The Signal Tribune emailed 10 identical questions to the four District 3 candidates — Ronald Sampson, Kristina Duggan, Rebecca Hinderer and Brian Cochrane — and gave them one week to respond. We only received responses from Duggan and Cochrane at the time of publication.
Voting closes on Tuesday, June 2 at 8 p.m. All Vote Centers will be open from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. through June 1. On Election Day, Tuesday, June 2, all Vote Centers will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Vote by Mail ballots may be returned at any Ballot Drop Box, Vote Center or by mail. No postage is necessary. Voters returning their ballot by mail must place the ballot inside the official return envelope and sign the back of the envelope. All Vote by Mail ballots must be postmarked by June 2.
The California Secretary of State recommends that voters mailing their ballot do so at least five days before Election Day. Voters who mail their ballot on Election Day are advised to obtain a manual postmark from a postal employee inside a United States Post Office.
All voters may track their ballots at https://california.ballottrax.net/voter/.
For more information, including a current list of all LA County Vote Centers, to check registration information or to request a ballot in a different language, visit lavote.gov.
These responses are copied verbatim from candidate Duggan.
1. What issues do you think are most important in your district, and how do you plan to address those issues?
The most important issues in District 3 are public safety, homelessness, infrastructure, and fiscal accountability. Residents want safe neighborhoods, clean and accessible public spaces, reliable City services, and confidence that taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly.
On public safety, I have focused on rebuilding our police department, improving responses to mental health crises and dangerous driving, and strengthening accountability for repeat offenders. On homelessness, I have pushed for a balanced approach that combines compassion with accountability by expanding treatment and supportive services while also addressing problematic encampments.
Infrastructure and fiscal accountability are also major concerns. I have worked to move long-delayed projects forward while pushing for better project management and stronger oversight. I have also authored two items initiating financial audits because residents deserve confidence that public dollars are being spent responsibly. My focus has always been on the fundamentals that most directly impact residents’ quality of life.
2. Do you feel councilmembers in District 3 have done a sufficient job in listening and responding to concerns from its residents? If not, what would you do differently?
For a long time, residents felt that community engagement was simply a box to check, and I have tried to change that culture in District 3. I pushed for community meetings that actually shaped projects before decisions were finalized. I did that with the Ximeno improvements, Davies Bridge, the Greenbelt, the Bay Shore Library redesign, and many other projects throughout the district.
I have also focused heavily on day-to-day responsiveness. Since taking office, my office has addressed more than 7,500 individual resident cases ranging from potholes and trash pickup to encampments and public safety concerns.
I believe people should feel like they can reach their council office, get clear information, and receive a real response when issues impact their neighborhoods. Going forward, I want to continue building a culture where residents are involved earlier, better informed, and treated like partners in decisions affecting their community.
Want more local news?
Sign up for the Signal Tribune’s daily newsletter
3. Would you rezone any areas of your district? If so, in what way?
Major rezonings in District 3 were largely completed, or nearly completed, before my time on Council as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, a state mandate requiring Long Beach to zone for more than 26,000 housing units. That is also why we are now seeing projects like the 1,250 units planned near 2nd and PCH. Since taking office, much of my role has been finding ways to mitigate the impacts those approved plans will have on our communities.
I support smart and targeted growth, and I do not believe every neighborhood should be zoned the same way to maximize density. We need to be thoughtful about parking, traffic, infrastructure capacity, and neighborhood character when implementing new development. In Long Beach, I believe that means focusing larger housing growth in areas like downtown, where it is better suited, while protecting established neighborhoods and historic districts.
4. What do you think the City should do to ensure the safety of residents near Second Street, while also balancing the needs of local businesses that thrive on the nightlife scene?
As a Belmont Shore resident for nearly 30 years, I understand the need to balance residents’ quality of life with a business corridor that contributes to the character of our community. Second Street should remain well-rounded, with gyms and coffee in the morning, retail and lunch during the day, and dinner and nightlife all working together.
That is why I brought an item to City Council to create the first dedicated Belmont Shore Late-Night Safety Plan in decades. It includes increased police presence, a police event action plan, and more proactive enforcement around public drinking, DUIs, nuisance behavior, and other late-night issues.
It also creates enforceable rules around noise, security, and safety through the Dining and Coastal Enjoyment District. This will allow businesses to thrive while preventing one use from taking over the corridor and negatively impacting nearby residents and other businesses.
5. How do you think the City should respond to threatening but not violent behavior from both housed and unhoused residents?
