Newport Beach Politics: Residents Have Questions. City Hall Has a Process for That. (Election Update)

Hear The Balboa Local5 min listen

Published October 26, 2026

Share this story

NEWPORT BEACH | CITY HALL WATCH | OCTOBER 26, 2026

Newport Beach voters are choosing councilmembers in four districts this November. The candidates: Joe Stapleton and Tina Babajanians in District 1; incumbent Erik Weigand, Walter Stahr and Tim Stoaks in District 3; Robyn Grant in District 4; and Mayor Lauren Kleiman and Andrew Gerken in District 6.

Eight candidates. Four seats. And, on the city’s election page, at least two different answers about which districts are on the ballot. The page lists Districts 1, 3, 4 and 6, then later says 1, 3, 4 and 7. If the city’s own election page can’t keep track of the districts, voters may reasonably wonder whether it has a spreadsheet—and whether the spreadsheet has formed a committee.

This race is about whether residents get heard before the big decisions are already halfway down the road. People want to know why a particular site was chosen, what alternatives were considered, what the project costs, and when public input can still make a difference. City Hall’s answer often seems to be: “There’s a process.” There is always a process. The question is whether the process is taking residents somewhere, or just giving them a nicer map of the waiting room.

In District 1, Stapleton faces Babajanians. She entered the race after the July 4 crowd problems on the Peninsula, according to reporting at the time. We’re not dismissing her or pretending the contest doesn’t exist. Residents deserve a real choice and a fair account of both candidates. The city’s own record says more than 420,000 people visited the beaches over the holiday weekend, with roughly 439 arrests from July 3–5. That’s a lot of people, a lot of police work, and a very clear reminder that “we planned for it” and “it went smoothly” are not the same sentence.

District 3 is a three-way race: Weigand, Stahr and Stoaks. We support Stahr because he has pressed for more transparency and questioned the proposed police headquarters site at Civic Center Park, including the need to compare alternatives and explain costs. At a city committee meeting, he asked for a fuller analysis of other options, including substations. That’s basic oversight: show the options, show the numbers, then ask residents what they think. Somehow the basic version of public input has become the deluxe package.

The city’s records describe a genuine need: the current police headquarters was designed for about 150 staff, while the department now has roughly 238 and handles around 92,000 calls for service a year. That deserves attention. It does not automatically prove that one proposed site is the right answer. “We need a new facility” is a fact to investigate. “Therefore, build it here” is a decision residents should get to debate before the renderings are wearing hard hats.

Grant is running unopposed in District 4, but she still belongs in this conversation. She has called for considering more potential sites and asked the city to examine whether the Civic Center Park location is advisable, not merely feasible. That distinction is useful: a plan can be technically possible and still make residents say, “You studied all that and picked the park?” Running unopposed should not mean running without scrutiny. It should mean the public has one less candidate forum and the same right to ask questions.

In District 6, Gerken is challenging Kleiman. We support Gerken for his focus on transparency and public input. City Council minutes record him criticizing the council’s opposition to citizen initiatives and raising concerns about the city’s own public-notice practices. Residents should be able to expect clear notices from a government that argues public notice matters. That is not an exotic demand. It’s the civic equivalent of asking a restaurant to put the hours on the door.

We support Stahr, Gerken and Grant as fresh voices who, in our view, are more likely to push for residents to be heard and for decisions to be explained in the open. This is an endorsement, not a claim that every voter sees it the same way. Residents can judge the records and decide for themselves.

Michelle Barto is not on this ballot; her District 2 seat is not up this cycle. For the rest, ask the candidates what they would do, then ask City Hall why it did what it did. If the answer arrives in a 300-page packet, keep reading. Somewhere in there may be the explanation—or the agenda for the meeting where they plan to discuss writing one.

Read next

1 / 5

City Hall WatchBefore Newport’s $1.94 Million Trolley Deal, We Had the DowntownerRead story →Suggestion 1 of 5City Hall WatchNewport’s $375,000 Water Connection Comes With One Catch: No Guaranteed WaterRead story →Suggestion 2 of 5City Hall WatchNewport Firefighters Have Been Training With Live Fire. Now There’s a Five-Year Agreement.Read story →Suggestion 3 of 5Around NewportNewport Beach’s Elizabeth Lyn Vargas: From Television Personality to Entrepreneur, Philanthropist, and Community AdvocateRead story →Suggestion 4 of 5City Hall WatchNewport’s City Council Has a Lot of Friends With Checkbooks. Here’s the Money Trail.Read story →Suggestion 5 of 5

Swipe for more stories

Share this storyText, email, link or Instagram