Anda di halaman 1dari 18

Are There Realistic Expectations About

Building Hangars in California?

2006 FALL CONFERENCE

Moderator: Mike Shutt, P.E., Mead & Hunt, Inc.


Panel Members:
Ken Keatts, Regional Sales Manager, Erect-a-Tube, Inc.
Carl Honaker, Director of Airports, Santa Clara County
Dave Hoover, President, HYT Corporation (Fire Protection & Code Specialists)

Nested vs. Stacked Hangars


Cost Comparison
Building footprint nested hangars require 1,500 s.f. of
additional area, but it is rentable space no cost
FAA taxiways are 11,000 s.f. greater in stacked
configuration

$88,000

Hangar apron pavements are 20,250 s.f. greater in


stacked configuration

$162,000

Construction cost increase

$250,000

The stacked hangar complex requires 30,000 s.f. of additional land,


which is either forgiven or adds cost depending on value of land.

Overview of Santa Clara County System


Over 1,300 based aircraft, nearly 500,000 ops/year
Palo Alto Airport - PAO
County - 0 hangars, 360 tie-downs
FBO - 69 hangar spaces, 95 tie-downs

Reid-Hillview Airport - RHV


County - 146 hangars, 52 shelter spaces, 175 tie-downs
FBO 47 hangar spaces, 255 tie-downs

South County/San Martin Airport - E16


County - 100 hangars, 90 tie-downs
FBO 55 hangars, 28 tie-downs

Hangar Issues at Reid-Hillview and


Palo Alto Airports
PAO County gets 6% of rent for some FBO hangars
RHV Hangar Development
FBO storage hangars various box hangars, no Ts no
rent %
County construction 1967
60 identical T-Hangars w/concrete found. and basic electricity
No sprinkler system, no bathrooms

Developer construction Ground Lease 1984

Off-the-shelf Nunno Box Hangars and Portaport T-Hangars


Anchored to asphalt on existing grade ramp
No electricity, bathrooms, or sprinkler system
Poor oversight by County, bad management by lessee
County bought out leases due to conflicts/rent prices, and loss
of tenancy during threat of airport closure

Recent Experience at
South County Airport
Single FBO had only hangars until 06
County Hangar Project 100 hangars 5 sizes
Based on previous 82 Master Plan build when demand grew
120,000 sq/ft total, 103,000 billable space
9 Box and 91 T-Hangars, fit within existing taxilanes from mid-90s
Concrete foundations, electricity, box hangars w/elect. doors, 4
bathrooms, parking AND Fire Marshal mandated sprinklers
Insufficient water flow from fire main requirement for 500,000
gallon tank and pump system to supplement fire flow ($1.2M)
Waiting list established by lottery started with 100, grew to 130
Currently 56 hangars rented (only 42 from waiting list 35%)

Financing the
South County Airport Hangars
Cost was estimated at $4.5 M for Hangars, $1.2 M for
Tank/Pump
ABAG Loan for entire amount plus payoff of G.F. loans at RHV
Only available to ABAG Counties/Municipalities
No Strings Attached (State has since changed requirements)
30 Year payback, pymts started before we broke ground on project

Took almost 2 years longer than original estimate to complete


Extra $1M for in-house Overhead/Contract Mgmt. came out of
AEF
Total cost/sq ft = $55, or average of $66,000 per hangar
Barely breaking even on debt service now
Added 2 staff to airport to help manage hangars (~$130K/yr)

Private vs. Public


Bottom Line Expensive for municipalities to build their
own, versus lease with Private Developer
Bureaucracy increases cost/time
Expensive rents required to pay debt/costs
Cannot sell hangars or customize for tenant needs
Cannot depreciate asset/amortize loan
Must pay prevailing wage

Private Developer Lease easier and lower risk


Make sure you use Minimum Standards
Get % of rent in addition to land lease

BUT, if airport can swing it, you will eventually make more
money by building them (if you can keep them occupied).

A Code Dilemma
A combination of three model and consensus Codes and
Standards identify the minimum requirements for the
design and construction of aircraft hangars
Uniform Building Code (UBC), California Building Code (CBC)
International Building Code (IBC)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 409, Standard on
Aircraft Hangars

Comparison of Occupancy Classifications


UBC/CBC
S5 Occupancy; Work is limited to exchange of parts and maintenance
activities no open flame or welding permitted
H5 Occupancy; Hangars not classified as S5 Occupancies

IBC
S1 Occupancy; Moderate hazard storage
H2 Occupancy; Paint hangars

NFPA 409
Group I Hangars; Have at least one of the following:
Aircraft access door height over 28 ft. or provision for housing aircraft with tail
height over 28 ft.
A single fire area in excess of 40,000 ft2

Group II Hangars; Have both of the following:


Door height of 28 feet or less, and a single fire for specific types of construction.

Group III Hangars; Have both of the following:


Door height of 28 feet or less, and a single fire not exceeding the maximum
permitted based upon construction type.

Group IV Hangars;
Membrane-covered rigid steel frame

Paint Hangars

Comparison of Fire Protection


Requirements
UBC/CBC
Through adoption, refers to the appropriate NFPA Standard

IBC
Requires protection of hangars in accordance with NFPA 409
Exception: Group II hangars storing private aircraft without major
maintenance or overhaul are exempt from foam suppression
requirements

NFPA 409
Group I Hangars; Provide one of the following:

Foam-water deluge system


Fire sprinklers + low level / low expansion foam system
Fire sprinklers + low level / high expansion foam system
Fire sprinklers (unfueled aircraft, only)

Group II Hangars; Provide as for Group I Hangars, or:


A closed-head foam-water sprinkler system

Group III Hangars; with hazardous operations including fuel


transfer, welding or other hot work, doping, and/or spray painting
must be protected as a Group II Hangar

Fire Protection Water Supply and


Distribution Systems
Can present difficulty in airport and hangar
design due to:
Potential high volumes of required water at high
pressures
Location and distribution of fire hydrants
Fire department access

QUESTIONS

Anda mungkin juga menyukai