Enforcement Actions - P

San Marcos—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to J. Benjamin Packard, architect license number C-34479, 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 Packard certified false or misleading information on his 2017 License Renewal Application. Packard paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on December 13, 2017.

San Marcos—The Board issued a three-count citation, including an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000 to Sachin Parlikar, an unlicensed person, dba Renovation Pros, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Misrepresentation; Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect).

On or about July 4, 2022, Parlikar was contacted by Mr. A.E. (Client) who was looking for an architect and contractor for his home improvement project. Parlikar represented himself to the Client as a “university-trained architect,” and on or about July 7, 2022, he provided the Client a written contract for services that included “License-1848821” in the heading, which is not a valid architect, contractor, engineer, or business license number, and implies that the design services were being provided by a licensed professional.

On or about August 4, 2022, the Client asked Parlikar about the possibility of widening a concrete bridge that spanned a drainage canal running through his lot. Parlikar responded that he had the capabilities to prepare the bridge plans. The bridge was also included in a parking agreement with the commercial property across the street, which would have entailed customers crossing the bridge to park on the Client’s lot. On or about October 8, 2022, Parlikar provided the Client with plans titled “Proposed Addition to Existing Bridge” and “Building Permit Application for a Bridge Extension,” on which he was listed as the designer and drafter. The plans included designs for a 10-20 foot concrete stem wall and bridge extension to convey automobile traffic across an existing drainage channel.

On or about August 4, 2022, the Client discussed with Parlikar the possibility of adding more units to the lot, and they entered into a verbal agreement for the preparation of plans for a “multiple dwelling” building on the back of the lot. On or about October 9, 2022, Parlikar provided the Client plans to attach 4-8 units to the existing residence titled “Proposed Attached 4-8 unit Project” on which he was listed as the “Designer.” Business and Professions Code section 5537 restricts unlicensed persons to designing multiple dwelling containing “no more than four dwelling units,” and does not allow multiple clusters of dwellings where the total exceeds “more than four units on any lawfully divided lot.”

Parlikar provided the Client with a contract that contained a false architect’s license number, implying that he was licensed, and provided services to create plans for projects that require a license to design, which constitutes misrepresentation of himself as an architect and the unlicensed practice of architecture, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). The citation became final on June 15, 2024.

San Marcos—The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $4,000 administrative fine to Sachin R. Parlikar, dba Sai Sharan Design & Planning Group, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of BPC 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Parlikar provided his business card to a client, which included the term "Architecture" as a description of the services he provides. Parlikar also provided two proposals offering design services to two clients, which included an "Architectural" Drawing for projects located in Vista, California. Parlikar invoiced for services which included "4 sets of Architectural and Structural Drawings." On or about September 16, 2015, the Internet revealed that Parlikar was listed on the website linkedin.com under the "Architecture & Planning" category and included "Architectural Design" and "Architecture" as part of his Skills. The citation became final on February 8, 2016.

Los Angeles—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Piotr Partyka, architect license number C-23161, 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 Partyka 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. Partyka paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on November 27, 2017.

Rancho Mirage—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,000 administrative fine to Narendra C. Patel, architect license number C-22563, for alleged violations of BPC section 5536.22(a) (Written Contract). The action alleged that Patel failed to execute a written contract with his clients prior to commencing professional services for a residential interior non-structural remodeling project. Patel paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on December 10, 2019.

Los Angeles—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $2,500 administrative fine to Joseph Pazcoguin, dba Plan and Permit, Inc., 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 that Pazcoguin’s website for Apartment to Condo Conversion, at apartment2condo.com, stated "Our company hired the best architects," and described the company as "A place where design and architecture serve to create new and exciting possibilities for our clients." The "Our Services" page had a heading for "Architecture," under which it listed "basic architectural stages" and "Conceptual Architectural Design."

