The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act,[2] officially California Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), is a 2025 California law that legalizes the construction of multi-story multi-family housing within a half-mile of public transit stations by preempting local government control of land zoning in the intervening area.
SB 79 and preceding bills have been authored by state senator Scott Wiener and have been sponsored by California YIMBY, a pro-housing lobbying group,[3][4] while they have been opposed by local governments, anti-gentrification activists, and suburban homeowners. The bills are written in support of transit-oriented development in response to an ongoing housing affordability crisis in California's largest urban areas.[5]
Wiener first introduced the bill in January 2018 as Senate Bill 827 (SB 827), which would have applied to areas within one-half-mile (0.8km) of frequent transit corridors, including rail stations and bus routes, as well as jobs centers. SB 827 failed to advance from the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in April 2018, effectively killing it.[6] In 2019 and 2020, Senator Wiener attempted to pass California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), a revised successor to SB 827, multiple times both in committee and on the senate floor, culminating in an unsuccessful floor vote on January 31, 2020, which resulted in the bill's demise.[7] A light-touch version, Senate Bill 902 (SB 902), passed the Senate in 2020 but died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 79 was introduced by Wiener in the 2025 session, where it passed in both houses.
The 2021 California HOME Act (drafted by Wiener) and 2022 AB 2097 (drafted by Laura Friedman), both signed into law by Newsom, accomplished some of the same aims as SB 827 and SB 50, by allowing lot splits of single-family houses up to four units per lot (regardless of single-family zoning) as well as banning parking minimums within a half-mile of transit stops, respectively.[8][9]
On October 10, 2025, SB 79 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom and is set to take effect on July 1, 2026.[10]
Background
Multi-story apartment building designated for affordable housing in downtown San Jose.
California housing costs are among the most unaffordable in the United States. In 2018, the median San Jose home cost 10 times the median household income; Los Angeles homes cost 9.5 times; San Francisco homes cost 8.9 times; San Diego homes cost 8.1 times.[11] California is the most expensive state to rent in, in the United States.[12]
California has had a housing shortage since 1970 and ranks 49th among 50 states for housing units per capita.[13] The problem has worsened following the Great Recession as housing development fell to 40,000 units in 2009 and has not reached pre-recession levels.[14] California needs approximately 180,000 units per year to match current growth.[13] Slow housing development combined with high housing demand has increased housing costs in every city in California.
The state’s high rent prices have translated into increased homelessness, more households spending half their income on housing, and an exodus of low and middle income households leaving to states with lower cost of living.[15] The housing shortage negatively impacts the Economy of California.
Multiple state (and, in some cases, local) laws have been enacted since 1980 to reduce the shortage, with a greater number of reforms being passed since 2017: some reduced the fees and bureaucracy involved in creating ADUs, lot splits and duplexes, while others have added fees to real-estate document recording to finance low-income housing; others required localities to allow higher density development closer to public transit.[16]
In 2008, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 375, which encourages transit-oriented development to reduce vehicle miles travelled in the state and to address climate change. The bill was created to help achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals of the 2006 bill Assembly Bill 32.
Existing state law grants the authority for local zoning from the police power in Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, giving cities and counties local discretion in controlling land use.[17] Localities have exercised these zoning powers in residential areas in various ways; while land in California cities has been historically limited to low density housing (by being zoned for single-family homes[18] and since 2016, single-family homes and up to a 1,200 square foot secondary unit), city and county governments can allow higher density zoning, if they choose. For example, in 2018, the LA County Metro Board of Directors created the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program after the passage of Measure JJJ in November 2016, which allows for land zoned for commercial development near transit stations to be developed into residential housing, with between 11 and 27 percent of units required to be reserved for affordable housing.[19]
An act to amend Section 65589.5 of, to add Sections 65913.5 and 65913.6 to, and to add Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section 65918.50) to Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, relating to housing.
Planning and zoning: housing development: streamlined approval: incentives. ("More HOMES (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, Equity, Stability) Act")
Passed by the Senate June 3, 2025 (21–13–6); Passed by the Assembly September 11, 2025 (43–19–18); Senate concurred with Assembly amendments September 12, 2025 (21–8–11); signed into law October 10, 2025.
