Goleta City Council members got an earful from the community Monday as locals, many incensed by proposed changes to the planning process, sounded off.

“To have no limits is a recipe for disaster,” said outgoing Design Review Board member Ed Easton, about the proposed relaxing of design and architectural restrictions from firm standards to flexible guidelines.

“We understand that this is being done under extreme pressures, including lawsuits, from developers and land owners,” said Connie Hannah, speaking for the League of Women Voters. “However, we want to question whether this is really what the residents of Goleta want.”

While the meeting was meant only to provide staff with direction and not make any policy decisions, residents were nonetheless alarmed at the seeming hurry to change hard-won planning standards.

“These proposals appear to indicate the rush to dismantle the carefully considered checks and balances established by the previous council for the government process,” said local physician Inge Cox. “Mistakes often get made when you try to make many changes too fast.”

Monday’s meeting was a follow-up to a series of strategic planning sessions held by council and staff to determine what changes to would streamline the planning process and reduce costs for project applicants.

“That’s one of the biggest issues that I listened to,” said council member Michael Bennett, referring to time and money spent by applicants only to have their projects languish on planning desks due to delays and appeals.

Some of the major items up for consideration were the size and makeup of the DRB. Other issues included a change to the planning process for all projects, triggers for DRB review, and the 50 percent rule affecting remodels.

Among complaints about the planning process from would-be builders and remodelers since Goleta’s inception are the seemingly subjective decisions handed down by the DRB, and the money and time lost if applicants don’t receive final approvals after spending money on final plans and drawings.

The strategic planning meetings have taken place regularly for three months, but community speakers expressed concern about the lack of public participation.

“The public … may be wondering how this happened so suddenly,” said resident George Relles. “Well, it wasn’t so sudden. It happened with three workshops, but they weren’t televised. So most of the public doesn’t know anything about this.”

Many of the speakers criticized the council for contemplating relaxed controls over residential developments, arguing that control over such developments was one of the reasons Goleta became a city in the first place.

“Your changes will make our planning process worse than the county’s. We became a city because we wanted better planning, not worse,” said resident Barbara Massey.

Council members did not make any decisions, but did provide direction to staff on several matters, indicating they would prefer a seven-member Design Review Board (rather than the current nine members) comprised of both design professionals and at-large members, with three-year staggered terms and decision-making authority. Council member Michael Onnen was the only one in favor of a five-member panel with two alternates.

The council majority (Jonny Wallis being the lone dissenter) also approved staff recommendations to modify the current three-step design review process, moving the appeals process to the preliminary review stage (the second step) where factors like elevations and lot coverages are discussed. The last step would become a final compliance check.

“I think it’s premature to stop the appeals at the second step,” Wallis said, adding that potential appellants would need all the information before making an appeal.

As for the DRB’s purview, council approved maintaining much of its decision-making powers, particularly in the areas of signs, garage conversions and new and remodeled multi-family dwellings.

New single family dwellings and duplexes would remain under DRB jurisdiction as well, despite staff recommendation that such projects be exempt if their plans meet setback, height, floor-area-ratio and neighborhood compatibility standards.

Other issues related DRB control were deferred to a later date, pending more information, particularly its influence over Old Town redevelopment projects and the city’s own capital improvement projects.

The controversial suggestion to exempt single-family home remodels from DRB review if they satisfy setback, height, lot coverage and floor-area ratios and are not visible from the street was also deferred to a later date. The even more controversial 50 percent rule, limiting additions to half the dwelling space of the original home, was marked for elimination.

The council also directed staff, in a 3-2 vote (Onnen, Bennett and Mayor Jean Blois in the majority), to look into weakening the contentious Floor Area Ratio, reducing it to a guideline versus an absolute standard. The council voted to include the preparation of residential design guidelines for the DRB in their strategic plan. Exemptions from DRB review for ministerial projects that meet established standards will also be discussed at a later time.

The issue of a so-called “double jeopardy” in discretionary land use permits, when plans for large developments pass the preliminary project review but not the final stage because of appeals at the final review, was scrutinized by the council. It elected to eliminate the second round of notice and appeal by a narrow 3-2 vote. Council members Wallis and Aceves voted against the motion. The issue of permits for ministerial projects and the approval of findings were sent back for more information.

Some of these items, particularly the revisions to DRB bylaws, are expected to be on the council’s agenda for the May 21 meeting, while potential changes to existing ordinances and the Floor Area Ratio will take more time, said City Manager Dan Singer.