Disciplinary Actions Against Licensees (A-L) - Last Updated June 2007

This page contains summaries of disciplinary decisions finalized between 1987 and June 2007. The Board is in the process of preparing the summaries for decisions which became effective between June 2007 and June 2010. Summaries are posted once the decision is final. Summaries regarding actions which result in revocation or surrender of the license remain on the web site indefinitely. Summaries regarding actions which result in suspension or probation remain on the web site for five (5) years after the completion of the suspension or probationary period. Summaries regarding actions resulting in reproval/reprimand remain on the web site for five (5) years after the effective date of the decision. All disciplinary actions taken by the Board are matters of public record; for copies of the actual decisions on which these summaries are based or for information about any disciplinary actions that might no longer be posted on the web site in accordance with the above schedule, contact the Board's Enforcement Unit at BPELSG.Enforcement.Information@dca.ca.gov.

Beginning in June 2010, the Board is posting copies of Final Disciplinary Decisions on its website. Click here for the list of and links to the Final Disciplinary Decisions.

You may use your browser's BACK button to return to this list to look for additional names, or you may scroll through the entire list of articles. For summaries of disciplinary actions from M-Z, click here.

NOTE: Due to budgetary constraints, the Board is unable to timely update this page with information regarding current actions. Please contact the Board's Enforcement Unit at (916) 263-2284 or BPELSG.Enforcement.Information@dca.ca.gov for current updates.

 

AGUILAR, JOSE ALFONSO
Civil Engineer C 23295
Accusation 502-A
Effective March 11, 1996: License REVOKED

The Board issued a decision finding that Jose Alfonso Aguilar committed acts of deceit, negligence, misrepresentation, and fraud in his practice as a professional engineer. By redesigning the support system and ties for unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, Aguilar acted in the capacity of a civil engineer. Because he was also the contractor, he knew that the approved shear anchor design and installation technique was not being used. Thus, as the civil engineer, Aguilar knew that the URM buildings did not meet the standards of Chapter 88 of the Los Angeles Building Code.

By failing to disclose the substitution, Aguilar committed acts of deceit. Aguilar was negligent because he should have known that the URM buildings did not meet Chapter 88 standards. He committed acts of misrepresentation and fraud in that as the contractor, he knew that the approved design was not to be used when, as the civil engineer, he submitted the plans to the clients and the City of Los Angeles. By approving and submitting the plans, Aguilar committed acts of misrepresentation and fraud, leading the clients and the city to believe that an approved design was to be used. Aguilar also committed acts of fraud in his practice as a professional engineer by certifying that the construction conducted on the URM buildings conformed with the approved designs. Based on these findings, it was determined that Aguilar violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) for deceit, negligence, misrepresentation, and fraud.

Effective March 11, 1996, Aguilar's civil engineering license was revoked.


ALEN, RUPERT O.
Civil Engineer C 6586, Structural Engineer S 599
Accusation 650-A
Effective February 6, 2002: REVOKED

The Board has taken disciplinary action against the Civil and Structural Engineer Licenses, C 6586 and S 599, issued to Rupert O. Alen, for violations of Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence and incompetence in his structural engineering practice.

At a hearing on the Accusation in this matter, it was established that Alen contracted to perform the engineering design of a residential structure located in Oxnard and to supervise and review the preparation of construction drawings for the same structure. The plans, drawings, and calculations prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, Alen were submitted to the building department for review and approval. It was further established that the plans, drawings, and calculations contained numerous errors and inconsistencies. Specifically, it was determined that Alen's calculation regarding the design of moment frames used different load cases for all terms of the equation in his moment-area analysis; the holdown calculations were not included in the body of Alen's calculations; Alen's incorrect calculation of tributary width to the shear wall resulted in a shear wall inadequacy; Alen failed to properly calculate the foundation analysis in consideration of the addition of a second floor on a one-story structure; and Alen failed to properly and adequately review the drawings that were drafted by an unlicensed individual, so as to assure accuracy, completeness, and clarity prior to affixing his professional engineer's seal on the construction drawings. It was also determined that Alen's continued licensure provides a danger to the public. Therefore, Alen's Civil and Structural Engineer Licenses were ordered revoked.


ALEXANDER, JOSEPH EDGAR (Click here to see Accusation 741-A)
Civil Engineer C 18297
Accusation 313-A
Effective August 7, 1988: One year suspension, stayed, three years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Joseph E. Alexander, a civil engineer, as a result of the work he performed for a tract development. Specifically, Alexander prepared soils reports and indicated that compliance with grading specifications had been met. These reports were later found to be inadequate and out of compliance with accepted specifications. Effective August 7, 1988, Alexander agreed to a one-year suspension of his license, which was stayed. He was placed on probation for a period of three years with specified terms and conditions including, but not limited to, the successful completion of a Board-approved educational program in soils engineering.


ALEXANDER, JOSEPH EDGAR (Click here to see Accusation 313-A)
Civil Engineer C 18297
Accusation 741-A
Effective October 24, 2003: License revoked
Effective August 26, 2005: License reinstated with conditions

Disciplinary action was taken against the Civil Engineer License, No. C 18297, issued to Joseph Edgar Alexander for violations of Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence in his practice of civil engineering.

Alexander was contracted to provide soils engineering services, including but not limited to, preparing site grading plans, structural calculations, and quality control related to geotechnical issues, for the construction of a new residence on property located in Tehachapi. Alexander performed three in-place density tests in the fill area of the building pad for the proposed residence; the number and location of the density tests were inadequate for certification of structural fill soils placed at the site. Additionally, the test report for the density tests, which Alexander signed and sealed, failed to include required information, such as the type of structural fill soils, how such soils were conditioned prior to placement, benching dimensions, method of compaction, the date the test were taken, the method used for the tests, the foot print of the building related to the test locations, and the inspection frequency. Furthermore, the results of the density tests failed to comply with the specifications provided in the General Notes of the Grading Plan Alexander had prepared, and the Grading Plan and the Plot Plan that Alexander prepared depicted two totally different projects with different building foot prints and grading.

In the Board's Default Decision and Order, which became effective on October 24, 2003, Alexander's Civil Engineer License was ordered revoked.

On June 24, 2005, an administrative hearing on the Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License of Joseph E. Alexander was held. Since the revocation of his license, which was effective October 24, 2003, Alexander has worked on a part-time basis for two licensed civil engineers and a licensed architect doing structural calculations, grading plans, and calculations for single-family residences and preparing structural calculations for residential retaining walls. Alexander successfully completed two 4.5-hour continuing education workshops; one in anchor systems and the other for general connectors. He submitted five letters to the Board from former clients attesting to his honesty, professionalism, and efficiency. Alexander conceded that his record maintenance had been deficient and resulted in his inability to produce files when required during past investigations. He vowed that if his license is reinstated, he has no intention of ever practicing geotechnical engineering but will only engage in civil engineering projects. The Board granted Alexander's petition and ordered his civil engineer license reinstated, effective August 26, 2005. However, the license was then immediately revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and Alexander was placed on probation for five years upon certain terms and conditions, including the requirement that he take and pass the California Special Civil Seismic Principles exam and a business practices course.


ALLEN, FREDRIC VERNON (Click here to see Citation 5052-L)
Civil Engineer C 20702
Accusations 705-A & 720-A
Effective November 19, 2001: License revoked
Effective March 1, 2005: License reinstated with 1 year probation

Disciplinary action was taken against the civil engineer license, No. C 20702, issued to Fredric Vernon Allen for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8780(g), 8780(d), 8761, and 8762, and for violations of Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 473.3(b).

Allen breached his contract to perform land surveying services on property located in Burlingame. He also failed to sign and stamp a land surveying document, as required by Section 8761, that he submitted to the City of Burlingame for a permit application for the property, and he failed to file a record of survey after discovering a material discrepancy, as required by Section 8762. Additionally, Allen failed to comply with Citation Order No. 5052-L.

In the Board's Default Decision and Order, which became effective on November 19, 2001, Fredric Vernon Allen's civil engineer license was revoked.

On August 20, 2004, Allen filed a petition for reinstatement of his license. He agreed that his violations were caused by his own negligence. He explained that in 1996 he began having progressively more serious health problems that ultimately led him to close his private practice in May 2000. Allen thought he had completed all his projects or turned them over to other engineers for completion. He did not realize that the person who subleased his office was not forwarding his mail, but putting it aside. Allen had not notified the Board of his change of address, as required by law. As a result, he was unaware of the County Surveyor's request, the County's complaint to the Board, and the Board's citation and accusation. He discovered the problem after the revocation of his license was already effective. He chose to wait for his health to improve before seeking reinstatement. In deciding to reinstate Allen's license, the Board noted that he had a long career in civil engineering and land surveying which was unblemished until the incidents leading to the revocation of his license. His neglect was somewhat excusable due to his serious health problems. In the three years since his license was revoked, Allen has been employed by a consulting group where he works as a designer and coaches and trains a group of younger engineers in surveying, mapping, design, and plan checking. Letters and testimony of his employers make it clear that Allen is held in high regard. Effective March 1, 2005, the Board reinstated his license and placed him on probation for one year, requiring that he complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination and that he file or record, within 90 days of March 1, 2005, the records of survey and corner records that were not properly filed before.


ALLEN, WILLIAM THOMAS
Mechanical Engineer M 19564
Accusation 569-A
Effective June 4, 1997: 180-day suspension, stayed; three years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Mechanical Engineer License M 19564 issued to William Thomas Allen of Littleton, Colorado. Beginning in 1986, Allen was employed by the firm of Schoenwald, Oba, Morgensen, Pohll, Miller, Inc. (SOMPM) as staff mechanical engineer, heading the engineering department and supervising engineering staff consisting of an HVAC designer, a plumbing designer, two hand drafters and a computer assisted design operator. As part of his duties, Allen supervised mechanical engineering work and signed the mechanical engineering drawings and specifications for two California projects: the Fresno Bee and Ustach Middle School.

The Board found that it was accepted practice at SOMPM that, because of a heavy work load, plans were not always checked. Work schedules and deadlines for projects were set by the business manager and plans were used whether or not they had been thoroughly checked and verified and were complete. The firm was willing to pay the cost of correcting problems as they arose during construction to keep design cost down. When Allen signed the plans and specifications for the Fresno Bee and Ustach projects, they were not complete and had not been thoroughly checked and verified. Allen left SOMPM in October of 1990 and began working at another firm, before mechanical and plumbing construction began on the Fresno Bee project.

The Board found that Allen was negligent on the Fresno Bee project regarding mechanical engineering work for the mail room in that he failed to properly check and verify work done under his supervision and failed to determine and correct errors which were, or should have been, apparent to him. Allen's negligence was mitigated, the Board found, by SOMPM's institutional policy of issuing final plans that weren't thoroughly check and verified; and by the fact that at the time the final plans were issued, the particular type and amount of electrical equipment in the mail room had not been determined. It was not proven at the hearing that the equipment was determined before Allen left SOMPM nor that he ever had an opportunity to make corrections for the equipment loads on the project.

In July 1988, SOMPM contracted to provide mechanical engineering design work for the Ustach Middle School Project. Plans dated June 2, 1989, and signed by Allen, were sent to the Office of the State Architect (OSA) in June 1989. They were submitted by SOMPM without a final check of the drawings in order to be higher on the list of school construction projects when funding was available for construction. In early 1990, the OSA returned the plans for corrections, which were completed in March 1990. The State Architect gave final approval of the plans on April 13, 1990. In January 1991, after Allen had left SOMPM, the Ustach project was bid and construction started in May, 1991. The Board found that although the engineering design plans may have been inadequate, it cannot be found that they constitute incompetence on Allen's part. In view of the mitigating factors, Allen's negligence was a single act of failing to determine and correct errors in the mechanical engineering work on the Fresno Bee project; and in view of respondent's lack of prior discipline, his license was suspended for 180 days, however suspension was stayed and Allen placed on probation for three years with terms and conditions specified by the Board including the requirement that he complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, one or more Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation. He was also required to pay the sum of $2,906 to the Board, a portion the actual cost of investigating and prosecuting the case.


ANDERSON, ROY ADRIAN (Click here to see Accusation 742-A)
Civil Engineer C 51314
Accusation 714-A
Effective April 5, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; 60-day suspension; five years on probation

Accusation 714-A alleged that Roy Adrian Anderson, Civil Engineer License C 51314, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence and incompetence on three separate projects for which he provided civil engineering services. It was specifically alleged that Anderson provided structural engineering design services for a one- and two-story concrete tilt-up office and warehouse commercial building in Rohnert Park; the plans and drawings Anderson prepared contained numerous errors and omissions, did not meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), were incomplete, contained inconsistencies, and could not be coordinated with the structural calculations. The Accusation also alleged that Anderson entered into a contractual agreement to design a roof framing system for the purpose of installing a laundry room at a residence; it took Anderson approximately four months from the time that the contract was signed until final design and approval to deliver a $300.00 structural design for an 11'x19', single level, conventional wood-frame building addition. It was alleged that Anderson's design for this project contained numerous errors, was incomplete, lacked critical details, and relied on the plan check comments by building officials to develop the design to make it adequate for the issuance of a building permit. It was also alleged that Anderson failed to oversee and supervise the quality of work done by employees before signing and stamping the designs as required by the professional standards of practice. On the third project, Anderson allegedly contracted to provide structural design services for a two-story flood raising of an existing residence; his design shows two windows partially obscured by tie down straps.

Effective April 5, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement as its decision in this matter. In the stipulated settlement, Anderson agreed that the charges and allegations in the Accusation, if proven at an administrative hearing, would constitute cause for imposing discipline against his Civil Engineer license. Anderson also agreed that, at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established; therefore, he agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Anderson's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Anderson was placed on probation for five years with certain terms and conditions. One condition ordered his license suspended for 60 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Other conditions required Anderson to successfully complete and pass three Board-approved college-level civil engineering courses and a Board-approved professional ethics course. Anderson was also required to have all of his professional engineering work reviewed by a Board-approved structural engineer or civil engineer who specializes in structural engineering; Anderson is still considered to be in responsible charge of all of the professional engineering work he performs. Additionally, Anderson must reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in this matter in that amount of $4,500.00.


ANDERSON, ROY ADRIAN (Click here to see Accusation 714-A)
Civil Engineer C 51314
Accusation 742-A
Effective July 23, 2004: Probationary period ordered in Accusation 714-A extended one year with additional conditions

Accusation 742-A alleged that Roy Adrian Anderson, Civil Engineer License C 51314, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence and incompetence on a remodeling/addition to a single-family residence. The project included design of the roof framing system, the first floor framing system, the foundation, a lateral analysis and design for the lateral force resisting system, and consultations with the owner, designer, contractor, manufacturers, other consultants, and the building department. The presentation of design included the structural calculations, roof framing plan, first floor framing plan, foundation and first floor framing plan, foundation plan, structural details, and structural sections. Anderson submitted the structural engineering plans to the City of Windsor in March of 2000. The accusation alleged that Anderson is subject to disciplinary action because he failed to oversee and supervise the quality of work done by employees before sealing the designs as required by the standard of practice of engineering. As submitted, the plans contained faulty and incomplete or inaccurate references, missing details, incomplete and non-conclusive engineering design calculations and analyses, omission of the provision that treated wood should be used at locations where rim joists are in contact with the concrete slab, and drawings not drawn to scale, resulting in portions of the additions built being off by almost three feet.

Effective July 23, 2004, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement as its decision in this matter. In the stipulated settlement, Anderson admitted to the truth of each and every charge and allegation in Accusation 742-A and that his Civil Engineer License is subject to discipline. In its decision, the Board ordered Anderson's license revoked; however, the revocation was stayed and Anderson was placed on probation under certain terms and conditions. The Board's Decision and Order of stayed revocation and probation of Anderson's Civil Engineer License in Accusation 714-A remains in effect, except that the probationary period was extended for an additional year, until April 5, 2008. One additional Board-approved college-level engineering course was added to the three Board-approved courses ordered in Accusation 714-A. Until Anderson has successfully completed and passed the required courses, he must have all of his professional engineering work reviewed by a Board-approved structural engineer or civil engineer who specializes in structural engineering; Anderson is still considered to be in responsible charge of all of the professional engineering work he performs. Additionally, Anderson must reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in this case in the amount of $9,406.42 in addition to the $4,500.00 previously agreed upon for Accusation 714-A, for a total of $13,906.42. The reimbursement is due within 5 ½ years of the effective date of the decision in Accusation 714-A, that is, by October 5, 2007.


ARMSTRONG, ALAN STARR
Civil Engineer C 25506
Accusation 571-A
Effective October 31, 1996: License REVOKED

Accusation 571-A against Alan Starr Armstrong, Civil Engineer License C 25506, alleged that Armstrong violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) by negligently and incompetently practicing structural engineering on two separate projects in Alpine County. Specifically, it alleged that Armstrong prepared incomplete and incorrect plans and structural calculations. Armstrong agreed to a stipulated settlement approved by the Board on July 26, 1996.

Armstrong stipulated to surrender his license as a civil engineer, effective October 31, 1996, and to cease the practice of structural engineering between the time the Board adopted the stipulation on July 26 and the effective date of the surrender. Armstrong also agreed that, should he ever reapply for licensure, all of the allegations contained in the Accusation would be deemed as admitted and true. Additionally, Armstrong agreed to reimburse the Board for its investigative costs in the amount of $9,300 within 18 months of the effective date of the decision; if this payment is not completed by March 31, 1998, the surrender of his license will automatically become a revocation.


BAIRD, ALLAN MICHAEL (Click here to see Accusation 765-A)
Civil Engineer C 23681
Accusation 465-A
Effective March 1, 1993: License revoked, revocation stayed, two years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against the civil engineer license C 23681, issued to Allan Michael Baird. It was determined that Baird violated Business and Professions Code sections 6775(a), 6775(b), 6775(e), and 6735, and Title 16, California Code of Regulations sections 404.1 and 461 for conviction of a crime related to engineering, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, incompetence, failure to sign and seal civil engineering plans, and failure to exercise responsible charge.

In the stipulated decision, effective March 1, 1993, Baird admitted to six causes for disciplinary action in violation of the Professional Engineers Act and Board Rules related to septic designs and soils reports for on-site sewage waste disposal systems in Humboldt County.

As discipline for these violations, the Board ordered Baird's civil engineering license revoked; however, this revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for two years under certain terms and conditions. As a condition of probation, Baird's license was suspended for 90 days beginning on the effective date of the decision. During the suspension, Baird was required to prepare an operating manual specifying the procedures he will follow in evaluation and design of on-site sewage disposal systems. The manual will also detail the training levels that he will require of his field staff and the manner of his supervision of his employees involved in on-site evaluations and soils testing. The manual was required to be submitted to the Humboldt County Department of Health and the Board or its designee for approval prior to Baird's recommencement of any work pertaining to site evaluations or individual septic sewage systems. Additionally, Baird was required to complete, with a "C" grade or better, three college-level courses, approved in advance by the Board or its designee, related to on-site sewage disposal systems and one course on professional environmental ethics.

During the period of probation, Baird was permitted to practice in the area of on-site septic disposal systems only under the supervision of a licensed engineering professional selected by Baird and approved by the Board. All of Baird's final engineering plans, specifications, and reports related to on-site septic disposal systems were required to be signed and stamped by the professional engineer who supervised the work. Baird was also required to submit to at least four field performance valuations by the Humboldt County Department of Health of projects selected by the County and was required to notify the County at least 48 hours in advance of all field work undertaken on any on-site septic disposal system project.

Baird was also required to obey all laws and regulations related to the practice of professional engineering and land surveying, to submit special reports as the Board may require, and to reimburse the Board in the amount of $10,653.83 for recovery of actual and reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter.


BAIRD, ALLAN MICHAEL (Click here to see Accusation 465-A)
Civil Engineer C 23681
Accusation 765-A
Effective December 10, 2004: License revoked, revocation stayed, actual 30-day suspension of license, four years on probation

Allan Michael Baird of Fortuna, California, stipulated that his Civil Engineer License, No. C 23681, is subject to disciplinary action for negligence in the practice of land surveying in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 8780. In 1995, Baird prepared a flood elevation certificate in Phillipsville, California, using Army Corp of Engineers reference elevations to the high water marks of the 1964/1965 flooding of the Eel River. The references were not original benchmarks. He failed to check for other separate and independent original benchmarks to confirm the elevation of the benchmark he used. Baird's flood elevation certificate had a flood elevation that was approximately five feet different from the correct Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and resulted in construction on the property of a residence that was approximately three feet below the BFE.

In consideration of Baird's admissions and stipulations, effective December 10, 2004, the Board ordered his Civil Engineer license revoked but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for four years, under terms and conditions including an actual suspension of his license for thirty (30) days. Baird was ordered to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination within 60 days of the effective date of the decision; to complete and pass, within two years, a Board-approved course in professionalism and ethics for land surveyors; and to take and pass two college-level land surveying courses, specifically related to the areas of violation, within three years. He was also ordered to provide a copy of the Board's decision and order to all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship relating to professional civil engineering or land surveying services. Baird was also required to reimburse the Board within three years the sum of $2,217.25 for investigative and prosecution costs.


