# Joint Appendix Vol I — Kelo v. New London > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0031%3A08 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix Vol I - **Published:** January 1, 2005 - **Citation:** 545 U.S. 469 ## Text In The vv SUSETTE KELO, THELMA BRELESKY, PASQUALE CRISTOFARO, WILHELMINA AND CHARLES DERY, JAMES AND LAURA GURETSKY, PATAYA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and WILLIAM VON WINKLE, Petitioners, v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, and NEW | LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Connecticut JOINT APPENDIX Volume I, Pages 1 to 212 Horton, SHIELDS & Knox, P-C. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WeEsLeY W. Horton* WILLIAM H. MELLOR DANIEL J. KRISCH ' Scott G. BULLOcK* 90 Gillett Street DaNa BERLINER Hartford, CT 06105 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (860) 522-8338 Suite 200 (860) 728-0401 (fax) Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955-1300 WALLER, SMITH & PALMER, PC. Bowen B. Conan, (202) 955-1329 (fax) 52 Eugene O'Neill Drive SAWYER Law Firm, LLC New London, CT 06320 Scott W. SAWYER (860) 442-0367 The Jill S. Sawyer Building (860) 447-9915 (fax) 251 Williams Street Conway & LONDREGAN New London, CT 06320 (860) 442-8131 THOMAS J. LONDREGAN (860) 442-4131 (fax) JEFFREY T LONDREGAN 38 Huntington Street Counsel for Petitioners New London, CT 06320 (860) 447-3171 (860) 444-6103 (fax) Counsel for Respondents *Counsel of Record Petition For Certiorari Filed July 19, 2004 Certiorari Granted September 28, 2004 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6904 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I Relevant Docket Entries from the Courts below................. 1 EXHIBITS FROM TRIAL HELD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON IN JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 MAPS Plaintiffs’ Exhibit TT — Fort Trumbull MDP Area — TD AAT 3 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit VV — Fort Trumbull MDP Com- posite Lanid Use Plan Map 3..................::ccccsseseeeseseeeeeenes 4 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit YY — Fort Trumbull Develop- ment Site Plan dated October 10, 2000 ..................:.00000. 5 OTHER EXHIBITS Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B —- Representative Statement of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit I - New London Development Corporation (NLDC) Board’s Record of Vote and Resolution dated October 16, 2000 .............225 ence, cee co] Plaintiffs’ Exhibit II — Letter to George Milne frein Claire Gaudiani dated December 15, 1997................... 18 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP1 - Email to George Milne from James Serbia dated October 21, 1998.................. 21 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP2 - Letter to Dr. Claire Gaudiani from George Milne, Jr. dated March 8, il JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 12 - New London City Counsel Resolution of January 18, 2000, author- izing the use of eminent domain .................:cccc0cccceeeeeeee 26 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit HHH - Memorandum from Developer Marty Jones of Corcoran Jennison to Joseph E. Corcoran, Gary Jennison, Scott Dumont, Harry Nash and Eliza Edelsberg dated SammaTY 1B, BOOB .cccrccsccocssessesteemmmseniiiiaaaan 30 Excerpts from Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 38 - Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Revised Administrative Draft, August 1999 * Section 1: Introduction (pgs. 1-1 through 1-11 GHEY) -coceccscscoecsnsessnsannsiennnmpmtaasaae 83 * Section 3: Existing Site Conditions (pgs. 3-19 Caveughs 3-06 anlliy) ..ccccccosssesssensneistieimusasaeee 96 * Section 5: Proposed Improvements.......................- 108 * Section 9: Administrative Plan Summary............. 188 * Appendix A: Selection of and Rationale for the Preferred Alternative — Fort Trumbull MDP fT 190 * Proposed Land Uses Map 5.1..............c.ecccceeceeeeeees 212 Volumes II and III Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 34 - Draft Environ- mental Impact Evaluation — dated November 10, BGGD .....ccscessenssosscennsnssessnneme 213 JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page The following documents have been omitted ii. the printing of this Joint Appendix. They may be found in the Appendix to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the following pages: Opinion of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New London, At New London, Decided March 13, 2002 ...............ccccccceceeeeeeeenenees App. 191 Opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, De- chddad Bharal ©, BODE. .......0.<00reseeeccssesesccccessscceccssscscee App. 1 Order of Connecticut Supreme Court Granting Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Decision by the United States Supreme Court, Decided April GG cecnecesessencncscennsssenscszecessesecsnsssssnsesssscasensvess App. 425 Order of the Connecticut Supreme Court Denying Motion for Reconsideration, Decided April 20, 1 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Connecticut Supreme Court CASE NUMBER SC 16742 Docket Text Complaint Answer of Defendants City of New London and New London Redevelopment Agency Answer of New London Development Corporation Memorandum of Decision Plaintiffs’ Appeal Cross-Appeal of Defendant New London Development Corporation Cross-Appeal of Defendants City of New London and New London Redevelopment Agency Transfer Letter Brief of Plaintiffs Statement of the Issues of Plaintiffs Brief of City of New London Statement of the Issues of City of New London Brief of New London Development Corpo- ration Statement of the Issues of New London Development Corporation Reply Brief of Plaintiffs 2 9/20/02 Reply Brief of New London Development Corporation 9/23/02 Reply Brief of City of New London * - - 3/11/04 Supreme Court Decision by the Court 3/11/04 Supreme Court Decision by the Court * - * 3/29/04 Motion for Reconsideration 3/29/04 Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Decision by United States Supreme Court 4/20/04 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration 4/20/04 Order Granting Motion for Stay Pending Decision by United States Supreme Court Figure 2 As oe Bieler” | "sar wT. & pore temereted by les & be Brou, chats Commutas DEP. PEMA ont LS Nowy su aa sc ky z, Sey Sass eoangs édet 8 s - <= SK SEAN Ne Fert Trumbull MDP Ares - New London, Connecticut Shaws Cove 8 Columbia Cove 5 “5 p Y i 7 , ween ee <<< = “a= DRAFT i“ Water Dependent Use Site Plan : Fort Trumbull Development Plan October 19, 2000 | wean Companies | oe | ee PROPOSED HOTEL MEETING ‘Associates, Architects Sar" () prorosep nore. surronr PROPOSED HOTEL CIRCULATION = == vil CC) prorossp nore. prass 6 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT B NO. RED CV 00- SUPERIOR COURT CITY OF NEW LONDON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF V. NEW LONDON AT ROSE CIAVAGLIA, NEW LONDON WILHEMINA J. DERY aka WILHEMINA DERY and CHARLES DERY NOVEMBER 6, 2000 STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION The CITY OF NEW LONDON, acting by and through the NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, the Condemner, represents and states: 1. The Condemner is a municipal corporation located in the County of New London and State of Connecticut. 2. The Condemner is acting herein by the NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, its duly designated development agency exercising the powers set forth in Chapter 132 of the Connecticut General Statutes. 3. On October 16, 2000, the New London Develop- ment Corporation duly voted to acquire the hereinafter described property, and found that the convenience and necessity of the Condemner requires the same, for the purpose and effectuating the Condemner’s development project plan. 4. The property to be taken pursuant to this State- ment of Compensation is located in the City and County of New London and State of Connecticut, consists of four buildings or residences on one parcel of land known as 28 East Street, 79 Walbach Street, 81-83 Walbach Street and 7 87 Walbach Street and is more particularly bounded and described in Schedule “A” attached hereto. 5. The names of all persons having a record interest in the property are ROSE CIAVAGLIA, WILHELMINA J. DERY aka WILHELMINA DERY and CHARLES DERY 87 Walbach Street New London, Connecticut 6. The Condemner has determined that the amount of the compensation to be paid to the persons entitled thereto for such property is $506,000.00, and this sum is being deposited with the Clerk of the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London at New London in accordance with the provisions of Section 8-130 of the Connecticut General Statutes. CITY OF NEW LONDON, acting by the NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By /s/ Edward B. O’Connell Edward B. O’Connell, of Waller, Smith & Palmer, P.C. Its Attorneys SCHEDULE A A certain piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, located in the City and County of New London and State of Connecticut, more particu- larly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Walbach and East Streets and running thence southerly anc along the westerly side of East Street one ay eS cincen (138 feet, more or less, to land therl ide of Walbach Street; thence easterly o> ant ans the southerly side of Walbach Street one hundred eight and twenty-five hun- dredths (108.25) feet to the point and place of be- ginning. PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT I New LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORD OF VOTE At its Board meeting on October 16, 2000, the NLDC ae Le Cees cates, agke Ce as attached: Resolution 001016-1 Resolution 001016-2 Resolution 001016-3 The board voted in one new member, and will continue to vote on new members at upcoming meetings. The new member is Judge Antoinete Dupont. Resolution 001016-1 WHEREAS, the New London City Council has designated the New London Development Corporation, a nonprofit development corporation, as its development agency pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes, and WHEREAS, the New London Development Corporation has prepared a project plan for The Fort Trumbull Mu- nicipal Development Plan Area pursuant to Section 8-189 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and WHEREAS, the project plan for The Fort Trumbull Mu- nicipal Development Plan Area has been duly approved and adopted pursuant to Section 8-191 of the Connecticut Genera! Statutes, and 10 WHEREAS, it is necessary to acquire certain properties located in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area of New London in order to carry out and administer said project plan, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8-193 of the Connecticut General Statutes the New London Development Corpora- tion has the approval of the New London City Council to acquire by eminent domain properties within the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the New London Development Corporation, in the name of the City of New London, acquire certain properties located in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area of New London through the exercise of the power of eminent domain as granted to it under Chapter 132 of the Con- particularly described as follows: ADDRESS Map Bock Lot Owner 78 Smith Street 21 106 #£%1 Thelma Brelesky 72 Smith Street 21 106 2 CarolynA. Luzi 41 Goshen Street 21 106 8 Pataya Const. Ltd Partship 49 Goshen Street 21 106 9 Pataya Const. Ltd Partship 54 Goshen Street 22 107 24 Albert P. Anton 42 Goshen Street 22 107 28 Isabelle M. Rogovin 36 Walbach St. 22 107 30 Isabelle M. Rogovin 82 Trumbull Street 21 105 13 Foss & Bourke, Inc 8 East Street 21 105 11 Suzette T. Kelo 11 19-23 Smith Street 21 105 17 James R. & LauraA. Guretsky 27 Smith Street 21 105 18 William von Winkle, Trustee 31 Smith Street 21 105 19 William von Winkle, Trustee 33-35 Smith Street 21 105 20 William von Winkle, Trustee 216 Howard Street 22 107 32 William von Winkle, 189 Howard Street 22 101 20 Antoinette Farrell 195 Howard Street 22 101 21 Lillian M. Del- Grosso, Trustee 53 Goshen Street 21 106 10 Pasquale & Mar- gaerita Cristofaro 9 Walbach Street, 21 105 3 Rose Ciavaglia & 1-83 Walbach St., Wilhemina & 7 Walbach Street Charles Dery 28 East Street 11-13 Smith Street 21 105 14 Edward & Josephine Johnson IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the New London Development Corporation take such steps as are necessary to effectuate such acquisition in the manner provided in Sections 8-128 through 8-133 of the Connecticut General Statutes. CERTIFICATE I, Garon Camassar, Secretary of the New London Devel- opment Corporation, do hereby certify the above resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the 12 New London Development Corporation held on October 16, 2000 and that the said resolution is contained in the minutes of said meeting on file in the New London Devel- opment Corporation office, 165 State Street, Suite 313, New London, Connecticut, and that it has not been modi- fied nor rescinded whatsoever. Attest: /s/ Garon Camassar 10/16/00 Garon Camassar, Secretary Date New London Development Corporation New LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NLDC BOARD RESOLUTION 001016-2 Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan was approved on January 18, 2000 by the New London Economic and Community Development, and Whereas, the Corcoran Jennison Companies were se- lected to develop a proposal for Municipal Development Plan Parcels 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with the Municipal Development Plan proposed land uses, and present their proposed plans for the designated parcels, and uses of the site was presented by Corcoran Jennison Companies on October 10, 2000, 13 It is hereby resolved that the Board of Directors of the New London Development Corporation approves and concurs with the preliminary plan for the layout and uses of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan as set forth in the Corcoran Jennison Plan dated October 10, 200°. CERTIFICATE I, Garon Camassar, Secretary of the New London Devel- opment Corporation, do hereby certify the above resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the New London Development Corporation held on October 16, 2000 and that the said resolution is contained in the minutes of said meeting on file in the New London Devel- opment Corporation office, 165 State Street, Suite 313, New London, Connecticut, and that it has not been modi- fied nor rescinded whatsoever. Attest: Garon Camassar, Secretary Date New London Development Corporation NEw LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NLDC BOARD RESOLUTION 00101€-3 Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Map 3.8 (Proposed Streets) details proposed streets in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area, and 14 Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Map 5.1 (Proposed Land Uses) details the land uses proposed for the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan area, including the land uses for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with that plan, and Whereas, a preliminary plan dated October 10, 2000 was presented by Corcoran Jennison that details land uses consistent with the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan in terms of use, intensity, and location; such plan being received and approved by the Board of the New London Development Corporation on October 16, 2000, and Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan states that “More specific traffic and street plans will be developed based upon ... further refinement of develop- ment plans of the MDP area,” and Whereas, said refinements are consistent with and not substantial modifications of the Municipal Development Plan, Now therefore, It is hereby resolved that the Board of Directors of the New London Development Corporation approve the attached Map 5.1A and 5.1B as supplemental documents to Map 5. 