Are There Realistic Expectations About Building Hangars in California?

1. 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 CountyDave Hoover, President, HYT Corporation (Fire Protection & Code Specialists)

5. Nested vs. Stacked HangarsCost Comparison

7. 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

8. 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 T’s – 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

9. 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%)

11. 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)

12. 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).

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. QUESTIONS