STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

May 3, 2001

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 00-01-017

This proceeding was filed on January 14, 2000, and is assigned to Commissioner Wood and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Vieth. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Vieth.

Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.

/s/ LYNN T. CAREW

Lynn T. Carew, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

LTC:k47

Attachment

ALJ/XJV-POD/k47

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed May 3, 2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Robert Hambly, et al. Complainant, vs. Hillsboro Properties and City of Novato, Defendants.

Case 00-01-017 (Filed January 14, 2000)

OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT

Benjamin H. Scharf, Attorney at Law, for Robert Hambly, et al.,

complainants and for Golden State Mobilehome Owners'

League, Inc., intervenor.

David L. Spangenberg, Attorney at Law, for Hillsboro

Properties, and Jeffrey A. Walter, Attorney at Law,

for City of Novato, defendants.

Summary

We resolve the complaint filed by Robert Hambly against both Hillsboro Properties (Hillsboro), the owner of the Los Robles Mobilehome Park (Los Robles), and the City of Novato (Novato). Hambly claims that Hillsboro has assessed the Los Robles tenants annual rent increases which, though approved by Novato under its rent control authority, result in higher charges for submetered natural gas and electric service than Pub. Util. Code § 739.5 permits.¹ We conclude that Hambly is correct and direct Hillsboro to apply to Novato for an adjustment of rent increases authorized on Hillsboro's 1996, 1997, and 1998 petitions under Novato's rent control ordinance in order to remove all rents assessed in violation of § 739.5 and Commission decisions interpreting it. Hillsboro shall refund, with interest, all excess rents charged beginning three years before the date the complaint was filed.