1 and Map 3.8 which more particu- larly set forth descriptions of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 and proposed streets. It is further resolved, that the following text changes be made to retain consistency with the plan as modified by the supplemental maps: Page 5-1; - Proposed Land Uses for Parcel 1: add reference to “health club and fitness facility” to description of hotel/conference center complex. 15 Page 5-2; Parcel 2; change parcel size to 6 acres. Add reference to “This parcel will also accommodate approxi- mately 25 extended stay hotel units.” Delete refer- ence to Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3; change parcel size to 11 acres. Delete refer- ence to health club complex. Pages 5-24, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, and 5-33; Change references describing the principal pedestrian spine, Village Green access, and division between resi- dential and office parcels from “Smith Street” to “East Street.” CERTIFICATE I, Garon Camassar, Secretary of the New London Devel- opment Corporation, do hereby certify the above resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the New London Development Corporation held on October 16, 2000 and that the said resolution is contained in the minutes of said meeting on file in the New London Devel- opment Corporation office, 165 State Street, Suite 313, New London, Connecticut, and that it has not been modi- fied nor rescinded whatsoever. Attest: Garon Camassar, Secretary Date New London Development Corporation ~{F>2B ‘ Y j MUNICIPAL DEVE Lope -. s mi, P | A A BG Pe EG Yj ? MAP SIA = oC Ny Gr YY /llllbaiyy) Py Or, PARCEL | 4 ‘ - Zee , J “Wy . YM Hy rY@ELE QY | Hore | Con -€hence SWAY < Bb ro it. x 9 . * 4" ROUTE THLETIC CLusg. wae RESIDENTIAL wg a _ -_, a : -@ .— “ — x > >* al ~ . - \* ent, ge ed ° > : . e’ a . { ‘a / . . e. . % af “ A e” 4 s \ * a % , * et} a »% 4 A - : ~~ ib “—_ fi i 3 sf / Se.” 4 i ~ . ” ‘c. » . > af j . 4 ‘ e f 2° 2 I / > tee? a o 28 fl 4 ¢ oes , @ { e ‘i \ le 4 ‘a 1 « ' > = . _— ’ - ¢ . . i s 4 " Pa | , ars - ‘ — 91 MAP SAB Site Plan Fort Trumbull Development Plan October 10, 2000 o8080 LEGEND on aD we eer CC wwompnore: war Ono Te Lo Be re ree LI 18 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT I New London Development Corporation 181 Broad Street, New London, CT 06320 December 15, 1997 George M. Milne, Jr. President Pfizer Central Research Groton, CT 06340 Dear George: The directors of the New London Development Corpo- ration are pleased to make the commitments outlined below to enable you to decide to construct a Pfizer Central Research facility in New London. This commitment 1s presented in conjunction with the State of Connecticut and the City of New London. We have been working with the renowned firm of Wallace, Roberts and Todd to design a land plan to ensure that the new Pfizer facility will be the centerpiece of a concentrated reuse of the area surrounding the former New London Mills (see Appendix A). In addition to your facility the project includes the development of the state's fourth biotechnology incubator, the refurbishment of historic Fort Trumbull, the reuse of the vacant Naval Underwater Warfare Center and the development of mixed retail and residential space that will be fully inte- grated into the surrounding neighborhoods of the City of New London. In order to achieve these goals, it will be necessary to relocate the Calamari Bros. scrap dealer, upgrade utilities and infrastructure, and acquire a number of surrounding properties. 19 20 Based on the commitments from the state (see Appen- 5. Biotechnology Incubator - The proximity to the dix B) and city (see Appendix C), the New London Devel- Pfizer research facility creates a tremendous op- opment Corporation will: portunity to create another asset - a new bio- technology incubator facility. The mission of this 1. Calamari Bros. - Acquire and perform environ- organization will be to support the early phase mental testing on this site which will serve as development of biotechnology firms until they the entry way to the research facility. The status are successful enough to move to permanent lo- of negotiations are summarized in Appendix D. cations elsewhere in Connecticut. The location in Environmental testing would be needed on the the project area will be a significant positive at- current site and would require funding. The tribute in recruiting startup ventures to this fa- cleanup costs of any contaminants found on the cility. Site acquisition costs and methods are site prior to its transfer to Pfizer will be identi- outlined with other properties in Appendix E. fied as part of the testing program and funds Additional funding will be needed for construc- made available subsequent to the conclusion of tion or renovation of buildings and relocation of testing current tenants 2. Surrounding Properties — Residential and com- 6. Former Naval Underwater Warfare Center — The mercial properties in the area including aban- portion of this site, excluding Fort Trumbull doned buildings and vacant lots will be acquired State Park and land occupied by the United for integration into the overall design plan. States Coast Guard Station New London will be Every effort will be made to ensure the highest acquired from the Department of Defense as de- and best use of all properties. Consideration will scribed in Appendix I Thank you very much for your consideration of this and other roads. Appendix E describes estimated proposal. We will work with you to refine this proposal to costs and the manner in which options will be meet Pfizer's requirements. We will also work closely with acquired and the purchases executed. you at the appropriate time to plan an announcement that 3. Fort Trumbull State Park - Some of the sites is befitting the magnitude of this project. mentioned in paragraph “2” above will be utilized Cordially, in the development of Fort Trumbull State Park. lal Appendix F outlines the Connecticut Department SL Gontianl of Environmental Protection's timetable and plan. Clair . udian 4. Utilities and Infrastructure Upgrades - Utilities CLG:deb and infrastructure in the project area will re- 97-667-2 quire upgrades in order to guarantee utilities consistent with the requirements of the new fa- cilities. See Appendix G. 21 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT PP1 Serbia, James From: Serbia, James Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 1:42 PM To: Milne, George M Subject: Ft. Trumbull MDP Importance: High Dr Milne (Questions shown in red and CAPS) I have left for you 3 drawings depicting some the latest concept plans that NLDC has put together. There seems to be some confusion regarding the expectation that Pfizer (you in particular) has regarding development of the peninsula (Something I know you have heard before — bear with me). This confusion has caused some friction between NLDC and DECD/DEP. NLDC indicates that an original conceptual saguthur tay Wdieas Ghats 98 ED sete key meetings — one involving you/state/city/NLDC and the other being the CMC meeting (IS THIS YOUR RECOL- LECTION?). NLDC indicates that this plan represents “the commitment” to Pfizer. The State feels that “the commitment” is more along the lines of what is outlined in the letters from DECD to Pfizer. I think what it boils down to is whether or not Pfizer is flexible regarding the development plans — | believe the answer is yes per all of our previous discussions on this — as long as some key components are included: - a residential component which would be attractive to professionals — a hotel/conference component 22 _ treatment plant upgrades/state park/ete and commercial or retail development to make the area an attractive place to visit/work. DOES THIS SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? The State, from a public policy perspective, has difficulty in supporting residential areas located in a floodplain, and in condemning/taking an existing residential area and replacing it with a more upscale residential district. They do indicate that they can accomodate an upscale residen- tial component, but that they would have some difficulty if this portion of the development became substantial. Can you clarify the following: 1. WOULD APPROXIMATELY 70-80 HIGH END RESI- DENTIAL UNITS FIT WITH YOUR EXPECTATION? 2. THE LARGEST HOTEL AREA THAT IS CUR- RENTLY SHOWN ON ANY OF THE PLANS IS FOR 250 UNITS. THIS SEEMS LOW TO ME. HIGH, LOW, OR OK? 3. YOU MENTIONED THAT I SHOULD KEEP AN EYE OUT REGARDING PLANS FOR AN AMPHITHEATER. THE ORIGINAL WRT PLAN SHOWED ONE, BUT IT DOESNT APPEAR THAT THIS IS STILL IN THE PLANS. IS IT SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR IS IT SOMETHING WE WOULD PKEFER NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT? Thanks for your help and patience. Jim 23 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT PP2 Central Research Division Pfizer Inc Eastern Point Road Groton, CT 06340 Tel 860 441 4844 Fax 860 441 6204 (LOGO) Central Research George M. Milne, Jr., Ph.D. President March 8, 1999 Dr. Claire Gaudiani President, New London Development Corporation Connecticut College 270 Mohegan Avenve New London, CT 06320 Dear Claire: On behalf of Pfizer Inc., | am pleased to affirm my support of the New London Development Corporation's application for an Economic Development Conveyance for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) property. Pfizer Inc is a research-based global health care company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets innovative medicines for both humans and animals. This will be the he- dquarters for Central Research, Pfizer's R&D Division, based in Southeastern, Connecticut. We are building a $270 million Global Development Facility (GDF) in New London to open by October 1, 2000. This facility will employ more than 2,000 Ph.D.s, M.D.s and other scientists, researchers, and clinical specialists. Our New London expansion requires the world class redevel- opment planned for the adjacent 90 acres in the Fort 24 Trumbull Municipal Development plan including the 16 acres of the NUWC property. The Fort Trumbull area is integral to our corporate facility and to the plan for the revitalization of New London to a world class standard. The Amended Reuse Plan will provide a waterfront hotel with about 200 rooms, a confer- ence center and physical fitness area, extended-stay residential units and 80 units of housing. We will use the proposed hotel and conference facility as an extension of our facility committing to 100 of those rooms on a daily basis for visiting international staff and other profession- als. In addition we require conference space and are exploring a “virtual” Pfizer University to keep our re- searchers up to date on the most recent breakthroughs in biotechnology. The extended stay housing will provide for researchers who often stay for periods of up to 3-6 months. Year round quality housing is also crucial to recruiting top scientists. The waterfront residential neighborhood envi- sioned provides a one-of-a-kind housing option desired by many of our employees. As a result, the NUWC property is and has been key to our investment in the area. We are prepared to enter into agreements with the NLDC and developers to build the type of facilities we require, but this is not just about Pfizer. The plan developed by the NLDC is intended to transform New London and is des- tined, we believe, to become a model for high impact, high value public/private partnerships. We have also requested the NLDC to expedite the development as quickly as possible to meet our schedule and the OpSail 2000 target for the unveiling of the new, New London. The transfer of NUWC and the completion of the developments proposed in the Amended Reuse Plan are fundamental to the 25 success of these effor's and of our Global Development Facility in New London. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the Department of the Navy in making the Fort Trumbull and NUWC rede- velopment a national example of which we may all be proud. Sincerely, /s/ George M. Milne, Jr., Ph.D. ce: Governor John G. Rowland, State of Connecticut Timothy West, Mayor City of New London 26 DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 12 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEW LONDON 1/18/00 — 6 7.8 Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Upon motion of Councilor Burdick, seconded by Councilor Curtin, it was voted 6-1: To approve resolution number 011800-3 concerning the New London City Coun- cil approving the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan and making certain findings. The Clerk reads the resolution by title only, all Councilors having copies, and the subject resolution is adopted by Roll Call Vote. Those voting in favor: Burdick, Pero, West, Curtin, Nossek, Hewett. Those voting against: Beachy. RESOLUTION NUMBER 011800-3 Certified Resolution By the NEW LONDON CITY COUNCIL approving the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan and making certain findings. WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the public interest that the New London Development Corporation prepare a Development Plan for a Municipal Development Project for purposes of contributing to the economic welfare of the municipality and the state pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 130, Chapter 132 and Chapter 588(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes as amended; and WHEREAS, the New London Development Corpora- tion prepared a Development plan for the project known 27 as bs Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan; an WHEREAS, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development plan was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion of the City of New London and the regional planning agency known as the Southeastern Connecti- cut Council of Governments Regional Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, thereafter the New London Redevelop- ment Agency held a public hearing on the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan on January 13, 2000, pursu- ant to the provisions of local law, state statutes, Chapter 130 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended, and