Enforcement Actions - M

Using the first letter of the individual’s last name, select the letter group below that corresponds. This will display enforcement actions for the corresponding letter group.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Each page of the Enforcement Actions section is divided into subsections for citations, administrative actions, and convictions. You should check each subsection to see if an enforcement action has been taken against the individual you are seeking.

Citations
Disciplinary Actions
Convictions

Citations

Dawn Ma

San Francisco —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $1,000 fine to Dawn Ma, an unlicensed individual, doing business as Q-Architecture, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations title 16, section 134(a).

The action alleged that Ma executed a design contract with homeowners P.F. and P.K which identified Q-Architecture as the Designer and included architecture, engineering, landscape and urbanism in their description of services. The terms of the contract offered architectural documentation services, architectural design, and architectural detailing for a residential project in San Francisco. Additional services were to be provided at an hourly rate for Q-Architecture’s personnel, including their “Sr. Project Manager/Architect & Engineer,” and their “CAD3 Senior Architect & Engineer.” Dawn Ma is a licensed professional engineer, not an architect. However, her signature block included the term “Cal Arch. Bd. No. C9278.” Architect license number C-9278 belongs to Kevin Stong, who has been licensed since 1977. He has reported his association with Q-Architecture to the Board since 2009. However, he is not mentioned in the contract, and when asked for a response to the allegations, stated that he was semi-retired and knew nothing about the project.

By including the term “Cal Arch. Bd. No. C9278” in her signature line, Dawn Ma represented herself as a licensed architect in violation of BPC 5536(a). The engineer’s exemption in Business and Professions Code section 5537.4 does not apply because a professional engineer may not use the title “architect.” By using the business name Q-Architecture and a description of services including “architecture,” without an architect who was in management control of the company’s professional services, Dawn Ma violated California Code of Regulations title 16, section 134(a). Ma paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on October 22, 2022.

David B. Mac Neill

Napa —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to David B. Mac Neill, architect license number C-32554, for an alleged violation of BPC § 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Mac Neill certified false or misleading information on his 2017 License Renewal Application. Mac Neill paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on November 2, 2017.

Gary William Madjedi

Arroyo Grande —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $250 administrative fine to Gary William Madjedi, architect license number C-13704, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Conditions; Certifications; Audit; False or Misleading Information; Disciplinary Action; Coursework Regarding Disability Access, Zero Net Carbon Design Requirements; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Madjedi certified false or misleading information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. Madjedi paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 6, 2024.

Eric Foster Mahoney

Studio City —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Eric Foster Mahoney, architect license number C-31657, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 5600.05(b) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Mahoney failed to maintain records of completion of the required coursework for two years from the date of license renewal and failed to make those records available to the Board for auditing upon request. Mahoney paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on February 16, 2018.

Siddhartha Majumdar

Los Angeles —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Siddhartha Majumdar, architect license number C 36763, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Majumdar certified false or misleading information on his 2019 License Renewal Application. Majumdar paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on November 17, 2019.

Tetsuo Makino

Arcadia —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Tetsuo Makino, architect license number C-19961, for an alleged violation of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Makino certified false or misleading information on his 2015 License Renewal Application. Makino paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on August 13, 2015.

Carl Maletic

Morongo Valley —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $2,000 administrative fine to Carl Maletic, architect license number C-24044, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536.22(a) (Failure to Execute Written Contract Prior to Commencing Work) and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 160(b)(2) (Willful Misconduct; Failure to Respond to Board Investigation). The first cause for citation alleged that on or about May 2, 2018, Maletic failed to execute a written contract with his client prior to commencing professional services for a residential project located in Palm Springs, California. The second cause for citation alleged that Maletic failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information regarding an investigation within 30 days. The citation became final on June 3, 2019.

Eric Martinez-Lucio

Fresno —The Board issued a two-count citation with a $5,000 administrative fine to Eric Martinez-Lucio, an unlicensed person, dba Urbatect Development LLC, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations section 134(a).

Martinez-Lucio’s company website offers “luxury high-end architecture” and includes “Architecture” services. His company Houzz profile offers “Architectural Design” and “Architectural Drawing” services and includes an apartment building rendering under Projects. His company Yelp profile states, “Attention to detail, efficiency, economy and architectural and engineering innovation are among some of the great hallmarks of all Urbatect’s projects.” His company Facebook profile states, “We are a multi-disciplinary design firm specializing in high-end architecture, ADUs, & construction” and states “Urbatect Development will be handling all of the Architectural & Engineering.”

