California Architects

Administrative Actions

Marshall Balfe (Santa Cruz)

Effective January 10, 2021, Marshall Balfe's architect license number C-9674 was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed, his licensed suspended for 90 days, and he was placed on probation for five years with specific terms and conditions, including reimbursing the Board for $12,535 for investigative costs. An Accusation filed against Balfe alleged five causes for discipline for violations of: (1) BPC section 5584 and CCR title 16, section 150 (Willful Misconduct); (2) BPC section 5536.1 and BPC section 5578 (Failure to Sign and Stamp Plans); (3) BPC section 5536.3(b), BPC section 5536.4(a), and BPC section 5578 (Use of An Architect’s Instruments of Service); (4) BPC section 5584 and CCR, title 16, section 160(a)(2) (Negligence); (5) BPC section 5536.22(a)(3)(4)(5) and BPC 5578 (Failure to Comply With Contract Requirements). The Accusation alleged that on or about December 7, 2017, Balfe executed a contract to produce construction documents to submit to the city of Santa Rosa for a building permit to rebuild a home destroyed in the Tubbs fire. Balfe was to use the original plans of the house and incorporate changes made by the homeowners’ designer to produce a set of original construction drawings for $6,000. The homeowners paid Balfe $3,000 on December 8, 2017. The homeowners sent Balfe the original set of architectural plans for the house and the designer’s hand-drawn floor plan changes. The homeowners paid Balfe the remaining $3,000 after Balfe showed them partially hand-drawn floor plan of the upstairs portion of the house. On January 11, 2018, Balfe conveyed two sheets of drawings that used the original floorplan and elevations. Balfe did not have permission from the original architect to use the original plans. Balfe was paid the full contract fee by the homeowners but did not provide sufficient plans to obtain a building permit to the homeowners. On October 15, 2018, the homeowners obtained a $6,090 judgement against Balfe in small claims court. The Board withdrew the second cause in the Accusation and adopted the Proposed Decision and Order on December 11, 2020. The action became effective on January 10, 2021.

James E. Brown (San Diego)

Effective March 10, 2021, James E. Brown’s architect license number C-21882 was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for five years with specific terms and conditions, including reimbursing the Board $10,450 for its enforcement costs. The action came after a Stipulated Settlement was adopted by the Board. An Accusation was filed against Brown for alleged violations of BPC sections 5584, (Willful Misconduct) as defined by CCR, title 16, section 150 (Willful Misconduct), 5584 as defined by CCR, title 16, section 160(b) (2) (Failure to Respond), and 5578 (Violation as Ground for Discipline in General) in conjunction with sections 5536.22(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) (Written Contract Provisions).

Vivek Jonathan Harris (Santa Maria)

Effective January 30, 2021, Vivek Jonathan Harris’s architect license number C-33801 was revoked and he was ordered to reimburse the Board $12,605 for its investigative and prosecution costs if his license is reinstated. An Accusation was filed against Harris in 2019 for alleged violations of BPC sections 5583 (Fraud and Deceit) and 5584 (Willful Misconduct), and CCR section 160(b)(2) (Failure to Respond to Board Inquiry). The Accusation alleged that Harris failed to pay for the services of an engineer he had hired to complete plans for a senior center his client was building in the city of Orcutt. In a separate cause for discipline, Harris failed to complete architectural services to obtain a land use and building permit for a commercial project in Orcutt. In a third cause, Harris entered into a contract to prepare plans for eight single-family homes in San Luis Obispo but did not complete the work and did not release his instruments of service as he had agreed to. In each of these cases, Harris failed to timely respond to the Board’s inquiries about the allegation. The Board’s Decision After Rejection was adopted on December 31, 2020 and became final on January 30, 2021.

Citations  

Brent Deming (Orangevale)