thereafter approved said Plan; and the New London Development Corporation held a public hearing on the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan on January 13, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of local law, state statues, Chapter 132 and Chapter 588(1) of the Connecti- cut General Statutes, as amended, and thereafter, ap- proved said plan; NOW THEREFORE, the New London City Council hereby resolves: (1) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan is hereby approved; (2) That the land and buildings within the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan project area will be used principally for industrial, business, housing and rec- reational uses; that the land and buildings within the boundaries of the Project Area will be used primarily for economic base business purposes or business sup- port services; and that the Plan is essential to the pur- pose of redevelopment of the area; 28 (3) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan is in accordance with the City of New London Plan of Conservation and Development, and that it is in ac- cordance with the Plan of Development for the South- eastern Connecticut Council of Governments Regional Planning Commission; (4) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan is not inimical to any statewide planning program ob- jectives of the state or state agencies as coordinated by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, (5) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan project will contribute to the economic welfare of the City of New London and the State of Connecticut; and (6) That to carry out and administer the project, public action under Chapters 130, 132 and 588(1) of the Con- necticut General Statutes as amended is required; and, for the purposes of carrying out this project, that the New London City Council approves and bestows upon the New London Development Corporation all rights and powers that are permitted to accrue to a development agency or implementing agency under Chapters 130, 132, and 588(1) of the Connecticut Gen- eral Statutes as amended, including the power of emi- nent domain with the project area in the name of the City of New London per Chapter 130, Section 8-128, and Chapter 132, Section 8-193. (7) That all properties in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan listed as “to be acquired” shall be acquired prior to December 31, 2002, unless this date is extended by the City Council. (8) That the Chief Operating Officer of the New London Development Corporation is hereby authorized to submit the resolution of approval of the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan as approved by the New London City Council to the Connecticut Department 29 of Economic and Community Devel an y elopment for ap- Upon motion of Councilor Pero, seconded by Councilor Curtin, it was unanimously voted: To recess the meeting at 12 midnight. Attest: /s/ Michael J. Tranchida Michael Tranchida, Assistant City Clerk 30 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT HHH MEMO CORCORAN JENNISON COMPANY, INC. DATE: JANUARY 12, 2001 TO: JOSEPH E. CORCORAN GARY JENNISON SCOTT DUMONT HARRY NASH ELIZA EDELSBERG FROM: MARTY JONES COMMERCIAL OFFICE STUDY ON NEW LONDON & Here is the commercial office study prepared by Jay Hooper on New London. We need a document for NLDC to show we are working on this. Please give me your com- ments. We plan to seek brokers in February to keep the community aware the deal is moving forward. Harry is working on a detailed analysis of Building 2 systems which will be added to update the cost side of the proforma. CORCORAN JENNISON COMPANIES, INC. MARKETING PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SPACE Fort Trumbull Development New London, CT Corcoran Jennison Companies, Inc. 150 Mount Vernon Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02125 31 Table of Contents 1. Project Description 2. Market Study Summary 3. Commercial Development Program 4 Financial Feasibility Study of Commercial Develop- ment 5. Conclusions of Financial and Market Study 6. Target Market for Commercial Space 7. Marketing Strategy 8. Marketing Execution Plan 9. Project and Marketing Schedule 10. Marketing Budget 11. Addenda * Sample Draft of Broker Request for Proposals * New London Office Absorption History (Miner & Silverstein Appraisal Company) * Comparable Office Lease Data Project Description Background The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in association with the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), has undertaken a municipal planning project targeting an area adjacent to the Thames River in New London, Connecticut. Known as the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP), the MDP area encompasses approximately 90 acres immediately south of downtown New Lond: n and adjacent to historic Fort Trumbull, which has been developed into a 32 state park. The principal catalyst for development in this area is the construction of Pfizer Inc.'s 790,000-square-foot Global Development Facility immediately south of the MDP area. This facility is the headquarters for Pfizer's worldwide research operations. The NLDC selected Corcoran Jennison Companies as the developer of a 30-acre waterfront parcel adjacent to Fort Trumbull. The majority of the parcel consists of the U.S. Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC). The balance is made up of an aging working class Project Description Corcoran Jennison Companies has proposed a mixed-use development, to include a four-star hotel, housing, and commercial space, for the 30-acre parcel. The attached site plan, labeled the Fort Trumbull Development Plan, depicts the latest proposed development plan for the Fort Trum- bull site. New public roadways and infrastructure will be built to support the development. Total development costs are projected to be approximately $100 million. The hotel will be situated on the northernmost section of the site. The re. sential development will be located on the southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to the existing Coast Guard rescue station facility and north of Fort Trumbull. The commercial development will be located on the southwestern portion of the site; an existing Italian Dramatic Club located here will be kept and incorporated walk” a waterfront park along the shoreline. It will con- nect to the Fort Trumbull State Park, and provide 33 opportunit®.» for the general public to walk, bike and picnic alo» * se water. Hotel/Conference Center The proposed hotel development is a key component to the overall transformation of the Fort Trumbull area. An extension of Nameaug Street, to be built as a tree-lined boulevard, will be the gateway to the hotel, leading guests from Walbach Street to the hotel. The planned hotel will be built in two phases and will consist of 225 rooms, a 12,000 square foot of conference/meeting facility, and a restaurant when completed. Construction will commence on the first phase of 100 rooms as soon as possible, which is anticipated to be August 2001. The hotel will be de- signed with considerable green space around it, as well as lots of glass to take advantage of sweeping views of the Thames River, Long Island Sound, and downtown New London. Residential The proposed residential development consists of a three- story, 24-unit extended stay inn with furnished apart- ments, a six-story, 48-unit apartment building; and 40 two- and three-story townhouses arranged in three tradi- tional urban clusters near the cove. The residential devel- opment will be used to focus activity toward the water. The Riverwalk, which will be a dedicated public pedes- trian and bicycle path that runs along the water's edge and connects the Fort Trumbull development with Fort Trumbull State Park and the Pfizer development, will be a valuable amenity for the residential development. Commercial At present, approximately 300,000 square feet of commer- cial space is envisioned for the site. This will be comprised of an existing commercial building containing approxi- mately 91,000 gross square feet, identified as Building 2 by the U'S. Navy, and two proposed buildings of 100,000 square feet each. The MDP called for the inclusion of office er bioscience-related commercial space. While the new buildings could be developed for either use depending upon market conditions, the existing Building 2 is best Building 2 is a four-story, steel frame, brick and glass structure completed in 1991 as sonar research and devel- opment space for the Navy. It is in reasonably good condi- tion and can be easily renovated to Class A office space for the New London market. The new buildings will be sited between Building 2 a d Walbach Street and will be devel- oped as market conuitions warrant. Figure 1.1-2 Project Location Map + OFF. tv of New London FEMA ad US Navy (aerated for piawurg cere. 4 'Alore & MacSmcr -- m. ifumbul] MDP Area - New London, Connecticut “aft Environmental impact Evaluation - November 1998 - ea HA ic Sows ocike as DS overages 2-cioped 5 Site Plan Fort Trumbull Development Plan Corcoran Jennison Companies William Rawn Associates, Architects 10 Tremont Street Bos'on MA 02108 October 10, 2000 Q0U000 LEGENO PROPOSED MOTEL nets — PROPOSED MOTEL SUPPORT ——s PROPOSED MOTE! (O88 Cc) PROPOSED OTF. OES leumant PROPOSED MOTEL FiTHESS LE 38 Market Study Summary OFFICE MARKET The New London commercial real estate market is con- tinuing its recovery from the last recession of the early 1990s. While rental rate and occupancy trends have been generally positive over the past few years, market values are still well below replacement cost and new construction is generally not feasible. As a result, little new construc- tion has taken place over the last decade in the New London area. The following discussion provides a sum- mary of the New London commercial/office market. The chart on the following page presents a snapshot of the New London office market as of October 2000. Supply New London contains approximately 815,000 square feet of Class A and B office space, with approximately 545,000 square feet considered Class A and approximately 270,000 considered Class B. Most of New London’s Class A space was built in the 1980s. Roughly one-half of the Class A space is located in Shaw’s Cove Business Park, which currently consists of six buildings containing approxi- mately 275,000 square feet. Shaw’s Cove is located be- tween downtown New London and the Fort Trumbull development. The vast majority of the Class B space is located in downtown New London. New construction activity in the market has been minimal and generally limited to end-user/owner-occupant facili- ties, such as the new space under construction for Pfizer. There are two proposed developments of Class A space that are commonly mentioned in the marketplace, one in 39 New London and one in nearby Groton. These develop- ments are as follows: Shaw’s Cove 7 & 8, New London Propesed 60,000 to 70,000 s/f in 2 buildings Developer — Julian Enterprises No pre-leasing activity to date Asking $20.00 Gross Considering ground floor retail due to greater demand U.S. Prop >rties, Inc. —- marketing/leasing agent Mystic Executive Park, Groton Proposed 104,000 s/f 4 Stories (26,000 s/f floorplates) Located at Exit 88 off Rt. 95 adjacent to Mar- riott Hotel under construction ¢ Developer —- Wolman’s/Waterford Hotel Group ¢ No pre-leasing activity to date * Asking $23.00 Gross (includes basic tenant improvements) CB Richard Ellis — marketing/leasing agent 40 NEW LONDON OFFICE MARKET SURVEY October 2000 Source: U.S. Properties, Inc. Available Property _ Address Built Size (S/F) S/F Vacancy Rate Comments ClassA 1 Shaw’s Cove One 1984 12,492 - 0.0% 1 Shaw’s Cove Two 1986 31,228 790 2.5% $20.00 Gross 1 Shaw’s Cove Three 1988 70,286 8,300 11.8% $20.00 Gross 1 Shaw’s Cove Four 1988 32,731 - 0.0% Medical Building 1 Shaw’s Cove Five 1989 37,114 2,155 5.8% $20.00 Gross 1 Shaw’s Cove Six 1990 89,000 2,841 3.2% $20.00 Gross 2 Columbus Corner 470 Bank Street 1989 21,632 - 0.0% 3 Mariner Square 125 Eugene O’Neill Dr. 1982 84,000 1,000 * 1.2% $20.00Gross 26,000 s/f for sublease 4 Citizens Bank 63 Eugene O'Neill Dr. 37,414 1,400 3.7% $14.00NNN 5 194 Howard Street 1984 47,000 - 0.0% 6 Union Plaza 1 & 2 1968 52,480 4,000 7.6% 7 400 Bayonet Street 1987 30,617 4,800 15.7% $19.00 + Elec. Subtotal 545,994 25,286 4.6% ClassB 8 A & T Technical 238-258 Bank Street 58,518 21,000 35.9% $12.00 NNN 9 Columbus Park Howard Street 1988 25,000 1,300 5.2% $13.50 Gross 10 Harris Place 165 State Street 1885 66,354 13,985 21.1% $14.00 + Elec. Manwaring Building 225 State Street 25,848 25,848 100.0% $14.00 + Elec. Exchange Building 190 Governor Winthrop 1935 41,000 26,950 65.7% $11.00 + Elec. Dewart Building State Street 1914 43,896 43,896 100.0% N/A Temporarily off market 19 Jay Street 9,300 9,300 100.0% $14.00 NNN Subtotal 269,916 142,279 52.7% Class A & B Totals 815,910 167,565 20.5% * . Excludes sublease space 41 Another proposed development that could impact the New London market is the planned development of the former Norwich State Hospital, located north of New London in Norwich, CT. A master plan was recently unveiled for turning the 470-acre site into a 3 million square foot office park. No prospective tenants have been announced, although discussions reportedly have occurred in the past with Pfizer. Spaulding & Slye Colliers is marketing this site. While New London has limited land available for new commercial construction, some additional parcels will be made available in the Fort Trumbull MDP area for devel- opment subsequent to the development of the Fort Trum- bull site. Additionally, the surrounding region has abundant land available for commercial development should future market conditions warrant it. Based on conversations with people connected with the proposed office developments, replacement cost for new office development is estimated to be between $120 and $150 per square foot, depending upon construction, type of Demand As can be seen in the preceding chart, although the overall market exhibits a 20.5% vacancy rate, the Class A market is quite healthy, with only 4.6% of the Class A space not leased. If the 26,000 square feet available for sublease in Mariner Square were included, then the Class A vacancy rate would rise to 9.4%, which is still not an unhealthy level for the market. 