Legislative Alert – Your practice could be compromised with the passage of AB 2192.
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!
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
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.
(Name & address)