Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission supports ban on shower timers that cut off water flow in rental housing
Summary
The commission unanimously recommended an amendment (Board file 170,159) prohibiting shower timers or devices that interrupt water flow in residential rental housing after examples of vulnerable tenants losing hot water mid-shower; the proposal also considers aligning local flow-rate language with PUC suggestions.
The Building Inspection Commission voted unanimously May 17 to recommend a proposed amendment to the Housing Code (Board file 170,159) that would prohibit installation of shower timers or devices that restrict or interrupt water flow in tenant-occupied residences, excluding owner-occupied dwelling units.
Lee Hepner of Supervisor Peskin—s office described complaints from residents at an SRO (1010 Bush Street, the Balmoral) who faced shower timers that cut off water after seven minutes. Hepner said notices of violation were issued by DBI and the Board of Appeals upheld the city's determination in the property manager—s appeal. He urged the commission to recommend the code amendment to remove ambiguity and protect vulnerable tenants, noting many affected residents are seniors or disabled.
Public-safety and water-conservation intersections surfaced in the discussion: the Public Utilities Commission suggested harmonizing a flow-rate figure in the housing code (changing 3 gallons per minute to 2.5 gpm for consistency). DBI staff said references to required water-conservation fixtures would remain and that the amendment would not bar fixtures that comply with state conservation standards.
The commission moved to recommend the amendment and voted unanimously on the motion. Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement timing and whether existing noncompliant devices would have to be removed immediately; staff confirmed the amendment is intended to prevent future installations and that existing enforcement action follows code and appeals processes.
Ending: Commission supported forwarding the amendment with a recommendation and noted the PUC suggestion about flow-rate language could be incorporated as a technical refinement before Board action.
