Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California Architects Board adopts strategic-plan edits and three regulatory changes; approves $40 certification fee
Summary
At its May meeting the California Architects Board approved a revised strategic plan objective, directed staff on rulemaking tied to the Architect Registration Exam (ARE), adopted a $40 certification fee, and approved emergency-extension language for candidate application periods.
The California Architects Board on May 16 approved changes to its strategic plan and adopted three regulatory actions, including a $40 fee for license certification requests, a move to align retake/testing rules with the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards’ (NCARB) ARE guidelines, and a rule to allow extensions of candidate application expiration during declared emergencies.
Board members voted to combine objectives 2.3 and 2.4 in the board’s draft strategic plan and to adopt the plan as amended. The board then moved through three regulatory motions: directing staff to provide a proposed response to a public comment on proposed changes to CTR 1.20 (removing board-specific ARE retake requirements and referring to NCARB guidance), approving proposed regulatory text to authorize a $40 fee for certification letters (staff time to prepare verification letters requested by licensees), and approving proposed regulatory text to allow an emergency-based extension of candidate application expiration periods when a governor-declared emergency affects candidates’ ability to meet deadlines.
Why it matters: the changes change how the state board manages exam-related rules and candidate recordkeeping, create a modest new revenue source for staff time, and add an administrative mechanism aimed at letting the board respond if a governor-declared emergency disrupts licensure timelines.
Most important details
- Strategic plan: The board voted to combine objectives 2.3 and 2.4 and adopt the updated strategic plan (motion offered and seconded during the meeting). The chair called the roll; the roll-call recorded unanimous support among members present.
- ARE-related regulation (CTR 1.20): Staff recommended rescinding certain board-specific testing and retake prescription and instead to refer to NCARB’s ARE guidelines to reduce conflicts between state rules and NCARB practice. The board directed staff to prepare a proposed response to the written public comment, complete the administrative steps of the rulemaking file, and delegated authority to the executive officer to make technical or non‑substantive edits as needed to finalize the rulemaking.
- Certification fee (proposed section 1.4): The board approved proposed regulatory text to permit charging $40 for certification letters that staff prepare at a licensee’s request. Staff described the work as time‑consuming and previously provided at no cost; the fee reflects recovered staff time. The board directed staff to submit the text to the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review and to initiate rulemaking if no adverse comments are received.
- Candidate application extensions (proposed section 1.09): The board approved language to allow the board to extend candidate application expiration periods during a governor-declared emergency. Board members clarified that the regulation’s trigger is a formal governor declaration or an included emergency order; the regulation does not itself create retroactive extensions and would follow the normal rulemaking timeline before it becomes effective.
Process and next steps
For each regulatory item the board authorized staff to submit the proposed text for mandated executive review (DCA and the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency) and, absent adverse comments, to proceed with the normal rulemaking steps and to make technical or non‑substantive changes as required. The executive officer was authorized to complete the rulemaking package and adopt the regulations if no hearing is requested and no adverse comments are filed during the public-comment period.
Quotations and attribution
Board staff summarized the ARE-rule change as a move to reduce conflicts with NCARB policy and to “refer to NCARB’s ARE guidelines instead of putting out our own prescribed rules,” reflecting staff’s view that state rules were sometimes inconsistent with NCARB. Member Melba Serrano moved one of the fee-related motions, and the secretary then called the roll for the vote.
Ending
The board’s approvals will move each proposal into the formal rulemaking process with DCA review and a public-comment period. Staff said proposed effective timing depends on the rulemaking timeline and any public input received; the certification fee, if adopted, is intended to recover staff time spent preparing requested letters.
