The Newport Beach Planning Commission held a study session Nov. 20 on draft updates to the citywide general-plan land-use and safety elements (PA2022-080). Planning manager Ben Zediba summarized the update process, highlighted themes including coastal resilience and neighborhood-specific considerations, and said adoption hearings were targeted for City Council review by June 2026.

Staff summary and timeline: Zediba told commissioners the comprehensive update began in 2019 and that work on the housing element had been paused earlier to satisfy state requirements; the current phase focuses on drafting elements and pursuing environmental analysis. He said the process will continue through advisory committees and multiple boards and commissions before returning to planning commission for a formal recommendation and then to City Council, with a tentative return to the commission in March.

Key issues raised by commissioners: Commissioners asked for larger, more legible policy-comparison pages in the packet, pointed out instances where proposed policy numbering in the draft appeared to reflect older documents, and requested clearer cross-references. Several commissioners flagged potential conflicts of interest and asked staff to consolidate discussion of areas where commissioners hold property so affected members could recuse themselves and the commission could continue with an organized discussion.

Public comment and legal risk note: Jim Mosher, a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee who spoke as an individual, requested that the anomaly table be updated to current conditions rather than rely on administrative adjustments. Mosher also referenced a recent California Court of Appeals opinion involving Redondo Beach, saying the court held that housing overlays may not be an adequate method to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements and that cities may need to rezone properties rather than rely on overlays; he urged the commission and staff to consider the potential implications for Newport Beach's land-use settlement and the city's potential need to rezone certain properties if the appellate decision stands.

Staff response: Zediba apologized for an illegible attachment in the packet and said staff would provide larger-format materials. He described staff's intent to create a live, referenced ledger (anomaly table) recording development potential and prior amendments so numbers can be traced to approvals or transfers of development rights rather than created administratively. Zediba confirmed the Santa Ana Country Club listing in the sphere-of-influence discussion was a newly added consideration from the subcommittee, not an outdated reference. Staff said they would continue outreach with committees, boards and the public before returning.

Outcome and next steps: The item was a study session only; no action was taken. Commissioners asked staff to (1) provide larger, legible policy-comparison pages and a clearer policy crosswalk, (2) explain and document the anomaly table methodology and references in detail, and (3) return with clarifying materials (potentially in March) after advisory-committee review and broader outreach.

Representative quotes:
"We're now wrapping up phase 2... Looking for that to occur by June 2026," Ben Zediba, planning manager.
"If it's not overturned, I think the planning commission needs to understand how that will affect our land-use settlement and what rezoning we will have to do," Jim Mosher (public commenter) referencing a Court of Appeals opinion.

Ending: The commission provided feedback to staff but took no formal votes. Staff will supply clearer materials and documentation and return to the commission and advisory committees for further review prior to any recommendation to City Council.