42 The Class B market, on the other hand, is clearly strug- gling with over half of the space presently unoccupied. Brokers, however, report that much of the Class B space is functionally obsolete and has inadequate and/or inaccessi- ble parking, which exacerbates the vacancy level. A report published by Miner & Silverstein Appraisal Company (see Addenda) indicates that there has been positive demand for Class A & B office space over the past four years. Between October 1996 and October 1999, approximately 185,000 square feet were absorbed in New London. As of November 1999, Miner & Silverstein had forecast additional absorption of approximately 25,000 square feet through mid-2000; based on market informa- tion provided by U.S. Properties, actual absorption through October 2000 appears to have exceeded this projection. Brokers indicate that typical tenants in the market re- quire between 3,000 and 7,500 square feet of space. While there are some requirements between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet, reportedly there are relatively few above 20,000 square feet. Given the relative size of the New London market, this would appear reasonable. Typical office tenants in the New London market include the “Main Street” mix of lawyers, accountants, and medi- cal practitioners, as well as other service-oriented compa- nies, community organizations, and government agencies. Some of the larger users in New London are Pfizer, Gen- eral Dynamics, CSC (Computer Science Corp.), and Or- tronics. Ortronics, which reportedly recently tripled in size to 36,000 square feet, is in the telecommunications and structured cable industry. 43 It should be noted that over the past few years, Pfizer has represented one of the largest sources of demand in the southeastern Connecticut region, buying or leasing large blocks of space outside of its Groton campus and its New London campus that is under construction. Reportedly, Pfizer will remain in the vast majority of this space as it occupies its new Global Development Facility being built in New London. According to local brokers and business people, New London has experienced limited organic growth, aside from Pfizer, in recent years. In addition, the region has experienced very limited growth as a result of companies relocating to the area to be proximate to Pfizer or other companies. Nonetheless, one source of future demand for commercial space may be the result of companies doing business with Pfizer that desire proximity to the new Global Development Facility. Brokers have noted a few inquiries from companies representative of Pfizer-related demand, but no significant demand has been evidenced over the past several years. Rental Pricing Recent leases for Class A office space in New London show rents ranging between $18.00 and $21.00 per square foot, on a gross basis with the tenant only paying for the additional cost of janitorial cleaning within the leased premises. A summary of comparable lease data over the past three years has been included in the Addenda for reference purposes. Lease terms are typically between 5 and 10 years, with smaller tenants sometimes wanting 1- to 3-year terms and larger tenants sometimes executing 15-year terms. 44 Tenant improvement allowances vary based on recent deals. With the market tightening, some deals have been done with no or minimal (painting and carpet cleaning) tenant improvements. On the other hand, some deals in Shaw’s Cove Business Park have had tenant improvement allowances around $15.00 to $17.00 per square foot. Operating Expenses Brokers indicate that operating expenses, including real estate taxes and utilities, for office buildings in New London generally vary between $6.00 and $7.00 ~per square foot. Of this amount, real estate taxes general!» range between $1.00 and $2.00 per square foot. Typical real estate taxes for buildings in Shaw’s Cove are between $1.70 and $2.00 per square foot. Utilities usually comprise between $1.50 and $2.00 per square foot, with the balance reflecting common area and other operating expenses. Sale Prices Recent sales of office buildings in New London have ranged between roughly $40 and $70 per square foot. The two most recent sales of larger Class A buildings sold for prices ranging between approximately $57 and $67 per square foot. The only office buildings curren‘*ly being marketed for sale are Class B properties with asking prices ranging between $26 and $63 per square foot. BIOTECH/BIOSCIENCE MARKET The biotech/bioscience market is in its infancy in Con- necticut. Aside from Pfizer, a biotech/bioscience market does not really exist in the New London area. Connecticut 45 is promoting a bioscience cluster concept, with New Haven, Hartford, and New London being the three loca- tions targeted for developing the cluster concept. Although New Haven is making some progress in attracting biosci- ence companies, New London and Hartford have not had any meaningful success to date. New Haven has two major developments either underway or proposed. One is Science Park, an 80-acre master planned site that will include renovation and new con- struction of office, laboratory, and research and develop- ment space. Lyme Properties has recently been selected to take over development of the project, which will be in excess of 1 million square feet. The other development is the Hamden Bioscience Campus, a proposed 1 million square foot park for biotech/bioscience companies. The general impression in the market is that, at this time, it is difficult for New London to compete with New Haven for biotech/bioscience users. New London has a competi- tive disadvantage in that it lacks a major university that grants post-graduate degrees and a major research hospi- tal, as well as significant venture capital money to support emerging companies. SECTER, a southeastern Connecti- cut business recruitment organization, indicates that they have been unable to generate any interest for bioscience in the New London area for the past few years. With development costs for bioscience space generally in a broad range between $250 and $350 per square foot, depending on the tenant improvements required, it is not economically feasible to develop this space at this time without an end user in hand that will pay the rent neces- sary to support the cost. Ultimately, corporate or govern- ment sponsorship will be required to create a feasible 46 environment for development of biotech/bioscience space in New London. Connecticut Innovations, a_ state- sponsored agency, has a $40 million Bioscience Facilities Fund to support development of biotech, wet laboratory space. To date, reportedly $20 million have been commit- ted, almost entirely for companies in the New Haven area. Funds are mainly for tenant improvement loans and residual balance guarantees for lenders, and have yet to be used to fund speculative real estate development. Commercial Development Program The commercial development program for the Fort Trum- bull development will consist of at least two phases, and possibly more depending upon the amount and type of demand that is generated for the 200,000 square feet of proposed commercial space. The first phase of commercial development will involve the renovation and redevelop- ment of the existing Navy Building 2 into a multi-tenant Class A office building for the New London market. Future phases will involve new construction of either Class A office space or biotech/bioscience space, as demand war- rants. The present plan for the proposed commercial space includes the development of two 100,000 square foot buildings along Walbach Street, south of the existing Building 2. Phase 1 ~ Office Building 2 was built in 1991 and consists of a four-story, steel-frame brick and glass office building containing 91,000 gross square feet. Preliminary analysis indicates an approximate net rentable area of 86,000 square feet. The building was constructed for single-tenant occupancy 47 and will require renovation to accommodate multi-tenant occupancy as appropriate for the New London office market. A first-floor lobby will need to be added, as well as common area on each floor depending upon the space requirements of future tenants. Also, the entrance to the building is currently on the east side and most likely will need to be relocated to orient it to the street grid planned for the Fort Trumbull development. In designing the space for multi-tenant occupancy, it should be kept in mind that loss factors for common area, as generally accepted and paid for by tenants, typically do not exceed 15%. Building systems will need to be evaluated to determine their appropriateness for reuse. It is known that a heating system will need to be added because Building 2 was previously heated by a system supporting several other Navy buildings. Also, analysis will need to be completed to determine whether the existing elevator and rest rooms are adequate for multi-tenant office use in the current market, or whether additions are required. arking will be provided around the building, with excess ae for the on future provided on the adjacent land that will support the future commercial development. It is anticipated that parking will be provided at market- oriented levels, approximately 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of rentable area. Future Phases - Office and/or Bioscience The program for the future phases is uncertain and will depend upon the type and quantity of demand that is generated through marketing efforts. It is currently envisioned that there will be two 100,000 square foot buildings, most probably multi-story buildings. Given the 48 uncertainty regarding the demand/feasibility of bio- tech/bioscience space, as well as the fact that any addi- tional office development, in all likelihood, will be subsequent to completion of Building 2, any design should be kept flexible to accommodate various types of demand. If biotech/bioscience space is programmed, the typical product type involves single or multi-story space with floor heights between 18 and 20 feet, wet lab improvements (sinks, cabinets, and hoods), animal areas, filtration systems, a small amount of office area, high HVAC capac- ity, and heavy floor load capacity. Consideration should be given to initially programming a good quality “flex”-type building that could be expanded in phases as demand warrants. This building would most likely be one story and would have the look and feel of an office building. However, it would have high floor heights (20 +/- feet) to accommodate a variety of uses, such as office, research and development, laboratory, and assem- bly. Depending upon the interest generated through broker marketing efforts, a small initial phase of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet could be built to test the market. This strategy would allow for less upfront investment than pure biotech/bioscience space, enhancing the potential feasibil- ity, and would help compensate for the uncertain demand at this time. _ 49 Navy Bidg. 2. 50 Financial Feasibility Study Of Commercial Development In analyzing the feasibility of the commercial development space at Fort Trumbull, we have focused on the renovation of Building 2. Considering market conditions, as well as anticipated development costs and net operating income levels, new construction of office and/or biotech/bioscience space is not feasible at this time. On the following pages, three scenarios are presented for the renovation of Building 2. Each scenario involves a different level of cost for the rehabilitation. A summary of the major assumptions for each scenario is as follows: Minor Moderate Major Rehab Rehab Rehab Total Development Cost $5,094,339 $6,737,530 $8,664,291 Per S/F $59.24 $78.34 $100.75 Hard Costs (Per S/F) $38.22 $51.95 $70.63 Soft Costs (Per S/F) $18.06 $22.48 $25.08 Construction Period 4months 6months 6 months Lease-up Period 20months 18months 18 months Market Rent $16.00 $20.00 $20.00 Equity Required $652,310 $105,581 $2,032,342 Unleveraged Return on Development Cost 13.9% 16.1% 12.0% IRR (3-year Hold) 20.7% 30.3% 12.0% Leveraged Return on Equity 33.8% 318.7% 16.6% IRR (3-year Hold) 46.1% 95.0% 10.2% 51 As illustrated, all three scenarios indicate the general economic feasibility of redeveloping Building 2 given current and anticipated future market conditions. analysis presupposes that the remainder of the Trumbull development proceeds as planned and Building 2 is not an isolated development. CORCORAN JENNISON COMPANIES Confidential FORT TRUMBALL Building 2 Feasibility Analysis Development Assumptions MINOR REHAB Gross Area 91,000 s/f Market Rent $16.00 Per s/f Rentable Area 86,000 s/f Operating Expenses $7.25 Per s/f (base year) Capital Reserve $0.30 Per s/f Initial Equity $500,000 Stabilized Vacancy 10.0% Permanent Equity $652,310 Permanent Financing Construction Period 4 Months Mortgage Interest Rate 9.25% Lease-up Period 20 Months LTV Ratio 70% Amortization 25 Years Valuation at Sale Cap Rate — Financing 11.5% - Cap Rate 12.0% nN Sale Costs 5.0% Preliminary Development Cost Budget Amount PerS/FF % Comments Hard Costs Building $ 1,820,000 $20.00 On Gross Area Site $ 450,000 Tenant Improvements $ 860,000 $10.00 On Rentable Area Contingency $ 156,500 5.0% Subtotal $ 3,286,500 $38.22 Soft Costs Design/Engineering $ 180,000 Permits/Insurance $ 49,298 1.5% Legal/Professional $ 75,000 General, Admin. & Overhead $ 100,000 Taxes/Fees $ 20,000 Financing Costs $ 72,000 2.0% $3,600,000 Loan Estimate for Calculation Marketing/Leasing $ 430,000 $5.00 Concessions/Free Rent 3 - Construction Interest $ 462,500 $2,500,000 Average Balance for 24 Months Miscellaneous/Contingency $ 164,325 _— 5.0% Subtotal $ 1,553,123 $18.06 47.3% Development Fee $ 254,717 5.0% Total Development Cost $ 5,094,339 $59.28 Development Period NOI $ 856,203 Net Development Cost $ 4,238,136 $49.28 Capital Sources Permanent Financing $ 3,585,826 70.4% Equity $ 652,310 12.8% nate Development Period NOI $ 856,203 16.8% Total Development Cost $ 5,094,339 $59.24 100.0% FORT TRUMBULL Building 2 Pro Forma — Commercial Development Feasibility Development Costs Development Period NOI Net Development Cost Gross Potential Rent Allowance for Vacancies Effective Gross Rent Operating Expenses Year3 =#Comments 1,376,000 Level Rent for First 5 Years of Lease (623,500) Pass Through Increases Over Base Year MINOR REHAB Sanhilionti Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 $ (254,717) $ (3,820,755) $ (1,018,868) 5% 75% 20% $ 181,303 $ 674,900 $ (254,717) $ (3,639,451) $ (343,968) $ $ s (137,600) 1,238,400 % $ (25,800) . 589,100 13.9% $ 267,250 $ 267,250 $ 4,868,478 $ (254,717) $ (3,372,201) $ (76,718) $ 5,455,578 20.7% Sanbilionts Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 $ (254,717) $ (245,283) $ (152,310) $ 589,100 $ (368,500) 1.60 $ 220,600 33.8% $ 1,319,065 $ (254,717) $ (245,283) $ (152,310) $ 1,539,665 46.1% FORT TRUMBULL Building 2 Supporting Calculations MINOR REHAB Stabilized Value Estimate Amount Per S/F Stabilized NOI $ 589,100 $ 6.85 Cap Rate - mo 11.5% Value Estimate $ 5,122,609 $ 59.57 Permanent Financing Estimated Value for Financing $ 5,122,609 LTV Ratio 70% Permanent Loan $ 3,585,826 $ 41.70 Interest Rate 9.25% Amortization 25 Annual Debt Service $ 368,500 Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60 E Cash Flow f P t Fi , Permanent Loan $ 3,585,826 Net Development Costs $ 4,238,136 Cash Flow from Financing $ (652,310) - Initial Equity $ 500,000 Cash Out (In) from Financing $ (152,310) Building Opening ~~ 5 6 7,600 4,500 3,760 8,260 - 7,600 Year 2 — Month 10 1l 12 1 2 3 4 7,600 7,750 22,750 4,500 4,750 22,750- 7,600 4,500 - - 12,600 8,260 8,260 16,750 15,750 15,750 38,600 38,500 46,000 50,500 50,500 50,500 63,000 73.3% 96% 90% 103% Per s/f Per s/f Per a/f FORT TRUMBALL Building 2 Occupancy/Absorption Projections MINOR REHAB Rentable Year 1 —- Month Floor Tenant Square Lease Feet Term 1 2 3 4 1 1 7,600 7 2 7,500 6 a 3 7,750 7. 