Click here to open/download a PDF of this article complete with tables and images.

Our thanks extends to lobbyist, Susan Stuart of Capitol Advisors, who had the ear of the members of the legislature. This led to the withdrawal of the bill by the author (Melendez) due to our serious concerns over creating a peer review system allowing architect to review and provide building permits for residential projects. The result would have been monopolistic control of the very area of work in which interior designers currently practice.

Stay tuned to Direct Link to www.clcid.org for legislative alters.   Be sure that you are registered for this important communication.

Following is a suggested letter from the California Council for Interior Designer Certification (CCIDC)  with a selection of bullet points that state the ramifications of this bill for interior designers.   The bill has already passed the CA Assembly and is on its way to the CA Senate.  Now is the time to make your voice heard!   Write and fax your letter today!

Click here to see CLCID  call to action email

Use the information below to create your letter and FAX it to Senator Mark DeSaulier, Chair of the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee.  

TO: Senator Mark DeSaulier, Chair
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee

FAX: 916-651-4907

RE:  AB 2192 (Melendez) – OPPOSE

Dear Senator DeSaulier,

I am a Certified Interior Designer, and I oppose AB 2192 as amended for the following reasons:

AB 2192 sets up a building plan “peer review” process that excludes all design professionals except architects.  This bill unfairly targets nonstructural, nonseismic design for commercial and residential buildings (which is exempt in the Architects Practice Act), and is traditionally under the purview of Certified Interior Designers.  Architects do not need a peer review process to certify plans that do not require their expertise!

AB 2192 will cause confusion for the consumer.  This bill could easily mislead consumers into believing that architects are more qualified because they could provide expedited permit review for nonstructural, nonseismic design plans.   This is duplicitous! Certified Interior Designers are equally qualified to perform this work.

AB 2192 dishonestly uses the states power to enhance an architects license over other design professionals.

This bill could harm my ability to earn a living!   The majority of residential interior design work is done by professionals other than architects.

AB 2192 has the potential to put thousands of Certified Interior Designers and other “unlicensed” design professionals out of work.

This bill is simply unnecessary!  There is no backlog of plan reviews in local building departments and current law gives building departments avenues to address potential backlogs.

The pilot program this bill would set up is extremely flawed.  There is no mechanism for selecting the jurisdictions, the monitoring agency, or the analytical agency in order to determine if the pilot program worked.  If a state agency is selected to do the pilot program, this becomes a “Fiscal” bill and the state does NOT need to spend taxpayer dollars on this disingenuous piece of legislation!

I strongly oppose AB 2192 and respectfully request your “NO” vote.

Sincerely,

(Name & address)

It is critical that we defeat the bill in the Senate with our letters and faxes.  More information will follow when the Policy Committee is selected.

AB 2192 (Melendez) is a bill sponsored by the AIA California Council, which in its original form allowed for a peer review/self-certification system for architectural approval of plans.  This process would circumvent the current program approval of plans by local building departments which is the channel used by interior designers.  The peer review system in this bill as amended covers residential interior design work identified under the CA Architects Practice Act.

In 2010, California has adopted the nation’s first green building code known as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).  The California Building Codes are created in the year prior to release, hence the 2013 building codes are released in 2014 and so on.  These code requirements have significant impact on all building types.  As with most building codes, there are exceptions to many of the primary codes.  It is important to review the complete California Building Codes before submitting the plans to the building departments.  As designers, we are responsible for complying with the California building codes.

Also adopted in 2010 was the International Residential Code with California amendments as the new residential code to create the California Residential Code.  This is a separate code book applicable to all new residential and non-residential construction.  It establishes sustainable construction practices in planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency and environmental quality.  These codes set minimum mandatory Green Building Standards and may include optional improved “tiers” that incorporate additional measures for residential and nonresidential new construction.