BANUELOS, VICTOR M.
Civil Engineer C 32795
Structural Engineer S 3502
Accusation 538-A
Effective June 23, 1993: Structural license revoked, civil revoked, revocation stayed, 30-days actual suspension, five years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineering License C 32795, and Structural Engineer Authority S 3502, issued to Victor M. Banuelos for subverting the Structural Engineer examination, a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 123 and 496 and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 442.

It was determined that Banuelos, without authorization, obtained secured examination materials or questions prior to taking the Structural Engineer examination. Banuelos took and passed this examination in August 1991.

In the Stipulation in Settlement and Decision, effective June 23, 1993, the Board ordered Banuelos' structural engineer license revoked. Banuelos was also barred from applying for a structural engineer license and from taking the structural engineer examination for a period of three years following the effective date of the decision. Additionally, the Board ordered Banuelos' civil engineer license revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a period of five years under certain terms and conditions. Probationary conditions included an actual 30-day suspension of his civil engineer license, beginning on the effective date of the decision and continuing through July 23, 1993. Banuelos was also required, within 30 days of the effective date, to notify all clients and employers with whom he has a continuing contractual relationship of the discipline imposed by the Board. Banuelos was ordered to reimburse the Board for its costs of investigation in the amount of $2,743 within one year of the effective date of the decision.


BARTHOLOW, PAUL VERNER III
Civil Engineer C 40512
Accusation 700-A
Effective February 27, 2004: License revoked, revocation stayed; 30-day actual suspension; four years on probation

Accusation 700-A alleged that Paul Verner Bartholow III, of Santa Rosa, California, Civil Engineer License 40512, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code section 6775 for negligence and/or incompetence in the practice of professional engineering in that in or about 1992, he made structural calculations which are not sufficiently detailed to show how he determined design loads while providing engineering services on construction drawings for a two-story single family residence on a sloping site where the lower level, containing a garage, storage, and a studio and workshop, was partially set into the earth. In particular, Bartholow failed to provide documentation for the computer analysis and print-out in that his calculations did not indicate the design lateral soil pressure nor did the computer printout indicate retaining wall thickness or wall reinforcing. Although his computer analysis evaluated the overturning and sliding stability of the retaining wall, he failed to address the internal stresses and structural adequacy of the wall structure. The evaluation would have shown that the wall is overstressed. Among other negligent and/or incompetent practices, Bartholow's designs for deck beams failed to consider point loads, resulting in the beams being overstressed. He did not completely design the spread footings as he did not address the thickness of the footings or indicate reinforcing in the footings as required by Uniform Building Code Sections 2610 and 2607(m). Calculations for a shear wall did not properly specify the shear wall sheathing in that he did not state the structural grade category of the plywood nor the orientation of the plywood's face grain in relation to the studs, resulting in the shear wall being overstressed. Additionally, Bartholow's calculations for a different shear wall underestimated the overturning hold-down force by approximately 150% by assuming an eight-foot tall shear panel when, in fact, the wall is two stories, approximately 20 feet in height, resulting in a significant overstress of the hold-down hardware.

Effective February 27, 2004, the Board adopted a stipulated decision and order wherein Bartholow admitted the truth of the allegations in the accusation, admitted that he committed the violations set forth therein, and admitted that cause exists to impose discipline on his civil engineering license. The Board ordered his license revoked, but stayed the revocation and placed Bartholow on probation for four (4) years from the effective date of the decision, with additional terms and conditions. He was ordered to provide the Board with evidence, within thirty days of the effective date of the decision, that he has provided all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship relating to professional civil engineering services with a copy of the decision and order of the Board and provide the Board with the name and business address of each person or entity required to be so notified. He also was required to provide the same notification to each new person or entity entering into a contractual or employment relationship with him. He was ordered to complete and pass the California laws and Board Rules examination, as administered by the Board, within sixty days of the order's effective date. He was also ordered, within three and one-half years of the effective date, to take and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, three Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation. Bartholow was also required to reimburse the Board, within three and one-half years, six thousand five hundred and forty-nine dollars ($6,549.00) for its investigative and enforcement costs.


BASHFORD, HOWARD H.
Civil Engineer C 22623
Geotechnical Engineer GE 121
Accusation 631-A
Effective October 13, 1997: LICENSES SURRENDERED

Effective October 13, 1997, the Board accepted Howard H. Bashford's voluntary surrender of his civil engineer license C 22623 and geotechnical engineer license GE 121. Bashford, of Provo, Utah, agreed to surrender his licenses in response to Board accusations that he was negligent and incompetent in work he performed on the Vichy Springs Community Homes subdivision in Mendocino County. In 1991 and 1992, Bashford allegedly submitted reports and related documents to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services which indicated the subdivision had been graded in accordance with the approved grading plans, and that the lots were out of the 100-year flood plain. It was later discovered that several lots in the project have portions in the 100-year flood plain, and it was alleged that the grading had not been done according to the approved plans.


BEAMISH, ROBERT C.
Civil Engineer C 11521
Accusation 775-A
Effective October 7, 2005: LICENSE REVOKED

Accusation 775-A alleged that Robert C. Beamish had subjected his California Civil Engineer license to disciplinary action in that his Arizona Professional Engineer Certificate was revoked in February 2005 by the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration for negligence in his practice of structural engineering. Under Business and Professions Code section 141(a), a disciplinary action taken by another state for an act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license may be a ground for disciplinary action by the California Board. In a default decision, the Board revoked Beamish's California license, effective October 7, 2005.


BERON, WALLACE MARK (Click here to see Citations 5028-L & 5029-L)
Civil Engineer C 27697
Accusation 718-A
Effective May 24, 2002: License revoked; revocation stayed; 2 years on probation

In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order adopted by the Board, disciplinary action was taken against the civil engineer license, No. C 27697, issued to Wallace Mark Beron, pursuant to Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 473.3(b). In the stipulation, Beron admitted that he failed to comply with two citations, Nos. 5028-L and 5029-L previously issued to him.

The decision of the Board, which became effective on May 24, 2002, order the revocation of Beron's civil engineer license. However, that revocation was stayed, and Beron was placed on probation for two years with terms and conditions. One condition required Beron to comply with Citation Nos. 5028-L and 5029-L by filing the Records of Survey as ordered in the citations. Other conditions required him to notify his clients and employers of the disciplinary action, to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, and to reimburse the Board's investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $1,249.00.


BIATHROW, ELLERY ARTHUR, JR.
Civil Engineer C 30223
Accusation 419-A
Effective September 19, 1994: REVOKED

Effective September 19, 1994, the Civil Engineer License C 30223 issued to Ellery Arthur Biathrow, Jr., was revoked for negligence and incompetence in the practice of civil engineering, violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b). In its Default Decision and Order, the Board determined that Biathrow was negligent and/or incompetent in that he failed to determine during the design and prior to the construction of an erosion/stabilizing sea wall that the proposed sea wall would be placed partly or wholly upon property owned by the State of California; failed to obtain the express permission or authorization from the State of California, the landowner adjacent to the sea wall construction, for any encroachment caused by the positioning of the sea wall; and failed to submit the documentation required to obtain the final Coastal Commission permits.


BIERY, RICHARD J. (Click here to see Accusation 503-A)
Civil Engineer C 24343
Accusation 322-A
Effective September 19, 1990: Revoked, revocation stayed, 120-day suspension, three years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 24343, issued to Richard Biery. It was determined Biery was negligent in that on three different occasions, he misrepresented to the County of Nevada that waste water disposal systems he had specially designed had been personally inspected by himself and were installed according to his special design, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b).

Biery also failed to perform soils testing representative of the proposed leach fields he designed as part of his special wastewater disposal system, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b).

Effective September 19, 1990, Biery's license was revoked, however, the revocation was stayed. He was placed on probation for three years under terms and conditions which included actual suspension for 120 days; obey all laws; submit special reports including client and employer lists; successfully complete and pass with a "C" grade or better, a training course approved in advance by the Board, specifically related to soils engineering and/or site geology. Before being permitted to resume non-probationary engineering, following the period of actual suspension, he may practice engineering subject to the oversight and supervision of a licensed professional engineer designated by the Board.


BIERY, RICHARD J. (Click here to see Accusation 322-A)
Civil Engineer C 24343
Accusation 503-A
Effective July 6, 1993: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineering License C 24343, issued to Richard J. Biery, for negligence and violation of contract in the practice of civil engineering, violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b).

It was determined that Biery negligently prepared reports regarding the soil mantle and percolation tests that he performed in Placer County. Additionally, Biery failed to follow County procedures in conducting these tests. It was also determined that Biery violated his contract to perform the tests and to design septic systems for 13 proposed parcels; Biery failed to complete the work so that the county could determine the number of parcels to be built on the property, resulting in financial loss to the client.

In its Decision, effective July 6, 1993, the Board ordered Biery's civil engineer license revoked.


BRADY, ROBERT EDWARD
Mechanical Engineer M 20413
Accusation 789-A
Effective June 9, 2006: LICENSE SURRENDERED

Accusation 789-A alleged that Robert Edward Brady had subjected his California Mechanical Engineer license to discipline under Business and Professions Code section 141(a) in that he had been disciplined by the licensing boards of the states of North Carolina, Kentucky, Minnesota, Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia for acts which, if committed in California, would be grounds for discipline against his California license. For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Brady admitted to the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation and agreed that cause exists for discipline. Brady surrendered his Mechanical Engineer License to the Board, effective June 9, 2006.


BROWN, CLIFFORD RAYMOND (Click here to see Accusation 607-A)
Civil Engineer C 22836
Accusation 411-A
Effective July 16, 1990: Suspension, stayed, 30-day actual suspension
Effective November 29, 1991: Suspension until training course in land surveying completed with grade "C" or better

Disciplinary action was taken against civil engineer license C 22836, issued to Clifford R. Brown. Brown undertook a project to perform a survey in Plumas County for the U.S. Forest Service. After he commenced the project he fell behind schedule for various reasons. After having been given numerous extensions of time and also having failed to correct deficiencies noted by the U.S. Forest Service, he was terminated. The U.S. Forest Service hired another surveyor to correct and complete the work. The subsequent surveyor noted various problems with the surveying that had been performed by respondent.

A Stipulation was negotiated effective July 16, 1990; Brown agreed to the terms including suspension, which was stayed; actual suspension for 30 days; probation for two years; successful completion of a training course approved in advance by the Board related to land surveying; reimbursement to the Board of $2,234 for investigative costs; removal of all monuments as specified; obliterate all markings and remove all identifying signs as specified in the Stipulation; file a record of survey indicating the items specified in the Stipulation have been performed and submit a copy of the filed document to the Board; submit special reports as required by the Board; obey all laws governing the practice of engineering and land surveying in California.

Effective November 29, 1991, Brown's license was suspended because did not successfully complete a Board-approved training course, with a "C" grade or better, as required. His civil engineering license was suspended until such a course has been completed. Brown subsequently completed the course, and his license has been fully restored.


BROWN, CLIFFORD RAYMOND (Click here to see Accusation 411-A)
Civil Engineer C 22836
Accusation 607-A
Effective August 23, 1999: Revoked, revocation stayed. 90-day actual suspension (September 22, 1999 through December 21, 1999). Five years on probation.
Effective October 24, 2003: Probation terminated; LICENSE REVOKED.

At a settlement conference resulting in a stipulated agreement, Clifford Raymond Brown of Quincy, California, admitted that he has subjected his civil engineering license to discipline for negligence in four separate instances including (1) calculations for remodeling a motel in Quincy; (2) calculations supporting construction plans for an aircraft hangar at the Plumas County Airport; (3) structural calculations for the foundation of a double-wide manufactured home in Portola; and (4) recommendations for a roadway in Quincy for cut and fill slopes that violate the Uniform Building Code and for failure to determine soil/rock material properties and develop recommendations for materials use, placement, and compaction.

Brown agreed to the terms of the Board's Decision and Order. His license was revoked but the revocation was stayed and he is on probation for five years, on terms and conditions including actual suspension of his license for ninety days. He is required to notify clients and employers of the Stipulation and the Decision and Order in the case and provide each of them with a copy of the documents, and obtain signed written acknowledgments of receipt, before entering into contracts for engineering services. During the first three years of probation, Brown may only practice engineering under the supervision of a licensed civil engineer, approved of in advance by the Board. His practice of land surveying does not require supervision.

Effective October 24, 2003, the Board issued a Default Decision and Order in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation against Brown. In this decision, it was found that Brown had failed to comply with some of the probationary conditions previously ordered by the Board, thus violating the terms and conditions of probation. Based on this, the probation previously ordered was terminated, and Brown's Civil Engineer license was ordered revoked.


BRYSON, BERNARD G.
Civil Engineer C 15391, replaced by C 52997
Structural Engineer S 1541, replaced by S 3897
Accusation 408-A
Effective August 17, 1994: C 15391 and S 1541 revoked, new licenses C 52997 and S 3897 issued; new licenses revoked, revocation stayed, two years on probation
Effective October 7, 1996: Probation revoked, C 52997 and S 3897 REVOKED

Disciplinary action has been taken against the Civil Engineer License C 15391 and Structural Engineer License S 1541 issued to Bernard G. Bryson for violating the terms and conditions of probation as ordered in the Stipulation in the Matter of Accusation 408-A.

Pursuant to stipulation signed by Bryson, which became effective on April 22, 1991, Bryson's licenses were suspended for 90 days; however, the suspension was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a period of two years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions required him to complete a Board-approved surveying course during the period of probation. The stipulation also contained a condition which stated that if Bryson violated probation in any respect, the Board could, after providing him with a notice and opportunity to be heard, terminate the stay and reimpose the suspension or take such other disciplinary action as it deemed proper.

Effective August 17, 1994, the Board issued a Decision After Non-Adoption. In this decision, the Board determined that Bryson had violated the terms and conditions of the stipulated probation in that he failed to complete a Board-approved surveying course during the two-year probationary period. The Board also found that Bryson has taken no surveying courses, whether or not Board-approved. The Board further determined that he failed to comply with this condition of probation because he would have to regularly travel several hours each week to complete such a course and that he does not really believe he needs to take such a course. Additionally, the Board found that Bryson's business is approximately 95% structural engineering; the other 5% is comprised of minor civil engineering and land surveying projects.

Based on these findings and determinations, the Board ordered Bryson's civil engineer license C 15391 and structural engineer license S 1541 revoked, effective August 17, 1994. The Board further ordered that a new civil engineer license number and a new structural engineer license number be issued to Bryson; the new civil engineer license number is C 52997, and the new structural engineer license number is S 3897. Additionally, the Board ordered these new licenses revoked; however, these revocations were stayed, and Bryson was placed on probation for a period of two years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions required him to take and pass the Engineering Surveying portion of the California Special Civil Engineering examination. He was also required to provide the Board, within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, with proof that he notified all clients and employers with whom he has a current or continuing contractual or employment relationship of the offense, findings, and discipline imposed.

Effective October 7, 1996, the Board issued a default decision and order revoking probation and reimposing the order of revocation of Bernard Gerald Bryson's Civil Engineer License C 52997 and Structural Engineer License S 3897. The Board found that Bryson, of Redding, California, failed to complete and pass the engineering surveying portion of the California special Civil Engineer Examination during his probationary period and ordered both licenses revoked effective October 7, 1996.


CARDONA, HENRY F.
Civil Engineer C 29012
Accusation 413-A
Effective November 4, 1991: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against civil engineering license C 29012, issued to Henry F. Cardona for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775 (b).

Cardona breached a written contract to provide assessment planning and designing services and prepare the construction plans and contract documents for a water system improvement project. Although the completion date of the project was extended several times, Cardona failed to complete the project, and another engineer had to be hired. It was also determined that Cardona was negligent in preparing plans and specifications for a single-family dwelling and that he breached the written contract to prepare said plans.

In the Board's default decision, effective November 4, 1991, Henry F. Cardona's civil engineering license was revoked.

On September 7, 2000, the Board heard Cardona's petition for reinstatement of his license. He presented very little evidence of rehabilitation. Other than subscribing to a professional publication, he did not attend any professional educational classes. He did not demonstrate that he is safe to practice in over 9 years since his license was revoked. He did not take any classes in communication skills, business practices or ethics. He did not submit any personal or professional letters of reference. The petition for reinstatement was denied as of November 1, 2000.


CATLIN, WILLIAM G.
Civil Engineer C 11579
Geotechnical Engineer GE 194
Accusation 627-A
Effective January 5, 1998: Licenses revoked, stayed, 30-day actual suspension, five years on probation
Effective October 24, 2003: Probation extended for two years with conditions

Accusation 627-A alleges that William G. Catlin of El Cajon, California verbally contracted to evaluate the long-term structural competence of an existing residence, its appurtenances, and supporting soil in Spring Valley, California. The scope of Catlin's services included analysis of the problems at the house and recommendation for a procedure for long-term corrective action along with an actual proposal to perform the corrective work. The Board alleges that Catlin did not determine the long-term structural adequacy of the residence and did not recommend procedures to correct distress in the superstructure or that his recommendation of two pin piles was inadequate for long-term correction. Further, it alleges Catlin did not adequately investigate subsurface conditions before providing design recommendations for support for the fireplace at the residence and that he recommended flooding of the soils beneath the perimeter foundation without adequately determining the subsurface conditions and soil characteristics.

In a stipulated settlement, Catlin admitted that the Board established its case; that he is guilty of violating Business and Professions Code section 6775 (b); and that cause exists to discipline his licenses.

The Board adopted the Stipulation and Order, effective January 5, 1998. Catlin's licenses were revoked but the revocations were stayed and Catlin was placed on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions, and his licenses were suspended for thirty days. The terms and conditions include reimbursing the Board $2,972.60 for investigation and enforcement costs; successfully completing and passing a professional ethics course within two years; and successful completion of two Board-approved college-level courses with a grade of C or better within four years. Catlin was required to also complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules Examination within 60 days of the effective date of the decision.

Effective October 24, 2003, the Board issued a decision in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation against Catlin. In its decision, the Board accepted the stipulated agreement in which Catlin admitted that he had failed to timely comply with the condition of probation requiring him to successfully complete two Board-approved college-level engineering courses. The Board ordered Catlin to serve an additional two years of probation, with certain terms and conditions. Pursuant to these conditions, Catlin was required to provide proof to the Board that he had successfully completed the one remaining Board-approved course and to reimburse the Board's investigative and prosecution costs in this matter in the amount of $616.00.


CHAMPION, HERBERT R.
Civil Engineer C 8990
Accusation 721-A
Effective May 24, 2002: LICENSE SURRENDERED

Accusation 721-A alleged that the Civil Engineer License, No. C 8990, issued to Herbert R. Champion, of Moorpark, California, was subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Business and Professions Code §141 in that he was twice disciplined by the Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors for actions which if committed in California would constitute negligence and incompetence in his civil engineering practice, in violation of Business and Professions Code §6775(c). It was specifically alleged that Champion was disciplined by the Nevada Board for preparing geotechnical investigation reports that failed to adequately discuss or design for the geologic/geotechnical conditions present at the subject properties. Additionally, it was alleged that the Nevada Board also disciplined Champion for preparing drainage study reports in which he failed to properly evaluate the upstream basin and failed to establish appropriate finish floor elevations to take into account a 100-year storm event.

Effective May 24, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement as its decision in this matter. In the stipulated settlement, Champion admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation and agreed that cause existed to discipline his California Civil Engineer license. As part of the stipulated agreement, Champion agreed to surrender his license to the Board, causing him to lose all rights and privileges as a Civil Engineer in California, as of the effective date of the decision. Champion also agreed that he would not apply for licensure or petition for reinstatement of his surrendered license for three years from the effective date of the decision and that if he did ever apply for licensure or petition for reinstatement of his surrendered license, it would be treated as a new application for licensure and he would have to meet all laws, regulations, and procedures for licensure in effect at that time.


CHAN, ANDREW KAI-KWONG
Civil Engineer C31526; Structural Engineer S 3208
Accusation 733-A
Effective July 12, 2002: REVOKED

Accusation 733-A alleged that Andrew Kai-Kwong Chan had subjected his Civil and Structural Engineer Licenses, Nos. C 31526 and S 3208, to disciplinary action for violations of Business and Professions Code §§119(a)(1) and (f), 6732, 6733, 6736, 6775(b) and (g), and 6787(e). Chan's licenses were suspended from August 2, 1999, through January 16, 2001, pursuant to Family Code §17520. Additionally, his licenses were expired from January 16, 2001, through January 25, 2001, due to non-payment of renewal fees. Upon payment of the renewal fees, Chan's licenses were renewed through December 31, 2004. However, on October 7, 2001, his licenses were again suspended pursuant to the Family Code. The Accusation alleged that during the periods when his licenses were either suspended or expired, Chan continued practicing structural engineering. It was specifically alleged that Chan stamped plans and other engineering documents using the title "Registered Professional Engineer" and failed to include the expiration date of his license when stamping the plans; that Chan used an expired and suspended license; and that he submitted to the City of Los Angeles a photocopy of a fraudulently altered pocket certificate showing an incorrect expiration date of his license for the purpose of obtaining building permits.

Effective July 12, 2002, the Board issued a Default Decision and Order in this matter. This decision found that Chan violated the laws as alleged in the Accusation and ordered his Civil and Structural Engineer licenses revoked.


CHIN, ILDEFONSO P.
Mechanical Engineer M 24868
Accusation 715-A
Effective August 23, 2002: License suspended, suspension stayed; two years on probation
Effective June 13, 2005: Probation extended for 18 months

Accusation 715-A alleged that Ildefonso P. Chin had subjected his Mechanical Engineer License M 24868 to disciplinary action in that he breached a contract and that he offered to practice and contracted to provide civil and architectural plans without legal authority, in violation of Business and Professions Code §§6775(d) and (h) and 6730. It was specifically alleged that Chin contracted to prepare "construction drawings, notes, structural details, foundation plan, roof plan and framing, wall framing, window and door schedule, and finish schedule" for an auto repair shop. It was further alleged that Chin submitted the plans to the building department for plan checking; the building department returned the plans with 32 required revisions; Chin did not resubmit the plans. The Accusation alleged that Chin, a Licensed Mechanical Engineer, offered to practice and contracted to provide civil engineering services, even though he is not licensed as a civil engineer.

Effective August 23, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Chin agreed that the charges and allegations in the Accusation, if proven at a hearing, would constitute cause for imposing discipline against his Mechanical Engineer license. Chin also agreed that, at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established; therefore, he agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Chin's license suspended for two years; however that suspension was stayed, and Chin was placed on probation for a period of two years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of these conditions required Chin to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Chin is also required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $2,294.75.

A Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against Ildefonso P. Chin alleging that he had failed to complete and pass the professional ethics course "Advanced Studies in Engineering Ethics" within 18 months of August 23, 2002, and failed to pay to the Board the full amount of $2,294.75 within 18 months of that date, as ordered by the Board in a previous disciplinary action. Chin submitted two checks to the Board, each for $1,147, but both were returned due to insufficient funds. In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Chin admitted, for the purposes of this proceeding, the truth of the charges in the petition and agreed that his license was subject to discipline. Probation was extended for eighteen months and Chin's Mechanical Engineer License was suspended until he successfully completed and passed the professional ethics course. Chin was also ordered to reimburse the Board $4,241.50; however, based on Chin's representation that he is unemployed and that his primary source of income is disability payments, the Board granted a stay of his obligation to pay the costs.


CHIN, MARK TERRENCE
Civil Engineer C 30300
Structural Engineer S 2515
Accusation 649-A
Effective October 18, 1999: Licenses revoked, revocations stayed; 30-day actual suspensions; four years on probation
Effective February 27, 2004: Licenses revoked, revocations stayed; two years on probation

In a stipulated settlement, Mark Terrence Chin of Fresno, California, admitted that he was negligent in the practice of professional engineering on a re-roof plan for a residence in Sanger, California. Specifically, some elements specified on the drawing Chin stamped were inadequate for the intended purpose. The ceiling joists above the family room were overstressed, the rafters above the south side of the family room were also overstressed, and the double 2x14 beam over the kitchen and family room was approximately 10% overstressed. The drawing stamped by Chin presented information which did not agree with the existing conditions. Specified purlins and struts could not be installed in accordance with the prevailing Building Code. The drawing failed to indicate that an existing ceiling-support member would have to be cut to install the new double 2x14 beam, and it failed to indicate how the double 2x14's were attached to each other or to specify how they were supported or braced against rotation at their supports.

Chin stipulated to the Board's decision and order that his licenses each be revoked, the revocations stayed, and each license placed on probation for four years upon certain terms and conditions, including concurrent 30-day suspensions beginning October 18, 1999. Among the other terms is the requirement that Chin successfully complete and pass a college-level course specifically related to the area of the violation and a course in professional ethics, and that he complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination.

On April 4, 2003, the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation against Mark Terrence Chin, of Fresno, California. In a stipulated decision and order, Chin admitted that he had violated one of the conditions of probation when he failed to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved college-level engineering course related to the area of violation within three years of the October 18, 1999, decision, thereby subjecting his licenses to disciplinary action.

Effective February 27, 2004, the Board adopted a decision and order revoking both Chin's civil engineer and structural engineer licenses. The revocations were stayed, and Chin was placed upon probation for two years upon certain terms and conditions. Chin must successfully complete and pass, with a grade "C" or better, one Board-approved college-level course specifically related to the area of the violation. Additionally, within thirty days of the effective date of the decision, Chin must provide evidence to the Board that he has provided all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship involving the practice of professional land surveying or professional engineering with a copy of the decision and order of the Board, and provide the Board with the name and business address of each person or entity required to be so notified. Chin must also reimburse the Board $900 for costs of investigation and prosecution of the case.


CLARK, THOMAS CULBERTSON, III
Civil Engineer C 32383
Accusation 683-A
Effective August 28, 2000: License revoked, revocation stayed, 15-day actual suspension, three years on probation

Accusation 683-A was filed against Thomas Culbertson Clark, III, of Kensington, California, doing business as both Ironwood Engineering Company (IEC) and Ironwood Construction Company (ICC). Clark is also licensed by California's Contractors State Licensing Board. The accusation alleges that Clark violated Business and Professions Code sections 6775(b) and (e) for deceit, misrepresentation, violation of contract, fraud, negligence or incompetence in his practice and 6735 which provides that all final civil engineering plans, specifications and reports must be signed and sealed. Further, it alleges that Clark entered into a contract to provide plans and specifications for drainage work in Danville, California including plans and specifications for miscellaneous construction work, calculations, and design to obtain all state and local permits, inspection services, and an estimate of construction costs. The property owner provided a deposit of $1,000 to Clark's construction company (ICC) to secure a place in the construction company schedule, although not obligated by the contract with Clark and his engineering company (IEC) to hire ICC. The accusation further alleges that the plans Clark prepared were not signed or stamped and contained a note stating that no survey had been performed and that the plan was for informational purposes. The property owner entered into a construction contract with ICC in September 1997, and construction began at the end of October. No construction permits were applied for or obtained by Clark or either of the companies. ICC abandoned the construction in March 1998. The property owner later hired another civil engineer to provide structural calculations for retaining walls and necessary construction permits, and hired another contractor to complete the project and obtain construction permits. In Accusation 683-A, the Board noted an aggravation of any penalty to be imposed based on a previous Board Accusation (567-A) filed in March 1994, which charged Clark with negligence and incompetence. That accusation was resolved by a stipulation between the parties which provided that the accusation be dismissed, that Clark reimburse the Board for costs, and that he complete and pass a course in Engineering Ethics and Professionalism. In a stipulation to settle the current accusation, Clark admitted that the plans he provided to the property owner were not signed by him, and that he had, for that reason, subjected his license to discipline. Effective August 28, 2000, the stipulated order revoked license number C 32383 issued to Thomas Culbertson Clark, III, but stayed the revocation and placed Clark on probation for three years under terms and conditions which included an actual suspension of his license for fifteen days and reimbursement to the Board of $4,100 for investigation and prosecution costs. In addition, Clark was required to attend sixteen hours of professional continuing education courses in the area of civil engineering, approved in advance by the Board, within the first 30 months of probation. Within 90 days of the effective date of the decision, he must successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Finally, within 90 days of August 28, 2000, Clark was required to provide written proof, satisfactory to the Board, that he has paid the settlement amount to the property owner as provided for in their Civil Settlement Memo dated April 27, 2000 in Contra Costa County Superior Court.


CLARK, WILLIAM DOUGLAS
Civil Engineer C 37998
Accusation 594-A
Effective December 18, 1995: License REVOKED
Effective June 17, 1997: Petition for Reinstatement of License denied

The Board has issued a Default Decision in the Matter of Accusation 594-A against William Douglas Clark, Civil Engineer License C 37998.

It was found that Clark was hired in March 1993 to provide structural engineering in accordance with Sonoma County building permit requirements, for a single family home to be constructed in Timber Cove. He was paid a deposit of $500 with the understanding that the balance would be paid when a set of engineered plans was approved by Sonoma County. Clark failed to complete the project, failed to return the $500 deposit to his client, and failed to return the house plans, soils report, Title 24 report, site information, and other information provided by his client. Clark did not contest the allegations set forth in the accusation.

Based on the findings, the Board determined that Clark violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) for violation of contract in the practice of professional engineering.

The Default Decision ordered the revocation of Clark's license as a civil engineer, effective December 18, 1995.

In a petition dated April 29, 1997, Clark requested reinstatement of his license. The Board determined that he did not establish that he had become sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant reinstatement and the petition was denied on June 17, 1997.


COLARUSSO, ALFRED F., JR.
Civil Engineer C 34488
Accusation 728-A
Effective April 5, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; 120-day suspension; three years on probation
Effective September 8, 2003: Petition for Reduction of Penalty granted; probationary conditions modified
Effective October 7, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 728-A alleged that Alfred F. Colarusso, Jr., Civil Engineer License C 34488, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence and incompetence in his practice of structural engineering. It was specifically alleged that Colarusso provided structural engineering plans to the City of San Jose Building Department for the design of a basement under an existing residence. It was alleged that the plans were rejected four times because they were incomplete, contained incorrect calculations, and did not meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC); for example, the plans only showed vertical loads and did not take into account earth pressure; they failed to include vertical and horizontal load calculations, wall design, and/or footing design for a fireplace wall; and they failed to include all basement walls and footings. After his plans and calculations were rejected the fourth time, Colarusso hired a Structural Engineer to revise the plans and calculations in order to secure a building permit for his client.

Effective April 5, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement as its decision in this matter. In the stipulated settlement, Colarusso admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Colarusso's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Colarusso was placed on probation for three years with certain terms and conditions. One condition ordered his license suspended for 120 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Other conditions required Colarusso to successfully complete and pass four Board-approved college-level civil engineering courses and to take and pass the entire second division civil engineering examination, consisting of the 8-hour NCEES Principles and Practices examination and the California Special Civil Seismic Principles and Engineering Surveying examinations. Colarusso was also required to have all of his structural engineering work reviewed by a Board-approved structural engineer or civil engineer who specializes in structural engineering; Colarusso is still considered to be in responsible charge of all of the professional engineering work he performs. Additionally, Colarusso must reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in this matter in that amount of $1,800.00.

On June 27, 2003, Colarusso petitioned the Board to reduce the probationary condition that required him to successfully complete and pass four Board-approved college-level engineering courses so that he would only be required to complete one course. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing on the petition, the Board determined that Colarusso has limited his civil engineering practice to only those areas in which he is competent and does not perform structural engineering. The Board further determined that Colarusso has been cooperative and has complied with or is making the effort to comply with most of the other terms and conditions of probation. Based on these determinations, effective September 8, 2003, the Board granted Colarusso's petition and reduced the probationary condition to require Colarusso to only complete one college-level engineering course. Colarusso remains on probation and must comply with all of the other previously-ordered terms and conditions of probation, including taking and passing the entire second-division Civil Engineering examination.

A Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against Alfred Colarusso based on allegations that he failed to complete the modified terms of his probation, which had been ordered in previous disciplinary actions. For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Colarusso admitted the truth of all charges in the petition. The Board ordered his license revoked, but revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for three years on certain terms and conditions, including successful completion and passage of the NCEES Principles and Practices of Civil Engineering exam, including the Structural Depth portion of that exam, and the California Special Seismic Principles exam. If he fails to pass both within three years, his license will be revoked without further notice. Until he passes the exams, he may only practice structural engineering under the review and monitoring of a professional civil engineer who specializes in structural engineering or a professional structural engineer, approved of in advance by the Board.


COOK, DANIEL J.
Civil Engineer C 13062
Accusation 586-A
Effective September 1, 1997: License revoked, stayed, 60-day suspension, restitution ordered, three years on probation
Effective August 28, 2000: Prior probation and license revoked, revocations stayed, probation extended
Effective September 3, 2004: Prior probation and license revoked, revocations stayed, probation extended until September 1, 2006

Accusation 586-A alleges that Daniel J. Cook, of Oroville, California, violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) in that he was negligent in the practice of professional engineering and was guilty of violation of contract. In 1981, Cook designed a foundation system for a home to be built in Magalia, California. The foundation he designed allegedly could accommodate three inches of differential movement without structural damage. Although he was aware the home would be built on organic soil, Cook failed both to perform a foundation investigation and to quantify the settlement upon which his design was based.

In December 1988 and January 1989, at the request of his client, the home's original owner, Cook inspected the home to determine why it was sloping more than six inches. In March 1989 Cook reported that the property was essentially stable and that the conditions present didn't indicate progressive settlement and/or structural deterioration.

Later in 1989, the allegations continue, Cook contracted with prospective buyers of the home to inspect repair work that had been done by others. In a letter to those clients dated October 17, 1989, he stated the house structure, as amended, would perform in accordance with his original design and was now in better form than when originally completed. The clients purchased the property in reliance upon Cook's letter. In 1991, it was again observed that the house was settling and thereafter it continued to settle. Cook violated his contract with those clients by failing to perform an adequate investigation to determine the cause of the settling and whether the repair work corrected the problems.

In a stipulated settlement, Cook admitted that in 1981, he signed, as a licensed engineer, a plan for a foundation system designed by his employee, another licensed engineer, for the home to be built in Magalia. Cook also admitted he performed inspections at the homeowner's request in December 1988 and January 1989 to determine why the house was sloping more than six inches. Cook admitted he reported the property was essentially stable and the conditions present weren't indicators of progressive settlement and/or structural deterioration. In October 1989 Cook visited the property again to inspect repair work done by others and wrote a letter, dated October 17, 1989, stating the house structure as amended would perform in accordance with the original design and was now in better form than when originally completed. Cook admitted that he was negligent in his inspection leading to the letter, and agreed that his license was subject to disciplinary action.

The Board's decision and order adopted the stipulation. Cook's license was revoked effective September 1, 1997. The Board stayed revocation and placed Cook on probation for three years under certain terms and conditions, including 60 days suspension from practice. Cook was required to pay $25,000 as restitution in the matter to the current owners of the home. In addition he was required to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination by October 30, 1997, complete and pass a course in professional ethics by September 1, 1999, and complete and pass with a grade of "C" or better, two college level courses, approved in advance by the Board, specifically related to the area of violation and provide official transcripts by March 2000. Between April 11, 1997 and November 1, 1997, Cook is prohibited from obtaining any new civil engineering work, and he was required to provide evidence to the Board that he has notified all clients and employers with whom he has a current or continuing contractual or employment relationship of the offense, finding and discipline imposed. In March 2000, the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation. In a Stipulation, Order and Decision effective August 28, 2000, Cook admitted he had failed to complete and pass the two college level courses and the Board-approved course in professional ethics which were part of the terms and conditions of his probation. His prior probation and his license were revoked, the revocations were stayed and his probation, due to end on September 1, 2000, was extended for two and one-half additional years. Cook must complete the three courses noted above before March 1, 2004.

In February 2004, the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation. In a Decision effective September 3, 2004, Cook admitted he had failed to complete and pass the two college-level courses and the Board-approved course in professional ethics which were part of the terms and conditions of his extended probation. His probation and his license were revoked, the revocations were stayed, and his probation was extended to September 1, 2006. Cook must complete the three courses noted above before August 1, 2005. Additionally, he was ordered to pay $1,800 to the Board for its costs of investigation and prosecution. Cook is barred and prohibited from using his license in any manner, including consultation, during the period of probation.


COONLEY, RICHARD ELLIS, JR.
Civil Engineer C 30324
Accusation 339-A
Effective November 5, 1989: 30-day suspension, four years on probation
Effective November 4, 1991: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 30324, issued to Richard Coonley, Jr. He had entered into a written contract to perform an extensive study of a district's water and wastewater systems, for which he was paid in full. Coonley failed to fully perform, constituting a breach of contract, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) and (e). The actual damage totaled $19,397.60.

Effective November 5, 1989, Coonley was placed on probation for four years with a 30-day actual suspension. Prior to serving any actual suspension time, Coonley was to complete any project in which he commenced work or actually entered into a contract or agreement, subject to the condition that he submit to the Board, 20 days after the effective date of the decision, a complete written list of all clients and employers with whom he had a current or continuing contractual or employment relationship. In addition, he was ordered to pay $19,3678,60 restitution to the district. For the first two years of the probationary period, Coonley could practice only under the supervision of a licensed engineering professional approved by the Board. Within two years of the effective date, Coonley was required to successfully complete and pass, with a "C" grade or better, a training course, approved in advance by the Board, related to management.

Disciplinary action was again taken for violation of the above probationary conditions. Effective November 4, 1991, Coonley's civil engineering license was revoked. Coonley failed to completely reimburse the complainant, refused to meet with a representative of the Board in person when requested, and refused to provide the Board with his place of employment.


COPSEY, KIRK WILLIAM
Civil Engineer C 26920
Accusation 444-A
Effective October 19, 1991: REVOKED
Effective May 20, 1993: Petition for Reinstatement Denied
Effective November 8, 2002: Petition for Reinstatement Granted; license reinstated, revoked, revocation stayed; three and one-half years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 26920 issued to Kirk W. Copsey because he engaged in negligence, unprofessional conduct, and incompetence in his practice in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775. The drawings he prepared for his client were poorly organized with different disciplines, such as architecture and electrical, shown on the same drawing. The site plan did not provide a drainage plan, and there were no provisions for erosion protection from rain water run off from the buildings. Unprofessional conduct was found in several aspects of the structural calculations for the buildings, including incorrect seismic analysis for the residential structure.

In December of 1992, Copsey filed a Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License. Copsey did not appear at the hearing on his Petition. As a result, the Board determined that Copsey did not provide evidence of rehabilitation to demonstrate cause for reinstatement of his license and that reinstatement of his license would be contrary to the public interest. Effective May 20, 1993, the Board denied the petition.

In May 2002, Copsey filed a second Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License. A hearing was held on this Petition, at which time Copsey presented evidence of his efforts towards rehabilitation. Based on this evidence, the Board determined that cause existed to reinstate Copsey's Civil Engineer license on a probationary basis. Effective November 8, 2002, Copsey's license was reinstated and then revoked, with the revocation stayed, and Copsey placed on probation for a period of 3 ½ years upon certain terms and conditions. Under these conditions, Copsey is required to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination within 60 days of the effective date of the decision, to take and pass a Board-approved college-level civil/structural engineering course within 3 years of the effective date of the decision, and to take and pass the California Special Civil - Seismic Principles examination within 3 years of the effective date of the decision.


DAHMEN, DAVID ALLEN
Civil Engineer C 17918
Accusation 704-A
Effective February 18, 2005: Public reproval with conditions

Accusation 704-A alleged that David Allen Dahmen, of Sacramento, California, Civil Engineer License C 17918, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence and incompetence in preparation of an inspection of a mobile home site in relation to a home inspection report prepared by a different party. The first report contained over five pages of listed defects. Dahmen's report stated he "could find no evidence to support" several of the previous report's claims. Dahmen also stated the foundation construction "shows excellent workmanship and is in compliance with the intent of the plan and details." However, the shear wall system as constructed is not in compliance with the approved plans; the plans require installation of 6 steel pier supports, but only 3 steel pier supports were installed, some steel pier supports were not properly attached to the steel "I" beams as required by the approved plans, and the anchor bolts on the ends of the home are not installed as called for on the approved plans. Contrary to prior and subsequent inspections by others, Dahmen found no missing shingles, roof deflections, or other problem areas on the roof.

Effective February 18, 2005, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement as its decision in this matter. In the stipulated settlement, Dahmen admitted that, if proven at a hearing, the allegations and charges would constitute cause for imposing discipline upon his license to practice civil engineering. The Stipulated Decision and Order required a public reproval be issued to Dahmen. He was ordered to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics and to pay to the Board investigation and enforcement costs of $2,000 by February 18, 2006, or his license would be revoked.


DAVIS, GARY L.
Civil Engineer C 34540
Accusation 699-A
Effective December 13, 2002: License suspended, suspension stayed; one year probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 34540, issued to Gary L. Davis. It was determined that Davis violated Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence in his civil engineering practice. It was found that, in 1997, Davis contracted to provide civil engineering services for the development of a condominium project located in Squaw Valley. It was further found that Davis failed to adequately document services he provided beyond the original contract scope on two invoices, thereby violating the standard of practice for professional civil engineers, which constitutes negligence in the practice of civil engineering.

It its decision, effective December 13, 2002, the Board ordered Davis's Civil Engineer License suspended for 10 days. However, that suspension was stayed, and Davis was placed on probation for one year upon certain terms and conditions. These conditions included a requirement that Davis obey all laws and regulations relating to the practices of professional engineering and land surveying, that he submit special reports as the Board may require, and that he reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $500.00.


