Personally, i'd serve notice to any possible residents, of a pending unlawful detainer (or whatever its called in your jurisdiction) by an eviction attorney before doing anything but if you are sure its not occupied, and you have legal ownership, you should be able to do with it what you see fit. 

Allen Humphries you mentioned your lease doesn't say who does what.Loose contracts like that when they go to court tend to have the whole lease or parts of it deemed unenforceable by a judge in a court of law for being unlawful or too vague.Just because something is written in a contract doesn't make it legal or enforceable.Just like tire flaps on big trucks saying they are not responsible for flying rocks etc. so some people read and believe that stuff.

From the California Apartment Association Tri-County:San Jose Rent Suspension Called Unlawful; City Council Rejects Proposal Last night, Tuesday, April 7, 2020, the San Jose City Council rejected the proposal to suspend rent collections in San Jose.The San Jose city attorney agreed with CAA that the proposal was unlawful and violated the United States Constitution.

That was one of the things that convinced me to go ahead with it as I figured if I was living with the tenant I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I would have to go through the court's unlawful detainer process.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?

Advise the tenant who has the unlawful number of pets that you would like this issue resolved at a time of your choosing, but again, your only real recourse is to call the city or county and have them intervene which is less likely right now.

Empowered by Governor Gavin Newsom with expanded emergency authority, the Judicial Council of California voted at its emergency meeting to suspend all unlawful detainer actions until 90 days after California’s COVID-19 State of Emergency ends or until the Judicial Council rules are amended or repealed.

Visit CAA's Action Center to send a letter to your legislator urging them oppose AB 828.This bill denies equal justice to property owners by:1) Forcing landlords to reduce rents by 25% even if a tenant cannot demonstrate a hardship or need.2) Allowing judges and the court system to set rents and change the rental agreements already in place.3) Assuming every tenant is facing a hardship related to COVID-19 and must be compensated for this hardship.4) Protecting nuisance tenants as it does not require tenants to answer an unlawful detainer complaint.5) Mandating that rental property owners demonstrate an economic hardship to collect the contracted rent.

You obviously haven't read the proposed legislation.In the event of a filling of an Unlawful Detainer and under the supervision of the court processing the eviction being able to show just cause of the tenant satisfying the conditions of the bill,  that tenant  can get the 25% reduction for 12 months.IT IS NOT ALL APARTMENT RENTS DISCOUNTED 25%!!!

@Fabian Wizenfeld Hi Fabian, the State’s Judicial Council adopted emergency rules a couple of weeks ago that state that courts won’t hear unlawful detainer or foreclosure actions until 90 days after the Governor’ State if Emergency is lifted. 

I can understand being frustrated with the situation, but to take those measures seems unprofessional and unlawful.