Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything that is injurious to health, including nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. Existing law establishes the criteria for determining when a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, including conduct involving illegally selling a controlled substance, or the commission of an offense involving the unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or the use of the premises to further that purpose.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a jurisdiction from bringing on unlawful detainer action under these provisions unless that entity made a good faith effort to collect and report certain information to the California Research Bureau.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Oakland and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in the name of the people against any person who is in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose provisions of the unlawful detainer provision described above, with respect to controlled substances.

Existing law also requires the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions, by a specified date, to submit information to the California Research Bureau, and the bureau in turn, to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established, by March 20, 2016, and March 20, 2018.

This bill would extend the sunset dates for these provisions until January 1, 2024, would additionally apply the unlawful detainer provisions with respect to controlled substances to real property in the City of Long Beach, and would extend the reporting deadlines for the California Research Bureau to submit its report to the legislative committees to March 20, 2021, and March 20, 2023.

The bill would also eliminate some elements that the local authorities are required to report to the California Research Bureau. The bill would, for unlawful detainer auctions for properties situated in Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento for nuisances related to controlled substances, provide that a defendant could raise as an affirmative defense that the jurisdiction did not make a good faith effort to collect and report the required information.

Because this bill would extend existing reporting requirements for local authorities, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Sacramento.

Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything that is injurious to health, including nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. Existing law establishes the criteria for determining when a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, including conduct involving illegally selling a controlled substance, or the commission of an offense involving the unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or the use of the premises to further that purpose.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a jurisdiction from bringing on unlawful detainer action under these provisions unless that entity made a good faith effort to collect and report certain information to the California Research Bureau.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Oakland and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in the name of the people against any person who is in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose provisions of the unlawful detainer provision described above, with respect to controlled substances.

Existing law also requires the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions, by a specified date, to submit information to the California Research Bureau, and the bureau in turn, to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established, by March 20, 2016, and March 20, 2018.

This bill would extend the sunset dates for these provisions until January 1, 2024, would additionally apply the unlawful detainer provisions with respect to controlled substances to real property in the City of Long Beach, and would extend the reporting deadlines for the California Research Bureau to submit its report to the legislative committees to March 20, 2021, and March 20, 2023.

The bill would also eliminate some elements that the local authorities are required to report to the California Research Bureau. The bill would, for unlawful detainer auctions for properties situated in Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento for nuisances related to controlled substances, provide that a defendant could raise as an affirmative defense that the jurisdiction did not make a good faith effort to collect and report the required information.

Because this bill would extend existing reporting requirements for local authorities, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Sacramento.

Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything that is injurious to health, including nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. Existing law establishes the criteria for determining when a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, including conduct involving illegally selling a controlled substance, or the commission of an offense involving the unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or the use of the premises to further that purpose.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Oakland and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in the name of the people against any person who is in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose provisions of the unlawful detainer provision described above, with respect to controlled substances.

Existing law also requires the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions, by a specified date, to submit information to the California Research Bureau, and the bureau in turn, to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established, by March 20, 2016, and March 20, 2018.

This bill would extend the sunset dates for these provisions until January 1, 2024, would additionally apply the unlawful detainer provisions with respect to controlled substances to real property in the City of Long Beach, and would extend the reporting deadlines for the California Research Bureau to submit its report to the legislative committees to March 20, 2021, and March 20, 2023.

The bill would also eliminate some elements that the local authorities are required to report to the California Research Bureau. The bill would, for unlawful detainer auctions for properties situated in Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento for nuisances related to controlled substances, provide that a defendant could raise as an affirmative defense that the jurisdiction did not make a good faith effort to collect and report the required information.

Because this bill would extend existing reporting requirements for local authorities, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Sacramento.

Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything that is injurious to health, including nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. Existing law establishes the criteria for determining when a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, including conduct involving illegally selling a controlled substance, or the commission of an offense involving the unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or the use of the premises to further that purpose.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified.

Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Oakland and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in the name of the people against any person who is in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose provisions of the unlawful detainer provision described above, with respect to controlled substances.

Existing law also requires the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions, by a specified date, to submit information to the California Research Bureau, and the bureau in turn, to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established, by a specified date. March 20, 2016, and March 20, 2018.

This bill would repeal extend the sunset dates for these provisions until January 1, 2024, would additionally apply the unlawful detainer provisions with respect to controlled substances to real property in the City of Long Beach, and would establish a new date for the submission of information to extend the reporting deadlines for the California Research Bureau by local authorities as well as for the submission of a report by the bureau to submit its report to the legislative committees. committees to March 20, 2021, and March 20, 2023.

