Tag: Legislature

The Legislative Voice of the AIACC

by .
in: AIACC / 0 Comments

Each year, the California State Legislature introduces over 2,000 new bills by the third week of February. Each of these are intended to provide some benefit or opportunity for at least some constituencies of our society, however, they can also create unintended consequences or responsibilities for others who may be unaware.

The legislative process is exceedingly complex. How can we as architects be informed about all of these potential benefits or risks to our profession, our businesses, our communities, and our environment?

We can’t, at least not individually. Collectively though, we can be informed – and not just to be aware – we can even have an influence in the outcomes of these bills. This is the role of the AIA California Council’s Legislative Affairs program, under the direction of Mark Christian, Hon AIACC.

Recently, Mark reviewed each of these bills and flagged those that potentially may have impact on areas of interest to the AIACC. He summarized each of these selected bills and categorized them into areas such as: Building Standards, Business, Liability, Project Delivery, Sustainable Design, School Facilities, Public Works, etc.

These different categories of bill summaries were then evaluated by one of three AIACC Committees: Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC), Committee on the Environment (COTE), and Urban Design Committee (UDC), depending on the related subject matter and areas of expertise of the volunteer committee members.

Though the bills introduced each year are unique, there are common values that our AIACC committees embrace to evaluate these numerous bills. One of our fundamental viewpoints is that the Building Standards Commission should be the clearinghouse for evaluating and introducing new code requirements, and not the State Legislature. With respect to laws relating to furthering project delivery methods, the AIACC is generally in favor of supporting choice by a public owner. We are also very sensitive to bills that could be interpreted differently than intended and result in inconsistent applications in different regions. Another formative area we support are bills that seek to advance the values of our profession in terms of sustainable design and sustainable communities.

Mark and I worked together to facilitate the review of these bills with these committees, leading to the eventual recommendation to support, oppose, recommend a revision or amendment, or to continue to watch the bill as it develops.

These committee recommendations were then presented to the AIACC Executive Committee to obtain their input and support in recommending these to the Board of Directors of the AIACC. After reviewing these positions with the Board via an informal “town hall” style meeting (conference call), these recommendations were then formally presented to the Board for approval.

At the May 3, 2013 meeting of the AIACC Board of Directors, the Board approved the recommended positions on the final list of legislation of interest to the AIACC. Summaries for these bills in their respective categories and their Board approved recommended positions can be found here.

Our next steps will be to contact the legislative authors and their staff, and meet with them to review our support, oppose, or request to amend, positions. Mark, along with the AIACC’s contract lobbyist will continue to follow through to provide information and testimony at legislative committee hearings, until such time as the process for each of these bills comes to conclusion, frequently many months later.

If you have any questions in the meantime, or would like to learn more about the legislative voice of the AIACC, please contact me at (408) 977-9160, or via email at Lee.Salin@HMCarchitects.com or Mark Christian at (916) 448-1708 or via email at mchristian@aiacc.org

 

Working for the Profession in the State Capitol

by .
in: AIACC / 0 Comments
capitol650


Every year The AIACC asks the California Legislature to make changes to California law for the improvement of the architectural profession and society in general. The agenda for 2013 consists of proposals to improve indemnification conditions for architects, to give architects a tool to ensure that the Qualifications Based Selection law is followed, and to clarify that a person must have permission from an architect to use the architect’s Instruments of Service.

AIACC 2013 Legislative Agenda
The California Legislature returns in January to begin its new session, and faces many challenges and opportunities. AIACC staff is working with AIA Members and our consultants to further develop our proposed legislative agenda for consideration by the Legislature. In developing this agenda, we are keeping in mind how the election results and the economic and political climate affect our chances of success with our agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The AIACC’s 2013 agenda consists of the following three proposals:

Instruments of Service
This proposal would clarify that any third party must have written authorization prior to using an architect’s Instruments of Service.

