Sunnyside (Back) UpDecember 17, 2019
It has been over twelve years since the single-family home at 149 Mangels Avenue, the foundation of which had been reinforced with cereal boxes, collapsed on its new owner who was doing a bit of non-permitted work.
Three years ago, the Sunnyside parcel traded for $725,000. And shortly thereafter, plans for a new three-story home, with two stories fronting Mangels, a third below and roughly 3,200 square feet of total space, were drafted and submitted to the city for review.
While the ground has yet to be broken, in part due to opposition from neighbors concerned about the proposed approach and ongoing risk to the underpinnings of their home, not to mention the relative size and scale of the proposed replacement project, the design has since been refined, the aforementioned concerns assuaged, and permits for the project have been approved and issued by the city.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
They want to build a single family home where a single family home existed before. I understand the neighbors appreciate having a bit of extra space, but it’s not their lot. They need to shut up and go away.
While it’s not their lot, the extant footings of the collapsed home had illegally undermined the foundation of its neighbor, leading to a bit of the aforementioned concern (and additional cover for the pushback with respect to context and mass).
Aren’t those sort of concerns generally handled by adequate building inspections?
Well the neighbor had a house fall into theirs under the watchful eye of the SF building inspectors, so I would imagine they would be a little gun shy about entirely relying on them again to make sure their foundation isn’t damaged.
I don’t think DBI can be blamed for the last episode. As I recall, the previous owner was trying to jack up his house with car jacks. It didn’t work. I don’t believe he pulled a permit, but if he did, I don’t think DBI would have authorized his approach.
“I don’t think DBI can be blamed for the last episode.”
Right I never said that. My point is that based on prior experience the homeowner shouldn’t expect the DBI to protect them from any negligence on the part of the new builder, so engaging the new owner/builder about the process related to the adjoining foundation before construction starts seems reasonable under the circumstances. To the extent they are complaining abut the size of the project unrelated to foundation issues where no variance is requested, I agree with Tejon.
But, in all fairness, DBI doesn’t have people roving around in vans looking for people trying to jack up their house with car jacks. That was kind of a one-off incident that can only be attributed to one misguided real estate investor’s DIY hubris…..
Yes, it’s hard to imagine something similar happening with approved plans in place and a team of professionals at the helm…
Any screen captures of the cereal boxes? I feel like I missed out.
Indeed, all I could find in the linked stories was this statement:”… had a building permit to do a partial foundation replacement and had shored up the house with a temporary wooden frame.”
And while that doesn’t necessarily disprove the ‘cereal box’ claim, it certainly doesn’t support it. (Uhmm, no pun intended)
Unfortunately, it would appear that the video highlighting the cereal boxes has been taken offline.
Comments are closed.