Because this bill would extend existing reporting requirements for local authorities, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Sacramento.

Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of tenancies of real property. Existing law provides that a tenant for years or at will has no other rights to the property than those given by the agreement or instrument by which the tenancy is acquired, or by another specified provision of law.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to this provision.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2930

Author:(Santiago)

As Amended Ver:June 21, 2018

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for two nuisance-eviction pilot programs that conditionally allows city attorneys and prosecutors in authorized cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or controlled substances. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in a pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as specified.
2. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in the pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful drugs or controlled substances, as specified.
3. Significantly reduces data reporting requirements by eliminating many of the data items that city attorneys or prosecutors must report to the California Research Bureau (CRB) each year as a condition of participating in the pilot programs.
4. Requires the CRB to summarize the data reported by participating cities in a brief report to be submitted to the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary Committees by specified dates in 2021 and 2023.

The Senate amendments harmonize provisions between the unlawful weapons and controlled substances pilot programs by doing the following:

1. Prohibit a participating jurisdiction from bringing an unlawful weapons-based eviction unless that entity made a good faith effort to collect and timely report all required information to the California Research Bureau.
2. Permit a defendant to raise as an affirmative defense to a controlled substances-based eviction the failure of the participating jurisdiction to make a good faith effort to collect and timely report all required information to the California Research Bureau for the reporting period preceding the unlawful detainer action.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to extend sunset dates for two pilot programs that authorize city attorneys in participating jurisdictions to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons and controlled substances, respectively. Authority for these pilot programs was last renewed for a four-year period in 2014 by AB 2485 (Dickinson), Chapter 341, and AB 2310 (Ridley Thomas), Chapter 339, but that authority is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2018 unless the Legislature takes action.

Short summary of pilot program authority. According to the author, the authority provided to city attorneys and prosecutors under these pilot programs is an important tool that can be used to reduce gun violence, drug dealing, and ultimately protect public safety. The author states: "Under certain circumstances, the property owner may be afraid to evict the tenant because of threats, gang affiliation or other intimidating conduct. Allowing the city attorney to bring the action shields fearful or vulnerable owners from retaliatory threats or violent reprisals from dangerous tenants. Eviction of the tenant committing a weapon or ammunition related violation also increases public safety and the sense of community among law-abiding tenants."

The two pilot programs at issue here authorize city attorneys and prosecutors in participating jurisdictions, rather than the landlord or property owner, to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving illegal weapons and controlled substances. This special statutory authority is unusual because traditionally only a landlord has the authority to file an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for recovery of possession of the property. The city attorney, on the other hand, is not a party to the rental contract or lease.

Under the pilot programs, a city attorney or city prosecutor may file an unlawful detainer action against any person for creating a nuisance on the property by using the premises, or allowing them to be used, for a controlled substance or weapons-related purpose. The city's action would be predicated on its belief that a specified drug or weapons-related offense has occurred on the subject real property, based upon an arrest or warrant by a law enforcement agency, that constitutes a public nuisance.

In any unlawful detainer action brought by the city prosecutor or city attorney under the pilot programs, the public prosecutor must first give 30-calendar days of written notice documenting the alleged nuisance or illegal activity to the landlord and the offending tenant. This notice is designed to give the landlord the first opportunity to file an unlawful detainer action against the offending tenant. The landlord may then either file the action or assign the right to bring the unlawful detainer action to the public prosecutor. If the landlord fails to file an unlawful detainer action, or fails to prosecute such an action diligently and in good faith, then the city attorney or city prosecutor may begin the eviction process by sending the tenant a notice to quit. If the landlord neither evicts the tenant, nor assigns the case to the city attorney, the city attorney may join the landlord and the offending tenant as co-defendants in the suit, and upon prevailing, impose specified penalties upon the landlord.

Evaluation of crime reduction and nuisance abatement objectives. Under existing law, participation in the program also requires the city attorney to report specified information to the CRB about city attorney involvement, property owner response, court processing, and tenant reaction. The law requires CRB, in turn, to evaluate and report the merits of the program to the Legislature. Both pilot programs require an unusually lengthy and detailed range of data variables to be collected by the city attorney and reported to the CRB in each case that the pilot program authority is utilized by the city attorney. These reporting variables were developed by the Judiciary Committee in conjunction with CRB staff several years ago in an effort to facilitate an ambitious research study to evaluate the merits of the pilot program—particularly its efficacy in achieving the long-stated goal of the program, namely, to achieve nuisance abatement and make neighborhoods safer from crime.

