Berkeley Street Sweeping
Evaluation of Alternatives



This section outlines two alternatives to incorporate the objectives of the CWP to the local SSP which includes the opt out process. Preliminary cost estimates of additional resources for each alternative were formulated and analyzed. These costs are summarized in Table 2. Finally, an evaluation matrix procedure was used to compare and evaluate the alternatives. This matrix is given in Table 3.


The "do nothing" alternative would not fulfill both CWP and SSP objectives. An evaluation of this alternative would have limited value as continued implementation could be seen as non-compliance. Therefore, this alternative should at the very least include the following modifications:

    • 1) accept no more opt out requests;
    • 2) establish consistent "cleanliness" standards for streets that have petitioned out of the SSP;
    • 3) maintain regular inspections of the streets that have petitioned out of the SSP; and
    • 4) increase public education and information (I.e., parking ticket inserts, signage on mechanical street sweepers).

Continued acceptance of opt out requests taxes existing resources. Staff time is spent processing, removing signage, rescheduling street sweeping routes, and inspecting additional streets. Residents were given adequate time to garner petitions-this window was February 1992.

One condition of the streets that petitioned out of the SSP is that the responsibility to clean the street would be borne by the residents. Regular Inspections would be conducted. However, due to limited resources, the enforcement has not been vigorously implemented. The rules and responsibilities need better definition to ensure that residents do not sweep or hose debris into the nearby storm inlet. Residents also need to understand the areal extent of their street for cleaning. Instruction should also be given as to how they will be reintroduced into the SSP if their responsibility is found lacking. Furthermore, staff also needs to define what constitutes a "low litter area" and what constitutes excessive noise since these as criteria determine whether or not an area is eligible to opt out.

Many streets in the city were excluded from the SSP because of the narrow and windy road conditions, and curbless streets. Services for these streets were provided by the local Leaf Removal Program. In addition, specific residential streets within the SSP and within a "heavy leaf fall area" have services provided by the Leaf Removal Program. The goals of both the SSP and Leaf Removal Program, and existing staff resources are taxed when an opt out street receives benefits from both programs. A policy should be established to ensure that this imbalance does not occur. Current staffing is inadequate to implement the Leaf Removal Program on a regular basis.

Implementation of this alternative with the aforementioned modifications will require about 1.5 full time employee (FTE). The cost estimate associated with this alternative is about $214,000. The equipment costs include an additional mechanical street sweeper at $150,000 as present sweepers are taxed by current operations; and replacement signs at $11,000 annually. The sign replacement cost was not initially included in the startup of the program, but approximately 240 signs per year are defaced, damaged, or removed. Parking enforcement cannot be implemented without posted signs. Labor costs to replace signs is assumed to be handled by existing staff. The increased efforts in public education and information could be handled by current staff involved in the CWP and Clean City Program.


This alternative would ensure complete participation by all city residents. A huge effort in public education and information is anticipated in the startup of this alternative. Other associated BMPs may include additional sweeping resources, additional sweeper
maintenance, emphasis on optimal sweeper operations, additional signage, and increased efforts in the Leaf Removal Program. Current public education and information efforts for the CWP would be increased through the CWP and the Clean City Program. The Clean City Program is a comprehensive one that encompasses the following components from current local programs: clean storm water (CWP), solid waste management, .graffiti abatement, increased litter control in the visible commercial districts, recycling, city beautification, downtown plan, etc. The Clean City Program is managed out of Public Works.

The cost estimate associated with this alternative is $205,000. Implementation will require 1.0 FTE to operate the sweeper, install additional signage, reroute schedules, and perform leaf removal; one additional street sweeper ($150,000); annual sign replacement costs at $11,000; and additional signs for the opt out blocks ($9,000). The labor costs for installing signs in the opt out blocks is approximately $2,000 for the first year only and to replace signs annually has not been included. These labor costs were assumed to be handled by current staffing resources. The increased efforts in public education and information could be handled by current staff involved in the CWP and Clean City Program.



An evaluation matrix procedure was used to compare and evaluate the alternatives on criteria other than cost. Table 2 outlines cost estimates associated for additional efforts. However, other criteria dealing with City policy, aesthetics, compatibility with existing
programs, public acceptability, economic attraction to commerce, and liveability need to be addressed. These criteria were evaluated to determine an overall rating for each alternative.

