LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0003
2035 Francisco Street
Mailed: July 7, 2025
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.
3. The appeal must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown above (if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day).
If no appeal is received, the Structure of Merit designation will be final on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period.
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:
If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1. If you challenge this decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Landmarks Preservation Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
2. You must appeal to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to notify the Land Use Planning Division in writing of your desire to receive a Notice of Decision when it is completed.
3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b) and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(e), regarding a use permit, variance or other permit may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred.
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), notice is hereby given to the applicant that the 90-day protest period for any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions included in any permit approval begins upon final action by the City, and that any challenge must be filed within this 90-day period.
5. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, your appeal of this decision must include the following information:
A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.
B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.
C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.
If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0003
2035 Francisco Street
Mailed: July 7, 2025
taken, both before the City Council and in court.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.
Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Allison Riemer, at (510) 981-7433 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings for Approval
2. Application Materials
ATTEST:
Anne Hersch, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Jerri Holan, 1323 Solano Ave, Ste 204, Albany, CA 94706 Toni Pinck, David Pinck, and Zack Kahn, 2035 Francisco St, Berkeley, CA 94709
2035 Francisco Street – The Byron E. Underwood House
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0003 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential property constructed circa 1907 (APN: 058-2175-010-00)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Structure of Merit designation of the property at 2035 Francisco Street.
CEQA FINDINGS
1. The project is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061.b.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (activities that can be seen with certainty to have no significant effect on the environment).
LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS
1. P ursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110(B)(2)(b) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley (Commission) finds that the property at 2035 Francisco Street is compatible in scale and materials with the Structure of Merit Whitemore/Woodworth House at 2043 Lincoln Street.
2. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110(B)(2)(c), the Commission further finds that the building is a good example of architectural design. The building is an example of residential design in the Colonial Revival style, specifically a hybrid of a Neoclassical Rowhouse and a Shingle Cottage. The subject building was originally completed in 1907 and retains many of the character-defining features of its expression of the Colonial Revival style. Its Neoclassical Rowhouse characteristics include its porch with classical column details, recessed entry, and primary and side elevation bay windows.
Its Shingle Cottage details include its central, second-story bay window and shingle exterior. Other Colonial Revival details include its deep eaves and supporting corbels, egg and dart trim, and the diamond pattern leaded glass foyer window. Through the retention of its original design and historic materials, it conveys design, materials, and workmanship aspects of integrity.
F
EATURES TO BE PRESERVED
This designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features of the shall be preserved, and missing features shall be restored to the extent possible:
Property/Site
• Location at the north side of Francisco Street, west of 2039 Francisco Street. • Setting in a neighborhood adjacent to Shattuck Avenue commercial corridor, comprised of a mix of single and multi-family residences.
Main Building
• Primary elevation (south) on Francisco Street.
• Hipped roof with central dormer.
• Tripartite wood exterior with shiplap siding below the waterline, clapboard siding at the first floor, and wood shingles at the second floor. • Neoclassical Rowhouse characteristics including:
• the generous porch with Corinthian-capped column details; • recessed entry;
• primary and side elevation bay windows.
• Shingle Cottage characteristics, including:
• the central, second-story bay window;
• shingle exterior at the second story exterior.
• Deep roof eaves with supporting corbels at the second story. • Egg and dart trim details at the first floor frieze and third-floor dormer roofline. • Wide frieze at primary elevation’s first floor and west elevation’s bay window. • Dentil details at the second floor frieze.
• Diamond pattern, leaded glass foyer window.
• Double-hung windows and first and second floor.
• Multi-pane wood windows at dormer.
CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARK APPLICATION
for
2035 Francisco Avenue
Berkeley, California 94709
September 9, 2024
Prepared by:
Jerri Holan, FAIA
1323 Solano Avenue, Suite 204
Albany, CA 94706
Land Use PlanningReceived
November 26, 2024
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 58-2175-010
Block and Lot: Block C, Lot 10
Tract: Janes Tract
Dimensions: 100.67' x 42'
Cross Streets: Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue
3. Property is not on State Historic Resource Inventory.
Property is not on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey.
