California Architects Board Enforcement Citations - Last Name F

1. Home
2. Enforcement
3. Enforcement Actions
4. F

Enforcement Actions - F

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

Kamran Farahi

Los Angeles —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to
Kamran Farahi, dba Farahi Construction, 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 Farahi reused sets of swimming pool plans and/or plan details he had
previously purchased from an architect on seven swimming pool construction projects, for which those
plans were never designed or otherwise intended to be used. Farahi’s use of plans that had been
stamped and signed by an architect or the firm’s engineer for another project, without their consent,
violated Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). Farahi paid the fine, satisfying the citation.
The citation became final on February 13, 2020.

Christopher Faulhammer

Venice —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to
Christopher Faulhammer, dba BSPK Design, Inc., E-Z Builders, Inc., and Think Design Office, 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 Faulhammer provided a
“Design Services Proposal” to Mr. R.Y. (client) to remodel a one-story house located in Tujunga,
California. The agreement provided for a complete interior remodel to an existing home. It offered
“architectural and engineering design services” and an architect to be provided by Faulhammer.
Faulhammer’s personal LinkedIn profile identified him as a “Project Architect” and his company’s
Archinect profile included “Architecture” under Services Offered. Faulhammer used the term
“architecture” in BSPK Design, Inc’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 and California Code of Regulations title 16, section 134. Faulhammer
paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on April 16, 2020.

Robert Trent Fechtmeister

Gretna, Nebraska —The Board issued
a one-count citation that included a $750 administrative fine to Robert Trent Fechtmeister, architect
license number C-31451, for alleged
violations of Business and Professions Code (BPC) sections 141(a) (Effect of Disciplinary Action Taken
by Another State or the Federal Government)
and 5586 (Public Agency; Disciplinary Action). Fechtmeister paid the fine, satisfying the citation.
The action, according to disciplinary action taken by the Nebraska Board of Engineers and
Architects, alleged that on or about November 16, 2011, Fechtmeister forged the name of an engineer on
a Certificate of Authorization Renewal
Application and forged the engineer’s signature and professional engineering seal on multiple
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plans. The
citation became final on October 17, 2019.

Bernard Castillo Feig

La Verne —The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $1,000 administrative
fine to Bernard Castillo Feig, architect license number C-11006, for alleged violations of BPC
5536.22(a) (Written Contract) and California Code of Regulations
section (CCR) 160(f)(1) (Rules of Professional Conduct). The action alleged that Feig failed to
execute a written contract prior to commencing professional services
and he did not obtain written consent from the client to materially alter the scope or objective of
the project. Feig paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The
citation became final on January 28, 2015.

Ben Fernandez

Los Angeles —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $2,500 administrative fine to Ben
Fernandez, an unlicensed individual, doing business as BF Design Group, for alleged violations of
Business and Professions Code section (BPC) 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations title 16,
section (CCR) 134(a).

The action alleged that Mr. Fernandez provided architectural services for his client’s existing
apartment building in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Fernandez created a fee estimate proposal for
$12,000 including completion of “architectural drawings.” Mr. Fernandez was paid over $8,000 and
stopped communicating with his clients once the submittal required corrections and abandoned the
project. The scope of work for the project including demolition and the conversion of three existing
apartment units on the first floor to a retail unit and remodeling of the second-floor units. The
project was not exempt from licensing requirements per BPC section 5537(a) or 5538 as it was a
commercial building and included demolition.

Fernandez’s business cards also included “Architect-Planning-Interiors” as his description of
service. Offering or providing architectural services without a license and use of the words architect
and architectural in his business entity’s description of services constitute violations of BPC
5536(a) and CCR 134(a). Fernandez was served with notice of the violations but did not respond to
multiple requests to make corrections The citation became final on June 22, 2022.

Justin Leas Finnicum

Sudbury, MA —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Justin
Leas Finnicum, architect license number C-29773, 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 Finnicum certified false or misleading
information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. The citation became final on February 21, 2025.

Brian Evan Fisher

Daytona Beach, FL — The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Brian Evan Fisher, architect license number C–30714, 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 and Zero Net Carbon Design; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Fisher certified false or misleading information on their 2025 License Renewal Application. The citation became final on December 26, 2025.

Alfred Andrew Flies

Murphys —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $250 administrative fine to Alfred
Andrew Flies, architect license number C-24821, 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 Zero Net Carbon Design; Submission
of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Flies certified false or misleading information on
their 2023 License Renewal Application. Flies paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation
became final on May 5, 2025.

Marilyn J. Fong

San Francisco —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1000 administrative fine to
Marilyn J. Fong, architect license number C-25913, 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 and Zero Net Carbon Design; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that
Fong certified false or misleading information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. Fong paid
the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 11, 2025.

Aaron Forrest

Berkeley —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $250 administrative fine to Aaron
Forrest, architect license number C-40282, 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 and Zero Net
Carbon Design; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Forrest certified false
or misleading information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. Forrest paid the fine, satisfying
the citation. The citation became final on January 27, 2025.

Stephen Robert Franey

Blue Bell, PA —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to
Stephen Robert Franey, architect license number C-34054, 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 Franey certified false or
misleading information on his 2023 License Renewal Application. Franey paid the fine, satisfying the
citation. The citation became final on June 13, 2024.

Analiza Fuentes

Commack, New York —The Board issued
a one-count citation that included a $1,000 administrative fine to Analiza Fuentes, dba Studio7, an
unlicensed individual, for alleged violations
of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged
that on or about August 16, 2018,
Fuentes’ Levo profile described her as providing "architecture + photography,"
included the word "architectural" to
describe her services and provided the title of "Project Architect." In addition,
Fuentes’ Buildshop profile was categorized under
"Architects" and included "Architects" under Services Offered. Fuentes’
Houzz profile was also categorized under
"Architects" and her Behance and Poplar profiles were categorized under
"Architect." Furthermore, on or about September 5,
2018, Fuentes’ LinkedIn profile described her as a "Project Architect," stated she is
an Experienced Architectural Designer and
Project Manager with a demonstrated history of working in the architecture & planning
industry, and stated her specialties include
"Architectural Design," "Architecture," and "Interior Architecture." The
citation became final on February 13,
2019.

Geoffrey George Fujimoto

Sacramento —The Board issued a one-count citation that included a
$1,500 administrative fine to Geoffrey George Fujimoto, dba GFD & Associates, an unlicensed
individual, for alleged violations of BPC section
5536(a) and (b) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and CCR, title 16, section
134(a) (Use of the Term Architect). The
action alleged that on or about February 25, 2018, Fujimoto executed a written contract to provide
construction documents for a commercial project
located in Sacramento, California. The written contract: included "ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES"
and "ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN/ARCHITECTURE" in Fujimoto’s letterhead for his firm, GFD & Associates; stated
"SERVICES PROVIDED: ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN/ARCHITECTURE"; referenced a "STAMP ON SUBMITTAL"; and listed fictitious
"CONSULTANT LIC. G1726478" above his
signature. On or about April 2, 2018, the drawings Fujimoto prepared for the project were submitted to
the City of Sacramento Community
Development Department with a planning entitlement application. The title block of the drawings
included the term "ARCHITECTURE" in the
logo for Respondent’s firm, GFD & Associates, and stated "--------------,
ARCHITECT," "C -----," and "CONTACT:
GEOFF FUJIMOTO." Fujimoto also affixed a stamp to the drawings, which read: "INDENDED
ARCHITURE (sic)"; "GEOFFREY
FUJIMOTO"; "G-1720479"; "RENEWAL DATE 04/30/2018"; and "STATE OF
CALIFORNIA." The stamp was circular in shape
and of a design used by California licensed architects pursuant to CCR, title 16, section 136. In
addition, on or about May 29, 2018, Fujimoto
submitted his business card to the Board, which stated "Environmental Design/Architecture"
below his name, with the term
"Architecture" crossed out. Furthermore, on or about July 26, 2018, Fujimoto’s
LinkedIn profile described him as an
"Associate Architect" and stated his skills include "Architects,"
"Architectural Drawings," and "Computer
Architectural Design." Fujimoto also used the business name "GFD & Associates,"
which included the terms
"architectural" and "architecture" 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. The citation became final on November 5, 2018.

Fujimoto paid the fine, satisfying the citation.

---

Disciplinary Actions

Douglas William Fong

San Francisco —Effective June 12, 2024, Douglas W. Fong’s architect license number C-19649 was
surrendered, and he thereby loses all rights and privileges of an architect in California. The action
was the result of a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, which was adopted by the Board.

On August 16, 2023, an Accusation was filed against Fong for alleged violations of Business and
Professions Code sections 5536.22(a) (Written Contract), 5578 (Practicing in Violation of the Act), 5583
(Fraud or Deceit), 5584 (Negligence or Willful Misconduct), 5585 (incompetency or Recklessness), and
California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 150 (Willful Misconduct), and 160 (Rules of
Professional Conduct) subsections (a)(1) and (2) (Competence), (b)(1) (Standard of Care), (d)(5)
(Conflict of Interest), and (g)(1) (Informed Consent).

The Accusation alleged that in or around early 2018, Fong was retained by the client to consult on the
cost to legalize an existing cottage in the rear yard of her residence, and convert into an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU). The parties agreed that only if the ADU could be legalized for $65,000 or less
would the client hire Fong to remodel the main residence, and the ADU would be completed before work
would commence on the main residence.

The main concern regarding legalization of the ADU involved the only path of egress through the rear
door of the main residence’s garage, which did not meet residential code height requirements. Fong
assured the client that the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) would approve the ADU
permit even though the garage was not up to code.

Fong prepared a proposal for architectural services, a joint venture agreement between Fong and
contractor Royo Construction, and a design/build agreement, none of which were executed by the parties.
The project scope included legalization of the ADU and renovation of the upper level of the main
residence. Construction costs were estimated to be $50,000 for the ADU and $400,000 for the main
residence. The client took out a mortgage of approximately $650,000 to fund the project.

On or about October 1, 2018, Fong sent an invoice to the client which described all services on the ADU
as 100% complete, including building permits and construction administration. The same invoice requested
payment for construction services on the main residence. The client relied on Fong’s representation that
the ADU was complete, paid the invoice, and allowed demolition to proceed on the main residence.

Fong did not apply for a building permit for the construction work on the ADU until on or about October
10, 2018. Fong submitted plans that misrepresented the garage entry door as 80” high when it was only
72” high, below the minimum requirement, and failed to note that the corridor also did not meet the
minimum height clearance, being 75” rather than the required 90” clearance.

Fong did not inform the client that the ADU was not 100% complete until on or about March 26, 2019, and
claimed that additional work not in the original contract scope was required. On or about January 10,
2020, DBI halted the project after discovering that the garage door and corridor did not meet minimum
height requirements. In or around February 2020, Fong informed the client that the ADU was still
incomplete, DBI had not issued the permit, and that $25,000 of foundation work was required to obtain
the permit.

Throughout the project Fong invoiced for and received over $500,000 for architectural services and
construction services from the client. He and Royo Construction ultimately abandoned the project with
the main residence unfinished, the ADU construction incomplete, and still not legalized.

On May 13, 2024, the Board adopted a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, which became effective
on June 12, 2024.

James W. Fenske

South Pasadena —Effective January 9, 2022, and in accordance with a stipulated settlement, James W. Fenske’s
architect license number C-25524 was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed, his license suspended
for 30 days, and he was placed on probation for five years with specific terms and conditions, including
reimbursing the Board for the amount of $8,000 for investigative costs. An Accusation filed against Fenske
alleged seven causes for discipline for violations of: (1) Business and Professions Code (BPC) section
5583 (Fraud in the Practice of Architecture); (2) California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section
160 (c)(2) (Conflict of Interest); (3) BPC section 5584 and CCR, title 16, section 160(a)(2) (Negligence);
(4) CCR, title16, section 160 (f)(1) (Informed Consent); (5) CCR, title16, section 160(b)(1) (Willful
Misconduct); (6) BPC sections 5536.22(a)(3) and 5536.22(a)(5) (Written Contract); (7) BPC section 143.5
(Settlement Agreement Provision Requiring Withdrawal of Complaint).

The Accusation alleged that on or about January 18, 2017, Fenske entered into an architectural services
agreement with his client K.N. whereby he agreed to provide services including architectural design,
construction documentation, and construction administration for a four-story, approximately 2,500 square
foot home. Fenske was paid on an hourly basis for architectural services. On or about June 2, 2017, the
client hired JWF Construction, Fenske’s General Contracting firm, to build the home for a fixed fee of
$865,000 to $890,000. Following the commencement of construction there were significant problems
including: A. Significant errors found in the topographic work of prior surveys provided by the client.
These errors necessitated corrective surveying, architectural and structural redesign. B. The late
discovery during the foundation caisson drilling operations that the depth from grade of unconsolidated
fill material was substantially deeper than originally presumed by the original geotechnical
investigation. These conditions required compensatory foundation construction that increased construction
costs. C. Incorporation of architectural design modifications while construction was already underway. D.
Reported vandalism of onsite work, which primarily consisted of the relocation of survey markers to
disrupt the foundation construction layout. In addition, Fenske improperly placed 12 of 13 foundation
caissons due to design error, resulting in the need for partial demolition and reconstruction of two
caissons, incurring additional cost and delays. Fenske also modified the construction documents to include
a roof deck in violation of a 35 feet maximum building height restriction. Finally, Fenske made changes to
the construction documents without the client’s approval, specifically removing crawl space walls that
were required by the County of Los Angeles.

The project eventually exceeded the client’s budget, such that its final completion with available
funding resources became impossible. The project was therefore suspended at approximately 25% completion
status, with Fenske having received approximately 49% - 53% of the total construction contract fixed
price. On or about October 18, 2018, K.N. terminated both the June 2, 2017, construction contract and the
January 18, 2017, architectural services contract with Respondent. Thereafter, the client and Fenske
executed a civil settlement that required the client to withdraw the complaint filed with the Board.
Fenske entered into a stipulated settlement and the Board adopted the Proposed Disciplinary Order on
December 10, 2021. The action became effective on January 9, 2022.

Convictions

There are no convictions to display.