2 4 22,750 10 3 5 4,500 6 6 4,500 6 7 4,500 7 8 4,800 7 9 4,750 6 - 10 10,000 10 11 - 7 12 4,000 6 13 3,750 5 Totals $80,000 - = - - Occupancy Rate 00% 00% 00% 00% Average Occupancy Year 1 27.1% 8 Months Average Occupancy Year 2 70.0% 12 Months Average Occupancy During Lease'Up 87.0% 20 Months Development Period NOI [legible] Year 1 Market Price $16.00 $16.00 Operating Expenses (Stabilized) $7.25 $7.25 Expense Percentage in Lease-Up 60% 80% Operating Expense (Lease-Up) $4.36 $6.80 Net Market Price $11.05 Net Market Price - Monthly $0.97 $0. 6 Average S/F Occupied 23,344 66,167 Number Months of Occupancy 8 12 Development Period NOI $181,303 $874,900 Total Development Period NOI $856,203 10.3% 103% 448% 448% 53.6% 58.7% 58.7% 80.7% 63,000 63,000 12 7 8 9 10 11 4,500 4,500 10,000 4,000 4,500 - 10,000 ‘ ‘ 8.600 67,500 67,500 77,500 77,500 77,500 80,000 78.5% 78.5% 90.1% 90.1% 90.1% 100.0% FORT TRUMBALL Building 2 Feasibility Analysis Development Assumptions MODERATE REHAB Gross Area 91,000 s/f Market Rent $20.00 Per s/f Rentable Area 86,000 s/f Operating Expenses $7.25 Per s/f (base year) Capital Reserve $0.30 Per s/f Initial Equity $500,000 Stabilized Vacancy 10.0% Permanent Equity $105,581 Permanent Financing Construction Period 6 Months Mortgage Interest Rate 9.25% Lease-up Period 18 Months LTV Ratio 70% Amortization — 25 Years Valuation at Sal Cap Rate — Financing 11.5% Cap Rate 12.0% Sale Costs 5.0% Preliminary Development Cost Budget Amount PerS/F % Comments Hard Costs Building $ 2,730,000 $30.00 On Gross Area Site $ 450,000 Tenant Improvements $ 1,075,000 $12.50 On Rentable Area Contingency $ 212,750 5.0% Subtotal $ 4,467,750 $51.95 Soft Costs Design/Engineering $ 250,000 Permits/Insurance $ 67,016 1.5% Legal/Professional $ 75,000 General, Admin. & Overhead _$ 100,000 Taxes/Fees $ 20,000 Financing Costs $ 120,000 2.0% $6,000,000 Loan Estimate for Calculation Marketing/Leasing $ 430,000 $5.00 Concessions/Free Rent $ - Construction Interest $ 647,500 $3,500,000 Average Balance for 24 Months Miscellaneous/Contingency $ 223,388 5.0% Subtotal $ 192,904 $22.48 43.3% Development Fee $ 336,877 5.0% Total Development Cost $ 6,737,530 $78.34 Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601 Net Development Cost $ 5,575,929 $64.84 Capital Sources : Permanent Financing $ 5,470,348 81.2% Equity $ 105,581 1.6% Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601 17.2% Total Development Cost $ 6,737,530 $78.34 100.0% 57 FORT TRUMBULL Building 2 Year3 #§ Comments 1,720,000 Level Rent for First 5 Years of Lease (623,500) Pass Through Increases Over Base Year Pro Forma —- Commercial Development Feasibility MODERATE REHAB - Stabilization Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Development Costs = $ (336,877) $ (5,053,148) $ (1,347,506) 5% 75% 20% Development Period NOI $ 222034 $ 939,567 Net Development Cost $ (336,877) $ (4,831,113) $ (407,939) $ - Gross Potential Rent $ Allowance for Vacancies $ (172,000) Effective Gross Rent 1,548,000 Operating Expenses $ Capital Reserve $ (25,800) Net Operating Income $ 898,700 Return on Development Cost 16.1% Add Back Constr. Int. & Financing $ 383,750 $ 383,750 Net Sale Proceeds $ 7,424,043 Unleveraged Development Cash Flow $ (336,877) $ (4,447,363) $ (24,189) $ 8,322,743 Internal Rate of Return 30.3% Leveraged Analysis Stabilizati Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Initial Equity Investment $ (336,877) $ (163,123) Cash Out (In) — Perm. Financing $ (394,419) Net Operating Income $ 898,700 Permanent Debt Service $ (562,165) Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60 Cash Flow after Debt Service $ 336,535 Return on Equity 318.7% Net Sale Proceeds after Debt $ 2,012,296 Net Equity Cash Flows $ (336,877) $ (163,123) $ 394419 $ 2,348,832 Equity IRR 95.0% FORT TRUMBULL Building 2 Supporting Calculations MODERATE REHAB Stabilized Value Estimate Amount Per S/F Stabilized NOI $ 898,700 $ 10.45 Cap Rate 11.5% Value Estimate $ 614,783 $ 90.87 Permanent Financing Estimated Value for Financing $ 7,814,783 LTV Ratio 70% Permanent Loan $ 5,470,348 $ 63.61 Interest Rate 9.25% Amortization 25 Annual Debt Service $ 562,165 Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60 Excess Cash Flow from Permanent Financing Permanent Loan 5,470,348 Net Development Costs 5,575,929 $ $ Cash Flow from Financing $ (105,581) $ $ Initial Equity 500,000 Cash Out (In) from Financing (394,419) FORT TRUMBALL Building 2 Occupancy/Absorption Projections MODERATE REHAB Buildi Rentable Year 1 - Month Opening Floor Tenant Square Lease ~ Feet Term 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 7600 7 7,500 2 7500 6 3 7,750 7 2 4 22,750 10 3 5 4,500 6 6 4500 6 7 4500 7 x 4800 7 4,500 9 4,750 6 . 4 10 10,000 10 11 - 7 12 4,000 6 13 3,750 5 3,750 Totals $80,000 - - 15,750 Cumulative - - - - - - 15,750 Occupancy Rate 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 10.3% Average Occupancy Year | 33.0% 6 Months Average Occupancy Year 2 70.0% 12 Months Average Occupancy During LeaseUp 62.3% 18 Months Development Period NOI (legible) Year 1 Year 2 Market Price $20.00 $20.00 Per s/f Operating Expenses (Stabilized) $7.25 $725 Peref Expense Percentage in Lease-Up 60% 80% Operating Expense (Lease-Up) $4.35 $8.80 Peraf Net Market Price $15.55 $14.20 Per s/f Net Market "nce —- Monthly $1.30 $1.18 Per s/f Average S/F Occupied 20,375 66,167 Number Months of Occupancy 8 12 Development Penod NO! $222,034 $830,607 Total Development Pernod NOI $1,161,601 Year 2 - Month 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 10 11 12 7,600 7.750 — 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,750 10,000 4,000 - - 22,750 = 7,600 4,500 : ° 12,600 - - 4,500 - 10,000 - - 8,600 15,750 15,750 38,500 38,500 46,000 50,500 50,500 50,500 63,000 63,000 63,000 67,500 67,500 77,500 77,500 77,500 80,000 10.3% 103% 448% 448% 53.6% 58.7% 58.7% 80.7% 733% 73.3% 733% 785% 785% 90.1% 90.1% 90.1% 100.0% FORT TRUMBALL Building 2 Feasibility Analysis Development Assumptions MAJOR REHAB Gross Area 91,000 sff Market Rent $20.00 Per s/f Rentable Area 86,000 = s/f Operating Expenses $7.25 Per s/f (base year) Capital Reserve $0.30 Per s/f Initial Equity $500,000 Stabilized Vacancy 10.0% Permanent Equity $2,032,342 P Fi : Construction Period 6 Months Mortgage Interest Rate 9.25% Lease-up Period 18 Months LTV Ratio 70% Amortization 25 Years Valuation at Sale Cap Rate — Financing 11.5% Cap Rate 12.0% Sale Costs 5.0% Preliminary Development Cost Budget Amount PerS/F % Comments Hard Costs Building $ 3,185,000 $35.00 On Gross Area Site $ 450,000 Tenant Improvements $ 2,150,000 $25.00 On Rentable Area Contingency $ 289,250 5.0% Subtotal $ 6,074,250 $70.63 Soft Costs - Design/Engineering $ 250,000 Permits/Insurance 3 91,114 1.5% Legal/Professional $ 75,000 General, Admin. & Overhead $ 100,000 Taxes/Fees $ 20,000 Financing Costs $ 110,000 2.0% $5,500,000 Loan Estimate for Calculation Marketing/Leasing $ 430,000 $5.00 Concessions/Free Rent 4% - Construction Interest $ 777,000 $4,200,000 Average Balance for 24 Months Miscellaneous/Contingency $ 303,713 5.0% Subtotal $ 2,156,826 $25.08 35.5% Development Fee $ 433,215 5.0% Total Development Cost $ 8,664,291 $100.75 Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601 Net Development Cost $ 7,502,690 $87.24 Capital Sources Permanent Financing $ 5,470,348 63.1% Equity $ 2,032,342 23.5% Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601 13.4% Total Development Cost $ 8,664,291 $100.75 100.0% 61 FORT TRUMBULL Building 2 Pro Forma — Commercial Development Feasibility MAJOR REHAB Stabilizati Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Development Costs $ (433,215) $ (6,498,218) $ (1,732,858) 5% 75% 20% Development Period NOI $ 222034 $ 939,567 Net Development Cost $ (433,215) $ (6,276,184) $ (793,291) $ ra Gross Potential Rent s 1,720,000 Level Rent for First 5 Years of Lease Allowance for Vacancies | $ (172,000) Effective Gross Rent 1,548,000 Operating Expenses s (623,500) Pass Through Increases Over Base Year Capital Reserve $ (25,800) Net Operating Income $ 898,700 Return on Development Cost 12.0% Add Back Constr. Int. & Financing $ 443,500 $ 443,500 Net Sale Proceeds $ 7,424,043 Unleveraged Development Cash Flow $ (433,215) $ (5,832,684) $ (349,791) $ 8,322,743 Internal Kate of Return 12.0% Leveraged Analysis Pe Stabilizati Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Initial Equity Investment $ (433,215) $ (66,785) Cash Out (In) — Perm. Financing $ (1,532,342) Net Operating Income - $ 898,700 Permanent Debt Service $ (562,165) Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60 1. Flow after Debt Service $ 336,535 Return on Equity 16.6% Net Sale Proceeds after Debt $ 2,012,296 Net Equity Cash Flows $ (433,215) $ (66,785) $ (152,342) $ 2,348,832 Equity IRR - 10.2% Note: Short analysis period distorts IR%. IRR will increase with longer holding period because ROE > IRR. FORT TRUMBULL Building 2 Supporting Calculations Stabilized Value Estimat Stabilized NOI Cap Rate Value Estimate Permanent Financing Estimated Value for Financing LTV Ratio Permanent Loan Interest Rate Amortization Annual Debt Service Debt Coverage Ratio Net Development Costs Cash Flow from Financing Initial Equity Cash Out (In) from Financing MAJOR REHAB Amount Per S/F $ 898,700 $ 10.45 11.5% $ 7,814,783 $ 90.87 $ 7,814,783 70% $ 5,470,348 $ 63.61 9.25% 25 $ 562,165 1.60 SREALIC UES 5,470,348 7,502,690 (2,032,342) 500,000 (1,532,342) o9 FORT TRUMBALL Building 2 Occupancy/Absorption Projections MAJOR REHAB Rentable Year 1 - Month Floor Tenant Square Lease Feet Term 1 2 3 4 1 1 7,600 7 2 7,500 6 3 7,750 7° 2 4 22,750 10 3 5 4,500 6 6 4,500 6 : 7 4500 7 - 4,800 7 9 4,750 6 4 10 10,000 10 11 - 7 12 4,000 6 13 3,750 5 ies . : ‘ . Occupancy Rate 00% 00% 00% 00% Average Occupancy Year 1 33.3% 6 Months Average Occupancy Year 2 78.9% 12 Months Average Occupancy During Lease'Up 62.3% 18 Months Development Period NOI (Iegibie| Vows "2 Market Price $20.00 $20.00 Operating Expenses (Stabilized) $7.25 $7.25 Expense Percentage in Lease-Up 60% 80% Operating Expense (Lease-Up) $4.36 $6.80 Net Market Price $15.05 $14.20 Net Market Price - Monthly $1.30 $1.18 Average S/F Occupied 26,378 66,167 Number Months of Occupancy 6 12 Development Period NOI $222,034 $838,587 Total Development Period NOI $1,141,801 Building Opening 5 » 7 7,500 4,500 3,750 ‘ ° 18,750 , : 15,750 00% 00% 183% Per s/f Per aff Per s/f Per s/f Per aff . 9 10 11 12 7,500 22,750 . - 22,750 - 7,500 15,750 16,750 4,500 4,500 4,750 12,500 38,500 38,500 46,000 50,500 50,500 50,500 63,000 18.3% 183% 440% 440% 836% s587q 58.7% 58.7% 73.3% i 63,000 63,000 67,500 67,500 77,500 77,500 77,500 90.1% 90.1% 90.1% 100.0% 73.3% 73.3% 10,000 4,500 - 10,000 78.5% 78.5% 10 11 4,000 8,500 80,000 64 — Conclusions of Financial and Market Study Based on the market and feasibility analyses presented, an opportunity exists to renovate the existing Building 2 at Fort Trumbull into Class A office space for the New London market. While new office construction is not feasible at this time, as evidenced by the inability of Shaw’s Cove 7 & 8 and Mystic Executive Park to get off the ground, the lower cost basis required to renovate Building 2, coupled with relatively tight market conditions for Class A space, create a feasible environment for rede- veloping Building 2 at Fort Trumbull. Except for the sublease space at Mariner Square, there is currently only one option available for a tenant requiring more than 5,000 square feet of Class A space. Brokers report that a few tenants, Kendall Corp. for example, have had to leave New London because sufficient Class A space was not available recently to accommodate their growth. At this time, however, market conditions do not justify construction of new commercial space at Fort Trumbull on a speculative basis. Financing will not be available unless there is significant pre-leasing activity, on the order of 65% to 70%, but tenants in the marketplace are generally reluctant to commit to space 18 to 24 months out, as is required for new construction. The Major Rehab scenario for Building 2 illustrates the general feasibility parame- ters for new multi-story office construction. As office rents for new construction would not be expected to appreciably exceed-the economic terms specified under this scenario, the maximum development cost for feasibility would be approximately $100 per rentable square foot, which is below the estimated development cost range of $120 to $150 per square foot for new construction. 65 Consideration should be given though to the possibility of developing a small “flex” building capable of being built out for office or biotech/bioscience space, and capable of being expanded to accommodate future demand. This flex building should be of good quality construction with an attractive facade, and should have a floor height of at least 18 feet to 20 feet to accommodate the tenant improvement requirements of potential biotech/bioscience users that might demand space as a result of Pfizer’s Global Devel- opment Facility. Flex space would appear to be marginally feasible in the current market. With hard costs estimated to be approximately $75 to $80 per square foot based on brokers in the market, total development costs could conceivably be kept around $100 per square foot. Target Market For Commercial Space For the existing Building 2, which will be redeveloped into Class A office space, the target market will include the following: * Existing New London companies seeking to * Exsting New London companies seeking to expand that are unable to be accommodated due to the limited amount of available Class A space * Newly recruited companies from outside the region | For the future commercial development space, the pr'mary target market is expected to be newly recruited companies idencing Pfizer-related demand, whether it is for general office use or biotech/bioscience use. This demand will most likely come from out-of-region companies that contract with Pfizer and value proximity to Pfizer's Global Devel- opment Facility. Marketing Strategy The key objectives of the marketing strategy are: * To successfully position the commercial de- velopment space in the market ° To fully lease Building 2 as quickly as possi- ble e To complete renovation and begin occupancy of Building 2 the opening date of the hotel ® ‘To execute leases for Building 2 on terms that meet or exceed pro forma * ‘To further develop and refine the target mar- ket for the future commercial development 67 infrastructure work for the whole Fort Trumbull develop- ment, which is presently slated for August 2002. Hence, assuming the current schedule is maintained, marketing efforts should commence in April 2001. In engaging a brokerage firm, approximately two months should be budgeted to solicit proposals from targeted brokerage firms, review the proposals, interview the firms, and select the best firm or firms. Thus, the brokerage firms identified herein (see Marketing Execution Plan) should be contacted in early February 2001 to solicit proposals for brokerage services. Once a brokerage firm is selected, a more detailed market- ing strategy should be developed and