Introduction
This complaint seeks revocation of MHC Acquisition One's (MHC) 1 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) on the basis that such a certificate interferes with the City of Santa Cruz's (the City) municipal powers. This legal theory and, to a large extent, this entire proceeding, shed little light on the actual dispute between these parties. The history of litigation between these parties, and the ongoing litigation discussed below, reveal that the genesis of the dispute between the parties was the City's rent control ordinance and its applicability to MHC. The current manifestation of this dispute appears to be the terms and conditions on which the City will sell water and sewer services to MHC for resale by MHC to its mobile home park tenants. The City goes even one step further and explicitly states that the only issue in this proceeding is whether this Commission or MHC may compel the City to allow resale of its water and sewer services.
As set out below, however, the "counts" of the complaint do not clearly articulate these issues. Nevertheless, for completeness, we will methodically resolve each "count" as stated by the City. We will then address what appears to be the real issue -- the City's authority.
1 The complaint also named as defendants those listed in the caption. MHC, however, is the sole holder of the CPCN and the only named public utility. The other defendants asked to be dismissed, as the complaint process is only available against public utilities, see Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 9. Because we dismiss the entire complaint, we need not rule on this request. We refer to all defendants collectively as MHC.
