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.