2026 Candidates

I do not support Measure H based on the housing data and the risks to Newport Beach. I do support residents’ right to research it, debate it and vote. Here is why I oppose it: Zoning capacity is different from actual construction. The City’s plan accommodates approximately 8,174 units through rezoning. That does not mean all 8,174 homes will be built. The affordable housing requirement matters. Newport Beach’s state allocation is 4,845 homes, including 3,436 affordable units. After accounting for existing projects, projected ADUs and previously zoned sites, the City identifies a remaining need to accommodate 2,707 affordable units. Its plan includes additional capacity because future developments will generally contain a mix of affordable and market-rate homes. Measure H would replace that approach with capacity for 2,900 units restricted to affordable housing. But reserving capacity for affordable homes does not establish that those homes are financially feasible or will actually be built. The City specifically states that HCD would not approve a plan based solely on an assumption of 100% affordable projects. That is a significant concern for me. My conclusion is that reducing the number on paper does not demonstrate a workable housing plan. If Newport Beach falls out of compliance, it could face litigation, financial penalties and Builder’s Remedy applications that weaken local zoning control. Those are conditional risks, not automatic consequences of a yes vote, but they deserve serious consideration. I want to protect our neighborhoods, address traffic and infrastructure, and preserve the City’s ability to guide development. Based on the available evidence, I do not believe Measure H provides a sufficiently reliable path to those goals. My opposition does not diminish your right to decide. Residents deserve access to the full measure, the supporting and opposing arguments, and the underlying data. Read my report, check its sources, ask questions and reach your own conclusion. I will vote no. I respect your right to make your own informed choice. Read my report: https://www.tinababajanians.com/issues/measure-h/

Yes, I support the proposed Term Limits charter amendment. Currently, a Newport Beach councilmember can serve two consecutive four-year terms, take a four-year break and then run again. The proposed amendment would establish a lifetime limit of two terms, or eight years, regardless of any break in service. I support that clear, consistent limit. Eight years gives a councilmember a meaningful opportunity to serve residents and advance priorities, while creating regular opportunities for new leadership, fresh perspectives and broader community participation. Term limits alone do not guarantee good government. Transparency, accountability and resident engagement remain essential. But I believe a lifetime two-term limit is a reasonable standard.

No, I do not support the proposed District-Only Voting charter amendment. Newport Beach already combines neighborhood representation with citywide accountability: each of our seven districts has a councilmember who lives there, while all city voters help choose those representatives. I believe that balance serves our community well. Our neighborhoods have different needs, but we share one budget, police and fire departments, roads, beaches and harbor. Decisions about housing, traffic and public safety affect everyone. Citywide voting gives residents a voice in choosing every councilmember who makes those decisions and encourages candidates to listen across neighborhoods. I recognize that district-only elections can make campaigns more accessible and strengthen neighborhood representation. However, I favor retaining a representative from every district who is electorally accountable to the whole city. As a Peninsula resident, I want our concerns heard. As a councilmember, I would serve all of Newport Beach.

Yes, I cautiously support this amendment because residents deserve transparency, access to public records, and accountability from their city government. However, implementation matters. We need to ensure these rules improve public access without creating unnecessary bureaucracy, litigation, or taxpayer expense. I would closely monitor implementation to ensure enforcement is fair, costs are reasonable, and the amendment serves residents effectively.

Yes, I support a new police headquarters that meets our department’s operational needs. I favor a central location, which police personnel I have spoken with have emphasized as a priority, but I have not selected a specific site. We should openly compare all viable options, including acquiring another centrally located property. Civic Center Park would not be my first, second, or third choice because I want to preserve our public green space. We should also evaluate a Peninsula substation as part of our broader public safety plan, particularly given the area’s holiday crowds and residents’ concerns.

My preference is to retain City-owned land and acquire additional property when it makes fiscal sense. Public land is a long-term asset that preserves options for future community needs. Before supporting a sale, I would want a transparent comparison of funding alternatives, including potential leasing revenue, borrowing costs, and the property’s future public uses. I would consider selling only if the analysis demonstrated a clear long-term benefit to residents. We need to invest in public safety while responsibly managing both taxpayer dollars and the land entrusted to us.