The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Brent Deming, doing business as T.L. Deming Design, an unlicensed individual, for violations of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and CCR section 134(a) (Use of the Term Architect; Responsible Control within Business Entity). The action alleged that Deming prepared a written contract to provide Mr. Y. H. (client) architectural drawings for a restaurant tenant improvement project located on Zinfandel Drive in Rancho Cordova. The contract included “Section 5536.22 of the California Business and Professions Code Requires Written Contract for the Provision of Architectural Services” and “Timothy Deming—Architect—C17784 Civil Engineer—C31608.” Deming’s company LinkedIn profile under the business name “Brent Tldemingdesign” stated, “We are specializing [sic] in 3d Architectural [sic] design for residential and commercial from start to finish of the project [sic].” Deming’s company’s Alignable profile under the business name “Deming Design Inc” states, “T. L. Deming Design, Inc., a multi-purpose home design company with in-house engineering, provides ‘traditional’ architectural and interior design services for both residential and commercial clientele.” Deming’s Manta profile under the business name “T L Deming Architectural Design”, includes “Architectural” in the company name. There was no licensed architect who was in management control of the professional services that were offered and provided by the business entity. Such conduct constitutes violations of BPC section 5536(a) and CCR, title 16, section 134(a). The citation became final on January 7, 2021.

Yves Rathle (Jacksonville, FL)

The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $3,500 administrative fine to Yves Rathle, doing business as Studio Yves Inc., an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect), BPC section 5536.5 (State of Emergency; Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect), and CCR, title 16, section 134(a) (Use of Term Architect Without Architect in Management Control). The action alleged that Rathle represented himself as an architect and his company as an architectural firm when he entered into a contract to rebuild the home of a victim of the 2017 Sonoma fires. The parties executed a contract that included both the terms “architecture” and “drawchitecture” on the side heading, and stated that “if the home increases in size by greater than 15%, the Architect reserves the right to request additional fees.” The contract included Rathle’s name on the header with the word “architect” underneath it, and the “Terms and Conditions” page of the contract repeatedly made references to the “Architect” on the project. Rathle provided the Client with drawings that had “Studio Yves Inc architect+design” written on the bottom. Rathle’s company website, blog, social media profiles, and articles contained multiple references to “architecture,” “landscape architecture,” “interior architecture,” and “DRaWchitecture,” and referred to Rathle as an architect based out of San Francisco. The citation became final on March 22, 2021.

Loren Harry Uridel (Marina Del Rey)

The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,000 administrative fine to Loren Harry Uridel, architect license number C-13482, for alleged violations of BPC section 5536.22(a) and CCR title 16, section 160(f). On or around June 27, 2019, Uridel prepared a written contract to provide a contractor with a “builder- permit architectural set of drawings” for a salon tenant improvement project located in Los Angeles. Uridel was provided with an initial retainer of $2,500 by the owner of the salon (R.T.), and Uridel directed all further correspondence and invoices to R.T. Once Uridel determined that the owner of the salon, not the contractor, had become his client, he should have documented the change or entered into a new contract containing the name and address of the client. Failure to do so was a violation of BPC sections 5536.22(a) and 5536.22(a)(3). The contract also failed to include a description of the procedure to be used by either party to terminate the contract, a violation of BPC section 5536.22(a) (5). In his invoice to R.T. dated October 17, 2019, Uridel billed $21,663.90 for professional services accrued on an hourly basis, including work that was beyond the scope of the signed agreement, such as coordination with other work on the property, MEP services and coordination, agency approvals, and additional project requirements determined by the city. Uridel thus materially altered the scope or objective of the project without fully informing the client and obtaining the consent of the client in writing, a violation of CCR title 16, section 160(f). In the spring of 2020, Uridel filed a lawsuit against the client for non-payment of his invoice. In September 2020 the lawsuit was settled between the parties. As an express condition of the settlement prepared by Uridel’s attorney, R.T. was required to retract his complaint filed with the Board. The inclusion of this provision was a violation of BPC section 143.5(a). Uridel paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 9, 2021.

Hubert Varda (San Jose)

The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Hubert Varda, doing business as Mono Space Design, an unlicensed individual, for violations of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Varda prepared a written contract to provide Ms. S. V. (client) with a scope of work that included architectural, structural, electrical, energy calculations, and drawings necessary to obtain permits for construction of a residential project located in San Jose. Varda’s company’s Porch profile states, “Mono Space Designs is an architectural firm in San Jose. They provide services such as guest house design, 3D rendering, architectural engineering and other services” and offers Architecture. Varda’s company’s Yelp profile is categorized under Architects. Varda’s business card includes “Interior & Architectural Design Services.” Varda’s second company “CADD Division” presents a brochure stating, “Our project approach will meet all your Architectural, Space Planning & General Design needs.” Varda’s personal LinkedIn profile includes “Architectural Design” under Skills & Endorsements. Such conduct constitutes violations of BPC section 5536(a). The citation became final on January 7, 2021.