The requirement for written authorization would eliminate gray areas specific to receivership issues (a court appointed receiver is given responsibility to complete a project that has gone into bankruptcy) and allow the architect to stay in conformance with the Architects Practice Act. It would protect architects and prevent unjust enrichment from the unauthorized and non-licensed use of creative work produced by a design professional. Such a state law would establish in no uncertain terms that any third party who desires to use an architect’s Instruments of Service (to complete work produced under a previous agreement between an Owner and Architect) must obtain a non-exclusive limited license via a written authorization or be subject to claims.

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional. For practical and political purposes, we likely will limit the scope of this bill to contracts with local public entities.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys. The AIACC was able to have legislation introduced last year, but we dropped the bill after it was made clear to us it would not pass its first hearing; the Chair of that Committee held the opinion that a solution to the problem did not include a change in state law. Nevertheless, the problem is real and remains a significant concern to firm principals. AIACC staff has met with representatives of local public agencies since we dropped the bill, but so far have been unable to find the common ground needed for a solution.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
Like last year, the Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

We were able to get a bill introduced and heard last year, but it failed passage in its first Committee hearing due to the majority of the legislators on the Committee abstaining on the bill.

QBS violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

Similar laws are in place in Nevada and Texas, and AIACC staff has heard they work well and are supported by those state AIA Components.

Have any comments or questions about our advocacy efforts? Please comment below.

 

Noteworthy

by .
in: Government Affairs / 2 Comments

This article is part of a regular series about some of the latest developments heard in legislative circles “around town”.

Court Construction Funding Taken
For the second year in a row the state budget has taken money from the court construction fund and placed it into the state general fund for general state operations. This move was recommended by the Governor in his May Revised budget in response to the state budget deficit and competing demands for state services.

The money that was taken would have been used to acquire land and pay for the services of design professionals.

Last year the state budget took $310 Million from the fund. This year the state budget took $240 Million from the fund.

This will have an impact on the majority of firms that have been selected to design projects for the courts $5 Billion court renovation and construction program. The Governor, in proposing this taking, said he wanted to delay the court construction program for a year, use the money for other purposes, and to evaluate the program and make any necessary changes before it continues.

The AIA California Council, and several other design and construction associations, and the Judicial Council, argued against taking money from the construction fund. The AIACC argued that the design and construction industry has been incredibly harmed by this recession and would be helped by the construction program moving forward without interruption. Additionally, we argued this is a good time for an owner to move forward with projects; any delay likely will result in the projects costing more to complete.

The AIACC is a part of the coalition Just Build California, which will work to protect the court construction program in next year’s state budget. (see the full list of coalition members here.)

CEQA, LEED, and CALGreen
In what is perhaps the most effort over a law that may never be used, the AIACC joined other groups to urge that a state law enacted in the closing hours of last year’s legislative session be amended this year to allow CALGreen Tier 1 to be recognized as the equivalent of LEED Silver.

Last year, on the second to last day of session, AB 900 was amended to help the development of large projects ($100+ Million). The help was in the form of bringing greater certainty to the developer by offering an expedited review of CEQA litigation. In return for this expedited review of any CEQA litigation, the project had to meet certain requirements, including paying prevailing wage and living wages jobs, are either clean energy projects, or infill residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational projects that meet specified environmental goals, including a requirement that the projects are certified as LEED Silver or higher.

The AIACC and others argued unsuccessfully that linking a pre-development process (expedited CEQA review process) to a post-occupancy event (LEED Certification) was problematic, and we argued that CALGreen Tier 1 should be used instead of LEED Silver, as CALGreen Tier 1, unlike the LEED rating, is a California regulation developed and adopted according to California’s open meeting laws.

This year, SB 52 is offered to make clarifying amendments to the AB 900 law. It does fix the pre-development/post-occupancy issue by requiring the project to be “design to be certified as LEED Silver or better.”

However, it does not allow CALGreen Tier 1 to be used.