DEAL, CHARLES STEVEN
Civil Engineer C 19590
Accusation 605-A
Effective August 18, 1997: License REVOKED

Accusation No. 605-A was served by mail on Charles Steven Deal of Miami, Florida. Deal did not file a notice of defense. In a Default Decision and Order of Revocation, the Board found that Deal was hired in April 1993 to perform a geotechnical and foundation study of property in Boulder Creek, California, in preparation for remedial work to a home following an earthquake. Deal prepared a "Limited Geotechnical and Foundation Study, Earthquake Distress, Remedial Foundation Work." The report failed to adequately analyze and/or design the foundation system, failed to justify the lack of engineering documents, and failed to justify the lack of a comprehensive geotechnical report to support the repair methods chosen. Furthermore, Deal approved of and observed the work being done on the foundation when there were no plans, specifications or a building permit. The Board found that to be unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) and ordered revocation of Deal's license C 19590, effective August 18, 1997.


DENSON, GEORGE H.
Land Surveyor L 4470
Accusation 428-A
Effective December 3, 1990: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Land Surveyor License L 4470, issued to George H. Denson. It was determined that Denson failed to file a record of survey after setting boundary monuments. Also, Denson's survey contained erroneous corners; property lines that should have been straight were curved and angled and poorly marked and/or blazed; and accessories were not marked in compliance with practice and contract. In addition, Denson committed a breach of contract in that his work on the survey was never completed, and/or was in noncompliance with the requirements of the contract, and/or substantially inaccurate, all in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 8762, 8780(a), and 8780(f).

Denson withdrew his Notice of Defense and the Board issued a default decision order. Effective December 3, 1990, Denson's land surveyor's license was revoked.


DICKEY, GEORGE RAY
Civil Engineer C 21534
Accusation 620-A
Effective October 19, 1998: License revoked, revocation stayed; 60-day actual suspension; 5 years on probation
Effective February 27, 2004: Probation and license revoked; revocations stayed; probation reinstated for 1 year with conditions
Effective October 7, 2005: LICENSE REVOKED

Accusation 620-A alleged that George Ray Dickey of Alta Engineering, in Bakersfield, California, is subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code Section 6775, negligence, in that he failed to note specific requirements on the grading plan he prepared for the construction of a new home located in Tehachapi, California; specifically, for existing slopes steeper than 5:1, the grading contractor shall cut level benches into competent native material under the Kern County Grading Guidelines. Further, it alleged that Dickey failed to exercise sufficient supervisory control during the grading construction to ensure compliance with the grading plan. In September of 1993, Dickey signed and stamped the Rough Grading Confirmation Notification certifying that the rough grading work had been completed to approximate final elevations and that all work had been completed according to the approved grading plan. In May 1994, Dickey signed and stamped the Final Grading Confirmation. In early February 1995, interior drywall cracks and a surface tension crack in the front yard fill running in front of the house almost the entire length of the fill were observed at the residence. There was evidence that slope failure occurred due to improper benching and/or improper compaction. Remedial measures were taken to prevent further property damage, including installation of five caissons connected together with grade beams and cantilever beams to pick up the foundation loads.

In a stipulated settlement and decision, Dickey agreed that the charges and allegations constitute cause for imposing discipline upon his license to practice as an engineer and admitted their truth, thereby subjecting his license to discipline. Effective October 19, 1998, the Board revoked Dickey's license but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for five years on certain terms and conditions, including the suspension of his license for sixty days. As conditions for completing probation, Dickey was required to complete a Board-approved course in professional ethics, provide the Board with evidence that he notified all clients and employers with whom he had a current or continuing relationship of his offense and discipline, and provide the Board with each name and address. He was ordered to reimburse the Board $4,100.00 for costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case. Dickey agreed, in consideration of the Board reducing its costs to $4,100, to pay the homeowner $4,000.00 in restitution. He was also required to take and pass one Board-approved college level course specifically related to the area of violation.

On November 27, 2002, the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation on the grounds that Dickey did not complete all of the terms and conditions of his probation. He did not submit transcripts of proof of completion of any course in ethics to the Board. He did not obtain approval from the Board of any college-level course and failed to submit any transcript or proof of complete of any college course. Effective February 27, 2004, the Board issued a Decision in which the probation previously granted was revoked, and his license was revoked; however, those revocations were stayed for a period of one year, and probation was reinstated. Dickey was required to complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course within 180 days of the effective date of the decision; complete and pass one Board-approved college-level course in the area of the violation, also within 180 days of the effective date; and pay costs of investigation and prosecution of the petition for revocation to the Board in the amount of $2,540.75, also within 180 days of the effective date of the decision.

A Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against George Ray Dickey alleging that he has failed to comply with terms and conditions of the probation imposed in a previous disciplinary action. The Board had previously placed Dickey on probation and ordered him to take and pass Board-approved professional ethics and college-level civil engineering courses; however, he failed to take either of the required courses. In a Default Decision and Order, the Board ordered Dickey's license revoked, effective October 7, 2005.


DIGGINS, JAMES
Civil Engineer C 27818
Accusation 787-A
Effective April 14, 2006: Public Reproval; one year to comply with terms and conditions

Accusation 787-A alleged that James Edward Diggins violated Business and Professions Code sections 8780(d), 8780(g), 8762(b)(2), 8762(b)(3), 8762(c) by failing to file a record of survey within 90 days after having conducted a field survey of property in Contra Costa County in which he discovered a material discrepancy with information shown on a subdivision map, official map, or survey record previously recorded. The Accusation alleged that Diggins' survey also disclosed pre-existing markers on the parcel which were not on the true corners of the parcel according to previously recorded survey maps and that Diggins did not permanently and visibly mark or tag corner monuments on the property with his certificate number. It was alleged that Diggins based the location of the parcel's corners solely upon two street monuments in an adjacent subdivision and failed to consider evidence more directly related to the map by which the subject parcel was created, a substantial deviation from the standard of practice applicable to land surveys. Finally, the Accusation alleged that he violated a contract to provide land surveying services by failing to set new corners.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Diggins agreed that the allegations, if proven at a hearing, constitute cause for imposing discipline upon his license, thereby subjecting his license to discipline. The Board issued a Public Reproval in this matter and ordered Diggins to perform a field survey of the property, set permanent and durable monuments tagged with his license number at all four corners of the property, and following completion of the survey and monument setting, to file and record a record of survey with the Contra Costa County Surveyor within one year. Diggins was further ordered to pay the Board's costs of investigation and enforcement in the amount of $6,030.50 and to pay restitution to the consumer in the amount of $900. If he fails to comply with any of the conditions, the Board will be entitled to revoke his license.


DIMALANTA, RODOLFO
Civil Engineer C 23334, replaced by C 54787
Accusation 573-A
Effective August 14, 1995: Surrendered, Civil Engineer C 54787 issued

Accusation 573-A, filed on May 19, 1994, alleged that Rodolfo Dimalanta violated Business and Professions Code section 8780(a) for negligence and incompetence in the practice of land surveying and Title 16, California Code of Regulations, section 415 for practicing outside the area of his competency. It was specifically alleged that Dimalanta, between December 1991 and May 1992, submitted five purported final tract maps to the City of Hayward for approval. The first map contained seven identified errors, which include failing to show ties between street monuments and failing to show ties to any monuments along the boundary lines of the tracts. In addition, the basis of bearings is not long enough to be used as the basis of bearings for a tract map.

The second map contained seven identified errors, which include failing to show the relationship between a street monument to the centerline or monument line shown on the record maps, failing to show the bearing and distance on some of the lines, failing to show the distances from some of the monument lines, and not holding the deed call record angle, resulting in incorrect establishment of the boundary line. The third map contained four identified errors, including a tie distance which does not agree with the record distance on the map of record and an incorrect bearing on a boundary line. The fourth map contained seven identified errors, including missing ties on monument lines to set monuments. The fifth map contained two identified errors, including failure to properly show ties to the boundary lines.

Dimalanta stipulated to surrender his Civil Engineer License, C 23334. The Board agreed to issue a new Civil Engineer License which does not allow the practice of land surveying and not to pursue the accusation any further.

Effective August 14, 1995, the board accepted the surrender of Dimalanta's Civil Engineer License and issued a new one. Dimalanta's new Civil Engineer License is C54787. Dimalanta is not authorized to practice land surveying unless and until he meets all of the legal requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors Act for licensure as a professional land surveyor.


DURAND, PAUL HENRI JR.
Civil Engineer C20920, replaced by C 58364
Structural Engineer S 2136, replaced by S 4222
Accusation 633-A
Effective May 11, 1998: Licenses revoked, new licenses to be issued, then revoked and revocation stayed; 14-day actual suspension; four years on probation

Business and Professions Code section 141 provides that disciplinary action taken by another state against a California licensee for any act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license may be a ground for disciplinary action by this Board. Paul Henri Durand, Jr. of Newport Beach, California, was disciplined by the State of Arizona for acts substantially related to practice as a civil engineer and required to stop practicing land surveying until taking and passing the required examinations. The Arizona State Board of Technical Registration found that Durand misrepresented himself by certifying on an American Land Title Association (ALTA) survey that he was an Arizona registered land surveyor when performance of ALTA surveys was outside his category of registration as a civil engineer in Arizona. The drawings he prepared contained conflicting information.

In July of 1997, the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors, State of Colorado also acted against Durand's license as a professional engineer in the State of Colorado based on the disciplinary action taken against him by the State of Arizona.

Within the State of California, Durand performed land surveying, an ALTA/ACSM (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping) survey, in Sonora. He negligently located only two monuments when more were easily located, and failed to locate and show a private easement. He incompetently failed to locate and show a ten foot wide drainage easement called out in the title report. He failed to file a record of survey within 90 days after the establishment of points and lines which disclosed a material discrepancy with the record.

In June of 1995, Durand purported to do an ALTA/ACSM land title survey in Tuolumne, which he subsequently stamped. He negligently failed to correctly record and describe the monuments he found or set. Although he did not accept the position of monuments set by the original survey, he failed to file a record of survey. He did not file a corner record. He was incompetent in his failure to recover all existing monuments on the property when they were in place and easily accessible.

Effective May 11, 1998, the Board accepted Durand 's stipulation admitting to the allegations about the Arizona disciplinary action, the Colorado disciplinary action, the Sonora, California project and the ALTA/ACSM survey in Tuolumne, California. The Board revoked Durand's civil engineer license C 20920 and structural engineer license S2136 and ordered issuance of a new civil engineer license (C 58364) which does not authorize the practice of professional land surveying and a new structural engineer license (S 4222). Durand must meet all the requirements for licensure as a professional land surveyor, including application, fees, and the entire second-division examination in professional land surveying before he can practice land surveying. Immediately upon issuance, the new licenses are revoked, the revocations stayed, and concurrently suspended for 14 days. Durand was placed on probation for four years subject to terms and conditions including reimbursement of $8,800 of the Board's expenses for investigation and prosecution costs.


EDDY, ROBERT LEE
Civil Engineer C 22958
Accusation 702-A
Effective May 24, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation
Effective June 13, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; additional two years on probation
Effective August 9, 2006: Petition for Reduction of Penalty granted; early termination of probation granted

Accusation 698-A alleged that Robert Lee Eddy had subjected his Civil Engineer License C 44917 to disciplinary action for negligence and incompetence in his structural engineering practice, violations of Business and Professions Code §6775(c). It was alleged that, in 1996, Eddy entered into a contract to design a two-story single family residence in Hercules; the contract specified that the scope of work to be performed by Eddy was "architectural drawings showing elevations and floor plans; construction drawings showing structural components and details; engineering calculations to support drawings." It was further alleged that Eddy signed and stamped the plans, which were then submitted to the City of Hercules for a building permit. The Accusation alleged that Eddy was negligent and incompetent in that he failed to provide the necessary plan content, materials specifications, vertical load design, lateral force design, geotechnical design parameters, and foundation design and failed to understand his engineering duties and obligations relating to plan preparation.

Effective May 24, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, although Eddy denied the charges set forth in the Accusation, he agreed that the charges and allegations in the Accusation, if proven at an administrative hearing, would constitute cause for imposing discipline against his Civil Engineer license. Eddy also agreed that, at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established; therefore, he agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Eddy's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Eddy was placed on probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of these conditions required Eddy to successfully complete and pass three Board-approved college-level civil engineering courses, a Board-approved professional ethics course, and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Eddy is also required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $4,053.00.

A Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against Robert Lee Eddy alleging that he failed to complete three probationary conditions ordered in a previous disciplinary action. Eddy did not submit any college-level courses to the Board for approval and informed the Board he would not be able to complete the required courses by November 24, 2004, as ordered. He also failed to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course by May 24, 2004, and failed to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination by the required date of May 24, 2004, although he has now completed and passed the Board's examination. Effective June 13, 2005, the Board adopted a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order in which the Board ordered Eddy's license revoked but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for an additional two years on the condition that he take and pass three Board-approved college-level courses and reimburse the Board $2,364.00 for its costs of investigation and prosecution.

On June 22, 2006, the Board heard Eddy's Petition for Reduction of Penalty in which he requested that the period of probation be terminated early. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it was determined that Eddy had been on probation for slightly over four years at the time of the hearing; that he diligently pursued completion of the required probationary conditions despite serious health problems; and that he had completed and complied with all of the terms and conditions of probation. Therefore, the Board granted Eddy's Petition. Effective August 9, 2006, the period of probation was terminated.


EHE, PAUL CHRISTOPHER (Click here to see Citation 5065-L)
Land Surveyor L 5280
Accusation 681-A
Effective September 25, 2000: revocation, stayed; 30-day actual suspension; 4 years probation
Effective January 29, 2004: Petition for Reduction of Penalty Granted

Effective September 25, 2000, the Board took disciplinary action against Land Surveyor's license L 5280 issued to Paul Christopher Ehe of Running Springs, California. Accusation 681-A alleged that Ehe violated the Business and Professions Code sections 8762 and 8780 by failing to file 14 records of survey. He performed the land surveying in a negligent or incompetent manner.

As part of a stipulated settlement, Ehe's Land Surveyor's license L 5280 was revoked, but revocation was stayed and Ehe was placed on probation for four years with certain terms and conditions, including suspension for 30 days. Within 60 days of the effective date of this decision, Ehe is required to file records of survey in the ten cases in which he had previously filed corner records 97-313; 94-0002; 94-0314; 96-0370; 93-0139; 91-0027; 94-0430; 94-0527; 94-0874; and 95-0503. Ehe is also required to present proof to the Board that the East Valley Water District filings have been corrected legally and professionally. Ehe must eliminate the title gaps and overlaps between the adjusted parcels and eliminate the overlaps on adjacent senior parcels. In addition, Ehe is directed to correct Parcel Maps numbers 10656 and 10658 to eliminate the gap of ownership and clarify the dedication of a public right of way. The County of San Bernardino's Surveyor/Surveyor's Office will determine whether these filings are legally acceptable. Ehe is also required, within two years of the effective date of the decision, to successfully complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, a college-level course specifically related to his area of violation and he must also complete a course in professional ethics. Both courses must be approved by the Board in advance. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Ehe is required to reimburse the Board $8,000 for its investigation and enforcement costs. Ehe is also required, within two years of the effective date of the decision, to successfully complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, a college-level course specifically related to his area of violation and he must also complete a course in professional ethics. Both courses must be approved by the Board in advance. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Ehe is required to reimburse the Board $8,000 for its investigation and enforcement costs.

In November 2003, Ehe petitioned the Board to reduce the amount of costs he was required to reimburse the Board for its investigation and enforcement of this matter. Effective January 29, 2004, the Board issued a decision in which it determined that Ehe had demonstrated good cause to grant his Petition; therefore, the Board reduced the amount of cost reimbursement.


ENGLE, NOBLE L. (Click here to see Citation 5038-U) (Click here to see the Criminal Action)
Civil Engineer C 20922
Accusation 529-A
Effective December 16, 1994: License REVOKED

Disciplinary action has been taken against Civil Engineer License C 20922, issued to Noble L. Engle. The Board's decision was to revoke Engle's license.

Engle admitted that his license is subject to discipline for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) for violation of contract, deceit or misrepresentation, and/or negligence or incompetency in the practice of civil engineering on eleven separate projects; sections 6775(e) and 6735 in that he failed to sign, imprint his seal or stamp, or show an expiration date on some of the plans he prepared for five separate projects; sections 6775(e) and 8780(c) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations sections 463(a) and 463(b) in that he operated an engineering and land surveying business under the fictitious name of "Mesa Engineering & Surveying Associates, "failed to file an Organization Record form with the Board as required by sections 6738 and 8729, and failed to notify the Board within 30 days of his association with "Mesa Engineering & Surveying Associates."

Based on these admissions, Engle stipulated to the revocation of his license, effective December 16, 1994. In addition, he agreed not to petition for reinstatement for three years from the effective date of the decision. He further agreed that he will, prior to petitioning for reinstatement, reimburse the Board $20,000 for investigative costs and complete, with a grade of "C" or better, a Board-approved, 6-unit course in Engineering Ethics and Professionalism.


ERB, DONALD
Civil Engineer C 5354
Structural Engineer S 450
Accusation 532-A
Effective June 23, 1993: Licenses SURRENDERED

On April 11, 1993, Donald Erb voluntarily agreed to surrender his Civil Engineer License C 5354 and his Structural Engineer Authority S 450 to the Board. In the Stipulation for Surrender of Licenses; Decision and Order, the Board agreed to accept the surrender of Erb's licenses and to withdraw without prejudice Accusation 532-A pending against him. This decision and order became effective on June 23, 1993.

Erb was initially issued his civil engineer license and his structural engineer authority in 1937. In the event he ever reapplies to the Board for any license to practice professional engineering or land surveying, Erb will admit he was negligent and incompetent in his practice of professional engineering. As of June 23, 1993, Erb will no longer be licensed as a Civil and Structural Engineer in the State of California.


EZZELL, HUGH LYNN
Civil Engineer C 48246
Accusation 768-A
Effective April 15, 2005: License suspended for one year; suspension stayed; one year on probation

Accusation 768-A alleged that Hugh Lynn Ezzell of Reno, Nevada, was disciplined by the Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors for violating provisions of Nevada law by misleading his clients concerning the time in which the professional engineering work would be performed and exhibiting a lack of diligence towards the project and the time frame within which the professional engineering work would be performed, stamped, signed. He also submitted incomplete plans to the Washoe County Building Department and practiced outside his area of expertise. The Nevada Board suspended Ezzell's civil engineering license, stayed the suspension, and in February of 2002, placed him on probation for 2 years. In December of 2003, the suspension was extended by the Nevada Board for an additional year for failure to comply with the terms of probation.

Under Business and Professions Code section 141(a), a disciplinary action taken by another state for an act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license may be a ground for disciplinary action by the California Board. In a stipulated settlement, effective on April 15, 2005, Ezzell admitted to all of the allegations and agreed to the Board's penalty. His California license was suspended for one year; however, the suspension was stayed, and Ezzell was placed on probation for one year under terms and conditions including providing the Board with a list of the states other than California in which he is legally authorized to provide professional engineering. and information on the status of each out-of-state license. He must update that information every 90 days. He must provide a list of all current California projects to the Board and provide verifiable proof that he has successfully completed and complied with the terms and conditions of probation as ordered by the Nevada licensing board, or, if he has not, he must provide a written statement to that effect, including any further disciplinary action taken by Nevada's licensing board. He was also ordered to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination and reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $521.


FALLON, STEVEN L.
Civil Engineer C 45670
Accusation 578-A
Effective August 31, 1998: License revoked, stayed, 90-day actual suspension, five years on probation
Effective July 25, 2003: Probation extended three years to August 31, 2006, with additional terms and conditions
Effective April 14, 2006: Probation extended until August 31, 2009

Steven L. Fallon of Auburn, California stipulated that he is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) in three separate instances.

In January 1992, Fallon prepared, signed and sealed drawings and prepared structural calculations for a mini-storage building to be located in Sacramento, California. The construction drawings do not include sufficient details to prepare shop drawings, the calculations are not complete, the drawings are not complete, and the calculations and drawing are not coordinated. The plans and calculations are negligent and incompetent.

In December 1995, Fallon stamped and signed a soils report concerning a project in Meadow Vista, California and submitted it to the Placer County Department of Public Works. The soils report is a photocopy of a report prepared for another project and by a different author. Fallon plagiarized the report by photocopying it and changing the name of the project and its author. The report constitutes negligence, incompetence, deceit and misrepresentation.

In April 1996, Fallon was hired to survey real property in Placer County. He violated Business and Profession Code section 6775(e) by performing land surveying without a license to practice under section 8708 or an exemption under sections 6731 and 8731 for civil engineers licensed before January 1, 1982.

