Based on my experience on DPR and as a Trustee, I'd like to
      propose some substantial changes to the Consent process. The idea
      behind Consent is to not waste Trustee time on projects where
      there's no substantial issue to be addressed. The problem is that
      the current process, as it's evolved over the past few years, has
      instead become a mechanism simply to delay discussion and Trustee
      decisions.
    Currently projects that are approved by DPR, PRC, T&T, and/or
      PDO go to the Consent Agenda at the next Trustee meeting. Under
      Robert's Rules and our Bylaws, anyone can ask that an item be
      pulled from Consent for full discussion at "...the Trustees’ next
      monthly or special meeting for a full discussion". Traditionally
      requests to pull items from Consent were made in person at Trustee
      meetings, and so pulled projects weren't voted on until the next
      meeting.
    
    There are four components to the current process:
    
      - When a request to "pull" can be made
- Who can "pull" a project from Consent
 
- Whether whoever pulls a project must state her or his
        objection, and specifically
 
        - whether the objection must refer to a specific provision in
          the Community Plan or the Municipal Code, or
- the objection can be more general, or
- the objector need not state his or her objection.
 
- When the "pulled" item is discussed and voted on
Here are the changes I suggest:
    
      - Major projects should bypass Consent, and go directly
        on the Project Review agenda for the Trustee meeting following
        vote(s) by the relevant committee(s). I'd define "major
        projects" as
        - Any project that involves more than four non-ADU units
- Any project that involves demolishing, remodeling, or
          otherwise modifying an existing structure where the resulting
          gross floor area (as counted in FAR calculations) is more than
          75% greater than the existing structure's
- Any project that requires a change in zoning, a lot tie or
          other property-line rearrangement, or an exemption from the
          provisions of the La Jolla Planned District or the La Jolla
          Shores Planned District
- Controversial projects should bypass Consent, and go
        directly on the Project Review agenda for the Trustee meeting
        following vote(s) by the relevant committee(s). I'd define
        "controversial project" as any project where the committee votes
        for and against the project differed by no more than 1, or where
        the committee Chair voted to make or break a tie.
 
- If a project received unanimous approval or disapproval
          from the committe(s) that reviewed it, not counting
          absentions, then only a Trustee can "pull" it from Consent.
        Otherwise anyone can pull a project from Consent.
- Requests to "pull" must be made in person at a Trustee
        meeting
- Other than as suggested in A and B, projects pulled from
          Consent should be placed on the Project Review agenda at a
          subsequent meeting, in the same sequence they were voted
        on by committee(s)
    I believe that if we implemented these procedures the Consent Agenda
    would almost always be approved without pulls, and major or
    problematic cases would receive prompt review and votes by the
    Trustees.