The action further alleged that Pazcoguin’s website for Apartment to Condo Conversion, at besta2c.com, stated that they help with all phases of new home construction, including "architecture and design," described the company staff as "architects and designs" on the "About" page, and described the company as "A place where design and architecture serve to create new and exciting possibilities for our clients." The "News & Event" page on the website contained a link to an interview titled "Bob Peterson Interviewed A2C CEO Architect Joseph Pazcoguin." The website's "Our Team" page listed a design associate who "assists the architects on designs and permits." The page also advertised two unlicensed employees as a "Senior Design Architect" and a "Civil works Architect."

The action also alleged that the website pages for Loyola Academy, Rolling Hills Estates, Prezi, and Press Newsroom; Youtube videos for The Mentor Project I and II; and the Plan and Permit, Inc. website preview, all referred to Pazcoguin as "Architect."

Pazcoguin’s websites, apartment2condo.com and besta2c.com, which referred to Pazcoguin as an "architect," advertised that he had "architects" on staff, and offered architectural services such as "architectural design;" the website pages for Loyola Academy, Rolling Hills Estates, Prezi, and Press Newsroom; Youtube videos of the interview titled The Mentor Project I and II; and the Plan and Permit, Inc. website preview, all referring to Pazcoguin as "Architect," are devices that might indicate to the public that Pazcoguin 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 October 23, 2020.

Bakersfield—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Warren Earle Pechin, architect license number C-8366, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536.22(a) (Written Contract). The action alleged that on or about October 10, 2016, Pechin failed to execute a written contract with his client prior to commencing professional services for a residential addition located in Bakersfield, California. Pechin paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on September 23, 2019.

Columbia, Missouri—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Nicholas H. Peckham, architect license number C-19634, 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 Peckham certified false or misleading information on his 2013 License Renewal Application. Peckham paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 4, 2015.

San Marco—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Marise G. Pereira, architect license number C-35466, 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; Zero Net Carbon Design Requirements; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Pereira certified false or misleading information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. Pereira paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 1, 2024.

Irvine—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Andrew Dominguez Perez, architect license number C-23848, 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 Requirements; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Perez certified false or misleading information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. Perez paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 1, 2024.

Los Angeles—The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $4,000 administrative fine to Nick Hung Pham, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of BPC 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Pham executed two proposals to provide "Architectural " and Engineering Services for City Building Plan Approval and Permit for a tenant improvement project located in Santa Monica, California. The citation became final on March 30, 2015.

Fountain Valley—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Joseph Phan, an unlicensed individual, doing business as Joseph Phan & Associates, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations title 16, section 134(a).

On or about June 11, 2018, Respondent, doing business as “Joseph Phan & Associates,” provided a contract to Mr. D.P. and Mrs. T.N. (clients) for a single-family residential project located on Ardsley Circle in Huntington Beach, California. The services offered in the agreement included “Architecture and Planning” and “Architectural design & construction documents.” The total cost of the contract was estimated at $24,750.

On or about May 6, 2021, Respondent’s advertising signage placed outside of the Ardsley Project identified him as an “ARCHITECT.” Respondent’s Houzz profile under the business name “Joseph Phan & Associates” was categorized under “Architects.”

Further, in documents filed with the City of Huntington Beach Building Division, the Respondent’s company was referred to as an “Architectural Designer” on the cover page document submitted for the Ardsley Project.

Respondent’s advertising signage, contract, Houzz profile, and design plan cover sheet, wherein Respondent described his services as “Architects” 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).

A review of Board records failed to show that a licensed architect provides professional services through the business entity Joseph Phan & Associates.

Respondent used the business name “Joseph Phan & Associates” which included the terms “architects” and “architectural” in its description of services, 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 constitutes a violation of, Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 134(a). The citation became final on March 31, 2022.

Fountain Valley—The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $4,500 administrative fine to Joseph Phan, 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 around August 24, 2022, the Board received a complaint alleging possible violations of the Architects Practice Act associated with a 3-story residential project located on Barnstable Circle in Huntington Beach, California. Phan was hired to prepare architectural plans for Mr. W.H. and to submit them to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for approval. The Board reviewed the Barnstable Project plans dated November 20, 2020, submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department which described the scope of work as "new second and third floor addition." Phan is listed as the Designer and signed the plans. The third floor contains a loft and media area and is labeled as "3rd Floor Plans." The staff report on Phan’s application for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to the City of Huntington Beach Office of the Zoning Administrator dated August 17, 2022, also described the project as a third floor addition. Because it involved a three-story residence, the Barnstable project was not exempt from licensing requirements under Business and Professions Code section 5537 and 5538.