Martinez-Lucio’s company Houzz and Instagram profiles offer “Architecture,” advertise non-exempt projects, and state “Our areas of expertise are:✅ARCHITECTURE.” His company Build Zoom profile offers “Architectural Drawings and Designs” and “Other Architecture and Engineering” services. Urbatect Development LLC had advertisements on Craigslist offering an “Architect,” “Architectural Design,” “Architectural,” and “Architecture” services.

The company name “Urbatect” is a variation of the term “architect,” which is deliberately confusing to consumers.

On April 6, 2023, Martinez-Lucio was previously issued a Class “A” citation in the amount of $1,000 for violations of California Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and was formally advised that an unlicensed individual or firm in California cannot use any term confusingly similar to architect or architectural to describe services offered or be labeled in such a category. Martinez-Lucio failed to pay that fine.

Martinez-Lucio's business name, website, advertisements, and online profiles wherein he described his services as “Architect,” “Architecture,” “Architectural Design,” and “Architectural,” are devices that might indicate to the public that Martinez-Lucio is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations section 134(a). The citation became final on March 16, 2024.

Eric Martinez-Lucio

Fresno —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Eric Martinez-Lucio, an unlicensed individual doing business as Urbatect Development, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). In January 2022, the Board received two separate complaints that the Martinez-Lucio was holding himself out as an architect and offering architectural services.

Martinez-Lucio‘s company website declared that it offered “architecture” and stated the following: “Our architecture responds to the needs and aspirations of our clients and communities,” and “We are a team of sophisticated estimators, architects, engineers and contractors, who will take your project from conceptual design all the way to execution.” His Craigslist advertisement offered “Architectural Design,” identified him as an “Affordable Architect” and stated, “We are a team of sophisticated estimators, architects, engineers and contractors.”

Martinez-Lucio’s company Facebook profile categorized him as an “Architectural Designer” and stated, “We are a team of sophisticated estimators, architects, engineers and contractors, who will take your project from conceptual design all the way to execution.” His company Houzz profile was categorized under “Architects” and stated, “Attention to detail, efficiency, economy and architectural and engineering innovation are among some of the great hallmarks of all Urbatect’s projects” and offered “Architectural Design.” This profile also included samples of new commercial design, which is not exempt from licensing requirements.

Martinez-Lucio’s website, advertisement, and online profiles wherein he described his services as “Architect,” “Architecture” and “Architectural,” are devices that might indicate to the public that Martinez-Lucio is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). The citation became final on December 3, 2022.

Robert Alan Massetti

Rocklin —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $2,500 administrative fine to Robert A. Massetti, architect license number C-12648, for violations of Business and Professions Code section 5584 (Negligence) and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 160(a)(2) (Professional Misconduct).

The action alleged Massetti executed a contract with an unlicensed individual to provide consultation and working drawings with stamp and signature for a new two-story single-family residence. The architectural plans were approved by Sacramento County for a building permit but the stair dimensions were not compliant with the current California Building Code.

Massetti’s failure to apply the correct building laws and codes by signing and stamping plans with non-compliant stair dimensions constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5584 and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 160(a)(2). Massetti paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on July 10, 2020.

William Matzuy

Lake Elsinore —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to William Matzuy, an unlicensed individual, doing business as Matzuy and Associates, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a).

The action alleged that Matzuy executed a Service Agreement to provide Mr. J.D. with plans for a residential project located in Hacienda Heights, California. The project consisted of adding floor area to the rear of an existing two-story, single-family dwelling for a fixed fee of $4,300. Matzuy’s agreement offered “architectural design services” and included “architectural design.”

Matzuy’s service agreement, wherein he described his services as “Architectural,” is a device that might indicate to the public that Matzuy is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). Matzuy was served with notice of the violations but did not respond to multiple requests to make corrections. The citation became final on July 22, 2022.

Jason Maune

San Diego —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Jason Maune, architect license number C-35053, for an alleged violation of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Maune certified false or misleading information on his 2015 License Renewal Application. Maune paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 31, 2016.

Jonathan J. Mckim

San Francisco —The Board issued a three-count citation including a $2,250 administrative fine to Jonathan J. McKim, architect license number C-36089, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 5584 (Willful Misconduct) and 5585 (Incompetence), and California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 150 (Willful Misconduct), 160(a)(2) (Rules of Professional Conduct; Competency), and 160(g)(1) (Rules of Professional Conduct; Informed Consent).