The AIACC and others did ask for an amendment to include CALGreen Tier 1, so that the developer could chose LEED Silver or CALGreen Tier 1 as the standard to produce a higher performing building. We argued that if state law is going to offer a benefit for developing a higher performing building, the standard to be used should include CALGreen Tier 1 as an option, as CALGreen Tier 1 is a state regulation developed and adopted in an open process that allows the public to legally participate. Here is our letter stating our arguments. Unfortunately, the author of SB 52, Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, did not want to make CALGreen Tier 1 an option, arguing that LEED Silver offers a higher green standard than CALGreen Tier 1 (an analysis done by the California Building Standards Commission a couple of years ago, and confirmed by an outside engineering firm, shows that CALGreen Tier 1 is nearly the equivalent of LEED Gold).

While it is disappointing that the amendment we suggested was not accepted, our ask was more on principal as many believe that the costs of meeting the eligibility requirements for the alternate CEQA litigation review process are so high that few developers will seriously consider using this process.

 

AIACC Reviewing Legislation: Need Your Help

by .
in: AIACC / 2 Comments

AIACC, Advocacy Advisory Committee, Legislature, legislation, AAC

The AIACC’s Advocacy Advisory Committee, a committee comprising architects from many types of practice, an attorney, and an insurer, are set to review more than 60 bills introduced by the Legislature for their potential impact on the profession or issues important to the profession.

Each year the Legislature introduces thousands of bills, and each year the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC) reviews bills that could be of collective interest to the membership. The AAC will make recommendations to the AIACC Board of Directors on how the AIACC should respond to each bill, whether that response support, oppose, ignore, or suggest an amendment.

Among the 60+ bills are proposals to create a sales tax on services, establish a practice act for interior design, require the building code to include methods to reduce vehicle miles traveled by users of the building (we are not sure how this would apply to a DMV office, a car dealership, or a Smog Check station), and exempt license professionals, including architects, who are called up for active duty in the armed forces, from having to pay the renewal fee or complete any required continuing education.

Here are the bills we are reviewing, let us know what you think.

 

AIACC 2012 Legislative Agenda

by .
in: Government Affairs / 2 Comments

With the Legislature coming back to Sacramento in January to begin the second year of the 2011-12 Session, AIACC staff is working to develop our 2012 legislative agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The Agenda consists of the following four proposals:

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

AIACC staff is working with several attorneys who represent, advise, and defend AIA members to develop meaningful and effective language.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
The Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

QBS Violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

AIACC staff is investigating similar laws in other states.

Continuing Education
The Board voted to support giving the California Architects Board (CAB) the authority to require a broad-based health, safety, and welfare continuing education requirement, much like what is required in 40+ other states.

In response to the law that requires architects to take continuing education in disability access – a response to the line of mandated continuing education being crossed – the Board has for several years supported giving the CAB this authority. The Board believes this will give the CAB greater control of mandated continuing education, and make it harder for an outside group to use the Legislature to require another topic-specific requirement.

The AIACC sponsored legislation in 2010 to give the CAB this authority, and the bill passed the Legislature without a single “No” vote. However, that bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Board’s approval this year was made with awareness that Governor Brown appears to also oppose mandated continuing education. Governor Brown recently vetoed a continuing education bill, and in his veto message he wrote:

This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated “continuing education” is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business.

Requiring them to pay fees to “continuing education providers” is an unwarranted burden.

Thus, at the Board’s direction, AIACC staff will communicate with the Governor’s office between now and early next year to determine if the Governor will see a requirement for architects to take continuing education on HSW topics as a natural and logical extension of the purpose of licensure: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

California Environmental Quality Act
The AIACC will create a task force of architects and others, chaired by Mark Hornberger, FAIA, to develop proposals to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If workable proposals are developed in time, the AIACC will attempt to get those proposals introduced as legislation next year.

This proposal is made in recognition that CEQA reform is not an easy endeavor, and that others have tried several times before, with limited or no success. Nevertheless, AIA members in both the advocacy survey and personal communication indicate the abuse of CEQA, specifically by those with an agenda that is not related to the environmental impacts of a project, are harming both the economy and CEQA itself.

There exists some political will to consider CEQA reform in the Legislature, and the task force will allow the AIACC be prepared to be a part of that conversation.

Click here to review The AIACC’s Capitol Forum’s white paper on CEQA reform.

