BY ALLISON LEVITSKY
Daily Post Staff Writer
Despite an online rumor to the contrary, a building permit from the city of Palo Alto does not contradict Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony regarding a second front door she had installed on her house.
As the Post reported on Tuesday (Sept. 25), a 2008 building permit for the 753-square-foot expansion on Ford’s L-shaped, Eichler-style home includes plans for a new door on the master bedroom.
The story mistakenly referred to the new bedroom door as a backdoor. Conservative pundit Paul Sperry tweeted about the second door on Thursday (Sept. 27), claiming the 2008 date of the permit “raises questions” about Ford’s testimony that the first time she told her husband that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school was during a May 2012 conversation about their home remodel.
“BREAKING: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford’s testimony she completed an ‘extensive remodel’ of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008,” Sperry wrote in a tweet that was reposted 6,600 times.
Several conservative blogs have since posted about the 2008 building permit, citing Sperry’s tweet.
On Thursday, the Gateway Pundit — whose tag- line pledges to “leave the Russia-Collusion fairy tale to the Conspiracy media” — cited Sperry’s tweet in a post titled “FORD CAUGHT IN MAJOR LIE? City Remodeling Permits Show Project She Linked to Kavanaugh Was in 2008 NOT 2012.”
But contrary to the inconsistency that Sperry suggests, Ford testified on Thursday (Sept. 27) the remodel was completed before the counseling session in May 2012.
“The reason (the assault) came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand,” Ford testified, admitting that the house now “does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb.”
Ford later told Sen. Dianne Feinstein during her questioning that she wanted the second front door because of her anxiety, PTSD and claustrophobia resulting from the 1982 assault.
Ford’s friend Jim Gensheimer, of Saratoga, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 19 stating that Ford needs more than one exit door in her bedroom to feel safe.
According to the building permit, the Fords removed a home office attached to the garage, expanded the garage and added a master bedroom onto the front, with its own front door. The new bedroom’s front door opens onto the street, perpendicular to an adjacent front door on the great room.
They now rent out the master bedroom with a private door to Google interns, Ford testified.
The floor plan is dated Nov. 29, 2007, and received a plan check approval from the city on Jan. 28, 2008. Other documents were submitted for the renovation on Feb. 4, 2008.
The Fords didn’t file any other building permits with the city until June 14, 2013, when they added a solar hot water system to their home.
A serious question is whether their property taxes went up because of the new door.
Property taxes generally increase if the living space increases. Clearly the living space increased, it’s on the building permit.
The reason why it comes into question is she also rented out the office as a condition of buying the home to the original owner. The second front door I am told was as far as anyone knew at the time was to facilitate that agreement as it was a Marriage Counselor’s office. Later on it was converted to a guest room with separate entrance. Also the relevancy is did she have two front doors every where since 1982…Ex Boy Friends are coming forward saying they flew everywhere and lived in small apartments with one door etc…without her ever having an issue….so if she mislead then why?
This is a major lie. Renovation happener years before she said it did to senate. YUGE.
Ok she was incorrect about the date of the renovation but was she also wrong about the extra door. I know the trees are huge but the forest is YUGER..
She knew the entire time that the only reason she installed that door was so she could make a separate entrance for her RENTAL APARTMENT. The whole “because I’m claustrophobic” mumbo jumbo is about as solid as a wet fart ad the more that comes out about her the less convincing her entire rap appears.
The reason why it comes into question is she also rented out the office as a condition of buying the home to the original owner. The second front door I am told was as far as anyone knew at the time was to facilitate that agreement as it was a Marriage Counselor’s office. Later on it was converted to a guest room with separate entrance. Also the relevancy is did she have two front doors every where since 1982…Ex Boy Friends are coming forward saying they flew everywhere and lived in small apartments with one door etc…without her ever having an issue….so if she mislead then why?
Well, yes, and no. Here is why: Professor Ford actually testified that she told her husband before she married her husband in 2002. Ten years later 2012 her and her husband were seeing a marriage counsel. She never said specifically why they were seeing a counselor. It has been assumed the counselling sessions had to do with her distress about the alleged attack.
Nevertheless, the amount of time transpiring between her accounts of being afflicted by memories of the event in question. While the inconsistencies in Ms. Fords testimony are countless.
It is important to remember to get the story right and avoid being discredited as a whole. The Left will be all over it like white on rice and use the bad information being passed around on social media to call “Bullying.” by Trump supporters and/or The Alt-Right.
I agree I am sure they will claim it does not detract…but Sen Blumenthal himself said one lie kills the whole testimony to Kavanaugh…should there be a separate standard when it is her story to prove?
