The Los Angeles City Council voted to approve a resolution regarding Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) on Oct. 7, 2025, after extended public comment and debate among councilmembers. The final vote recorded in the hearing was 12 in favor and 2 opposed.

The resolution concerned objections and endorsements tied to SB 34, a state bill discussed at length for its potential effect on the ports, local air quality regulation and union jobs. Speakers from labor unions, port workers and community groups addressed the council during public comment. Devin Abler, identified during public comment as the director of outreach and engagement for a labor organization, urged support, saying the bill matters to “workers ... who know firsthand the health impacts when port operations slow and families lose jobs.” Union leaders including speakers who identified themselves as representatives of longshore and warehouse unions also urged the council’s support.

Supporters on the council framed the resolution as protecting local jobs while allowing continued work on emissions reductions. Councilmember Brahman described the item as an agreement-oriented approach: she said the measure on the Air Quality Management District agenda was “an agreement to elaborate a plan” to build zero-emission infrastructure and not a regulatory cap. Opponents argued SB 34 would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) authority, particularly on the use of load caps or “topes de carga,” and would forbid certain public investments in automation that could replace jobs. Councilmember McOsker (recorded in the meeting as opposing the resolution) said those stating AQMD was “against” the initiative were mistaken and urged clarity about AQMD’s role.

City staff and union representatives debated likely economic and environmental outcomes. Councilmembers and several union speakers said the ports’ role in national supply chains makes a balanced approach necessary; others warned that removing certain regulatory tools from AQMD could result in environmental harm if cargo were diverted to less-regulated ports.

Action at meeting: the council adopted the resolution related to SB 34 with a recorded tally of 12 yes, 2 no. The transcript does not record a mover or seconder for the final motion in the public record excerpt.

Why it matters: SB 34 debates touch both public health — air pollution in neighborhoods near the ports — and local employment in port logistics and warehouses. Council action signals Los Angeles’s stance to Sacramento and to regional agencies working on port emissions and transitions to zero-emission infrastructure.

What’s next: The resolution will be transmitted as a council position on SB 34 and related negotiations between AQMD, port authorities and labor and community stakeholders continue.