How will you prioritize spending the Chevron settlement? What can Richmond do to stop sideshows? And what about sidewalk vending on 23rd Street? Voters asked Richmond City Council District 6 candidates these questions and more at a Monday night election forum co-sponsored by Richmondside.
About 65 community residents filled a room at the Richmond Memorial Auditorium while another 60 tuned in on Zoom to get answers from the two candidates, incumbent Claudia Jimenez and Shawn Dunning. (Watch the full session on our YouTube channel.)
The event co-hosts were UC Berkeley’s Richmond Confidential, the Contra Costa Pulse and El Tímpano. The forum, the second in a series, featured a real-time translation into Spanish.

District 6 encompasses the North and East and East Richmond neighborhoods. Residents in the area told this reporter that some of the issues plaguing the area are homelessness, safe streets, affordable housing and public safety.
Jimenez, a candidate backed by the Richmond Progressive Alliance, is seeking her second term. She was initially elected in 2020 — the year when the city switched from holding at-large elections to district-based voting for council seats. This is Dunning’s first run for a district seat after losing to Mayor Eduardo Martinez during the 2022 mayoral race.
Each candidate had two minutes to introduce themselves before moderator Ximena Loeza, east Contra Costa reporter for El Tímpano, presented questions submitted by Richmond residents and compiled by journalists from each publication.
Dunning, who has had a long career as a conflict resolution expert, emphasized that his platform centers around “collaborative leadership” that would bring all community stakeholders to the table — not just one group.

“That desire to have everyone work along is not just a wishy-washy, kumbaya thing but is practical,” he said, inviting residents to set up a coffee meeting with him to discuss the issues. “That might sound too nuanced and complex, but I invite you to reach out and give me a call.”
Listing achievements from her tenure, Jimenez, who is the city’s vice mayor, said she initially ran for city council so she could directly impact residents’ lives.
“My work in the community didn’t start when I wanted to run for the council but many, many years ago as a community organizer,” she said. “I have been effective and have been able to save over $80 million to the city from bad loans and reinvest that in things that matter to the community.”
Those investments, she pointed out, include funding the renovation of Richmond’s main library, implementing a holistic approach to public safety by creating the Community Crisis Response Program and addressing traffic problems by creating a Traffic Calming Division of the Department of Public Works. She was also on the ad-hoc committee that negotiated the $550 million settlement with Chevron.
“When I got here we had a deficit of $90 million and now we have reserve levels that went up from 12% to 21%,” she said. “We went from having deficits to having a surplus.”
Priorities for the Chevron settlement
The biggest question this election season has been what candidates envision doing with the more than half a billion dollars set to hit city coffers over the next 10 years, starting next fiscal year.
At last week’s city council meeting, a spirited debate broke out among some council members about transparency and how to include the community in the spending decisions.
When asked how they would prioritize spending the money, both Jimenez and Dunning were divided on how the financial windfall should be allotted.
Dunning said that, although it is wonderful the city will receive the funds, he pointed out that the money is temporary and said funds should be set aside for the city’s unfunded employee pension liability.
In an October 2022 East Bay Times article, the state public employees retirement system, CalPERS, projects that Richmond’s annual pension payments will increase to $53 million —18% of the city’s total revenue — by 2028.
“We have a nearly $400 million (accumulated) unfunded pension liability right now,” he said. “If we don’t (pay it) the city goes bankrupt, and we don’t get to pay for the streets, we don’t get to have enough police.”
Dunning said the Chevron money should be invested into the city and said he would like to see a “comprehensive collaborative process.”
“Not just for this $550 million but frankly for the entire budget,” he said.
Jimenez said the council is working on a proposal for the Chevron settlement that would establish a community advisory board that is similar to the community engagement process that Contra Costa County used for Measure X — a countywide 20-year, half cent sales tax approved by voters in 2020.
She also said that the city has surveyed residents about their spending priorities but didn’t have enough money to fund those priorities, ending up with millions in deferred infrastructure maintenance. She supports creating multiple funds with the settlement money.

“We can create these funds so we can allocate that money and resources that are going to be specific,” she said. She added that, though the council envisions spending money for “just transition” purposes, to move the city away from relying on a fossil economy, the money also must be used to increase revenue.
“This is only (paid out for) 10 years, and we need to make sure that in these 10 years that we can create an economy that is not as dependent on the fossil fuel industry.”
Audience: “How will you address sideshow, smoke shop enforcement?”
Referring to news reports of a large sideshow that damaged new vehicles at a car dealership early Monday morning in the Hilltop neighborhood, both Jimenez and Dunning were asked how they would address these illegal events.
According to Richmond police, officers managed to break up the gathering of hundreds of sideshow spectators near Klose Way but did not arrest or cite anyone.
Jimenez said that although the council voted to not prosecute residents who are present at sideshows, Richmond police are still investigating them. She also said the city has focused on identifying specific intersections where safety measures such as roundabouts and speed bumps can be installed.
“We were able to have more cameras and license plate readers which the chief of police said was a great accomplishment for them,” she said. “What we want is to be able to resolve this with other solutions as well. We cannot pretend that on each corner we can have a police officer.”
With the current level of police staffing, Jimenez said the average cost of an officer is more than $375,000 per year due to overtime.
“It’s education, enforcement and engineering solutions,” she said, quoting Department of Public Works Director Daniel Chavarria’s position on sideshow deterrence. “I think we are doing that in ways that can bring solutions. No one thing is going to resolve an issue.”
Dunning pushed back on the idea of education in regards to sideshows.
“I hate to say it, but I think the only education happening out there is how to do donuts more effectively,” he said. “Seriously, I don’t think we are going to educate people out of doing them. I don’t see it as realistic.”
He tied the lack of sideshow enforcement to the city not enforcing its laws around smoke shops, which he said are continuing to sell flavored tobacco — despite a resolution outlawing it that was passed by the city council in 2018. He said the decrease in the police department budget is to blame.
“Idealism is great, but we need to make it practical,” he said. “The practical effect is that enforcement has a place in our society. I’ve never said that police are the answer for everything, but we need to stop ignoring the fact that they are an important part of our society.”
Jimenez said the city extended its moratorium on smoke shops to prohibit new smoke shops from opening and is working with code enforcement on a plan to get the businesses in compliance.
“We are hiring more code enforcement and have contracted with a code enforcement company to augment it so we can address the issue,” she said. “Staff is coming pretty soon with a proposal and some policies … to implement this (enforcement).”
Audience: How will you address sidewalk vending on 23rd Street?
Former city council member Corky Boozé asked the candidates about their plans to address an increased number of sidewalk vendors on 23rd Street.

