COUNCIL AGENDA : 10/20/2026
FILE : 26-1112
ITEM : 3.3
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Toni Taber, MMC
City Clerk
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: October 16, 2026
SUBJECT: Vehicle Abatement Audit Report
Recommendation
As recommended by the Transportation and Environment Committee on October 5, 2026, accept the audit report on vehicle abatement.
CEQA: Not a Project, File No. PP17-009, Staff Reports, Assessments, Annual Reports, and Informational Memos that involve no approvals of any City action. (City Auditor) [Transportation and Environment Committee referral 10/5/2026 - Item (d)1] Office of the City Auditor
Report to the City Council
City of San José
VEHICLE ABATEMENT:
IMPROVEMENTS TO
TIMELINESS, OVERSIGHT,
AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
CAN ENHANCE THE
VEHICLE ABATEMENT
PROGRAM
Report 26-06
September 2026
This page was intentionally left blank
200 E. Santa Clara Street, San José, CA 95113
Telephone: (408) 535-1250 Email: [email protected] Website: www.sanjoseca.gov/auditor/ Office of the City Auditor
Joe Rois, City Auditor
September 28, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members
Of the City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Vehicle Abatement: Improvements to Timeliness, Oversight, and Customer Service Can Enhance the Vehicle Abatement Program
Abandoned vehicles have consistently been a concern for San José residents. The Department of Transportation (DOT), through its Vehicle Abatement program, is responsible for identifying vehicles that are potentially abandoned, inoperable, or present significant health, safety, or extreme blight concerns. The program is designed to encourage vehicle owners to comply with the state vehicle code by moving their vehicles. However, if DOT staff determine that a vehicle is in violation of the law, DOT can authorize it to be towed.
Between July 2025 and March 2026, there were about 10,000 vehicle abatement cases either submitted by residents through SJ311 or identified proactively by DOT staff. The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Vehicle Abatement program, including timeliness, program goals, and communications with residents.
Finding 1: The Vehicle Abatement Program Meets Case Closure Goals But Can Better Align Resources and Performance Targets with Service Demand. Between July 2025 and March 2026, the Vehicle Abatement program closed 98 percent of cases within 14 days and 80 percent through voluntary compliance, meeting both performance goals. We found:
• DOT should consider program changes to
expedite case closures in the context of
budget considerations and impacts on vehicle
owners, such as clarifying towing guidelines for
vehicles with expired registrations or multiple
safety or blight-related conditions.
• Between October 2025 and April 2026,
proactive patrols covered an average of 57
percent of city streets within the program’s
14-day target.
• DOT can better align some performance goals
and measures with current program
operations.
Recommendations: To enhance
vehicle abatement services, DOT should:
→ Consider updating guidelines and
parameters to expedite towing
vehicles with multiple or specific
vehicle abatement qualifiers, including
expired registrations
→ Reassess proactive patrol targets and
use a data-driven approach for
proactive patrol assignments
→ Update performance measures to
better reflect current operations
4 Finding 2: The Vehicle Abatement Program Can Strengthen Documentation and Supervisory Review. The program has opportunities to enhance documentation and supervisory oversight to support effective program management. We found:
• PTCOs’ daily logs and vehicle activities did not
always align, and the number of case visits
varied across proactive patrol staff.
• More consistent daily activity reporting and
supervisory review practices would provide
greater visibility into staff activities and
program performance.
• DOT is currently exploring route and map
optimization tools to support proactive patrol
operations.
Finding 3: Better Customer Communications and Program Information Can Improve Transparency and Access. The Vehicle Abatement program can improve its communications around customer concerns by setting clear expectations and better informing customers of services. We found:
• SJ311 communication can better inform
customers about expected response times and
investigation outcomes.
• DOT can also better ensure consistency of
information about the Vehicle Abatement
program across communication channels.
• Some program information is not fully
translated into all languages required under the
City’s Language Equity Policy & Guidelines.
This report has 8 recommendations. We plan to present this report at the October 5, 2026 meeting of the Transportation and Environment Committee of the City Council. We would like to thank the Department of Transportation and the Information Technology Department for their time and insight during the audit process. The Administration has reviewed the information in this report, and their response is shown on the yellow pages.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Rois
City Auditor
Audit staff: Gitanjali Mandrekar Dilnoza Khudoyberganova Michael O’Connell Ebelechukwu Obi
cc: Jennifer Maguire John Ristow Khaled Tawfik Jim Shannon Manuel Pineda Susana Alcala Wood Rick Scott Heather Hoshii Claudia Chang Lee Wilcox Arian Collen Christian Bernal Matthew Tolnay This report is also available online at www.sanjoseca.gov/audits Recommendations: To improve access
to program information and services,
DOT should:
→ Review and align standardized messaging
across customer communication
channels
→ Fully translate the vehicle abatement
warning notice in accordance with the
City's Language Equity Policy &
Guidelines.
Recommendations: To improve how
vehicle abatement work is tracked and
overseen, DOT should:
→ Update guidelines and expectations for
tracking field activities and supervisory
review
→ Continue reviewing options for route
optimization tools for proactive patrol
Table of Contents
Cover Letter ........................................................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................................. 7 Finding 1
The Vehicle Abatement Program Meets Case Closure Goals But Can Better Align Resources and Performance Targets with Service Demand .... 15 DOT Closed Vehicle Abatement Cases in 6 Days on Average From July 2025 Through March 2026............................................................................................... 15 80 Percent of Cases Were Closed Through Voluntary Compliance ..................... 21 The Vehicle Abatement Program Did Not Meet Its Goal for Proactive Patrol of All City Streets................................................................................................... 21 Finding 2
The Vehicle Abatement Program Can Strengthen Documentation and Supervisory Review.............................................................................................. 27 The Vehicle Abatement Program Can Better Document and Track Daily Activity .................................................................................................................................. 27 Finding 3
Better Customer Communications and Program Information Can Improve Transparency and Access .................................................................... 31 Messaging and Vehicle Abatement Information Can Be Enhanced to Help Set Expectations and Inform Customers.............................................................................. 31 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 37 Appendix A
Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology...................................................... A-1 Administration’s Response................................................................. yellow pages Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Vehicle Abatement Consists of Proactive and Reactive Service Delivery Teams........................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 2: Residents Select the Circled Concern to Report a Potentially Abandoned Vehicle .................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 3: DOT’s Vehicle Abatement Program Addresses a Subset of SJ311 Vehicle Concerns...................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 4: Cases Closed Throughout the Vehicle Abatement Inspection Process Between July 2025 and March 2026........................................................................ 17 Exhibit 5: Proactive Patrol Coverage of City Streets Can Vary ......................... 22 Exhibit 6: Proactive Caseloads Varied Across Police Beats Between July 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026 ........................................................................................ 24 Exhibit 7: Example of a Daily Activity Report (DAR) .......................................... 28 Exhibit 8: Example From DOT’s Vehicle Abatement Webpage Explaining Circumstances for Immediate Towing of Inoperable Vehicles........................... 32 Exhibit 9: Example of SJ311 Standard Messaging................................................. 32 Exhibit 10: Examples of Information About the Vehicle Abatement Program Across Various Resources ....................................................................................... 34 7 Background
Abandoned vehicles have consistently been a concern for San José residents. Since the City Auditor’s annual Community Opinion Survey began in 2021, respondents have ranked abandoned vehicles as one of the top issues that led to dissatisfaction with the City’s response to code violations.
In accordance with state and City laws, vehicles may be removed if parked on public streets for extended periods, are inoperable, pose safety hazards, or constitute extreme blight. The Department of Transportation (DOT), through its Vehicle Abatement program, is responsible for identifying and towing abandoned vehicles from public streets.1 Not all vehicles parked on public streets are abandoned. Abandoned vehicles have specific indicators as defined by the Vehicle Abatement program, such as missing major vehicle components, significantly flat or missing tires, broken or missing windows, deployed airbags, unsecured doors or trunks, or other substantial signs of deterioration or inoperability.
Our review focused on DOT’s Vehicle Abatement program in its Parking Compliance Unit (PCU). The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Vehicle Abatement program, including timeliness, program goals, and communication with residents.
The Vehicle Abatement Program Is Part of the Parking Compliance Unit
The Vehicle Abatement program is part of the PCU's on-street parking enforcement program and deploys Parking and Traffic Control Officers (PTCOs) and contract staff to address abandoned vehicles. The program intends to provide equitable service across the city, which, according to DOT, means proactively patrolling every city street. The program also aims to balance voluntary compliance with tow enforcement and citations by encouraging vehicle owners to move or otherwise bring their vehicles into compliance through education and warnings.