4. Application for Landmark includes: Building only
5. Historic Name : None
Commonly Known Name: Underwood Flats
6. Date of Construction :
a. Factual: 1906-07 b. Approximate: n/a c. Permitted: 1927 Source of Information: Alameda County Assessor’s Residential Building and Tax Assessment Records and Donegh Real Estate File
7. Architect : Unknown (Possibly A.H. Broad?)
8. Builder: Unknown (Possibly A.H. Broad?)
Extensive Remodel (1927): A.H. Broad
9. Style : Colonial Revival
(Hybrid of Neoclassic Rowhouse and Eastern Shingle Cottage)
10. Original Owners : Byron E. Underwood, Sr.
Original Use: Two Flats
11. Present Owners: Toni Pinck, David Pinck, and Zack Kahn Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 2 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
12. Present Use : Single-family Residence
Current Zoning: R-2A
Adjacent Property Zoning: R-2A
13. Present Condition of Property :
Exterior: Excellent
Interior: Excellent
Grounds: Fair
Has the property’s exterior been altered: Some of the wood windows are replacements. In 1999, the two entry doors were replaced by a single, panel door when the flats were converted from a duplex to a single-family dwelling. New concrete stairs were added at this time. In the rear, the home was slightly altered during a breakfast nook remodel in 2007 and a deck was added. The home added a rear garage in 1927 which was converted to an ADU in 1988.
14. DESCRIPTION - Colonial Revival
The home at 2035 Francisco Street is a two-
story wood-frame residence constructed in the
Colonial Revival genre. It has a composition, hipped
roof with a central dormer and deep eaves with
supporting corbels. The base of the home, below the
watermark, is finished with shiplap siding, the first
floor is finished with clapboard siding while the upper story is shingled. The upper story on the front
elevation features a central bay window while the
lower story has a bay window and a generous porch
which features Corinthian-capped columns. The west
side elevation also features a bay window on the
lower floor. The upper frieze is characterized with
wood trim and dentil work. Under the porch and bay
roofs on the ground floor, the frieze has an egg and
dart trim. Currently, most of the windows on the
front half of the house are double-hungs with a three-
FRONT PORCH, 2024
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 3 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
over-two divided lite pattern in the upper sashes. [Earlier photos show double-hung windows with no divided lites on the front of the house and three-over-two divided lite pattern on side windows.] The foyer features a leaded glass window in the typical diamond pattern from this period.
WEST ELEVATION, 2024 EAST FOYER WINDOW, 2024
While the style of this 1906 home grew out of the Colonial Revival era, it is a variant of the style known as a Neoclassic Rowhouse which was popular in the East Bay from 1895-1915.
They were so called because they were built close together in a row. Rowhouses were typically one-story rectangular homes with hip roofs and classic details. The front door is recessed to one side and the porch is identified with two or three classical columns which are abbreviated and rest on a short porch walls. The front elevation has a bay window and, if the sideyard allows, so also does that elevation.
A close cousin of the Rowhouse is the two-story Eastern Shingle Cottage which also has its roots firmly in Colonial Revival tradition. While the Cottage style is known for its large, A-frame shingled second story, its ground floor is identical to the Rowhouse. These Cottages were popular during the same time frame as the Rowhouses.
The two-story building at 2035 Francisco has all the typical characteristic of a one-story, hip-roofed Neoclassic Rowhouse. However, it’s second story clad in shingles calls to mind Eastern Shingle Cottages. Cottages typically had central windows in their upper gable walls and the central, second-story bay window on 2035 Francisco street resembles this feature.
Consequently, 2035 is an excellent example of a hybrid between the single-story Rowhouse and the two-story Shingle Cottage.
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 4 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
15. HISTORY - Byron Edward Underwood and Alphonso Herman Broad The Colonial Revival residence at 2035 Francisco is one of the last remaining buildings of Byron E. Underwood’s original residential estate.