If it is “perpendicular” to the existing front door, sounds like it is a side door. And it sounds like a normal component of a fairly large addition so it could in the future be used as a rental unit.
Finally, is Ford stating that in 2012, the door installed in 2998 was still an issue with her husband? That’s not impossible, of course, but her remarks were confusing if not misleading.
Sorry for the typo, that’s “the door installed in “2008”!
Just passed by the house. There are indeed two exterior doors facing the street: one at the end of an exterior passageway (the original front door), and a second hidden from street view by a hedge connected to the master bedroom in front.
But is it additional in that you could get out either door from either the office or the house or is it a separate independent entrance for that office/apartment. If it is closed off between doors it would not facilitate alleviating her fears of course living at all the other locations that she did not worry about it since 1982 would not have alleviated her fears that she forgot about until 2012. Still should be relevant that it was a condition of buy the home to install that second door as well, a condition of the seller who kept the office for a while.
But is it additional in that you could get out either door from either the office or the house or is it a separate independent entrance for that office/apartment. If it is closed off between doors it would not facilitate alleviating her fears of course living at all the other locations that she did not worry about it since 1982 would not have alleviated her fears that she forgot about until 2012.
Their house is not zoned for doing rentals. It is single family residential and their lot is too small for a second unit. They’re doing some under the table rent, not “hosting google interns” as she claimed.
In Palo Alto here is no zoning restriction on renting a portion of your home. The bigger issue is: if she is/was so traumatized, why invite strangers to live at your property? What if they drink beer?
They have rules specifically about adding a second dwelling. Why even have these rules if they can be circumvented by some technicality? Even this article says it’s a normal apartment.
Anon – no rules were circumvented. I live in this immediate area. It is perfectly legal and somewhat common to add rental space to a home as long as it meets local fire codes, and building codes. The bigger issue at play is: what was the intent of the door installation. Was she adding a door for escape purposes, or was she adding a door so as to make an income producing studio. She admits to renting out the space.
I agree the issue is purpose of the door. The floor plan is dated Oct 20, 2007, and she went to couples therapy regarding the second front door in 2012. “FORD: I had never told the details to anyone — the specific details — until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.” 5 years of arguing over a door is a bit odd.
She rents that room to a couples therapist,
https://www.wellness.com/dir/4080054/counselor/ca/palo-alto/randall-sylvia-adkins-phd#referrer
This whole thing is ridiculous
Do you mean that the therapist didn’t want his/her clients to have to walk through Ford’s house, or climb through a window to get to her office? Of course, the door was installed to accommodate access to a rental space.
Fords lot size was not big enough for a second dwelling unit with 7k sqft in district R-1 the lot would need 9,45k sqft to allow for a second dwelling unit. They got a permission for a window in their plan but build a door.
She knew the entire time that the only reason she installed that door was so she could make a separate entrance for her RENTAL APARTMENT. The whole “because I’m claustrophobic” mumbo jumbo is about as solid as a wet fart ad the more that comes out about her the less convincing her entire rap appears.
She testified answering Sen. Feinstein that the reason for the double door was “due to her claustrophobia “ which in fact is a lie it was to make a rental space within their home nothing more. And yes, someone with anxiety and panic from an assault would want to host strangers in their home, makes total sense
FORD: Correct. It doesn’t — our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb.
But you can’t see the door from the curbside… why did she say that?
I had the same reaction. They purposely landscaped the parcel to hide this door. When traveling the street coming in from the North, you can see a portion of the door. Facing the house directly, the door is obscured. Coming from the South, you’d never see it.
Someone needs to check to see if Christine Ford discloses to the IRS the money she receives from renting out a room in her house.
Does Ford run a psychiatric practice with patients out of her home? That could be another reason she added an exterior door to a room in her house. In a residential neighborhood (R1) it is illegal to conduct a business out of ones home. If a room in Ford’s house is used for a psychiatric office, it is illegal. Palo Alto Code Enforcement should be called to investigate such a potential illegal use.
Nice try to give her cover.
How on earth does that make her story believeable?? The work was done 4 yrs earlier than she stated, and had NOTHING to do with her fears. They created a rental property!
Correct. Unfortunately nobody thought to take a photo, enlarge it, and display it at the Senate testimony. Another oddity, if indeed this space ever was a bedroom … the so called second door faces the street and sidewalk. Isn’t this where would be attackers would enter? Aren’t most master bedrooms located away from the street frontage?