If you have any questions about any of these initiatives or the AIACC’s Legislative Agenda, contact Mark Christian.

 

AIACC 2012 Legislative Agenda

by .
in: Advocacy Issues / 0 Comments

With the Legislature coming back to Sacramento in January to begin the second year of the 2011-12 Session, AIACC staff is working to develop our 2012 legislative agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The Agenda consists of the following four proposals:

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

AIACC staff is working with several attorneys who represent, advise, and defend AIA members to develop meaningful and effective language.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
The Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

QBS Violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

AIACC staff is investigating similar laws in other states.

Continuing Education
The Board voted to support giving the California Architects Board (CAB) the authority to require a broad-based health, safety, and welfare continuing education requirement, much like what is required in 40+ other states.

In response to the law that requires architects to take continuing education in disability access – a response to the line of mandated continuing education being crossed – the Board has for several years supported giving the CAB this authority. The Board believes this will give the CAB greater control of mandated continuing education, and make it harder for an outside group to use the Legislature to require another topic-specific requirement.

The AIACC sponsored legislation in 2010 to give the CAB this authority, and the bill passed the Legislature without a single “No” vote. However, that bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Board’s approval this year was made with awareness that Governor Brown appears to also oppose mandated continuing education. Governor Brown recently vetoed a continuing education bill, and in his veto message he wrote:

This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated “continuing education” is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business.

Requiring them to pay fees to “continuing education providers” is an unwarranted burden.

Thus, at the Board’s direction, AIACC staff will communicate with the Governor’s office between now and early next year to determine if the Governor will see a requirement for architects to take continuing education on HSW topics as a natural and logical extension of the purpose of licensure: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

California Environmental Quality Act
The AIACC will create a task force of architects and others, chaired by Mark Hornberger, FAIA, to develop proposals to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If workable proposals are developed in time, the AIACC will attempt to get those proposals introduced as legislation next year.

This proposal is made in recognition that CEQA reform is not an easy endeavor, and that others have tried several times before, with limited or no success. Nevertheless, AIA members in both the advocacy survey and personal communication indicate the abuse of CEQA, specifically by those with an agenda that is not related to the environmental impacts of a project, are harming both the economy and CEQA itself.

There exists some political will to consider CEQA reform in the Legislature, and the task force will allow the AIACC be prepared to be a part of that conversation.

Click here to review The AIACC’s Capitol Forum’s white paper on CEQA reform.

If you have any questions about any of these initiatives or the AIACC’s Legislative Agenda, contact Mark Christian.

 

The AIACC Leadership Works Diligently Advocating on Behalf of Members – 6/8/11

by .
in: From the AIACC / 0 Comments
salingif

When AIACC members are surveyed regarding what they see as their number one value as members, a large percentage of respondents reply with advocacy as being of the most value to them.

The AIACC places a high value in advocacy as well, including staff, budget, tracking of bills, and the development of proactive strategies to positively affect the profession of architecture.

Lee Salin, AIA, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, has been involved in the AIACC leadership for many years. Most recently serving as VP, in addition to serving on the AIACC Executive Committee.

Salin is passionate about the process of collaboration and creating design, and finds his inspiration for design in everyday life. As a practicing architect for more than 20 years, he is a managing principal of HMC Architects, and oversees the San Jose office. He was recently President of the AIA Santa Clara Valley chapter and has served on HMC’s Board of Directors.

As VP of Legislative Affairs Salin has several goals he would like to accomplish in 2011. In addition to addressing the Governor’s proposed elimination of California’s Redevelopment Agencies, he would like to see the AIACC and others, address issues such as indemnification and business issues that impact architectural practices, and work with the Advocacy Advisory Committee to develop proactive legislation. In addition, moving forward with the new Governor, the goal is to connect with the new leadership to create more in-roads to positively affect the architectural profession.

Another goal Salin would like to achieve is to give the California Architects Board the authority to require broad-based health, safety and welfare continuing education in order to renew an architect’s license. This would place architectural continuing education under the control of the California Architects Board and make it more difficult for special interest groups to require continuing education, such as the current disability access requirement.