Byron E. Underwood (1860-1937) was a very important figure in Berkeley’s early history (see Appendix A). He settled in Berkeley in 1876 and started his plumbing, tinning, and gas-fitting business in 1884. He became a Town Trustee in 1890 and when the new City Charter was adopted in 1893, Underwood was re-elected to the Trustees, serving as Mayor. After retiring, in 1895, he served on the Ferry Committee for the Board of Trustees. An elected Republican delegate for the State in 1896, he was also a business entrepreneur active on bank boards and in purchasing real estate in the late 1800s. By 1900, he was one of the City’s larger land holders and an anchor in Berkeley’s business community.
B.E.UNDERWOOD
Oakland, Tribune, 1908
Not only was Underwood a leader in political and economic life, he - along with his wife Florence (1860-1937) - was also a leading figure in a number of local and regional Odd Fellows Lodges which were very popular at the turn of the Century. He eventually became the Grand Trustee of the Grand Lodge of California Odd Fellows and along with his wife (see Appendix B), founded the Berkeley Rebekah Lodge. Florence and Byron had eight children, most of which were very involved in the Lodges as well as the First Baptist Church of Berkeley.
2110-2114 ADDISON STREET, CA. 2023 2041 FRANCISCO STREET, CA. 1956 Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 5 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
Byron Underwood began purchasing Berkeley property early in his career. In 1893, he purchased the property at San Pablo and Addison where his plumbing business was originally located. In 1897, he purchased land on 6th Street and in 1898, he purchased land on Walnut Street. In 1905, he built a 3-story, mixed-use building at 2110 Addison Street. He relocated his plumbing business there on the ground floor and rented the upper floors. Now known as the Underwood Building, it is a Structure of Merit Landmark.
In 1893, at the same time he purchased his plumbing property on Addison and San Pablo, Byron Underwood purchased Lot 12 of Block C of Janes Tract. In 1896-97, he built his family home there at 2041 Francisco Street. A large notable Victorian residence, the building is no longer extant but Underwood resided in it until his death in 1937.
UNDERWOOD ESTATE FROM 1911 SANBORN MAP
In 1903, Byron Underwood purchased the adjacent Lot 13 of Block C of Janes Tract where he built two Colonial Revival style apartment buildings in 1906-07. Along with his Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 6 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
primary residence, these buildings comprised the entirety of his residential estate. Each apartment building consisted of two flats (four rooms each) and were built in the popular Colonial styles of the time. Neoclassical Rowhouse was the style of 2033-35 while 2037-2039 was constructed in the Classic Box variant.
ORIGINAL UNDERWOOD ESTATE - 2033-35 AND 2037-39 and 2041 FRANCISCO STREET, 1940 2033-35 FRANCISCO STREET, CA. 1955
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 7 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
CURRENT UNDERWOOD ESTATE - 2035 AND 2037-39 FRANCISCO STREET, 2024 In 1946, 2033-35 Francisco was transferred from the Underwood children to Ben, Donia, Max, and Bertha Oretsky. The building has had numerous owners through the years, most notable being August Fruge who owned the structure from 1959 - 1976. Fruge was a literal and figurative giant in the world of academic publishing and was the executive director that put UC Press on the map. He was a close associate of David Brower and the Sierra Club and was credited with the reorganization of the California Native Plant Society. Prior to the current owners, from 1992 until 2023 when he died, Dr. Andrew Stewart owned and resided in the building. An art history professor at UC Berkeley as well as a renowned archaeologist, Dr. Stewart was at the top of his field, and won the Archaeological Institute of America's Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Archaeological Achievement.
Today, 2035 and 2037-39 both remain intact and have a good deal of integrity. In 1999, 2033-35 was converted into a single-family residence (now 2035 Francisco). At this time, the two original entry doors were replaced by a single, panel door with sidelights.
Alphonso H. Broad
There is no record of the original builder or architect of any of Underwood’s residential estate buildings which were built in 1896 (2041 Francisco) and 1906-07 (2033 - 2039 Francisco).
Berkeley’s first building permit was issued in September 1904 and archives at BAHA have copies of the first year which ended in September 1905. Permit records from September 1905 through December 1908 have never been located. BAHA archives also has copies of permits Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 8 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
from January 1909 through December 1946. [The City started again with No. 1 in April 1909 when the Town of Berkeley became the City of Berkeley.] However, copies of later records do have permit
information for work done later on the properties. In 1925, A.H. Broad did an extensive remodel of 2037-39 Francisco and in 1927, he did the same for 2033-35. He also performed work on 2041 Francisco during this time. While it is unknown if A.H.
