Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 29
29 contamination remediation was not eliminated through ited replacement uses of the OMC unless the systems were bankruptcy, and United completed such remediation after dismantled or decommissioned. (Deluge water flow would vacating the OMC to the satisfaction of the Port of Oakland be dangerous to any occupants, automobiles, or equipment and other governmental jurisdictions. that might be on the hangar floor if the system activated, and removal of the underwing suppression system would have been expensive and would have required environmental REUSE DECISION mitigation procedures.) Immediately on receiving lease rejection from United, Given the age of the OMC and its infrastructure, the lack the Port of Oakland's Airport Properties Department of replacement aircraft maintenance tenants, and the dif- actively solicited other airlines for their interest in using ficulties of reuse, demolition became the preferred option. the OMC for aircraft maintenance and at the same time However, to cover the anticipated minimum $4 million cost hired Ricondo & Associates to undertake a "site reuse of demolition as a capital project, the Port of Oakland needed study" (Ricondo & Associates 2003). Because of changes to initiate design and construction of the third passenger in the industry and efforts to reduce costs, many airlines terminal complex. Unfortunately, the extended planning had begun outsourcing maintenance to other airlines or process for the third terminal lasted until 2008, when the third parties in either the United States or foreign coun- economic downturn resulted in the near simultaneous bank- tries. The Airport Properties Department could find no ruptcy of three airlines (Aloha, ATA, and Skybus) serving airlines or service providers interested in using the OMC OAK, the departure of three other airlines (American, Con- for aircraft maintenance. tinental, and TACA), and a decline in OAK passengers by more than 30%. As a consequence, the third terminal project The conclusions of the reuse study ranked alternative was shelved and demolition of the OMC was not required for uses in the following order: this capital project. · Demolish and replace with cargo facility to accommo- By default, nothing was done. The Port of Oakland con- date development of a third terminal complex (now no tinues to maintain the OMC as there is not a current capital longer an option based on economic conditions), project that requires use of the site to justify the $4 million · Reuse/redevelop as an interim passenger terminal, or needed to demolish the facility. · Reuse/redevelop as a cargo facility. However, reuse for other purposes proved uneconomical CURRENT USES because of the age of the OMC and the specialized nature of the facility. The 100 ± foot ceilings are not conducive for The OMC office space is currently used by Port of Oakland many alternative uses. Centralized utility services (electric staff and contractors. The maintenance bays store construc- substation, water, and gas meters) also make subdividing tion material and vehicles. Because of the high visibility of the facility difficult and expensive. In addition, the han- the building from the airport's access roadway, CBS Outdoor gar is protected by two fire suppression systems: (1) a del- located multiple billboards on the faces of the OMC, which uge system (1.8 million-gallon reservoir connected to five have generated approximately $250,000 per year in advertis- massive pumps capable of flooding the hangar with water ing revenue (Figure 24). Short-term office occupancy, con- within 20 min) and (2) an underwing foam (organic chemi- struction materials and vehicle storage, and advertising are cal compound) system. These fire suppression systems lim- interim uses and did not require FAA approval. FIGURE 24 Billboards on the Oakland OMC.