The PCU aims to promote the safe, equitable, and efficient use of the public rightof-way by enforcing state and local parking laws. Along with investigating abandoned vehicles, the PCU offers a variety of other services. As shown in Exhibit 1, the Unit’s PTCOs conduct citywide patrols, enforce parking regulations, respond to San José 311 (SJ311) service requests, support pavement maintenance by enforcing temporary tow zones, conduct school safety patrols, and provide assistance for special events.
1 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement tows inoperable vehicles from private property. This process is conducted by Code Enforcement inspectors as a separate program. The San José Police Department manages the City’s agreement with private tow companies.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
8 Exhibit 1: Vehicle Abatement Consists of Proactive and Reactive Service Delivery Teams
Source: DOT’s Status Report to the Transportation and Environment Committee published on November 10, 2025.
Note: The rectangle highlights the Vehicle Abatement program. At the time of the audit, according to DOT staff, the Reactive team was supplemented by three, not two contract staff. The Proactive Citywide Parking Patrol team has a different operational focus than the Proactive Vehicle Abatement team, addressing parking violations such as red-curb, bike-lane, crosswalk, and curbramp obstructions.
In FY 2025-26, there was approximately $17.4 million budgeted for the PCU. Eight of the 55.5 budgeted full time equivalent (FTE) PTCOs were assigned to the Vehicle Abatement program.
Background
9 Vehicle Abatement Program’s Approach Emphasizes Voluntary Compliance
The Vehicle Abatement program is designed to encourage vehicle owners to voluntarily comply with the law by moving their vehicles. The Vehicle Abatement program serves two groups: individuals who report potentially abandoned vehicles, and the owners of those vehicles. As a result, the program tries to balance responding to service requests in a timely manner with ensuring vehicle owners are notified about applicable laws and are given an opportunity to comply.
However, if DOT staff determine that a vehicle is in violation, they may issue a citation, tow the vehicle, or occasionally both.
As discussed in Finding 1, most vehicles reported to DOT are voluntarily moved by the owner before enforcement action is necessary.
The Vehicle Abatement Program Consists of Two Elements
The program is driven by both customer complaints submitted through SJ311 and proactive patrols conducted by staff to identify potentially abandoned or inoperable vehicles.
• Reactive vehicle abatement responds to public requests made through the SJ311 mobile app or website. DOT contracts with a private vendor to supplement its vehicle abatement work. According to DOT staff, there are three contract staff assigned to the team.2 There is also one PTCO assigned to tow vehicles that meet certain criteria for inoperable vehicles or go through multiple inspections.
Contract staff conduct first inspections for reactive cases and second inspections for all abatement cases, including proactive cases. According to DOT, assigning second inspections to contract staff is more costeffective and allows for better use of PTCO resources. • Proactive vehicle abatement consists of five PTCOs, who patrol the city to identify vehicles that meet specific criteria for abandoned or inoperable vehicles, and one PTCO who tows legally eligible vehicles during the last inspection. Additionally, one PTCO supports highly impacted and often underreported areas affected by vehicle blight and non-compliant parking issues through a Hot Spot Enforcement program. The Hot Spot Enforcement program focuses on areas surrounding schools, auto-related businesses, and high population density neighborhoods within Equity Indexes 8, 9, and 10.3
2 According to DOT, contract staff have been used to support vehicle abatement work since 2017. 3 The Equity Index represents a sum of two indexes: race (percentage of Black, Indigenous and People of Color), and income (median household income), and is based on a scale of 2-10. Higher index scores signify higher proportions of people of color or lower household income.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
10 The Proactive Vehicle Abatement team receives seasonal help with proactive patrols from four staff in the Pavement Maintenance Support team during periods with fewer pavement projects, such as the winter months.
DOT tracks both reactive and proactive vehicle abatement cases in its centralized case management system. Reactive cases submitted through SJ311 are routed directly to the Vehicle Abatement program, while proactive cases are created directly by program staff in the system.
Residents Report Abandoned Vehicle Concerns Through the City’s SJ311
Between July 2025 and March 2026,4 there were about 10,000 vehicle abatement cases, of which about 3,650 were reactive cases reported by the public and about 6,350 were proactive cases.5 Residents report vehicle concerns through the SJ311 mobile app, website or the City’s customer service call center, which submits these requests into SJ311 on the caller’s behalf.6
Whether a SJ311 request is routed to the Vehicle Abatement program depends on how the customer categorizes the concern. Requests submitted under the “Poor condition of a vehicle parked on a city street” category in SJ311 initiate the vehicle abatement process as shown in Exhibit 2 below. Once the case is routed, customers receive automated updates on their service requests through status update emails and on the SJ311 platform.
4 To reflect recent changes to the Vehicle Abatement program and provide an accurate assessment of current operations, our audit relied on data for vehicle abatement cases received between July 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026. 5 This count includes an additional 348 cases which were outside vehicle abatement staff’s regular duties and responsibilities such as tow support work related to Police and Department of Motor Vehicles special operations. 6 The City is implementing a new SJ311 platform as part of its Organizational Change Management and Customer Experience Transformation initiatives. The new platform, scheduled for completion by the end of Q3 FY 2026-27, is expected to include enhanced features such as improved geotagging, larger photo uploads, and customer notifications.
Background
11 Exhibit 2: Residents Select the Circled Concern to Report a Potentially Abandoned Vehicle
Source: Screenshot of the San José 311 webpage for submitting vehicle concerns.
The Vehicle Abatement Program Handles a Subset of Vehicle Concerns Residents may submit myriad vehicle-related service requests through the SJ311 platform. While most of these cases are directed to DOT, the Vehicle Abatement program handles only complaints related to potentially abandoned or inoperable vehicles on public streets. As shown in Exhibit 3, other SJ311 requests may go to the Illegal Parking or Extended Parking Stay (discontinued) programs within PCU.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
12 Exhibit 3: DOT’s Vehicle Abatement Program Addresses a Subset of SJ311 Vehicle Concerns
Source: Auditor visualization based on the SJ311 Vehicle Concerns Performance Metrics Dashboard. *Note: While DOT stopped responding to Extended Parking Stay cases in FY 2025-2026, SJ311 did not stop accepting tickets for the Extended Parking Stay program until July 2026.
In FY 2025-26, the Vehicle Abatement program accounted for 30 percent of the overall DOT-related cases, compared with 20 percent for Illegal Parking and 50 percent for the now-discontinued Extended Parking Stay program. According to DOT, the Extended Parking Stay program was discontinued in FY 2025-26, but customers were able to submit SJ311 tickets until July 2026.
Other City Departments Also Respond to Vehicle-Related Concerns Depending on the nature of the concern, other City departments also respond to vehicle-related concerns submitted through SJ311 and assist vehicle abatement with certain cases. For example, the Vehicle Abatement program coordinates with the San José Police Department (SJPD) on lived-in or stolen vehicles; Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services’ (PRNS) BeautifySJ on lived-in vehicles associated with trash; and the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) on inoperable or unwanted vehicles on private property.
State and Local Laws Regulate Response to Abandoned Vehicles The Vehicle Abatement program tows vehicles under the authority of the “72- hour rule” for missing parts needed to operate on public streets, or for having expired registration.
• The San José Municipal Code §11.36.220 reflects the California Vehicle Code (CVC) §22651, and states that vehicles cannot be parked or left standing on any street or alley for more than 72 consecutive hours.
Additionally, any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for 72 consecutive hours must be moved at least two-tenths (2/10) of a mile (approximately 1,000 feet).7 7 DOT does not currently enforce the 2/10-mile rule, as outlined in the Municipal Code. Per staff, this is due to the inability to track such vehicle movement.
Background
13 • Under CVC § 22669(d), vehicles lacking an engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other part or equipment necessary to operate safely on public streets may be removed immediately upon discovery.
• Using expired registration as tow authority allows vehicle abatement staff to tow an abandoned vehicle if it has expired registration; it does not mean they patrol for expired registration.8 While CVC §22651 authorizes towing after six months of expired registration, DOT tows after one year and issues citations between six months and one year.
The Vehicle Abatement Program Has Changed Since Our 2018 Audit Our Office last audited the Vehicle Abatement program in 2018.9 That audit reviewed the City’s approach to stored, abandoned, blighted, expired registration and inhabited vehicles. We found opportunities to improve case prioritization, customer service, and the City's response to inhabited vehicles. As of July 2026, one audit recommendation to institute a subsidized vehicle release fee for lowincome vehicle owners remains open. However, it should be noted that the program has undergone significant changes since this audit, including moving to a proactive patrol model, and adding contract staff to respond to SJ311 requests.
During the pandemic, when the City temporarily paused responding to public complaints, DOT expanded proactive patrols to identify abandoned vehicles. This evolved into the current hybrid approach, which combines responses to resident reports with proactive patrols focused on identifying and investigating abandoned or inoperable vehicles.