Broad was the original architect and builder of Underwoods’ residential properties, there is a high likelihood that he could have been given the high-quality of construction each structure exhibited and his association with Underwood in other areas of Berkeley society.
A.H. BROAD
Berkeley Historical Society
Broad and Underwood were contemporaries in many aspects of Berkeley’s early history and they had similar interests and affiliations. Both served on the Berkeley’s Board of Trustees contemporaneously, both were significantly involved in local real estate, and both had strong ties to Berkeley’s Odd Fellows Lodge.
Alphonso Herman Broad (1851–1930) came to Berkeley in 1877, on the eve of the town’s incorporation, and immediately took an active part in its civic life. In 1878, Broad was elected to Berkeley’s first board of trustees served for two crucial years in which the board put in place our property assessment mapping system. From 1887-88, Broad would serve as town marshal and ex-officio Superintendent of Streets (Thompson, Daniella). Obviously, Broad and Underwood shared many political activities
For many years, Broad’s office was located on the east side of Shattuck Avenue (then Stanford Place) between Center and Addison, across the street from the SP station. His display ad in the 1894 directory proclaimed:
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 9 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
The Odd Fellows Hall mentioned in the ad had been built by Broad, like Underwood, an active Odd Fellows himself. [The building was razed to make way for the Mason-McDuffie headquarters on the corner of Shattuck Avenue and Addison Street.] Around the corner, in 1905, Underwood built his office building at 2110 Addison. It would be reasonable to assume the two renowned neighbors, an active builder and a real estate afficionado, transacted at least some business together. At the very least, given the stature of Underwood in the Odd Fellow Lodge, Brother Broad would have shared his business interests with his Brother Underwood.
It would not be unreasonable to speculate that A.H. Broad was involved with the construction of B.E. Underwood’s original residential properties given their shared activities in politics, business, and the Odd Fellows Lodge. What we do know is that in 1925-27, Broad performed large-scale remodels or alterations on both 2033 and 2037 Francisco and it would be logical to assume that he might also have been their original architect and/or builder.
16. SIGNIFICANCE
Historic Value: City & Neighborhood
Architectural Value: County & City & Neighborhood
CRITERIA FOR BERKELEY LANDMARKS
Berkeley’s Criteria for Landmark eligibility follows the standards of the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CR). To be eligible for listing on the NR or CR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. The Registers evaluate the significance of a resource on the following four criteria:
Criterion 1 - Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of Berkeley or California or the United States;
Criterion 2 - Associated with the lives of persons important to Berekely, California or national history;
Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 10 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
An analysis of 2035 Francisco Street in respect to these Criteria follows:
CRITERION 1 - Events
Under Criterion 1, research indicates that the subject property has association with patterns and events that made significant contributions to local and regional history.
The property at 2035 Francisco is associated with the development of multi-unit dwellings at the turn of the Century in the East Bay and in downtown Berkeley’s north business district - centered around Vine and Shattuck - in particular. In the early 1900s, Berkeley experienced a dramatic increase in population. The rise of the streetcar system in the late nineteenth century, especially along Shattuck Avenue, stimulated residential building along its routes. After the earthquake in 1906, an influx of 20,000 residents moved permanently to Berkeley. At the same time, the expanding University required accommodations for its students and professors. The four flats constructed by B.E.
Underwood at 2033-35 and 2037-39 Francisco are examples of a landowner constructing dwellings to accommodate the need for housing in this burgeoning neighborhood.
Under Criterion 1, the property at 2035 Francisco is eligible for listing as a Berkeley landmark.
CRITERION 2 - Persons
Under Criterion 2, research conducted for 2035 Francisco Street yielded substantial information regarding individuals associated with this property.
