Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Sweeping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Covina council delays enforcement, orders contract review after weeks of public complaints about street-sweeping rollout
Summary
After a staff status report that logged 198 resident concerns about signage, scheduling and permit-parking conflicts, the West Covina City Council unanimously directed staff to negotiate amendments with the city's street-sweeping contractor and suspended enforcement until routes and signage are corrected.
The West Covina City Council on July 7 agreed to pause enforcement of a recently expanded weekly street-sweeping program and directed city staff to pursue contract amendments with the vendor after weeks of public outcry about missing signs, confusing schedules and hardship for households without off-street parking.
Councilwoman (full name not provided in the record) moved to have staff negotiate adjustments to the city's agreement with Nationwide Environmental Services to explore alternate days, times and zone configurations; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously. City Manager (name not provided) told the council that staff will analyze alternatives, examine what comparable cities do and return with recommendations.
The city's staff presentation detailed the rollout history and community feedback. CIP project manager Robert Ortega, engineer Brian Cervantes and public-safety manager Matt Araiza reported that staff logged 198 separate concerns for engineering review: 48 requests for alternate-side schedules, 30 instances of incorrect-day postings, 101 missing signs, 18 outdated signs and one report of damaged signage. Staff recommended installing 1,227 additional signs and updating the street-sweeping GIS layer before beginning enforcement.
“We will not begin issuing citations until the city can get this right,” City Manager (unnamed) said, describing a process that will include revised maps, public notice on social media and the city website, and continued field reviews.
Residents who spoke during the oral-communications period told the council the program had been implemented with inconsistent signage and inadequate outreach. John Rodriguez, a resident who opened the public-comment sequence, said signs had not been changed despite earlier council action and submitted a neighborhood petition. “My wife and our elderly neighbors cannot keep moving cars four times a month,” Rodriguez said, urging adoption of alternate-day schedules.
Other residents described practical hardships: Dana Sykes said some households house multiple working adults and care facilities rely on street parking for staff who cannot leave patients unattended; Hector Galan described streets where sweepers passed but little cleaning occurred. Multiple speakers questioned earlier staff cost estimates for switching to alternate-day sweeping, with one resident calling a prior $3–4 million figure “not believable.”
Council members pressed staff on permit-parking conflicts where existing permit restrictions (overnight or specified hours) could clash with daytime sweeping. Mayor Pro Tem Contos urged preserving permits that were the result of prior resident petitions, and the council asked staff to be careful not to displace permit holders.
Before voting on the contract-amendment motion, Contos proposed reverting to the sweeping schedule that existed before January 2025; that measure failed on a roll call (aye: Councilmember Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Contos; no: Councilman Wu, Councilwoman Diaz, Mayor Letty Lopez Viado).
City staff said signage placement will continue so the physical signs are in place and can be adjusted with magnetic date/time plates or stickers as routes are finalized. The city manager said staff had already concurred with 168 of the logged concerns and that outreach materials and a revised online map will accompany any future enforcement.
The council’s action requires staff to negotiate with Nationwide on timing and configuration, to study alternate approaches used by similar cities, and to return with a detailed recommendation. The council also reaffirmed that no citations are being issued at this time and emphasized expanded outreach to gather resident input. The item was received and filed as a status report; staff was directed to return with options for council consideration.
The council did not set a specific deadline for staff return but the city manager said he would report back at or before the next council meeting with a timeframe for a full analysis.
