AB 1353 directs the Department of General Services (DGS) to audit utilization of state office buildings at the suite, floor, and building levels starting January 1, 2027 and annually thereafter, then consolidate agency-occupied space where possible. The statute requires consolidation without reducing the total number of employees in the DGS and commands that any space made available by consolidation be reserved for the University of California, California State University, and the California Community Colleges.
The bill repackages a push to reduce the state’s office footprint around remote-work trends into an enforceable, DGS-led process and steers any recovered real estate toward higher-education use rather than direct conversion to market-rate or affordable housing. For facility managers, campus planners, and agency executives, the law creates a central decision-maker (DGS) with new authority to reassign interior space — and raises immediate questions about funding, retrofit standards, and collective-bargaining implications.
At a Glance
What It Does
By January 1, 2027 and annually after, DGS must audit suite-, floor-, and building-level utilization of state office buildings to identify consolidation opportunities. The department must carry out consolidations identified by the audit without reducing the total number of employees within the department and reserve any freed space for UC, CSU, and California Community Colleges.
Who It Affects
The requirement directly affects the Department of General Services, state agencies that occupy office buildings, facility and real estate managers, and campus planners at UC, CSU, and community colleges who may receive state-owned space. Indirectly it affects unions, state employees, and local governments that coordinate with campus expansions.
Why It Matters
The bill centralizes authority over underused state office space and creates a formal path to repurpose that inventory for higher education — shifting the default use away from private development or housing conversions and into institutional campus expansion. That changes the calculus for state real-estate asset managers and for any stakeholders counting on surplus state property for housing or commercial reuse.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1353 creates a recurring, DGS-led process to screen state office buildings for underutilized space and to reclaim square footage through consolidation. The statute defines the audit unit at three scales — suites, floors, and entire buildings — so DGS must look at both micro-level layouts and macro occupancy patterns rather than relying on building-level vacancy rates alone.
Audits begin no later than January 1, 2027 and repeat annually, giving the department an ongoing obligation to monitor utilization as workplace patterns evolve.
When an audit identifies consolidation opportunities, DGS is empowered and required to implement consolidations at the suite, floor, or building level. The law contains a specific constraint: consolidations cannot reduce the "total number of employees within the department," which effectively requires densification of workspace rather than headcount reductions.
That language places the burden on agencies and DGS to change spatial standards, move teams, or reconfigure interiors so the same staffing levels fit into a smaller footprint.The bill imposes a use directive for any space freed by consolidation: DGS must reserve it for the University of California, California State University, and the California Community Colleges. The statute does not create a timeline, funding mechanism, or transfer process for turning reserved space into active classroom, lab, or student-facility uses — nor does it mandate conversion to residential (affordable housing) despite the bill’s introductory findings about housing potential.
Separately, the bill makes nonsubstantive edits to an existing list of affordable-housing reforms in Government Code section 65582.1 but does not change substantive housing law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Deadline and cadence: DGS must complete its first utilization audit by January 1, 2027 and repeat that audit annually.
Audit granularity: The required audit examines utilization at the suite-level, floor-level, and building-level to identify consolidation opportunities.
Consolidation constraint: DGS must consolidate space without reducing the total number of employees within the Department of General Services, effectively requiring workspace densification.
Priority use: Any space made available through consolidation must be reserved for the University of California, California State University, and the California Community Colleges.
Technical amendment: The bill also amends Government Code section 65582.1 in a nonsubstantive way to update a list of reforms and incentives related to housing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings framing the problem
This subsection sets out three findings: the state owns excess land potentially useful for housing or other uses; DGS has previously sought to convert properties to housing but changing remote-work patterns require maximizing utilization of buildings that are not candidates for disposal; and the Legislature wants an expedited response. These findings justify the audit-and-consolidate approach but do not impose additional operational requirements.
Mandatory utilization audits (scope and timing)
Subdivision (c) requires DGS to perform an audit by January 1, 2027 and annually thereafter. The audit must assess utilization at three scales — suite, floor, and building — which obligates DGS to collect interior occupancy and layout data, not just building-level vacancy. Practically, DGS will need metrics (e.g., workstation counts, headcount-to-desk ratios, occupancy sensors or schedule data) and a repeatable methodology to satisfy this mandate on an annual cycle.
Authority and duty to consolidate
Subdivision (d) both authorizes and requires DGS to consolidate office space in accordance with audit findings. That dual phrasing means DGS cannot treat consolidation as discretionary where audits identify opportunities; it has a legal obligation to implement consolidations. The provision gives DGS operational authority to rearrange tenancy at the suite, floor, and building level, but it does not specify dispute-resolution steps, approval thresholds, or funding for moves and retrofits.
Reservation of recovered space for higher education and nonsubstantive housing-code edits
Subdivision (e) requires DGS to reserve any space made available by consolidation for UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges, establishing a clear institutional priority. Separately, the bill amends Government Code section 65582.1 to update a list of housing reforms and incentives; the text describes those edits as nonsubstantive, meaning they rearrange or clarify the existing list without changing substantive housing policy.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges — Gain prioritized access to state-owned space that can be used for classrooms, offices, or other campus needs, reducing reliance on new construction or costly off-campus leases.
- Department of General Services — Acquires explicit statutory authority and a mandate to reclaim and consolidate underused state office space, centralizing real-estate decision-making and potentially improving portfolio efficiency.
- State taxpayers — Potential long-term savings if consolidation reduces leased square footage and lowers operational costs, assuming consolidations are implemented cost-effectively.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of General Services — Will absorb the administrative, analytical, and project-management costs of recurring audits and consolidations, including staff time, data systems, and potential capital outlays for reconfiguration.
- State agencies occupying office buildings — Face relocation, retrofit, and densification costs and operational disruption as they are required to fit existing headcount into smaller footprints without headcount reduction.
- UC, CSU, and community colleges — Although they receive reserved space, campuses will likely bear capital and operating costs to retrofit state office interiors for academic use, and may need to compete internally for state-provided inventory.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between reclaiming underused state office space to serve pressing public needs and the bill’s decision to channel recovered space specifically to higher education rather than to housing: the state must choose whether to prioritize campus expansion and institutional uses or to convert assets into affordable housing and other community needs, all while balancing operational impacts on employees and the practical costs of consolidation.
The bill creates a clean statutory pipeline for identifying and reclaiming underutilized state office space, but it leaves critical implementation details undefined. It prescribes neither a detailed audit methodology nor specific utilization standards, forcing DGS to design metrics (e.g., desks-per-employee, hoteling policies, or sensor thresholds) that will materially shape outcomes.
The law also lacks funding language: DGS must conduct audits and effect physical consolidations without a built-in appropriation or capital-improvement authority, creating a practical mismatch between legal obligation and available resources.
Another unresolved issue is the treatment of existing leases, tenant-improvement agreements, and collective-bargaining obligations. Many state-occupied buildings are subject to long-term lease terms or contain tenant improvements financed under agency budgets; the bill does not specify how DGS will address lease liabilities or reimburse agencies for retrofit or relocation costs.
Crucially, the statute reserves freed space for higher-education systems rather than for housing or community uses, which may frustrate stakeholders who expected the recovered inventory to advance affordable-housing goals mentioned in the findings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.