Summary of program data reported to CRB. The most recent CRB report to the Legislature evaluating the pilot programs was received in March 2018 and reflects analysis of data reported for the years 2015 to 2017, inclusive. According to the CRB, data for the last three years show a continued decline in use of the pilot program since its inception, with aggregate program use having peaked in the mid to late-2000s. The majority of program use involved controlled substances, even when ignoring the first seven or eight years of data before the illegal weapons program started. In the three cities other than Oakland, drug nuisance violations were roughly 80% of all incidents (only 56% of Oakland incidents were drug-related). A little more than half of all city incidents (55%) have been resolved with tenants voluntarily vacating the premises rather than contesting evictions in court. The majority of incidents have been resolved this way for all cities every year, except for noticeable dips in 2010 and 2011.

Since the start of the pilot program 20 years ago, about one in five incidents (532 out of 2,509) progressed past the voluntary vacate stage and ended with unlawful detainer actions filed (see Table 5 in Appendix C). The percentages of cases filed for each city are 24% (188 of 794) for Long Beach, 20% (324 of 1,593) for Los Angeles, 16% (4 of 25) for Oakland and 16% (16 of 97) for Sacramento. Most cases since 1999 (86%) have been filed by landlords. In parallel with the overall number of incidents, the number of cases filed has also trended down over the years. (Benjamin Tang. "A Review of the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: 2018 Update." California Research Bureau, Mar. 2018. Available at: https://www.library.ca.gov/Content /pdf/crb/reports/UnlawfulDetainer2018Report.pdf)

According to the CRB report, decline in the usage of the program reflects several different factors, but not necessarily the loss of any value to participating cities. Several city attorneys attested that usage of the program fluctuated from year to year depending on the availability of budget and staffing resources and the direction of law enforcement priorities for a given year. City attorneys and police departments interviewed by the CRB routinely praised the programs' "efficiency and cost-effectiveness" as compared to other nuisance abatement strategies.

Data collection and reporting requirements. Existing law requires the 2018 report to indicate whether the cities of Sacramento and Oakland have regularly reported data to the CRB. According to the CRB, both cities "regularly reported their program use, but did not provide the full set of informational items." The CRB concluded that "there is insufficient data for a proper evaluation of the program with regards to crime reduction and nuisance abatement, but the accelerated unlawful detainer procedure is cost-effective when compared to lawsuits and is successful at evicting individual nuisance tenants." CRB also noted that: "Another barrier to compiling and assessing data is that the information currently collected overemphasizes collecting and tracking individual tenant information. Tenant data relevant to program evaluation, such as continued unlawful activity, can be difficult and time-consuming for city attorneys to gather."

In its last two reports to the Legislature, the CRB has done an admirable job of evaluating the merits of the pilot program to the fullest extent possible, based on the incomplete data it received from participating cities. For better or worse, it makes little sense to keep requiring the full range of study variables to be reported each year now that the CRB has completed its study, even though the incomplete nature of past data reporting has limited its ability to make conclusions about the efficacy of the program. Accordingly, the bill reduces reporting requirements by eliminating the collection of various data items, including select variables tracking individual tenant information.

Senate amendments to the bill seek to harmonize provisions between the two pilot programs that are intended to encourage full reporting of required information to the CRB. Under the existing controlled-substance program, participating jurisdictions may not bring an eviction action unless that entity made a good faith effort to collect and timely report all required information to the California Research Bureau. As recently amended, this bill would extend that provision to the weapons-eviction program.

Under the existing weapons-based eviction program, a defendant may raise as an affirmative defense to eviction the failure of the participating jurisdiction to make a good faith effort to collect and timely report all required information to the CRB for the reporting period preceding the unlawful detainer action. As recently amended, this bill would similarly extend that provision to the controlled substances-based eviction program.

Five-year sunset date. The bill establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2024 for both the controlled substances- and weapons-related nuisance eviction programs. The bill would continue the participation of all currently authorized cities, and corrects a drafting error in Section 3486.5 that unintentionally omits Long Beach from the authorizing provisions of the weapons-related nuisance program.

