Abatement Appeals Board upholds order against timed shower devices at 1010 Bush Street

The Abatement Appeals Board on Wednesday upheld an order of abatement that requires removal of time-limiting shower devices at 1010 Bush Street, saying the devices violate the San Francisco housing code and pose risks to residents, particularly older tenants.

The Department of Building Inspection described the building as a four-story residential hotel with multiple common showers and told the board it received a complaint in October 2016 that some showers stopped delivering water for short periods. Dean Sano and Matsu, acting chief housing inspector, said site inspections found time-limiting devices on common-area showers and cited a violation of San Francisco Housing Code section 505d. "When people are senior citizens and are denied the right to hot water, that is something that our division and our department are not gonna stay quiet on," the department representative said in a rebuttal urging the order be upheld.

Appellant Jeff j Euro argued that "nowhere in the code are water restricting devices prohibited" and framed the case as a narrow legal challenge about whether an implicit restriction exists. He said the timers were installed to manage shared use and that one bathroom was converted from one stall to three to reduce congestion. "If something is not illegal, it is therefore legal," Jeff j Euro told the board, and he said he was willing to discuss accommodations or give override privileges to tenants who need extra time.

Multiple tenants and housing advocates told the board the timers create practical and safety problems for older residents. Tenant Debbie Davis, who said she has lived in unit 128 for 13 years, described showers that shut off mid-rinse and slippery floors when conditioner remains: "The timers, the water doesn't heat up within 60 seconds ... I can't wash myself, my hair and my body in 3 minutes." Rio Sharf of the Central City SRO Collaborative said many affected tenants are over 70 and warned that restricted shower access can be used to pressure older residents out of buildings.

Commissioners discussed whether the landlord had engaged tenants before installing the devices and raised concerns about alternatives to a blanket restriction. Commissioner Lee suggested the board could consider a 30-day suspension to encourage a landlord-tenant discussion, and Commissioner Warshall urged more outreach and tenant engagement before unilateral measures. The department, citing a notice of violation issued in October and an order of abatement issued after December, said the owner had time to comply and recommended upholding the order and assessing department costs.

President Clinch moved to uphold the order of abatement; the board voted unanimously to approve the motion and to assess associated department costs. The board recorded affirmative votes from President Clinch, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Conston, Commissioner McCarthy and Commissioner Warshall.

The Abatement Appeals Board adjourned the session and planned a short recess before reconvening as the Building Inspection Commission.

Provenance: This article is based on testimony and discussion recorded in the Abatement Appeals Board hearing on March 15, 2017 (Case No. 68311010, 1010 Bush Street). Topic introduction in the transcript begins at SEG 041 and the board action concludes at SEG 1059.