Residents ask Port Hueneme to back "polluters pay" climate superfund; council agrees to staff presentation

Dozens of residents and climate organizers urged the Port Hueneme City Council on June 16 to support state legislation commonly called the “polluters pay” Climate Superfund and asked the city to direct staff to prepare a draft resolution.

The requests were made during the meeting’s public‑comment period, where several speakers urged the council to endorse AB 1243 / SB 684, the California Polluter Pays Climate Superfund Act, which commentors described as a state proposal to assess major fossil‑fuel companies and dedicate proceeds to climate resilience and frontline communities.

Brooke, community organizing manager at Climate First, asked the council directly: “I’m respectfully asking you to direct city staff to draft a resolution in support of the California polluter pays climate super fund act or AB 1243 and SB 684.” She said the bill would fund climate mitigation, grid resiliency, and adaptation projects and that “at least 40% of the funding will go to disadvantaged communities.”

Ben Mullock, a resident, made a similar request in public comment: “This bill would establish a climate superfund administered by CalEPA by placing fines on the major fossil fuel companies, thereby holding them financially responsible for environmental damages in California.” Several written submissions read into the record by staff echoed those points and urged the council to act.

City staff and the clerk noted procedural limits: the clerk informed the room that because the bill was not on the published agenda the council could not debate or adopt a resolution that night but that the council could request the matter be placed on a future agenda. The council later did so during the meeting’s requests-for-future-agenda-items segment.

On June 16 the council voted unanimously to place a detailed presentation about the polluter‑pays legislation on a future agenda so members could be briefed and consider whether to adopt a resolution. The motion to agendize the presentation was moved by Council member Gama and seconded by Council member Perez.

What’s next: Staff will prepare a presentation explaining the bills’ provisions, potential benefits for Port Hueneme and any fiscal or legal implications, and return that material for council consideration. No formal resolution or policy was adopted at the June 16 meeting.

Community context: Commenters said Port Hueneme — a coastal community facing sea‑level and air‑quality pressures — would likely be a candidate for funds if the legislation passes; supporters urged the council to signal local backing to influence state deliberations.