the firm should~ marketing materials, including conceptual schemes, should be prepared for the future commercial development space in the event that sufficient excess demand is gener- ated that cannot be accommodated in Building 2, and/or an end user is identified for a build-to-suit development. This information should also be disseminated to the various state and local resources identified herein (see Marketing Execution Plan). In addition to hiring a brokerage firm, consideration should be given to establishing a web site for the entire Fort Trumbull development. This would need to be coordi- nated with the various marketing/brokerage firms for the different development components, and could conceivably be paid for by these firms as part of their assumed market- ing and advertising responsibilities. For Building 2, a virtual tour, renderings, images of water views from the upper floors, and other marketing information could be placed on the site, thus providing prospective tenants with instant access to information to help them evaluate the property. Once construction has started for Building 2, an on-site marketing center should be established as soon as possible to allow prospective tenants the opportunity to see the space as they might occupy it. The fourth floor would be the ideal location in order to take advantage of the sweep- ing views of the water. Targeted leasing milestones for Building 2 would be as follows: ° 50% pre-leased before commencement of renovation ° 75% leased upon completion of renovation * 100% leased 6 months after completion of renovation iti early in the marketing campaign, a draft ae teas emmdiies should be prepared for future tenants. Depending upon the level of rehabilitation ultimately selected by Corcoran Jennison Companies, the standard tenant improvement package should generally not exceed scenario. Several recent leases have been done with all tenant improvements paid for by the tenant. However, some leases have been done with improvement allowances of up to approximately $17 per square foot. The amount of tenant improvements provided is a negotiating point and will depend upon market conditions at the time of lease negotiation, if tenants require additional improvements over the standard package, then the cost over and above that amount should either be amortized over the lease 69 term (typically with credit tenants only), or paid for by the tenant up front. Marketing Execution Plan Broker Selection There are four local brokerage firms and one national firm, CB Richard Ellis, which are active in the New London market. There is another national firm, Cushman & Wakefield, with a Hartford office that could potentially service the New London market. In addition, a Boston- based firm, Thompson Doyle Hennessey & Everest has experience with both office and biotech/bioscience space — they are currently marketing BioSquare, which is adjacent to the Boston University Medical Center. These firms should be contacted in January/February 2001 and asked to submit Proposals to provide brokerage services for the commercial space. A sample draft of a Request for Propos- als (RFP) for brokerage services has been included in the Addenda. The table below identifies these firms and the appropriate contact information. CONTACT PHONE # 1. U.S. Properties, Inc. Susan Howard 860-4370101 Three Shaw’s Cove, ~ Jim White Suite 202 New London, CT 06320 2. New England Real Jim Bach 860-444-7800 Estate Group, Ltd. Steve Percy 12 Masonic Street Jane Walsh é New London, CT 06320 3. Pequot Commercial John Jensen 860-447-9570 711 Broad Street Ext. Norm Peck Waterford, CT 06385 70 4. Connecticut Commercial Robert Zabarsky 860-444-7704 Realty 229 Howard Street New London, CT 06320 5. CB Richard Ellis 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 6. Cushman & Wakefield Thomas Collins 617-204-4100 Dan Barber 860-987-4781 25th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3599 7. Thompson Doyle Hennessey & Everest 101 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 To be sensitive to community issues, it would be appropri- ate to include all four local firms in the Broker RFP process. The preliminary recommendation would be to utilize a local brokerage firm to market Building 2, or a joint venture, if possible, between a local firm and a national or regional firm. The typical tenant anticipated to occupy Building 2 would likely be a local company looking to relocate or expand its offices. The inclusion of ar national or regional firm may be appropriate though as the Pfizer-induced demand antici- pated for construction of the proposed 200,000 square feet might include uses other than office - e.g., biotech or bioscience — for which these firms have greater experience. For broker incentive reasons, and because it might be appropriate to begin initial marketing of the proposed commercial space simultaneously with the Building 2, it might be warranted to use one of the non-local firms solely for the marketing of al] Fort Trumbull commercial space. Cathy Thompson 617-330-6900 eS ea ee ae 71 It should be noted that U.S. Properties, Inc. is the agent for most of the space in Shaw's Cove Business Park, and while due consideration should be given to them, they may have potential conflict of interest issues in representing Corcoran Jennison Companies to lease the Fort Trumbull commercial space. State and Local Resources There are several state and local resources that should be made aware of and that could provide assistance in the marketing of the Fort Trumbull commercial development space. These resources are as follows: Resource Contact Number New London Office Ned Hammond 860-447-5203 of Development & Economic Planning Development Coordinator Connecticut Kevin Crowley 860-270-8069 Department of Director, Business Economic & Recruitment Community Development SECTOR John Markowitz 860-701-6054 Connecticut Carolyn Kahn 860-563-5851 Innovations Managing Director, www.ctinnovations. Bioscience com Connecticut United Debra Pasquale 860-679-1550 for Research President www Excellence (CURE) oe Connecticut Susan Winkler 800-392-2122 Economic Resource www.cerc.com Center (CERC) 72 In e? ‘ition, Pfizer's real estate representative should be ma © .ware of the commercial development program in case the company has a need, or in case a contractor doing business with them might have a need for a local presence. Project and Marketing Schedule With respect to the renovation of Building 2. Corcoran Jennison Companies’ goal is to complete construction and have initial occupancy at the same time as the infrastruc- ture and site work is completed for hotel and residential space. The current Fort Trumbull development project schedule calls for commencement of site and infrastruc- ture work in August 2001, with completion scheduled for August 2002. Working back from this date, construction for Building 2 should commence no later than March 2002 to allow for an estimated 6 months of rehab work. The broker marketing and leasing campaign should start no later than April 2001 to allow for sufficient exposure in the marketplace to execute leases for as much of the space as possible prior to completion of construction. Initial requests for proposals from brokerage firms should occur in late January or early February 2001. On the following page, a Project and Marketing Timeline is presented which illustrates the key dates and mile- stones for the Fort Trumbull development, as well as Building 2 renovation. 73 Fort Trumbull Development New London, CT x Pm lean) wan) am | ©) Me) nee |) ee ae Ta | | ! Wares. 74 Marketing Budget Brokerage fees will comprise the vast majority of the marketing budget for the Fort Trumbull commercial development space. Most marketing and advertising costs are included in the brokerage fee and are the responsibil- ity of the broker. Based on conversations with several brokers in the market, brokerage fees have been estimated at $5.00 per square foot of rentable office space, which is equivalent to $430,000 based on an estimated 86,000 rentable square feet. The brokerage fee will vary depend- ing upon the length of the lease that is executed for each tenant. Typically, brokerage fees are paid 50% at lease execution and 50% at tenant occupancy. Conceivably, some miscellaneous marketing expenses could be incurred that would not be paid for by the broker- age firm. In addition, although it is not feasible to develop the proposed additional 200,000 square feet of commercial space at this time, it would be beneficial to develop some preliminary marketing materials for circulation simulta- neously with Building 2’s marketing campaign. Moreover, a brokerage firm might not be willing to pay for marketing materials for the future commercial development space at this juncture. A budget of $50,000 would seem reasonable to cover miscellaneous expenses associated with Building 2 and the other preliminary marketing materials. This would be exclusive, however, of any cost associated with the devel- opment of a Fort Trumbull web site, if that option is pursued. It is important to note the need for high quality marketing materials and architectural services associated with marketing. Image and identity are key components for a 75 successful marketing plan. Marketing materials should include, but not be limited to: * Abuilding photo and/or rendering * An aerial photo after demolition of all im- provements not being retained * Asample floor plan for each floor * Sample module layouts Hopefully, preparation of some marketing materials can be coordinated with the marketing of the hotel and residen- tial portions of the Fort Trumbull development to possibly enable efficiencies and cost savings. DRAFT CORCORAN JENNNISON COMPANIES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE / LEASING SERVICES FORT TRUMBULL COMMERCIAL SPACE NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2001 Introduction Corcoran Jennison Companies is seeking Proposals from real estate brokerage companies to provide marketing and leasing services for the commercial development space to be included in its Fort Trumbull mixed-use development. Corcoran Jennison Companies intends to select a broker- age firm no later March 31, 2001 and to commence the 76 marketing of the commercial space as soon as possible thereafter. Corcoran Jennison Companies is a diversified real estate company with five main operating companies — Develop- ment, Property Management, Construction, Hospitality, and Exposition Center Management Services. Since its founding in 1971, Corcoran Jennison Companies has successfully developed in excess of $1.8 Billion of real estate, including apartments, hotels, nursing homes, municipal facilities, exposition centers, schools, health facilities, golf courses, restaurants, resort facilities, mari- nas, and office centers. The company’s corporate offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts. Background The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in association with the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), has = ey : municipal planning project targeting an area adjacen nn. ccettes, Maen es the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP), the MDP area encompasses approximately 90 acres immediately south of downtown New London and adjacent to historic Fort Trumbull, which will be developed into a state park. The principal catalyst for development in this area is the construction of Pfizer Inc.’s 790,000-square-foot Global Development Facility immediately south of the MDP area. The NLDC selected Corcoran Jennison Companies as the developer of a 30-acre waterfront parcel adjacent to Fort Trumbull. The majority of the parcel consists of the U.S. Navy’s closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC). 77 The balance is made up of a number of residential and commercial properties between NUWC and the Amtrak rail. Fort Trumbull Project Description Corcoran Jennison Companies has proposed a mixed-use development, to include a four-star hotel, housing, and commercial space, for the 30-acre parcel. The attached site plan, labeled the Fort Trumbull Development Plan, depicts the latest proposed development plan for the Fort Trum- bull site. New roadways and infrastructure will be built to support the development. Total development costs are projected to be approximately $100 million. The hotel will be situated on the northernmost section of the site. The residential development will be located on the southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to the existing Coast Guard facility and north of Fort Trumbull. The commercial development will be located on the southwest- ern portion of the site; an existing !-alian Dramatic Club located here will be kept and incorporated into the devel- opment plan. Plans also include a paved, half-mile river- walk, which will connect to the Fort Trumbull State Park, and a village green that will be accessible to the public. Commercial Development Program At present, approximately 300,000 square feet of commer- cial space is envisioned for the site. This will be comprised Cen en of Suiiien austatet " mately 91,000 gross square feet, identified as Building 2 by the U.S. Navy, and two proposed buildings of 100,000 square feet each. The MDP called for the inclusion of office 78 or bioscience-related commercial space. While the new buildings could be developed for either use depending upon market conditions, the existing Building 2 is best utilized for office use given its current construction. The commercial development program for the Fort Trum- bull development will consist of at least two phases, and possibly more depending upon the amount and type of demand that is generated for the 200,000 square feet of proposed commercial space. The first phase of commercial development will involve the renovation and redevelop- ment of the existing Navy Building 2 into a Class A office building for the New Loadon market. Building 2 is a four- story, steel frame, brick and glass structure completed in 1991 as sonar research and development space for the Navy. It is in reasonably good condition and can be easily renovated to Class A office space for the New London market. Because the building was constructed for single-tenant occupancy, it will require renovation to accommodate multi-tenant occupancy as appropriate for the New Lon- don office market. A first-floor lobby will need to be added, as well as common area on each floor depending upon the space requirements of future tenants. Also, the entrance to the building is currently on the east side and most likely will need to be relocated to orient it to the street grid planned for the Fort Trumbull development. Building systems are being evaluated to determine their appropriateness for reuse. It is known that a heating system will need to be added because Building 2 was previously heated by a system supporting several other Navy buildings. In addition, analysis will need to be completed to determine whether the existing elevator and 79 rest rooms are adequate for multi-tenant office use in the current market, or whether additions are required. Park- ing will be