Senator Wiener, representing San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 827 on the first day of the 2018 legislative session.[3] Wiener had previously authored Senate Bill 35, a bill to streamline the approval process for residential projects, which was passed by the legislature in 2017.[20]
Under SB 827, cities in California would have been required to permit residential buildings of up to 45 to 55 feet (14 to 17m) in "transit rich" areas near train stations and bus stops.[21] The bill would have also eliminated minimum requirements for parking and prohibited local design requirements that would lower the amount of space in a new development.[22] The bill would have affected roughly 50 percent of single-family homes in Los Angeles and 96 percent of land in San Francisco.[23][24]
A similar bill, Senate Bill 828, was introduced by Wiener to amend market-rate housing requirements for local governments and avoided much of the controversy that affected SB 827.[25] Another bill, Assembly Bill 2923, was announced in March 2018 and would require the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (serving the San Francisco Bay Area) to adopt zoning standards that would be accepted by cities and local jurisdictions.[26]
The first revisions to the bill were made in late February, adding pro-tenant provisions to prevent demolition of existing housing and other protections.[4] In April 2018, the bill was amended to reduce the maximum height in "transit rich" areas to approximately four to five stories and remove bus stops with non-frequent service outside of peak periods.[27] The bill was brought to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in April, where it was rejected by a vote of 6–4.[28]
Senate Bill 50 (2019-2020)
2019
Senator Wiener announced that he intended to introduce an updated version of the bill with a new number, 50, in the 2019 legislative session, and described the bill as the "More HOMES (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, Equity, Stability) Act".[29] Senate Bill 50 had the same sponsors as Senate Bill 827.[30]
Wiener added amendments that exempted counties with populations under 600,000 from transit rezoning provisions in a compromise with Marin County senator Mike McGuire. The final bill required similar rezoning near transit, four-plex zoning statewide, and additional rezoning in "jobs-rich" areas.[31]
In May 2019, Anthony Portantino, chair of the senate appropriations committee, made Senate Bill 50 into a two-year bill with a pocket veto, meaning it would not be eligible for consideration again until the 2020 legislative session.[32]
2020
Senator Wiener reintroduced Senate Bill 50 in January 2020 with additional amendments that gave cities the ability to opt out of its rezoning provisions providing they built the state-mandated amount of housing.[33]
Senator Portantino, who had blocked the bill in 2019, objected to not being consulted about amendments to the bill and said Wiener did not adopt suggestions from an alternative blueprint developed by a coalition of Southern California governments.[34]Toni Atkins, president pro tempore of the senate, used parliamentary powers to maneuver the bill out of Senator Portantino's committee to prevent it from being blocked from appearing on the senate floor again.[35]
Following debate in the senate, Senate Bill 50 was defeated on January 31, 2020, after multiple vote attempts garnered at most 18 votes, three shy of the 21 needed to pass into the state assembly. Six senators were absent or abstained from voting.[7][36]
SB 902 (2020)
After the failure of SB 50, Scott Wiener proposed SB 902, a lighter-touch version of SB 50 which would allow the construction of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes by right.[37] The bill would have required approval of 2 to 4 unit apartment buildings on single-family lots, depending on a city's size.[38] The bill was passed in the Senate on June 23, 2020, but died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 79 (2025)
In January 2025, Wiener introduced SB 79, dubbed as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which would require the upzoning of housing within distance of rail and rapid bus stations, allowing for the construction of housing between four and nine stories tall and for developers of such properties to take advantage of existing permit streamlining and density bonus laws.[39][2]
Passage
State Assembly vote
State Senate concurrence vote
California State Assembly vote and State Senate concurrence vote on SB 79 by district and party.