No one needs corroboration of the new door ALLISON LEVITSKY. The building permit was for a 735sq.ft additional bedroom/bath .. i.e “studio” .. she testified that Google interns stay there. The permit proves the door was always there to be used as access to the new bedroom/bath, which is as she testified what the tenants would use. It was never for claustrophobia, it was for RENTAL INCOME. Additionally the construction took place in 2007/08 .. and she wants us to believe that the couples counseling she attended 4/5 years after was because of a DOOR! which by this time had already found it’s use as a separate entrance for tenants!
TICK TOCK
…. rental for such a room in Palo Alto would be $1500+ per month.. potential for over 180k in revenue since the renovation
Very clearly this is accurate, many people in Palo Alto make extra revenue by renting to Google employees, this is not new. We are left to believe that the Fords were just “lucky” that the extra door allowed them to do this.The headline is highly misleading and inaccurate.
The permits don’t back up her testimony at all. They added a bedroom with a door because they wanted to rent out the bedroom and have a separate entrance. Her testimony to Feinstein was clear. She testified that she had 2 front doors because of her fear of being trapped. She even testified that it made the front of her house look bad. THERE ARE NOT 2 FRONT DOORS ON THIS WOMAN’S HOME AND THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN 2 FRONT DOORS ON THIS WOMAN’S HOME. This headline and story is FAKE NEWS.
Cindy, technically there are two doors facing the street. The door leading to the rental unit is white, the door leading to the main part of the home is a different color. The so called “second door” is narrow and non-descript, and it is nearly entirely obscured by an ivy covered lattice fence that’s about six feet tall (I am six feet tall, which is how I gauged the height of the fence).
THERE ARE NOT 2 FRONT DOORS ON THIS WOMAN’S HOME AND THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN 2 FRONT DOORS ON THIS WOMAN’S HOME. This headline and story is FAKE NEWS.The permits don’t back up her testimony at all. They added a bedroom with a door because they wanted to rent out the bedroom and have a separate entrance. Her testimony to Feinstein was that she had 2 front doors because of her fear of being trapped. She even testified that it made the front of her house look bad. She clearly lied. The only way to get to the bottom of this is to get the medical records that she refuses to give. She acts like a schizophrenic.
Great work Cindy: Do you have an image of Ford’s home?
I am familiar with this house. There is indeed a second door, but it is not as wide or ornate as a typical front door. This second door is almost entirely shielded from the street by a six foot high lattice fence covered with ivy. I can see the very top of the door, in other words the lintel/header. The door appears to lead to a studio apartment – I suppose this used to be the Master BR. To access this second white-colored door, one must go through a six foot high wooden gate which faces the driveway. After going thru the gate, on your immediate left is the ivy covered lattice, on your right is the north/northeast wall facing the street, two windows, and a door. As I mentioned, the door is, to my eye, undersized – more like a side door of a garage. To their credit, the ivy covered lattice and what appears to be a crepe myrtle tree all but obscures the fact that there is a door where one would not expect a door. The home’s main door is clearly visible, and a different color. The pathway leading to the lattice fence and the main driveway have the same style of pavers.
She should be, minimally, sued to defame someone’s reputation. Ideally, go to jail for (a) false testimony under oath, and (b) tax evasion. Also, doing business in residential area under false authority (“licensed psychologist”)? This woman has serious issues!
Hi – I’m not defending her, but … people rarely go to jail for minor tax evasion, and she may very well be claiming the rental income. She never claimed to do business at this location, she is/was an instructor at nearby Palo Alto University (which used to go by another name). Palo Alto University is essentially a low rise commercial building, no student is denied entrance.
Lying under oath is a felony. Perhaps she will do jail time whether or not there is a second front door; and, gets paid to rent the space to Google interns.
ARE THERE TWO FRONT DOORS OR ARE THERE NOT???
This story is very misleading. It doesn’t matter what permits or Sperry or even what this author says. The only thing that matters is whether there are two front doors!!! I stress that because it was a key moment in Ford’s testimony, that the trauma was so severe and life long that years later she had to have this escape hatch built in. Ford explicitly states there are two front doors to Feinstein. So are there two front doors or not?
If not, then Ford told a bald faced lie. Why, I’m not sure, but we’d better start backing away from her if it is false.
Yes, there are. However the second door is well concealed behind an ivy covered lattice fence. I knew what to look for, so I saw it. But a casual glance would not see the “second door” as the short run of privacy fence is fairly tall. It looks very much like an Auxiliary Dwelling Unit, my guess is it rents well. From the home’s location, it’s easy to bike to Google, no freeway access is needed. The most challenging part of the ride is the San Antonio Road overpass which goes over 101, which is a bit narrow. Once over 101, the frontage road on the east side (bay side) of 101 leads directly to Google.