8 PCU’s Expired Registration Enforcement team proactively searches for and tows vehicles for expired registration. 9 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=33916.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
14 This page was intentionally left blank
15 Finding 1 The Vehicle Abatement Program
Meets Case Closure Goals But Can
Better Align Resources and
Performance Targets with Service
Demand
Summary
Between July 2025 and March 2026, the Vehicle Abatement program closed 98 percent of cases within 14 days and 80 percent through voluntary compliance, meeting both performance goals. However, DOT should update these measures to better reflect current operations. New photo requirements for SJ311 reports will help staff prioritize inoperable vehicles for towing. In addition, in the context of budget considerations and impacts on vehicle owners, DOT should also consider additional program changes to expedite case closures, such as clarifying guidelines for towing vehicles with expired registrations or multiple safety or blight-related conditions, and eliminating second verification visits. Between October 2025 and April 2026, proactive patrols covered an average of 57 percent of city streets within the 14-day target. Reassessing this target and using a datadriven deployment approach could better align limited resources with areas with the most vehicle abatement activity while maintaining equitable citywide coverage.
DOT Closed Vehicle Abatement Cases in 6 Days on Average From July 2025 Through March 2026
The Vehicle Abatement program seeks to close cases within 14 days. Overall, between July 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026, DOT closed vehicle abatement cases in an average of 6 days and resolved 98 percent of cases within 14 days.
The average time to case closure varied between reactive and proactive cases. • Average time to close a reactive case
submitted through SJ311 was 7.7 days, an
improvement from 10.9 days in FY 2024-
25. • Average time to close a proactive vehicle
abatement case was 5 days, also slightly
faster than FY 2024-25 when it was 6.7
days.
Most cases are closed within the first two inspections.
Vehicle abatement cases are
closed either because the
vehicle has been towed or
comes into compliance (such
as moving from its last
reported location or
relocating to private
property or a driveway).
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
16 For cases which required a third inspection, the average time to close a vehicle abatement case was 10.1 days. For FY 2024-25, the average was 11.6 days.
It should be noted that it is unclear how the 14-day target was set. Program staff report this performance target predates DOT’s ownership of the program which began in FY 2005-06. Given recent results, DOT should review the 14-day goal to better measure program performance moving forward.
Vehicle Abatement Uses a Three-Inspection Process
While most vehicles are closed before tow enforcement is necessary, the San José Municipal Code authorizes tow enforcement for vehicles parked on a public street for more than 72 consecutive hours. The City's current vehicle abatement process provides substantially more time than this for voluntary compliance. With certain exceptions, the program has a three-inspection process that allows for additional time for vehicle owners to move their vehicles from the street.
Vehicle abatement typically involves multiple inspections by both contract staff and PTCOs. Depending on the condition of a vehicle, and whether the owner takes corrective action, the case may be resolved with a warning, citation, or tow.
Addressing an abandoned vehicle may require staff to conduct up to three inspections to remove the vehicle through tow enforcement.
Finding 1
17 Exhibit 4: Cases Closed Throughout the Vehicle Abatement Inspection Process Between July 2025 and March 2026
Inspection Purpose Results (July 2025 – March 2026)
1st inspection • Cases submitted through SJ311 by the public are initially inspected by vehicle abatement contract
staff, and PTCOs identify vehicles through
proactive patrol using vehicle abatement
qualifiers.
• During the initial inspection, staff verify the
reported or identified vehicle and mark the tire to
document its location to begin the 72-hour
enforcement period.
• In some instances, a PTCO can have the vehicle
towed immediately (e.g., vehicles that have
expired registrations, or meet the legal definition
of “inoperable”).
• Average time for the 1st inspection for
reactive cases was 62 hours, or 2.6
days (note: DOT aims to complete the
1st inspection within three days of
receiving a service request)
• Overall, of the 10,000 reactive and
proactive cases:
o 7,400 warnings were issued
o 1,450 vehicles were compliant (e.g.,
moved)
o 1,000 resulted in tows
o 150 were reassigned to another
work group (e.g., lived-in or stolen
vehicles)
2nd inspection • After a minimum of 72 hours has elapsed, contract staff conduct a second verification inspection to
determine whether the marked vehicle has
moved.
• If the vehicle has not moved, contract staff will flag the case for a third “tow-eligible” inspection in
DOT’s database. It is important to note that
contract staff do not have the authority to tow
vehicles. However, in a small number of instances,
a second visit resulted in a tow.
• Average time for the 2nd inspection
was 132 hours, or 5.5 days
• Overall, of the 7,400 vehicles receiving
2nd inspections:
o 5,150 vehicles were compliant
o 2,100 were flagged as tow eligible
(for 3rd visit)
o 100 resulted in tows
o 50 were reassigned to other
departments
3rd inspection • Cases that are flagged as tow-eligible receive a third inspection from a PTCO who has the
authority to tow a non-compliant vehicle.
• Average time for the 3rd inspection
was 72 hours, or 3.0 days
• Overall, of the 2,100 vehicles receiving
a 3rd visit:
o 700 vehicles were compliant
o 1,300 resulted in tows
o 100 were reassigned to another
work group
Source: Auditor analysis of vehicle abatement case data for cases received between July 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026; review of department-issued memoranda and agreements for contracted vehicle abatement services; and interviews with vehicle abatement staff.
Note: Individual inspection averages do not sum to the 10.1-day average case closure time because each inspection average is calculated separately.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
18 Clarifying Guidelines May Expedite the Removal of Additional Vehicles with Expired Registrations or that Contribute to Blight As shown in Exhibit 4, there were about 1,100 vehicles that were towed in either the 1st or 2nd inspection. The majority of these were for expired registrations.
There were an additional 170 immediate tows for vehicles that met the legal definition of “inoperable.”10
However, in 65 instances, proactive staff identified vehicles with expired registrations that went through the full three inspection cycle.11 These represented about 5 percent of all proactive cases that went through the full three inspection process. This occurred even when the registration had been expired for more than one year as documented in PTCO notes in DOT’s case database. The 65 cases may understate the number of vehicles with expired registrations as case notes did not consistently document registration status, nor were reactive cases included.
Some Cases May Have Exhibit Multiple Vehicle Abatement Qualifiers Proactive staff also identified vehicles with conditions that could present safety concerns or contribute to extreme blight. According to the DOT website, such vehicles are eligible for investigation if they:
• Are on jacks or blocks;
• Have missing or shattered windows;
• Are vandalized or have graffiti;
• Have multiple significantly flat tires;
• Are missing both the front and back license plates;
• Display multiple aged or weathered citations;
• Have deployed airbags;
• Have unsecured or open doors or trunks; or
• Are attracting illegal dumping activities.
While these vehicles will typically trigger an investigation, they may not be eligible for an immediate tow. They may become eligible for tow after 72 hours as allowed by the Municipal Code.
Based on PTCO case notes, some vehicles exhibited multiple or significant concerns and went through the full three inspection process. In a small sample, 10 Vehicles are deemed inoperable and are eligible for immediate towing if they are visibly missing parts of the vehicles essential for driving like the engine, the windshield, the steering wheel, driver’s seat, or two or more seats. 11 In FY 2025-26, 1,268 proactive vehicle abatement cases were flagged as tow-eligible at the second inspection and required a third inspection to tow the vehicle.
Finding 1
19 PTCO case notes identified vehicles with conditions such as “deployed airbags/significant damage,” “missing windows, flat tire, significant damage,” and “on jack stands/flat tire.” Each was ultimately towed after completing the full threeinspection process.12 Developing standards and guidance for when vehicles with multiple safety concerns or contribute to extreme blight can be towed without a third inspection could better help address community concerns about abandoned vehicles.
Photos Submitted Through SJ311 Will Help Staff Prioritize Inoperable Vehicles DOT staff report that inoperable cases are generally identified based on information submitted with the service request, including photographs showing the vehicle’s condition. At the time of the audit, the SJ311 system did not require residents to submit photos. SJ311 did inform customers that requests with photos would be prioritized. However, DOT staff reported that requests with photos were not generally prioritized over requests without photos; rather, staff used submitted photos to identify vehicles that appeared obviously inoperable and could qualify for immediate removal.
In July 2026, SJ311 began requiring a photograph for all vehicle concern service requests. Photographs submitted with SJ311 requests can help staff identify and prioritize obviously inoperable vehicles that are eligible for immediate towing without inspections.
Eliminating The Second Verification Visit Would Further Reduce Time for Case Closure, but Comes at a Cost
Removing the second verification visit could close cases approximately three days earlier, but would require additional PTCO resources and result in more vehicles being towed. Benchmarked jurisdictions, such as Long Beach, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Fremont, typically towed vehicles after two visits.13 San José was the only jurisdiction to conduct a middle or second verification visit, requiring three visits before a vehicle could be towed.
