Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company v. California Coastal Commission

Case Number

25CV00974

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/15/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition of Petitioners Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Co. for Writ of Mandate

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs and Petitioners Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company: Jeffrey D. Dintzer, Garrett B. Stanton, Alston & Bird LLP; Trevor D. Large, Fauver, Large, Archbald & Spray LLP

 

For Defendant and Respondent California Coastal Commission: Rob Bonta, Norman N. Franklin, Wyatt E. Sloan-Tribe, Office of the California Attorney General

RULING

1. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds in favor of Respondent California Coastal Commission and against Petitioners Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company on Petitioners’ first cause of action for issuance of a writ of mandate.

2. The Court does not now address the extent to which this ruling resolves or otherwise impacts other causes of action of the FAP or of the Commission’s cross-complaint, which will be addressed in subsequent proceedings.

3. There is currently a motion to compel discovery now pending and set for hearing on 10/22/25 at 10 am. That matter is continued to 12/3/25, at 10 am with the final brief filed one week before the hearing.

4. There is currently a CMC set for 10/31/25; that CMC is vacated. The Court sets the next CMC for 12/3/25, at 10 am. CMCS’s filed one week in advance.

5. There is currently a motion filed for leave to file a SAC that is set for 12/3/25 at 10am; the hearing will go forward. Briefing on the issue, if any, will be accomplished so the final brief is filed one week in advance.  

 

Background

This matter arises out of work done by Petitioners Sable Offshore Corp. (Sable OC) and Pacific Pipeline Company (PPC) (collectively, Sable or Petitioners) subject to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act, Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.). To address the issues raised in the petition, it is first useful to summarize the history of the underlying oil pipeline construction and maintenance. The summary is intended to provide sufficient background to address the issues before the Court and is not intended to be a complete recitation of the facts. Nonetheless, the Court has considered the complete record in this matter in making this ruling. Citations to the Administrative Record (AR) are in the form of “AR [page number(s)]” with leading zeros omitted.

(1)       Factual Background

            (A)       The Oil Pipeline

PPC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sable OC, is the owner of the Las Flores Pipelines, which includes the pipeline segments CA-324 (Line 324) (previously known as Line 901) and CA-325 (Line 325) (previously known as Line 903) (collectively, the Las Flores Pipelines or Pipelines), portions of which are located within the coastal zone in an unincorporated area of the County of Santa Barbara (County). (First Amended Petition [FAP], ¶ 1; Answer to FAP [Answer], ¶ 1; AR 1-3.)

Line 324 is designed to transport crude oil from a pump station in Las Flores Canyon approximately 11 miles west along the coast to a pump station about a mile east of Gaviota State Park. (FAP, ¶ 26; Answer, ¶ 26; AR 3, 64.) Line 325 of the Pipelines is designed to transport crude oil from there to a location approximately 113.5 miles north, eventually reaching the Pentland Delivery Point in Kern County. (Ibid.)

The Pipelines were constructed in the 1980s and were referred to at the time as the “Celeron/ All American Pipeline Project.” (AR 3832.) The Final Development Plan (FDP) Conditional Use Permit (CUP), dated March 3, 1986, was issued following approval by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. (Ibid.) The project description in the CUP is:

“Celeron proposes to construct a 30-inch diameter, insulated welded steel pipeline designed to transport up to a maximum of 425,000 barrels per day (BPD) with an optimal throughput of 300,00 BPD, of Outer Continental Shelf and other locally produced crude oils. The pipeline would extend approximately 135 miles from Las Flores Canyon to the Emidio pump station in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Three pump stations would be constructed, one at Las Flores Canyon, one at Gaviota, and one near the Sisquoc River in northern Santa Barbara County. The pipeline would be buried to a minimum cover depth of three feet throughout its length according to Department of Transportation specifications, with increased cover depth in selected areas. [¶] The pipeline will require a 100-foot wide construction corridor and a 50-foot wide permanent easement. The proposed route parallels Highway 101 from Las Flores to Gaviota, turns north at Gaviota State Park west of Highway 101 and continues to the Sisquoc River. From the Sisquoc River the route follows Santa Maria then Suey Canyons north toward the Cuyama River. It crosses the river in the Western Cuyama Valley, and exits the County.” (AR 3836.)

The final environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) regarding the project includes the following statement in its abstract:

“The Celeron and All American Pipeline Companies propose to construct a 1,200-mile pipeline that would transport Outer Continental Shelf and other locally produced crude oils from the Santa Barbara and Santa Maria Basins through Emidio station, CA, to McCamey, TX. The 122-mile Celeron segment would extend from Las Flores, CA to Emidio, CA, and the 1,084-mile All American segment would extend from Emidio, CA to McCamey, TX; both would transport heated crude oil. Getty Trading and Transportation Company (Getty) proposes to construct a 113-mile buried pipeline that would transport heated crude oil from Getty’s existing marine terminal facility at Gaviota, CA, to Emidio station, CA. The Celeron/All American pipeline proposal and the Getty pipeline proposal are not dependent upon each other. Both projects could be approved or either project could be approved independently of the other.

“The Celeron/All American and Getty Pipeline Projects Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) addresses both applications to construct pipelines from the Santa Barbara coast to Emidio in Kern County. The EIR/EIS also addresses Celeron/All American’s application for a pipeline from Emidio to McCamey, Texas.

“The EIR/EIS analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed pipelines; pump, heating, and delivery stations; and a tank farm through construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment. This report analyzes the impacts of the Celeron/All American and Getty Proposals and four routing alternatives that have been identified. These are the Santa Maria Canyon, Desert Plan Utility Corridor, Brenda, and McCamey to Freeport Alternatives. The Santa Maria Canyon Alternative crosses a portion of the Los Padres National Forest in Santa Barbara County; the Desert Plan Alternative is in the Mojave Desert in eastern California;

the Brenda Alternative is in western Arizona near the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge; and the McCamey to Freeport Alternative. extends from West Texas to the Gulf Coast. These alternatives were identified to provide optional locations for the pipelines in sensitive areas. The No Project Alternative is also analyzed.” (AR 3191-3192.)

