Eminent Domain Law: conservation easement.
Summary
Existing law authorizes various agencies to acquire land for purposes related to conservation. Existing law provides for a conservation easement to retain land predominantly in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition. Existing law establishes procedures for the independent appraisal review of land to be acquired for conservation and establishes a conservation easement registry. Existing law prohibits, with a specified exception, the sale of conservation lands to another owner or the transfer of possession and control of conservation lands to another agency, unless specified actions occur. The California Constitution permits private property to be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation is paid. The Eminent Domain Law prescribes how that constitutionally authorized power may be exercised and permits that exercise only for a public use. Existing law prohibits a public entity from commencing an eminent domain proceeding until its governing body has adopted a resolution of necessity that meets specified requirements. This bill would revise the Eminent Domain Law to establish requirements for acquisition of property subject to a conservation easement. The bill would require the person seeking to acquire the property to give the holder of the conservation easement a notice containing specified information and an opportunity to comment on the acquisition. The bill would require the holder of the conservation easement to provide notice, under certain circumstances and as specified, of the proposed acquisition to each public entity that helped fund the purchase of the conservation easement or that imposed conditions on approval or permitting of a project that were satisfied, in whole or in part, by the conservation easement, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a person seeking to acquire the property subject to the conservation easement to respond to any comments in writing and provide by first-class mail the response to each easement holder or public entity that filed comments. The bill would require the notice of the hearing on the resolution of necessity to be sent to any holder of the conservation easement and public entity, as specified, and to contain information regarding the effect of failing to file a written request to appear and be heard. The bill would require that a resolution of necessity to acquire property subject to the conservation easement refer to specific authority for the acquisition of the property. The bill would specify that the holder of the conservation easement is entitled to compensation under the Eminent Domain Law, as specified. To the extent that this bill would impose new duties on a local governmental entity, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2009
Senate Passage
Jun 2009
Assembly Passage
Sep 2009
Vetoed
Oct 2009
Introduced Feb 27, 2009
Vetoed Oct 11, 2009
Floor votes · Senate Jun 2, 2009 · Assembly Sep 8, 2009
How they voted
22–13
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 38
Jun 2, 2009
D
Democratic24
87% Yea
R
Republican14
85% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
36
Key actions
7
Committee
6
Amendments
2
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
In Senate. To unfinished business. (Veto)
upper
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
upper
Sep 10, 2009
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 27. Noes 11. Page 2389.) To enrollment.
upper
Sep 8, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (42-23-4)
assembly
Aug 20, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on August 19.)
lower
Aug 20, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.)
lower
Jun 30, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 30.)
lower
Jun 30, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 2, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (22-13-3)
senate
May 19, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Apr 28, 2009
Committee
Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 27, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 586.)
upper
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
CK
Christine Kehoe
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 555
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 555. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline