In a statement, the coalition claimed credit for forcing Chevron to negotiate the deal and celebrated it as a community victory. However, members appeared to be divided on whether to accept the deal.

“Together, Richmond community groups, families and workers have forced the city’s largest polluter to provide over half a billion dollars to fund the essential services Richmond communities need today and plan ahead so our families won’t have to pay for the pollution when the major polluters close their operations,” the statement said.

However, Kerry Guerin, an attorney with the Richmond office of coalition member Communities for a Better Environment, urged the council to reject the settlement.

“We did not approach the city with this concept as part of our campaign just to have Chevron offer them a deal that would cost them pennies,” Guerin said.

Before the vote, the council heard the opinions of more than two dozen citizens, many of whom expressed disappointment that the measure would not be put to a vote.

“Richmond voters deserve the opportunity to vote on their own future in November and hold Chevron accountable,” said Martine Johannesen, an urban planning graduate at UC Berkeley. “But if the City Council approves the tax agreement, we ask the Council to establish a municipal oversight board to allocate these settlement funds and reserve the use of the funds for a just transition for Richmond.”

The deal comes after a Contra Costa County Superior Court judge ruled last week that the city’s proposed tax measure language was misleading and “unduly partisan.”

The hastily formed Coalition for Richmond’s Future and a Chevron employee sued the city on June 28, arguing that the description of the measure on the ballot was both misleading and biased in favor of the tax.

Supreme Court Justice John P. Devine’s tentative ruling on Friday agreed on both counts.

The wording is misleading, he said, because it contains a long list of specific uses – to fund “clean air and water treatment, roads, parks, fire and emergency response, toxic soil cleanup, and improving health and youth services” – even though the revenue would go into the city’s general fund, which is used primarily to pay employee wages and benefits.

Devine also pointed out that the measure’s language was written by Communities for a Better Environment, one of the measure’s main proponents, and not the City Council.

“We have a ballot sticker that was not only designed by supporters of the measure, but whose ballot also reproduces the same messages as advertising campaigns supporting the measure,” Devine wrote. “…The use of such partisan language impermissibly crosses the boundaries of substantive compliance” with state election law.

City Attorney Dave Aleshire said in a memo for Wednesday’s council meeting that further legal action against the tax measure is likely, noting that Chevron has already expressed its intention to sue and that a similar tax enacted by the city of Carson in Los Angeles County in 2017 is still pending in court.

“The city disagrees with Chevron’s legal criticism, but cannot deny that litigation is likely and could be lengthy and expensive,” Aleshire said.

Several City Council members said they were compelled to agree to the settlement because of the recent conservative turn in the federal courts, which could ultimately decide the tax measure if Chevron sues.

“I am not particularly encouraged by what is happening in the courts, particularly at the higher levels, as I believe the rulings are heading in a blasphemous direction when it comes to protecting our environment,” Robinson said.

Correction: This story incorrectly identified a Chevron employee who responded to the company’s agreement with the city of Richmond. His name is Brian Hubinger.