Summary Judgment in Quigg vs. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Superior Court Case Number 316928. The court stated that Proposition H’s restrictions on capital improvement passthroughs were unconstitutional and could not go into effect. The court therefore declined to rule on whether the retroactivity sections of Proposition H also violated owners’ vested rights. The court will therefore sign an order prohibiting the City from enforcing Proposition H with the exception of the bond passthrough amendment in Section 37.3(a)(6) and the 7% cap on operating and maintenance expense increases in Section 37.3(b)(2). The temporary Moratorium Ordinance preventing the Rent Board from processing capital improvement petitions will terminate when the judge signs the order, which he is expected to do on Thursday, August 9, 2001.

As soon as the order is signed, capital improvement petitions that were subject to the Moratorium will be heard and decisions will be issued on a priority basis. Since the Rent Board has already scheduled hearings through the first week of September, petitions will be heard beginning in mid-September.

Up-to-Date Information on Implementation of Proposition H

Information concerning the Rent Board"s development of forms, regulations and procedures, as well as the status of legal actions to challenge Proposition H, may be obtained from the Rent Board in the following ways:

Web site: www.ci.sf.ca.us/rentboard/ under "What"s New"

24-Hour Recorded Information Line: 415.252.4600, Menu No. 46, "Proposition H—Current Status"

Fax Back: 415.252.4660, Document Number 014, "What"s New/Amended"

We will keep the information available from these resources current. Should you have questions that are not answered in these resources, you can also call our counseling staff at 415.252.4602 from 9-12 am and 1-4 pm, Monday through Friday.