Assessment: A full environmental impact evaluation should be completed before the project advances further, including assessments of air quality and local wildlife disruption.

    We ask for the development to be relocated to an area more consistent with the environmental and health needs of the community, or at the very least, that the buildings be set back further from residential areas. Additionally, we request the following mitigation measures:

    • No use of Jake Brakes (to reduce noise pollution)

    • Strict limits on vehicle idling (especially overnight)

    • Operational hours are restricted to normal business hours

    • A minimum buffer zone of 300 - 500 feet between the LDC and residences

    • Use of alternative backup safety systems (e.g., white noise alarms instead of beeping)

    3. Wrong Time

    The timing of your project overlaps with ongoing updates to the County’s regulatory standards. These updates are designed to address emerging challenges like those posed by your development, but they have yet to be finalized.

    Outdated Regulations: Proceeding with this project under outdated regulations is concerning, especially given the scale and environmental impacts involved. There is a risk of locking in decisions based on rules that no longer reflect the needs and conditions of the community.

    Key Request: We urge you to delay the project until the updated regulatory framework is in place and has been thoroughly reviewed in the context of your proposal. Moving ahead now undermines efforts to ensure responsible development that aligns with current community priorities.

    We hope you take these concerns and requests seriously, as they reflect the voice and well-being of our community. We look forward to a constructive dialogue moving forward.

    Sincerely,

    [Name]

  • Dear Commissioner,

    I am writing to ask you to direct the zoning staff to place restrictions on the building permit for the warehouses with heavy trucking distribution capabilities at 5950 McIntyre.

    The old zoning regs have gaps leaving communities vulnerable to heavy industrial operations permitted under the guise of light industrial warehouses.

    In order to protect the community, we ask that you place permit restrictions on building permit Case Number 23-116521 submitted by Constellation Real Estate Partners. In particular, we ask for the restrictions to address the following:

    • No height restrictions on light industrial warehouses

    • No regulation against 24/7 industrial operations, which is how distribution warehouses operate

    • Lack of standards to ensure noise levels of industrial operations comply with noise standards for nearby residential developments

    Thank you,

  • Dear Senator Bennet,

    I write to request your assistance with an urgent issue that poses a threat to public health and safety. A developer is improperly segmenting the permitting of an industrial complex to avoid oversight by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Over 4,000 people have signed a petition to pause the development in order to ensure it is safe and compatible with our neighborhood.

    I and my family ask that you write a letter and place a phone call to the USACE regarding the review of a land disturbance permit filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, Case Number: 22-124792GPA, for 5950 McIntyre, Golden, CO, currently being reviewed by the Specialist Daniel Ishmael in the Omaha Office, 303-979-4120 office and 720-948-3266 cell.

    Our community is concerned that USACE may not be aware of or take into account that the permit applicant has improperly segmented the permitting process for a canal relocation that is vital to the main project phase, a 40-acre industrial park.

    The applicant has submitted a permit to relocate a canal on a brownfield site in Jefferson County. The application does not disclose the canal work but the first phase of the larger, multi-phase industrial trucking distribution center planned for this site. See permit 23-116521 SD filed with Jefferson County Planning and Zoning in July 2023 for the industrial warehouse plans and schematics.

    The canal work is a crucial first step of this multi-phase project that includes building 500,000 sq ft of industrial warehouses and a new spillway for a reservoir fed by the canal. The project phases are conditioned on the canal relocation and are not feasible absent the canal relocation. The developer is filing permits for each phase separately, improperly segmenting the permit approval process.

    Segmented permitting evades appropriate oversight by the USACE. Improper segmentation of permits for this project violates the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) 33 CFR 322.5(g) which requires the USACE district engineer to consider, for applications for canal work, a proposed plan of the entire development.