“They set up shop every single night and weekend in front of the restaurants who are paying a business license which generates money for the city,” Boozé said.
Jimenez pointed to the city’s recently created mobile food vendor pilot program, in partnership with the Richmond Farmers Market, to host sidewalk vendors in a parking lot on Macdonald Avenue between Marina Way and 15th Street on Thursdays and weekends from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.
“We listened to the street vendors and the 23rd Street Merchants on the issue of street vendors on the sidewalk,” she said. “We put $200,000 and are going to put more because we believe that these kinds of programs are the type of thing we can have to support our immigrant and non-citizen communities to improve their lives.”
Dunning said time will tell whether that pilot program addresses the issue.
“Let’s see and let’s get some feedback on what works and what doesn’t,” he said. “That’s about all I’ll say about that.”
Final Richmondside Richmond City Council meet-the-candidates night
WHAT: District 5 meet-the-candidates night, the final of three Richmondside co-hosted election events. (District 1 was held Sept. 18. Read what happened here. District 6 was on Sept. 30. Read that story here.)
WHEN: The District 5 forum will be held Oct. 8, 6:30 p.m.-8 p.m., Easter Hill United Methodist Church, 3911 Cutting Blvd. or via Zoom. Please RSVP if you’re attending in person.
DETAILS: Light refreshments will be served, and Spanish translation will be available.
We want to hear from you! What should we ask the candidates? Email your questions to hello@richmondside.org.
MORE INFO: Not sure which district you live in? Visit Richmond’s city voting district map. For information on voting, read our Contra Costa County how-to-vote guide.



Is there a recording available from this event?
Yes we will post it soon, thank you for asking.
Link to watch the forum is here: https://youtu.be/Fj6Rt0n_Mkc
A excellent report of what was said at the forum. Thank you
I couldn’t help noticing that the candid photos showed Dunning speaking, and one obscured Jimenez entirely. The choice of photo made it seem as if only one candidate had a voice.
Hello, Actually you caught an unintentional editing error. Instead of the photo of Jimenez that was meant to appear (as the caption indicated) another photo was duplicated. I have corrected that error, so now each candidate has a speaking shot. Thank you for pointing that out.
You mentioned building on a toxic site in the headline, but did not cover that subject in the article. Without wanting to listen to the whole recording, could you summarize the discussion on the plan to build on the Zeneca site? Thanks
Hi, Debbie, It’s the last section in the story: Anderson asked about stance on toxic Zeneca site
A mildly contentious portion of the event happened after Richmond resident Joe Puleo asked Anderson why he supported a developer’s 2020 plan to build housing on the Zeneca site.
The area, which contains vast quantities of contaminated soil, laced with arsenic, uranium, mercury, DDT and many other chemicals, is a result of more than a century of manufacturing, first by Stauffer Chemical and later Zeneca (today AstraZeneca), the pharmaceutical giant.
“Why did you support putting 10,000 people on a toxic waste site?” Puleo asked.
“As an economic development commissioner, I did not support that,” Anderson replied. “In fact, I used to play on that site when they actually did the testing of agricultural products. I’m asthmatic today. I lived in that community where most of the folks I know grew up. I would not support that. I’ve never supported building on that site, in that area, on toxic waste.”
Richmond City Council District 5 candidate Ahmad Anderson at a Richmondside co-hosted election forum on Oct. 8, 2024. Credit: Kelly Sullivan
During her reply, Wilson referenced two public comments made by Anderson in 2020 voicing his support for the development plan, which had a $22 million community benefits agreement attached that would provide the city and many nonprofits with funds.
“On the other hand, I have consistently since 2020 opposed the plan to cap and build on the AstraZeneca site,” she said. “As a city council, we need to revisit that plan and really push for a full cleanup of that site. We also have to ask serious questions about, even once it’s clean, whether we should be building thousands of units of new housing that close to the water, given sea level rise.”
Anderson then clarified that while he did voice support for the development with the community benefits plan included, it was under the condition that the site would be fully cleaned.
“I spoke at length about it in 2020, absolutely,” Anderson said. “But today, I would not (support it). I want to be very clear, that was part of the statement, but not the entire statement.”