The Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee voted to approve a resolution on the city’s position regarding Senate Bill 34 after members debated whether the bill would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s ability to regulate port-related pollution.

Council member Raman, who serves on the AQMD board, urged the committee to vote no. "I'm asking for your no vote on this resolution as SB 34 would undermine years of collaborative work between AQMD, ports and the surrounding communities," Raman said, arguing the bill would curtail local regulators’ ability to adopt emissions rules for ports and related activities.

Environmental groups and a representative of Move LA and Coalition for Clean Air also testified in opposition. Chris Chavez, deputy policy director at Coalition for Clean Air, told the committee, "We are in opposition to both the motion, as well as, SB 34 in Sacramento." Chavez said the bill would "restrict the ability of the South Coast AQMD ... to reduce emissions from the region's largest source of NOx pollution in the smoggiest space in the country, the ports and related activities." He said the rulemaking effort has been ongoing since 2022 and that an infrastructure-focused proposal on the table is "very modest. It is just an infrastructure plan." Chavez added that the South Coast AQMD estimates more than 1,500 premature deaths a year in Southern California are associated with the region's poor air quality.

Raman said opponents’ claims about a hypothetical cargo cap were "fear mongering" and that no AQMD rule under consideration has proposed a cargo cap. She warned SB 34 would "take away any kind of leverage that we have to push the ports towards meaningful emissions reductions" and said port-side communities experience higher levels of toxic exposure and related cancer rates.

Chavez also raised concerns that a proposed "cooperative agreement" between the ports and the AQMD has interrupted the multi-year rulemaking process and that SB 34 would impose restrictions from Sacramento rather than allowing local regulators and communities to complete their work.

After discussion the committee recorded three votes in favor and two opposed; the resolution was approved. At roll call, Council members Harris Dawson, Sotto Martinez and Lee voted yes; Raman and Jaroslavsky voted no.

The committee did not adopt any amendments during the meeting. Committee members and speakers emphasized the ongoing local rulemaking process at AQMD, the health risks to port-adjacent communities, and the need for planning and infrastructure investments to reduce emissions.

The resolution does not itself change AQMD authority; it records the city's position for legislative or administrative action. Committee members who opposed the city's stated position urged further local action to preserve AQMD's regulatory authority and to avoid preemptive statewide restrictions on local air-quality rulemaking.

Next steps identified in the discussion included continued monitoring of AQMD rulemaking, review of any cooperative agreements between ports and AQMD, and further outreach to port-side communities about health and infrastructure planning.