Democratic AYE
Republican AYE
Democratic NO
Republican NO
Democratic Not Voting
Republican Not Voting
The bill was passed in both Senate committees on Housing, chaired by Aisha Wahab, and Local Government, chaired by María Elena Durazo, with one-vote majorities despite the opposition of the committee chairs. Wiener personally contacted Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire to allow members on both committees to vote against the recommendations of both chairs, an act known as "rolling the chair".[40][41] On May 23, the bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee by one vote, with the support of chair Anna Caballero. The Senate voted 21–13–6 in favor of the bill on June 3, 2025, sending the bill to the Assembly for consideration.[42][43]
The bill was passed by the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development 9–1 on July 2, 2025, and by the Assembly Committee on Local Government 6–1 on July 16, 2025. The bill was passed on August 29 by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in an 8-6-1 vote, and was passed on September 11 by the Assembly in a 43-19-18 vote.[44] Significant amendments to the bill were made in the Assembly to reduce opposition from labor activists, tenant organizations and municipal governments.[40] In both houses, both support and opposition crossed party lines, with opposition or abstention emanating most from legislators representing districts in Southern California.
The State Senate then concurred with the amended bill on September 12, the final day of session, in a 21-8-11 vote, with Senators Wahab and Durazo having switched their initial opposition to support following amendments providing protections for tenants.[45] The bill was sent to Newsom for his signature.. Unlike his public support and early signature for AB 130 and SB 131, Newsom did not previously indicate whether he would sign SB 79 or other housing bills passed by the Legislature. Newsom signed SB 79 into law on October 10, 2025, with his signing statement rejecting claims that the bill would impair the ability of residents to rebuild or repair homes impacted by the January 2025 Southern California wildfires.[46]
Provisions
Millbrae station (BART and Caltrain intermodal station, photo taken July 2018), an example of a "Tier 1" station near which SB 79-eligible housing could potentially be built.
The law allows eligibility for SB 423 streamlining for affordable housing projects and adopts SB 423's requirement to hire skilled and trained workers for SB 79 project which is higher than 85 feet in height. In addition, SB 79 projects constructed on transit agency-owned land have the option to either hire unionized workers or enter into a direct contract with labor unions. Finally, the law excludes hotel development projects from its provisions.[47]
Map of counties of California which are deemed urban transit counties under California Senate Bill 79 (2025).
The law applies only to jurisdictions within designated "urban transit counties" (UTC) which contain 16 or more rail stations, currently Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, Santa Clara, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo. Initially inclusive of 15 or more rail stations, the threshold was raised by amendment to 16 rail stations to exclude Contra Costa, Sonoma and Marin, which were initially included, based on arguments by local officials that the bill would increase density along fire evacuation zones and put residents at risk.[49] In addition, within urban transit counties, SB 79 is applied in full to projects within cities of 35,000 in population, while SB 79 projects within cities of less than 35,000 in population shall only be built within 1/4 of a mile of an eligible station.[50]
The law creates two tiers of jurisdictions, with SB 79-eligible housing being eligible for certain height limits depending on distance of the nearby type of transit station:
Tier 1 jurisdictions (heavy rail OR 72+ trains daily, including BART, LA MetroB/D Lines, Caltrain): 9 stories within 200 feet of the station, 7 stories within 1/4 mile, 6 stories between 1/4 and 1/2 mile;
Tier 2 (light rail OR 48+ trains daily OR dedicated bus lanes, including Muni Metro, LA Metro A/C/E/K Lines, VTA Light Rail, Orange Line BRT, MTS Trolley): 8 stories within 200 feet of the station, 6 stories within 1/4 mile, 5 stories between 1/4 and 1/2 mile.