On or about October 7, 2022, McKim was hired by Ms. K.O. (Client) to prepare plans for a new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at her residence located in Suisun City, California. The contract’s procedures for accommodating additional services required McKim to provide the Client a cost estimate in the form of a Change Order Proposal, which the Client had 5 business days to review and approve. McKim was not to proceed with additional services until it was agreed to in writing by both parties. The contract’s termination clause allowed McKim to unilaterally withdraw only after the project had been suspended for a minimum of 90 days due to substantial nonperformance or nonpayment by the Client, with no less than seven days’ written notice.

On or about January 17, 2023, the Client requested changes to the Project. McKim stated that the corrections would be considered additional services, and charged at $150 an hour with an eight-hour minimum. The Client expressed that the changes were needed to pass building inspections, and therefore believed she should not have to pay for additional services. The Client refused to approve the additional services and requested McKim make the changes as part of the original Project scope. McKim responded by abruptly terminating his contract with the Client, effective immediately, with no discussion of suspending the Project and no notice given. McKim then offered to make the changes free of charge, and the Project resumed and proceeded for about a week without issue.

Another dispute arose involving McKim’s plan details, which called for 3/8-inch diameter bolts at two feet spacing on center with no embedment dimensions of the bolt called out, whereas the California Building Code (CBC) required 1/2-inch diameter anchor bolts at 6 feet on center with seven-inch embedment into the concrete footing. On or about January 24, 2023, McKim again terminated the contract, effective immediately. There was again no discussion of suspending the Project and McKim terminated the contract with the Client without notice. McKim then sent the Client multiple invoices for additional charges totaling over $6,500 between January 25 and February 17, 2023, without first obtaining written approval from the Client.

McKim violated his own contract terms by terminating the agreement with his Client multiple times without meeting any of the prerequisites that would allow him to do so. He changed the project scope of work without the Client’s written approval, and continued to perform additional services after the Client refused to approve them. He further charged the Client for business expenses, bank fees, and even for the time he spent responding to the Board’s inquiries, which were not within the scope of his contract. Additionally, the bolts McKim specified were insufficient and did not meet the CBC’s requirements. The CBC would have allowed for specification of equivalent anchorage, but that required the architect to apply for special consideration and provide details of the underlying calculations. McKim did not create or provide these calculations, and did not prove that his design was safe or sufficient to be considered as an approved equivalent.

These actions constituted violations of Business and Professions Code section 5584 and 5585, and California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 150, 160(a)(2), and 160(g)(1). The citation became final on May 8, 2024.

Brooks Mitchell McDonald

Sausalito —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Brooks Mitchell McDonald, architect license number C-33087, for alleged violations of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) and (b) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that McDonald certified false or misleading information on his 2013 License Renewal Application, failed to maintain records of completion of the required coursework for two years from the date of license renewal, and failed to make those records available to the Board for auditing upon request. McDonald paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on April 8, 2015.

Gary Alton McKelvey

Tahoma —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $1,250 administrative fine to Gary Alton McKelvey, architect license number C-23442, for alleged violations of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements) and California Code of Regulations (CCR) 160(b)(2) (Rules of Professional Conduct). The action alleged that McKelvey certified false or misleading information on his 2013 License Renewal Application and failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information within 30 days in regards to an investigation. McKelvey paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on August 13, 2015.

Clovis —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Gary McKelvey, architect license number C-23442, for an alleged violation of CCR 160(b)(2) (Rules of Professional Conduct). The action alleged that McKelvey failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information within 30 days in regards to an investigation. McKelvey paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on February 26, 2015.

Susannah B. Meek

San Francisco —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Susannah B. Meek, architect license number C-27503, for an alleged violation of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Meek certified false or misleading information on her 2015 License Renewal Application. Meek paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 18, 2016.

Kiran Mehra

Inyokern —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Kiran Mehra, architect license number C-12014, for an alleged violation of California Code of Regulations section (CCR) 160(f)(1) (Rules of Professional Conduct). The action alleged that Mehra failed to inform and obtain the consent of his client in writing prior to altering the scope of work of a residential project by increasing the overall project size from 46′×52′ to 48′×54′. Mehra paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on October 5, 2016.