Some highlights in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code are:

• 301 – Effective January 1, 2014 all residential buildings undergoing permit alteration, additions or improvements shall replace noncompliant plumbing fixtures with water-conserving plumbing fixtures. Plumbing fixture replacement is required prior to issuance of final completion for a certificate of occupancy or final permit approval by the local building department.
  • Civil Code Section 1101.3(c) – Noncompliant plumbing fixture means:
    • Any toilet manufactured to use more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush
    • Any urinal manufactured to use more than 1 gpf
    • Any showerhead manufactured to have a flow capacity of more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute
    • Any interior faucet that emits more than 2.2 gallons of water per minute
• 4.302 – Residential Mandatory Measures
  • Indoor Water Use:
    • Effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf)
    • Effective flush volume of urinals shall not exceed .5 gpf
    • Effective single showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of note more than 2.0 gallons per minute at 80 pounds per square inch (psi)
    • Effective multiple showerheads serving one shower shall be controlled by a single valve and have a maximum combined flow rate of not more than 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 psi with only one shower outlet to be in operation at a time
    • The maximum flow rate of lavatory faucets shall not exceed 1.5 gallons maximum at 60 psi and 0.8 gallons per minutes minimum at 20 psi 
    • The maximum flow rate of kitchen faucets shall not exceed 1.8 gpm at 60 psi

The 2013 California Residential Code is a separate document applicable to detached one and two family dwellings. This code covers all structural requirements for “conventional construction” and non-structural aspects of dwelling construction.  The requirements for townhouses (not more than three stories) are also included in the Residential Code.  Multi-family residential projects are found in Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2 of the California Building Code.

Some highlights in the California Residential Code are:

• R303 – Bathrooms, water closet compartments and other similar rooms shall be provided with aggregate glazing area in windows of not less than 3 square feet, one-half of which must be openable.  The glazed areas shall not be required where artificial light and a local exhaust system (20 CFM) exhausted to the outside are provided.
• R303 – Each bathroom containing a bathtub, shower or tub/shower combination shall be mechanically ventilated for the purposes of humidity control.  Window operation is not a permissible method of providing bathroom exhaust for humidity control.
• R311- Exiting from floors above or below the first floor in habitable space has been revised to limit the maximum travel distance to 50 feet.
• R313 – Residential Fire Sprinklers are now required in all new residential construction
  • Exception – An automatic residential sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alternations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system.
• R312 – Guardrails (guards) for all residential dwelling units (inside and outside) are required to be 42 inches in height.
• R314 – Smoke alarms or smoke detectors:
  • Shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be replaced after 10 years from the date of manufacture marked on the unit of if the date of manufacture cannot be determined
  • Shall be installed a minimum of 20’ horizontal distance from a permanently installed cooking appliance
  • Avoid installing within 36” horizontal path from the supply registers of a forced air heating or cooling system or from the tip of a ceiling-suspended paddle fan
  • Locate in stairways in the path of potential rising smoke
  • Locate on the highest portion or on the sloped portion within 12” vertically down from the highest point tray-shaped ceilings
• R315 – Carbon monoxide alarms:
  • Shall be installed in new construction dwelling units and in sleeping units within which fuel-burning appliances are installed and in dwelling units that have attached garages.
  • Shall receive their primary power from the building wiring with no disconnecting switch where such wiring is served from commercial source and shall also be equipped with a battery back-up
  • Shall be installed in each separate dwelling unit sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom(s) and on every level of a dwelling unit
  • Solely battery operated or plug-in type with battery back-up in areas where no construction is taking place is permitted in existing buildings
  • Device and instructions shall be approved by the State Fire Marshal

The other documents in this section concern summarized accessible codes that can also be used as guidelines, if not required as mandatory code, for universal design.  It is recommended that designers refer to the 2013 California Building Code books for more details and drawings.  Another excellent resource is the CLCID 2013 Reference Manual that includes CALGreen and focuses on building codes for interior designers.  To obtain a copy of that manual, go to www.clcid.org or contact treasurer@clcid.org.