    It is not permissible for the USACE to ignore the other phases of the project that are not included in the canal relocation permit when considering the impact on WOTUS and the requirements of NEPA. The water flowing between them is unimpeded. One reason for the owner to apply for permits in a piecemeal fashion is to impermissibly segment the whole development plan without proper review. The owner bundled the canal relocation and industrial park construction together as a single, interrelated project when he submitted a single Application for the Colorado Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCUP) to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). His action to present the canal relocation and industrial park construction as a single development should be an example enough for the USACE to see these three project components are interrelated and interdependent, such that the potential environmental impacts should be subject to one, cumulative review. The three phases - moving the canal, constructing a spillway, and building the industrial park - need to be reviewed as one project so no possible pathways for contaminants to enter WOTUS are ignored. The residents of this area believe an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA) is necessary before any aspect of this development is permitted.

    It is also important to recognize that the work contemplated under the land disturbance permit is not a simple “maintenance of an existing canal” project, as asserted in the application, that might be exempt from detailed environmental impact analysis. This is the relocation of a canal that is clearly WOTUS through an area of known contamination. It has the very grave potential of mobilizing contaminants into the water being carried in that canal creating contamination throughout that system. At the very least, this project needs a formal Environmental Assessment under NEPA.

    Corporations such as Kerr-McGee, AMAX, the Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, and their lessees contaminated the aquifer, shallow groundwater, and soil on this site with low-level radioactive waste, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals for over 70 years. Residual contamination remains, including TCE and uranium-tainted shallow groundwater which at one time local canal companies complained had polluted drinking water supplies. This historically polluted property is surrounded by residential developments, is adjacent to drinking water supplies, and rests on the banks of a water reservoir used for recreation. This sensitive location underscores the importance of the USACE fulfilling its obligations under NEPA to require an EIS or EA prior to approval of the land disturbance permit.

    We ask that you request the USACE to satisfy its obligations under NEPA to require an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA) prior to approving the land disturbance permit which is only the first phase of a larger development.

    My neighborhood and 18 HOAs have joined together under the umbrella of McIntyre Neighbors United, a grassroots community organization. We have worked in good faith with the landowner, developer, and local government to ensure that the redevelopment of this 40-acre brownfield site complies with appropriate permitting requirements.

    Please contact me at XXXX or XXX about this request.

    Sincerely,

    Your name

    address

    email address

    phone number

MNU Responses to Op-Ed

Mr. Tidmore’s organization receives taxpayer dollars to attract businesses to our area; unfortunately, this project that he is backing has not solicited community input to develop a commercially viable, sustainable, and compatible design:

  • is not honoring the Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommendation for a wildlife corridor

  • will attract heavy truck traffic and 24/7 operations that thousands of studies have shown produce emissions dangerous to people, especially children

  • may not be commercially viable as designed.

Some quick responses:

1) Mr. Tidmore claims the property will be commercially successful and produce tax revenue and refers to the need for industrial flex space.

The project, as proposed, is unlikely to be economically viable.  This project is in the wrong location.  This problem alone calls into question whether it will be commercially successful and produce the projected tax revenue.  They are not building a light industrial flex space. What they are proposing to build is a 500,000 sq ft regional distribution warehouse with 144 truck bays. But to succeed as a distribution center, the project needs to provide what tenants want.  Tenants for distribution warehouses demand easy access in and out of the property as well as access to major highways; most will want to be within a mile of major roads. 

The location is 4 miles from I-70 and has only two entrances into the McIntyre site, one of which has a traffic light. Poor access to the site makes a distribution warehouse at this location less desirable for tenants than facilities close to major highways with multiple ways in and out of the facility. 

How does the public know this?

Fact: The developer, in their filings submitted to the county, has described this facility as a logistics distribution which is also known as a distribution warehouse. It is designed as a regional distribution center with 3 massive 44’ high buildings, totaling 500K sq ft with 144 truck bays, built on 35 feet of fill.

Fact: Noise from heavy truck traffic violates state noise statutes and the JeffCo and the City of Arvada’s residential noise ordinances.