Two coastal development permits (CDPs) were issued for the project. CDP 86-CDP-189 was issued on July 27, 1986. (AR 3891) The CDP is for the approved project: “Clearing, grading, and trenching activities for Celeron Pipeline Project as approved by 85-DP-66cz, in the area described below.” (Ibid.) The area for this CDP is: “Gaviota State Park (survey station #1725+40) to Gaviota pump station.” (Ibid.) CDP 86-CDP-205 was issued on August 5, 1986. (AR 3894.) The CDP is for the approved project: “Remainder of all construction activities for the Celeron Pipeline project as approved by 85-DP-66cz, in the area described below.” (Ibid.) The area for this CDP is: “Gaviota State Park (survey station #1725+40) to Gaviota pump station.” (Ibid.) Both CDPs state as special conditions: “The project description, pipeline route, conditions and plans required pursuant to those conditions described by the approved Final Development Plan 85-DP-66cz are incorporated herein by reference as terms of this permit. (AR 3891, 3894.)

The CDPs were not appealed or otherwise challenged after their issuance.

The FDP’s Conditions of Approval include:

Under the heading “Authority to Impose Feasible Mitigations”:

“This permit is premised upon findings that where feasible, all significant environmental effects of the project identified in the EIR/EIS (State Clearinghouse No. 83110902), which occur in Santa Barbara County, will be substantially mitigated by the permit conditions. Prior to approval of the Final Development Plan, County shall review any findings that identified certain mitigation measures as being in the primary jurisdiction of another agency but are also within County’s

jurisdiction. County shall thereupon determine either (1) that such mitigation has or is being implemented by such other agency or (2) that such other agency and County determine such mitigation to be infeasible. If County determines that no other agency is or may be implementing such feasible mitigation measures then County may impose those feasible measures within its jurisdiction to mitigate those environmental impacts in accordance with appropriate mitigation measures identified by the EIS/R.” (AR 6714.)

Under the heading “Facility Throughput and Source Limits”:

“All facilities constructed under this permit shall be used only for the shipment of a maximum volume of heated crude oil demonstrated to be within the design parameters of the pipeline facilities as built. The subject volumes will be outer continental shelf (OCS) and other locally produced onshore and offshore petroleum from the Santa Barbara and Santa Maria Basins. PPC shall obtain a new or modified permit, or authority to continue operation under the existing permit prior to undertaking any of the following activities which may, in the judgment of the County, result in significant changes to the impacts on the County. Such changes could include but not be limited to: 1) major pipeline or pump station modifications; 2) major changes in pipeline throughput; 3) introduction of production to the pipeline from sources other than those described above; and 4) introduction of a different product from any source.” (AR 6710.)

Respondent California Coastal Commission (Commission) issue a CDP for offshore portion of the Pipelines in 1988, CDP E-88-1. (AR 61-62.)

In 2015, a corroded portion of Line 324 ruptured, causing an oil spill (2015 Refugio Oil Spill). (AR 3.) Following the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill, the Pipelines were placed out of service. (Ibid.)

In 2020, Sable’s predecessor-in-interest entered into a Federal Consent Decree with the United States and the State of California to resolve issues related to the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill. (AR 6049-6150.) The Federal Consent Decree requires, among other things, that if Line 324 (former Line 901) is to restart, a written Restart Plan must first be approved by the California Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). (AR 6144-6145.) No Restart Plan has yet been approved and restart of the Pipelines is not at issue in this litigation. (Sable Opening Brief, at p. 8, fn. 6.)

            (B)       Pipeline Activities

In 2024, Sable identified 121 sites on the onshore pipelines requiring Anomaly Repair Work. (AR 1750-1751.) A pipeline “anomaly” refers to a pipeline segment with some deviation from its original configuration. (AR 1750.)

According to Sable: “Sable detects anomalies by using a roving data gathering instrument located within the pipeline interior, typically referred to as an inspection ‘pig,’ which examines a pipeline’s conditions as the pig travels through the Onshore Pipelines. Data collected from the inspection pig is used to identify the approximate location of anomalies from the surface so that excavation and repair activities can be planned. Sable generally must complete the following steps to repair any particular anomaly detected by the pig: (1) access the affected pipeline segment via existing roadways and rights-of-way, which in some locations requires placing metal plates over water courses; (2) excavate the anomaly site, including the dirt beneath the affected pipeline segment, which in some locations may require dewatering and associated discharge; (3) expose the pipeline segment by removing insulation and sandblasting; (4) evaluate whether a ‘Composite Repair’ or ‘Cut-Out Repair’ is required, (5) conduct the Composite or Cut-Out Repair as appropriate, sandblast the repaired pipeline segment, and apply an epoxy coating, pipe tape, and rockguard wrap; (6) backfill the anomaly site, and (7) conduct final site cleanup including erosion control and revegetation work (collectively, the ‘Anomaly Repair Work’). Anomaly Repair Work is short-term and temporary (often lasting less than a week) within the Onshore Pipelines’ operational right-of-way. It requires the use of heavy equipment and may involve the removal of vegetation.” (AR 1751, fns. omitted.)

According to Sable, Sable completed the Anomaly Repair Work at 48 of these anomaly sites before it received communications from the Commission. (AR 1751.)