One-quarter to one-half mile in a city with a population of at least 35,000
6
65 feet
100
3.0
Tier 2
light rail OR 48+ trains daily OR dedicated bus lanes (including Muni Metro, LA Metro A/C/E/K Lines, VTA Light Rail, Orange Line BRT, MTS Trolley)
200 feet
8
85 feet
140
4.0
One-quarter mile
6
65 feet
100
3.0
One-quarter to one-half mile in a city with a population of at least 35,000
5
55 feet
80
2.5
Two other proposed tiers were removed in committee by amendment in early September 2025:
Tier 3, within urban transit counties, which cover 24+ trains daily or ferry (i.e., COASTER, Metrolink (mostly), SF/Oakland ferries, Capitol Corridor) and would have allowed for lower height limits (up to 7 stories within 200 feet of the station, 5 stories within 1/4 mile, 4 stories between 1/4 and 1/2 mile);
Tier 4, which would have applied outside of urban transit counties within distance of any rail service (heavy, light, commuter with 24+ trains daily) or ferry (7 stories within 200 feet of the station, 5 stories within 1/4 mile, or locally authorized limit between 1/4 and 1/2 mile).[51]
Density bonuses are applied to the distance of a project adjacent to a station:
within 200 feet of the station: 4-4.5 FAR, 120-160 units/ac, 85-95 ft
within 1/4 miles of the station: 3-3.5 FAR 100-120 units/ac, 65-75 ft
within 1/2 miles of the station: 2.5-3 FAR, 60-100 units/ac, 55-65 ft[48]
For renters, SB 79 prevents demolishing rent-controlled buildings where renters have lived any time in the seven years prior to passage of the bill. Any demolitions of rent-controlled housing in favor of SB 79-eligible housing would require a minimum amount of assistance by the developer to existing tenants, including:
moving costs plus three months' worth of rent;
Right to return at a rent affordable to the tenant;
Subsidized rent while the new homes are being built;
guarantee that new housing units exceed the quality of demolished housing.
Cities are allowed to provide further tenant protections beyond those outlined in SB 79. In addition, every SB 79-eligible development must designate 7% of units for extremely low income residents (30% of area income (AMI) and 93% at market rate), 10% for very low income (50% of AMI and 90% market rate), and 13% for low income (60% of AMI and 87% market rate). However, SB 79 cannot be used on a site containing more than two units if either the development would require the demolition of any units which are rent- or prince-controlled and has been occupied by tenants within the last five years or the site previously involved more than two rent-controlled units which were demolished within five years prior to submission of an SB 79 streamlining permit.
The law excludes:
sites with a "very high fire severity zone", as defined by CAL FIRE, or within the state responsibility area;
sites vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise;
sites which are designated on a local historic register, so long as such sites do not exceed 10 percent of any transit-oriented development zone.
The law incorporate "fire flexibility", allowing local leaders a minimum of 3 years to adopt plans that ensure maximum community protection from wildfires and shift density away from highly fire-prone areas.
Effective date and enforcement
Carlsbad Village station (on the NCTDCOASTER, photo taken October 2010), an example of a "Tier 3" station which would have been potentially eligible to build SB 79 housing nearby prior to removal of the Tier in committee.
The law comes into effect in local agencies on July 1, 2026 (unless a local agency adopts an HCD-compliant implementing ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan prior to the effective date), while implementation of SB 79 in unincorporated areas of a county would be delayed until the 7th Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation cycle in 2031. In addition, implementation of SB 79 in station areas which have at least 50% of SB 79 eligibility in 6th Cycle rezoning, as well as in various sensitive areas (historic districts, low resource areas and fire- or sea level rise-prone areas), would be delayed until one year following adoption of the 7th Cycle, provided that the local agency has adopted an ordinance indicating the site’s exclusion.
Within urban transit counties, SB 79 will apply in full to any station which is fully planned or under construction by January 1, 2026, including to Orange County upon completion of the OC Streetcar, slated for Q1 2026. SB 79 will only apply partially to any county which fully plans a minimum 16th rail station and achieves urban transit county status after January 1, 2026, with only heavy rail, light rail, and eligible commuter rail stations being covered to the exclusion of BRT stations.[52]
The HCD shall be responsible for enforcement of compliance, and is empowered to suspend any non-compliant local implementing ordinance. The HCD may refer any local government found in violation of SB 79 to the Attorney General of California for prosecution. The Attorney General may also levy a fine of $10,000-$50,000 per month upon the offending local government until the HCD finds the local government in compliance.