The Board ordered Fallon's license revoked but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for five years. His license is suspended for 90 days beginning on the effective date of the decision, August 31, 1998. Within two years of the effective date of the decision, Fallon must successfully complete and pass a course in professional ethics approved in advance by the Board. Within three years of the effective date, he must also take and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, four college-level courses approved in advance by the Board. Two of the classes must specifically relate to the area of violation of the mini-storage building project in Sacramento County and two courses must relate to the soils report on the property in Meadow Vista. Fallon must reimburse the Board $22,877.50 for costs of investigation and enforcement of his case, payable in equal monthly installments with the final payment due 30 days before the end of his probation.

Effective July 25, 2003, the Board issued a decision in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation against Fallon. In this decision, it was found that Fallon failed to timely comply with several of the probationary conditions previously ordered by the Board, thus violating the terms and conditions of probation. It was also found that during the period of probation, Fallon had experienced health problems which affected his ability to timely comply with the probationary conditions. Based on these findings, the Board ordered Fallon's probation extended for three years until August 31, 2006, with additional terms and conditions. Fallon was required to pay the remainder of the Board's costs as previously ordered by August 1, 2003, and to complete the four Board-approved college-level engineering courses as previously ordered by February 2005.

A Petition to Revoke Probation and Accusation was filed against Steven L. Fallon, who was already on probation based on prior disciplinary actions. It was alleged that Fallon failed to complete and pass one of the courses required within the time allowed under the conditions of his probation, failed to timely submit the quarterly reports required as a condition of probation, and failed to obey all laws related to the practice of professional engineering and land surveying. It was also alleged that he violated Business and Professions Code sections 6775 and 6749 by breaching a contract to prepare and deliver a structural plan for a residence in that the plan he submitted did not match the foundation measurements of the property, had incomplete calculations, and appeared to be a copy of another project. Additionally, it was alleged that Fallon did not provide his clients with a written contract reflecting the services he had agreed to provide.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Fallon admitted the truth of each and every allegation, thereby subjecting his license to discipline. The Board ordered probation extended for three more years to August 31, 2009, with terms and conditions including restitution to the client in the amount of $1,609 and reimbursement of the Board's costs of investigation and enforcement in the amount of $8,914. Fallon is also required to provide the Board with official proof of completion with a passing grade of a Board-approved course in engineering ethics within two years and to submit on a quarterly basis a report to the Board listing all engineering work engaged in or contracted for.


FOERSTEL, EDMUND C.
Civil Engineer C 9183; Structural Engineer S 957
Accusation 773-A
Effective November 4, 2005: LICENSES REVOKED

Accusation 773-A alleged that Edmund C. Foerstel gave permission to his son, Chris Foerstel, who is not licensed as an engineer, to use his father's engineering stamp and to sign his father's name as a licensed engineer on project plans submitted to the City of Compton Planning Department. Following an evidentiary hearing, it was found that the plans were rejected for lack of details and returned to the client, that Chris Foerstel was functioning as the engineer of record and attempted to correct the engineering deficiencies in the plans, and that an approved set of plans was never delivered to the client. It was also found that Edmund Foerstel was aiding and abetting his son's unlicensed practice of engineering. Edmund Foerstel's Civil and Structural Engineer licenses were ordered revoked, effective November 4, 2005.


FORBES, DALE LOREN (Click here to see Citation 97-0705-PE) (Click here to see Accusation 656-A)
Civil Engineer C 30407
Accusation 602-A
Effective August 7, 1997: Accusation withdrawn, citation issued

Accusation No. 602-A alleges that Dale Loren Forbes of Yorba Linda, California, violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) by negligently preparing plans for design of the foundation for a proposed single-family, wood-frame residence in Fairfield, California. Before Forbes prepared his calculations and design, a soils investigation and report for the property was performed by a geotechnical engineer. Forbes' plans fell below the standard of care required for professional engineers in that he failed to design the grade beams for the foundation in accordance with the findings and recommendations in the soil engineer's report and failed to completely design the concrete piers for the foundation in accordance with those findings and recommendations. The accusation further alleges Forbes failed to submit his plans to the soil engineer for review before construction began, as specifically requested in the soil engineer's report.

Forbes stipulated and agreed that the administrative hearing on Accusation No. 602-A be taken off calendar and the accusation be withdrawn and replaced by a citation charging that the respondent failed to include continuous concrete ties between two interior piers in his foundation design for the residence in Fairfield, California. He further agreed not to contest or appeal the citation and that it shall be final at the point of issuance and not subject to appeal. He agreed that he will pay the civil penalty of $250 within thirty days of the citation's issuance and that if he fails to do so, the Board will reinstate the accusation presently on file and proceed with an administrative hearing. The Board adopted the stipulated settlement as its order effective August 7, 1997.


FORBES, DALE LOREN (Click here to see Citation 97-0705-PE) (Click here to see Accusation 602-A)
Civil Engineer C 30407
Accusation 656-A
Effective October 7, 2000: Suspended for two years; suspension stayed, two years on probation

Dale Loren Forbes of Yorba Linda, California, was the subject of a disciplinary action in the state of Nevada for an act substantially related to the practice regulated by his California license. Forbes submitted incomplete and inadequate plans and calculations to the City of Las Vegas Building and Safety Department that bore his seal and stamped signature. He had not reviewed the plans and had, instead, directed one of his employees to place his seal and stamped signature on the unreviewed plans. The Nevada Board suspended Forbes' license for two years. However, the suspension was stayed and Forbes' Nevada license was placed on probation for two years under certain terms and conditions.

Effective October 7, 2000, Forbes was required to successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination before October 27, 2000. He was also required to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics and to complete and pass, within 18 months of the effective date, two Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of the violation. In addition, Forbes was ordered to pay the Board $1,450 within one year for costs of the investigation and prosecution and, within 30 days of the effective date, to provide all persons with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship with a copy of the Board's decision and order.


FOSTER, MICHAEL WILLIAM
Civil Engineer C 25847
Accusation 713-A
Effective February 17, 2006: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 713-A alleged that Michael William Foster was negligent in that he agreed to provide services including surveying, preparing a tentative map, a final map, improvement plans, and engineering and surveying for construction of a 14-parcel subdivision in Placerville. It was alleged that Foster was aware that his clients planned for each lot to have an individual septic system, but he failed to address concerns about mining activities and/or septic concerns requiring septic capability reports or percolation tests for the lots. As a result, his clients could not develop the property as planned after spending approximately $300,000 constructing improvements. Following an evidentiary hearing, it was found that Foster was negligent in his practice of civil engineering. The Board ordered Foster's license revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for three years under certain terms and conditions. The probationary terms include that he take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, complete and pass a course in professional ethics, and complete and pass three college-level courses related to the area of violation. He was ordered to reimburse the Board $20,608 for its investigative costs and to pay restitution to the two clients in the amount of $34,345.


FOX, JOHN K. (Click here to see Accusation 526-A)
Civil Engineer C 31671
Accusation 355-A
Effective October 18, 1988: 40-day suspension, five years on probation, effective October 18, 1988
Effective October 28, 1993: REVOKED

On September 30, 1988, disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 31671, issued to John K. Fox. Evidence established that Fox acted negligently in the preparation of drawings and calculations of gravity load systems and lateral load structural systems that he submitted to the Placer County Building Department. Effective October 18, 1988, Fox accepted the terms and conditions of his stipulation which include a 40-day suspension of his civil engineering license and payment of $6,000 to the Board for reimbursement of its investigative costs. He is required to pass an examination administered by the Board on structural engineering and seismic principles and to complete a Board-approved educational program in structural engineering. Fox is prohibited from any work involving structural engineering until he passes the requisite examinations and completes the educational program. In addition, he was placed on five years probation.

On April 22, 1993 and October 8, 1993, John K. Fox petitioned the Board, pursuant to Government Code section 11522, to modify the probationary terms and conditions of the 1988 Stipulation, Decision and Order in the Matter of Accusation Number 355-A. Fox requested that either additional time be granted to comply with the probationary terms or that he be permanently restricted from performing any work involving structural engineering. At the hearing, the Board determined that the public interest would not be protected by continued licensure of an individual who could not pass an examination which tests the minimal competence of an entry-level engineer. The Board also determined that the public interest would not be served by permitting Fox a license permanently restricted from structural engineering. Based on these determinations, the Board denied Fox's petition. Effective October 28, 1993, Fox's Civil Engineer License C 31671 was automatically revoked, pursuant to the terms of the 1988 decision.


FOX, JOHN K. (Click here to see Accusation 355-A)
Civil Engineer C 31671
Accusation 526-A
Effective July 1, 1994: License continues revoked per decision in 355-A

As of May 1994, John K. Fox stipulated to unprofessional conduct in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) and violation of probation. He agreed that he understood that as a direct consequence of making the admissions in the stipulation, the Board will continue the revocation of his Civil Engineer license C 31671 and will continue to limit his right to practice as a civil engineer licensee in California.

Fox admitted to the allegations of negligence on five separate projects in Accusation 526-A, as follows:

  1. 1. He admitted to negligence on a mapping project in Placer County in which he did not file a corner record or record of survey in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 8672 and 8780(f). Monuments were set but not recorded as required by law.
  2. 2. Fox agreed to provide improvement plans and a final map for Colfax Pines 32-unit subdivision. His off-site improvement plans were not approved by Placer County Department of Public Works and the City of Colfax. The first submittal was incomplete. The second submittal failed to respond to questions as to soils report recommendations and driveway configurations. The "Third check print" was also incompetently prepared and constituted negligence.
  3. 3. Fox was hired to create a parcel map to subdivide a parcel in Placer County. Two section corner monuments, 150 feet apart, had been recorded for the same section corner. Fox negligently failed to disclose the existence of two section corner monuments and a potential boundary conflict to the parties involved. He should have recognized a possible deed conflict and it was his duty to inform both parties of the potential conflict and advised them not to proceed until a boundary resolution was in place.
  4. 4. On September 20, 1990, Fox submitted a survey map to the Placer County Surveyor's Office for review and recording. In August of 1991, the senior engineer technician listed numerous errors and omissions. Fox was required to resubmit the Parcel Map on five occasions before it could be approved.
  5. 5. In October of 1989, Fox agreed with a community association to provide a cover sheet, site plan, grading plan, detail plan, plan and profile design and to stake out the building and obtain approval by Nevada County. He agreed to a set cost for the project, but total billings exceeded the contract price. In June of 1990, Fox said there might be additional costs to complete the agreed-upon items. In addition to cost disagreements, grading stakes were set but were not consistent with the plan. The plan was also found to be incorrect for proper drainage and grades. Fox's work on the project constituted negligence and/or misrepresentations, subjecting his license to discipline. The site plan was prepared in a negligent manner and misrepresentations were made in regard to billing.

GANABA, MOHAMED BASHIR
Civil Engineer C 38155
Accusation 636-A
Effective July 6, 1998: License revoked
Effective October 5, 2001: Petition for reinstatement granted, maximum two years suspension, five years on probation

For purposes of settlement, Mohamed Bashir Ganaba of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, agreed to the truth of all allegations in Accusation 636-A and that the Board revoke his civil engineer license number C 38155. Ganaba was convicted in July, 1996, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, of three felony crimes related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a civil engineer. The first was perjury, for filing a declaration that he had no reportable economic interests connected with his position as City Building Official for the City of Manhattan Beach. He was paid for his private engineering work on his employer's projects and his office was responsible for review and approval of that engineering work. The second, misappropriation of public funds, resulted from his involvement in a contracting process for his employer wherein the selected vendor was paid approximately $120,000 more than the city intended to pay. The third felony conviction was for grand theft. Ganaba stole money belonging to his employer by directing a vendor working for his office to pay an associate for some projects billed to the city. That money was deposited into Ganaba's bank account. Ganaba agreed that the related loss to the City of Manhattan Beach was $83,617. The Board revoked Ganaba's license effective July 6, 1998.

On May 28, 2001 Mohamed Bashir Ganaba petitioned the Board for reinstatement of his revoked Civil Engineering license C 38155. At the petition hearing, Ganaba presented evidence of his rehabilitation. Based on the evidence provided, the Board determined that Ganaba has been sufficiently rehabilitated. Therefore, effective October 5, 2001, the Board ordered Ganaba's Civil Engineering License reinstated and placed on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions ordered Ganaba's license suspended for not more than two years and provided for early termination of the suspension if he complies with other conditions, including taking and pass a course in engineering ethics and professionalism and completing the terms of his criminal probation.


GANDHI, JAYANT L.
Civil Engineer C 25569
Accusation 731-A
Effective July 12, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; 60-day suspension; five years on probation
Effective April 16, 2004: Petition for Reduction of Penalty denied
Effective January 6, 2006: Second Petition for Reduction of Penalty granted; probation extended until July 12, 2008

Accusation 731-A alleged that Jayant Lallubhai Gandhi had subjected his Civil Engineer License C 25569 to disciplinary action for negligence in his practice of civil engineering on two separate projects, in violation of Business and Professions Code §6775(c). On one project, it was alleged that Gandhi prepared structural calculations for work to be performed on a house in San Jose and also signed and stamped the construction plans that had been prepared by an unlicensed draftsman. The Accusation alleged that the project went through four submittals to the Building Department, each time being returned with lists of numerous corrections. It was alleged that the plans, which where signed and stamped by Gandhi, were incomplete and not prepared in conformance with generally accepted practices or professional standards and that Gandhi did not adequately review or check the plans prior to signing and stamping them. On the second project, the Accusation alleged that Gandhi was retained to do engineering calculations and to review the construction plans prepared by the unlicensed draftsman in order to take responsibility for the engineering design for an addition to an existing residence in Hayward. It was alleged that the plans, which Gandhi signed and stamped, were incomplete and not prepared in conformance with generally accepted practices or professional standards and that Gandhi did not adequately review or check the plans prior to signing and stamping them. Furthermore, the Accusation alleged that Gandhi failed to file an Organization Record form, as required by Business and Professions Code section 6738, showing the fictitious business name of his company, "Jay Consulting."

Effective July 12, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Gandhi admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation. Gandhi also agreed that his Civil Engineer license is subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Gandhi's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Gandhi was placed on probation for a period of five years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of the conditions required Gandhi to successfully complete and pass three Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation, a Board-approved professional ethics course, the California Laws and Board Rules examination, and the California Special Civil Seismic Principles and Engineering Surveying examinations. Additionally, Gandhi is required to pay restitution to his clients in the total amount of $2,700.00 and to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $4,165.77.

In March 2004, after 20 months of a five-year probation, Jayant Lallubhai Gandhi petitioned for termination of probation. He has been employed full-time as an associate civil engineer (plan checker) for the City of Richmond Building Department for 14 years. He has a part-time consulting business, Jay Consulting, performing structural calculations and stamping/signing plans for projects by referral from architects and/or drafting services. Gandhi has worked on four or five consulting projects while on probation. Gandhi took and passed the California Laws and Board Rules examination and paid restitution to individuals whose projects were the subject of the Board's disciplinary order as required by the terms of probation. He has not paid any portion of the cost recovery owed to the Board; he has not taken, enrolled in, or made plans to take an ethics course or any of the three required college-level engineering courses; and he has not taken the seismic principles and engineering surveying examinations for civil engineers. In addition, he has not provided to the Board the names and business addresses of all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship in the area of practice of professional engineering and/or land surveying. At the hearing on his petition, Gandhi testified, among other things, that he is willing to pay cost recovery to the Board and would be able to provide the names and addresses of clients/employers. He has requested termination of probation without having to take an ethics course as he believes he has performed services as an engineer in an ethical manner. With respect to the three college-level engineering courses, he feels that basic engineering courses would not be of any benefit to him because he is working at a more advanced level. In support of his petition, Gandhi submitted structural calculations for the most recent project undertaken in his consulting business. The documents were stamped and signed by Gandhi, to be submitted to the City of Hayward Planning Department. The documents were incomplete and contained erroneous calculations. Based on Gandhi's presentation of evidence, his lack of good faith effort to complete the requirements of his probation does not warrant a change in his probationary status at this time. The Board denied his petition for termination of probation, effective April 16, 2004; therefore, all of the previously-ordered conditions of probation remain in effect.

On August 21, 2005, the Board heard the Second Petition for Reduction of Penalty of Jayant Lallubhai Gandhi. At the hearing, Gandhi presented evidence that he has complied with all the terms and conditions of the previously-ordered probation except for passing the Engineering Surveying examination. He requested either termination of a condition of probation and or an extension of time and of his probation to take and pass the engineering surveying exam. The Board denied the request for termination of the condition but granted Gandhi's request for an extension of time. The Board ordered the probationary period extended, as well as the time period for passing the exam.


GHILARDI, JEFFREY SILVIO
Civil Engineer C 25217
Land Surveyor L 5125
Accusation 302-A
Effective November 20, 1987: Licenses REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Jeffrey Silvio Ghilardi for violations of Section 8780 (a) and 8780 (f) of the Business and Professions Code. It was stipulated that, effective November 20, 1987, Ghilardi's Land Surveyor License L 5125 would be revoked, but that he could petition the Board not less than one year after the revocation for reinstatement of the license. It was further stipulated that Ghilardi's Civil Engineer License C 25217 would be canceled and a new civil engineering license was to be issued which would not include the privilege to practice land surveying, provided that Ghilardi would timely surrender his old wall certifications and pocket identification cards and pay the required license fees. However, if Ghilardi failed to do so, his Civil Engineer License C 25217 would be revoked, and a new one would not be issued. Since Ghilardi failed to comply with these conditions, both his Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor licenses were revoked, and a new Civil Engineer license was not issued.


GILLUM, JACK D.
Civil Engineer C 17870
Structural Engineer S 1905
Accusation 514-A
Effective August 4, 1992: REVOKED
Effective July 5, 1994: Petition for reinstatement of structural engineer license denied, civil engineer license reinstated, suspended for 30 days, four years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against the Civil Engineering License C 17870, and the Structural Engineering Authority, S 1905, of Jack D. Gillum for negligence and failure to exercise responsible charge, violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) and California Code of Regulations section 404.1. It was determined that Gillum signed and sealed the structural engineering plans as the engineer in responsible charge of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel atrium walkways. These walkways collapsed, killing 114 people and injuring at least 186 others. By signing the structural engineering plans, Gillum took full professional responsibility for all engineering work performed. He also failed to exercise responsible charge in that he failed to review the plans.

Effective August 4, 1992, Jack D. Gillum's Civil Engineering License and Structural Engineering Authority were revoked.

In 1994, Gillum petitioned the Board, pursuant to Government Code section 11522, for reinstatement of his revoked licenses. On May 27, 1994, the Board heard his petition. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, including testimony of Gillum and other witnesses, the Board determined that Gillum did not establish good cause to reinstate his structural engineer license at this time. However, the Board determined there was good cause to reinstate his civil engineer license subject to specific terms and conditions.

Effective July 5, 1994, the Board denied the petition to reinstate the revoked structural engineer license and granted the petition to reinstate the revoked civil engineer license. Gillum's civil engineer license was reinstated with a four-year probationary period with specific terms and conditions; if Gillum fails to comply with any of the conditions, his license will be revoked. Included in these conditions was a suspension of his license until August 4, 1994. In addition, within 60 days of the effective date of the decision, Gillum was required to submit to the Board, or its designee, for prior approval, a community service program in which he shall provide 200 hours of pro bono community service during the 4-year probationary period.


GODINA, RICHARD J.
Civil Engineer C 33038
Accusation 690-A
Effective April 5, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; 15-day suspension; three years on probation

Accusation 690-A alleged that Richard Joseph Godina, Civil Engineer License C 33038, entered into contractual agreements with a client to perform engineering work on four projects. It was alleged that Godina billed and accepted payment in the amount of $18,252.83 for a portion of the work, but that, at the direction of the client, work was suspended on the projects for some time. It was further alleged that when the client then requested that Godina provide him with the project files for one of the projects so that he could complete the project before the county imposed additional fees to renew or extend the tentative subdivision map, Godina initially refused, then agreed to do so, then failed to provide the client with all of the necessary documents and files, which in turn caused the client to be unable to record the final map before the expiration date of the tentative approval. The Accusation alleged that these actions by Godina constitute a violation of Business and Professions Code §6775(d) for breach or violation of contract by unreasonably delaying and denying providing copies of the project file documents to his clients.

Effective April 5, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Godina agreed that the charges and allegations in the Accusation, if proven at a hearing, constitute cause for imposing discipline upon his Civil Engineer and agreed that, at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established. Godina further agreed that his license was subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered the revocation of Godina's license; however, that revocation was stayed, and Godina was placed on probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions. One condition ordered Godina's license suspended for 15 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Other conditions required Godina to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, a Board-approved college-level course specifically related to the area of violation, and a Board-approved professional ethics course. Godina is also required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $7,500.00.


GORGE, EDWARD (Click here for information regarding Citation 5049-L)
Civil Engineer C 22093
Accusation 694-A
Effective February 18, 2005: License REVOKED

Accusation 694-A alleged that Edward Gorge of Redding, California, was a partner and sole licensed civil engineer in a two-person partnership doing business as Mesa Engineering & Surveying Associates in Red Bluff, California. The other part owner of Mesa Engineering was a non-registered individual whose own engineering license had been revoked by the Board. In January of 1996, Mesa Engineering entered a written contract to perform a dam site investigation and survey, a soils and borrow pit survey, dam plans and "spec.," spillway design, hydrology and construction staking; all within 45 to 60 days. It was alleged that Gorge violated Business and Professions Code §6775(d) by breaching the engineering services contract by permitting an unsigned, unstamped, and anonymous Hydrology Report to be presented for a fee and to be relied upon in the preparation of dam design drawings. Furthermore, he allegedly violated §6775(c) in that his work on the contract fell beneath the standard of care required of a licensed engineer.

A first amended accusation was made and filed alleging additional violations regarding a land surveying project performed by Gorge in Mendocino County. The survey was performed in June of 1998. A Record of Survey was filed in January of 2001. It was returned by the Mendocino County Surveyor with comments. Gorge did not resubmit the Record of Survey, in violation of §8762(a), (b) and (c).

Gorge was served with the Accusation and filed a Notice of Defense within the time allowed by law, and was also served with the Notice of Hearing setting out the date, time, and place for a hearing on the matter. Gorge failed to appear, waiving his right to a further hearing. Effective February 18, 2005, the Board issued a Default Decision and Order revoking Gorge's license.


GREATHOUSE, JAMES ROBERT
Civil Engineer C 23571
Accusation 735-A
Effective February 27, 2004: License SURRENDERED

Accusation 735-A alleged that that James Robert Greathouse of Cambria, California, violated sections 8780(b), 8780(d) and 8780(h), in that while surveying a property in San Luis Obispo County, he was negligent and incompetent in his location and monumentation of the South line of the property, filed for record on May 13, 1999. Furthermore, the Accusation alleged that Greathouse failed to follow proper procedure in his retracement survey of the same property by not establishing and recognizing the location of the line as described in senior deeds and other retracement surveys in the area.

In a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, effective February 27, 2004, Greathouse, for the purpose of resolving the Accusation, agreed that, at a hearing, the Board could establish a factual basis for the charges and that those charges constitute cause for discipline. By signing the stipulation, he understands that he enables the Board to issue an order accepting the surrender of his Civil Engineer License without further process. Greathouse surrendered Civil Engineer License C 23571, and it was accepted by the Board. Greathouse loses all rights and privileges as a civil engineer in California as of February 27, 2004. He understands and agrees that if he should ever, with the permission of the Board, apply for licensure or petition for reinstatement in California, the Board will treat it as a new application for licensure, and that he must comply with all the laws, regulations and procedures in effect at the time the application or petition is filed. He also agreed not to apply for licensure or petition for reinstatement.


GUENTHER, FRED C. (Click here to see related report of discipline against Loreto Manuel)
Civil Engineer C 10868
Accusation 300-A
Effective March 27, 1988: REVOKED
Effective 1990, 1992, and 1995: Petitions for Reinstatement Denied

The Board entered into a Stipulation in Settlement of Accusation 175 against Fred C. Guenther in January of 1977. Guenther's civil engineering license was suspended for six months, but the suspension was stayed except for the first thirty days and Guenther was placed on probation for one year.

A second accusation, Number 219-A, was filed for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8780 (c) in conjunction with section 8762 and section 8780 (a). The decision, effective August 29, 1983, revoked Guenther's license, but revocation was stayed and he was placed on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions.

Accusation 300-A was filed to revoke the probation for violation of the probationary conditions. Effective March 27, 1988, Guenther's license was revoked for violating Business and Professions Code section 8792 for practicing land surveying while his license was suspended, and sections 6775(b) and 8780(a) for misrepresentation in the practice of civil engineering and land surveying.

In 1990 and again on April 17, 1992, Guenther petitioned the Board for reinstatement of his revoked license. The Board determined that Guenther displayed ignorance of the statutes and regulations which govern the licensed activities of civil engineers and land surveyors. Additionally, it was found that he had engaged in a flagrant and continuing violation of the Board's Cease and Desist Order regarding information contained in his brochures. The evidence established that he expressed no remorse for his past actions and demonstrated no rehabilitation, and that the public would not be protected even if he were permitted the most strict probationary license. The Board denied his petitions for reinstatement.

On March 8, 1993, the Superior Court of Alameda County (Southern Division) issued an order, in the matter of Fred C. Guenther v. Henry Calvert, which determined that Guenther, individually and doing business as ABL Services, is a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., in that he has, in the past seven years, commended, prosecuted, and maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in small claims court that have been finally determined aversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. The order also declared that Guenther has, in the course of litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed meritless motions, pleadings, and other papers and has engaged in frivolous tactics. The order requires Guenther to furnish for the benefit of all defendants in the litigation adequate security in the amount of $15,000 within 30 days of the date of the order. If he fails to furnish this security, his case will be dismissed. A Pre-Filing Order was also issued which prohibits Guenther, individually or doing business as ABL Services, or doing business under the name of any other business entity under his ownership or control, from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.

On September 16, 1993, Guenther was found guilty of two felony counts of violating Penal Code section 487.1 (grand theft) and one misdemeanor count of violating Business and Professions Code sections 8725 and 8792(a). The Superior Court of San Mateo County found that Guenther willfully and unlawfully took money or personal property of a value exceeding $400 in two instances, and that he willfully and unlawfully practiced, offered to practice, or represented himself as a land surveyor without licensure in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 8725 and 8792(a). On November 19, 1993, Guenther was admitted to supervised probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions; the execution of sentence was stayed to January 7, 1994. Included in the conditions was a requirement that he serve a total of 60 days in the county jail. He was also required to make restitution in the amount of $1,300 and pay a $220 restitution fund fine and collection fee. He was also prohibited from practicing as a land surveyor unless legally licensed to do so.

On November 17, 1994, the Board heard a Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License of Fred C. Guenther, Jr. Guenther petitioned the Board, pursuant to Government Code section 11522, for reinstatement of his revoked civil engineer license C 10868. After considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board determined that reinstatement would be contrary to the public interest. The Board determined that Guenther had undergone no rehabilitation since the revocation of his license and continued to show no remorse for his past actions. Further, since the denial of his petition in 1992, he had been convicted of two felony counts of grand theft and one misdemeanor count for practicing land surveying without a license. Guenther believed he was innocent of these crimes and accepted no personal responsibility for them. He also accepted no personal responsibility for his conduct which led to revocation of his license and the denials of his petitions for reinstatement; he blames others for his actions. In his testimony at the 1994 hearing, he continued to mislead the Board. Therefore, effective February 27, 1995, the Board denied his petition.


HAIGHT, JOHN E.
Land Surveyor L 2716
Accusation 301-A
Effective November 6, 1987: REVOKED

For violations of Section 8780 (a) of the Business and Professions Code, the Board adopted the decision of the Administrative Law Judge effective November 6, 1987. The decision ordered Haight's Land Surveyor License L 2716 revoked.


HALL, DANA W.
Civil Engineer C 34750
Accusation 523-A
Effective January 22, 1996: License revoked, stayed, 60-day actual suspension, five years on probation
Effective June 30, 2000: REVOKED

Accusation 523-A alleges that Dana W. Hall's license is subject to discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) in that he has been negligent in the practice of professional engineering on two separate projects. Specifically, Hall was negligent in preparing structural engineering calculations for a residence in Redding; he incorrectly calculated the wind forces on the structure, his overturning calculations ignored the actual height of the walls and did not indicate the multi-story effect of the structure, and he calculated roof and floor shears but failed to vertically redistribute the seismic loads. In addition, Hall was negligent in preparing plans and calculations for an apartment complex in Redding because he provided no lateral design and the vertical load calculations contained errors.

Hall stipulated that his license is subject to discipline and the Board issued a Stipulation, Decision and Order. Effective January 22, 1996, Hall's license was revoked. However, that revocation was stayed, and Hall has been placed on probation for a period of five years upon certain terms and conditions, including an actual 60-day suspension of his license, beginning on the effective date of the decision and continuing through March 22, 1996.

In addition, Hall was required to reimburse the Board in the amount of $10,000 for the costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, no later than one year from the effective date of the decision. Within two years of the effective date, he was also required to successfully complete and pass two Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation and a course in professional ethics. Additionally, within four years of the effective date of the decision, Hall was required to take and pass both the California Seismic Principles examination and the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Principles and Practices of Structural Engineering examination. Hall was permitted to practice structural engineering only under the monitoring of a Board-approved professional engineer until such time as the results of these examinations were available; should he fail to pass either of these examinations, he is prohibited from practicing structural engineering until such time as he has passed both examinations. Hall was also required to provide proof to the Board, within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, that he notified all clients and employers with whom he had a current or continuing contractual or employment agreement of the offense, findings, and discipline imposed.

A petition to revoke probation was filed January 25, 2000 on the grounds that Hall had failed to complete and pass the required college level courses by the January 22, 2000 deadline and had failed to take and pass the California seismic examination and/or the NCEES Structural 1 examination as required by the probationary terms of the original order. The Second Petition was served on Dana Wilson Hall, who filed a timely notice of defense.

A hearing was set for May 5, 2000 and Hall was served with a notice of hearing. The hearing was called and Hall failed to appear. In a Default Decision and Order, the Board terminated and vacated the stay of the order of revocation and probation. License C 34750 was revoked, effective June 30, 2000.


HAMBY, JOHN (Click here to see Accusation 774-A)
Land Surveyor L 2843
Accusation 336-A
Effective November 5, 1989: 30-day suspension, two years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Land Surveyor License L 2843, issued to John Hamby, for violation of Business and Professions Code section 8780 (a) and (f). The Board found that Hamby failed to properly supervise his field crew and failed to assure the accuracy of the record of survey map. Furthermore, he did not produce an accurate record of survey within a reasonable time after undertaking the project. It was determined that Hamby had been negligent and had breached his contract with his client. Effective November 5, 1989, Hamby's license was suspended for 30 days and he was placed on probation for two years. Terms of probation included a requirement that he take and pass a refresher training course in land surveying approved in advance by the Board.


HAMBY, JOHN (Click here to see Accusation 336-A)
Land Surveyor L 2843
Accusation 774-A
Effective October 7, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; four years on probation

Accusation 774-A alleged that John Hamby performed a survey and filed a Record of Survey map in Lassen County in September of 1975 that contained errors and ambiguities which were perpetuated in subsequent maps he filed over the next 25 years, and which affect at least half of 35 sections in Township 23 North, Range 17, East, in Lassen County. It was alleged that a portion of the surveyed lines constitute the very significant boundary line between California and Nevada, and Hamby failed to research the land to properly locate corners, monuments, and other site points in order to state with any degree of certainty that this is the proper location.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Hamby admitted the truth of all charges in the accusation. It was noted that Hamby admitted responsibility at an early stage in the proceedings and has tried to correct any mistakes in the survey map that he created for Lassen County in 1975. The Board ordered Hamby's license revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and Hamby was placed on probation for four years with certain terms and conditions including reimbursement of the Board for its investigative and prosecution costs of $6,472.50, successful completion and passing of the California Laws and Board Rules exam, and successful completion of a Board-approved college-level course. Hamby must also make the necessary corrections on his 1975 survey of Lassen County and file or record any corrected records of surveys with the appropriate governmental agency.


HANKS, WILLIAM J.
Land Surveyor L 6883
Accusation 646-A
Effective October 7, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed, two years on probation
Effective February 21, 2003: REVOKED

The Board found Hanks' license, L6883, subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code section 8780. Hanks prepared a record of survey in Indio, California. Hanks violated the standard of care incumbent on licensed land surveyors by not referring to a possible alternate boundary in his record of survey. He also failed to note a long established line of occupation in his record of survey. Hanks obstructed the filing of the record of survey by removing his check payable to the Riverside County Recorder's Office.

Following a hearing on this matter, the Board ordered Hanks' license revoked but stayed the revocation and placed Hanks on probation for two years. Hanks must pay $11,318 for the Board's costs of investigation and enforcement. He must also complete of a minimum of one Board-approved college-level course specifically related to government regulation and administration. Additionally, Hanks was ordered to complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics within one year.

Effective February 21, 2003, the Board issued a Default Decision and Order in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation against Hanks. The Board found that Hanks failed to comply with the terms and conditions of probation as previously ordered. Based on his failure to comply with the probationary order, the Board ordered Hanks' license revoked.


HANSEN, JOHN HARVEY
Civil Engineer C 26544
Accusation 574-A
Effective April 16, 1996: Revoked, revocation stayed, 30-day actual suspension, three years on probation
Effective November 17, 1997: Probation revoked, revocation stayed, five years on probation
Effective October 6, 2000: Probation terminated, license REVOKED
Effective November 14, 2003: License reinstated with conditions; five years on probation
Effective June 13, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; additional five years on probation

The Board found that John Harvey Hansen failed to complete a verbal contract to prepare a final parcel map for a 90-acre parcel in the Angeles Crest Mountains in Los Angeles County by failing to ensure that an acceptable parcel map was submitted to the County even though he had been paid for his services and for other costs associated with the project. Based on the findings, the Board determined that the failure constituted breach of contract in the practice of land surveying pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8780(f).

The Board revoked Hansen's license, stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for three years and under an actual 30-day suspension of his license, effective April 29, 1996. Within 30 days of the effective date, Hansen was required to provide proof to the Board that he has notified all clients and employers of the offense, findings, and discipline imposed. Within 90 days of that date, he was required to reimburse the Board $3,090.50 for costs of investigation and within six months of the date, was required to pay restitution of $13,435.76 to the consumers. In addition, within two years of April 29, 1996, Hansen was required to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics.

The Board petitioned to revoke probation based on the fact that Hansen violated the conditions of his probation. As of November 17, 1997, John Harvey Hansen's license is revoked but the revocation is stayed and he is on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions for violating the conditions of probation. Under the new action, Hansen was required to reimburse the Board for costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case in the amount of $3,090.50 according to a payment schedule mutually acceptable to Hansen and the Board. He was also required to pay $13,435.76 restitution to the consumers damaged by the original breach of contract according to a payment schedule mutually acceptable to Hansen and the Board. His period of probation shall not end unless he has paid all restitution as ordered and full payment of costs of investigation and enforcement is made to the Board. Furthermore, within one year of the effective date of the decision, Hansen was required to complete and pass a course in professional ethics approved in advance by the Board or its designee. Hansen's license will be restored upon successful completion of probation, including fulfillment of all conditions.

In its Decision, effective October 6, 2000, the Board terminated Hansen's probation and vacated the stay of revocation imposed on his civil engineering license. Therefore, Hansen's Civil Engineer License, C 26544, was revoked.

On September 25, 2003, Hansen petitioned the Board for reinstatement of his revoked Civil Engineer License C 26544. Based on the evidence presented at the petition hearing, the Board determined that Hansen has been sufficiently rehabilitated to have his license reinstated with conditions. Therefore, effective November 14, 2003, the Board ordered Hansen's Civil Engineering License reinstated and placed on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions required Hansen to provide verifiable proof to the Board, by the effective date of the decision, that he had made the first of five equal payments to the consumers as payment of the restitution ordered in the original decision; Hansen's license was ordered suspended until he provided the required proof of payment to the Board. Hansen was ordered to provide verifiable proof to the Board that he is paying the restitution to the consumers every six months. Another condition ordered Hansen to pay the Board's costs as previously ordered within 30 months of the effective date of the decision. Hansen was also required to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination.

A Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against John Harvey Hansen alleging that Hansen had violated the terms and conditions of probation ordered as part of the reinstatement of his revoked license. It was alleged that Hansen practiced civil engineering while his license was suspended by performing a final grading inspection and preparing an engineered grading inspection report. Additionally, it was alleged that he failed to provide verifiable proof that he had paid restitution to his clients as ordered and failed to reimburse the Board the $3,090.50 ordered for costs incurred in prosecution. Hansen also allegedly failed to complete and pass, within sixty days of November 14, 2003, the California Laws and Board Rules examination. In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Hansen admitted, for the purposes of this proceeding, the truth of the charges in the petition and agreed that his license is subject to discipline. His license was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and Hansen was placed on probation for five years on terms and conditions, including paying the restitution and reimbursing the Board's costs. Hansen was also ordered to complete and pass a Board-approved course in engineering ethics.


HARDIN, HAROLD DEAN
Land Surveyor L 3555
Accusation 764-A
Effective February 18, 2005: License SURRENDERED

Accusation 764-A alleged that Harold Dean Hardin of Poteau, Oklahoma, is subject to disciplinary action in that he has been disciplined by the by the Oklahoma State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. The Oklahoma Board suspended Hardin's registration effective November 30, 2000 through and until June 2, 2001. On May 31, 2001, his Oklahoma Land Surveyor's License was revoked for failure to meet the Oklahoma Minimum Standards for the Practice of Land Surveying. Under Business and Professions Code section 141(a), a disciplinary action taken by another state for an act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license may be a ground for disciplinary action by the California Board. In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, effective February 18, 2005, Hardin admitted the truth of the charges and allegations, agreed that cause exists for discipline and surrendered his Land Surveyor License, Number L 3555, for the Board's formal acceptance. Hardin's signature on the stipulation enabled the Board to issue an order accepting the surrender of his license.


HILL, MELVIN (Click here to see Accusation 647-A)
Civil Engineer C 19704, replaced by C 54833
Accusation 581-A
Effective December 18, 1995: C 19704 surrendered, C 54833 issued

Accusation 581-A, filed on September 26, 1994, alleged that Melvin Hill violated Business and Professions Code section 8780(a) for negligence and incompetence in the practice of land surveying; and Title 16, California Code of Regulations, section 415 for practicing outside the area of his competency. It specifically alleged that Hill, between July and December 1992, made three submittals of a purported parcel map to the City of Hayward for approval. The first map submitted contained four identified errors, including failure to incorporate recorded information noted on deeds and surveys of adjoining property and failing to accurately measure or establish the designated Point of Beginning. The second submission contained four identified errors, including failure to establish an accurate Basis of Bearings in that the map does not show overall measured and record distance between the two found monuments used in the Basis of Bearings statement. The third submission still contained the same errors.

The Board issued a decision adopting Hill's stipulation, in which he agreed to surrender his Civil Engineer License, C 19704. The Board agreed to issue him a new Civil Engineer License which does not authorize the practice of land surveying and not further pursue the accusation. Effective December 18, 1995, the Board accepted the surrender of Hill's Civil Engineer License and issued a new one, C 54833. Hill was no longer authorized to practice land surveying unless and until he meets all of the legal requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act for licensure as a professional land surveyor.


HILL, MELVIN (Click here to see Accusation 581-A)
Accusation Number 647-A
Civil Engineer C 54833
Effective August 31, 1998: License SURRENDERED

On August 31, 1998, Hill entered into a stipulation in response to a second accusation, 647-A, alleging negligence in his 1993 preparation of structural engineering calculations for a residence in Cupertino, California. Hill agreed to surrender his civil engineering license without a hearing because he has retired from the practice of civil engineering. The stipulation was adopted as the Board's decision, effective August 31, 1998. Hill had previously surrendered civil engineering license C 19704 and been granted civil engineering license C 54833 in December of 1995. This new decision accepted the surrender of his new civil engineering license.


HNEITI, WALID A.
Electrical Engineer E 15048
Accusation 680-A
Effective August 23, 1999: REVOKED

The Board has issued a Default Decision in the Matter of Accusation 680-A against Walid A. Hneiti, electrical engineer license E 15048.

The Board found that in late 1997, Hneiti was convicted of a felony for violation of section 424 of the Penal Code (embezzlement by a public officer) by the Superior Court in Los Angeles County. In September 1997, while employed as an electrical engineer by the California Department of Transportation, Hneiti illegally received, kept, transferred, and distributed public money, and used part of the money for himself and another person.

Based on the findings, the Board determined that Hneiti violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(a). The Default Decision ordered the revocation of his license as an electrical engineer, effective August 23, 1999.


HUBBARD, W. M. (Click here to see related action against Owen Carlton Lemons)
Civil Engineer C 7193
Accusation 635-A
Effective December 7, 1998: REVOKED

W. M. Hubbard, of Alpine, California, has been a licensed civil engineer since 1948. Accusation 635-A alleges that in early 1996, he violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) by signing a report documenting analysis and recommendations regarding pavement design for a street in Alpine, California. Hubbard included "R" value data supposedly based on tests performed by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. (SCST). SCST had not done work for the project. Without SCST's knowledge, Hubbard copied old test data compiled on a different project in 1990, made minor changes, and attached it to the January 1996 report. The county discovered the fraud because the information provided was not applicable to the Alpine site.

In addition, on at least 30 different occasions in 1996 and 1997, Hubbard prepared and signed soils reports with false data. He had several sets of documents with soils data and test results but without site location or test dates. Hubbard or his agent would photocopy one of the reports, fill in identifying information, and include it with the soils report for a particular site.

Also in 1996 and 1997, Hubbard violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(d) by aiding and abetting an unlicensed person, Owen Carlton Lemons, who had voluntarily surrendered his civil engineer license to the Board in 1992, to violate sections 6730 and 6787. Hubbard allowed Lemons to practice civil and soils engineering using his license. In exchange, Lemons paid Hubbard a 10% share of the fees paid by clients.