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003830 FN:

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 2930

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/19/18

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/30/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer

DIGEST: This bill renews the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program for an additional five years and modifies the associated data requirements so as to enable better evaluation of whether they are achieving their stated purpose. Specifically, this bill extends the pilot program allowing city attorneys or city prosecutors in four cities – Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento – to institute eviction proceedings against a tenant on behalf of a private landlord who is unable or unwilling to do so, when the tenant has committed a nuisance involving unlawful weapons, ammunition, drugs, or controlled substances.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that a tenant who maintains, commits or permits a nuisance upon the premises or who uses the premises for an unlawful purpose thereby terminates the lease, entitling the landlord to an order for the tenant’s eviction. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161(4).)
2. Specifies that a person who illegally possesses certain firearms or ammunition on the premises, or who illegally possesses or sells a controlled substance on the premises, or who uses the premises to further either purpose, as defined, shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises for the purpose of determining an unlawful detainer against that person. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161(4).)
3. Authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession of weapons or ammunition on the premises or using the premises to further that purpose. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a-f).)
4. Requires the city attorney or prosecutor in the authorized cities to collect specified data about its use of the weapons nuisance program and to provide that data to the California Research Bureau (CRB) for research and evaluation purposes. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(g).)
5. Requires the CRB to submit a brief report to the Legislature by March 20, 2018, summarizing the reported data and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(g)(2)(B).)
6. Authorizes the city attorney or prosecutor in Los Angeles to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession or sale of a controlled substance on the premises or using the premises to further that purpose. Los Angeles officials, however, are not required to report any data to the CRB under this program. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.)
7. Authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in the cities of Oakland and Sacramento to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant pursuant to Section 3486, for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession of controlled substances or using the premises to further that purpose. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.5(a).)
8. Requires the city attorney or prosecutor in Sacramento and Oakland to collect specified data about its use of the controlled substances nuisance program and provide it to the California Research Bureau for research and reporting purposes. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.5(b).)
9. Requires the CRB to submit a brief report to the Legislature by March 20, 2018, summarizing the reported data and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.5(b)(2)(B).)

This bill:

1. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in a pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as specified.
2. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in the pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful drugs or controlled substances, as specified.
3. Eliminates many of the data points that city attorneys or prosecutors must report to the CRB each year as a condition of participating in the pilot programs.
4. Requires the CRB to summarize the data reported by participating cities in a brief report to be submitted to the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary Committees by specified dates in 2021 and 2023.

Background

Few private landlords want to keep tenants that are causing a nuisance at their property, even if the tenants are timely with the rent. When those tenants appear to be engaged in dangerous or criminal activity, however, some private landlords are afraid to try to do anything about it for fear that the tenants will become violent or trash the property. In multi-unit housing, such as apartment buildings, that leaves the other tenants to live with nuisance as a neighbor. It also enables the nuisance behavior to continue unabated.

In response to this dynamic, the Legislature enacted the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program in 1997. Beginning the following year, city prosecutors and city attorneys in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento received authority to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants, when those tenants have caused a nuisance through conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as evidenced by an arrest or warrant based on an offense committed at the property and documented by the observations of law enforcement officials. Since then, the Legislature has twice renewed the pilot programs with some modifications, once in 2009 and again in 2014.

The programs work as follows: city attorneys or city prosecutors identify a property where they believe unlawful drug or weapons-related activity is taking place. Upon obtaining sufficient evidence to support an arrest or issuance of a warrant for the tenants at the property, the city attorney or city prosecutor notifies the landlord of its belief that the tenant is causing a nuisance and requesting that the landlord take action to evict the tenant. The city attorney or city prosecutor must simultaneously notify the tenant of the impending eviction attempt, using language set forth in the statute and translated into the major languages in use in California. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(1)(A-C).)

Within 30 days of receiving the notice from the city attorney or prosecutor, the landlord must either begin the process of attempting to evict the tenant or assign to the city attorney or prosecutor the right to bring legal action to evict the tenant. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(1)(D).) If the landlord elects to assign over the right to evict the tenant, the city attorney or prosecutor may charge the landlord up to $600 for the costs of the proceeding. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(1)(E).) If the landlord does not assign over the right to evict the tenants, but fails to pursue such an eviction diligently on the landlord’s own behalf, then the city attorney or prosecutor may initiate an eviction lawsuit against the tenant anyway, with the landlord named as an additional defendant. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(2).)

