Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Transportation and Environment Committee (T&E) met on Monday, October 5, 2026, at 1:30 PM in a hybrid format. The committee reviewed three major reports: a vehicle abatement audit, a city infrastructure strategy semi-annual status report, and the Vision Zero traffic safety status report. All three reports were accepted by the committee. Public comments were heard on several items, and an open forum concluded the meeting.
Councilmember Tordillos is absent. COMPOS Present. Ortiz present. Fully. Chair Cohen. Here. Thank you. Thank you. We don't have any work plan review or consent calendar items, so we're going to go straight to our first report to the committee. This is our vehicle abatement audit report. Joe and your team will kick us off. Good afternoon. I'm Joe Royce City Otter. I'm here with Katanjali Mandricar, Michael O'Connell, and Dilnoza Kodoy Berganova for my office to present our audit on vehicle abatement. Improvements to timeliness, oversight, and customer service can enhance the vehicle abatement program. Also in the box are John Ristow and Heather Hoshi from the Department of Transportation. Abandoned vehicles on city streets have consistently been a concern for San Jose residents. The Department of Transportation or DOT through its vehicle abatement program is responsible for identifying and removing abandoned vehicles from public streets. The program works in accordance with state and city laws, which allow vehicles to be removed if parked on public streets for extended periods are inoperable, pose safety hazards, or constitute extreme blight. It should be noted that not all vehicles parked on public streets that might be unsightly are abandoned. The program defines abandoned vehicles as vehicles exhibiting specific indicators such as missing major vehicle components, or having significantly flat or missing tires, broken or missing windows, deployed airbags, or exhibiting other substantial signs of deterioration or inoperability. 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, it can be towed. The vehicle abatement program is housed within DOT's parking compliance unit in response to a subset of the overall types of vehicle vehicle concerns that come to DOT through SJ 311. Between July 2025 and March of 2026, there were about 10,000 vehicle abatement cases. About 3,650 were cases that came through SJ 311, and the remaining, or about 6,350 were from proactive patrols by DOT staff. The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the vehicle abatement program, including timeliness, program goals, and communication with residents. We had three findings. However, DOT should consider program changes or enhancements to expedite case closures, such as clarifying towing guidelines for vehicles with expired registrations, or having multiple safety or plight related conditions. Do you want to note the program uses a three-inspection process which can provide substantially more time than the 72-hour tow authorization allowed under the municipal code? Eliminating the third inspection could also expedite toes, but would come at a cost as it would require additional personnel and vehicle costs and would result in many more tows, many of which would likely have been moved by their owner before the third visit. Next, the program has a goal to proactively patrol every city street every 14 days. In this finding, we have recommendations to consider options to expedite towing vehicles with multiple or specific conditions, including expired registrations in the context of budget considerations and potential impacts on vehicle owners. Reassessing proactive patrol targets and use of a data-driven approach for proactive patrol assignments as not all patrol areas are impacted by abandoned vehicles the same. And lastly, updating performance measures to better reflect current operations. The program has opportunities to enhance documentation and supervisory oversight to support effective program management. We found that parking traffic control officers' daily activity logs and vehicle activities did not always align, and the number of cases visits varied across proactive patrol staff. And more consistent daily activity reporting and supervisory review practices would write a greater visibility into staff activities and program performance. To