The owner of the property, Byron E. Underwood, was an important figure in Berkeley’s early history at the turn of the Century. As a Board of Trustee member, he exerted influence over the City’s civic development. A businessman who owned a number of properties throughout the City and served on various bank boards and commissions, he was also a well-respected member of the economic community. Lastly, Underwood was a state leader of California’s Odd Fellows as well as an original founding member of Berkeley’s Odd Fellows and Rebekah Lodges.
The property is also associated with Alphonso H. Broad, one of Berkeley’s most renowned builders at the turn of the Century. He was an architect and master builder of numerous Victorian (especially Eastlake Cottages), Colonial and Arts & Crafts buildings Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 11 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
throughout town. Over the course of five decades, Broad not only supervised construction of a large number of structures in all parts of Berkeley but also designed many of them.
Consequently, the property is eligible for listing as a Berkeley landmark under Criterion 2.
CRITERION 3 - Design
Under Criterion 3, the subject property has association with an architectural style that is worthy of preserving for its value to the neighborhood. It is also associated with a master builder of the period.
2035 Francisco Street embodies the characteristics of a Colonial Revival Style, a distinct hybrid of a 1-story Neoclassical Rowhouse and a 2-story Eastern Shingle Cottage. Rowhouses and Cottages were important smaller residential styles in the East Bay from about 1895 until about 1915 for families who didn’t need a ten room home. The building is the work of a well- known local builder, A.H. Broad, and it has retained all its important features and integrity.
Consequently, under Criterion 3, the property is eligible for listing as a Berkeley landmark.
CRITERION 4 - Information
Under Criterion 4, a property might be significant if it has potential to yield information about the state or nation’s prehistory or history. This type of research is beyond the scope of this evaluation and further investigation may be necessary to determine significance. However, similar construction in the vicinity has revealed no important archeological information so the property does not appear to be eligible as a Berkeley Landmark under this criterion.
In conclusion, 2035 Francisco Street is eligible for listing as a Berkeley landmark because it has historic significance under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 and it has retained its physical integrity, i.e., the building has retained its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and is able to convey its historic context.
The building’s California Historical Resource Status Code is 5S2 (see Appendix C).
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 12 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
17. Is Property Engangered: No
18. Photographs:
Current: Jerri Holan
Historical: Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association Archives Repositories:
a) Alameda County Assessor’s Records;
b) City of Berkeley Building Permit Records;
c) Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association Archives; d) University of California Archives;
e) California Digital Newspaper Collection (https://cdnc.ucr.edu) f) Newspapers.com;
g) Ancestry.com;
h) Library of Congress Sanborn Map Collection.
19. Bibliography:
Cerny, Susan Dinkelspiel, Berkeley Landmarks, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, 2001
McAlester, Virginia, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2015 Oakland Planning Department, Rehab Right, City of Oakland, Oakland, 1978 Thompson, Daniella, “Builder-artist A.H. Broad left his mark on Berkeley,” Berkeley Then and Now, 6 February 2007 & 6 August 2009
Berkeley Gazette, 1895 - 1965
Oakland Tribune, 1925 - 1950
San Francisco Call, 1893 - 1950
20. Recorders:
Jerri Holan, FAIA Jerri Holan & Associates, 2024
David & Toni Pinck Owners, 2024
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 13 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
APPENDIX A
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 14 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
APPENDIX B
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 15 of 16
LANDMARK APPLICATION
2035 Francisco Street, Berkeley, California
APPENDIX C
Jerri Holan, FAIA September 9, 2024 Page 16 of 16
INFORMATION CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Hono
rable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: City Auditor Fiscal Year 2026 Audit Plan
INTRODUCTION
The Berkeley City Charter requires the City Auditor to provide the City Council with a planned audit schedule by the beginning of each fiscal year (FY) and to notify the Council when audits are added. In deciding what to audit, our office considers suggestions from the City Manager, staff, the City Council, the Rent Stabilization Board, commissioners, and other community members. We examine risks that might prevent the City from reaching its goals, including strategic, financial, regulatory, operational, and reputational risks.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As required by the City Charter, we are notifying the Council of our annual audit plan. The following plan assumes being fully staffed to conduct these audits.