If the matter reaches trial – an extraordinarily rare occurrence for the reasons discussed in the Comments, below – and the city attorney or prosecutor convinces the court that the tenant did indeed cause a nuisance through conduct related to unlawful weapons, ammunition, or drugs, then the court may order the eviction of all occupants of the property, or order just the household members involved in the nuisance to vacate. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(b).)

This bill renews these pilot programs for an additional five years, moving the sunset on them back from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2024. This bill also modifies somewhat the reporting requirements associated with the pilots, in order to better assist the California Research Bureau in its efforts to evaluate whether the programs have been successful in their stated mission: to reduce criminal activity.

Comments

Due process considerations

Critics of these pilot programs have pointed out that they permit city attorneys and prosecutors to evict tenants on little more than probable cause. After all, these critics point out, the statutes authorize city attorneys and prosecutors to proceed with an eviction lawsuit based solely on an arrest or a warrant issued for criminal activity at the property. Once the eviction process is set in motion under this statute, the chances that a tenant could prevail are quite limited: the city attorney or prosecutor has the power of the state at that person’s disposal, while the tenant is on their own unless they can afford legal counsel or are able to find a legal aid attorney to represent them. Even with an attorney, a tenant is unlikely to be able to dispel the suspicion generated by having law enforcement and the city lined up against them.

While these are, arguably, valid due process concerns, it is also true that they are not unique to these pilot programs. Tenants frequently move out “voluntarily” when confronted by the prospect that an eviction lawsuit will be filed against them. Those who do stay rarely manage to navigate the complex procedural requirements for responding to a lawsuit within the greatly compressed timeline that eviction cases operate on. If they do manage to reach the point of appearing in court on the case, the overwhelming majority of tenants do so without the benefit of counsel, while the plaintiff landlords are nearly always accompanied by an attorney. Finally, when it comes to nuisance evictions of any kind, the standard of proof is merely “preponderance of the evidence” not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” since eviction actions are civil, not criminal cases. Thus, the testimony of a law enforcement official as to the existence of a nuisance in a rental property would likely carry the day in an eviction case independent from these pilot programs. In short, if there are due process shortcomings to this program, it may be that they are more the result of the due process shortcomings inherent in California’s eviction procedures than anything unique to these pilot programs.

Deterrence or just displacement?

In theory, empowering city attorneys and prosecutors to bring nuisance eviction actions on behalf of private landlords serves the purpose of deterring or stopping the criminal activity that is taking place. The program is subject to the obvious criticism that evicting problematic tenants may not so much stop criminal activity as force it to move. Some of the data reporting required under the pilot programs was clearly designed to get at this question. (See, e.g., Civ. Code Sec. 3485(g)(1)(L) “Whether the tenant continued to engage in unlawful activity at his or her new place of residence, if known.”). Yet it would be quite difficult to track this information, and if it could be tracked, there would be no basis to conclude that the eviction was, alone, the causal factor behind either a tenant’s continued criminal activity or reform.

The program may perhaps nonetheless be justified for its effect on the immediate neighbors. The criminal activity may only have moved to a new location, but that may still come as a considerable relief to those still living at the old location. Then again of course, the neighbors at the new location may view things differently.

Data collection and evaluation challenges

The creators of the pilot programs designed them with a significant data collection component. It seems likely that this was motivated at least in part by a desire to see whether some of the concerns about due process and deterrence versus displacement could be monitored. To date, however, the data collected has been insufficient to seriously evaluate whether the pilot programs have been successful in achieving their stated purpose and whether critics’ concerns have played out in reality.

The CRB receives and analyzes the data from the pilot cities in the program. According to the CRB, while the cities required to report data did so regularly, they “did not provide the full set of informational items.” Ultimately, the CRB concluded that there is insufficient data for a proper evaluation of the program with regards to crime reduction and nuisance abatement. Among the problems, the CRB wrote, is that “the information currently collected overemphasizes collecting and tracking individual tenant information. Tenant data relevant to program evaluation, such as continued unlawful activity, can be difficult and time-consuming for city attorneys to gather.”

At the same time that it renews the pilot programs for an additional five years, this bill modifies the data collection component of the programs somewhat. In response to the points raised by the CRB, the information sought now focuses more on those things that are easily within the city attorney or prosecutors’ ability to obtain. Accordingly, good faith efforts should now enable all of the pilots to send in a robust set of data. With that in mind, the bill provides that a city’s authority to evict under the pilots is contingent upon compliance with the data submission requirements and that defendants may raise lack of data submission as an affirmative defense to an eviction lawsuit brought under the bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/7/18)

Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (source)

California Apartment Association

Mayor and Council of the City of Sacramento

Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/7/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

AB 2930 would [extend] the sunset date on the existing California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program, which has been in place since 1998. The pilot program has allowed city attorneys to initiate unlawful detainer actions against certain tenants for the abatement of nuisance behavior crimes relating to controlled substances and illegal firearms and ammunition.