Political debate
Senate Bill 827
Wiener said he proposed Senate Bill 827 in part to alleviate the state's ongoing housing affordability crisis as well as to address carbon emissions generated by vehicles.[23] Regarding the issue of local control, he stated: "In education and healthcare, the state sets basic standards, and local control exists within those standards. Only in housing has the state abdicated its role. But housing is a statewide issue, and the approach of pure local control has driven us into the ditch."[53]
The bill was opposed by city councils in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and major suburban cities,[54][55] by suburban homeowners, and by tenants' rights groups, who argued that additional development would cause gentrification and displace underprivileged residents, especially non-white groups.[21][56]
The bill was supported by a group of scholars who stated that it would help reduce decades of racial and economic residential segregation,[57]:1-2[6]:1 by national pro-housing groups, and by over 100 executives from the Bay Area technology industry, who voiced their support for the bill in a joint letter.[58]
The Sierra Club California opposed the bill, saying that denser housing near major transit lines would displace people from cities[59] and undermine plans for future commuter rail projects.[60]
Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill 50 received coverage from major national newspapers outside of California, with the New York Times and The Atlantic publishing articles and opinion pieces on the bill.[61][62]
Some scholars questioned the ability of Senate Bill 50 to lower housing prices on its own, with some giving credence to the idea that it was a "luxury housing bill." Senator Wiener said "increasing the supply of market rate housing, over time, will reduce costs."[63]
A study published in Urban Affairs Review found five years after Chicago rezoned land around transit stops for denser market-rate development, speculation caused housing prices to increase in the rezoned areas while housing production did not increase. The author of the study, in an online essay, said the tenant protections in Senate Bill 50 made it different from Chicago's rezoning. The author also acknowledged the need for affordable housing development to address California's housing issues and how more research was necessary to determine the long-term effects of rezoning on housing prices and production.[64][65]
The mayor of Beverly Hills, who engaged in a broadcast debate with Senator Wiener, questioned why Senate Bill 50 would necessarily impact Southern California while exempting several affluent yet sparsely populated Bay Area counties.[66][67] The bill faced opposition from local governments around the state who objected to how the bill would usurp local land use authority.[68] Some mayors endorsed the bill.[69][70]
Senator Wiener said the passage of an anti rent-gouging bill in the previous year hindered the leverage for passing Senate Bill 50.[5]
A Los Angeles Times columnist said lawmakers from the greater Los Angeles area delegation were responsible for the demise of Senate Bill 50, and that the fight "had nothing to do with partisan politics" but instead was "all about geography"[71] while a Curbed columnist said opposition from a statewide coalition of affordable housing advocacy organizations was responsible for the defeat of Senate Bill 50.[72]
Independent analyses said most of the development spurred by the bill would have likely happened in the San Francisco Bay area.[73]
Michael Storper has argued that slight reductions in stringent zoning would mainly produce housing for wealthy people, and that it is already legal under existing zoning to build millions of units in unprofitable locations.[74]
Senate Bill 79
Los Angeles City Council districts vote on SB 79 opposition resolution.
SB 79 received the formal opposition of 132 city councils by resolution, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles City Council in an 8–5 vote, although the vote composition changed from the council's previous unanimous opposition to SB 50 in 2019.[78] Commentators noted that, within Los Angeles' city limits, support for SB 79 (and opposition to the city council's resolution) was most concentrated among city councilmembers and state legislators representing Central, South, and Eastside regions of the city, which are mostly zoned for multi-family housing and which have polled most in favor of increased construction of multi-family housing.[79][80] Despite the LA Council's vote against SB 79, Wiener credited the five dissenting councilmembers (Nithya Raman, Hugo Soto-Martinez, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren Price and Eunisses Hernandez) for helping secure the Assembly's passage of the bill.[81]
The bill was significantly amended in Assembly committees in order to win legislative and organizational support. Wiener and other supporters negotiated with the State Building and Construction Trades Council to secure the council's withdrawal of opposition to the bill, and secured support for the bill from UNITE HERE, in return for labor-friendly amendments.[47] Amendments in favor of tenants and affordable housing protections secured the withdrawal of opposition to SB 79 by the Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, California Rural Legal Assistance and other organizations.[82]
Following passage of the bill, Bass called for Newsom to veto the bill.[83]
Impact
The law is set to overturn or undermine local laws and propositions which restrict density levels, such as Proposition U, a 1986 Los Angeles ballot initiative which limited allowable residential density outside of Downtown Los Angeles by half.[84]
In 2016, California lawmakers removed local barriers to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction by passing Senate Bill 1069. This was later updated in 2017 with Senate Bill 229 and Assembly Bill 494. These bills modified single-family zoning throughout California by requiring speedy local approval of up to 1,200 square foot secondary units on all residential property in California, including land zoned for single-family homes.[85] In 2019, the law was updated with Assembly Bill 68 to allow up to 500 of the 1,200 square feet to be designated a "junior accessory dwelling unit"; some commentators said this amounted to de facto triplex zoning throughout the state.[86][87]
In 2021, the SB 9, the California HOME Act, which was co-sponsored by Wiener, was signed into law, legalizing up to two units to be constructed across the state. Under the law, ADUs and JADUs can be built on a HOME Act project provided that the total number of dwellings does not exceed the amount allowed under the HOME Act.
