summary judgment in Quigg vs. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Superior Court Case Number 316928 was issued. The court found that Proposition H"s restrictions on capital improvement passthroughs were unconstitutional and prohibited 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 City has until December 17, 2001 to file an appeal of the court"s ruling.

In accordance with the court"s decision, the Rent Board has resumed processing of capital improvement petitions. Petitions that previously were subject to the Moratorium are being heard first, and these hearings should be completed by the end of 2001. If the courts allow Proposition H to go into effect in the future, decisions issued by the Board will have to be revised in accordance with the provisions of Proposition H.

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/rentbd/ 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.