Publication Date: Friday, September 09, 2005
War of the words
War of the words
(September 09, 2005) Home remodel begs the question of what a third story is
by Jocelyn Dong
A semantic battle is being waged in Palo Alto these days over two little words: "third story."
It may seem straightforward terminology, but a proposed remodel of a house in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood is proving that the words have anything but a universally understood definition.
The question under debate: Should the home be referred to as three stories, or two stories with an attic? The home's owners think the wording makes a huge difference in public perception. They could be right.
In a town that's long struggled to find the balance between homeowners' property rights and neighborhood compatibility, one person's castle has frequently become the target of another neighbor's ire. Time and again, residents have expressed concern that the words used to describe proposed plans could sway public sentiment for or against a project.
Bob Stefanski and Lynn Brown are planning the remodel on Santa Rita Avenue that led neighbor Nancy Alexander to launch a protest this summer. They want to make their current two-story home prettier, and their plan calls for a steeply pitched roof in the French country style.
The remodeled home would have an "attic playroom" tucked under the roof -- not a "third story" -- Stefanski said. According to the architect's plans, the space would be 515 square feet and accessed by a stairwell from the second floor. It would also house a bathroom.
Calling it a "third story" is not right, Stefanski said. The words trigger images of condo buildings with full third floors, he said. People who have opposed the project think it would result in a house larger than the current home, but it will actually be smaller, according to Stefanski.
Alexander, however, has charged that the home would have a "third floor." She distributed fliers to her neighbors this summer, quoting from the architectural plans that summarize the project as "construction of a new roof and third floor with activity area and stair."
Alexander, a former city planner, opposes third-floor additions, which she stated would "invade privacy ... overwhelm adjacent homes and disrupt the visual harmony of our neighborhood."
She plans to take up the issue of third-floor additions with the city. Three-story homes are currently allowed, and do exist, in Palo Alto.
Some would turn to governmental authorities for a final word in such matters as this -- but the city is mum on the topic. According to Curtis Williams, the acting current planning manager, Palo Alto code has no definition of a third floor. The city's mainly concerned with that homes fit within neighborhoods -- not in terminology.
"It's not an issue of whether it's called an attic or a third floor. If it meets all the guidelines, it's allowable," Williams said.
But local architects say there is a standard definition of a third floor.
To Martin Bernstein, a member of the city's historic resources board, the answer is simple. "Third floor implies habitable space. Attic implies non-habitable space," he said, citing the state's building codes.
"Habitable" means the ceiling must be of a certain height.
He added that a third floor would also have natural light, which Stefanski's home would, and an outside staircase, which the proposed home would not. The existence of a bathroom, however, has no bearing on the definition.
So where does that leave Palo Alto's "attic versus third-floor" debate? Apparently, still up in the air.
The proposed home, however, will still need to go through the city's "individual review" process, which evaluates developments according to city standards.
Senior Staff Writer Jocelyn Dong can be reached at jdong@paweekly.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