On September 20, 2024, Commission Enforcement Analyst Jo Ginsberg sent an email to Errin Briggs, Deputy Director, Energy Minerals & Compliance of the County stating:

“We have learned that Sable Offshore Corporation (Sable) is undertaking development in the coastal zone related to Lines 324/325 (formerly known as Lines 901/903) without any Coastal Act authorization, which is a violation of the County’s LCP, and we hereby request the County to take enforcement action. At the same time, we are also aware of both the recent litigation and settlement between the County and Sable, and we assume that, as a result of that settlement, the County will not take the requested action. However, we do believe the work requires Coastal Act authorization. Thus, the Commission will assume enforcement jurisdiction based on the understanding that you are declining this request unless you indicate otherwise by close of business on Sept. 23, 2024.” (AR 300-301.)

Later on September 20, the Briggs replied: “Received. We will review this and get back to you ASAP.” (AR 300.)

On September 27, 2024, Ginsberg, on behalf of the Commission, sent by email its Notice of Violation (NOV) No. V-9-24-0152 (2024 NOV) to Steve Rusch, Vice President Environmental & Regulatory Affairs of Sable, stating in part:

“As you have recently discussed with Cassidy Teufel and Wesley Horn of our staff, it has come to our attention that unpermitted activities are currently taking place in the Coastal Zone, including excavation and other activities at various locations along the existing Lines 324/325 (formerly known as Lines 901/903) now owned by [Sable] associated with a proposed restart of the Santa Ynez Unit. These activities constitute violations of the Coastal Act and Santa Barbara County’s Local Coastal Program (‘LCP’). (AR 208-209, fn. omitted.)

“It has been confirmed that Sable is currently performing various unpermitted construction activities in the Coastal Zone associated with upgrades to Lines 324/325 in connection with Sable's proposed restart of that pipeline. As part of that proposed restart, Sable is currently undertaking work including a pipeline upgrade project to address pipeline corrosion in locations within the Coastal Zone and to install new safety valves in portions of the pipeline in the Coastal Zone. These activities constitute development and are not exempt from coastal development permit (‘CDP’) requirements.” (AR 209, fn. omitted.)

“Please note that in certain cases when unpermitted development takes place, but Commission staff believe that some version of the work could have been found to be consistent with the applicable standard of review and authorized accordingly, staff recommends that the party undertaking the development submit a CDP application to the regulating authority (in this case, Santa Barbara County), seeking after-the-fact (‘ATF’) authorization for the previously undertaken unpermitted development within the County’s LCP jurisdiction. In other cases, when staff has determined that the unpermitted development is not something for which staff would recommend approval due its inconsistency with the Coastal Act/certified LCP, staff advises the alleged violator to seek resolution through removal, mitigation, restoration, and/or payment of penalties, etc., and not to seek a CDP to authorize such development.

“In this case, we are uncertain at this time whether Santa Barbara County would be able to approve a CDP application from Sable that was seeking ATF authorization for the unpermitted construction activities that have already taken place, as well as authorization going forward for continued construction or other development activities related to the pipeline, such as the installation of safety valves. More information regarding the project would be necessary to come to any such conclusion at this time; however, since such an application might be found approvable by the County, we recommend that you submit a CDP application to the County as soon as possible. Please note that should the County grant approval of such a CDP application, those portions of the project that are located within the Coastal Commission’s appeals jurisdiction would be appealable to the Commission and those portions of the project, if any, that are located within the Commission’s original jurisdiction would require a CDP from the Commission.” (AR 211.)

The Commission followed up with a letter to Sable, dated October 4, 2024 (October 4 Letter), from Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director, which asked for confirmation that the activity referred to in the 2024 NOV fully ceased and for additional information. (AR 214-217.) According to Sable, at the time of their receipt of the October 4 Letter, Sable completed the Anomaly Repair Work at 48 of the identified anomaly sites. (AR 1751.) At that time, 45 anomaly sites were open (Open Sites) where excavation and other steps had been undertaken, but the Anomaly Repair Work had not been completed. (Ibid.)

On November 12, 2024, the Commission’s Executive Director issued an Executive Director Cease and Desist Order (EDCDO). (AR 13311-13320.) This EDCDO orders Sable to cease and desist from conducting any further unpermitted development and to immediately take steps to avoid irreparable injury to the properties at issue, including, safely securing and stabilizing the Open Sites. (AR 13312-13313.)

On November 21, 2024, Cassidy Teufel, Deputy Director of the Commission, sent an email to Rusch of Sable stating that any work on the offshore portions of the Pipelines would also require a CDP from the Commission. (AR 247-249.)

On November 22, 2024, SCS Engineers, on behalf of Sable, sent a request to Briggs for Zoning Clearances to conduct certain Anomaly Repair Work on Line 324. (AR 6866-6868.) The request identifies that Sable had previously commenced Anomaly Repair Work and had received the 2024 NOV and the EDCDO. (AR 6867.) Sable sought both after-the-fact Zoning Clearances for the Anomaly Repair Work previously undertaken and Zoning Clearances to complete the Anomaly Repair Work in the future. (Ibid.)

The Commission received reports that Sable was conducting work on the offshore portions of the Pipelines beginning on November 29, 2024. (AR 4, 6-7, 8.)

On December 6, 2024, SCS Engineers, on behalf of Sable, sent a second request for Zoning Clearances. (AR 7916-7917.) “Sable is submitting two Zoning Clearance applications for this anomaly repair work: (i) an application for the anomaly repair work that is not located in proximity to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and (ii) an application associated with 6 anomaly repairs for locations that are potentially located in proximity to areas of sensitive habitat.” (AR 7916.)