Phan also represented himself as a licensed architect through his company’s Houzz profile, under the business name Joseph Phan & Associates, which is categorized under "Architects." Phan’s company Home Advisor profile, under the business name Joseph Phan & Associates offers "Architects" services.

Phan’s practice of architecture without a license constituted one violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). The online profiles wherein Phan described himself and categorized his services as "Architects" are devices that might indicate to the public that Phan is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a).

The Board sent notice of these violations and requests for a response to the address found on Phan’s title block. He 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. Phan has failed to respond to any of the Board’s requests to cease his conduct and correct his advertising. The citation became final on April 22, 2023.

San Pedro—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $250 administrative fine to Max William Pierce, architect license number C-19073, 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 Pierce certified false or misleading information on his 2023 License Renewal Application. Pierce paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 28, 2024.

San Francisco—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Cheryl Anne Piha, architect license number C-24052, 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 Piha certified false or misleading information on her 2013 Licensure Renewal Application. Piha paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 8, 2015.

Alhambra—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Joseph Pink, architect license number C-33102, 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 Pink certified false or misleading information on his 2015 License Renewal Application. The citation became final on October 8, 2015.

Pacific Palisades—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Alex V. Protasevich, architect license number C-31813, 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 Protasevich certified false or misleading information on his 2017 License Renewal Application. Protasevich paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 8, 2018.

Irvine—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $750 administrative fine to Ali R. Pourhassan-Zonouz, an unlicensed individual, doing business as A2Z Architecture, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and title 16, California Code of Regulations section 134(a).

The action alleged that Pourhassan-Zonouz drafted a proposal for the design of a residential project located in Costa Mesa, California. His title block included the business name “A2Z Architectures.” Pourhassan-Zonouz drafted plans for another residence, located in San Clemente using the same business name. Pourhassan-Zonouz’s company website included the word “Architectures” in its URL, stated, “A2Z Architectures is a full-service architecture and structural engineering practice,” and offered “architectural design.” Pourhassan-Zonouz’s Home Advisor profile listed him as an Architect under Areas of Expertise. His company Houzz profile was categorized under Architects and offered architectural services. His company Local Biz Network profile stated, “Our architects work to understand your family and lifestyle as well as your individual needs for a home,” and offered architectural services. His Yelp profile was categorized under “Architects,” and stated, “At A2Z Architectures we provide you with architectural designing ranging from simple remodels to complete new construction, interior desing [sic] and structural engineering.”

Pourhassan-Zonouz’s business name, title block, website, and online profiles, wherein he described himself as an “Architect,” and his services as “Architectural,” and “Architecture,” are devices that might indicate to the public that he 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). Pourhassan-Zonouz’s use of the business name “A2Z Architectures,” without an architect who was in management control of the services offered and provided by the business entity and either the owner, a part-owner, an officer, or an employee of the business entity constitutes a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 134(a). The citation became final on September 23, 2022.

Pourhassan-Zonouz paid the fine, satisfying the citation.

Brentwood—Effective November 5, 2004, Ira Paul’s architect license number C-7022 was revoked after the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation and adopted a Proposed Decision. The Board filed the Petition because Paul failed to reimburse the Board its quarterly investigative payments as part of the terms and conditions set forth in an earlier disciplinary decision. The earlier Decision had imposed a 180 day actual suspension of Paul’s license and five years probation with specific terms and conditions. This earlier Decision was based on violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Practice without License or Holding Self Out as Architect).

Newbury Park—Effective April 6, 1998, John P. Payne’s architect license number C-16602 was revoked after the Board adopted a Proposed Decision ordering revocation. An Accusation was filed against Mr. Payne pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 5583 (Fraud in the Practice of Architecture) and 5584 (Negligence or Misconduct). The action was taken based on evidence that Mr. Payne failed to detect and report the true condition of an earthquake-damaged masonry fireplace wall for a client in Los Angeles whose house had been damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. In addition, he provided services without a written contract as required by law; and then filed a mechanics’ lien against the property of persons who were not his clients for fees to which he was not entitled.

San Juan Capistrano—Effective July 29, 1999, Wayne Eugene Penny’s architect license number C-10643 was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, his license was suspended for 90 days, and he was placed on probation for five years with specific terms and conditions, including reimbursing the Board $1,500 for investigative costs. An Accusation was filed against Mr. Penny for violations of Business and Professions Code section 5584 (Negligence). Mr. Penny was hired to perform structural calculations for a residence. The action was taken based on evidence that he failed to design to existing criteria and within the standard of care which caused a potential safety hazard.

San Diego—Effective October 27, 2010, Thomas Perry’s architect license number C-24874, was revoked. The action was a result of a Default Decision, which was adopted by the Board.

An Accusation was filed against Perry for alleged violations of BPC sections 5536 (Practice without License or Holding Self Out as Architect), 5536.1 (Signature and Stamp on Plans and Documents; Unauthorized Practice), 5536.22 (Written Contract), 5558 (Mailing Address and Name and Address of Entity Through Which License Holder Provides Architectural Services; Filing Requirements), 5578 (Violation as Ground for Discipline in General), 5583 (Fraud in Practice of Architecture), and 5584 (Negligence or Willful Misconduct), and California Code of Regulations, Title 16, sections 104 (Filing of Address), 150 (Willful Misconduct), and 160 (Rules of Professional Conduct). The Accusation alleged that Perry engaged in the practice of architecture without being currently licensed; failed to include his license number, a description of the procedure that the architect and the client will use to accommodate additional services, and a description of the procedure to be used by either party to terminate the contract in his contracts; failed to maintain an accurate and current address of record with the Board; was negligent in the practice of architecture for failing to complete projects and obtaining building permits, as contracted or prepared plans that lacked specific details and directions to provide contractors with sufficient information to prepare adequate bids; engaged in unprofessional conduct by acting incompetently; demonstrated insufficient knowledge of applicable building laws, codes, and regulations; failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information and/or evidence; failed to accurately represent his qualifications and the scope of his responsibility in connection with projects or services for which he claimed credit; materially altered the scope or objective of the contracted project without first fully informing the client and obtaining the consent of the client in writing; engaged in fraud or deceit in the practice of architecture by providing the client with plans that had a fraudulent stamp which indicated approval by the city; and, obtained payment from the client as a result of that fraud or deceit.

Austin, Texas—Effective December 19, 2005, Rodger Kent Pierce’s architect license number C-24825 was revoked. The action was the result of a Default Decision, which was adopted by the Board.

An Accusation was filed against Pierce for an alleged violation of BPC sections 490 and 5577 (Conviction of a Crime). The Accusation alleged that Pierce was convicted of attempted robbery, a third degree felony in Texas, a crime which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of an architect.

Los Angeles—On August 11, 2015, a Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against Edward W. Powell after he failed to make $3,083.28 in restitution payments to his clients from December 2014 through July 2015, thereby violating the terms and conditions of his probation.

Effective May 6, 2016, Powell’s architect license number C-27775 was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed and Powell was placed on probation for an additional one year beginning August 22, 2016. The action came after a stipulated settlement was negotiated and adopted by the Board.

Oak View—Effective July 22, 2011, Edward W. Powell’s architect license number C-27775, was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed and Powell’s license was placed on probation for five years with specific terms and conditions, including restitution to the clients for $18,500. The action came after a stipulated settlement was negotiated and adopted by the Board.

An Accusation was filed against Powell for alleged violations of BPC sections 5578 (Violation as Ground for Discipline in General) and 5584 (Negligence or Willful Misconduct). The Accusation alleged that Powell’s work on two clients’ architectural plans fell below the standard of care. Powell’s plans lacked the requisite information and detail necessary for City approval; and he failed to address a parking variance, instead incorporating tandem parking into the plans which is not an acceptable alternative for this type of project. Powell failed to complete the plans.