Salin states, “There are always things going on behind the scenes that often go unnoticed. Much of our advocacy efforts and activities are to prevent certain things from happening, and is not just about carrying or sponsoring bills.”

The Advocacy Advisory Committee comprises individuals from varying areas of practice who come together to discuss new ideas, as well as form legislative efforts and activities. One of the goals for 2011 is to create a new Advocacy Liaison Committee which includes a representative from every chapter in the state, who can be a touch point in their respective regions to discuss both local and state advocacy issues from the perspective of each. These individuals will meet on a quarterly basis to share information about local issues, (which are generally not unique to any chapter), and to discuss and share strategies to address those issues. This opportunity for local chapters to communicate on local advocacy issues and to share experiences will benefit the AIA community in California as a whole. This committee will be in place by the end of the year.

A new communication vehicle is also being considered that will alert the membership when there has been activity on legislative issues, and they will be notified in “real time” as to what is occurring with AIACC efforts and activities on their behalf. As members are informed about what’s going on they see what the AIACC does with its advocacy efforts in protecting the profession, as well as preventing problem issues from occurring. In addition, another step to involve AIACC members is the annual survey that is conducted at the end of every year, surveying members in order to gather their ideas for proactive measures to take regarding profession related issues that could be handled via legislation and the Legislature.

Salin states his motivation for being involved in the AIACC, is in trying to make a difference in the architectural profession, as well as the environment and our communities. These are key reasons why the advocacy side has always interested him, and by volunteering, it is his way of giving back to the whole of the profession; that is what inspires him. He states, “It is a very rewarding experience being involved with the executive committee and being connected with the AIACC. It is both encouraging and satisfying!”

 

AIACC Makes Recommendations to Foster a Stronger DSA

by .
in: Featured Article / 6 Comments
AIA California Council, AIACC, Architecture Profession, California Department of General Services, California Government, Division of State Architect, DSA, Future of Architects, Governor, K-12 Schools, Legislature, State Architect, whitepaper

Horace Mann Elementary School - 2004 Design Award Winner - Architect Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners

The AIACC believes that as a consequence of external budgetary pressures and as a result of its limited role as overseer in the development of K-12 schools, the Division of the State Architect (DSA) has never been in greater danger of either having its current functions diminished or the office as we know it completely eliminated.

Many, if not most of us, have taken for granted the role of the State Architect and have assumed that the person in that position was serving as a trusted advisor to the Governor and the Legislature on all things related to the design and construction industry. This may have been true in the past but it is certainly not the current situation, and we fear the dialogue may be absolved further.

As much as we believe in the importance and need for an architectural voice within state government, we also recognize the power of design to transform and the value of design to deal with our state’s current challenges. Design has the inherent ability to solve problems that are not only physical but also social and economic. Without direct internal access to government decision makers we cannot bring the transformations taking place in our practices to the greater community. Transformations such as new delivery methods that are more efficient and cost effective, designs that go beyond sustainable, and post occupancy evaluation tools that inform future designs regarding both building and human performance to name a few.

In response to these concerns, the Council has brought together our profession’s thought leaders to help research and inform the future of the DSA. This has culminated in the following whitepaper: Maximizing California’s Resources: Recommendations for a Stronger Design and Construction Industry. This paper presents a “comprehensive vision” with specific recommendations toward building a stronger DSA, and furthering the role and relevancy of our State Architect in California government. The whitepaper offers some important suggestions that if considered and implemented could make a marked difference in the quality and cost effectiveness of planning, design, and construction services for future state funded and supported projects – and in many ways the future of the profession itself.

Do you agree with this vision?

Consolidation of the State’s construction related functions under the Division of the State Architect as a single agency responsible for policy and planning of the built environment, oversight of the design and construction industry, and leadership in environmental sustainability.

We hope that this will be the beginning of a dialogue and not the end of an era; please feel free participate by soliciting your comments below.

Camino Nuevo High School - 2007 Design Award Winner - Architect Daly Genik