These are the items to point out in your emails requesting that we keep and build the trail. Please send your emails to:

Jmkerby@co.Jefferson.co.us

Lsimpson@arvada.org

Thoby@co.Jefferson.co.us

• Historical 15 mile north-south trail in West Arvada established in 1991 by JeffCo Commissioners

• No other trails provide connection from Clear Creek to Standley Lake 

• If land is not set for connection in the 5950 McIntyre section it will be lost

• Property Owner is supportive of the trail easement if there is community support and Arvada, County and Jefferson County Open Space support

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