On August 30, 2022, AB 2097 was passed by the legislature, and was signed into law on September 22, 2022 by Newsom. It removes parking minimums for homes and commercial properties within one half-mile of public transit stations or in neighborhoods with low rates of car use.[88] California became the second state after Oregon to eliminate parking minimums near public transit. Other laws passed before and after AB 2097, including the HOME Act, SB 4, and SB 6, also prohibited parking mandates within a half-mile of public transit for eligible projects.
On September 28, 2022, AB 2011 was signed into law, allowing for a CEQA-exempt, ministerial, by-right approval for affordable housing on commercially zoned lands, and also allowing such approvals for mixed-income housing along commercial corridors, provided that such housing projects satisfy specific criteria of affordability, labor, and environment and pay prevailing wage. AB 2011 allows for the density of mixed income projects to be 80 units per acre for sites within one-half mile of a major transit stop (regardless of whether another previous condition applies), and (through subsequent amendments by AB 2243 in 2024) also allows for the maximum height for an AB 2011 project to be 65 feet for sites that are within one-half mile of a major transit stop and not within a coastal zone, with the ability to increase the height limit for affordable housing through the density bonus.[89]
Major transit stops
On September 19, 2024, Newsom signed into law AB 2553, which expanded both the definition of "major transit stop" under the California Environmental Quality Act to service frequency of 20 minutes or less, as well as eligibility for reduced traffic impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act from "transit station" to "major transit stop".[90]
↑ Kendall, Marisa (January 24, 2018). "Tech execs back California bill that aims to build more housing near transit". The Mercury News. Retrieved April 29, 2018. Bigger, taller apartment buildings surrounding your neighborhood BART station? More than 100 California tech leaders are enthusiastically saying yes, please.... On Wednesday, 130 tech executives and venture capital partners said they 'solidly support' the plan in a letter addressed to Wiener.
↑ LA, The Future Is. "Oops! City Council helped pass SB 79". The Future Is LA. Retrieved September 24, 2025. Here are the districts of the three assemblymembers (Jessica Caloza, Mark Gonzalez, Sade Elhawary) from LA who voted for SB 79, overlaid onto the City Council votes. Assembly "yes" votes are in pink:[....]And here is the district of the only state senator (Maria Elena Durazo) from LA who voted for SB 79, in red:
↑ Streets For All (September 18, 2025). Streets For All Happy Hour ft. Scott Wiener - September 2025. Retrieved September 24, 2025– via YouTube. "The day that the LA City Council voted, and people were like, “Oh no, they opposed it”, I’m like, “No no no, this is great. I want a spreadsheet showing, of those five councilmembers who voted no on that resolution, [which state legislators] they overlap with”. And we got that, and we didn’t even need it because the members all knew. When I would meet with members, and they learned that whoever was either overlapping or impactful, Marqueece Harris-Dawson or Hugo Soto-Martinez or whoever it was, they would be like, “Wait, the councilmember stood up on this”, and that created space for members to [vote for] it. And so I think those five councilmembers being willing to stand up and oppose the resolution actually sent a shock wave through the assembly…and I will say Imelda Padilla definitely played her part."
↑ Post by Inner City Law Center on BlueSky, September 8, 2025. "📣 Thank you housing justice coalition partners @actlosangeles.bsky.social @westerncenter.bsky.social @disabilityrightsca.bsky.social @publicadvocates.bsky.social @crlafoundation.bsky.social #SAJE #PublicCounsel #kennedycommission #LeadershipCounsel for working with ICLC to improve #SB79! (🧵1/3)"
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
