Court of appeal affirms Coastal Commission’s authority to issue cease and desist order where county declined to take enforcement action
The California Coastal Commission had authority under Public Resources Code section 30810 (a)(2) to issue a cease and desist order against a pipeline operator conducting repair work in the coastal zone because the local agency “declined to act” within the meaning of the statute when it returned the operator’s permit applications without taking action and determined no new permits were required. A local agency’s decision that no new permit is required is not the type of “action” that precludes the Commission from exercising its enforcement authority. Sable Offshore Corp. v. California Coastal Com, 121 Cal.App.5th 152 (2026).
Sable Offshore Corp. owns the Las Flores Pipelines in Santa Barbara County, which are designed to transport crude oil. The pipelines were originally approved in 1986 under the County’s certified local coastal program and remained in service until the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill. In 2024, Sable acquired the pipelines and began conducting repair and maintenance activities within the unincorporated County and the coastal zone.
The Commission issued a Notice of Violation and an Executive Director Cease and Desist Order under section 30809, directing Sable to apply to the County for a coastal development permit. Sable applied to the County for zoning clearance, but the County concluded that existing permits already authorized the work and returned the applications “without taking action on them.” After requesting the County to take enforcement action, which the County declined to do, the Commission issued another cease and desist order under section 30810, a restoration order, and an administrative penalty. Sable filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief; the Commission cross-complained and obtained a preliminary injunction.
On appeal, Sable principally contended that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the cease and desist order under section 30810(a)(2), which authorizes the Commission to act when it “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.” Sable argued that the County did act—by determining that its repair work was authorized under the existing 1986 permits and communicating that determination to the Commission.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the County’s conduct constituted declining to act, not taking action. The court reasoned that the statute distinguishes “declin[ing] to act” from “not tak[ing] action in a timely manner,” implicitly recognizing that certain affirmative conduct—such as communication with the Commission and internal review—is inherent even in declining to act. But such conduct cannot itself prevent the Commission from issuing a cease and desist order, or else the statute would be “self-negating”: simply by virtue of declining to act, a county would have acted, rendering the provision inapplicable. The court further noted that section 30802 uses the phrase “decision or action,” indicating that a decision and an action are not equivalent concepts under the Coastal Act.
The court also reviewed the legislative history of section 30810. When originally enacted in 1991, the statute only allowed the Commission to issue cease and desist orders relating to Commission permits or upon local agency request. In 1993, the Legislature added subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3) to expand the Commission’s authority, specifically to allow it to act “even when the Commission and local agency are at odds.” Based on this history, the court concluded that “the Legislature could not have intended for the Commission’s enforcement authority to be thwarted by communication from an objecting county.”
The court therefore rejected Sable’s jurisdictional challenge and affirmed the preliminary injunction. Justice Yegan dissented, arguing that the County did “act” by reviewing the matter and determining that the 1986 permit—which included comprehensive maintenance and repair provisions—already authorized Sable’s work and that the Commission lacked authority to override the County’s determination.
***
The decision provides an important clarification of the Coastal Commission’s enforcement authority when a local government administers a certified local coastal program. Under Sable, a local agency “declines to act” within the meaning of section 30810 when, in response to a Commission request for enforcement, it determines that existing permits authorize the challenged activity and therefore takes no further permitting or enforcement action. The decision thus allows the Commission to exercise its independent enforcement authority even when the local agency has considered the matter and concluded that no violation exists.