provided around the building, with excess parking for the near future provided on the adjacent land that will support the future commercial development. Future phases will involve new construction of either Class A office space or biotech/bioscience space, as demand warrants. The present plan for the proposed commercial space includes the development of two 100,000 square foot buildings along Walbach Street, south of the existing Building 2. The new buildings will be developed as market conditions warrant. Submittals Interested parties should submit a Proposal to provide marketing/leasing services for the commercial develop- ment space at Fort Trumbull. Respondents should outline their general approach to providing marketing/leasing services and should demonstrate capacity and expertise to develop and implement a marketing program that will minimize lease-up periods, maximize rents, and enhance project values. In the Proposal, respondents are encouraged to propose and/or provide recommendations relative to the proposed commercial space at Fort Trumbull, both the existing Building 2 and the planned 200,000 square feet, with respect to: Marketing Strategy Project Identity Marketing Timeline Type and F of Advertisina/Marketi Target Market for Tenants * State and Local Resources for Attracting Ten- ants ¢ Pricing — Rent, Lease Term, Tenant Improve- ments ¢ Credit Quality of Tenants * Specifications for Tenant Improvements Projected Absorption/Occupancy Milestones In addition, respondents should provide: ¢ A company overview/business history (de- tively involved in the project, including iden- tification of relevant professional licenses * References and contact information (at least two for each key personnel) * Sample marketing materials, including bro- chures, advertisements, etc. ; * Asample lease proposal for a prospective ten- ant : e Examples of comparable firm experience as owner's agent for commercial space Respondents are also encouraged to provide information on current market conditions for commercial space in the New London market area, including an overview of supply and demand trends, comparable lease and sale informa- tion, competitive projects planned and/or under construc- tion, etc. proposed Respondents should include in their submittals a fee structure for the services to be provided. Respondents should be specific as to what marketing materials and 81 advertising expenses are included as part of the services provided. Insurance Respondents should include in their Proposal a brief description of the firm’s general liability insurance cover- age, including limits and deductibles. Selection Schedule Request for Proposals available February 1, 2001 Pre-submission Meetings & Tours ween February 5 - (To be scheduled individually) 6, 2001 Proposals Due ebruary 28, 2001 5:00 p.m.) Corcoran Jennison Companies een March 1 — 15, Review/Inquiry 1 Selection of Brokerage Company o later than March 1, 2001 Commencement of Marketing/ April 1, 2001 Leasing Campaign _ i Evaluation Criteria Corcoran Jennison Companies shall consider the following criteria in evaluating Proposals (not listed in any specific order of importance): Responsiveness to Request for Proposals Company/Broker Experience ~ Time and Place of Submission Respondents must submit five (5) copies of their Proposal to Corcoran Jennison Companies. Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Proposals should be addressed to: Marty Jones President Corcoran Jennison Companies Bayside Office Center 150 Mount Vernon Street Boston, MA 02125 Corcoran Jennison Companies reserves the right to modify or withdraw this Request for Proposals at any time and to reject any and all Proposals. 83 DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 38 FORT TRUMBULL MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN New London, Connecticut August 1999 Revised Administrative Draft Prepared on behalf of: The City of New London by: New London Development Corporation New London, Connecticut Sponsoring Agency: State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development Implementing Agency: New London Development Corporation New London, Connecticut Administrative Contributors: The Downes Group — Program Management Milone & MacBroom, Inc. — Plan Coordination Technical Contributors: Diversified Technology Consultants, Inc. - Civil Engineering Harrall-Michalowski Associates, Inc. - Neighborhood Relocation and Land Use Planning HRP Associates, Inc. - Hazardous Waste and Contamination Assessment Milone & MacBroom, Inc. - Environmental Impact Evaluation RKG Associates, Inc. - Economic Analysis Wallace Roberts and Todd — Land Use Planning 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 84 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENITRODUCTION ..ccccccsccsscssscccccccsscesssscscssccssrscesores 1-1 MDP Proceee .......ccccccessseescscsssevessssssssesesssesesseseneoees 1-1 Project Background .............:c:ssseeeeerereerernerennenes 1-2 Summary of Major EIE Issues .............:::00ee 1-8 RTT occcxececsenrsecssnessecscncetessosensenssconecssoansconscesson 2-1 Topography .........ccscesseseesssersensensensrereensersanenennennes 2-1 Legal Description of Project Boundary ................. 2-1 Description of Interior Parcels .............:.0:0:000+ 2-5 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............:cccceeeee 3-1 Existing Land Uses ............:.::sssssseseereennrennenenrennens 3-1 Existing ZOming..........::cscssesseseeeeesennesecenseersneernenees 3-2 Existing Public Utilities, Services, and Roadway Network...........::::sssseseeeeeneneesnnnnsnnnenes 3-4 WIP necccccecccvcccccocccccccccccscecccscccscocsosnooscesosenssssseosones 3-4 Sanitary Sewer .........::cccccssessesesesesseeenensnensesnensneenens 3-5 Baaren BOWES 000000cccccececcosersssevccccsccsssescsssssevcsscsscoseees 3-8 Gas, Electric, Telephone, and Cable ................+ 3-11 Streets and Sidewalks ............::cccceeseeeeeeereneeeenes 3-12 Test Borings and Soil Analysis ..............000:00:00++ 3-16 Environmental Conditions ..............:ccceereeeee 3-17 Environmental Evaluation................:0000eeeree 3-17 Environmental Impact Evaluation (under SEPATALE COVET).......0-..csceseeserserneesererereneteneneneenenens 3-24 4.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 5.4.8 5.5 85 MARKETABILITY STUDY..............cccccsceseeseseeseeee 4-1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS..............ccccccc0c0000. 5-1 EE eT TS 5-1 OI ih anttacenleacticnaittceeerte 5-4 Proposed Zoning Designation Changes................. 5-4 Applicability of Proposed Zoning Amend- BB ccecsccsssanncscesesseceensensssnnscsnassesssnccsnsssessnstecsnstanes 5-6 Proposed Zoning Amendments for the MDP __—_ ESE nem IOS NESE EN SIU oT 5-6 Proposed Land Use Controls ...............cccccccccec0e0es 5-23 Overall Framework for Development.................. 5-23 Design Control Mechanisms and Processes ....... 5-24 IS Sa 5-25 Proposed Public Utilities, Services, and Roadway Improvements ...................ccceeceeeeeeeeees 5-34 STITT Asonisisnnieebieichideseseuenenetninninstadinbianmnibieebiedanteeninadeiti 5-34 IIIT iaccnneiensetneniidnethiiiehtabatdeeisibiatiameataieal 5-37 EE a a eT ETP 5-39 Gas, Electric, Telephone, and Cable.................... 5-45 Streets and Sidewalks ................:ccccccsssceccsseesseeees 5-46 Sareea TnTUIIE iieiielinericteiabadeniaienaiihidadetapehiteameniatcceinaietiedl 5-57 nS 5-58 Estimated Cost of Site/Infrastructure Im- TIED ccnsncenscscessescenensssusnsennsmnistiensummnsscensensnts 5-58 ES See RT 5-60 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 9.0 10.0 10.1 10.2 11.0 12.0 13.0 13.1 13.2 86 ACQUISITION/DISPOSITION OF PARCELS ......6-1 Description of Parcels to be Acquired...............+++». 6-1 Description of Parcelization for Disposal ............. 6-4 Description of Appraisals and Title Searches Comdneted ....0cccccccscscscsscscesessescesssccssccsscesssonssooseseooes 6-6 RELOCATION PLAN .......::scssssvsssssserreeeresseeresesees 7-1 Families and Individualls...............:::eeeeeeeeeees 7-1 Businesses and Non-profit Agencies .................-++ 7-2 Availability of Relocation Housing ..................0+ 7-2 Availability of Relocation Facilities...................+ 7-3 FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY.............:::c:0ee00e 8-1 ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN SUMMARY................ 9-1 JOBS AND HOUSING. ..........::cccceceeeeeeeeeeeneeneenenes 10-1 Jobs Anticipated to be Created.............:00:0s0+ 10-1 Housing Units Available................0:00cseseseereenen 10-1 PEDOIIEDOG .....0cccccccccccccccccecesecsesevescssosssssssssorsosnsees 11-1 PROJECT PLAN PROVISIONS TO RE- MAIN IN EFFECT. ..........:c0cccscserseessreseerensereesnens 12-1 MINORITY PARTICIPATION .............:0c0e0eeeeeees 13-1 Minority Participation Statement ..................+ 13-1 Commitment, Performance Standard, and Government Requirements. ............:::cseeeeeeeees 13-1 87 13.3 Area of Minority Participation ..................ccc00000. 13-2 SET” PIII ioeniiiintaniiadlianstnintssiiaciceci 13-8 re RI iccictinericnibiiiec ia 13-8 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Requirements by Zoning Classification Table 3-2 Sanitary Sewer Mains for the Fort Trumbull MDP Area Table 3-3 Existing Street Conditions Table 3-4 Summary of Test Boring Results Table 3-5 Recommended Phase II ESA Table 3-6 Potential CTA Regulated Sites Table 5-1 Smith Street Option 2 - Proposed Pressure for Maintaining 3,000 gpm Fire Flow Table 5-2 East Street and Trumbull Street Intersection — Proposed Pressure for Maintaining 3,000 gpm Fire Flow Table 5-3 Summary of Proposed Street Characteristics Table 5-4 Probable Costs for Infrastructure and Special Construction Table 6-1 NLDC Owned Properties (May 1999) Table 7-1 Households to be Displaced Table 7-2 Non-Residential Displacement Table 10-1 Summary of Jobs Anticipated to be Created 88 LIST OF 8 1/2 x 11 FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map - City of New London Figure 2 Fort Trumbull MDP Area Figure 3 Composite Land Use Plan Figure 4 Evacuation Route Map Figure 5 Existing Flood Plain Areas Figure 6 Proposed Flood Plain Areas Figure 7 Pedestrian Route Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Relevant Correspondence and CEPA Record of Decision Appendix B_ Soil Boring Logs Appendix C Marketability Study Appendix D List of Properties to be Acquired Appendix E_ Relocation Plan Appendix F New London City Council Resolutions ndixG Executive Summary — Request for Flood — Management Certification Exemption LIST OF APPENDED MAPS Map 2.1 Topographic Map Map 2.2 Project Boundary Map (Maps 2.2.1 through 2.2.4) Map 3.1 Existing Land Use Map Map 3.2 Existing Zoning Map Map 3.3 Existing & Proposed Water System Map 3.4 Existing & Proposed Sanitary Sewer System 89 Map 3.5 Existing & Proposed Storm System Map 3.6 Existing and Proposed Gas System Map 3.7 Existing & Proposed Electric and Telephone Map 3.8 Proposed Streets Map 3.9 Test Boring Locations Map 5.1 Proposed Land Uses Map 5.2 Proposed Zoning Map Map 6.1 Acquisition Map Map 6.2 Disposition Map 10 INTRODUCTION 1.1 MDP Process The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in association with the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), is undertaking a municipal development planning proj- ect adjacent to the Thames River in New London, Connecticut. NLDC is a nonprofit, private economic development organization originally formed in 1978. The corporation was established with the authority to raise and borrow funds, manage projects, acquire and sell properties, and engage in any activity related to the progress and general welfare of the community. This Municipal Development Plan (MDP) has been prepared under Chapters 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes. The New London City Council gave authority to NLDC to prepare the MDP for the Fort Trumbull area in a resolution passed in May of 1998. The resolution also estab- lished the boundaries of the planning area. Prior to initiating the municipal development plan- ning process, an Environmental Assessment (BA) and 90 an Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) were completed in accordance with the Connecticut Envi- ronmental Policy Act (CEPA), established in Sections 22a-1 through 22a-lh of the Connecticut General Statutes and Sections 22a-1 through 22a-1a-12 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. In June of 1998, the Connecticut Department of Eco- nomic and Community Development issued an Envi- ronmental Assessment for the Fort Trumbull MDP area which concluded that the project could poten- tially have a significant effect on the environment. Several major areas of concern were identified in the EA, including the possible acquisition of residential properties and relocation of residents, adequacy of the existing water supply; congestion and traffic safety is- sues; historic importance and archaeological signifi- cance of the project area; flooding, and stormwater t. As a result of DECD’s finding, an Envi- ronmental Impact Evaluation was undertaken. The EIE process began in late June 1998. Numerous consultations were engaged to assist in specific phases of the work. Preliminary findings were discussed at numerous neighborhood meetings. Input and review comments were solicited from the community and in- terested public on the Draft EIE. Input was also solic- ited from local, state and federal agencies. Following completion of a 45 day public comment pe- riod of the Draft EIE, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development forwarded to the Office of Policy and Management the Final EIE and Record of Decision (dated March 1999), consisting of all public notice documentation, comments received from all interested parties, the agency decision rela- tive to proceeding with the proposed action, and a dis- cussion of the intentions for initiation of actions for 1.2 91 minimizing impacts, for determination of the ade- quacy of the evaluation. The CEPA process concluded with the review of the Final EIE and Record of Decision by OPM and their April 20, 1999 determination that regulatory re- quirements were satisfied, with several conditions. Appendix A contains a copy of selected relevant corre- spondence and documentation from the Record of De- cision and the April 20, 1999 OPM approval letter. The Final EIE and Record of Decision is the basis for the implementation of the project. The subject Mu- nicipal Development Plan has been developed to be consistent with the findings of the CEPA process. A mandatory public hearing will be held prior to local adoption of the MDP by the City of New London. Pro- cedures for the adoption of the MDP are set forth in Section 32-224(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. This process must include a finding by the OPM that the plan is not inimical to the overall goals and objec- tives of the state. Upon obtaining such a finding, the plan would then be legally adopted by the city and approved by DECD. Project Background The City of New London is a waterfront community along the tidal estuary of the Thames River and Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Figure 1 is a location map of the City of New London. New London is only 5.79 square miles in size, making it geographi- cally the second smallest municipality in the State of Connecticut. Nearly 54% of the total land area of New London is exempt from local property taxes. The Fort Trumbull MDP area is approximately 90 acres in size and includes residential and commercial areas comprised of approximately 115 parcels. The area includes the 32-acre U.S. Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the ad- jaeent Fort Trumbull area as shown in Figure 2. The driving force behind this project is the City of New London's desire to revitalize its economy by fo- proposed Pfizer, Inc. Global Development Facility a te teated tmenattany to Gan eth of Go SP boundary. In an effort to induce private investment into the Fort Trumbull area, considerable funding has been committed to this redevelopment project by vari- ous offices of the State of Connecticut and the City of New London. In order to the redevelopment of the Fort Trum- se rege ny sty Fee in ae tind me after numerous public meetings and consultation with Federal, State, regional and local organizations, identi- fied four major goals for the redevelopment of the site. These goals are presented below: e To create a world-class development that will complement the undertakings of Pfizer, Inc. and set a standard for development in New London; e ‘To create an economic asset for the City of New London that will create jobs, generate tax reve- ue, and result in spin-off economic activity, e To maximize public access to the waterfront and, in doing so, encourage uses which are water de- pendent or which will be enhanced by water ac- cess and views; and e To develop a project which will help build momen- tum for the revitalization of downtown New Lon- don and the balance of the city to the benefit of the City’s residents and visitors — Ge — City of New London —_I Figure 1 Location Map - City of New London Fort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut 4 Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 —— ‘ort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut Figure 2 95 The Environmental Impact Evaluation evaluated six land use alternatives with an array of land uses. While there is some overlap and common elements in the six land use alternatives, each has a distinct theme as noted below: Alternative No. 1 — No Action Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/Tourism Alternative No. 3 — Residential/Commercial Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2 The analysis contained in the Draft EIE evaluated the impact of the various components associated with the six land use plans. It was recognized that the ul- timate preferred land use plan could borrow land use components from any or all of the plans. As stated in the Draft EIE: “The alternative plans represent gen- eral land use areas and density of development. They are not intended to be exact geographic limits or con- figurations. A preferred alternative has not been se- lected and it is anticipated that the ultimate selected preferred plan may be a hybrid of several alterna- tives.” Following the 45 day review and comment period of the Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation for the Fort Trumbull MDP area, review of public and state agency comments, and consideration of the adminis- trative record, technical data and other relevant in- formation, the Record of Decision was developed and a preferred composite land use plan was selected as presented in Figure 3. The four goals identified for this project which highlight economic development through the creation of jobs, tax revenues, and spin-off 1.3 96 economic activity, played a major role in the ultimate selection of the preferred composite land use plan. A conditional approval was subsequently issued on April 20, 1999 by the Office of Policy and Manage- ment (See Appendix A). Balancing the competing needs and impacts of this project led to the ultimate selection of a modified mixed use alternative. A compromise of economic de- velopment with environmental impacts resulted in an alternative which takes advantage of the economic potential of business development, coupled with the positive aspects of a mixed use community develop- ment. The result is a positive outcome with fewer negative impacts. * * * Summary of Major EIE Issues The following discussion briefly summarizes the ma- jor issues raised during the Draft EIE review process. Regional W. Pollution C | Facili | the Ac- tive Amtrak Rail Line - The western Fort Area sup- ports a sewage treatment plant and the active Amtrak railroad. The adjacency of these land uses to the planned land uses in the MDP area posed a chal- lenge with respect to compatibility and aesthetic is- sues. Placement of less sensitive land uses in combination with planned improvements to the WPCF have been incorporated into the MDP to lessen the impacts of these utilities. Proposed Fort Trumbull State Park - A 16-acre State Park will be located at the inactive NUWC site along the Thames River. The MDP has been prepared in an effort to complement and be compatible with the pro- posed park. 97 Traffic - The MDP and other planned projects in the vicinity of the Fort Trumbull area will result in addi- tional traffic. Mitigation measures have been pro- posed to offset these impacts. Cultural Resources - Several studies have revealed that areas of low, medium, and high archaeological sensitivity exist within the MDP area, both within and outside of the NUWC site. An overview of the recommendations of the Connecticut Historical Com- mission and related studies can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Evaluation and associated Re- cord of Decision dated March 1999 (EIE/ROD), in sec- tion 2.7.3, entitled “Cultural Resources in the MDP Area.” All necessary mitigation will be reviewed by the Con- necticut Historical Commission and State Historic Preservation Office, and performed to their standards in areas that will be disturbed due to the implemen- tation of the MDP. Studies to date include “Cultural Resources Survey: Naval Undersea Warfare Center,” prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. for the Northern Division Naval Fa- cilities Engineering Command Department of the Navy, April, 1998 and “Archaeological Assessment Survey: The Fort Trumbull MDP Area,” prepared by Associates, LLC, September, 1998 for NLDC. The results of these surveys have been reviewed, and the proposed course of action incorporates their rec- ommendations. Both of these surveys are cited in the composite land use plan recommended in February 1999 “Selection of and Rationale for the Preferred Al- ternative — Fort Trumbull MDP Area,” which noted areas of low, medium, and high archaeological and cultural sensitivity. Certain areas within the MDP will require mitigation work to be completed before these areas are disturbed. This work has already been 98 initiated with the concurrence of the Connecticut His- torical Commission and State Historic Preservation Office. Floodplain Issues - As shown in Figure 5, much of the Fort Trumbull MDP area is located in the flood haz- ard zone. An exemption from current DEP floodplain policy is required in order to pursue the proposed de- velopment within a portion of the MDP area that is currently classified as floodplain. The MDP plan in- volves the addition of fill to elevate portions of devel- opment areas in Parcels 1 and 2 that are currently classified as floodplain, and raise the land in those areas above the 100-year flood plain. A Floodplain Management Certification exemption is being requested through the Department of Environ- mental Protection concurrent with the MDP approval process. A copy of the exemption package is included under separate cover to the MDP (see Appendix G for the Executive Summary). The exemption is merited due to the following unique existing conditions at the site: * Existing flood plain elevations in the hotel and residential development sites are high, within one to three feet of the predicted 100-year flood eleva- tion. A relatively small amount of fill is required to remove these hotel and residential development sites from the flood plain. The hotel site will re- quire approximately 1,700 cubic yards of fill, and the residential site will require approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. The cost of fill to raise site to the 100-year base flood elevation of 10.0 feet NGVD will be borne by the private developer. Fig- ure 6 shows the future proposed floodplain. ° Floodplain area is attached to large area of higher ground. Therefore the proposed grade changes will not create “islands” during flooding events. 99 The floodplain area in its current state is com- pletely eal with asphalt and buildings which must be demolished. It is likely that site and soil remediation alone will increase elevations on por- tions of the property, placing them above the 100- year floodplain. The completed project will reduce the impervious coverage of the site to approximately one-half of the current coverage. The NUWC site, which comprises a large portion of the waterfront land in the MDP area, is a for- mer military base. The existing buildings are not flood proofed and it is economically infeasible to upgrade them to FEMA standards for re-use. j i iable The project goal is to promote economically via development that restores this land to the tax base of the City of New London. The proposed project has no impact on flood stor- age a enna issues because this area of the Thames River is tidally influenced and not subject to riverine flooding. A flood evacuation route will be provided on streets that are at elevation 7.1 feet NGVD or higher, as shown in Figure 4. This meets the FEMA flood level standard for a 10-year storm, and is 0.7 feet higher than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10-year flood level of 6.4 feet NGVD. ing the 100-year design storm, the evacuation oy be ra ee to vehicles for only one hour and 35 minutes, and will be impassable to emergency vehicles for only 50 minutes out of the 12 hour cycle. Proposed hotel and residential development will comply with the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program. Finished grades in those 100 development sites will be at or above 10.0 feet NGVD. The lowest floor of residential structures (including the hotel) will be built at or above 13.4 feet; one foot higher than the 500-year flood level of 12.4 feet NGVD (see Figure 4). Revisions to FEMA flood maps will be completed prior to the occupancy of any structures within the parcel areas. Emergency Evacuation - An evacuation plan outline has been created, and is included in Section 5.5. Also refer to Figure 4. | ~ The proposed development of the Fort Trumbull peninsula is in- tended and committed to providing maximum water access and water dependent uses. The project plan in- cludes a network of public access walkways along the entire waterfront. For boating and water access, the plan includes an improved and enhanced Fort Trum- bull marina on Bentley Creek, which will be incorpo- rated into a future marina training center, as well as a site for a future marina (including piers for larger vessels) along the Columbia Cove waterfront. Addi- tionally, Parcel 6 includes a waterfront development site on Shaw’s Cove, shorefront that is currently oc- cupied by a non-water dependent use. An additional marina site, which will be set aside for mixed use (including commercial fishing vessels), is intended for the waterfront portion of Parcel 1 be- tween the Columbia Cove Marina and the Shaws Cove Railroad bridge. Commercial fishing and lobstering vessels are cur- rently homeported in the MDP area. Some of these vessels will be accommodated at Fort Trumbull Ma- rina. Should any other of the fishing related busi- nesses currently operating in the MDP area need to relocate outside of the MDP area, the Relocation Plan (included herein as Appendix E) anticipates providing 101 financial and other relocation assistance in accor- dance with Chapter 135 of the Connecticut General Statutes. This information is highlighted in section 7.4, entitled “Availability of Relocation Facilities. The MDP is committed to no overall diminishment of water dependent uses. This includes no displacement of water dependent uses without relocation support as indicated above, involving either integration with the development program or finding of an alternative suitable site. Conclusions The areawide Phase I environmental site assessment has been completed for the MDP area. Based on con- ditions encountered, it is believed that environmental contamination of soils and groundwater exists within the project area. The likely contaminant/waste types expected to be encountered during the investigation and remediation of the properties within the MDP area generally include: * Petroleum ucts (gasoline, heating oil, waste oils, wed oils) associated with a gasoline station, several auto and marine repair facilities, several currei.* and former underground oil tanks and a former wi terminal. * Commercial/industrial solvents in a7 cleaning, autobody and painting) associated wi auto and marine repair facilities, former dry cleaning operations, wood furniture refinishers and autobody/painting operations. * Metal-containing wastes associated with former foundry operations and a junkyard * Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) associated with a former junkyard, a railroad maintenance facility and a former barrel storage facility. 102 Further inv «ry ations will be required to confirm and de- fine suspected contamination sources, possibly including: ¢ soil gas analysis to screen for areas of contamina- tion in soils and groundwater; * a ground penetrating radar survey (GPR) on cer- tain sites where unidentified USTs are suspected; * collection of surface soil or waste samples to de- termine if surficial soils are contaminated from operations spillage or disposal; * installation of borings and sampling of subsurface soils to determine if USTs have leaked and to de- termine sources and extent of groundwater con- * sampling of waste and debris piles, abandoned ¢ asbestos surveys; ° survey buildings for lead paint using x-ray fluo- rescence; and * sampling of stained or potentially contaminated building surfaces. Phase II Environmental Site Assessments will be performed at the 15 locations in the project area indicated in Table 3-5. These 15 specific areas include multiple land parcels where the current or former use of the property spans two or more defined municipal tax lot designations. Also, although included in the MDP area Phase I review, the following properties are currently being addressed under different state or federal programs in terms of environmental investi- gation and remediation: The former Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) and the two parcels adjacent to the south half of the Calamari Brothers Yard. [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0031%3A08. Public record. Not legal advice.