Quick Hits
Disciplinary Actions Against Licensees (A-L) - Last Updated June 2007
This page contains summaries of disciplinary decisions finalized since 1987. 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 BPELS_Enforcement_Information@dca.ca.gov.
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. To go directly to the articles in order to browse, click here. For 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) 263-2241 or BPELS_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, 2001: 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
ccusation 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
ffective 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 th