Everything rents well. This is the heart of Silicon Valley. I drove to SF this spring, stopped at the Juniperro Serra rest area on 280 near 92 at about 4am. Maybe 15 miles from Palo Alto. It was overflowing with automobiles that had blankets over the windows. People can’t afford rent, won’t give up their high paying tech jobs, and live out of their office and cars. $3500 to $4000 per month is common 1 br apt rent.
I believe there may be two doors but not for the reason she stated. It appears an addition was added for rental property and a door added to give tenant a separate entrance. She gave the impression otherwise and gave the impression the door was added because of trauma which required therapy. Why would the paper cover for her not being forthcoming?
I believe there may be two doors but not for the reason she stated. It appears an addition was added for rental property and a door added to give tenant a separate entrance. She gave the impression otherwise and gave the impression the door was added because of trauma which required therapy. Why would the paper cover for her when she was not forthcoming? Also, why didn’t her husband go with her to the hearing? That’s bizarre to me if she is so traumatized;only Alyssa Milano goes for moral support? When did she start wearing glasses? How long has she had problems with eysight? Her vivid memories were audible and not visual? She stated that Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge had been drinking prior to the get together. How could she know that when she can’t remember anything? Why was she upstairs? I would never presume to go to the upstairs of someone else’s home. There wasn’t a downstairs bath? She used all of these medical terms yet did not know what exculpatory evidence is? Who set up go fund me account that she is too feeble to administer? Who is paying her attorneys? Did she contact exculpatory attorney or did attorney contact her? Why didn’t she report it to Maryland authorities if it was her civic duty? She took a lie detector test the day of grandmothers funeral? Is that valid on such an emotional day? She was sympathetic but not credible. I can’t imagine what I would do if someone could just accuse my husband or two sons of something without any corroborating evidence or said you should lose your livelihood because you had beer in high school or college. I can’t believe the hatred and wickedness of people to further their agenda.
The very truthful Christine and her husband were running an illegal rental unit. Not sure if she ever got caught. The reason for the two doors was a lie to make more money.
Bob, if it’s permitted (and it sounds like it is), it’s not illegal to have a rental unit. Palo Alto actually encourages this type of auxiliary dwelling unit due to the housing shortage. I suspect the purpose of the door and the rental space was the idea from the start, and as other have mentioned, rents can easily hit $1500 per month for such a space.
From what I can tell, the plans show 2 windows. From the street view, there is indeed a door there; but, that is not what the plans show.
It’s illegal if there’s a therapist running a business out of there- which apparently there was
I think you are mistaken, the therapist being cited is the previous owner. She has since moved to Oregon.The various internet sites are showing old data. However, I’m still perplexed by the fact that Christine needed a second door to deal with trauma, yet freely admits this door leads to living space which she rents to google interns. So is it an escape route, or an income route?
The dates don’t match either. Didn’t she say they needed couples therapy to work out the demands for a double front door? And didn’t that therapy occur in 2012? The permit for a side door off the back for probable purposes of a rental unit are for 4 years earlier. Side door vs. a double front door is very different from her testimony. This does not pass the smell test! And the headline is misleading. There needs to be an investigation of the inconsistencies in her testimony.
Why don’t you contact someone and be anonymous
There is enough positive information from people on this site
Some even neighbors
No doubt that she added the extra door either to have a separate entrance for tenants or to use that room as an office. Either way there is a big question mark on legality – does she pay taxes from rental income or if she has a permit for the home office to wokr with patients.
Paying tax on the rental unit isn’t a big deal, she’d still clear $1000 a month while claiming deductions such as water, power, and garbage on her Schedule E rental activity form. It will never happen, but if the FBI would subpoena AirBNB they could get access to how many nights this space was rented on a very short term tenancy … that is to say, when it wasn’t rented to Google interns.
From what I can tell, the plans show 2 windows. From the street view, there is indeed a door there; but, that is not what the plans show.
Do you think the door on the left front of the house was there prior to renovation?
No, previous time stamped photos show no door, and no lattice fence
She’s a liar. She’s also afraid to fly. Her best friend won’t back her.
There are 2011 photos of her house which shows the second door. Unless she was talking about other doors, she was lying about renovations that occurred in 2012.
In any case, I don’t know what a second door has to do with her fear of….. anything.
Local resident: Do you agree with the following? If the door closest to the street between two sets of windows was there prior to renovation then there were two front doors and only one after construction. After construction the door next to the garage functioned only as an entrance to the new addition.
Sorry, you lost me. There are two door facing the street, as of yesterday. The original or main front door is set back much farther from the sidewalk. The white colored door, which is behind an ivy covered lattice fence, appears to serve as an entrance to a rental space.
Did Ford get her remodeled “finaled” by the City? Finaled means a city inspector came over to the house when all the remodeling was completed to verify she only did work she got a permit for. Someone should check to see if her remodel was finaled. Lots of times people get a permit but do lots more work on their house than they said they were going to do. It’s a way to keep neighbors off their back and from complaining about all the construction. Is her addition attached to the main house or is it a separate small structure? If she is using her house for a psychology practice, it is illegal. Neighbors should watch to see if random cars and people visit Ford’s house. That’s the tip off that she is using her home illegally as a medical office. I plan to keep an eye on her house.
The rental space at the front of the property is attached to the main structure. It looks very much like a square box was bolted on to the house and the roof line was preserved. Paver bricks which match the driveway pavers lead to the little door of the rental space. I doubt she is using it as a counseling space, she claims to be currently employed at Palo Alto University. I do think, however, the space is rented, and rented frequently. There is a huge demand for living space in Palo Alto. A modest studio rents for a minimum of $1500. Where I think she is fibbing is when it comes to the so called “escape route”. If a tenant is occupying that space, she obviously cannot use that door as an escape route.
I agree why don’t you report it anonymously
Someone should contact Lindsay Graham’s office in Washington, DC about Ford’s lies and inconsistencies about her house.
Local resident: The door by the garage BEFORE construction went into the home, but after was the separate entrance for the studio/addition.
From the photos I have seen, there was no door prior to construction. The door appears (via google images) in March of 2011. The door does not appear to be there in 2007.
The is an opening to the immediate left of the garage. I don’t know what these architectural features are called are called, maybe a “breezeway” is the best term. At the end of that breezeway is the actual front door, it’s colored reddish-orange.
I think the idea of the second door at the front of the house is a tenant can enter and exit without seeing or bumping into the residents of the house.
You have to look at the gatewaypundit article. It is very clearly there in the 07 image. There is a short walkway that leads back to the door with coverage above. The remodel apparently removed all that and built the addition behind the garage. Now that door only serves as an entrance to the addition. There would be no reason to have that vestibule unless it led to a door.
The date stamped on this permit says January of 2005 or 2006, No? I’m wondering from the floor plan what they added to the front bedroom with the entrance from second front door? It looks like maybe small kitchenette of sorts?
It says right on the permit that it was for a “735 S.F. ADDITION TO INCLUDE NEW BEDROOM & BATH. REMODEL LIVING ROOM & KITCHEN”. Doesn’t say ANYTHING about remodeling the old master bedroom. Pictures of her house show that the “second front door” was added to the ORIGINAL part of the house – NOT the new addition, which is in the rear of the house. The work started in 2008 and was finished by March, 2010.
No one builds a 735sf master bedroom and bathroom and then continues to use the old one. Ford admitted in her own testimony that the second front door created a *rentable room* (“we now use it to host google interns”).
Also you can clearly see in the plans that the “master bedroom” that had the “second door” installed also had a small kitchenette added. THIS WAS TO CREATE AN APARTMENT. It was just a regular bedroom originally – this house didn’t even have a “master bedroom” (which is a bedroom which has it’s own separate bath).
The rest of the MASSIVE addition created a huge master bedroom and bath with additional living area and it’s own new-and-improved entrance. Are you seriously expecting people to believe that the Ford’s continued to live in a tiny room with a little bitty kitchenette and they rent out the ENTIRE REST OF THE NEWLY REMODELED HOUSE to “interns”? Absolutely ridiculous. The funny little “second front door” OBVIOUSLY created an apartment that was rented, not used.
If I were afraid of being sexually asaulted, I wouldn’t rent out my masterbedroom to interns. Period.
If she rented it out, didn’t she lose the ability to use it as a second door through which she could escape? She wasn’t terrified to lose that ability?
Apparently not. And what if, for example, one of those renters was a male. What if the male liked beer? Or did she only rent to female google interns. I think this is a case of a witness offering too much information, “what you say can and will be used against you”. Nobody asked her if she rents the space, there was no line of questioning associated with that. But in her desire to seem overly helpful, she volunteered that she “hosts” Google interns. Why did she volunteer this information? Was it because her legal team had questioned her about the current status of this space? Was is pre-emptive in case someone comes forward to say they have rented space at her home?
The idea that she ever even used the original master bedroom after the “second front door” was added is ludicrous. They added a 735 square foot “master bedroom and bathroom” to the house with this “remodel”. The original master bedroom – and also the *garage* – had exterior doors added to make them more valuable as rental apartments. The plans even show how a kitchenette area was added to the original “master bedroom”.
UPDATE: Christine Ford spoke about the second front door at least three times in her testimony.
