In the bustling city of Santa Monica, California, a quiet revolution is underway in the world of building design and construction. The city has embraced a new approach to approving buildings called self-certification. This shift promises to streamline the permitting process and boost efficiency, but it also raises thorny questions about accountability, legal liability, ethical activity, and the evolving role of design professionals.
At first glance, self-certification seems like a win-win proposition. Design professionals gain more autonomy and control over their projects, while the city benefits from reduced bureaucracy and faster turnaround times. Proponents argue that the system will attract new businesses, spur economic growth, and free up city staff to focus on more complex development challenges. However, the California Code of Regulations establishes the Building Standards Commission’s authority to approve local amendments to building codes, which impacts how cities would implement self-certification programs.
The matter of who is responsible may compromise the concept of “standard of care” – the level of professionalism that a reasonable architect would exercise under similar circumstances. Which begs the question during a transition, “what are the similar circumstances?” For generations, this standard has been shaped and enforced by robust plan check systems, where architects submit plans to city officials for a compliance review with all applicable laws, regulations, and codes.
The new proposal, by allowing architects to vouch for submittals for the safety, sustainability, and code compliance, where any warranty or promise undermines the standards of care. If something goes wrong – whether it’s a structural failure, a fire hazard, or an ADA violation – the architect doesn’t have the shield of sovereign immunity that the city does. Furthermore, with limiting city staff budgets for inspectors, would third-party inspectors be retained by the architect? That can increase risks to potentially face lawsuits, crippling insurance claims, and damage to their professional reputations.
With liability risks being more vulnerable under self-certification, design professionals will struggle to secure affordable Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance coverage. Insurance providers, wary of higher potential for claims, would either raise premiums to prohibitive levels or refuse to offer coverage altogether. This could create a situation where only the largest and most well-capitalized firms can afford to practice, stifling competition and innovation in the industry.
Clearly, the consequences of this transition could be profound and far-reaching. For one, it could create a race to the bottom among architects, as those who maintain reasoned levels of interpretation find themselves at a competitive disadvantage against the unwittingly more lax. It could also lead to a fragmentation of code interpretations across different jurisdictions or project types, thereby amplifying nuances in understanding the intent for safe construction.
The City would need to ensure the costs of regulatory compliance are borne fairly and not disproportionately by small firms and practitioners. If self-certification takes hold, it could create a two-tiered system where only the largest and wealthiest firms can afford the soaring insurance premiums and legal risks that come with vouching for their own work. This would not only stifle competition and innovation but also further erode public confidence in an industry already struggling with a trust deficit.
On the surface, self-certification seems like a seductively simple solution to the complex challenges plaguing the construction industry. Overworked building departments, struggling to keep pace with a surge in development, are all too eager to shed some of their oversight responsibilities. Most developers and some design professionals, chafing under the delays and costs imposed by cumbersome permitting processes, are happy to police themselves if it means getting projects done faster and cheaper. What could possibly go wrong?
As it turns out, plenty. Self-certification can blur the lines between designer and regulator, and further undermine the perception of architects as independent, objective stewards of the built environment. The answer to what Santa Monica City seeks is not to abandon the hard-won sustainability codes, and safeguards and standards that have served us well for generations, but rather to find ways to strengthen and improve them for the challenges of the 21st century. This means cities are to find funding to invest in building departments to ensure they have the resources and expertise to provide robust, consistent, and timely plan reviews; and to train staff to leverage technology and data to streamline the permitting process and make it more transparent and predictable. And it means fostering a huddling culture of collaboration and continuous improvement among architects, engineers, contractors, and regulators, one that prioritizes public safety and welfare above all else.
None of this is to suggest that the current regulatory system can be modified to be perfect. Building departments are understaffed, undertrained, and riven by their own perverse incentives. Permitting processes can be byzantine, inconsistent, and painfully slow. These are legitimate frustrations for design professionals and developers trying to navigate an often opaque and capricious system. Ultimately, the debate over self-certification is about more than just bureaucratic wrangling or economic efficiency. It’s about the fundamental social contract that underpins the building industry – the idea that those who design and construct the spaces where we live, work, and play have a solemn obligation to place public welfare above private interest. It’s an obligation that requires constant vigilance, shared responsibility, and a commitment to upholding the highest standards of professional practice.
Should Santa Monica City and other jurisdictions continue to contemplate the siren song of self-certification, they would do well to remember the hard-won lessons of history and the vital role that independent oversight has played in safeguarding the public trust. Perhaps we require council persons proposing to abdicate their duties shall become co-signers in respect to Hammurabi’s Code from 1750 B.C. that attached penalties to those responsible for poor performance. That said, with confidence, and appropriate training, there is a future where buildings are not just faster and cheaper to construct, but also safer, more sustainable, and more responsive to the greater good of society and respect of all those who depend on the integrity of the built environment.
By Jack Hillbrand AIA, Architect
S.M.a.r.t. Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect; Dan Jansenson, Architect & Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission, Samuel Tolkin, Architect & Planning Commissioner; Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Architect; Thane Roberts, Architect; Jack Hillbrand AIA, & Landmarks Commission’s Architect;
Phil Brock, former SM Mayor; Michael Jolly, AIRCRE
For previous articles, see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