In a stipulation for revocation, the conservator over Hubbard's person and estate agreed that Hubbard would never again be capable of practicing engineering and that revocation of his civil engineer license C 7193 was appropriate. It was agreed that the allegations in Accusation 635-A are true. The Board accepted the stipulation, and as of December 7, 1998, Hubbard's license was revoked.


HUME, THOMAS W.
Civil Engineer C 50647
Accusation 734-A
Effective February 21, 2003: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 734-A alleged that Thomas Wilfred Hume had subjected his Civil Engineer License C 50647 to disciplinary action for negligence or incompetence in his practice of civil engineering, in violation of Business and Professions Code §6775(c). It was alleged that Hume was retained by a property owner to prepare grading plans for the improvement of an existing easement road which ran across neighboring property and to design a temporary shoring of a bridge located on the easement road for the property, which is located in Cayucos, San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, it was alleged that Hume prepared the Grading and Construction Plans and provided a design for roads improvements and for the temporary shoring of a bridge located on the easement to allow cattle and trucks to cross; Hume was to design engineering plans and specifications for the installation of various 60" and 66" diameter pipes in culverts by the bridge per the specifications provided by the distributor of the pipes; Hume designed the plan for construction of the roadway embankment with two 10-foot diameter culverts upstream, resulting in the water level "overtopping" the roadway embankment and causing damage and harm to the property. The Accusation specifically alleged that the plans were vague and incomplete, contained inadequate specifications, and did not comply with the County's requirements.

Effective February 21, 2003, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Hume admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation. Hume also agreed that his Civil Engineer license is subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Hume's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Hume was placed on probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of the conditions required Hume to successfully complete and pass one Board-approved college-level civil engineering course, a Board-approved professional ethics course, and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Additionally, Hume is required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $9,139.94.


HUSKEY, ROBERT M.
Civil Engineer C 27044
Accusation 254-A
Effective March 27, 1988: REVOKED

Robert M. Huskey, a licensed civil engineer, had his license revoked by the Board effective March 27, 1988 for failure to follow the terms and conditions of his probation on an earlier matter.


JAHNS, DANIEL
Land Surveyor L 4997
Accusation 753-A
Effective September 3, 2004: License revoked, revocation stayed; one year on probation.

Accusation 753-A alleged that Daniel Jahns of Carpinteria, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Section 8780 of Business and Professions Code for violating sections 8780(b) for negligence and 8780(g) [breach of contract] for failure to provide land surveying services and 8780(d) for failure to use a written contract. In July 2000, Jahns entered into an oral contract to prepare a lot split/parcel map for property located in Ventura, California. He was to provide all land surveying work and prepare both the tentative and the final parcel maps depicting a lot split. He received a $1,000 deposit to begin the work and completed the tentative map in August 2000. The city rejected the tentative map because it lacked a basic easement depiction and insufficient amount of copies. In September 2000, the tentative map was resubmitted and approved by the City of Ventura Planning Department. In February 2001, the city accepted the lot split plans and requested that the lot split final parcel map be created. In September 2001, Jahns prepared the final map for submission to the City. In November 2001, the County notified him that the map was ready to be picked up. The plan check listed numerous corrections and revisions. Jahns retrieved the map from the county and, in February 2002, notified the property owners the corrections had been completed and was ready for its second check. The second map check comments and corrections list were as long as the first check and some of the comments from the first check had not been addressed. Due to Jahns' failure to timely and properly complete the parcel map, the property owners were required to retain another land surveyor to complete the project at additional expense.

Effective September 3, 2004, Jahns agreed that the charges and allegations in the Accusation, if proven at an administrative hearing, would constitute cause for imposing discipline against his Land Surveyor license. Jahns also agreed that, at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established; therefore, he agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. His license was revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and Jahns was placed on probation for one year on certain terms and conditions including reimbursing the Board the amount of $2,500 for its investigative and prosecution costs. Additionally, within 60 days of the effective date, Jahns must successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules exam. Within eleven months, he must complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course and also sixteen hours of continuing education and/or professional development courses, approved in advance by the Board.


JEN, KAI-MIN JIMMY
Civil Engineer C 39633
Accusation 707-A
Effective April 15, 2005: License revoked; revocation stayed; 60-day suspension; four years on probation

Accusation 707-A alleged that Kai-Min (Jimmy) Jen of San Francisco, California, subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct — criminal conviction; negligence and incompetence on six separate causes; fraud, misrepresentation and deceit on six causes; and two causes of unprofessional conduct — being a public nuisance for engaging in repeated illegal acts in defiance of San Francisco's Building Code, Planning Code, Plumbing Code, and Electrical Code, as well as California State Housing Laws, thereby creating a danger to the public health, safety, and welfare.

In April 1995, Jen and others used counterfeit credit cards multiple times to obtain $9,521.25 worth of merchandise in Stanford Shopping Center. He was detained in the parking lot after running away from security personnel and resisting arrest. The merchandise was recovered, and Jen was found to be in possession of 5 counterfeit credit cards and a fake California driver's license with his picture but a different name on it. In February of 1996 Jen was convicted in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of a felony, required to pay a fine and penalty assessments in the amount of $1700 and restitution of $750, to serve 150 days in county jail, and placed on probation for three years.

In the first cause of action against him for negligence and incompetence, Jen had been retained to inspect and provide a structural report for a residence in San Francisco being considered for purchase by his clients. He inspected the premises and reported that the home was structurally stable; his clients purchased the house. Subsequent architectural engineering and construction inspections and analysis showed that the structure was not stable at the time Jen represented that it was, but rather the structure was suffering foundation and structural distress. The estimated cost to the homeowners to fix the problem was more than $100,000.

On seven different occasions, Jen negligently and incompetently submitted building permit applications that failed to completely and accurately represent the actual work to be done. In June of 1999, he submitted a fraudulent, misrepresentative, and deceitful building permit application for "dry rot repair." From the summer of 1999 continuing until November 11, 1999, Jen caused work to be performed without the proper permits and without required inspections which included the addition of a second floor to the building, alteration of the ground floor level, including creation of 2 new rooms and 5 new walls, alteration of the basement level creating 4 habitable rooms, a laundry room and a deck, construction of a roof deck, construction of a deck at the basement level, installation of new plumbing and electrical wiring throughout the house and a new foundation under the new rear addition. The work was not authorized, exceeded the scope of the permit, and Jen provided inaccurate information.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Jen admitted that if proven at hearing, the charges would establish cause for discipline against his license. In consideration of those admissions and stipulations, the Board ordered Jen's Civil Engineering License revoked, effective April 15, 2005. The revocation was stayed, and Jen is on probation for four years, subject to certain terms and conditions including an actual suspension for 60 days. He is required to reimburse the Board $6,695 for investigative and prosecution costs. During his period of suspension, he is required to pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Within three years, he must also complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics and complete and pass a Board-approved college-level engineering course specifically related to his violations.


JETT, GEORGE B.
Civil Engineer C 41376
Accusation 595-A
Effective December 18, 1995: License SURRENDERED

The Board has issued a decision adopting a Voluntary Surrender of License in the Matter of Accusation 595-A against George B. Jett. The accusation, filed on July 17, 1995, alleged Jett's license is subject to discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 141 in that he has been disciplined by the Tennessee State Board for acts which would also be violations in California. The accusation alleges that Jett's Tennessee license was suspended for a period of five years and that he was required to pay a civil penalty of $3,000 for the violations there. Specifically, Jett affixed his signature and professional seal to design drawings that were actually prepared by unlicensed persons. Those design drawings were found to contain numerous deficiencies and Jett did not have direct supervision or control over their preparation. On more than one occasion, a cinder block wall collapsed and, on one of those occasions, five persons were injured. These acts, if committed in California, would constitute violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) for negligence and incompetence in the practice of professional engineering; Business and Professions Code section 6775(e) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 404.1 for failing to exercise responsible charge; and Business and Professions Code section 6775(e) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 415 for practicing outside his area of competency.

In the voluntary surrender, Jett admitted that his license is subject to discipline as alleged. He freely and voluntarily surrendered his California Civil Engineer License, C 41376. He also agreed that the voluntary surrender shall be deemed a disciplinary action which shall become part of his license history. Jett further agreed not to petition the Board for reinstatement of the surrendered license or apply for any license issued by the Board for three years from the effective date of the Board's decision accepting the surrender. He also agreed that should he choose to apply for licensure, the allegations in Accusation 595-A shall be deemed admitted. Effective December 18, 1995, the Board adopted the voluntary surrender of license, and Jett was required to surrender his pocket identification card and wall certificate to the Board.


JEUDY, LUC M. A.
Land Surveyor L 6804
Accusation 653-A
Effective August 31, 1998: License REVOKED

The Board has issued a default decision and order, effective August 31, 1998, revoking the land surveyor license of Luc M.A. Jeudy of Sierra Madre, California. The Board found that in June 1996, Jeudy performed a land survey in Burbank, California at several intersections. He did not conduct adequate research before the survey of the intersection of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue and failed to direct his employees to check for existing centerline ties. He also filed a corner record with the County of Los Angeles for the ties. The measurements were erroneous and thereby rendered the corner record useless for future re-establishment of existing property lines. Jeudy also set ties at the intersection of Kenneth Road and Walnut Avenue. They were inadequate for reestablishing the intersection because they did not intersect at the existing centerline monument. Jeudy filed a corner record with the County of Los Angeles for the erroneously measured ties, thus rendering the corner record useless for future re-establishment of existing property lines. The Board found Jeudy in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 8780 and 8726 (b), (c), (e), and (g) and revoked his license, effective August 31, 1998.


KALDAWI, JOHN A.
Civil Engineer C 44014
Accusation 655-A
Effective August 21, 2000: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against John A. Kaldawi, revoking his civil engineer license C 44014. The Board found Kaldawi's license subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code section 6775 because he had been convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a licensed professional engineer.

In July 1993, Kaldawi was employed by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety as a plan checker, i.e., a person who reviews building plans that have been submitted to the Department for approval. Kaldawi thereby worked in an engineering capacity. During that time, Kaldawi solicited a $10,000 bribe from a person who wished to obtain a building permit. Kaldawi led the victim to believe that the bribe would obviate the need for any hearings before the City, would streamline the victim's building project, and would assure that the development of the project would go through.

On July 29, 1993, Kaldawi provided approved plans to the victim at the Building Department, after Kaldawi had made some slight alterations regarding required building dimensions. He then went with the victim to a nearby restaurant and accepted a check for $10,000 to hold until the next morning. Kaldawi told the victim that if he did not exchange $10,000 in cash for that check on the next day, the building permits would be revoked.

In fact, the victim could have obtained approval of his plans "over the counter," within approximately one hour. Kaldawi's promise to assist the victim in obtaining approval and to avoid a hearing was illusory, but nevertheless constituted bribery.

On May 4, 1995, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Kaldawi was convicted of violating Penal Code section 68, the felony crime of soliciting a bribe while acting in the capacity of a public employee. In August 1996, the Court of Appeal affirmed Kaldawi's criminal conviction.

Following his conviction, imposition of sentence was suspended on the condition that Kaldawi be placed on three years formal probation. He was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 400 hours of community service. Kaldawi's conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude, substantially related to the duties, qualifications, and functions of a professional engineer.

Kaldawi did not demonstrate rehabilitation sufficient to permit him to practice as a civil engineer. Therefore, the Board revoked his license. Additionally, Kaldawi was required to reimburse the Board for its investigative costs in the amount of $14,277.50 within one year of the effective date of this decision. Kaldawi filed a Writ of Mandate in Superior Court, appealing the Board's revocation order. In August 2000, the Superior Court upheld the Board's order.


KAVIANI, JAMSHID JAMES
Civil Engineer C 29329
Accusation 750-A
Effective July 23, 2004: Civil Engineer License C 29329 Surrendered; New Civil Engineer License C 67384 Issued

Accusation 750-A alleged that Jamshid James Kaviani of Newport Beach, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Sections 8780 (a), (b), (d), and (g) of the Business and Professions Code for negligence and/or incompetence as well as fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. On April 24, 2000, he certified to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that the boundary line setbacks for a property in Newport Beach were in compliance with the approved set of plans and that the structure was located properly on the site plan, when there were only a few footings in place at the time he so certified. In response to the Board's request to explain his certification, Kaviani told the Board's investigator, "All form boards were in place when our field crew surveyed the property on 4-24-00." However, photographs taken on April 25, 2000, by the building department showed that many of the forms were not yet placed. Kaviani also represented to the building department that the contractor moved the form boards after his certification. Kaviani also represented to the building department that the subject house was rectangular, when it had multiple inward and outward jogs and extensions of the foundation perimeter. In the certification dated April 24, 2000, a four foot side yard set back was shown on one side of the house and no set back on the other side. Thereafter, Kaviani submitted a foundation form certification dated April 24, 2000, showing a 3' 1" side yard set back on each side of the building. He failed to follow standard procedure with submission of proper documentation for his work. He had no survey notes, record maps, or calculations on center line tie notes. Additionally, Kaviani provide a topography map and land survey, a setback and top of slab/floor elevation certificate, certifying that the location of the house was 3' 2" away from the adjacent property line when in fact it was mislocated 8" to within 2'6" of the adjacent house, which violated the Uniform Building Code and fire safety codes. Kaviani had filed certification on November 8, 1999, that all setbacks complied with the plans to insure that the structure was located properly on the site per the approved set of drawings. This error was discovered at approximately 90% completion of construction, resulting in significant financial injury to the homeowners.

In a Stipulated Decision and Order, effective July 23, 2004, Kaviani admitted the truth of the allegations summarized above and agreed that his license is subject to discipline. License No. C 29329 was ordered to be surrendered, at which time the Board issued a new civil engineering license, License No. C 67384, which does not allow him to practice land surveying.


KAZEMI, NICK
Land Surveyor L 7022
Accusation 755-A
Effective December 10, 2004: License suspended for 90 days; suspension stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 755-A alleged that Nick Kazemi of Woodland Hills, California, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code sections 8762(b), 8765(d), 8772, and 8780 for negligence in the practice of land surveying, failure to set durable tagged monuments, failure to file a record of survey or a corner record.

At a hearing before an administrative law judge on August 26, 2004, it was found that Kazemi was hired to survey a residential property in Glendale, California, by a homeowner who planned to build a fence on or at the property lines. Kazemi and the property owner did not execute a written contract. Kazemi researched pertinent tract maps dating back to 1906 at the county recorder's office and survey documents and data at the City of Glendale's public works division. Field surveys performed by Kazemi and subsequent land surveyors demonstrated that the boundary or property lines of the homeowner's property and adjoining properties varied from the county records. Because of this, Kazemi was required to file a record of survey as his field survey disclosed a material discrepancy in measurement or placement of boundary or property lines with the information contained in subdivision maps, official maps, or records of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder. Kazemi performed field survey work, measured the block, and found existing monuments. He placed temporary set points or stakes at the corners of the property to mark the property lines and prepared a plat map called "Boundary Staking" that described plat dimensions and illustrated locations of the temporary set points or stakes and the property lines. Kazemi gave the plat map to the property owner, who then relied upon it and the temporary set points or stakes to mark the boundaries of the property and to construct a fence around it. In May 2002, the neighbor next door hired a land surveyor who performed a boundary survey and determined that the fence encroached onto the neighbor's property by 0.78 feet. A civil suit was filed alleging encroachment and trespass. The property owner hired a surveyor, whose results and findings confirmed the encroachment, then paid the neighbor $2,500 for the encroachment and trespassing, and incurred legal expenses and survey fees. A contractor was hired and removed 75 feet of the existing fence and constructed a new fence at the revised and correct property line.

In January of 2003, the property owner filed a consumer complaint against Kazemi with the Board. A Board technical expert reviewed the boundary survey and established that Kazemi failed to set durable tagged monuments at the property corners in violation of Business and Professions Code § 8772. Kazemi also failed to file a record of his survey with the county surveyor, a violation of § 8762(b).

Effective December 10, 2004, the Board ordered Kazemi's license suspended for ninety days but stayed the suspension and placed his license on probation for three years subject to terms and conditions including the requirement to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination within 90 days, successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics, and pay restitution to the homeowner of $4,130 which includes the costs for encroachment, hiring a surveyor, and retaining an attorney. Additionally, during his first two years of probation, Kazemi must successfully complete and pass two college-level land surveying courses approved in advance by the Board. The classes must be specifically related to the areas of violation. He was ordered to pay $2,500 to the Board for reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement.


KENNALY, JOHN
Civil Engineer C 31839
Accusation 329-A
Effective November 5, 1989: Revoked, revocation stayed, 120-day suspension, five years on probation
Effective October 26, 1992: Probation terminated, license REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 31839, issued to John Kennaly. It was determined that Kennaly had violated Business and Professions Code sections 8780(c), 8762(d) and (e), and 8765(d), in that he caused boundary surveys to be performed, set monuments with his tag "RCE 31839" in San Luis Obispo, and failed to file appropriate corner records of surveys or records of surveys.

Effective November 5, 1989, Kennaly's license was revoked, however, revocation was stayed and Kennaly was placed on probation for five years upon specified conditions, including that all land surveying activities be suspended for a period of 120 days and within two years of the effective date of the Board's decision, Kennaly successfully complete and pass with grade "C" or better a training course, approved in advance by the Board, specifically related to the area of competency. In addition, within two years of the effective date, Kennaly was required to take and pass the second division examination before being permitted to resume practicing land surveying.

Further disciplinary action was taken when it was determined that Kennaly failed to comply with two of the terms and conditions of his probation. Kennaly failed to successfully complete a Board-approved training course in land surveying, and he failed to take and pass the second division examination in land surveying; both conditions were required to be met by November 26, 1991. Although evidence was presented to show that Kennaly was physically incapacitated for a period of his probation, it was determined that he made no effort to communicate his difficulties in compliance to the Board and that, from October 1990, he was physically capable of meeting these conditions. Additionally, it was determined that the previous discipline imposed on Kennaly resulted because he was dilatory in meeting his obligations as a surveyor to the extent that it was deemed negligent and incompetent, and he did not take seriously the terms of the previous disciplinary order nor did he indicate an understanding of his duties and obligations as a licensee to meet the requirements of the Board which were reasonable in light of his prior misconduct.

In its Decision, effective October 26, 1992, the Board terminated Kennaly's probation and vacated the stay of revocation imposed on his civil engineering license. Therefore, Kennaly's Civil Engineer License, C 31839, is revoked.


KLEIN, RICHARD BUTLER
Civil Engineer C 40049
Accusation 770-A
Effective July 22, 2005: License suspended for two years, suspension stayed; one year on probation

Accusation 770-A alleged that Richard Butler Klein subjected his license to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code section 141 based on disciplinary action taken against him by other state licensing boards. Klein voluntarily relinquished his Professional Engineer License to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers on July 2, 1999, for acts which constituted negligence in his practice of engineering. Based on the action of the Florida Board, Klein's license was disciplined by the state boards responsible for licensing engineers in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Louisiana, North Carolina, Texas, and Ohio.

Effective July 22, 2005, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement as its decision in this matter. In the stipulated settlement, Klein admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation and agreed that his Civil Engineer License is subject to discipline. As part of the stipulated agreement, Klein's license was suspended for two years, but the suspension was stayed. Klein was placed on probation for one year on terms and conditions, including submitting a list of all states other than California in which he is legally authorized to practice professional engineering, and the status of his licenses to practice in those states. He must update the information every 90 days for the period of probation. Klein must also provide the Board with a list of all current California projects, including location, services he is providing, and name and business address of the client for each project.


KOLLERBOHM, FRED ALANIZ
Civil Engineer C 28764
Accusations 617-A & 654-A
Effective February 18, 1997: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation
Effective July 6, 1999: Probation extended two years

Accusation 617-A, which was filed in July 1996, alleged that Fred Alaniz Kollerbohm, of Oakland, California, violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) by negligently preparing plans for underground and surface drainage for the basement of a private home in Oakland. The plans did not provide proper construction control, and were deficient in several areas. The drainage system was constructed, and failed twice - in December 1994 and January 1995. The homeowners had to pay $6,000 to revise the drainage system and correct the problem. The accusation alleged this was a breach of contract under Government Code section 11519(d) and the Board may require restitution of damages to the homeowners.

The Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement in which, without making specific admissions, Kollerbohm stipulated that there was a factual basis for the Board to impose discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary order. Effective February 18, 1997, the Board ordered Kollerbohm's license revoked. However, the revocation was stayed, and Kollerbohm was placed on probation for three years with certain terms and conditions. He was required to complete and pass a Board-approved college-level course specifically related to the violation and a Board-approved course in professional ethics. He was also required to submit quarterly reports on his current projects and reimburse the Board, within three years, $1,400 for costs of investigation and enforcement. Kollerbohm was required to pay $6,175 restitution to the homeowners according to an agreed payment schedule.

Accusation 654-A, which was filed in October 1998, alleged that Kollerbohm entered into a contract to design a second floor addition to an existing residence in Oakland. Kollerbohm allegedly stamped all of the plans and drawings that were submitted to the City of Oakland for permits. The plans were allegedly deficient in that they did not provide any details to retrofit the existing walls to meet current building codes; the seismic design in the plans used the wrong coefficient, causing a 33% under design for lateral loads; Kollerbohm's use of 2000 psf capacity in the plans for the foundation design exceeds the UBC minimum allowable capacity without first obtaining a soils report; the plans did not show correct parcel information; and the plans did not provide for a three-hour floor separation and five foot parapet as required by the UBC. The Accusation alleged that these failures in the plans signed and stamped by Kollerbohm constitute negligence and/or incompetence in violation of Business and Professions Code §6775. Additionally, the Accusation alleged that Kollerbohm provided testimony in the Alameda Superior Court in an action related to the residence in which Kollerbohm testified that he was structural engineer, when in fact he was not issued an authority to use that title, in violation of Business and Professions Code §6763.

Effective July 6, 1999, the Board adopted a Stipulation in Settlement as its decision in Case No. 654-A. In this stipulation, Kollerbohm, without making specific admissions, stipulated that there was a factual basis for the imposition of discipline based upon the totality of the matters alleged in the Accusation. In this decision, the Board ordered the revocation of Kollerbohm's license, and the stay of that revocation, as ordered in Case No. 617-A to remain in effect. The Board further ordered that the previously-ordered probation be extended for two years, upon certain additional terms and conditions. Kollerbohm was required to complete and pass a Board-approved college-level course in structural engineering. He was also required to submit quarterly reports on his current projects and reimburse the Board $4,500 for costs of investigation and enforcement. Kollerbohm was required to pay $1,840 restitution to the homeowner according to an agreed payment schedule.


LAM, JACK JANGLE
Civil Engineer C 42426
Accusation 458-A
Effective September 5, 1991: REVOKED
Effective January 20, 1993: Petition for reinstatement denied with prejudice
Statement of Issues 599-S
Effective March 11, 1996: Civil Engineer C 55250 issued, license revoked, revocation stayed, three years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against civil engineering license C 42426, issued to Jack Jangle Lam. It was determined that Lam violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(c) in that he submitted false information in his application for license as a civil engineer.

Based in part on employment information provided in his application for license as a civil engineer, submitted in November 1986, Jack Lam was granted a license as a professional civil engineer on August 27, 1987. In December of 1987, Lam submitted an application for licensure as a professional land surveyor. Because the two applications listed different, yet overlapping, full-time work experience over the period of August 1985 through November 1986, the Board instigated an investigation. In a hearing on June 12, 1991, before an administrative law judge, it was established that Jack Lam did not work full time at SPV Associates and that he knowingly submitted an application containing false information.

In its decision, effective September 5, 1991, the Board revoked Jack Lam's civil engineering license and ordered that he be subject to public reproval for his actions.

Effective January 20, 1993, the Board denied Lam's Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License with prejudice. However, the decision did provide that Lam could submit an application for a license with evidence that he has the experience required for licensure. The decision further provided that the Board could deny this application based on Lam's original acts of fraud and deceit. Lam provided sufficient evidence that he has the requisite experience and has successfully taken and passed all examinations required to become licensed as a civil engineer in California; therefore, the Board denied his application based on his previous acts of fraud and deceit and filed a Statement of Issues in the matter.

Effective March 11, 1996, the Board issued a Decision in the Matter of Statement of Issues 599-S against Jack Jangle Lam. The Board adopted a Stipulation, Waiver, and Order resolving this matter. Lam admitted that he committed previous acts of fraud and deceit and that cause for denial of his application for licensure exists. In the order, it was agreed that Lam would be issued a new civil engineer license. This license, number C 55250, was immediately revoked; however, the revocation was stayed for a period of three years upon certain probationary terms and conditions. The conditions included a requirement that Lam successfully complete and pass, within two years of the effective date of the decision, a course in professional ethics approved in advance by the Board or its designee. In addition, Lam was required to provide the Board, not later than 30 days after the decision became effective, with evidence that he notified all clients and employers with whom he had a current or continuing contractual or employment relationship of the offense, findings, and discipline imposed.


LANDERS, CHARLES RAY, JR. (Click here to see Accusation 608-A)
Land Surveyor L 4584
Accusation 554-A
Effective May 9, 1994: One year suspension, stayed, 90-day actual suspension, three years on probation
Effective April 29, 1996: Stay of suspension terminated; one-year suspension

Disciplinary action was taken against the Land Surveyor License L 4584 issued to Charles Ray Landers, Jr., for fraud, deceit, negligence, or incompetency in the practice of land surveying, breach of contract, and failure to file records of survey as required by law, violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8780(a), 8780(f), 8780(c), and 8762.

It was determined that Landers, on three separate projects, failed to file records of survey with the County of Los Angeles as required by law, even though he performed the surveys and set monuments.

On April 8, 1994, the Board issued a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order which suspended Landers' land surveyors license for one year to become effective on May 9, 1994. However, this suspension was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a period of three years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions was a 90-day actual suspension of his license, beginning on May 9, 1994, and continuing through August 7, 1994. Additionally, within 180 days of the effective date of the decision, Landers was required to file the records of survey and provide proof that they have been filed and recorded with the county. In addition, Landers was required to reimburse the Board for the costs of the investigation in the amount of $3,000 within two years of the effective date of the decision in this matter.

Effective April 29, 1996, the Board issued a Default Decision in which it was found that Landers failed to comply with these terms and conditions. The decision vacated the stay of suspension and ordered Landers' license as a land surveyor suspended for one year.

Following the revocation of Landers' license, the Board investigated complaints which alleged that Charles Ray Landers, Jr., offered to and did perform land surveying work while his license as a Professional Land Surveyor was delinquent and suspended due to violations of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act.

On June 5, 1996, Landers was charged with three felony counts of attempting to file false or forged instruments with a governmental agency and grand theft of personal property from two individuals in violation of Sections 115(a) and 487(a) of the Penal Code. On June 24, 1996, Landers entered a plea of guilty to two felony violations of Penal Code §487(a) [Grand theft]. The District Attorney dismissed the remaining charge. Landers was granted probation for three years under certain terms and conditions. These conditions included a requirement that he spend 60 days in the Los Angeles County jail. Landers was also required to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the Court, to do 80 hours of community service, and to refrain from contracting for land surveying without a valid license. However, on October 23, 1996, this probation was revoked, and a bench warrant with bail in the amount of $10,000 was issued.

On January 28, 1997, the Court found that Landers was in violation of probation. Therefore, the Court ordered the probation reinstated with the same conditions but included an additional 39 days in the county jail and completion of alcohol treatment as directed by the probation officer.


LANDERS, CHARLES RAY, JR. (Click here to see Accusation 554-A)
Land Surveyor L 4584
Accusation 608-A
Effective May 5, 1997: REVOKED

In a Default Decision effective May 5, 1997, the Board took action against Land Surveyor License L 4584 issued to Charles Ray Landers, Jr. The Board found that effective May 9, 1994, Landers' license was suspended for one year. However, the suspension was stayed, and respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years under certain terms and conditions, including a 90-day actual suspension of the license. The license expired on September 30, 1994. On June 6, 1995, the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation for violations of the terms and conditions of that settlement and Disciplinary Order. In a Default Decision, Landers' probation was revoked and his license was suspended for one year, effective April 29, 1996.

The Board found that Landers was contracted with to perform a boundary survey on property located in Temple City, California, and to file a map. He accepted payment, but failed to complete and timely file a Record of Survey with Los Angeles County. The Record of Survey was never recorded, nor was a corner record filed with the County Surveyor as required, subjecting Landers to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code section 87809a) and (f) for fraud, deceit, negligence, and/or incompetency in the practice of land surveying as well as a breach of contract. Effective May 5, 1997, the Board revoked Landers' license.


LAROUE, MICHAEL CARLOS
Civil Engineer C 22783
Accusations 638-A & 717-A & 762-A
Effective March 18, 1999: Two-year suspension, stayed; two years on probation
Effective June 21, 2002: Authority to practice land surveying suspended for two years
Effective March 1, 2005: Petition for Reduction of Penalty Denied
Effective January 25, 2006: LICENSE REVOKED

The Board imposed disciplinary action against Civil Engineer License C 22783 issued to Michael Carlos Laroue for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8762(e), 8766.5, 8769, and 8774.5 regarding filing of records of survey with the county recorder or county surveying department.

In September of 1996, Laroue submitted a survey of real property in the City of Los Angeles to the County of Los Angeles for checking and filing but refused to submit the checking fee. He claimed that requiring such a fee violates provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The Board also found that, in June 1997, Laroue submitted a survey of real property in the County of Los Angeles for checking and filing but failed to complete the submittal by paying the required filing fee. Laroue sent a letter to the county requesting a waiver of any fees related to processing the record of survey. He wrote that "the filing is not mandatory, since that would conflict with Article I, section 10, paragraph 1 of the Constitution . . . ."

The Board found Laroue's license subject to discipline for failure to pay required filing fees and for failure to file records of survey within the required 90-day limit. His license was suspended for two years, but the suspension was stayed and he was placed on probation for two years. Conditions of probation included the requirement that he pay $4,800.50 to the Board for investigation and enforcement and that he file the two records of survey, pay his filing fees, and pay any additional fees or penalties imposed.

Effective June 21, 2002, the Board issued a decision in the Matter of the Accusation and Petitions to Revoke Probation, Case Nos. 638-A & 717-A, against Laroue. It was found that Laroue had violated terms and conditions of the probation as previously ordered by failing to file the two records of survey, failing to reimburse the Board's investigative and enforcement costs, and failing to obey all laws and regulations relating to the practice of land surveying while on probation. It was also found that Laroue performed a survey in August 1999 and failed and refused to file a Corner Record or Record of Survey within 90 days as required by Business and Professions Code §8762. Laroue's failure to file the required record map with the County of Los Angeles was found to constitute negligence in his land surveying practice in violation of Business and Professions Code §8780(b). This decision ordered Laroue's authority to practice land surveying under his Civil Engineer License suspended for 2 years from the effective date of the decision. Laroue is still allowed to practice civil engineering during the 2-year suspension; however, he cannot practice or offer to practice land surveying. The decision also ordered Laroue to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the two cases in the total amount of $13,450.50.

Laroue filed an appeal of the Board's decision with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Superior Court upheld the Board's decision. Laroue then filed an appeal of the Superior Court's ruling with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court's ruling.

In August of 2004, Laroue petitioned for a reduction of penalty. At the hearing, he asserted the cost recovery order should be reduced or eliminated because he never committed any violation of the law and there was no investigation. He did not offer evidence of financial hardship or any evidence to support his claims. Because Laroue did not show cause to support a reduction or elimination of the penalty, his petition was denied, effective March 1, 2005.

Accusation 762-A alleged that Michael Carlos Laroue conducted a survey in Los Angeles County but did not file a record of survey with the County Surveyor's Office, as required by law. In prior proceedings before the Board, Laroue contended the terms "record of survey" and "record of the survey" are two different terms, and not interchangeable terms, as the Board contends. In the prior cases, his right to practice land surveying under his Civil Engineer license was suspended by the Board, and the Superior Court upheld the Board's action. A trial court awarded sanctions against Laroue of $10,000. On appeal, the Board's action and the Superior Court's award of sanctions were upheld. In addition, the Court of Appeals held that the terms "record of survey" and "record of the survey," as used in the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, are interchangeable terms. The Appellate Court awarded sanctions of its own against Laroue for filing a frivolous lawsuit in the amount of $20,000. During the hearing on Accusation 762-A, Laroue asserted that he would continue to adhere to his interpretation of the law, contrary to the findings of the Board, the Superior Court, and the Court of Appeals. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it was found that Laroue violated the provisions of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act and would continue to do so. The Board ordered Laroue's Civil Engineer license revoked, effective January 25, 2006.


LAUDER, ROBERT F.
Civil Engineer C 33226
Accusation 769-A
Effective February 18, 2005: License suspended for two years; suspension stayed; one year on probation

Accusation 769-A alleged that Robert F. Lauder, of Carson City, Nevada, is subject to disciplinary action in that he has been disciplined by the State of Nevada, Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. His Nevada license was suspended for two years, the suspension was stayed, with probation imposed for two years for failing to competently design a retaining wall in Carson City, Nevada, to meet building code requirements; for submitting incomplete revised drawings and calculations to a public entity; for failing to consider the increased soil pressure due to location of the retaining wall on a fault line; and failure to take into account the required seismic design values in the soils report.

Under Business and Professions Code section 141(a), a disciplinary action taken by another state for an act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license may be a ground for disciplinary action by the California Board. For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Lauder admitted the truth of each charge and allegation, agreeing that his license is subject to discipline. Effective February 18, 2005, the Board ordered his license suspended for two years; however, the suspension was stayed, and Lauder is on probation for one year with terms and conditions. By March 20, 2005, he was required to provide the California Board with a list of the states other than California in which he is legally authorized to practice professional engineering and information concerning the status of each out-of-state engineering license, including any disciplinary actions taken. He must provide the same information every 90 days thereafter. Lauder must also provide the Board with a list of all his current California projects, the services he is providing, and the name and business address of his client for each project. This too must be provided every 90 days following the first report. He must reimburse the Board $816.75 for costs of investigation, and within sixty days of the effective date, must complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, as administered by the Board.


LEMONS, OWEN CARLTON
Civil Engineer C 17109
Accusation 484-A
Effective January 19, 1992: Voluntary surrender of license

On November 20, 1991, Owen Carlton Lemons voluntarily surrendered his civil engineering license C 17109 to the Board if it would agree to dismiss a pending accusation against him.

At the December 1991 meeting, the Board accepted Lemons' voluntary surrender and agreed to dismiss without prejudice Accusation 484-A.

Effective January 19, 1992, Owen Carlton Lemons was required to surrender his wall certificate and pocket identification card to the Board and lost all rights and privileges to practice as a civil engineer in California.

On December 20, 1994, Owen Carlton Lemons pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 472 in that, with intent to defraud another, he forged or counterfeited a public seal authorized or recognized by the State of California, or had in his possession such counterfeited seal, knowing it to be counterfeited, and willfully concealed the same. He also pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Business and Professions Code §6787(a) in that he practiced civil engineering without legal authorization.

Investigation revealed that Lemons, who voluntarily surrendered his Civil Engineer Registration (Number C 17109) to the Board, effective January 19, 1992, signed a civil engineering report in April 1994 and stamped it using a Registered Professional Engineer's stamp which included his surrendered registration number and which showed an expiration date of June 30, 1997.

On February 14, 1995, Lemons was sentenced to three years probation to the court. He was ordered to serve 90 days in the custody of the Sheriff, 60 days of which were stayed pending successful completion of probation. As conditions of probation, he was required to pay a fine of $1,000; pay $200 to the California Crime Victims Fund; pay probation costs in the amount of $278; violate no laws; and not operate or do business as S.C.E. Soils or Santa Clara Engineering.

In 1997, the Board investigated allegations that Owen Carlton Lemons, unlicensed since 1992, falsified soils reports for projects in San Diego County and filed these reports with county agencies. The Board also investigated allegations that Lemons used titles restricted to use only by registrants of this Board, such as "Civil Engineer" and "Engineer-In-Training." In December 1994, Lemons pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of forgery or counterfeit of a professional engineer's stamp, using the forged or counterfeited stamp on civil engineering reports, and practicing civil engineering without legal authorization.

He was charged in the San Diego County Municipal Court in March 1998 with a felony violation of Penal Code § 115(a) for unlawfully and knowingly procuring and offering a false and forged instrument to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office in the State of California.

On June 2, 1998, the court accepted Lemons' plea of guilty to this charge and ordered him to serve five years probation. The court imposed conditions of probation including prohibiting Lemons from referring to himself as or holding himself out in any fashion as an "engineer" or "engineering-in-training" or from indicating in any manner that he is licensed to practice any branch of engineering in the State of California. The court also ordered Lemons to disclose his conviction to all employers, partners, business associates, and clients who employ him during the probationary period. Furthermore, the court ordered Lemons' contractor's license revoked. These conditions were ordered based on recommendations made by the Office of the Attorney General, representing both this Board and the Contractors State License Board, which was also a party to the action.


LEVITT, GORDON ALAN
Civil Engineer C 20298
Accusation 651-A
Effective January 18, 2000: REVOKED

The Board has found that Gordon Alan Levitt of Encino, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Section 6775(b) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations Section 415, for negligence and incompetence in the practice of engineering and for practicing outside his area of competency. In November of 1989, Levitt was retained by Aetna Insurance Company to provide geotechnical and structural engineering services for the evaluation and repair of structural distress to a single-story wood frame residence and swimming pool located in Woodland Hills.

Levitt visually inspected the house, swimming pool, and lot, reviewed available records, interviewed the home owner, and collected and tested soil samples at the site and in a laboratory. He prepared a letter reporting his evaluation and recommendations for repair to Aetna Insurance. His geotechnical engineering work and recommendations were negligent in that he failed to adequately describe the types of testing performed on the property. His recommendations for treating the problems were not consistent with the findings he reported. In a default decision, the Board revoked Levitt's license, effective January 17, 2000.


LOTA, DANTE SANTOS
Civil Engineer C 25377, Structural Engineer S 2314
Accusation 771-A
Effective July 22, 2005: Licenses revoked, revocations stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 771-A against Dante Santos Lota alleged that Lota contracted with homeowners to perform an inspection to determine the structural integrity and habitability of their residence. It was further alleged that Lota failed to provide a written contract when he performed the inspection. Additionally, it was alleged that he was negligent in the practice of engineering as the habitability report he produced was inadequate and inconclusive because he failed to provide any sketches of the general layout of locations of the observed structural failures; the observations he listed in support of that conclusion were vague and insufficient to allow another skilled in the industry to understand them and arrive at conclusions based upon them; he failed to recognize the need for, or to recommend, tests or measurements to document the extent of the structural damage; and he failed to recognize the need for, or to recommend, a list of required repairs or evaluation. Furthermore, Lota allegedly failed to sign and seal his civil engineering report.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Lota admitted the truth of all the charges and allegations in the accusation, agreed that his civil and structural engineering licenses were subject to discipline, and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary order. Both his civil and structural licenses were revoked, but the revocations were stayed, and Lota was placed on probation for three years under certain terms and conditions, including taking and passing the California Laws and Board Rules examination. He also was ordered to take and pass a Board-approved course in professionalism and ethics for engineers and two college-level courses, approved in advance by the Board. Lota was also ordered to reimburse the Board $4,193.00 for investigative and prosecution costs within thirty months of the decision. Lota has already paid full restitution of $500 to the homeowner.


LUKBAN, ALEXEI FAJARDO
Civil Engineer C 52528
Accusations 763-A & 804-A
Effective December 10, 2004: License revoked; revocation stayed; 60-day suspension; five years on probation
Effective July 21, 2006: LICENSE REVOKED

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Alexei Fajardo Lukban of Oakland, California, admitted that he is subject to disciplinary action for violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 6775(b), (c), (d), and (h) for deceit, misrepresentation, or fraud; negligence or incompetence in his practice; and breach or violation of a contract to provide professional engineering services. Furthermore, Section 6749 requires that a professional engineer use a written contract which must include his or her license number.

Between October of 2000 and March of 2004, Lukban entered into nine contracts with nine different individuals or entities to provide engineering services, structural engineering services, geotechnical and structural engineering services, or drafting and structural services. Eight of the nine contracts were titled "Proposal for Engineering Services" and failed to include Lukban's professional engineer's license number. Lukban completed only initial services for three of the nine contracts, and none on six of them. However, in each case, he collected retainers varying in amount from $750 to $4,250 for a total of $19,965. In each case, after requests to return the retainer amount, Lukban stopped communicating with the parties and did not return any portion of any of the retainers.

In the Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order entered into between Lukban and the Board, effective December 10, 2004, Lukban's license was revoked; the revocation was stayed and he was placed on probation for five years on terms and conditions including actual suspension of his license for 60 days; reimbursement to the Board of $6,251.61 within four and one-half years for investigative and prosecution costs; the successful completion and passage of the California Laws and Board Rules examination within 60 days; and the successful completion and passage of the course "Advanced Studies in Engineering Ethics" or an equivalent Board-approved course in engineering ethics within three years. Additionally, Lukban was ordered to provide a copy of the decision and order of the Board within 30 days of the effective date of the decision to all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship involving the area of practice of professional engineering. Lukban was ordered to make restitution to the parties within four and one-half years. The restitution ordered totaled $20,780.

Effective July 21, 2006, the Board issued a Default Decision and Order in the Matter of Accusation No. 804-A against Lukban. This decision ordered the revocation of Lukban's Civil Engineer license based on his failure to comply with the terms and conditions of probation ordered in the previous case and based on allegations that he had committed additional violations of the laws while on probation.


Click Here for Disciplinary Actions M-Z