Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company v. California Coastal Commission
Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company v. California Coastal Commission
Case Number
25CV00974
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 07/23/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Demurrer of Cross-Defendants Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Co. to First Amended Cross-Complaint
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiffs and Petitioners Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company: Jeffrey D. Dintzer, Garrett B. Stanton; Matthew C. Wickersham, Trevor Large, Victoria Diffenderfer.
For Defendant and Respondent California Coastal Commission: Rob Bonta, Norman N. Franklin, Wyatt E. Sloan-Tribe.
RULINGS
1. For the reasons set forth herein, the demurrer of cross-Defendants Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company to the first amended cross-complaint of cross-complainant California Coastal Commission is overruled in its entirety. Cross-Defendants shall file and serve their answer to the first amended cross-complaint on or before August 7, 2025.
2. There are two other motions on calendar for Wednesday 7/23/25: The Commission’s motion to bifurcate and the Commission’s motion for a protective order. The Commission seeks to bifurcate and try first Sable’s first cause of action in its FAC for petition for writ of mandate, and then try all other causes of action later. Sable agrees to try its inverse condemnation claims last (which is appropriate for many reasons) but wants to include the declaratory relief claims of all parties in the first phase. The principal difference in their positions is that a petition for writ of mandate is determined solely on the administrative record (and hence the Commission’s protective order to delay discovery on all issues until after the first phase is over). A declaratory relief claim cannot be used as a substitute for a writ of mandate, a declaratory relief claim would potentially involve other evidence and different legal standards.
3. Except as otherwise provided herein the Commission’s Motion to Bifurcate Sable’s inverse condemnation and takings claims is granted and the Commission’s request for a Protective Order is denied.
3. The Court will decide the writ petition – first - based solely on the administrative record on October 16, 2025, at 10am. There will be no oral testimony permitted on this issue. [The Administrative Record was lodged on 7/16/25]. The briefing schedule for this issue only is:
The Commissions’ Motion to be filed August 27, 2025 - 15 pages
Sable’s Opposition Brief to be filed September 17, 2025 - 15 pages
The Commission Reply Brief to be filed October 1, 2025 - 10 pages
4. There is an ex parte motion now set for Monday 7/28/25 at 8:15; to Set Hearing on Discovery Motions; Daniel Seabolt setting counsel. [The Court has no further information about this motion to share.]
5. There are motions to compel set for 9/10/25.
6. There is a CMC set for 7/23/25.
Sable filed it CMCS on 7/21/25 and reports: On May 16, 2025, the Coastal Commission filed a motion to bifurcate the case into two phases. The Motion is set to be heard on July 23, 2025. Plaintiffs Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company do not oppose bifurcating their inverse condemnation and takings claims, but Plaintiffs otherwise
will oppose the sought after relief. As such, Plaintiffs’ trial estimate pertains only to their writ and declaratory relief claims. While Plaintiffs are willing to bifurcate their inverse condemnation and takings claims for trial, Plaintiffs do not agree to bifurcate their claims for purposes of discovery. The Coastal Commission certified the Administrative Record on July 14, 2025. Plaintiffs have moved to compel further responses to Sable’s first set of written discovery. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction and a petition for writ of supersedeas. In accordance with the Court’s order for a proposed briefing schedule for trial, Plaintiffs submit the following proposed briefing schedule and page-length limitations: Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief on First Amended Petition and Commission’s Opening Brief on Cross-Complaint - August 27, 2025 – 20 pages each; Opposition Briefs – Briefs – September 17, 2025 – 20 pages each; Reply Briefs – October 1, 2025 – 10 pages each