More code details:

CBC – Kitchens 2014 – Kitchens

CBC – Bathing Facilities 2014 – Bathtubs and Showers

CBC – WC 2014 – Water Closets

The bill is now headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee at a date to be determined, probably in the next two weeks or so. The bill potentially could be amended with some of the proposed amendments emanating from the recent stakeholders meetings held in Sacramento, prior to the Appropriations Committee hearing.

There is unfortunately still some disagreement on the proposed amendments, mostly from AIACC*.

All of the other stakeholders**(CCIDC, CAB, CALBO, 4CID.org, CLCID, ASID-IDCC) appear to be relatively in agreement. We will keep you updated on this process as it unfolds.

To view the history and current status of SB 308 go to:

www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_308&sess=CUR&house=B&author=price

Acronym list
*stakeholder in disagreement
AIACC – American Institute of Architects California Council

**stakeholders in agreement
CCIDC – California Council for Interior Design Certification
CAB – California Architects Board
CALBO – California Building Officials
4CID.org – an independent group of Certified Interior Designers
CLCID – California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design
ASID-IDCC – American Society of Interior Designers / Interior Design Coalition of California

  Click on the article name to view (articles are in PDF format).

The legislative coalition (CLCID)

https://clcid.org/legislation/#link_acc-1-6-d  to read about legislative issues affecting interior designers.

https://clcid.org/directlink/ to connect with Direct Link

https://clcid.org/code-manual/ to review and order California Codes and Regulations for Interior Designers.

https://clcid.org/sponsorships/  to support CLCID with your low-cost membership – YOU DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

The council for Interior design certification (CCIDC)

https://ccidc.org/becoming-a-certified-interior-designer/ for California Certified Interior Design Title Act Law and certification requirements.

https://ccidc.org/blog/ for e-Newsletters and information.

https://ccidc.org/code-of-ethics/  for the Code of Ethics and Conduct.

https://ccidc.org/cid-employment/ for Certified Interior Designers job postings

SB-308 is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Government Organizational (G.O.) Committee on August 7th in Sacramento.

The way the bill sits right now is the proposed architects (AIACC) amendments were pulled and left out. Unfortunately so was the original clarifying language put into Section 5800.  The way Section 5800 reads is the same as it has since before the Sunset Review for the past 22 years. That portion remains at the status quo. The other amendments for mandatory agreements, codification of the “CID” appellation, the open meeting act, and the Sunset extension to January 1, 2018 remain in the bill.

It is anticipated that the much heralded “stakeholders” meetings will take place sometime between July 7th, and August 5th, while the legislature is on its Summer recess. We do not have any specific dates at this point. Whether any amendments are to be offered up at the G.O. committee hearing, or later in the legislative process, remains to be seen.

During the June 25th Assembly Business and Professions hearing there was a lot of misinformation disseminated by one Assembly Member who had unfortunately been given incorrect or false facts. We would like to take the opportunity to correct the record for those of you who either attended or watched the hearing on CalChannel.com.

1. It was stated that “The rest of the United States has a certain standard for testing and being certified that means if you have that license you can bid on Federal projects, you can do things that are more recognizable”.

This is not true, only 3 states, namely Florida, Louisiana, and Nevada have mandatory licensing requirements, which include the NCIDQ examination as a testing standard. No other states have mandatory licensing statutes for interior designers. It should also be noted that Florida requires this test for “commercial” work only. Residential work in Florida is exempt from any examinations whatsoever. All other states that offer some form of interior design regulation have “voluntary” title acts, so anyone can call themselves an “interior designer” and anyone can practice interior design without any examination whatsoever. This includes California, and all other 46 states.

There is no Federal law or regulation requiring interior designers bidding on Federal contracts to acquire or possess the NCIDQ examination in order to bid on said contracts. Individual Federal contracts (RFPs) may require the NCIDQ as a qualification for the interior designer, even though the prime professional is most often a licensed architect. They will also accept any other local jurisdiction or state regulations for “Certified”, “Registered”, or “Licensed” interior designers, whichever may be applicable. Often, Federal bidding requirements for interior design services are written by interior designers working for the Federal government who happen to possess the NCIDQ examination, so their bias towards that examination tends to be prevalent.