“Through its inspection pig activities, Sable identified one hundred and twenty-one (121) anomalies where Anomaly Repair Work was required within unincorporated Santa Barbara County and within the Coastal Zone. Sable completed the Anomaly Repair Work at forty-eight (48) of these anomaly sites before receiving the 2024 [Notice of Violation (NOV)] and October 4 Letter. Forty-five (45) anomaly sites were open (i.e., excavation and other steps had been undertaken, but the Anomaly Repair Work had not been completed) at the time Sable received the 2024 NOV and October 4 Letter. At that time, twenty-eight (28) remaining anomaly sites had been identified for future Anomaly Repair Work that had not yet commenced.” (AR 1751, fns. omitted.)

On February 10, 2025, the Commission’s ECDCO expired by operation of law. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 30809, subd. (e).)

On February 11, 2025, Ginsberg, on behalf of the Commission, sent by email a second NOV, V-9-25-001 (2025 NOV). (AR 219-226.) The 2025 NOV identified the violation as: “Unpermitted offshore development including, but not necessarily limited to, deploying sand/cement bags on the seafloor and positioning them to provide support to Sable’s out-of-service offshore oil and water pipelines as part of an effort to restart SYU oil production operations and bring the pipelines back into use.” (AR 219.)

On February 12, 2025, Briggs of the County sent a letter to Sable in response to the November 22, 2024 and December 6, 2024, Zoning Clearance applications, stating in part:

“On November 22, 2024 and December 6, 2024, Santa Barbara County Planning and Development received four Zoning Clearance applications for pipeline ‘anomaly repair work’ to Lines 324 and 325a. These applications stated that they sought to permit anomaly repair work in the enclosed descriptions of work for case numbers 24ZCl-00090, 24ZCl-00091, 24ZCl-00095, and 24ZCl-00096. Sable’s position is that the Zoning Clearance process meets the requirements of the County’s Local Coastal Program because it is a means for the County to determine if the activities fall within an existing Coastal Development Permit or if a new Coastal Development Permit is required.

“The County conducted a detailed review of pipeline permitting history and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Planning and Development concludes that this pipeline 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 (EIR/EIS). The County previously exercised its authority under its Local Coastal Program and delegated Coastal Act authority in approving the permits and the requested anomaly repair work is within the scope of those approved permits. (Pub. Resources Code§ 30519.) The County’s assessment is consistent with the type of reviews conducted by the County, both inside and outside the Coastal Zone, on a regular basis to determine whether proposed development activities fall within the scope of existing permits. Planning and Development will be returning the Zoning Clearance applications to Sable without taking action on them. Alternatively, Sable can choose to withdraw the applications.

“This conclusion is related to the requested pipeline anomaly repair work in case numbers 24ZCl-00090, 24ZCl-00091, 24ZCl-00095, and 24ZCl-00096 and the information supplied with those applications and does not speak to permitting or jurisdiction on any other past or future work on or changes to the Pipeline and associated equipment.

“This is not a: 1) permit exemption; 2) Director determination on the meaning or applicability of the provisions of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance; 3) decision on an application for a Coastal Development Permit; or 4) any other ground set forth in Article II Section 35-182. Rather, this letter confirms that the requested anomaly repair work was contemplated, analyzed, and approved in the existing Final Development Plan, Major Conditional Use Permit, associated Coastal Development Permits and certified EIR/EIS. Thus, no further application to or action by the County is required. This conclusion is not appealable to the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, or Coastal Commission and it does not require a Notice of Final Action. (Article II §§ 35-182; 35-181.4.)” (AR 543-544.)

On February 14, 2025, Sable sent a letter to the Commission addressing the 2024 NOV and the October 4 Letter. (AR 282-299.) Among other things, the February 14 letter points to the County’s February 12 letter as confirming Sable’s position that the Anomaly Repair Work does not require any further authorization under the Coastal Act or the County’s LCP. (AR 295.)

On February 16, 2025, the Commission Executive Director sent a response to Sable, stating in part:

“My staff have reviewed your February 14, 2025 letter, in which, at page 4, you cite

Santa Barbara County (the ‘County’) as concluding that ‘no further authorization under the Coastal Act or LCP is required for Sable to proceed’ with the work you generally describe as ‘anomaly repair work’ along Las Flores Pipelines CA-324 and CA-325 (‘Pipeline’). Your letter suggests that Sable intends to proceed with this work, and we have received evidence suggesting that Sable may already be doing so, despite several conversations with Commission staff, Notice of Violation letters, and a previous Executive Director Cease and Desist Order (‘EDCDO’) directing Sable to seek Coastal Act authorization for the work already completed and to cease further work until it, too, is authorized by a new coastal development permit (‘CDP’), as described in greater detail below. Although your letter argues that the work has been pre-authorized, based on the information we have received to date, I do not agree.” (AR 13523.)

The February 16 letter further states:

“I am therefore informing you that if Sable does not immediately cease all unpermitted development activities, as described above, and comply with the requirement in the next paragraph, it may receive an Executive Director Cease and Desist Order (‘EDCDO’), the violation of which may subject Sable to additional fines and penalties. [¶] In order to avoid issuance of an EDCDO, you must confirm, in writing, by Monday, February 17, 2025, no later than 4pm, that Sable will cease all development of the sort described in this notice unless and until it either: (a) demonstrates, to my satisfaction and receives my written confirmation, that it already possesses the necessary Coastal Act authorization for the work, which Sable has not yet demonstrated; or (b) obtains a new, final, operative CDP or other valid Coastal Act authorization specifically covering the work at issue and complies with the terms of any final, validly issued CDPs.” (AR 13526.)