Tenants will not want to rent space where they could face county and municipal fines for violating noise ordinances with heavy truck traffic or face complaints and possible legal action from residents who are exposed to dangerous levels of noise from heavy truck traffic in violation of state laws and county and city ordinances.

Fact: The rush to build warehouses for e-commerce companies and distribution along the “supply chain” in most markets is slowing as the economy absorbs the new supply and better projections for future warehouse needs are evaluated.

The supply and demand issue raises red flags indicating the site may not be economically viable. No marketing or leasing plans have been shared, and we are to believe these mega warehouses are “speculative.”

This begs the question -- who will lease these if they are built?

Other issues answered in the letter attached:

2)  Mr. Tidmore stated, "Traffic levels would be akin to a small neighborhood, not a commercial hub or nonstop trucking logistics distribution center.”

3) He claims the community is "not in my backyard" folks. 

4)  He claims we "wage a campaign on NextDoor and Facebook, whip up fear, harass public officials in public meetings and at their homes, hire PR firms and fundraise for legal support. All of these tactics serve only to make it as painful and expensive as possible to build." 

5)  He claims “[the project] is, in point of fact, the type of flex industrial space that Jefferson County urgently needs.

Talking Points

Send emails to the County officials and staff members below. Please compose the email in your own words to avoid "cookie cutter" emails that may get ignored.

Concerns that YOU may have about building 3 large warehouses comprising a Trucking Distribution Center or “Logistics Center” as clearly defined by the developer at 5950 McIntyre:

  • There are no Jeffco zoning regulations currently in place to describe or define this industrial/commercial project. County zoning regulation Section 27 has gaps that put residential areas at risk of having heavy industrial warehouses as neighbors.

  • The proposed buildings are not compatible with the surrounding areas: The style, scale, sizing, exteriors, colors, and materials (Zoning Res. #13).

  • Light and noise pollution: How it affects neighborhoods, ecology of surrounding areas, and Hyatt Lake?

  • Contamination: Issues related to residual contamination in soil/groundwater from past uses of the property?

  • Increased traffic: Additional vehicles including workers, deliveries, customers, all sizes of trucks – the volume of noise, hours of noise (24/7?), and routes taken through surrounding neighborhoods?

  • Speed and safety on McIntyre: Dangers to school buses, school traffic, crosswalks, line of sight issues at blind curves/hills, bicycle routes, the intersection of W. 63rd Ave.?

  • Recreation and habitats: How are established walk/bike paths, recreational lake usage, and wildlife habitats affected?

What 60th and McIntyre sounds like now.

Voice Your Concerns to City of Arvada Officials:

Please send emails to the Arvada City Council and staff members below. Please compose the email in your own words to avoid "cookie cutter" emails that may get ignored.

Possible concerns you might have about building the 3 large warehouses comprising a Trucking Distribution Center or “Logistics Center” as clearly defined by the developer at 5950 McIntyre on the border of Arvada.

  • Buildings are not compatible to the surrounding areas: Style, scale, sizing, exteriors, colors, materials

  • Light and noise pollution: How will it affect neighborhoods, the ecology of the surrounding areas, and Hyatt Lake?

  • Contamination: Issues related to residual contamination in soil/groundwater from past uses of the property. Will the truck’s runoff pollute Hyatt Lake and affect Stenger soccer fields?

  • Increased traffic: Additional vehicles including workers, deliveries, customers, all sizes of trucks – the volume of noise, hours of noise (24/7?), and routes taken through surrounding neighborhoods?

  • Speed and safety on McIntyre: Dangers to school buses, school traffic, crosswalks, line of sight issues at blind curves/hills, bicycle routes, intersection of W. 63rd Ave.?

  • Recreation and habitats: How are established walk/bike paths, recreational lake usage, and wildlife habitats affected?

Jefferson County Commissioners:

Arvada City Officials:

Here is where to send your emails - be sure to give a date by which you are requesting a response.

Jefferson County Staff:

Colorado State Senator: 

Kevin_Figueroa@bennet.senate.gov and Hannah_Mullen@bennet.senate.gov