My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: California
I've lived in an old rent-controlled residence hotel in San Francisco for 17 years. Food was always part of the deal (3 meals/day) so that the allowable rent increase included food. Last year, the near 100 year old elevator motor below my room started making noise and vibrations. They gave me the key to another room to sleep in, and since they didn't want to fix/replace the motor, and they kept telling me I couldn't keep occupying 2 rooms, I ended up, after some months, moving to the new room. At 1st I resisted because I liked my old room. I had been there for 17 years, and it was a bit bigger than the one they were offering me, even without a private bathroom (I used the shared hall bath right outside, which I was fine with). The new room, while a bit smaller, did have a private bathroom, but they agreed to give it to me at the same rate. The manager even wrote in the new contract: "gives up possession of room #---, same rate at new room."
However, the new contract breaks down the rent and the food, so that there's a clause now saying:
"Guest elects (check__)/ does not elect (check__) to receive the Meal Package, which is $_______ per month at the time of rental."
The contract doesn't specify anything further about food price increases. However, I am now being told that the breakdown was done because that way they can increase the price of the food at a higher rate than rent - by about 15% a year instead of the 2% or so of regular rent control in San Francisco that I had been getting these 17 years.
The question is: Can the statement "gives up possession of room #---, same rate at new room" prevent them from doing this?