As described earlier, DOT currently deploys contract staff for the second verification visit to close cases involving vehicles in compliance and identify vehicles that require a tow. DOT reports that contract staff conduct these visits because they are a lower-cost resource for the high volume of inspections, most of which result in case closure through voluntary compliance.
12 The sample included 10 proactive cases that were towed after three inspections and had multiple or significant conditions identified on the DOT website as potential safety concerns or contributing to extreme blight. (Note: some case notes describe the condition of a vehicle simply as “PP-Blight” or Proactive Patrol-Blight.) 13 The City of Fremont reported using volunteers to do the second visit. Benchmarked jurisdictions reported resolution timelines ranging from two to four weeks. However, jurisdictions may vary from San José in how their program is structured, staffing levels, and overall caseload.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
20 Eliminating the second verification visit would shift this work to PTCOs, who would have to close compliant cases and tow non-compliant cases on the same visit. Between July 2025 and March 2026, eliminating the second verification visit would have required 5,200 additional PTCO visits and resulted in more than 700 additional tows.
Accommodating this additional workload would require at least two additional PTCOs. We estimate that adding two PTCOs would cost $321,000 in ongoing costs. The Budget Office estimated an additional $262,000 in one-time costs for vehicles and equipment. Towing costs could also increase if more large vehicles require towing. DOT estimates these costs could be partially offset by approximately $100,000 if one of the three contract staff positions was eliminated.
Removing the second verification visit would also reduce the time available for vehicles owners to voluntarily comply. Between July 2025 and March 2026, 700 vehicles that had moved or otherwise complied after the second visit would have been towed, and owners would then have to pay a release fee to retrieve their vehicles.
Recommendations:
1: To improve the timeliness of closing vehicle abatement cases, the Department of Transportation should, in the context of the City’s operating budget and impacts on vehicle owners, consider the following options:
a. Clarify guidance for Parking and Traffic Control Officers to verify and flag vehicles with expired registrations meeting physical condition qualifiers to expedite tows at the first inspection,
b. Update guidelines that define parameters for Parking and Traffic Control Officers to expedite tows under the San José Municipal Code’s 72-hour guidelines for vehicles exhibiting multiple significant physical condition qualifiers that may present safety concerns or contribute to blight; and/or c. Eliminate the second verification visit for all vehicles meeting the Vehicle Abatement program’s physical condition
qualifiers to expedite tows under the San José Municipal Code’s 72-hour guidelines.
2: To better measure program results, the Department of Transportation should reassess and update the Program’s 14- day goal to close a vehicle abatement case.
Finding 1
21 80 Percent of Cases Were Closed Through Voluntary Compliance As noted earlier, most vehicle abatement cases are closed before tow enforcement is necessary. The program has a performance target of closing 80 percent of cases through voluntary compliance. Between July 2025 and March 2026, 80 percent of cases were closed through voluntary compliance, similar to results in FY 2024-25.
DOT’s Adopted Operating Budget describes this performance measure as the “% of reported abandoned or stored vehicles in voluntary compliance by staff’s second visit.” This language reflects the program’s previous two-inspection model, when the second inspection was the point of tow enforcement. However, as the program currently stands, DOT does not calculate the measure based on whether compliance occurs by the second visit. Instead, it measures the percentage of cases ultimately closed through voluntary compliance, regardless of the number of inspections.
This distinction is important, as voluntary compliance at case closure is about 10 percentage points higher than voluntary compliance by the second visit. Updating the performance measure language to align with programs goals and what is measured can more accurately communicate program performance.
Recommendations:
3. To improve the accuracy and transparency of reported program performance, the Department of Transportation should update the performance measure language to reflect the percentage of abandoned or stored vehicles in voluntary compliance at case closure, rather than by staff's second visit.
The Vehicle Abatement Program Did Not Meet Its Goal for Proactive Patrol of All City Streets
Between October 2025 and April 2026, the Vehicle Abatement program did not meet its goal of proactively patrolling every city street within a 14-day timeframe.14 Program staff track proactive patrol coverage to measure progress towards this goal. Based on Department data for the timeframe reviewed, the proactive patrol staff completely covered an average of about 57 percent of all San José streets within a 14-day period.
Between October 2025 and April 2026, coverage ranged from a low of 29 percent to 82 percent of assignments completely covered in a 14-day period. 14 Although the program's goal is to proactively patrol every city street, DOT staff report that the operational expectation is to substantially cover all city streets. For example, staff may visually inspect some streets without driving through them if they do not observe any qualifying vehicles on the street.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
22 Exhibit 5: Proactive Patrol Coverage of City Streets Can Vary
Source: Auditor analysis of Vehicle Abatement program data for proactive patrol assignments between October 2025 and April 2026.
Note: Weekly staffing levels may vary due to employee absences, including sick leave and other leaves. The Vehicle Abatement program allocates resources using the Police Department’s beat structure.
Insufficient staffing may limit the program's ability to meet its proactive patrol target. As shown above in Exhibit 5, proactive patrol coverage generally increased as staffing levels increased. During the winter months, when pavement maintenance activities are reduced, DOT supplements vehicle abatement proactive patrols with four PTCOs from the Pavement team. However, even with this additional staffing from the Pavement team, the Vehicle Abatement program was unable to meet its goal of proactively patrolling all city streets every 14 days.
When looking at vehicle abatement proactive patrol coverage within a one-month timeframe, however, staff were more likely to achieve the goal of covering all city streets. On average, staff completely covered about 94 percent of assigned streets each month, with coverage ranging from 87 percent to 99 percent between October 2025 and April 2026.
Revising the proactive patrol target to better reflect available staffing resources could improve the Department’s ability to assess how well the proactive team is meeting its goals.
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Assigned Staff
Count
Percent
of Police Beats
Covered
Percent Coverage Staffing
4 Temporary Pavement Maintenance support
staff added to proactive team
Finding 1
23 A Data-Driven Deployment Could Better Align Resources with Vehicle Abatement Demand
DOT’s proactive patrol aims to ensure that every city street receives service, including areas where residents may be less likely to report abandoned vehicles.
However, the vehicle abatement proactive team workload varies significantly across Police beats, creating opportunities to assess staffing and deployment based on vehicle abatement activity levels.
The Vehicle Abatement program assigns proactive patrol resources using the Police Department’s beat structure for proactive assignments. As shown in Exhibit 6, vehicle abatement cases are not evenly distributed across the city or within individual Police beats.15 For example, between July 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026, caseloads ranged from about 300 cases in Police beat X1 to about 10 cases in Police beat E3. This equates to an average of roughly 33 cases per month in beat X1 compared to about one case per month in beat E3.
15 Police beats are geographic subdivisions of Police districts and are identified using alphanumeric codes (e.g., A1, B3, C2). The Vehicle Abatement program assigns PTCOs to Police beats to proactively patrol the city for abandoned or inoperable vehicles. Although the San José Police Department is currently in the process of implementing a new district structure as part of its redistricting efforts, DOT reports it will continue to use the outgoing Police beat structure for vehicle abatement operations.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
24 Exhibit 6: Proactive Caseloads Varied Across Police Beats Between July 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026
Source: Auditor analysis of Vehicle Abatement program data for cases received between July 1st, 2025, and March 31st, 2026.
Adopting a data-driven approach for proactive patrols could help address potential enforcement gaps while ensuring equitable coverage across the city. It could also maximize limited staffing resources by prioritizing areas with higher vehicle abatement caseloads.
Recommendation:
4: To better align proactive vehicle abatement activities with available resources, the Department of Transportation should:
a. Review and update the performance target for proactive citywide coverage to ensure it reflects available program capacity, and/or
Finding 1
25 b. Develop a data-driven approach to prioritize proactive patrols in areas with the greatest vehicle abatement activity while maintaining equitable coverage across the city.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
26 This page was intentionally left blank
27 Finding 2 The Vehicle Abatement Program
Can Strengthen Documentation and
Supervisory Review
Summary
The Vehicle Abatement program has opportunities to enhance documentation and supervisory oversight to support effective program management. PTCOs’ daily logs and vehicle activities did not always align. In addition, the number of case visits varied considerably across proactive patrol staff. Strengthening the consistency of Daily Activity Reports (DARs) and establishing more consistent supervisory review practices would provide the Department with greater visibility into program performance. DOT is currently exploring route optimization tools, which could enhance proactive patrol coverage and recordkeeping moving forward.
The Vehicle Abatement Program Can Better Document and Track Daily Activity Vehicle abatement PTCOs complete Daily Activity Reports (DARs) to document their field activities. We observed inconsistencies in staff’s vehicle activities against what was recorded in DARs. Ensuring consistent documentation that reflects the staff’s activities is important because, while vehicle abatement actions are recorded in DOT's database, DARs are frequently used to supplement information about staff activities. DARs include information about vehicle abatement cases, staff breaks, and non-abatement related work like police dispatch calls, citations, and administrative duties.
In addition, as shown in Exhibit 7, a DAR may be considered prima facie evidence, meaning that it may be used as evidence during citation or tow hearing processes. Incomplete or inconsistent documentation may therefore limit the usefulness and reliability of these records.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
28 Exhibit 7: Example of a Daily Activity Report (DAR)
Source: Example of a complete DAR obtained from vehicle abatement staff.
Staff noted the morning briefing, areas proactively patrolled, cases identified (VA Case #) and the lunch break (Code 7).
We compared DARs with vehicle activity records for 23 PTCO shifts over a two-week timeframe in February 2026.16 The records did not align for five of those shifts (or just over 20 percent).17 Supervisory staff were able to determine the source of two of the differences by researching other 16 The City’s fleet maintenance team uses Telematics software to track vehicle performance and location remotely. 17 Examples included a PTCO recording 30-minute lunch breaks in DARs but going home for 1.5 hours during two shifts; a second PTCO leaving an unexplained DAR gap for tow support confirmed by supervisors; and a third returning to the garage early during two shifts without explanation in the DARs, although a time-off request supported one early return.
Finding 2
29 supporting documentation, but these explanations were not recorded in the DARs. The other three differences remained unexplained.
DOT has Route Preparations/Shift Responsibilities Guidelines that outline the activities that should be recorded in the DARs, including types of work performed and breaks taken. For patrol activities, the guidelines state that staff update DARs “as necessary” but do not explicitly require PTCOs to account for all time during a shift, document exceptions to their regular schedules, or ensure that DARs accurately reflect their field activity.
Because DARs are the primary means for supervisors to understand PTCOs field activities and may serve as prima facie evidence for citation or tow hearings, the DAR guidelines can be improved to establish a clear expectation around the completeness of the form.
Formalizing Supervisory Expectations Can Improve the Consistency of Review In addition to clarifying DAR expectations, the Vehicle Abatement team can benefit from formalizing expectations for supervisory review of staff’s work.
Although supervisors are expected to monitor staff caseloads, vehicle activity data, and maps, the frequency and scope of these reviews vary. Staff reported reducing the review of DARs and vehicle activities from every day to a few times a week due to time constraints.
Supervisors are expected to balance staff review with other responsibilities such as monitoring cases for timeliness, assigning work to staff, and oversight of non-vehicle abatement teams.18 It should be noted that during the audit, there was a vacant PTCO supervisor position which increased the workload for the remaining staff with responsibilities divided among the three existing supervisors.
Caseloads Varied Among PTCOs
Another area which may warrant closer supervisory review is the variation in caseloads among PTCOs. Between September 2025 and February 2026, daily case visits varied across PTCOs assigned to proactive patrol, ranging from 3.4 per day for one PTCO and up to 7.8 per day for another.19 Supervisors report that this level of variation, after accounting for non-abatement work, is not what they would expect operationally.
In some instances, low-activity shifts occurred in areas with historically high numbers of vehicle abatement cases. There were 42 shifts between September 18 Depending on their role, supervisors can oversee other teams in the PCU along with the vehicle abatement team, such as the Pavement team, Expired Registration team, the OLIVE team, etc. 19 Proactive patrol case visits include PTCOs from both the Vehicle Abatement team and the Pavement team that seasonally assists with proactive patrol.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
30 2025 and February 2026 where PTCOs recorded only one vehicle abatement case during the entire shift. Twelve of these low activity shifts occurred in areas or beats that would be expected to have a high caseload based on historical activity.
Clarifying supervisory review expectations would help supervisors identify and address workload and documentation inconsistencies in a timely manner.
Hot Spot Enforcement Prioritizes High-Impact Areas
As mentioned in the Background, the Hot Spot Enforcement program prioritizes high impact areas such as schools, auto-related businesses, and high population density neighborhoods with Equity Index ratings of 8, 9, and 10.
Vehicle Abatement staff reported focusing on schools and auto-related businesses since Fall 2025.
At the time of the audit, the tool tracked hot spot activity (a hot spot tracker) only when a case was near a school and equity areas, but not near auto-related businesses. DOT has since updated Hot Spot tracking designations to specifically include schools, auto related businesses, and high-density areas.
DOT Is Exploring Tools to Optimize Proactive Patrol Maps The Department reports that it has begun preliminary work on a GIS-based mapping tool, and believes using a vendor specializing in route optimization would be the preferred approach. Maps are used by proactive PTCOs to mark their assigned beats after completing their patrols, and supervisors compile the map information manually. The Department can continue to explore options to ensure that patrol coverage is optimized and more easily reviewed by supervisors.
Recommendations:
5: To improve how vehicle abatement work is tracked and overseen, the Department of Transportation should:
a. Update operational guidelines to include the expectation for Daily Activity Reports (DARs) that account for all
time and field activities during a shift, and document
schedule exceptions, and
b. Document the expectations for supervisory review of
field activities of Parking and Traffic Control Officers in the proactive team, including the consistency, scope, and frequency of reviews.
6: To optimize proactive patrol coverage, the Department of Transportation should continue reviewing options for route optimization tools for proactive patrol.
31 Finding 3 Better Customer Communications and
Program Information Can Improve
Transparency and Access
Summary
There are opportunities to enhance communications around vehicle abatement concerns. Standard communications through SJ311 can better inform customers about expected response times and investigation outcomes. DOT should also provide more consistent program information across communication channels to ensure consistent messaging. The department can continue expanding language access to vehicle abatement information and services.
Messaging and Vehicle Abatement Information Can Be Enhanced to Help Set Expectations and Inform Customers
DOT staff have noted that customer
expectations do not always align with the
Vehicle Abatement program's authority or
operating practices. To address this,
standard messages for vehicle abatement
cases can be improved to better explain
what the program investigates, when
enforcement action may occur, and why a
case may be closed.
The SJ311 Customer Satisfaction Survey responses suggest an opportunity to improve communications around certain vehicle abatement case dispositions.
While response rates are low (just 152 survey responses received between July 2025 and April 2026) and cannot be extrapolated to all SJ311 vehicle abatement cases, they may still provide some insight to where customers may have frustrations.20 For example, while overall results were positive, most negative survey responses were associated with cases that were closed without enforcement, either because the reported vehicle was either gone on arrival or found in compliance during staff’s inspection. Of the 46 negative survey responses received between July 2025 and April 2026, 89 percent (41 responses) were for cases closed as Moved to Driveway, Gone on Arrival, or Legal. 20 Between July 2025 and April 2026, around 70 percent of respondents (106 of 152) reported a positive experience.
Per the City’s Customer Service
Standards, it may not always be
possible to say “yes”, but [the City]
will aim to complete customer
inquiries from beginning to end
where possible. When setting
expectations with the customer, [the
City] will be honest, transparent,
and accountable.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
32 Standard Communications Through SJ311 Can Better Inform Customers of the Investigation Outcomes and Timeliness of Responses While DOT’s vehicle abatement webpage provides some details on the circumstances under which a vehicle may qualify for citation or towing, at the time of the audit, standard message responses to SJ311 requests did not provide a similar level of clarity.
Exhibit 8: Example From DOT’s Vehicle Abatement Webpage Explaining Circumstances for Immediate Towing of
Inoperable Vehicles
Source: DOT’s vehicle abatement webpage.
In addition, when cases are closed, the messages sent to the SJ311 customer may not fully explain investigation outcomes. For example:
Exhibit 9: Example of SJ311 Standard Messaging
Case Outcome Standard Messaging Issue
Vehicle has Evidence
of Movement
("Legal")
“…We investigated and it was
determined that the vehicle is
not abandoned on a City
street. The vehicle did not
qualify for enforcement
action…”
• The message does not explain why
the vehicle did not meet the City’s
criteria for investigation.
Source: Auditor review of standard messages for vehicle abatement cases.
Providing clear explanations of investigation outcomes can help customers understand how the program handled their reported vehicles, as well as help preempt common questions. It can also support the City's Customer Service Standards by improving communication with customers.21
21 At the time of the audit, customers could submit service requests for a discontinued vehicle concern service, the Extended Parking Stay program. The program was discontinued in FY 2025-26, but the option to submit service requests remained until July 2026. These cases were closed upon submission. Although SJ311 messaging states that these reports help identify parking challenges, DOT staff were unaware of how, or whether, this information was actively being used for those purposes.
Finding 3
33 DOT's standardized messages also do not include estimated initial response times for service requests; the status emails only provide estimated time for case closure.
Benchmarked jurisdictions, including the City of Fremont and the City and County of San Francisco incorporate estimated response times in their abandoned vehicle reporting forms.
The City's Customer Service Standards recommend that staff communicate expected next steps and turnaround times to customers throughout the service process. City guidance also encourages departments to provide information, such as FAQs, so customers know what to expect while waiting for a response.22 DOT Can Standardize Program Information Across Resource Channels DOT can improve customer communications by providing more consistent information across its various channels for vehicle abatement information. This includes:
• SJ311 FAQs
• DOT’s Vehicle Abatement program webpage
• Standard messaging in emails and the SJ311 app
Information about the Vehicle Abatement program is also spread across multiple City resources. Exhibit 10 provides examples of how the type of information presented can differ between these various resources.
22 The service request status emails link to 311 FAQs, which include information about response time. However, since the link routes to all the 311 FAQs, users may need to scroll through or search the FAQs to find information specific to vehicle abatement.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
34 Exhibit 10: Examples of Information About the Vehicle Abatement Program Across Various Resources
Topic Area
DOT Vehicle
Abatement
Webpage
SJ311 FAQ Standard SJ311 Response
Response or
completion
times
None provided
Within 7 business days
to respond. Qualifying
vehicles removed within
14 days.
Email: Estimated completion in 14 days.
Online case: No estimated completion time
provided.
Eligibility
• Lists investigation
criteria around
immediate towing for
inoperable vehicles.
• Lists investigation
criteria for vehicles
considered a safety
concern or contributing
to extreme blight.
• States that vehicles parked
on a city street and posing
health, safety or extreme
blight concern are
investigated.
• Also states that if a vehicle
remains parked in the
same location beyond the
72-hour window, it may
be cited or towed.
Email: Explains that most investigations do
not result in citations or towing and that only
nuisance conditions, such as vehicle being
unsightly, damaged, dirty, or full of trash do
not qualify for enforcement.
Online case: Explains that an Officer will
respond if a vehicle is inoperable, or health,
safety, or extreme blight concern and if a
photo clearly showing the vehicle meets these
conditions was included. Also notes that most
investigations do not result in towing.
Regulatory
requirements
Not referenced
References the 72-hour
parking rule and the 1,000
ft vehicle movement
requirement.
Not referenced in the email or online case
updates.
Source: Auditor summary of Vehicle Abatement standard responses, DOT Vehicle Abatement webpage, and SJ311 FAQs.
Note: The service request status email includes a link to the SJ311 FAQs webpage, which includes information about response times.
However, since the link routes to the FAQs for all SJ311 categories, users would need to scroll through or search the FAQs. Additionally, the SJ311 FAQs webpage includes a link to DOT's vehicle abatement webpage, while the vehicle abatement webpage does not reference or link to the relevant SJ311 vehicle abatement FAQs.
Consolidation of vehicle abatement services and information and appropriate cross-referencing will help enhance customer communications around abandoned vehicles.23
23 At the time of the audit, customers calling SJ311 for additional information were directed to an incorrect SJ311 website—the automated message directed callers to 311sanjoseca.gov instead of the correct website 311.sanjoseca.gov.
We informed DOT of this inaccuracy, and the error has since been corrected.
Finding 3
35 The City Administration Should Continue Making Efforts to Expand Language Access to Vehicle Abatement Information or Services The DOT phone tree instructions are
not translated into the City’s three
standard non-English languages (Spanish,
Vietnamese, and Chinese).24 In addition,
the vehicle abatement warning notice is
not fully translated.25 At the time of the
audit, the warning notice was only
translated into Spanish and Vietnamese
but not into Chinese. Also, while the
main notice is translated in Spanish and
Vietnamese, the FAQ section remains in
English and is not translated.
Additionally, ITD should continue enhancing accessibility through the SJ311 platform in accordance with the City’s Language Equity Policy & Guidelines. While SJ311 service requests can be submitted in Spanish and Vietnamese, Chinese is not currently supported. There is a current open audit recommendation that addresses this area.26
It should also be noted that SJ311 is only partially conformant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, Level AA.27 City staff expect to be fully compliant with the release of the new SJ311 platform in 2027, which is the year the City of San José is required to be fully compliant with this accessibility standard. 24 There is an open audit recommendation from the 2025 Access and Use of Traffic Safety Services audit (recommendation #8) regarding translation of telephone tree instructions into all languages identified in the City's Language Equity Policy & Guidelines (6.1.10) (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=123668). 25 Vehicle abatement staff place this warning notice on a vehicle as a first step in investigating a vehicle for abatement. It includes information about laws the vehicle may be in violation of, frequently asked questions, and information about warning issuance (e.g., officer name and badge number, time of warning). 26 The 2024 Access and Use of Neighborhood Blight Reduction Programs audit recommended that the ITD incorporate languages spoken by 5 percent or more of the population into the SJ311 website, mobile application, and 3-1-1 phone tree (recommendation #3) (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=116723). 27 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) explains how to make web content more accessible to people with disabilities. WCAG is an international standard. There are three levels of conformance, Level A establishes minimum accessibility requirements, Level AA addresses a broader range of barriers and represents a higher standard of accessibility, and Level AAA provides the highest and most comprehensive level of accessibility.
The City’s Language Equity Policy
& Guidelines outline requirements
for departments to make
information available in other
languages when appropriate and
identifies Spanish, Vietnamese, and
Chinese as the standard, including
for phone trees.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
36 Recommendations:
7: To better communicate to customers about vehicle abatement services and outcomes, the Department of Transportation, in coordination with the Information Technology Department, should:
a. Revise customer communications to provide additional information on why cases are closed and response time
expectations, and
b. Align vehicle abatement information across SJ311 and other customer communication channels.
8: To improve language access to vehicle abatement information, the Department of Transportation should fully translate the vehicle abatement warning notice into the languages specified in the City's Language Equity Policy & Guidelines.
37 Conclusion
The Vehicle Abatement program plays an important role in addressing abandoned vehicles and improving neighborhood conditions. Overall, the program met its goals for case closure timeliness and voluntary compliance but did not meet its goal of patrolling every city street within 14 days. While the program met its goals for case closure, clarifying guidelines may help expedite the removal of vehicles with expired registrations or that contribute to blight. Eliminating the second verification visit can also improve timeliness, but there are trade-offs. In addition, the Vehicle Abatement program can enhance documentation and supervisory oversight to improve visibility into program performance. Lastly, enhancing customer communication can increase transparency and help set clear expectations for residents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1: The Vehicle Abatement Program Meets Case Closure Goals but Can Better Align Resources and Performance Targets with Service Demand Recommendation #1: To improve the timeliness of closing vehicle abatement cases, the Department of Transportation should, in the context of the City’s operating budget and impacts on vehicle owners, consider the following options:
a. Clarify guidance for Parking and Traffic Control Officers to verify and flag vehicles with expired registrations meeting physical condition qualifiers to expedite tows at the first inspection,
b. Update guidelines that define parameters for Parking and Traffic Control Officers to expedite tows under the San José Municipal Code’s 72-hour guidelines for vehicles exhibiting multiple significant physical condition qualifiers that may present safety concerns or contribute to blight; and/or
c. Eliminate the second verification visit for all vehicles meeting the Vehicle Abatement program’s physical condition qualifiers to expedite tows under the San José Municipal Code’s 72-hour guidelines.
Recommendation #2: To better measure program results, the Department of Transportation should reassess and update the Program’s 14-day goal to close a vehicle abatement case.
Recommendation #3: To improve the accuracy and transparency of reported program performance, the Department of Transportation should update the performance measure language to reflect the percentage of abandoned or stored vehicles in voluntary compliance at case closure, rather than by staff's second visit.
Audit of Vehicle Abatement
38 Recommendation #4: To better align proactive vehicle abatement activities with available resources, the Department of Transportation should:
a. Review and update the performance target for proactive citywide coverage to ensure it reflects available program capacity, and/or
b. Develop a data-driven approach to prioritize proactive patrols in areas with the greatest vehicle abatement activity while maintaining equitable coverage across the city.
Finding 2: The Vehicle Abatement Program Can Strengthen Documentation and Supervisory Review
Recommendation #5: To improve how vehicle abatement work is tracked and overseen, the Department of Transportation should:
a. Update operational guidelines to include the expectation for Daily Activity Reports (DARs) that account for all time and field activities during a shift, and document schedule exceptions, and
b. Document the expectations for supervisory review of field activities of Parking and Traffic Control Officers in the proactive team, including the consistency, scope, and frequency of reviews.
Recommendation #6: To optimize proactive patrol coverage, the Department of Transportation should continue reviewing options for route optimization tools for proactive patrol.