She talks about it again here. She says the incident in the 1980’s is in her medical records twice: “The first time is in 2012 with my husband in couples therapy with the quibbling over the remodel”. Very much present tense, as in remodel happening at same time as couples therapy.
Again, this is from her opening statements:
“I had never told the details to anyone, the specific details, until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail.”
And then with Dianne Feinstein during her testimony.
“Our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb.”
This implied that currently, today, it does not look pleasing. But you can’t even see the 2nd front door anymore. Back in the November 2011 google map shot, they already had started putting up posts of the wooden wall, and the walkway and new flowerbeds are already in.
DiFi asks “And do you have that second front door” – totally implying that she wants to know how the “quibble” with her husband turned out.
The March 2011 picture shows the new door, and you can see that the remodel (new space) was in the back of the house; by comparing with 2007 photo, you can see the new roofline in the back. The November 2011 image shows the wood wall posts and new pathway in front of the new door area.
@Kate @George Sanford. Thanks for that info. I see now that the second door is the one hidden by the trellis. I guess the original door is not visible to the street and in that vestibule are between the garage and main house.
I’m hoping that someone has a link to a clear view of the renovation plans. It seems that the house was sold in 2007 by a woman who was probably a psychologist running a practice there (not Ford, who is not a clinical psychologist). It would make sense if the former owner had the reno plans done up in preparation for creating such an office space. Then when the Fords bought the house they continued on with the existing renovation plans. A clear look at when those plans were filed might clarify that point. Also, I’d just like to see how many escape routes the new master bedroom has.
The plans are dated January 28, 2008. It looks like the stamp says 2005 but it’s just not clear. The revision dates on the document say 2007. The building permit itself has a revision date of October 20, 2007 (lower right hand corner, above “A2”). The Fords are listed on the building plans. The permit was paid for on January 30, 2008. These are the plans they submitted for their permit. Somewhere along the line a door to the *old* master bedroom was added. But the door into the converted garage apartment was included on the plans, as was a kitchenette area added to the old maser bedroom.
There *are* two double patio doors on each of the two large rooms in the addition. That is very common. But they are *not* “front doors” which make the house look “unappealing from the curb” which is what Ford claimed about the “second front door”. And I can’t see ANY conceivable reason why her husband would argue against those doors.
@Kate Thanks, that is fascinating. From what website are you able to read this so clearly? And am I correct that they bought the house in 2007, or was it earlier, say 2005?
And agreed, double patio doors from bedrooms is common in Eichler homes.
BTW, does anyone have any postings to show that this address was used as a rental? Such as to AirBNB or housing websites at Google?
Kate, I looked at this house in person a couple of days ago. The address is public, anyone can visit the street. There really is a second “front door”. However, it is mostly obscured by an ivy colored lattice fence. Most people associate the term “front door” with a wide, somewhat ornate, sometimes very ornate, door. This is not the case with this home’s second front door. The second front door is very plain looking. Is it a door? Yes. Is in in the front of the house? Yes. Ornate, or wide, with glass inlay? No. If you’ve ever been to a home with a door on the side of a garage, it resembles that type of door. While I agree with the statement made during testimony that the house doesn’t look good from the street due to this oddly placed door, that was true prior to the installation of the ivy covered fence. 90% of the door is now obscured from view, it does not stand out, it does not grab your attention. The short run of fence, which some people have misidentified as a hedge, does a very good job at hiding the fact that a door exists. In summary, is there another door on the “front” of the house? Yes. Is is very noticeable and does it detract from the street view? No, not really.
What kind of weak crap is this for a coverup?
There are lists of people who gave the house as residence – in the >= 2008 time frame. The door was added for the perfectly normal reason of adding residency, and was used as such. Demonstrably.
Her lie that it was due to fear of assault – is ridiculous on two points: 1.) That isn’t why they added the door, and 2.) If a person is afraid of assault, they don’t modify their house to take in strangers.
This article is typical Leftist crap media. Covering up for typical leftist liar.
Her testimony was that in 2012 she disclosed to her husband that she wanted the second front door because of trauma from the “attack” 35 years ago. Since the building permit and plans were submitted before 2007, including the plans for a “second front door,” logic says she would have discussed this issue in 2007. Obviously, the Fords added the second front door to accommodate renters. This woman is a loon.
@Kate Thanks, that is fascinating. From what website are you able to read this so clearly? And am I correct that they bought the house in 2007, or was it earlier, say 2005?
And agreed, double patio doors from bedrooms is common in Eichler homes.
BTW, does anyone have any postings to show that this address was used as a rental? Such as to AirBNB or housing websites at Google?