David Benjamin Meleca

Columbus, Ohio —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $3,000 administrative fine to David Benjamin Meleca, dba David B. Meleca Architects, LLC, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of BPC §§ 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and 5536.1(c) (Unauthorized Practice) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 134(a) (Use of the Term Architect). The action alleged that on or about December 16, 2015, Meleca executed an Agreement for Services with a client offering to provide design development, construction documents, permitting/bidding assistance, and limited construction administration services for a new restaurant building to be located in Torrance, California. The Agreement described Meleca’s firm, David B. Meleca Architects, LLC, as "the Architect" of the project. On or about February 25, 2016, Meleca prepared a permit set of architectural drawings for the project. On or about March 2, 2016, Meleca’s firm then issued a "CONSULTANT WORK AUTHORIZATION" to California licensed architect David Udkow to "Review/Sign/Seal Plans for Landlord and City submittal," and on or about March 3, 2016, Udkow stamped and signed the permit set of architectural drawings. Meleca’s offering to provide design development, construction documents, permitting/bidding assistance, and limited construction administration services and his preparation of a permit set of architectural drawings for a new restaurant building, which is not a building exempt from the requirements of the Architects Practice Act pursuant to BPC §§ 5537(a) and 5538, without being under the immediate and responsible direction of a California licensed architect, constitutes the practice of architecture as defined in BPC § 5500.1. Meleca also used the business name "David B. Meleca Architects, LLC" without a California licensed architect who is in management control of the services that are offered and provided by the business entity and either the owner, a part-owner, an officer, or an employee of the business entity. The citation became final on October 18, 2017.

Dana Merker

San Francisco —The Board issued a one count-citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Dana Merker, architect license number C-12412, for alleged violations of California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 160(c)(1) (Failure to Respond).

Merker failed to respond to the Board's requests for information during an investigation into possible violations of the Architects Practice Act. Despite being granted multiple extensions and receiving a final request letter, Merker did not provide the requested documentation or a written response. This failure to respond within 30 days was not excused by the existence of ongoing litigation over the project and constitutes a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 160(c)(1). The Board may take separate action based on the original allegations of professional misconduct. Mr. Merker paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on April 6, 2023.

Eric Edward Merlo

Stockton —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Eric Edward Merlo, architect license number C-15361, for an alleged violation of BPC section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Merlo certified false or misleading information on his 2017 License Renewal Application. Merlo paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on November 15, 2018.

Salvatore Messina

Camino —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Salvatore Messina, an unlicensed person, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect; Misdemeanor).

On or about January 2022, Messina was hired to prepare architectural plans for Mr. A.A. and to submit them to the City of Placerville Development Services Department for approval for a commercial project located on Broadway in Placerville, California. Messina was paid $2,400 but failed to complete the plans and did not receive approval from the city. The project was not exempt from licensing requirements under Business and Professions Code section 5537 and 5538.

Messina also represented himself as a licensed architect through his company’s website, which offers "Architectural Planning and Design." His company Houzz profile is categorized under "Architects" and offers "Architectural Design" and "Architectural Drawings." Messina’s company Yelp profile is categorized under "Architects."

Messina’s practice of architecture without a license constituted one violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). His company website and online profiles, wherein he described his services as "Architectural" and uses the title of architect, are devices that might indicate to the public that Messina is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes an additional violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). The citation became final on April 22, 2023.

Lawrence Elliott Metcalf

Desert Hot Springs —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Lawrence Elliott Metcalf, architect license number C-25168, for alleged violations of BPC § 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 160(b)(2) (Rules of Professional Conduct). The action alleged that Metcalf failed to provide documentation to the Board from the course provider upon an audit of his 2017 License Renewal Application and failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information within 30 days in regard to an investigation. The citation became final on December 22, 2017.

Xin Miao

Irvine — The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $2,500 administrative fine to Xin Miao, an unlicensed individual, dba M and C Architecture, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 5536(a) and 5536.1(c), and title 16, California Code of Regulations section 134(a). In May 2020, Miao executed an “Agreement on Architectural Designs” under the business name:“M and C Architecture” and the title “Architect” to provide design services for a new hillside single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit in San Dimas, California for a fee of $58,500. Miao was paid $30,000. The project involved three distinct living levels in the house, which is not a building exempt from the licensing requirements of the Architects Practice Act. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 5536(a) and 5536.1(c). Miao’s business name and contract, wherein Miao described his services as “Architecture” and “Architectural,” are devices that might indicate to the public that Miao is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and title 16, California Code of Regulations section 134(a). Miao paid the fine satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 20, 2023.

Ruth Michael

Chicago, IL —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $750 administrative fine to Ruth Michael, architect license number C-36234, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Michael certified false or misleading information on her 2019 License Renewal Application and failed to complete the coursework on disability access requirements. Michael paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 19, 2020.

Tania Miclea

Los Angeles —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Tania Miclea, architect license number C-17423, for an alleged violation of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Miclea certified false or misleading information on her 2013 License Renewal Application. Miclea paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 17, 2015.

James Garvin Monday

Amador City —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $250 administrative fine to James Garvin Monday, architect license number C-14426, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Conditions; Certifications; Audit; False or Misleading Information; Disciplinary Action; Coursework Regarding Disability Access, and Zero Net Carbon Design Requirements; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Monday certified false or misleading information on his 2023 License Renewal Application. Monday paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 14, 2024.

Karim Moradi

San Diego —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,000 administrative fine to Karim Moradi, dba S3DA Design, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged Moradi solicited business from a California licensed architect as the “Technical Marketing Manager” of a company named “S3DA Structural & Architectural Design.” Both the company’s website and Moradi’s personal email signature included “Structural & Architectural” in the logo to describe the services offered by the company. Moradi’s personal LinkedIn profile described him as an “Architectural Designer” under Experience and included “Architectural Design” under Skills & Endorsements to describe his services. Moradi’s personal Twitter profile stated, “We provide #Architectural #Structural…#California” services. Moradi used the term “architectural” in S3DA Design’s description of services without an architect who was in management control of the services that were offered and provided by the business entity and either the owner, a part-owner, an officer, or an employee of the business entity, which violated Business and Professions Code section 5536(a), as defined by California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 134(a). Moradi paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 14, 2020.

Richard J. Moriwaki

Los Angeles —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Richard J. Moriwaki, architect license number C-15062 for an alleged violation of BPC section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Moriwaki certified false or misleading information on his 2019 License Renewal Application. Moriwaki paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 4, 2019.

Mir Emad Mousavi

San Diego —The Board issued a two-count citation, including a total fine of $3,000 to Mir Emad Mousavi, an unlicensed person, dba Architectural Gig, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code (BPC) 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 134(a).

On or around February 17, 2023, the Board investigated a complaint alleging possible violations of the Architects Practice Act. Respondent owns a company named “Architectural Gig” that offers architectural services in California. Respondent used the business name “Architectural Gig,” without an architect who is in management control of the services that are offered and provided by the business entity and either the owner, a part-owner, an officer, or an employee of the business entity. Such conduct constitutes a violation of California Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 134(a).

Respondent’s personal LinkedIn profile also offers “Architecture” services in San Diego, California and lists himself as the founder of Architectural Gig under Experience. Respondent’s company LinkedIn profile, doing business as Architectural Gig, offers architectural services in San Diego, California for residential and commercial projects. Respondent’s company Ethical Community profile offers “Architectural Design” and “Architect” services in San Diego, California. Respondent’s company website offers architectural services and states, “Architectural Gig works with a diversity of clients to build a big data-archive in multiple geographic regions from California to Florida and from Texas to New York. We lead a design team including architects and data scientists to offer architectural solutions based on available data in each region by incorporating performance metrics, low-carbon design methodologies and sustainable building materials…” Respondent’s company Facebook profile categorizes him as an “Architectural Designer,” specifically offering services in California, and states, “Architectural Gig is a professional team of experienced Architects, Engineers, and Builders.”

Respondent’s website and online profiles, wherein Respondent described his services as “Architecture” and “Architectural,” are devices that might indicate to the public that Respondent is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 134(a). The Board sent notice of these violations and requests for a response to the address found on the Respondent’s company website. The Respondent failed to respond to any of Board requests, or to cease his conduct and correct his advertising. The citation became final on November 3, 2023.

John F. Mufarreh

Millbrae —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $750 administrative fine to John F. Mufarreh, architect license number C-32407, for an alleged violation of BPC 5600.05(b) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Mufarreh failed to maintain records of completion of the required coursework for two years from the date of license renewal and failed to make those records available to the Board for auditing upon request. Mufarreh paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on February 29, 2016.

