Key Hillview Numbers Lalah vs. ABA Architect/City
Once Lalah recalculated the “circulation” space, I was able to get a top-down estimated “usable interior space” of 31,650 which was a lot closer to the 33,970 which the ABA/City publishes. I have no idea why the bottoms up estimate of 25,825 interior space using city provided data to the NO side is such a large difference from the ABA/City interior of 33,970. It is a mystery and a puzzlement.
Lalah decided that the Relative Utilization Shares based on the room-by-room, city-provided data were valid. [Note: Lalah did a daytime Hillview site inspection to see the current users. Errors could have been made.] So I just scaled up Utilization Square footage from 25,825 to fit my better 31,650 estimate of interior space. I liked that 31,650 is within ~10% of the city’s 33,970 figure for Hillview’s interior space.
Los Altos Measure A voter information has been scanty. Apparently today’s best practice for passing bonds advises, “The less voters know the less likely they are to vote NO. Don’t give them anything to object to.” Now it’s time to review key numbers below as developed by Lalah vs. published by ABA/City. Let’s ponder possible reasons for discrepancies.
Los Atos Measure A – Hillview now: Citizen vs. City estimates reviewed
Looking at the first row of the table, building & circulation, Lalah’s 44,900 is within ~10% of ABA’s 40,320.
Looking at the second row of the table, circulation, Lalah’s 13,250 is over 2x ABA’s 6,530. It is a mystery and a puzzlement why. I think ABA seems off a lot on this one. [LaLah was careful to only include pedestrian-usable areas as circulation area. No vegetation was harmed during my research.]
Given the above two “facts,” Lalah and ABA get similar figures for usable interior space. Lalah at 31,650 and ABA at 33,970.
Our overhead estimates – staff office, storage, and restroom – differ a lot. Lalah bottoms up estimates from city data say 30.9% of Hillview’s usable interior space is used for staff offices, storage and restroom. ABA says 17.3%
ABA says 82.7% of Hillview usable interior is used for ABA “program.” Even adopting the idiosyncratic ABA definition of “program” which includes leased/loaned space, Lalah gets 69.1%. Using a citizen understood defintion of “program” which excludes leased/loaned space Lalah gets 37.7%. That’s the definition that the NO side seems to be using.
Unlike the Los Altos Measure A – NO side, Lalah generously gives the Rec. Dept. “credit” for its overhead spaces. I think of the Rec. Dept as “actively managing” all interior space EXCEPT the leased/loaned space or 68.6% of the interior.
Why would citizens NOT want to count the leased/loaned space at Hillview? Well, if the Rec. Dept. could “program” it with courses, why would it remain loaned out? Citizens conclude there must be little demand for for courses at the old Hillview building location. The Rec. Dept. has argued that the “demand is there” for courses once they are housed in a proper, new building. Well, fine. But that IS AN EXPANSION.