The evaluation of each criterion was done on a positive, negative, or neutral rating. Positive (+) indicates that the alternative would have a favorable or least negative impact upon the element. Negative (-) indicates an unfavorable or most negative impact; and
neutral (0) indicates no significant or no effect on the element. This rating is used to evaluate each alternative in relation to the other alternatives. The rating factor does not denote a meaning in relation to projects in other locales.

The following criteria were established for evaluation purposes.

    • 1. Compliance with the CWP An assessment was made of the additional compliance efforts beyond a basic effort.
    • 2. Compliance with the SSP An assessment was made of additional debris volume and street sweeping distance beyond initial goals using current resources.
    • 3. Public Acceptability An assessment was made of public reaction to the alternative based on parking Inconvenience and signage.
    • 4. Public Information An assessment was made on the relative impact on increasing public awareness of the CWP.
    • 5. Aesthetics The impact of implementation of the alternative to street cleanliness and litter control.
    • 6. Water Quality Impacts The relative impact of implementation of an alternative on the quality of water in the storm drain system.
    • 7. Compatibility An assessment was made of the compatibility of the alternative to other programs.
    • 8. Staff Resources The relative Impact of implementation of an alternative tostaff resources.
    • 9. Commercial Draw An assessment was made of the impact to businesses and visitors to the City.
      10. Liyeability The relative impact of an alternative to attract future citizens and foster stewardship of the environment.


The SSP is primarily funded by the General Fund and Clean Storm Water fees. The City of Oakland also has enforced parking which generates enough revenue to support their street sweeping program. Oakland sweeps residential areas twice a month, performs regular street inspections, and accepts opt out requests. It Is recommended that additional funding to implement either alternative should come from the parking revenues due to street sweeping.


The alternatives for street sweeping include related BMPs to enhance street sweeping. However, there are many other BMPs currently implemented in the City that are not listed within each alternative because they do not pertain to street sweeping. These other BMPs are:

    • 1) industrial inspections with attention to storage of taxies, handling of taxies,
      identification of Illicit discharges and connections, and elimination of illicit discharges;
    • 2) staff training on good housekeeping and other management practices;
    • 3) public information and participation with our storm drain inlet stenciling by volunteers, public event participation by staff (Earth Day, Bay Festival), and public information material to residents, contractors, and businesses; and
    • 4) interdepartmental coordination to implement and enforce compliance to the CWP.


Storm water concerns were added into the industrial inspections performed by the Toxics Management staff a few years ago. As to date, this group has provided information and enforced many businesses not in compliance. This group also responds to illicit discharges, and illegal dumping as notified by the public and City staff. Recently, the Environmental Health division has added storm water concerns into their inspections of food retail Training Street sweeper operators are licensed and must undergo training. The course covers City Training is taught by the street cleaning supervisor and experienced staff.

There are currently 4 licensed operators for the 3 mechanical sweepers to perform the residential, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) were prepared for the Solid Waste Transfer Station, and Corporation Yard. The first SWPPP was required as part of the industrial NPDES permit for the Transfer Station, but the summary of appropriate BMPs for the facility also served as a guidance manual leading to a SWPPP for the Corporation Yard. Preparation of these plans involved discussion, site visits, and review with the appropriate supervisors. Generally, the objectives and practices were already In place as the objectives of the CWP overlap other existing programs.

Public Information and Participation

Increased public awareness and education on urban runoff pollution issues is the goal of this program that Includes: storm drain stenciling, school education, event participation, and preparation and distribution of literature. The stenciling in the City is done solely by volunteer efforts. The ACURCWP supports the Kids in Creek workshops and Bay Savers Club. A local mailing of both programs by staff have been sent to schools within Berkeley. Information on urban runoff pollution has been publicized in public events such as Earth Day, Bay Festival, Beach Cleanup, and the Alameda County fair. Some future Items are the "EcoMaster" computer game that we hope to have in schools, public libraries, and Civic Center lobby; and a public service announcement that can be modified for Berkeley.

Inter-departmental Coordination

The Engineering Division has met with utilities that do work within the city. Staff has requested that these utilities identify, outline, and submit appropriate field management practices. Public Works and Toxics Management have coordinated efforts dealing with enforcement, public education, cleanup, and protocol. The Engineering Division is now working with Planning to coordinate issues relating to new development and erosion controls.

Berkeley Citizen © 2003-2019
All Rights Reserved