As a business owner and resident, I have personally experienced situations where someone was clearly in crisis, and I was effectively told nothing could be done. Outreach teams could offer services, but if someone refused help, there were very few options available.
That experience pushed me into this policy area. I worked with mental health professionals, addiction specialists, and City staff to better understand the issue. I authored policies directing the City to restart enforcement on problematic encampments, championed Proposition 36, and pushed the City to clarify how these situations are handled.
That work led to the CORE Strategy, which created a framework for the City to use tools like outreach, CARE Court, SB 43 medical holds, and diversion programs before situations escalate. I believe the City should use all available tools within our power to get people help before their behavior harms others or they further deteriorate in public spaces.
6. With the World Cup and Olympics approaching, what measures should the City take to ensure District 3 doesn’t see a rapid spike in short-term rentals that would ultimately result in less long-term housing?
The Coastal Commission requires the City to permit a minimum number of short-term rentals in the coastal zone, and I do not believe we should allow more than that minimum requirement. One of my biggest concerns is disrupting neighborhoods by turning them into de facto hotel districts.
I have also learned through workshops that homeowners will rent out their homes during the Olympics regardless of whether they are permitted short-term rentals. This includes renting their homes for a “month” during the games to work around existing short-term rental rules, and realistically the City does not have the capacity to fully prevent that activity at such a large scale.
Because of that, I think we need to have a discussion with neighborhoods about creating temporary Olympic and Paralympic short-term rental permits. Other host countries have found that tracking properties and maintaining owner contact information can help reduce disruptions to surrounding neighborhoods.
7. If you were to receive $1 million, what is the first place you would put that money towards in your district?
If I had an additional $1 million for District 3, I would create a special maintenance fund that supplements the existing maintenance budget.
That fund would support the basic neighborhood services that help keep our community beautiful, including maintaining medians, removing weeds along sidewalks and curbs, power washing public spaces, trimming trees, and addressing deferred landscape maintenance. Better maintenance may not sound as exciting as major capital projects, but it can have one of the biggest and most noticeable impacts on residents’ daily quality of life and neighborhood pride.
I would also dedicate a portion of the funding to quick-build traffic safety improvements, including speed bumps, upgraded crosswalks, and other pedestrian safety improvements in high-risk areas where smaller projects can quickly improve safety for residents, families, and people walking throughout the district.
8. Would you support the implementation of new homeless shelters in your district?
I have supported projects like affordable housing, recuperative care, and sobering beds in District 3 when they were thoughtfully designed to fit within the surrounding neighborhood, but I would not support a homeless shelter in District 3. I do not know of a location where one would not significantly impact nearby residents and businesses.
We also need to be honest that, in many situations, shelters alone are not enough. Many people need serious mental health treatment, addiction recovery, and long-term supportive services beyond simply a place to sleep. If we are not addressing the underlying mental illness and substance abuse issues driving chronic homelessness, we are not actually solving the problem for either the individual or the surrounding community.
9. What do you think the City should be doing to make residents feel safe with the increased aggression of ICE agents?
We have not seen the early military-style roaming immigration enforcement that we saw in Long Beach several months ago. I also do not think we will see those tactics return because they were denounced across the board, including by many business leaders and Republicans who publicly spoke out against them.
The City took early steps to protect our communities while staying within the law, but I believe conflicts between federal, state, and city jurisdictions should be fought in court, not escalated in our neighborhoods. Some advocates were calling for the City to take actions that would have frankly escalated the situation and potentially put residents in danger, including having LBPD intervene in federal enforcement actions.
The City should continue focusing on protecting residents through clear information and making sure residents understand their rights while keeping our communities safe.
10. The Equity and Human Rights Commission has recommended the City adopt a Civil and Human Rights Investment Screening Policy. Do you support the adoption and implementation of this policy?
I understand the intent behind the proposal, but I do not support it because it would create an expensive bureaucracy without measurable public benefit for Long Beach residents. This is the kind of policy that sounds good conceptually but becomes very difficult and costly to implement in practice.
It would likely require hiring additional staff and consultants to actively monitor investments and apply standards that are often subjective and constantly changing. I believe the City should maintain strong legal and ethical investment standards, but I am concerned about tasking financial staff with making complex geopolitical judgments when our responsibility should be protecting taxpayer dollars and delivering reliable core services.
Long Beach is already facing serious budget challenges, and I do not think creating another layer of bureaucracy is the right priority right now.