Frank Joseph Mungia

Fresno —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $2,000 administrative fine to Frank Joseph Mungia, architect license number C-12995, for alleged violations of BPC section 5579 (Fraud in Obtaining a License). The action alleged that Mungia submitted false statements under penalty of perjury on both of his 2015 and 2017 License Renewal Applications when he answered "no" to the following question: In the preceding renewal period, have you been disciplined by a public agency or have you been convicted of a crime in any state, the USA and its territories, federal jurisdiction, military court, or other country, which involved a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere? On May 15, 2015, a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order for the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists became effective, based on an Accusation filed on April 18, 2014, against Mungia for violations of negligence, breach of contract and criminal conviction. Mungia paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on April 29, 2019.

Disciplinary Actions

Twen Ma

Bradbury —Effective July 8, 2022, and in accordance with a stipulated settlement, Twen Ma’s architect license number C-16815 was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed, his license suspended for 30 days, and he was placed on probation for three years with specific terms and conditions, including reimbursing the Board for the amount of $14,495.75 for investigative costs. An Accusation filed against Ma alleged four causes for discipline for violations of: (1) Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 5584 and California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section 160(a)(2) (Negligence); (2) BPC section 5584 and California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section 150 (Willful Misconduct – Breach of Contract); (3) BPC section 5584 and California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section 150 and 160(b)(1) (Willful Misconduct); and (4) BPC section 5583 (Fraud or Deceit in the Practice of Architecture).

The Accusation alleged that on or about August 4, 2015, Ma was hired to design a 65,000 square foot warehouse in the city of Montclair. He received a deposit of $47,500.00. The payment schedule in the Agreement for Architectural Services stated that payment would be made as follows: 25% upon consummation of the agreement, 20% upon completion of the preliminary sketches, 20% beginning working drawings and specifications, 20% upon completion of working drawings and specifications for the building plan, 10% upon receipt of the building permit, and 5% upon final map recording.

Ma informed his client that he obtained approval on the preliminaries from the City of Montclair and had prepared the drawings for structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work. On or about September 10, 2015, Ma was paid $38,000.00 for the completion of the preliminary sketches for planning approval. On or about March 16, 2016, Ma was paid $38,000.00 for beginning work on the drawings and specifications. Ma’s client later discovered that Ma had lied about obtaining approvals on the preliminaries by the City of Montclair and that Ma had proceeded to prepare the drawings for structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work without the preliminary approvals.

In order to continue the project, Ma signed a document admitting to breaching the original contract by failing to obtain the mandatory approval by the city of Montclair. He proceeded to make additional designs and/or changes, which were subsequently rejected by the city of Montclair. In September 2016, the city of Monclair requested corrections, but as of February 1, 2017, Respondent had not submitted a response to address the corrections. Ma entered into a stipulated settlement and the Board adopted the Proposed Disciplinary Order which became effective on July 8, 2022.

Matthew Robert McKisson

Sacramento —Effective October 21, 2010, Matthew Robert McKisson’s architect license number C-19423, was surrendered and he thereby loses all rights and privileges of an architect in California. The action was a result of a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, which was adopted by the Board.

An Accusation was filed against McKisson for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code (BPC) sections 5536.22 (Written Contract), 5584 (Negligence or Willful Misconduct), 5585 (Incompetency or Recklessness), and 5588 (Report of Settlement or Arbitration Award).

The Accusation alleged that between 1998 and 2000, McKisson contracted and provided professional services to three different school districts for six improvement projects on three existing high school and two existing elementary school sites. On four modernization projects (one elementary and three high schools), Respondent caused Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning units to be installed on various building rooftops including classrooms and a gymnasium without agency approvals. A safety hazard was created for occupants since the existing roof structures were inadequate to support the new equipment without added reinforcement, which was not included. On two elementary school projects, Respondent caused relocatable buildings (a classroom and a library) to be installed on concrete foundations without agency approvals. These two projects did not include construction and/or modifications to provide accessible restrooms and accessible paths of travel as required by Title 24 and the Americans with Disability Act standards.

On all six school projects, Respondent failed to obtain Division of the State Architect design review and approval of the final construction documents prior to commencement of construction as required by law. In addition, Respondent failed to include his license number on all his contracts for the projects; and, he failed to report to the Board the settlement agreement reached with the school district that filed a civil suit to recover their damages.

Convictions

There are no convictions to display.