The Commission filed its CMCS on 7/21/25 and reports: Plaintiffs Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company (collectively, “Sable”) filed an amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief related to administrative enforcement actions taken by the Commission against Sable in response to Sable’s unpermitted activities on offshore and onshore pipelines in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. Sable’s causes of action include a claim for writ of administrative mandate, inverse condemnation, and declaratory relief. The Commission filed an amended cross-complaint for declaratory and equitable relief stemming from Sable’s violation of the Commission’s administrative orders issued on April 10, 2025, which include a cease and desist order (“CDO”), restoration order (“RO”), and administrative penalty order (“PO”). The Commission seeks to permanently enjoin Sable from further violations of the Commission’s administrative orders, and seeks declaratory relief that Sable is in violation of the CDO and RO and must comply with those orders. The Commission sought a preliminary injunction related to its claims for equitable relief enjoining Sable’s further violations of the Commission’s orders, which was heard and granted on May 28, 2025. Sable has filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the Court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. Sable’s limited appeal of the grant of preliminary injunction does not divest the Court of jurisdiction to hear the remainder of the case. There is now a trial set to commence on October 16 (TCC on 10/15, and continuing 10/17, 10/20, and 10/21). At the June 4, 2025, case management conference in this matter, the parties agreed to attempt to stipulate to a proposed briefing schedule for the Trial Hearing on the Plaintiff’s request and Commission’s cross complaint set for October 15, 2025. On July 15, 2025, at 3:46 p.m., counsel for the Commission emailed counsel for Sable and proposed briefing schedule:
• Sable's Opening Brief on First Amended Petition and Commission's Opening Brief on Cross-Complaint - August 27, 2025 - 15 pages each
• Opposition Briefs - September 17, 2025 - 15 pages each
• Reply Briefs - October 1, 2025 - 10 pages each
7. The Court orders:
• Sable's Opening Brief on First Amended Petition and Commission's Opening Brief on Cross-Complaint - August 27, 2025 - 15 pages each
• Opposition Briefs - September 17, 2025 - 15 pages each
• Reply Briefs - October 1, 2025 - 10 pages each
8. On 7/16/25 Sable abandoned their Appeal filed 7/15/25.
Background re Demurrer
As alleged in cross-complainants verified amended cross-complaint (FACC):
Cross-Defendants Sable Offshore Corp., and Pacific Pipeline Company (collectively, Sable) are the owner of the Las Flores Pipelines, which include the pipeline segments designated as CA-324 and CA-325 (collectively, the Pipelines), portions of which are located within the coastal zone in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County (County). (FACC, ¶¶ 1, 2.)
The Pipelines were built more than thirty years ago. (FACC, ¶ 3.) The Pipelines were constructed pursuant to coastal development permits (CDPs) issued by the County in 1986. (Sable Request for Judicial Notice [RJN], exhibits 4, 5.)
The Pipelines operated until 2015, when the Pipelines’ failure resulted in the Refugio Oil Spill. (FACC, ¶¶ 3, 4.)
Sable is pursuing the proposed restart of the Pipelines. (FACC, ¶ 5.) To that end, Sable has been engaged in work on, and associated with, the Pipelines, including excavation with heavy equipment, removal of major vegetation, grading and widening of roads, installation of metal plates and other fill material within wetlands, dewatering and discharge of water, pipeline removal, replacement, and reinforcement, and installation of shutoff valves. (FACC, ¶ 6.) Sable has also been engaged in offshore development, including placing sand and cement bags on the seafloor below and adjacent to out-of-service offshore oil and water pipelines. (Ibid.) This activity has occurred without the requisite authorization under the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30000 et seq.). (Ibid.)
The California Coastal Commission (Commission) became aware that Sable was engaged in “Pipeline anomaly work” in September 2024. (FACC, ¶ 27.) A “pipeline anomaly” is a pipeline segment with some deviation from its original configuration, i.e., damage or deterioration, typically identified with a specialized instrument that examines the pipeline’s conditions while traveling through the pipeline. (FACC, ¶ 26.) The Commission staff investigated and determined that the work appeared to be unpermitted development in violation of the County’s local coastal program (LCP) and the Coastal Act. (FACC, ¶ 27.)