For FY 2026, we have identified areas we aim to address in the upcoming year:
• Homelessness (audit to be released in July)
• Contracts (audit in progress)
• Rent Stabilization Board
• Fiscal condition
• Follow-up on prior audit recommendations
• Short-term projects
• Whistleblower Program
BACK
GROUND
The mission of the Berkeley City Auditor is to promote transparency and accountability in Berkeley government. This is achieved through independent evaluations of City programs and activities. The FY 2026 Audit Plan reflects our office’s commitment to continuous improvement by enhancing the overall impact of the Berkeley City Auditor’s Office on behalf of Berkeley residents, businesses, and visitors.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CL
IMATE IMPACTS
This report is not associated with identifiable environmental effects or opportunities.
POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Our future audit recommendations will address the risks that could prevent the City from providing efficient, effective, and equitable service delivery. We will be asking the Council to accept those
22
recommendations and request that the City Manager report on their actions to implement them.
We may also make recommendations requiring Council action.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Audit work can lead to new or enhanced revenue, cost recovery, and increased efficiency, with economic impact well beyond the audit costs. Long-range financial benefits of our audits include significant improvements to internal controls and service delivery.
Ensuring timely implementation of audit recommendations could result in additional savings and risk reduction, including fraud risk. Reducing fraud risk more than protects money; it builds trust in government. Maintaining a strong audit function and fiscal management will reduce future costs and enhance public trust.
CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, 510-981-6750
Attachment:
1. Audit Plan Fiscal Year 2026
Inside
Letter from the Auditor
Planned Engagements
Plan Description
Audit Selection Process
Auditor’s Authority
2 As the Berkeley City Auditor, I am pleased to present to you the audit plan for fiscal year (FY) 2026. This plan outlines the key areas of focus for the City Auditor's Office, including ongoing work, new initiatives, and the allocation of resources to ensure transparency, accountability, and effective governance. In light of the City’s fiscal challenges, my office will continue to work to ensure City dollars are spent responsibly and in accordance with Berkeley values.
Our office conducts performance audits of city functions, where we evaluate city programs to determine their effectiveness and compliance with local laws and regulations. Our goal with each audit is to ensure that the City is using taxpayer dollars efficiently and equitably to deliver high-quality services. We aim to initiate the engagements identified in the audit plan during the fiscal year. Our capacity to initiate and complete projects this fiscal year will depend on available resources.
At the beginning of fiscal year 2025, my office released an award-winning restaurant inspections audit, which has already led the department inspecting all high and very high risk facilities that were not inspected in 2023. We also conducted substantive follow-up on our past audits to ensure the City appropriately implemented recommendations and addressed the identified risks. In addition to our regular audit follow-up process, we also completed a follow-up report on the leases audit our office released in 2009. To address the continued risks, we re-opened 8 recommendations including developing a complete central inventory of licenses and leases. We also continued the implementation of our new Whistleblower program, launching the program internally and educating staff on how to identify and report concerns.
Building upon these accomplishments, we have developed the FY 2026 audit plan to address areas of concern and further strengthen the governance and fiscal responsibility of the City of Berkeley during this budget deficit. In FY 2026, we will continue our ongoing audit of contracts and release an audit of homelessness. We also plan to initiate new audits related to the Rent Stabilization Board and the City’s fiscal condition, depending on staff capacity.
We will continue to perform follow-up work on audit recommendations to determine if the City has properly implemented them. I will also continue to devote office resources to completing the launch of the Whistleblower Program.
I am dedicated to our office’s mission of promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.
During this uncertain time, I look forward to working with City leadership, staff and the public to provide transparent, rigorous analysis to inform the tough decisions ahead on the issues that matter most to Berkeley residents.
Respectfully,
JENNY WONG
City Auditor
3 Rent Stabilization
Board
The Auditor’s Office will conduct an audit examining the Rent Stabilization Board’s finances or operations.
Fiscal Condition The Auditor’s Office will assess the City’s financial health. This analysis may examine the City’s overall financial condition or focus on specific funds, departments, or program areas, depending on identified risks and priorities.
Follow-Up The Auditor’s Office will continue to track and follow up on all audit recommendations to determine if they are properly implemented. We will continue to publish an online public dashboard to increase transparency and accountability of the implementation status of open audit recommendations.1 See page 4 for more details.
