Commission reviews hangar feasibility study; seeks clearer demand and financial metrics

Petaluma airport management presented a conceptual hangar feasibility study and asked the commission to approve further work with a consultant to refine layouts, setbacks and cost estimates.

Airport management said the study was an early, conceptual step intended to indicate what hangar sizes and layouts could fit on airport property and how much they might cost, not a finished design. The manager described the airport as primarily a Design Group 1 field (aircraft with wingspan about 49 feet or less) but said a mix of box hangars sized roughly 45x45 and 55x55 would better accommodate demand for common aircraft types such as Cirrus and Diamond models and allow for some small turbines. "This is not an end. This isn't a design. This isn't the final," the airport manager said, describing the item as a first step to get pricing and conceptual layouts.

Key findings and staff comments:

- Aircraft demand: staff analyzed registration data across several North Bay counties and found that roughly half of locally registered aircraft (by weight class under 12,500 lb) fall into a handful of common size groups that fit the airport’s existing hangar footprint; Cirrus-type single-engine aircraft were repeatedly cited as a growth area. The manager said certain larger twin-piston and turbine aircraft remain less common and present the biggest challenges for hangar fit.

- Suggested hangar types and rough rent estimates: staff discussed box hangars of roughly 45x45 (cited as "roughly just over $1,000 per month" under current rates for older box hangars) and 55x55 (cited at about $2,000/month) as plausible product types; staff stressed these numbers are conceptual and consultant refinement is needed.

- Costs and demand locking: commissioners urged staff to confirm quantity demand before committing to heavy construction. One commissioner suggested advertising a no-deposit "interest list" to accept information (aircraft type, residence) from potential tenants to better align hangar designs with likely occupants. Another recommended a virtual waiting list to gauge interest prior to breaking ground.

- Maintenance and operational trade-offs: staff noted that certain hangar types (T-hangars) require two taxi lanes and increase long-term maintenance costs; commissioners asked Mead & Hunt to factor maintenance and lifecycle costs into ROI projections.

- Permitting and environmental review: commissioners noted the original airport master plan's environmental review may cover parts of the build-out, but staff said the FAA and city planning divisions will be involved in any future design and environmental compliance.

Requested next steps: the commission asked staff to send the conceptual layouts and report to consultant Mead & Hunt for refinement (setbacks, to-scale drawings and cost-per-square-foot numbers), to return with projected net revenue/ROI scenarios, and to present a suggested approach for an interest list or adjusted wait-list policy. Staff agreed to ask Mead & Hunt to use the data already gathered to estimate what a fully occupied developed field would look like by aircraft distribution and to provide break-even and revenue assumptions.

The commission did not make a final project approval or funding decision; staff emphasized the work remains conceptual and that future steps would include more detailed market research, design, environmental review and funding strategy.