On February 17, 2025, the Commission, by Enforcement Counsel Stephanie Cook, sent a letter to the County expressing surprise and disappointment with the February 14 letter sent to Sable. (AR 1078.) The letter states that the Commission received notice that Sable was refusing to halt its operations. (Ibid.) The letter asks the County to initiate enforcement proceedings. (Ibid.) The letter concludes by stating that unless the Commission hears from the County by noon on February 18, the Commission will “assume that the County has declined to act and conclude that, in any event, the County has not taken action in a timely manner. And as such, we may issue our EDCDO.” (AR 1079.)

On February 18, 2025, the Commission’s Executive Director issued a second EDCDO (ED-25-CD-01), violation numbers V-9-25-0013 and V-9-24-0152. (AR 233-246.) This EDCDO included a notice of intent to commence cease and desist order, restoration order, and administrative order proceedings. (Ibid.)

After receiving the County’s letter, Sable resumed onshore Anomaly Repair Work. (AR 1748; Sable Opening Brief, at pp. 4-5.)

            (C)       Legal and Administrative Proceedings

On February 18, 2025, Sable filed its initial petition in this matter asserting four causes of action: (1) damages for inverse condemnation; (2) declaratory relief for impairment of vested rights; (3) declaratory relief for inverse condemnation; and (4) declaratory relief re Public Resources Code section 30803.

On March 10, 2025, submitted a Statement of Defense to the Commission. (AR 1740-10165.)

The Commission set the matter for a formal administrative adjudication and, on March 28, 2025 issued its staff report and recommendation. (AR 117-205.)

On April 10, 2025, the Commission held a public hearing on its proposed enforcement orders against Sable. (AR 12973-13227.) At this hearing, Sable presented its defense. (Ibid.) At the conclusion of the hearing, following deliberation among the Commissioners, the Commission voted to issue three orders (collectively, the April 10 Orders): Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-25-CD-01 (CDO); Restoration Order No. CCC-25-RO-01 (RO); and Administrative Penalty No. CCC-25-AP3-01 (AP). (AR 12497-12522.) The AP provided an administrative penalty of $18,022,500. (AR 12501.)

Also on April 10, 2025, the Commission filed a demurer to Sable’s original complaint in this Court.

On April 16, 2025, Sable filed its FAP. The FAP asserts six causes of action: (1) for writ of traditional mandamus, or alternatively for administrative mandamus; (2) for declaratory relief; (3) for inverse condemnation; (4) for declaratory relief for impairment of vested rights; (5) for declaratory relief for inverse condemnation; and (6) for declaratory relief under Public Resources Code section 30803. The first cause of action seeks issuance of a writ of mandate to set aside the NOVs, EDCDOs, and April 10 orders.

Also on April 16, 2025, the Commission filed a cross-complaint against Sable asserting two causes of action: (1) equitable relief to restrain violation of a cease and desist order; and (2) for declaratory relief.

On May 15, 2025, the Commission filed its first amended cross-complaint (FACC) asserting five causes of action: (1) equitable relief to restrain violation of a cease and desist order; (2) equitable relief to restrain violation of a restoration order; (3) equitable relief to restrain violation of an administrative civil penalty order; (4) for declaratory relief for Sable’s violation of CDO CCC-25-CD-01; and (5) for declaratory relief for Sable’s violation of RO CCC-25-RO-01.

On May 16, 2025, the Commission made a motion to bifurcate and separately try the writ of mandate claims before the non-writ claims. Also on May 16, the Commission filed its demurrer to the FAP.

On June 16, 2025, Sable filed its demurrer to the FACC.

On June 18, 2025, the Court sustained, without leave to amend, the Commission’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action of the FAP and otherwise overruled the demurrer.

On July 23, 2025, the Court overruled Sable’s demurrer to the FACC. The Court also granted the Commission’s motion to bifurcate. The Court set a briefing schedule for resolution of the writ claims on the administrative record.

The parties have lodged the administrative record with the Court. The parties have filed their respective briefs.

Analysis

(1)       Requests for Judicial Notice

In support of the petition, Sable requests that the Court take judicial notice of selected provisions of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance of the County. This request for judicial notice is granted. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (b), (c).)

In support of the petition in reply, Sable also requests that the Court take judicial notice of “the dictionary definition of ‘act.’ ” (Reply Request for Judicial Notice [RRJN], at p. 2.) The Court will take judicial notice of the fact that definition of “act” in exhibit 2 the RRJN appears at the website for merriam-webster.com. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) “When interpreting a statute, Courts ‘appropriately refer to the dictionary definition’ to ascertain the ordinary, usual meaning of a word.” (California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1445.) The Court may therefore appropriately consider that dictionary definitions in determining statutory meaning (as discussed below). However, judicial notice does not extend to determining that this specific definition of “act” applies in the relevant a statutory context.

(2)       Standards of Review

“Any aggrieved person shall have a right to judicial review of any decision or action of the commission by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in accordance with Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure ….” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30801.)

“Administrative mandamus [citation] provides for judicial review of an agency decision resulting from a proceeding in which ‘(1) by law a hearing is required to be given, (2) evidence is required to be taken, and (3) the determination of the facts is the responsibility of the administrative agency.’ [Citations.]” (Save Oxnard Shores v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 140, 148.)

Both parties agree that, notwithstanding that Sable’s first cause of action is stated in the alternative of a traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, the appropriate procedure and standards are for an administrative writ of mandate under section 1094.5. (Sable Notice of Motion, at p. 2; Sable Opening Brief, at p. 8; Commission Opposition Brief, at p. 8.)

“The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the Respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the Respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).)

“ ‘ “The general rule” ’ in [writ of administrative mandate] actions is that judicial review ‘ “is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency. [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] A reviewing Court may receive additional evidence only if that evidence ‘in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or ... was improperly excluded at the hearing before’ the administrative agency. [Citations.] Thus, in reviewing the Commission’s decision, Courts are ‘confined to the record before the Commission unless’ the Petitioner shows it ‘could not have produced’ the new evidence ‘in the exercise of reasonable diligence or unless relevant evidence was improperly excluded at the administrative hearing.’ [Citation.]” (Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 839, 863.)

The administrative record is reviewed “ ‘to determine whether the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Reddell v. California Coastal Com. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 956, 962 (Reddell).) “ ‘ “Courts may reverse an agency’s decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ibid., italics omitted.)

“It is presumed that an administrative agency regularly performed its duty, and the burden is on the party challenging the agency’s actions to prove an abuse of discretion.” (Save Laurel Way v. City of Redwood City (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1011.)

(3)       Arguments

Sable argues that the Commission abused its discretion in issuing the April 10 Orders because the County authorized Sable’s onshore repair work. In support of this argument Sable argues that the existing onshore CDPs encompass the onshore work, that the County’s determination is entitled to deference, and that the Commission lacks statutory authority to issue the CDO. Sable further argues that the OSFM compelled and approved Sable’s installation of safety valves. Sable further argues that the offshore repair work was fully authorized.

The Commission disagrees and disputes each of Sable’s arguments. Instead, the Commission argues that it was authorized to issue the April 10 Orders and that Sable engaged in unauthorized development in violation of the Coastal Act.

(4)       Coastal Act Requirements

Except as to emergencies not at issue here, “and in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, any person, as defined in Section 21066, wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, other than a facility subject to Section 25500, shall obtain a coastal development permit.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30600, subd. (a).)

“ ‘Development’ means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511). [¶] As used in this section, ‘structure’ includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30106.)

There is no essential dispute that Sable’s Anomaly Repair Work constitutes “development” within the meaning of the Coastal Act. The Anomaly Repair Work involves grading and other activities within the definition of “development.” There is therefore no essential dispute that performing such work requires a CDP. Sable argues both that the CDPs obtained in 1986 authorize the development activities under the Coastal Act and that the Commission does not have authority to issue the CDO based upon the development activities.

(5)       Commission Authority

“The Coastal Act ‘was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. The Legislature found that “the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; that “the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern”; that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone” and that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state....” ([Pub. Resources Code,] § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).)’ [Citation.] The Coastal Act is to be ‘liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.’ (Pub. Resources Code, § 30009.) Under it, with exceptions not applicable here, any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone must obtain a coastal development permit ‘in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency....’ (Id., § 30600, subd. (a).)” (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 793–794 (Pacific Palisades).)

“The Coastal Act expressly recognizes the need to ‘rely heavily’ on local government ‘[t]o achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility....’ (Pub. Resources Code, § 30004, subd. (a).) As relevant here, it requires local governments to develop local coastal programs, comprised of a land use plan and a set of implementing ordinances designed to promote the act’s objectives of protecting the coastline and its resources and of maximizing public access. (Id., §§ 30001.5, 30500–30526; [citation].) Once the California Coastal Commission certifies a local government’s program, and all implementing actions become effective, the commission delegates authority over coastal development permits to the local government. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30519, subd. (a), 30600.5, subds. (a), (b), (c).) Moreover, ‘[p]rior to certification of its local coastal program, a local government may, with respect to any development within its area of jurisdiction, ... establish procedures for the filing, processing, review, modification, approval, or denial of a coastal development permit.’ (Id., § 30600, subd. (b)(1).) An action taken under a locally issued permit is appealable to the commission. (Id., § 30603.) Thus, ‘[u]nder the Coastal Act’s legislative scheme, ... the [local coastal program] and the development permits issued by local agencies pursuant to the Coastal Act are not solely a matter of local law, but embody state policy.’ [Citation.] ‘In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government.’ [Citation.]” (Pacific Palisades, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 794.)

The County established a LCP at the time of the issuance of the 1986 CDPs. There is no essential dispute that the initial construction of the Pipelines were within the scope of the CDPs as issued.

Sable argues that the Commission has no authority to issue the CDO as to the onshore work because the County issued the applicable CDP and the County determined that the work was within the scope of the CDP. The Commission argues that it has authority to issue the EDCDOs and CDO because the County failed and refused to act to enforce the Coastal Act.

“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 any requirements of this division which are subject to the jurisdiction of the certified program or plan, under any of the following circumstances: [¶] … [¶] (2) The commission requests and the local government … declines to act, or does not take action in a timely manner, regarding an alleged violation which could cause significant damage to coastal resources. [¶] (3) The local government … is a party to the violation.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30809, subd. (a)(2), (3).)

“If the commission, after public hearing, determines that any person or governmental agency has undertaken, or is threatening to undertake, any activity that (1) requires a permit from the commission without securing a permit or (2) is inconsistent with any permit previously issued by the commission, the commission may issue an order directing that person or governmental agency to cease and desist. The order may also be issued to enforce any requirements of a certified local coastal program …, or any requirements of this division which are subject to the jurisdiction of the certified program or plan, under any of the following circumstances: [¶] … [¶] (2) The commission requests and the local government … declines to act, or does not take action in a timely manner, regarding an alleged violation which could cause significant damage to coastal resources. [¶] (3) The local government … is a party to the violation.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30810, subd. (a)(2), (3).)

The Commission twice requested that the County take enforcement to stop Sable’s construction activity. (AR 300-301, 1078-1079.) The County has taken no enforcement action. Instead, in its February 12 letter to Sable, the County staff took the position that no further application to or action by the County is required for Sable to do the Anomaly Repair Work. (AR 543-544.) The Commission points to the County’s February 12 letter as inaction to authorize its own action under sections 30809 and 30810. Sable points to the County’s February 12 letter as action by the County precluding Commission action under sections 30809 and 30810.

To resolve this dispute, it is necessary for the Court to interpret the language in sections 30809 and 30810 of “the local government … declines to act.” (Note: For ease of writing, the Court will refer only to section 30810. Because the language is identical and there is no apparent reason for interpreting this language different as between section 30809 and 30810, the same analysis applies to section 30809.)

“We will follow the Act’s plain meaning unless doing so would lead to absurd results the Legislature did not intend. [Citation.] If we cannot determine that meaning from the statutory language, we will defer to the Commission’s interpretation of the Act so long as it is not clearly erroneous. [Citation.] We may also examine legislative history [citation] and ‘consider the impact of an interpretation on public policy’ [citation]. But we can neither insert words into the Act that the Legislature omitted nor omit words the Legislature inserted [citation]; our job is not to rewrite statutes to conform to an assumed intent that does not appear from their language [citation].” (Wall v. California Coastal Commission (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 943, 953.)

However, “[w]e give no deference to the Coastal Commission’s determination in deciding whether its action exceeds the authority delegated to it by the Legislature.” (City of Malibu v. California Coastal Com. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 549, 560.)

Sable argues, citing a definition of “act” as “to give a decision,” that the County did act. This interpretation is not, however, consistent with the overall use of language in the statute.

“Pursuant to established principles, our first task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. In determining such intent, a Court must look first to the words of the statute themselves, giving to the language its usual, ordinary import and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided. The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent.” (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386–1387.)

The language of section 30810, subdivision (a)(2) is “The commission requests and the local government … declines to act, or does not take action in a timely manner, regarding an alleged violation which could cause significant damage to coastal resources.” The phrase “declines to act” exists in conjunction with the “commission requests” and both are modified by “regarding an alleged violation which could cause significant damage.” The phrase “declines to act” thus more naturally reads as a negative response to the Commission’s request for action. That is precisely what occurred here—the County, or at least a staff member acting for the County, declined to take enforcement action as requested by the Commission, instead finding that no further action was necessary.

The ostensible purpose of section 30810, subdivision (a) is to allow the Commission to act to stop significant damage to coastal resources, even where there is a LCP in place, where the local government does not act. It is reasonable to assume that if a local government is not acting to stop such potential damage after a request by the Commission, one reason why the local government does not act is because it disagrees with the Commission as to the need or wisdom to act. The statutory language and overall statutory purpose, however, is to protect coastal resources. Thus, under subdivision (a), if the Commission sees a violation and the local government does not, the Commission may issue a CDO.

Sable’s alternative interpretation is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. As Sable points out, the action by County here is not subject to appeal, within the County or to the Commission. (AR 9358.) Consequently, under this interpretation, if the County’s determination that no further authorization is required is legally wrong, the Commission has no authority to act to prevent the violation. The Commission’s apparent only avenue would be to seek a writ in civil Court to make the County act differently. That consequence is plainly contrary to the statutory language to allow the Commission to act on its own to protect coastal resources when the local government does not. It is, for the same reason, also inconsistent with subdivision (a)(3) that allows the Commission to issue a CDO, notwithstanding a LCP, where the local government itself is a party to the violation.

The Court finds that, under the facts presented in the AR here, the Commission had authority to issue the April 10 Orders.

(6)       Scope of 1986 CDPs

Sable’s next principal argument is that the Anomaly Repair Work was authorized by the 1986 CDPs issued by the County. The County’s February 12 letter addresses this issue by stating: “The County conducted a detailed review of pipeline permitting history and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Planning and Development concludes that this pipeline 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 (EIR/EIS).” (AR 543.)

This argument was rejected by the Commission in reaching its determination to issue the April 10 Orders. (See AR 6.)

The CDPs by their express terms authorize “[c]learing, grading and trenching activities for Celeron Pipeline Project as approved by 85-DP-66cz” and “[r]emainder of all construction activities for Celeron Pipeline Project as approved by 85-DP-66cz.” (AR 3891, 3894.) There is no essential dispute between the parties that the CDPs authorize not only the initial construction of the Pipelines but maintenance activities consistent with the continuing operation of the Pipelines. The parties do not point to anything in the AR to suggest that additional CDPs were required or expected for maintenance activities during the time of the continuous operation of the Pipelines. This is understanding is consistent with the EIR/EIS analysis which very generally addresses maintenance.

The circumstances at the time of the April 10 Orders, however, were markedly different from those contemplated by the CDPs as issued. One significant difference is that in 2015 there was an oil spill that shut down the operation of the Pipelines. The Anomaly Repair Work did not commence until 2024, with approximately nine years of hiatus. (AR 1748-1750.) Another significant difference is that the work in 2024 was significantly more intense than prior maintenance activities. The work done by Sable involved work at 121 sites done during a single year, rather than limited work done throughout nearly a decade.

The definition of “development” under Public Resources Code section 30106 includes “construction” and “reconstruction” of any “structure.” “Structure” is further defined to include a “pipe.” Because the definition of “development” expressly includes both “construction” and “reconstruction,” under ordinary principles of statutory construction, these terms are interpreted to mean different things. Thus, a permit that allows for “construction” would not in the ordinary sense also allow for “reconstruction.” And, indeed, the CDPs expressly permit “construction” without mention of “reconstruction.” The dictionary definition of “reconstruct” is sensible, including: “to construct again: as a (1): to build again: rebuild <~ing destroyed railroads> (2): to make over: repair <~ed the highways that needed it>.” (Webster’s 3d New Internat. Dict. (1986) p. 1897.) So “reconstruction” (the action of reconstructing (id., p. 1898)) includes concepts of both rebuilding and repair.

By including “reconstruction” as separate from “construction,” it is reasonable to conclude that at some point the extent of maintenance of a project would move from construction to reconstruction, where reconstruction would be a development requiring a CDP separate from the CDP authorizing construction. Whether specific to that part of the definition of “development” or more generally, these concepts provide an analytical framework to distinguish among permitted development as authorized by a CDP and unpermitted further development requiring a separate CDP.

As a starting point, it is useful to note that the EIR/ EIS projected a 30-year life of the project, although the actual life would depend on the availability of crude oil. (AR 2580.) This projected end of life is close to when the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill occurred. In that timeframe, work needed to keep the Pipeline operational would be expected to intensify and thus be more akin to “reconstruction” than mere maintenance. This is consistent with the record of what happened. According to Commission staff, the work done by Sable far exceeds the simple repair and maintenance as described by Sable:

“Sable has excavated and reinforced or replaced the line at more than 130 separate locations along its roughly 14-mile length in the Coastal Zone, in some extended stretches, leaving behind barely any in its original condition. In addition, the type of work being done, which includes permanent removal of the insulating layer on the outside of the line, which was a critical feature of the original design.” (AR 13000-13001.) “Based on information from Sable, it has excavated over 3.7 acres across its worksites in the Coastal Zone and an estimated 72,000 cubic yards of soil.” (AR 13001.) “Considering the additional area of habitat removal and disturbance for access roads and staging areas and stockpile areas for the worksites, the cumulative

impact of the work is significantly greater.” (AR 13002.)

This last point is also meaningful. Even it is assumed that the same repair and maintenance work that was actually done by Sable (or at the time of the CDO contemplated by Sable) would have ultimately have been required during continuous operation of the Pipelines, such work would have been accomplished under the CDP authorization over the course of approximately nine years. Doing all of that work in the space of a few months has a cumulative effect of a substantially increased intensity of use of the land that is more consistent with “reconstruction” than maintenance “construction.”

While there are some factual disputes regarding the scope and nature of the work performed by Sable (and, as of the time of the CDO, to have been performed by Sable), the Commission determined the extent of this work to exceed the scope of “construction” as authorized by the existing CDPs. This is a different conclusion than apparently reached by the County. This disagreement raises an issue about the extent to which deference is owed to either decision. (See Reddell, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th 956, 968, quoting Divers’ Environmental Conservation Organization v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 246, 252, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 497 [“ ‘... we must also defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation involving its area of expertise, unless the interpretation flies in the face of the clear language and purpose of the interpreted provision’ ”].)

As between the County’s position and the Commission’s position, the Commission’s position is more persuasive. The issue presented to each agency is the same. The Commission, in addition to its position as a state-wide agency responsible for Coastal Act issues, adopted its position by action of its Commissioners with a detailed staff report incorporated by reference. (AR 12493-12494.) The County’s February 12 letter is conclusory in its analysis, reflects the position of staff rather than a decisional body of the County, and contains express qualifications as to the limitations of it as a County decision. (AR 543-544.) Under these circumstances, to whatever extent deference is to be paid to these determinations, the Commission’s determination is entitled to greater deference.

As a consequence, applying these concepts to the instant situation, the scope of the activity is more consistent with “reconstruction” than with “construction.” The Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion that the work is beyond the scope of the 1986 CDPs. To whatever extent this is a legal determination, the Court agrees with the Commission’s characterization of such work as beyond the scope of the 1986 CDPs.

While the above discussion is focused on the Anomaly Repair Work, the same analysis and conclusion applies to both the installation of safety valves and the offshore repair work, as discussed below.

The Court concludes that Sable has not shown that the Commission was in error in determining that the prior CDPs did not authorize the work subject to the April 10 Orders. Put differently, under the standards applicable to administrative writs, Sable has not shown that its work was authorized under the Coastal Act.

(7)       OSFM Approval of Safety Valve Installation

Sable also argues that because the OSFM compelled and approved Sable’s installation of safety valves, that specific work is permitted by the existing CDPs. It is significant to note that the OSFM required operators to retrofit existing pipelines with “best available technology” (BAT), i.e., an automatic shutoff system, by April 1, 2023. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 19, § 2108, subd. (c).) The work subject to the April 10 Orders occurred in 2024 as part of the extensive work performed by Sable. For the same reasons discussed above, whether or not specific work could under different conditions been considered as within the scope of the existing CDPs, the Commission did not err in determining that the extensive work conducted by Sable was beyond the scope of the 1986 CDPs and hence unpermitted.

(8)       Offshore Work

Sable further argues that the Offshore Repair Work was fully authorized by the prior CDP. This argument is subject to the same analysis as discussed above. The offshore portion of the Pipelines was constructed under a CDP issued by the Commission (rather than the County) in 1988. (AR 61-62.) The Offshore Repair Work included within the unpermitted work identified in the April 10 Orders include the deployment and positioning of sand and concrete bags to provide structural support below section from which the seafloor had scoured or eroded. (AR 6.) As with the onshore work, there is a factual dispute between the parties as to the characterization of the work, among other things, as being within the scope of the 1988 CDPs. For the same reasons discussed above, whether or not specific work could under different conditions have been considered as within the scope of the existing CDPs, the Commission did not err in determining that the extensive work conducted by Sable was beyond the scope of the 1988 CDP and hence unpermitted.

(9)       Conclusion

As the above discussion demonstrates, the issue before the Court is not whether the specific work conducted by Sable was or is ultimately necessary or appropriate for pipeline safety. The issue before the Court is whether the Commission abused its discretion in issuing the April 10 Orders under the standards for review by petition for administrative writ of mandate.

Based on the foregoing analysis and a review of all of the arguments of the parties and the AR, the Court finds the Commission’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and that Sable has not met its burden to show an abuse of discretion by the Commission in issuing the April 10 Orders.

Accordingly, the petition for administrative mandate as set forth in the first cause of action of Sable’s FAP will be denied.