Finding 3: Better Customer Communications and Program Information Can Improve Transparency and Access
Recommendation #7: To better communicate to customers about vehicle abatement services and outcomes, the Department of Transportation, in coordination with the Information Technology Department, should:
a. Revise customer communications to provide additional information on why cases are closed and response time expectations, and
b. Align vehicle abatement information across SJ311 and other customer communication channels.
Recommendation #8: To improve language access to vehicle abatement information, the Department of Transportation should fully translate the vehicle abatement warning notice into the languages specified in the City's Language Equity Policy & Guidelines.
A-1
APPENDIX A
Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The mission of the City Auditor’s Office is to identify ways to increase the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and accountability of City government by independently assessing and reporting City operations and services. The audit function is an essential element of San José’s public accountability, and our audits provide independent analysis, reliable information, and recommendations for improvement to the City Council, City Administration, and the public. In accordance with the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Audit Work Plan, we have completed an audit of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Vehicle Abatement program.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Vehicle Abatement program, including timeliness and other program goals, and communication with residents. We sought to understand the relevant internal controls over the City’s Vehicle Abatement program and performed the following to achieve the audit objective:
• To understand laws, regulations and City policies relevant to the program objectives, we reviewed:
o The California Vehicle Code §22651
o San José Municipal Code Section §11.36.220
o Vehicle Abatement Operational Guidelines
o City Policy Manual 6.1.10 – Language Equity Policy & Guidelines o The City Policy Manual 1.2.9 – Customer Service Guidelines o The City’s Customer Service Vision and Standards
o The City’s Customer Conversation Guide training
o The Department of Justice’s Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities (28 CFR Part 35)
• To assess performance against the Vehicle Abatement program’s targets for voluntary compliance and closing cases within 14 days, we reviewed case data for Vehicle Abatement cases worked between July 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026.
• To understand how the program and applicable performance measures have changed, we reviewed relevant Adopted Budget documents between FY 2020-21 to FY 2025-26. • To understand Vehicle Abatement operations, responsibilities and supervision, we:
o Reviewed staff’s workload in a sampled two-week timeframe in February 2026, comparing information provided in Daily Activity Reports, vehicle activities, case data in DOT’s database, assignment maps, internal trackers and other program documents A-2
o Interviewed supervisory staff, PTCOs, and contract parking control staff o Conducted ride-alongs with PTCOs during proactive patrols as well as hot spot area enforcement
o Interviewed Information Technology Department staff to document the SJ311 process for case submission and routing of SJ311 cases to the appropriate department and program o Interviewed Police Department staff to document their role in vehicle abatement and towing • To understand and compare responsibilities and staff authority to provide vehicle abatement services across the city, we reviewed the City’s agreement with its vendor to provide contracted parking control officers.
• To assess the Vehicle Abatement program’s compliance with its performance measures of achieving voluntary compliance, timeliness of case closure, and proactive patrol of every city street, we:
o Analyzed DOT’s Vehicle Abatement program case data between July 1, 2024, through March 31, 2026
o Reviewed DOT’s tracking logs for proactive vehicle abatement patrols • To understand the geographic distribution of proactive vehicle abatement cases, we mapped the locations of all proactive vehicle abatement cases from July 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026, • To assess the effectiveness of the City’s communication to residents around vehicle abatement services, we:
o Reviewed Vehicle Abatement program material and web domains and standardized messages provided as a response to service requests from the public o Tested SJ311 and the DOT main phone line call pathway for vehicle abatement services o Interviewed SJ311 staff to document what information is conveyed to customers calling about vehicle abatement cases and the process for routing customers’ calls to the program o Reviewed Vehicle Abatement program materials and website content for compliance with the City’s Language Equity Policy & Guidelines
• We benchmarked relevant information to other jurisdictions by interviewing staff and/or reviewing website information for:
o City of Fremont
o City of Long Beach
o City of Sacramento
o City of San Diego
o City and County of San Francisco
We would like to thank the Department of Transportation and the Information Technology Department for their time and insight during the audit process.
TO: JOSEPH ROIS
CITY AUDITOR
FROM: John Ristow
SUBJECT: See Below DATE: September 24, 2026
Approved Date: 9/24/2026
SUBJECT: Response to City Auditor on the Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
BACKGROUND
The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Parking Compliance Unit (PCU) is responsible for enforcing state and local parking laws throughout San José, including safety and illegal parking enforcement, vehicle abatement, towing, residential permit parking, street sweeping, metered parking, school safety patrols, and support for construction, pavement maintenance, and special events. Vehicle Abatement is one component of this citywide operation and is delivered through both citywide proactive patrols and investigations of qualifying vehicle concerns submitted through SJ311.
The PCU organizes its resources around two primary functions: safety and illegal parking enforcement, and vehicle abatement and tow enforcement. In Fiscal Year 2025- 2026, the PCU was budgeted for 55.5 Parking and Traffic Control Officer (PTCO) positions distributed across 11 service-delivery teams. Within the Vehicle Abatement category, a team of seven PTCO’s are dedicated to conduct proactive citywide patrols to identify and investigate inoperable and potentially abandoned vehicles, while a separate team of one PTCO and three contract staff investigate qualifying SJ311 Vehicle Concerns submitted by the public.
The volume and geographic scale of this work require the PCU to balance investigation of customer generated requests with proactive enforcement. In Fiscal Year 2025-2026, the PCU received approximately 5,000 Vehicle Abatement service requests through SJ311, while the proactive Vehicle Abatement patrols independently identified approximately 8,500 additional vehicles for investigation. Vehicle Abatement investigations resulted in 3,174 vehicle tows through its combined proactive and reactive efforts.
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
DOT’s parking enforcement strategy relies on a layered service model that combines public service requests, proactive citywide patrols, specialized enforcement programs, and targeted deployment of resources. This approach allows the Department to address reported concerns while also identifying conditions that may not be reported through SJ311 and allocating limited staffing toward activities that produce the greatest compliance and public-right-of-way benefit.
The core service of the Vehicle Abatement program is not maximizing towing activity, but to be responsive to the public, including both reporting parties and vehicle owners.
The program succeeds when staff investigate qualifying vehicles and achieves compliance through warnings that educate vehicle owners on potential violations and follow up with enforcement action when legally authorized. Vehicle owners often respond to their vehicles being investigated by voluntarily bringing them into compliance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) rules and regulations.
Vehicle Abatement operations are further complicated by a significant gap between the public’s perception of what constitutes an “abandoned vehicle” verses a “stored vehicle”. An abandoned vehicle is one that has been discarded by the owner with the intent not to return to or own the vehicle any longer, while a stored vehicle remains under active ownership but may be parked on a public street for an extended period of time with little to no movement. Stored vehicles that are towed are most often reclaimed by their owners and may quickly return to parking on the street, whereas truly abandoned vehicles do not, unless they are sold at auction to a new owner. The City discontinued its previous Extended Parking Stay investigation program in June 2026 because most of the thousands of investigations resulted in voluntary compliance and, absent another qualifying violation, a legal basis for enforcement did not exist. With this distinction in mind, DOT’s response to the audit recommendations focuses on achieving meaningful compliance while ensuring that enforcement actions remain within the City’s legal authority and available resources.
The Department of Transportation’s responses below advance the intent of the audit recommendations while maintaining the Vehicle Abatement program’s established objectives and ensuring that enforcement practices remain legally supportable, operationally appropriate, resource sustainable and consistent with the enforcement authorities outlined within the CVC.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSES
Finding 1: The Vehicle Abatement Program Meets Case Closure Goals but Can Better Align Resources and Performance Targets with Service Demand
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
Administration Response to Recommendation #1a: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation has aligned its guidance for PTCOs assigned to the Proactive Vehicle Abatement program with the Department’s established expired registration enforcement protocol. Under the current protocol, vehicles with registration expired between six months and one year are subject to citation, while vehicles with registration expired for more than one year are subject to immediate towing.
Target Completion Date: Completed as of August 2026
Administration Response to Recommendation #1b: The Administration conceptually agrees with this recommendation.
Yellow: The Department of Transportation will seek opportunities to expedite enforcement outcomes when vehicles are verified during the investigation process to have physical conditions that may present safety concerns, for example those vehicles on jacks/blocks and unattached trailers. PTCO guidelines will be updated accordingly to expedite towing outcomes.
Target Completion Date: January 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #1c: The Administration conceptually agrees with this recommendation.
