AB 98 adds a new Government Code section authorizing a targeted transfer of state-owned open-space parcels to the City of Moreno Valley so the city can perform wildfire mitigation and expand recreational access. The bill instructs state officials to convey state interests in the identified parcels to the city at no cost, subject to eligibility checks tied to fire hazard classification and proximity to critical infrastructure.
The measure matters because it moves control of specific state land into local hands to speed mitigation activities and improve local Public Protection Classification (ISO) ratings, while also exempting the parcels from the normal statutory procedures that govern surplus state and local real property. That combination accelerates local action but trims the transparency and market-recovery mechanisms usually applied to state land disposals.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Director of General Services to quitclaim state interests in a set of open-space parcels to the City of Moreno Valley at no cost, but only after satisfying tests in subdivision (d) that assess fire-hazard status, proximity to critical infrastructure, and local responsibility for fire suppression. It also carves those parcels out of specified surplus-property rules in state law.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Department of General Services (which must execute the quitclaims), the City of Moreno Valley (which will receive title and operational responsibility), local fire agencies that manage suppression in local responsibility areas, nearby residents and institutions located near the parcels, and state asset-management stakeholders.
Why It Matters
This is a narrowly tailored transfer that prioritizes local wildfire safety over usual state disposal procedures; it creates a pathway for cities to obtain state land for mitigation and recreation without payment or competitive surplus processes, and it signals a willingness by the Legislature to treat wildfire risk as a compelling public purpose for targeted conveyances.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 98 inserts Government Code Section 14673.13 to move eleven specified parcels of largely undeveloped open-space into municipal ownership so Moreno Valley can run wildfire mitigation and provide outdoor recreation. The bill lists each parcel by assessor’s parcel number (APN) and, in the amended text, includes acreage for each site (the largest parcel is APN 304‑020‑008 at roughly 695.29 acres).
The city's permitted uses are wildfire mitigation, improving public safety (including efforts to better its ISO rating), expanding open-space and recreational opportunities, and otherwise any similar use the city decides is necessary.
The transfer mechanism is a quitclaim executed by the Director of General Services. The director may only quitclaim a listed parcel after three eligibility conditions are met: the parcel lies within a "very high" fire hazard severity zone as identified under Section 51178; some portion of the parcel is within two miles of defined "critical infrastructure" (the bill lists residential housing, schools, water towers, power facilities, transportation systems, and public safety facilities); and the parcel is designated in a local responsibility area where the City of Moreno Valley has fire prevention and suppression responsibility.
The statute requires the conveyance be at no cost to the city and removes the parcels from certain surplus‑property statutes that normally govern disposal and local government acquisitions.The text includes findings that explain the policy intent: parcels are near schools, neighborhoods, a college campus and a fire station; some parcels were conveyed from the city to the state in the past and the original transferor supports returning them; and the city has committed to seeking the best Public Protection Classification through mitigation. The bill also contains two formal legislative declarations—one that a special statute is necessary for Moreno Valley under Article IV, Section 16, and another that the transfer serves a public purpose and does not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds under Article XVI, Section 6.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill names 11 specific parcels (APNs listed in the statute) and, in the amended version, attaches acreage figures — the largest is APN 304‑020‑008 at approximately 695.29 acres.
The Director of General Services may quitclaim a parcel only if it is in a "very high" fire hazard severity zone, is at least partly within two miles of defined critical infrastructure, and is in a local responsibility area for which Moreno Valley holds fire prevention and suppression responsibility (subdivision (d)).
AB 98 expressly exempts the listed parcels from Section 11011.1 and from Article 8 (beginning with Section 54220) of Chapter 5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 — statutes that otherwise govern surplus state and local real property disposals.
The city's authorized uses include wildfire mitigation, improving fire protection and ISO ratings, increasing open-space and recreational opportunities, and "any other similar use the City of Moreno Valley deems necessary," giving the city broad discretion over long-term use.
The Legislature declares the measure a special statute for Moreno Valley and affirms the conveyances serve a public purpose and do not constitute a gift of public funds, preempting a likely legal objection under the California Constitution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on fire risk, proximity, and prior conveyances
This opening section collects factual assertions the Legislature relied on: parcels lie in very high fire hazard zones, are identified as local responsibility areas, are near schools and a college, and lack regular maintenance. It also notes two parcels were once conveyed from the city to the state around 1989 and that parties connected to the original transfer support returning the land. Practically, these findings provide the factual predicate that the Legislature uses to justify a special, targeted transfer rather than relying on general surplus-asset procedures.