The Commission first sent a communication to the County requesting that it address Sable’s apparent Coastal Act violations. (FACC, ¶ 28.) When the County declined to take action, the Commission sent a notice of violation (NOV) to Sable. (Ibid.) After unsuccessful communications with Sable, the Commission’s Executive Director issued an Executive Director Cease and Desist Order (EDCDO) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30809. (FACC, ¶¶ 28-30.) Sable complied with parts of this order. (FACC, ¶ 30.)
On November 21, 2024, Commission enforcement staff sent Sable an email stating that any work on the offshore portions of its Pipelines (Offshore Pipelines) would require a CDP from the Commission. (FACC, ¶ 31.) Sable did not submit such an application. (Ibid.)
On November 22, 2024, and December 6, 2024, Sable submitted applications to the
County for “Zoning Clearances” for the onshore Pipeline anomaly work. (FACC, ¶ 32.) In mid-December 2024, Commission staff received reports that Sable was conducting work on the Offshore Pipelines, without having complied with the direction in the November 21 email to first secure Coastal Act authorization. (Ibid.)
On February 10, 2025, the Commission’s EDCDO expired by operation of law. (FACC, ¶ 32.) On February 11, 2025, Commission staff sent Sable a second NOV, this time addressing Sable’s unpermitted work on the Offshore Pipelines. (Ibid.)
On February 12, 2025, the County sent a written response to Sable regarding its Zoning Clearance applications stating its conclusion that the Pipeline anomaly work was authorized under two CDPs the County issued for the construction and operation of the Pipelines in 1986. (FACC, ¶ 33.) On February 14, 2025, Sable sent a letter to the Commission stating its position that, based on the County’s determination, “no further authorization under the Coastal Act or LCP is required for Sable to proceed” with its Pipeline anomaly work. (Ibid.) The Commission received reports that Sable had, in fact, recommenced its work on the Pipelines. (Ibid.)
On February 16, 2025, the Commission sent Sable a Notice Prior to Issuance of an EDCDO, stating the Commission’s disagreement with Sable’s conclusions contained in its February 14, 2025 letter, and advising Sable that its resumption of Pipeline anomaly work may result in issuance of a second EDCDO. (FACC, ¶ 33.)
On February 18, 2025, the Commission’s Executive Director issued a second EDCDO ordering, in part, Sable to halt all Pipeline anomaly work until it obtained a CDP. (FACC, ¶ 34.) This time, Sable did not comply with this order at all and continued work without a CDP. (Ibid.) This second EDCDO also included notice that Commission staff planned to bring proposed orders to the Commission. (FACC, ¶ 35.) Pursuant to the Commission’s regulations, the EDCDO provided a Statement of Defense form that Sable was invited to complete to present any defenses Sable
wished to raise against Commission staff’s proposed action. (Ibid.) Sable submitted its Statement of Defense on March 10, 2025. (Ibid.)
Also on February 18, 2025, plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action.
On April 10, 2025, the Commission held a public hearing on the Coastal Act violations undertaken by Sable. (FAC, ¶ 36.) The Commission took evidence and heard testimony from its own enforcement, technical and legal staff, Sable’s representatives, and the public. (Ibid.) The Commission thereafter voted unanimously to issue Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. CCC-25-CDO-01, and Restoration Order (RO) No. CCC-25-RO-01, and voted 9 to 2 to assess Administrative Penalty (AP) No. CCC-25-AP3-01 against Sable. (Ibid.) The Commission amended the motion contained in the staff report only as to the amount of administrative penalties. (Ibid.) These orders are collectively referred to as the “April 10 Orders.”
On April 10, 2025, the Commission filed a demurrer to the plaintiffs’ original complaint.
On April 11, 2025, a Commission staff member conducted site visits near Arroyo
Hondo Preserve, Refugio State Beach, and the entrance of Las Flores Canyon to determine whether Sable had ceased its Pipeline anomaly work. (FACC, ¶ 37.) The Commission staff member witnessed that Sable was continuing to conduct work in violation of the Commission’s CDO. (Ibid.)
On April 16, 2025, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC asserts six causes of action: (1) petition for writ of traditional mandamus, or alternatively for administrative mandamus; (2) declaratory relief; (3) damages for inverse condemnation; (4) declaratory relief (impairment of plaintiffs’ vested rights); (5) declaratory relief (inverse condemnation); and (6) for declaratory and equitable relief pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30803.
Also on April 16, 2025, the Commission filed its original cross-complaint against Sable.
On May 15, 2025, the Commission filed its FACC. The FACC asserts five causes of action: (1) equitable relief to restrain violation of cease and desist order; (2) equitable relief to restrain violation of a restoration order; (3) equitable relief to enforce administrative civil penalty order CCC-25-AP3-01; (4) declaratory relief for violation of CDO CCC-25-CD-01; and (5) declaratory relief for violation of RO CCC-25-RO-01.
On June 16, 2025, Sable filed its demurrer to the FACC. Sable concurrently requests that the Court judicially notice 23 exhibits, comprising approximately 450 pages.
On July 9, 2025, the Commission filed its answer to Sable’s FAC.
The demurrer is opposed by the Commission.
Analysis
“ ‘The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also ‘give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.’ ” (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 370, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
Sable demurs to the FACC on the grounds that all causes of action fail sufficiently to allege activity that requires a CDP without first securing a CDP, and that the first and fourth causes of action fail because the CDO cannot be enforced and the CDO is procedurally improper.
(1) Requests for Judicial Notice
Sable requests that the Court take judicial notice of: (RJN, exhibit 1) selected portions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cerelon/All American and Getty Pipelines Project, prepared for the California State Lands Commission and Bureau of Land Management, dated August 1984; (exhibit 2) selected portions of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cerelon/All American and Getty Pipelines Project, prepared for the California State Lands Commission and Bureau of Land Management, dated January 1986; (exhibit 3) the County’s Planning Commission Actions for the Celeron/All American Pipeline Project Final Development Plan, dated March 3, 1986; (exhibit 4) Coastal Development Permit No.86-CDP-189, issued by the Coastal Commission on July 27, 1986; (exhibit 5) Coastal Development Permit No. 86-CDP-205, issued by the Coastal Commission on August 5, 1986; (exhibit 6) selected portions of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Development and Production Plan for the Santa Ynez Unit Development (DPP), prepared for the United States Minerals Management Service, California State Lands Commission, and the County of Santa Barbara, dated June 1984; (exhibit 7) the DPP, dated September 1987; (exhibit 8)
the United States Minerals Management Service’s approval of the DPP, dated April 4, 1988; (exhibit 8) a letter from the Commission to Exxon, dated March 17, 1988, confirming the Commission’s concurrence with the consistency certification for the Santa Ynez Unit DPP and attaching Coastal Development Permit No. CDP No. E-
88-1 issued by the Coastal Commission on February 23, 1988; (exhibit 10) selected provisions of the County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance; (exhibit 11) a letter from the County to Sable, dated September 4, 2024; (exhibit 12) Executive Director Cease
and Desist Order No. ED-24-CD-02, issued by the Coastal Commission on November 12, 2024; (exhibit 13) an email from the California State Lands Commission to Sable, dated November 27, 2024; (exhibit 14) a letter from the California State Lands Commission to Sable, dated December 4, 2024; (exhibit 15) a letter from the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to Sable, dated December 5, 2024; (exhibit 16) Notice of Violation No. V-9-25-0013, issued by the Coastal Commission on February 11, 2025; (exhibit 17) a letter from the County of Santa Barbara to Sable, dated February 12, 2025; (exhibit 18) Executive Director Cease and Desist Order No. EDCDO No. 25-CD-01, issued by the Coastal Commission on February 18, 2025; (exhibit 19) an email from the County to Sable, dated March 21, 2025; (exhibit 20) the Adopted Findings for the Coastal Commission’s April 10, 2025 hearing on the April 10 Orders, dated April 29, 2025; (exhibit 21) a settlement agreement entered between Celeron Pipeline Company of California and the County of Santa Barbara in Celeron Pipeline Company of California v. County of Santa Barbara (C.D.Cal. case No. CV-87-02088) on February 8, 1988; (exhibit 22) the Consent Decree entered in United States of America, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al. (C.D.Cal. Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-02415) on March 13, 2020; and (exhibit 23) a settlement agreement entered between Sable and the County in Pacific Pipeline Company, et al. v. Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (Case No. 2:23-cv-09218-DMG-MRW) on August 30, 2024.