Let’s cut to the chase: Dr. Ford is an abject loon. There is obviously something off about her. I was laughing when I watched the talking heads proclaim her testimony as “credible.” OMG, she read off of a script! Credible? Her entire story is garbage. From the “I’m afraid to fly” lie, to the “second front door” trope, to the alleged assault itself. Your best friend was at the party, but a) denies every meeting Kavanaugh; b) denies that the party took place; c) denies knowing anything about you being fondled. Game over. And unlike true sex assault victims, who repress memories of the ASSAULT, she remembers the assault, but not a damn thing before or after, including how he got home to her house 7 miles away (before cell phones and Uber). I have a thousand bucks that says the “therapist notes” came from her own therapy business that was located at her house.
The second door even if renting does corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony. She stated she had a second door added and she rents out the space to Google employees. Therefore, if she needed an escape because of renting to others she needed her own door to escape instead of only one door that everyone had to use. Thus, the second door can be used for rebtal purposes but also allows her to have her own exit. So, just because she got thecsecond door for renters does not contradict her reason for escape. In fact, since she didn’t claim she rented out a room prior to door construction makes sense of her reason for second door. If anything, a search should be based on how many Palo Alto residents construcy 2nd doors for rental purposes? But nothing here contradicts her testimony as many have suggested here. That is why you don’t hear a bunch of Senators echoing these statements argued bt amateur sleuths.
The second door even if renting does corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony. She stated she had a second door added and she rents out the space to Google employees. Therefore, if she needed an escape because of renting to others she needed her own door to escape instead of only one door that everyone had to use. Thus, the second door can be used for rental purposes but also allows her to have her own exit. So, just because she got the second door for renters does not contradict her reason for escape. In fact, since she didn’t claim she rented out a room prior to door construction makes sense of her reason for second door. If anything, a search should be based on how many Palo Alto residents construct 2nd doors for rental purposes? But nothing here contradicts her testimony as many have suggested here. That is why you don’t hear a bunch of Senators echoing these statements argued by amateur sleuths.
RD, it may corroborate her testimony from a quantitative view, yes, “2” doors are present. But she qualified that door as a necessity, a necessity to help her cope with anxiety, fear, and PTSD as a result of an alleged assault 35 years ago. As soon as she qualified the nature of that door, her therapeutic door story unraveled. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why she volunteered testimony that she hosts google interns. Nobody asked her anything along those lines, yet she felt compelled to offer up extraneous information. It’s as if she set her own trap, look how many people are focusing on this door. Not related, but I found her “I need some caffeine” comment odd as well. Most folks when asked if they need anything simply request a cup of coffee, or a cup of tea.
Did the new master bedroom have door opening into the interior of the house? It’s not clear to me from this thread although if it’s described as a master bedroom I would think that’s a given.
@RD Responses like that are why people throw up their hands and think that it’s all just to help her cover up the true reason. The remodel was to create a new master bedroom. That bedroom near the street, which might have been the previous master, now is no longer a factor. In fact, the plans indicate that it was designated to become a rental because it includes a kitchenette space. Thus, it makes total sense to put a door on that room because it’s intended for the renter. The original front door is obscure, and I gather the renter would have to walk through some of the house before getting to this room. Now the renter has some privacy.
So the search that really needs to be done is how often do homeowners do a remodel and choose to live in the smaller bedroom. My guess is zero.
And it took some time for your good neighbors to hunt down the floor plan. Once this news gets out, I’m sure some senator will bring it up. It makes total sense to have an extra door on the rental, not out of a need to have a 2nd escape. Wish the senators had a chance to ask how often she sleeps in that room.
roflmao how does she get into the locked rented room? why did the plans show a window but they put in a door before 2012 and her memory brought out by “therapy”? oh and 4 attackers not two?
Wait, so if she built the door on the Master bedroom because she was claustrophobic and has PTSD, but now she rents out the Master bedroom to Google interns, is she over the claustrophobia and PTSD? Does she sleep in a room in the house with two exit doors now?
Plans reader: Did the old/original master bedroom have a bathroom or was it added during renovation?
The original master bathroom was converted into a kitchen, leaving the “apartment” with no bathroom. A small addition was added in the original entry area, to give the now-studio apartment a bathroom.
After reading the previous article by Levitsky and its non-partisan (haha) thread, I’ve come up with an alternate idea re: door #2. The Ford’s bought the house in July 2007. The plans date from Nov. 2007 and were approved Jan. 2008. As anyone in this area knows, $143,000 renovation plans are not cooked up overnight. So I’m guessing they planned to do the reno before or soon after acquiring the property.
Note where the original entry door is located: right where a wall now exists. Therefore that door was going to be taken out. They needed a front door during the renovation, and the only location that makes sense is along the front of the house in that bedroom facing the street. That door exists because they needed a temporary door during the renovation! It is not a claustophobia/PTSD escape hatch, it was necessary!
Note where the new master bedroom is now, the former courtyard of the house. It is huge. We know it’s the new master bedroom because it has its own bathroom. Yes, it does have an entrance from the house and also double doors leading to the patio. But this is extremely common, especially in Eichler homes.
My guess is that they lived in the front bedroom during the renovation. The door was a necessity till the reno was done. So the real question is why it’s still there. Perhaps that was a bone of contention with the husband, but it was not for an escape route because now they have their massive master bedroom. Of course, it comes in handy if they’re renting out the room.
As for aesthetics, it’s ugly because they chose it to be ugly (I’m admitting to neighborhood snark). They could have easily chosen far more attractive materials for that door and the new front door of the house.
I think you are right about the reason for the second front door. They probably also only realized it later when they started planning construction. It wasn’t on the original plans but they must have quickly realized they couldn’t access the house during construction without it.
What is very obvious is that however many “front doors” that house has, the second front door was *not* added so that their bedroom would have “two exits”. It would have been the only functional exit during construction, and are we really to believe that they continued to live in the converted-master-bedroom-now-studio-apartment AFTER the addition was completed? The idea is ludicrious.
Yes, and the double walk-in closets in the new master bedroom are almost half the size of the original master bedroom. Funny how she described this as “extensive remodeling” but continued to refer to their “bedroom” needing two exits. I’m sure it will be revealed that hey NEVER had two functional exits to that original master bedroom.
Why have my comments disappeared? And those of others as well?
Actually it does the opposite. She testified under oath that here and her husband were in the therapy session to discuss the need to install a second Door. So another lie from her.
This is why she will not release her therapist notes. I’m fairly certain there is dialogue captured in the therapist notes alluding to the reason for the doors on the master bedroom. And the reason was not because she would feel safe. The reason is they went into this in the hopes of renting out the new edition.
So she needs a second set of doors to feel safe. But then they turn around and “host” Google interns (that means they rent it to Google interns for those of you that are like me, and not gullable). That means they have to sleep in a different part of the house. And based on the floor plan, she’s sleeping in a room that does not have a set of doors on it. Hence, she must not be safe.
Then why does she need the other set of doors on these new edition? She is BUSTED!!
This may be a total red herring, but according to a Mercury News article, it was the husband who did most of the renovations. This could explain her statement that this remodeling job was “long” but still doesn’t corroborate need for Door #2.
Paul Sperry noted that this door spat was not included in Feinstein’s letter, or during the polygraph questioning, or her letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He also suggests that Ford knew Kavanaugh was in contention for a Supreme Court nomination since 2012, where a piece in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin gave a dire warning about this man being selected by Mitt Romney if he won the presidential election. (Toobin’s article was published by the New Yorker on 3-26-12 which was followed by Ford’s rush to therapy in May less than two months later.)
“I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Md.,” she said in her testimony. (This quote from Ford corresponds with 2012.)
So, after telling no one her story about Kavanaugh for decades, she suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples therapy, triggered by a spat over a door, in 2012 — which also happens to be when her fellow Democrats were worrying about the possibility that Mitt Romney could win the presidency and appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court? Call me skeptical,” a senior GOP congressional staffer said. “There’s obviously more to the story than just a door.”
A Google search limited between 2012 to 2017 shows that there was a significant number of articles written about Kavanaugh. It seems that he was on the radar ever since that Toobin article. Even before the article, when he was up for appointment to the 2nd Circuit he had several articles written about him. Just for fun, I did a similar search for other judges on that court. Except for Neil Gorsuch and Merrick Garland (and this was AFTER their nomination), no other judge had so much “ink” spilled about him. He became a person of interest many years ago….
The second circuit must be circa 2003. The earliest reference I could find came from reuters in April, 2012.
Romney formed a committee of lawyers in August 2011 to advise him on court nominations and on legal policy questions led by prominent conservatives such as Robert Bork, whose conservative views led Democrats to block his 1987 nomination to the court.
The campaign declined to comment on potential nominees.
It seems likely that between Ford and her friend Monica, they hatched this idea prior to Toobin’s article.
The remodeling plan actually proves the lie. The new door is in the small bedroom in the front of the house, where a bathroom was added so it became a rental unit (according to the testimony) with a separate entrance. The grand master bedroom with a full bathroom ensuite is the addition and it makes no sense to claim that the new front door of the rental unit was created for relieving claustrophobia in the grand master bedroom.