List of parcels, permitted municipal uses, and statutory exemptions
Subdivision (a) enumerates the identified APNs (the amended text includes acreage for each). Subdivision (b) defines the city’s permitted uses — wildfire mitigation, public-safety improvements, and recreation — and allows additional, similar municipal uses. Subdivision (c) removes the parcels from particular statutory disposal rules that would ordinarily apply to surplus state and local property, effectively streamlining the path to municipal ownership without the normal sale or transfer procedures.
Eligibility tests for quitclaim and definition of critical infrastructure
Subdivision (d) imposes three concrete preconditions the Director must verify before executing a quitclaim: (1) the parcel must lie in a very high fire hazard severity zone under State Fire Marshal mapping (Section 51178); (2) some part of the parcel must be within two miles of "critical infrastructure"; and (3) the parcel must be in a local responsibility area for which the City has suppression responsibility. Subdivision (e) specifies what counts as critical infrastructure (listing residential housing, schools, water towers, power facilities, transportation systems, and public safety facilities), which narrows the geographic scope of eligible parcels but also creates bright‑line criteria the Director must apply.
Legislative conclusions to preempt legal challenge
Section 3 declares that unique local conditions justify a special statute tailored to Moreno Valley (invoking Article IV, Section 16), and Section 4 asserts that transferring the parcels serves a public purpose and is not a prohibited gift of public funds (Article XVI, Section 6). These declarations are the Legislature’s attempt to reduce the risk of court challenges that would argue the transfer lacks a public purpose or improperly benefits a local government without constitutional authority.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents and property owners near the parcels — stand to gain reduced wildfire risk and potentially lower fire-related insurance premiums if the city's mitigation efforts improve ISO ratings and reduce structural exposure.
- City of Moreno Valley — receives control of substantial open-space acreage without purchase costs, allowing the city to implement mitigation, trails, and recreational projects and to prioritize municipal planning and maintenance.
- Local fire agencies and first responders — will get sites where mitigation and inspections can be performed consistently to reduce suppression burdens and improve access and defensible space near critical infrastructure.
- Schools and nearby institutions — benefit indirectly because the bill targets parcels that the Legislature identifies as proximate to educational facilities, aiming to reduce risk to those campuses.
Who Bears the Cost
- State of California — parts with title and future optional revenue from those parcels; the transfer reduces the state’s asset base and forgoes any proceeds that might otherwise come from a surplus sale.
- City of Moreno Valley — inherits ongoing maintenance, mitigation, and liability costs for large tracts (hundreds of acres in some cases), as well as the capital and operating expense of trail development and public access management.
- Department of General Services — must perform eligibility checks, complete title work and conveyance paperwork, and may absorb administrative costs not appropriated elsewhere.
- Local taxpayers — may indirectly fund mitigation, maintenance, or recreational improvements through city budgets, bonds, or redirected revenue if the city lacks dedicated funding streams.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is simple and acute: transfer state land now to expedite local wildfire mitigation and public safety improvements, or preserve the state's asset-management and surplus‑sale safeguards that protect public revenues and ensure transparent allocation of public land. AB 98 prioritizes immediate local control and risk reduction at the cost of foregoing standard disposal procedures and the financial and oversight protections those procedures provide.
The bill accelerates a local fix to a clear public-safety problem, but it raises implementation and policy questions that the text does not fully resolve. Key among them is the absence of required reporting, timelines, or benchmarks: the statute tells DGS when it may transfer but does not require the city to file a mitigation plan, provide periodic updates on ISO improvements, or dedicate particular funding for long‑term maintenance.
That gap makes enforcement of the legislative purpose harder to monitor and leaves open the possibility that conveyed land could be used in ways the Legislature did not anticipate.
The statutory exemptions cut out surplus‑property procedures that otherwise demand transparency and sometimes competitive sales or offers to other public entities. Removing those processes reduces transaction friction but also eliminates opportunities to capture sale value for the state or to surface alternative public uses.
The legislation’s blanket "any other similar use" language gives the city broad discretion over use and may complicate future accountability. Finally, while the Legislature asserts the transfer is not a gift of public funds, courts will examine whether the connection between the conveyance and a demonstrable public benefit is strong enough to sustain that claim; the measure builds a record but does not create post-transfer safeguards to ensure the continuing public purpose.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.