There is nothing in California law, statutes or regulations regarding interior designers in this state that prevents them from obtaining the NCIDQ examination of their own free will in order to comply with another states regulations, or the ability to bid on a Federal contract, even though it is not required. In 22 years of administering the certification program in California, CCIDC has not heard of one CID being denied the ability to bid on a Federal or State interior design project because they did not possess the NCIDQ examination, not one.

2. It was stated “CCIDC has their own standard for California, and that hasn’t got them as far as they would like to get for most members”.

The reason CCIDC has its own standard is that California has its own building code (CBC) that is significantly different than all other building codes used in the other 49 states. California has Title 24 accessibility and conservation statutes, as well as a fairly new “Green” code, that are interwoven throughout the CBC. No other state has a code like this. The NCIDQ examination does not, nor does any other interior design examination (NKBA or CQRID), test on California codes and Title 24. In order to satisfy the requirement that California certified interior designers are knowledgeable on California codes to assure the public and building officials that certified interior designers in this state are competent, CCIDC developed its own interior design examination for California, namely the IDEX. No other examination tests on the same level and basis as the IDEX California examination.

3. It was stated “They would like to be accepted into plan check, they would like to have this stuff worked in that area and all, and I understand this vehicle was supposed to be trying to work that out this year”.

Firstly, all nonstructural and nonseismic interior design plans, whether stamped by a CID or not stamped at all, are accepted in every jurisdiction in California. Having said that however, whether they require an architect’s or engineers stamp or not depends upon the complexity and the elements contained within the particular project, and the jurisdiction where it is being submitted. Most residential projects are accepted without exception unless they exceed the exemptions contained within the architects practice act Sections 5537 and 5538. For commercial projects each jurisdiction in California has their own very specific plan check submission requirements. For example a CID can do horizontal exiting, rated corridors and reflected ceiling plans in San Diego but not in Los Angeles or San Francisco. All of this work is “standard and conventional construction” and falls under the exemptions of the architects practice act, otherwise no jurisdiction would accept any of it. Why the discrepancy? A lot has to do with local politics and control within the building department and the influence of the architects lobby in this state.

The purpose of the “clarifying language” placed into SB-308 308 earlier in the year thus adding “horizontal exiting, rated corridors and reflected ceiling plans” to the CID law Section 5800 was to respond to building officials requests that the work CIDs are allowed to do by law be included within our statute. This language was removed by the architects lobby, namely the AIACC, even though they have acknowledged interior designers do indeed do this work and have done so for decades. It’s okay for interior designers to do this work as allowed under Sections 5537 and 5538, but it is another thing to put it into the CID statute.

Yes, this vehicle was supposed to be “trying to work that out this year”, but it seems there are the same old road blocks being thrown up as they have for the past 30 years or so.

4. It was stated “First of all if CCIDC ever conforms at least to the Federal standard, at least that standard and getting both those stamps is the best situation long term”.

Again, there are no Federal standards for interior designers. The regulation of all professions in the United States is conducted by each individual state with their own individual statutory regulations and regulatory boards.

Given that the only standards for interior designers in the United States are state standards, and not a Federal one, CIDs in California meet the standard set in California, by California. The California standard is based upon California building codes, Title 24, and other regulatory statutes that are different than in other states. The examination used in California is a “certification” examination specifically developed to address California, not a national “interior design” examination.

If the purpose of any profession regulation is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the California general public, then shouldn’t the examinations used to qualify those professions be based upon the codes and statues of California, and not imaginary Federal standards?

Reference:

AIACC | Support and Oppose 06/26/2013 by Mark Christian

June 25 Assembly Business and Professions hearing (slide to 1:43:40)
http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1426

Status of SB-308:
www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_308&sess=CUR&house=B&author=price