San Francisco residents relying on single‑room occupancy (SRO) housing face a growing safety concern: elevators that are frequently out of service or unsafe. According to Mission Local, an audit released by the city controller’s office on Thursday found that 34% of the 225 SRO elevators inspected between 2018 and April 2024 received at least one violation from the Department of Building Inspection, most of which were in city‑funded properties.
The audit also highlighted the volume of complaints about elevator failures. Data reviewed by the controller’s office showed that 311, the city’s non‑emergency line, logged roughly 600 complaints about non‑working elevators from 2018 to 2023, and 45% of those complaints involved SROs. The city currently lacks an accurate inventory of the more than 500 SROs and the over 300 elevators they contain, while state authority over elevator permits, upkeep, and safety rests with California’s Occupational Safety and Health Agency.
State‑level delays exacerbate the problem. The report notes that nearly 8,000 elevators citywide—over 200 of them in SROs—do not have up‑to‑date permits, and reports of violations can remain unaddressed for years. During the audit, officials visited 20 SRO elevators; all had expired permits and many featured design flaws such as narrow doors, gaps between the car and floor, and missing emergency call buttons, creating hazards for seniors and people with disabilities.
Older equipment compounds the issue. Mission Local points out that almost 94% of the city’s SROs were built before 1930, and more than a quarter of their elevators were installed before the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Repair costs are steep: a building manager quoted in the audit said a single worn elevator repair can reach nearly $40,000, while a full modernization costs between $100,000 and $300,000 but typically pays for itself within four to seven years through reduced repair expenses.
Owners are feeling the strain. Of the 27 SRO owners surveyed, 11 reported repairing their elevators at least ten times in 2023 alone. The audit recommends legislative action similar to recent measures in Oakland and Berkeley, which require landlords to maintain elevators and provide alternative housing if outages exceed 24 hours. Los Angeles has even taken state oversight out of the picture, granting the city independent inspection authority.
In the short term, the controller’s office urges the Department of Building Inspection, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Disability Assistance, the Mayor’s Office of Housing, and the Planning Department to create a shared, comprehensive list of all SRO elevators and qualified technicians. Longer‑term, the office suggests the city’s Office of Disability work with the Board of Supervisors to amend local law, giving San Francisco the same landlord‑responsibility framework adopted by neighboring cities.
What’s next: City officials are expected to review the audit’s recommendations in upcoming Board of Supervisors meetings. Potential legislation could be introduced later this year to tighten elevator maintenance requirements and improve tenant protections, while agency coordination efforts aim to compile a citywide elevator inventory within the next six months.
Sources: missionlocal.org