This process may lead to follow-up audits in areas where risks identified in the original audit have not been mitigated.
Short-Term Projects In order to be responsive to the needs of the City and the public, we may engage in short-term projects to provide timely and relevant information and analysis to the City and community.
Ongoing Engagements The Auditor’s Office will continue our audit of contracts and release our audit of homelessness.
Whistleblower
Program
Implementation and
Anti-Fraud Focus
The Auditor’s Office is continuing implementation of the Whistleblower Program, which provides a confidential way for employees and members of the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse by City departments, employees, or contractors. Over the past year, we developed policies and procedures, launched the program internally, and began educating staff on how to identify and report concerns. This fiscal year, we will open the program to the public, expand outreach, and continue to promote a culture of integrity and accountability. See page 5 for more details. 1 City Auditor’s Recommendation Dashboard—bit.ly/AuditRecDashboard
4 In fiscal year 2026, the Auditor’s Office will follow up on 65 open recommendations from 9 audits. We will use the following statuses to report on the implementation of audit recommendations:
• Implemented: auditee has addressed the audit risk by completely implementing the recommendation.
• Partly implemented: auditee has implemented 50 percent or more of the recommendation. • Started: the auditee has started to address the recommendation but has not reached the 50 percent threshold.
• Not started: auditee has not yet taken action to implement the recommendation. • Dropped: the auditee has accepted the risk to the City that the recommendation is meant to address and is unable or unwilling to implement the recommendation. Additionally, all open recommendations will be reported as dropped if they are not implemented within five years of audit issuance.
As of July 1st, 2025, there are 65 open recommendations from 9 audits across 5 departments as well as the Library, and Mayor and Council.
Note: The graph only shows open recommendations our office is still following up on. Implemented and dropped recommendations are considered closed. The status for all recommendations is on our dashboard.
Source: Berkeley City Auditor
5 The Whistleblower Program will include a confidential hotline for reporting fraud, waste, and abuse in city government 24/7, 365 days of the year. The hotline is currently available to all city employees, contractors, and vendors. Once sufficient staff resources are in place, the program will expand to accept reports from the broader Berkeley community. To protect whistleblowers, city policy protects city employees from retaliatory acts.
Authority and Independence
State legislation encourages cities to specifically focus on fraud, waste, and/or misuse of city resources through whistleblower programs led by city auditors. In 2009, California Government Code Section 53087.6 enabled local government auditors to establish whistleblower programs and to provide whistleblower protections. Local auditors are authorized under Section 53087.6 to create whistleblower programs with the approval of their respective legislative bodies, and have discretion in how to operate their programs. In June 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,922 formally establishing the City Auditor’s authority to receive and investigate whistleblower reports.
The Berkeley City Auditor maintains a level of structural independence well-suited for a whistleblower program, as they are elected by the public and do not report to the City Manager or Council. The City Auditor is well-positioned due to their role in providing objective information on the operations of government programs and helping ensure full accountability to the public.
Implementation Plan
6 The mission of the Berkeley City Auditor is to promote transparency and accountability in Berkeley government. This is achieved through independent evaluations of city programs and activities. The Fiscal Year 2026 Audit Plan reflects the office’s steadfast commitment to continuous improvement by enhancing the overall impact of the Berkeley City Auditor’s Office on behalf of Berkeley residents, businesses, and visitors.
Auditing Under the City Charter
The Charter provides that the Auditor shall have the authority to conduct:
• Performance and financial audits or special studies of all phases of the City of Berkeley government in accordance with government auditing standards; • Financial, compliance, efficiency and economy, and program results auditing; and • Examinations of payrolls, bills, and other claims and demands made against the City.
The FY 2026 Audit Plan ensures broad audit coverage throughout the City while also addressing specific performance, financial, contractual, and system risks. Audit resources are limited, thus prohibiting one hundred percent coverage each year. This significant limiting factor is inherent in the concept of using risk assessment to help prioritize audits. According to the City Charter, the ultimate decision to perform any audit shall be at the sole discretion of the Auditor. Our approach to scheduling audits is flexible and subject to change throughout the year based on newly identified risks.