I support the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 3 to 1550 Avocado Avenue, provided the final analysis confirms faster emergency response and a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Getting firefighters and paramedics to residents sooner is a strong reason to pursue this location. However, relocating the transit center adds cost and complexity. Before making a final commitment, I would want a complete budget, clear evidence of improved emergency coverage, and a workable plan for transit riders.

I am open to the City funding the transit center relocation if it is necessary to deliver meaningful improvements in emergency response. However, I would not support an open-ended financial commitment. Before approving funding, I would want a complete project budget, a clear agreement defining the City’s financial responsibility, and a comparison with alternatives. The public safety benefits must justify the total cost, and the replacement transit center must continue serving riders effectively.

Yes. I support working with the City, the Coastal Commission, residents, and responsible short-term rental operators to significantly improve compliance and enforcement and I am in favor of reducing the permit caps if the industry cannot operate within the rules and without disproportionately impacting our neighborhoods. Newport Beach currently allows up to 1,550 short-term lodging permits, with the vast majority concentrated in our coastal neighborhoods. The data I have reviewed raises serious compliance questions involving advertised occupancy, permit numbers, parking, and the concentration of rentals on individual blocks. These findings need to be formally investigated rather than assumed to be violations, but they are substantial enough that the City should conduct a comprehensive compliance audit. Short-term rentals are businesses operating inside residential neighborhoods, and permit holders need to be good stewards of those neighborhoods. That means following occupancy limits, providing required on-site parking, controlling noise and parties, maintaining properties, properly managing trash, responding quickly to problems, and respecting the residents and day visitors who also depend on our limited streets, beaches and public parking. Newport's Coastal Program specifically recognizes the need to protect public coastal access and parking while allowing short-term lodging. My approach would be compliance first, accountability second, and reduction if necessary. Work with responsible operators and give them a clear opportunity to comply. Aggressively enforce the rules against operators who don't. Suspend or revoke permits when the law provides for it. And if the evidence demonstrates that this concentration of short-term rentals cannot coexist responsibly with residential quality of life, public coastal access and protection of our coastal resources, then I would support working with the Coastal Commission to reduce the caps through the proper LCP process. As for cameras, I would consider targeted monitoring in documented problem areas during high-impact periods, with appropriate privacy protections, but I would not treat cameras as a substitute for enforcement. The goal isn't to surveil neighborhoods. The goal is to make sure a commercial activity occurring in our residential communities operates responsibly. Short-term rentals can be part of Newport Beach's visitor economy, but 1,550 permits should not be treated as an entitlement regardless of their cumulative impact. If operators want the privilege of continuing to do business here, they need to demonstrate that they can be good neighbors and good stewards of Newport Beach.

Yes, I support Newport Beach’s current Flock Safety camera program. I would maintain it and support targeted expansion where NBPD can demonstrate a clear public safety benefit and justify the cost. The City uses these license plate readers to help identify stolen vehicles and vehicles connected to crimes, giving officers another tool to investigate cases and protect our community. For me, responsible use starts with the police department’s training, policies, and accountability. Officers should receive ongoing ethics and privacy training, every search should have a documented law enforcement purpose, and access should be routinely audited. There must also be clear limits on data retention and sharing, with meaningful consequences for misuse. I would want regular public reporting on results, including crimes solved, stolen vehicles recovered, costs, and compliance with privacy safeguards. Residents deserve both effective policing and confidence that their information is being handled responsibly. I support expanding a program that demonstrates results while maintaining that trust.

Yes I support Measure H. It would comply with the state RHNA requirements by reducing the total number of housing units planned and focusing the city’s attention more on what RHNA is supposed to be about—less expensive workforce housing.

Yes - Good policy for Newport Beach's General Plan (Change the name of Affordable housing to "Work Place Housing")

Yes I support Measure P. It would tighten up the term limits in our city charter so that they would be a lifetime term limit—so that someone could not serve eight years, do other things for four, and then serve another eight years.

Yes, allows different residents to participate in their local government.

I have mixed feelings about Measure Q. As a candidate, it would be lovely not to have to raise quite so much money to reach every voter in the city. That could open up our council races to more people, give us better people on city council. But we have had the current system, in which the whole city votes on each council member, for many years, and it has generally worked well, and I am reluctant to abandon a system which has worked well.

NO - the city does not have a different budget for districts. Will be extremely hard to govern. CC persons should represent their districts but also a whole city approach council.

Yes I support Measure R. It would tighten up requirements regarding city council meetings and record requests. Our current council does a terrible job with transparency; this would force the council and city government to be more transparent.

Indifferent - the city already has policy on transparent procedures. I think that we should have a different City Attorney that is more accountable to ALL. Facts based

I am not 100% sure that we need a new police headquarters; the current council is so determined to build a new building that I do not think we have done the work necessary to look at options for renovating the current building and adding a new building next door. The one think I am 100% sure of is that the new police headquarters should not go in Civic Center Park; that would be wrong for financial, environmental, aesthetic, and moral reasons.

Does the city need a New HQ - I asked Chief Miner if he asked for a new HQ - his answer was NO. It's just on the city's CIP

I oppose selling city property to fund the police station. This project, like other major projects, should be funded with a combination of reserves and borrowing. The only reason the current council is NOT thinking of borrowing for the project is that they know the public would never approve a $200 million bond offering for a jail and police station in the park.

NO

I oppose relocation of fire station # 3. The fire station provides crucial fire and medical coverage for Eastbluff and related neighborhoods. And it provides the ambulance coverage for Balboa Island; residents there are concerned that they have been forgotten in the city’s haste to move the station. The detailed study of fire station placement done by a consultant for the city in 2021 did NOT recommend moving fire station #3. Instead it recommended two additional fire stations; one to protect the Port Streets and related neighborhoods and one to protect the southern part of the city, perhaps shared with Laguna Beach. The city’s ill-considered plan to move fire station #3 is akin to its ill-considered plan to put the police station in the park—these are part of an effort to clear off and sell the Santa Barbara site to a developer for a 300-foot residential tower.

NO response time will be critically effected in my opinion.

I oppose providing OCTA with a blank check for a new transit station. The city has many issues; the OCTA transit station is not one of them. The current transit station is working well for those whom it serves and there is no reason for the city to pay tens of millions for a new transit station. Again, this is all part of the ill-advised plan to clear off the Santa Barbara site and sell it to a developer for a 300-foot residential tower.

NO

I am not persuaded that the case has yet been made for reducing the total number of short-term rental permits; I think the city can and should do a better job of enforcing the current STR rules. There would also be difficult issues about how to reduce the number given the economic value of the STR permits. I am adamantly opposed to the suggestion that STR permit holders should have to share their surveillance camera footage with the Newport Beach police department. This is almost certainly not constitutional because such surveillance cameras capture much that happens in spaces not readily visible from the street.

Don't have the information on this matter. No answer.

I support Flock cameras; they are a useful tool to detect and apprehend criminal suspects. But I also support strict controls on which police officers can access Flock information and for what purposes. We do not want to see in Newport Beach the sort of abuse that has happened in other cities—including Costa Mesa—officers using Flock cameras to keep track of their wives, their mistresses, and those who used to be their wives and mistresses. Strong procedures and audits are necessary if we want to sustain public support for the Flock cameras.

YES support.

Yes. This lowers the number of housing units to an acceptable number which will satisfy the state mandate.

Yes. Two terms is enough, no matter when they are served.

Yes. Was a difficult choice for me. But the idea of reducing the ability of special interests to influence the election tipped the balance.

Yes. No brainer. The public deserves to know. Everyone wins. Especially honest public officials.

Yes. We need a modernized headquarters. Definitely not Civic Center Park. Its current site would be the best site after it is constructed. If too onerous to move temporarily to accomplish this, I would gladly accept Dove St. Will work with Police Chief on this when elected.

No. City should hold on to these appreciating assets, especially since it may need the land for city related endeavors.

No. A commissioned study concluded Eastbluff residents would be put at risk. The study says leave FS No. 3 where it is, and have a new one adjacent to Bonita Canyon Sports Park for Port Streets, and a third station to be shared with Laguna Beach to cover Crystal Cove and Newport Coast.

No. Complete waste of money ($30 million). Bad location for 140,000 drops per year for people to have to then get to Fashion Island. Already disagree on the premise that FS No. 3 should even be moved.

No Answer, yet. Would need to discuss in more depth what this means to the businesses who do rentals, and the residents who live in vicinity.

Yes. Maintain while all safeguards to using it are ensured. Can keep what is working now because it is effective, and risks are relatively low.