Yellow: While the Department of Transportation supports timely removal of vehicles that present significant safety concerns and meet the legal criteria for towing, DOT does not believe that the approximately 700 vehicles identified by the audit should necessarily be characterized as missed towing opportunities, or that eliminating the third Recommendation #1: To improve the timeliness of closing vehicle abatement cases, the Department of Transportation should, in the context of the City’s operating budget and impacts on vehicle owners, consider the following options:
a) Clarify guidance for Parking and Traffic Control Officers to verify and flag vehicles with expired registrations meeting physical condition qualifiers to expedite tows at the first inspection,
b) Update guidelines that define parameters for Parking and Traffic Control Officers to expedite tows under the San José Municipal Code’s 72-hour guidelines for vehicles exhibiting multiple significant physical condition qualifiers that may present safety concerns or contribute to blight; and/or c) Eliminate the second verification visit for all vehicles meeting the Vehicle Abatement program’s physical condition qualifiers to expedite tows under the San José Municipal Code’s 72-hour guidelines.
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
visit for all qualifying vehicles is warranted. In these cases, the vehicle being investigated was moved before the enforcement process was completed. This resulted in voluntary compliance without requiring a tow. Expanding expedited towing to vehicles that ultimately comply by relocating would materially change the current approach to Vehicle Abatement and would not necessarily result in improved long-term street conditions. Once retrieved from a tow facility, many of these vehicles could legally return to parking on City streets.
It is also important to consider these findings in the context of DOT’s broader towing activity. In Fiscal Year 2025-2026, DOT established a dedicated expired-registration patrol, separate from the Vehicle Abatement program, which resulted in approximately 3,000 additional vehicle tows and contributed to an 89% increase in citywide towing compared with Fiscal Year 2024-2025. This reflects DOT’s increased use of towing where clear enforcement criteria are met, while maintaining a more measured approach for Vehicle Abatement cases where compliance remains an appropriate outcome.
Shifting to a universal second-visit tow approach for the Vehicle Abatement program would also result in higher costs to the City, impose towing and storage fees on vehicle owners whose vehicles were operable and ultimately moved and consume limited enforcement and tow resources that should remain focused on vehicles that satisfy applicable legal criteria and present the highest public-safety or blight concerns. DOT believes the more appropriate measure of program effectiveness is whether investigations result in voluntary compliance or vehicles that meet legal requirements, are towed and are not recovered by the vehicle owner.
DOT’s approach to address the intent of this recommendation is to establish a tiered response that prioritizes vehicles presenting significant safety concerns for expedited enforcement and potential towing. This would include, for example, vehicles on jacks or blocks, unattached trailers, or other conditions that present safety concerns and meet the legal requirements for towing. Other vehicles would continue through the existing investigation timeline.
This approach will allow DOT to address the most concerning vehicles more quickly, focusing limited resources, and continuing to provide vehicle owners with an opportunity to come into compliance when appropriate.
Target Completion Date: July 2027
Recommendation #2: To better measure program results, the Department of Transportation should reassess and update the Program’s 14-day goal to close a vehicle abatement case.
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
Administration Response to Recommendation #2: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: Based on recent program performance and current staffing capacity, DOT has determined that a 12-day case closure target provides a more appropriate measure of timely case resolution. The Department of Transportation will also work with the Information and Technology Department (ITD) to update the SJ311 messaging accordingly. Similar to other performance measures, this target will be reviewed annually and adjusted if needed through the annual performance measure process.
Target Completion Date: Internal DOT processes have been completed as of August 2026. Completion of items requiring ITD coordination are expected to be completed by July 2027.
Administration Response to Recommendation #3: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will work to update the performance metric language to reflect this recommendation.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #4a: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation #3: To improve the accuracy and transparency of reported program performance, the Department of Transportation should update the performance measure language to reflect the percentage of abandoned or stored vehicles in voluntary compliance as case closure, rather than by staff’s second visits.
Recommendation #4: To better align proactive vehicle abatement activities with available resources, the Department of Transportation should:
a) Review and update the performance target for proactive citywide coverage to ensure it reflects available program capacity, and/or
b) Develop a data-driven approach to prioritize proactive patrols in areas with the greatest vehicles abatement activity while maintaining equitable coverage across the city.
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
Green: The Department of Transportation will work to update the internal department performance target to patrol all city streets from 14-days to 21-days given the program staffing and capacity.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #4b: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation agrees with the intent of this recommendation and will further incorporate available vehicle abatement data into the deployment of proactive patrol resources.
DOT’s current Vehicle Abatement model intentionally uses a blended approach that includes both response to public service requests and proactive patrols conducted by Parking and Traffic Control Officers. This approach allows the Department to address locations identified by residents while also identifying potentially abandoned, inoperable, or otherwise eligible vehicles that may not have been reported through SJ311.
To implement the recommendation, DOT will develop a data-informed framework to help identify areas experiencing higher levels of vehicle abatement activity. Factors may include the volume and geographic concentration of Vehicle Abatement service requests, prior investigations, enforcement actions, repeat locations, vehicle removals, and other available operational data. This information will be used to supplement existing patrol planning and help direct a portion of proactive enforcement resources toward areas demonstrating elevated or recurring vehicle abatement activity.
Complaint volume alone may not accurately reflect actual abandoned vehicle conditions, as reporting rates vary by neighborhood which could result in greater vehicle investigation activity in communities where residents submit more frequent service requests, but not necessarily more enforcement actions, resulting in wasted field visits and inefficient use of resources. Additionally, concentrating resources exclusively in historically high-activity areas could reduce the Department’s ability to identify unreported conditions elsewhere in the city.
Accordingly, DOT will enhance its deployment strategy to more seamlessly integrate data to prioritize proactive patrols while continuing to respond to public requests and maintaining geographic coverage across all areas of San José. This approach will allow the Department to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of proactive enforcement while minimizing the risk that reliance on complaint or enforcement data disproportionately shifts resources away from less frequently reported areas.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
Finding 2: The Vehicle Abatement Program Can Strengthen Documentation and Supervisory Review
Administration Response to Recommendation #5a: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will develop operational guidelines for PTCO’s to help set expectations and consistent completion of Daily Activity Reports (DARs).
Target Completion Date: January 1, 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #5b: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will establish supervisory guidelines for the review of field staff activities and productivity.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #6: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will explore potential development of a Request for Information (RFI) for route optimization tools to efficiently address caseload activity and citywide proactive patrol routing.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
Recommendation #5: To improve how vehicle abatement work is tracked and overseen, the Department of Transportation should:
a) Update operational guidelines to include the expectation for Daily Activity Reports (DARs) that account for all time and field activities during a shift, and document schedule exceptions, and
b) Document the expectations for supervisory review of field activities of Parking and Traffic Control Officers in the proactive team, including the consistency, scope and frequency of reviews.
Recommendation #6: To optimize proactive patrol coverage, the Department of Transportation should continue reviewing options for route optimization tools for proactive patrol.
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
Finding 3: Better Customer Communications and Program Information Can Improve Transparency and Access
Administration Response to Recommendation #7a: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will work with the Information and Technology Department to review existing SJ311 Vehicle Concerns program response language and explore opportunities to further clarify program information and case closure expectations. Further DOT will collaborate with the City Manager’s Office and leverage the customer experience transformation process to implement improvements.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #7b: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will work with the Information and Technology Department and internal communications staff to improve vehicle abatement information provided across various channels, including webpages, SJ311, and automated vehicle concerns case responses.
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
Administration Response to Recommendation #8: The Administration agrees with this recommendation.
Green: The Department of Transportation will update the vehicle abatement warning notice into the languages specified in the City’s Language Equity Policy and Guidelines.
Recommendation #7: To better communicate to customers about vehicle abatement services and outcome, the Department of Transportation, in coordination with the Information Technology Department, should:
a) Revise customer communications to provide additional information on why cases are closed and response time expectations, and
b) Align vehicle abatement information across SJ311 and other customer communication channels.
Recommendation #8: To improve language access to vehicle abatement information, the Department of Transportation should fully translate the vehicle abatement warning notice into the languages specified in the City’s Language Equity Policy and Guidelines.
JOESEPH ROIS, CITY AUDITOR
September 24, 2026
Subject: Response to City Auditor on Audit of Vehicle Abatement Services
Target Completion Date: July 1, 2027
CONCLUSION
The Department of Transportation appreciates the City Auditor's review of Vehicle Abatement Services and agrees or conceptually agrees with all recommendations. DOT has already implemented several improvements and will continue advancing the remaining recommendations to strengthen program performance, accountability, customer communication, and data-informed deployment. In doing so, the Department will maintain a balanced enforcement model that prioritizes timely compliance, addresses the most significant safety and blight concerns, preserves equitable citywide coverage, and uses towing when legally authorized and operationally appropriate. /s/
John Ristow
Director of Transportation
For questions, please contact Heather Hoshii, Deputy Director for Transportation Safety, Operations, and Parking, Department of Transportation, at [email protected]