Audit Follow-Up Program
Audit follow-up activities are conducted for every audit to assess whether city personnel implemented the agreed-upon audit recommendations. The Auditor’s Office issues follow-up audit reports to City Council on the status of our recommendations. We also maintain a public dashboard with the status of audit recommendations. Our office measures the audit recommendation implementation rate as an indicator of the degree to which the City is using information provided by our audit reports to mitigate identified risks and to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of operations. Our expectation is that the City should take no more than two years to implement our audit recommendations, unless specified.
Focus on Integrity, Independence, Impact, and Equity
The concepts of integrity, independence, impact, and equity are core tenets of operations within the Berkeley City Auditor’s Office. Although the Auditor operates independently from other city entities, Auditor Wong and staff meet regularly with the Mayor, City Council, city personnel, neighborhood groups, and civic leaders to solicit input regarding risks. The objective of this strategy is to improve services and stewardship of city resources, with a focus on ensuring equitable access and outcomes for the Berkeley community.
7 Developing an annual Audit Plan is an iterative process, conducted by assembling ideas from a variety of internal and external stakeholders, examining a broad range of City programs and activities, and assessing risk factors together with additional considerations. This approach results in a diverse list of departments, programs, and activities that are examined to determine whether they are operating efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with the law and other requirements.
In developing a list of potential audits, ideas come from a variety of sources:
• Input from the community, elected officials, department staff, and City management; • Assessment of operations and controls in previous audit reports; • Assessment of citywide risks;
• Consideration of current local events, financial conditions, capital improvement projects, and public policy issues; and
• Consideration of risks identified in other government audits that could emerge in Berkeley.
Our office identifies and prioritizes potential audits and other assessments using a risk-based approach that examines a variety of factors that may expose the City to fraud, misuse of funds, waste, liability, or reputational harm. The following risk factors are used to determine the audits included in the audit plan:
• Perception of risk from management, City Council, the community, and audit staff; • Economic factors such as financial impact, volume of transactions, number of personnel, and revenue generated;
• Changes in organization, management, key personnel, and information systems; and • Time since last audit.
After the plan is finalized, new information may come to light; events, initiatives, priorities, and risks within the City may change. The flexible nature of the Audit Plan as a living document provides the ability to change course when it is in the best interest of the City.
8 The Berkeley City Auditor's Office provides independent oversight of city operations. Audits, conducted by the Office, provide the City Manager, City Council, and the public with objective, timely, and accurate information about city program performance. By providing this information and making recommendations for improvement, the Office helps to hold government accountable in its stewardship of public resources.
Berkeley City Charter, Section 61, establishes this independence and provides for the Auditor’s general authority and duties. The Charter also establishes the duty to present a planned audit schedule to City Council at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Several key components serve as the cornerstone for Berkeley’s auditing framework. These elements provide the Auditor with the independence that results in the office’s ability to conduct high-impact audits.
Elected Auditor — The City of Berkeley has an elected Auditor who is independent from all other elected officials and City management.
Comprehensive Access — The City Charter and Municipal Code authorize the Auditor to have unrestricted access to all officials, employees, records, and reports maintained by the City, and to all external entities, records, and personnel related to contracted business interactions with the City.
Audit Response Requirements — City Municipal Code requires that City management formally respond to all audit findings and recommendations, establishing the Auditor’s ability to work in conjunction with audited departments while maintaining independence.
Recommendation Follow-up Requirements — City Municipal Code establishes the Auditor’s authority to follow-up on audit recommendations as practical to determine if the City Manager is implementing corrective action, and request periodic reports on the status of audit recommendations from city management. The Auditor determines the adequacy, effectiveness, and timeliness of management’s actions to correct reported issues and recommendations.
Adherence to Professional Auditing Standards — As a requirement in the City Charter, the Auditor’s Office conducts all audits in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards produced by the United States Government Accountability Office.
2180 Milvia Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, California 94704 510-981-6750
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits
Communications
All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/
To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:
1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”
2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting
3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)
4. Click the “Search” button
5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned
6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF