An act to amend Sections 65658.1 and 65658.5 of the Government Code, relating to housing.
AB 2288 would amend California’s Office to Housing Conversion Act to narrow and clarify where adaptive reuse projects may be pursued. The bill keeps the existing framework that deems qualifying adaptive reuse projects a use by right and subject to streamlined, ministerial local review, but it changes the exclusion for industrial sites. Instead of excluding projects based on being in an industrial zone that does not allow residential uses, the bill would exclude buildings whose primary existing use is classified as a high-hazard (Group H) occupancy under the California Building Code as of January 1, 2025. It also makes the same change in the definition of “adaptive reuse project,” so those high-hazard buildings would not qualify for the program at all.
The bill leaves intact the broader eligibility rules for adaptive reuse projects, including location in urbanized areas, adjacency to urban uses, affordability requirements for rental and ownership housing, environmental review steps, limits on site size, and restrictions on altering existing building envelopes. It also preserves the existing treatment of parking, density bonuses, rooftop structures, and historic-resource protections. In practical terms, AB 2288 would expand the pool of buildings that can be considered for adaptive reuse by replacing a zoning-based exclusion with a use-based safety exclusion, while still maintaining the program’s ministerial approval structure and affordability obligations.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to revise Government Code Sections 65658.1 and 65658.5, which govern adaptive reuse under the Office to Housing Conversion Act. It would alter the set of properties eligible for streamlined housing conversion and would affect local governments by requiring them to apply the new exclusion when reviewing adaptive reuse proposals. The bill also declares that it creates a state-mandated local program but states that no reimbursement is required, meaning local agencies would absorb any implementation costs under the bill’s reimbursement finding.
Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented public debate in the materials about support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a technical and safety-oriented refinement rather than a major policy shift: it preserves the state’s pro-housing adaptive reuse framework while excluding high-hazard industrial occupancies from conversion eligibility. The absence of recorded votes or hearing comments means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the supplied record, but the introduced language suggests a neutral-to-supportive housing facilitation approach with a targeted safety limitation.
The main point of possible contention is the scope of the new exclusion. Supporters would likely view the change as a clearer and more safety-focused standard that avoids converting buildings with hazardous primary uses, while opponents or affected property owners could argue that the bill may remove some industrial properties from the adaptive reuse pipeline and reduce redevelopment flexibility. Another potential issue is whether the shift from zoning-based to occupancy-based exclusion could create interpretive questions for local planners and developers about which buildings are covered by the Group H classification.
AB 2288 would amend Government Code Sections 65658.1 and 65658.5 to change the eligibility rules for adaptive reuse projects under the Office to Housing Conversion Act. The bill would replace the current exclusion for buildings in industrial zones that do not permit residential uses with an exclusion for sites whose existing primary use is a high-hazard (Group H) occupancy under the California Building Code as of January 1, 2025. This would affect which buildings can qualify for use-by-right, ministerial review as adaptive reuse projects, while leaving the rest of the program’s affordability, environmental, and design requirements largely unchanged. Local governments would need to apply the revised exclusion when processing adaptive reuse applications, and the bill specifies that no state reimbursement is required for any mandated local costs.
No committee testimony or vote history is included in the provided materials, so there is no direct record of support or opposition. The bill text itself suggests a generally pro-housing posture, because it preserves streamlined approval for qualifying adaptive reuse projects and expands the program by refining the exclusion to focus on high-hazard occupancies rather than zoning alone. At the same time, the bill introduces a safety-based limitation that indicates concern about converting certain industrial or hazardous buildings into housing. Overall, the available record points to a technical, targeted measure rather than a highly polarized one.
The likely point of contention is the new exclusion for high-hazard (Group H) occupancies. Supporters would likely argue that the bill appropriately protects public safety while preserving adaptive reuse for suitable buildings, whereas critics could contend that the change narrows redevelopment opportunities for industrial properties that might otherwise be converted. There may also be debate over whether the occupancy-based standard is clearer or more difficult for local agencies to administer than the current industrial-zone-based rule. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is provided, no specific legislator, committee member, or stakeholder position can be identified from the supplied materials.