The Commission objects to these requests and to the corresponding paragraphs of the declaration of Jeffrey D. Dintzer. The Dintzer declaration purports to authenticate the documents for which judicial notice is requested.
The Court will grant the requests for judicial notice as to exhibits 4 and 5 (the CDPs that Sable asserts authorize its activities), and exhibits 12, 16, 18, and 20 (the Commission’s NOVs, EDCDOs, and findings on the CDO, RO, and AP order). These documents are official acts of the Commission that correspond to allegations of such official acts in the FACC. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) The corresponding paragraphs of the Dintzer declaration authenticate the copies of these documents as presented in the RJN.
“ ‘In ruling on a demurrer, a Court may consider facts of which it has taken judicial notice. [Citation.] This includes the existence of a document. When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.)
Because the truthfulness and proper interpretation of documents are disputable, the remaining documents for which judicial notice is requested may not be used to dispute the factual allegations of the FACC. As a result, these documents are not relevant to the disposition of this demurrer. The requests for judicial notice as to all other documents are denied. (See Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [judicial notice confined to matters relevant to the issue at hand].)
(2) Sable’s Activities
Sable first argues that Sable’s work referenced in the April 10 Orders was fully authorized and permitted. The first part of this inquiry is whether the work alleged as requiring a CDP is authorized by a corresponding CDP. The second party of this inquiry is whether the Commission had authority to take the actions it took.
(a) Commission’s Response to Sable FAC
The Court notes that Sable, for the first time in reply, refers to Sable’s allegations in its own FAC and the Commission’s answer to that FAC:
“On February 12, 2025, the County confirmed through correspondence provided to Sable and the Coastal Commission that no further authorizations are required for the anomaly repair work to the Las Flores Pipelines because the County ‘concluded that the “anomaly repair work” … is authorized by the existing permits (Final Development Plan, Major Conditional Use Permit, and associated Coastal Development Permits) and was analyzed in the prior Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement.’ [Fn.] On March 21, 2025, the County additionally confirmed its review of Sable’s ‘informational package regarding anomaly repair activities completed on [the Las Flores Pipelines] in 2024…’ and ‘determined that this work fits within[] the conclusions/directives of our February 12, 2025 letter to [Sable]. No permits will be required.’ [Fn.] The County’s confirmation are consistent with informal non-discretionary assessments that it undertakes on a regular basis, are not appealable to the Coastal Commission under the County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance (‘CZO’) or Coastal Act, and are therefore, final.” (Sable FAC, ¶ 6; accord, Reply, at p. 3.)
The Commission’s answer with respect to that paragraph is:
“Answering Paragraph 6, the Commission admits that the County issued correspondence to Sable on February 12, 2025, and March 21, 2025. The remaining allegations consist of legal contentions and/or conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that the Paragraph purports to describe the contents or alleged legal import of documents, those documents speak for themselves. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the Commission denies, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.” (Commission Answer, ¶ 6; accord, Reply at p. 3.)
Putting aside the impropriety of raising matter for the first time in reply (see Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538), the Commission’s answer does not stand for the proposition that there are no factual disputes as to the effect of the County’s actions. Instead, the Commission’s answer, fairly read, merely admits that the County communicated to Sable its position on the issues that were the subject of its correspondence to the extent, and as stated in, that correspondence. The Commission puts in dispute—and certainly does not admit—the correctness of the County’s position. The Commission’s response to Sable’s SAC provides nothing relevant to the disposition of this challenge to the Commission’s pleading.
(b) Authorization for Work
Fundamentally, Sable’s argument is that the County-issued CDPs authorize the work asserted as violations of the Coastal Act by the April 10 Orders. The two CDPs permit “[c]learing, grading and trenching activities for Celeron Pipeline Project as approved by 85-DP66cx” (RJN, exhibit 4, “Approved Project”) and “[r]emainder of all construction activities for the Celeron Pipeline project as approved by 85-DP-66cz” (RJN, exhibit 5, “Approved Project”).
The Commission alleges that the work conducted by Sable that is the subject of the April 10 Orders is work beyond what is permitted under the two CDPs. (FACC, ¶¶ 6, 27, 32; see also RJN, exhibit 20, pp. 2-6.) For purposes of pleading, these are sufficient allegations that Sable’s work was not authorized by the CDPs. Even when the additional documents for which Sable seeks judicial notice are considered, those documents do not demonstrate that such work is conclusively within the scope of the CDPs. The demurrer will be overruled on this ground.
(3) Commission’s Authority
Sable further argues that the County has exclusive permitting authority and therefore the April 10 Orders are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.
“The California Coastal Act of 1976 [citation] requires that local governments within the coastal zone prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) and implement ordinances to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives of protecting the coastline and its resources and maximizing public access. [Citations.] ‘Local governments are responsible for creating their LCP’s. [Citations.] The Coastal Commission was established to review these LCP’s and certify the LCP’s meet the requirements of the Act.’ [Citation.] After a LCP is certified by the Coastal Commission, development review authority is ‘delegated to the local government that is implementing the local coastal program ....’ [Citations.]” (Schneider v. California Coastal Com. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1344.)
“If the executive director determines that any person or governmental agency has undertaken, or is threatening to undertake, any activity that (1) may require a permit from the commission without securing a permit or (2) may be inconsistent with any permit previously issued by the commission, the executive director may issue an order directing that person or governmental agency to cease and desist. The order may be also issued to enforce any requirements of a certified local coastal program or port master plan, or any requirements of this division which are subject to the jurisdiction of the certified program or plan, under any of the following circumstances:
“(1) The local government or port governing body requests the commission to assist with, or assume primary responsibility for, issuing a cease and desist order.
“(2) The commission requests and the local government or port governing body declines to act, or does not take action in a timely manner, regarding an alleged violation which could cause significant damage to coastal resources.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30809, subd. (a); see also § 30810, subd. (a) [cease and desist orders after public hearing].)
Sable argues that sections 30809 and 30810 do not apply to authorize the Commission’s actions here because the CDPs were issued by the County under its certified LCP.
“Except for appeals to the commission, as provided in Section 30603, after a local coastal program, or any portion thereof, has been certified and all implementing actions within the area affected have become effective, the development review authority provided for in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600) shall no longer be exercised by the commission over any new development proposed within the area to which the certified local coastal program, or any portion thereof, applies and shall at that time be delegated to the local government that is implementing the local coastal program or any portion thereof.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30519, subd. (a).)
As a matter of statutory interpretation, the limitation of section 30519 is to development review authority provided in chapter 7. The enforcement of the Coastal Act through Commission CDOs is in chapter 9 (commencing with § 30800), which provisions are expressly in addition to any other remedy provided by law. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30800.) Moreover, section 30809 expressly provides that the order “may be also issued to enforce any requirements of a certified local coastal program” where the commission requests the local government to act and the local government declines to do so. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30809, subd. (a)(2).) The Commission has adequately alleged that it made such a request and the County declined to act.
In addition, “[s]ubdivision (a) shall not apply to any development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone ….” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30519, subd. (b).) Such development requires an additional permit from the Commission. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30601.) The Commission alleges “development” subject to its April 10 Orders on submerged lands. (FACC, ¶ 6.)
The Commission adequately alleges facts to support its jurisdiction to issue, and to support the propriety of issuing, its April 10 Orders.
Accordingly, Sable’s demurrer to the FACC will be overruled in its entirety.