Property owners are frequently unaware that their tenants have committed crimes on the premises. The UD pilot program provides for notification by the city attorney to the property owner advising of a firearm or controlled substances crime committed on the premises and requiring the property owner to evict the tenant. The tenant is also notified, thereby decreasing the chances of retaliation against the property owner.

Under certain circumstances, the property owner may be afraid to evict the tenant because of threats, gang affiliation or other intimidating conduct. Allowing the city attorney to bring the action shields fearful or vulnerable owners from retaliatory threats or violent reprisals from dangerous tenants. Eviction of the tenant committing a weapon or ammunition related violation also increases public safety and the sense of community among law-abiding tenants.

A recent example of the use of the provisions of the pilot program occurred in 2016 when Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed a narcotics and firearm nuisance abatement lawsuit against the owner of a South Los Angeles apartment complex. The buildings had become a heavily fortified gang stronghold for crack cocaine production and sales. The apartment was located less than 400 feet from a middle school and was within half a mile of an elementary school.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/30/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Frazier

Prepared by: Timothy Griffiths / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/8/18 13:01:56

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2930 (Author:Santiago)

Version: April 19, 2018

Hearing Date: June 19, 2018

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: TSG

SUBJECT

Unlawful detainer: nuisance: unlawful weapons and ammunition

DESCRIPTION

In 1997, the Legislature authorized the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program allowing city attorneys or city prosecutors in four cities – Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento – to institute eviction proceedings against a tenant on behalf of a private landlord who is unable or unwilling to do so, when the tenant has committed a nuisance involving unlawful weapons, ammunition, drugs, or controlled substances. These pilot programs are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2018. This bill would renew the pilot programs for an additional five years and modify the data collection requirements so as to enable better evaluation of whether they are achieving their stated purpose.

BACKGROUND

Few private landlords want to keep tenants that are causing a nuisance at their property, even if the tenants are timely with the rent. When those tenants appear to be engaged in dangerous or criminal activity, however, some private landlords are afraid to try to do anything about it for fear that the tenants will become violent or trash the property. In multi-unit housing, such as apartment buildings, that leaves the other tenants to live with nuisance as a neighbor. It also enables the nuisance behavior to continue unabated.

In response to this dynamic, the Legislature enacted the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program in 1997. Beginning the following year, city prosecutors and city attorneys in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento received authority to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants, when those tenants have caused a nuisance through conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as evidenced by an arrest or warrant based on an offense committed at the property and documented by the observations of law enforcement officials. Since then, the Legislature has twice renewed the pilot programs with some modifications, once in 2009 and again in 2014.

The programs work as follows: city attorneys or city prosecutors identify a property where they believe unlawful drug or weapons-related activity is taking place. Upon obtaining sufficient evidence to support an arrest or issuance of a warrant for the tenants at the property, the city attorney or city prosecutor notifies the landlord of its belief that the tenant is causing a nuisance and requesting that the landlord take action to evict the tenant. The city attorney or city prosecutor must simultaneously notify the tenant of the impending eviction attempt, using language set forth in the statute and translated into the major languages in use in California. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(1)(A-C).)

Within 30 days of receiving the notice from the city attorney or prosecutor, the landlord must either begin the process of attempting to evict the tenant or assign to the city attorney or prosecutor the right to bring legal action to evict the tenant. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(1)(D).) If the landlord elects to assign over the right to evict the tenant, the city attorney or prosecutor may charge the landlord up to $600 for the costs of the proceeding. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(1)(E).) If the landlord does not assign over the right to evict the tenants, but fails to pursue such an eviction diligently on the landlord’s own behalf, then the city attorney or prosecutor may initiate an eviction lawsuit against the tenant anyway, with the landlord named as an additional defendant. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a)(2).)

If the matter reaches trial – an extraordinarily rare occurrence for the reasons discussed in Comment 3, below – and the city attorney or prosecutor convinces the court that the tenant did indeed cause a nuisance through conduct related to unlawful weapons, ammunition, or drugs, then the court may order the eviction of all occupants of the property, or order just the household members involved in the nuisance to vacate. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(b).)

This bill would renew these pilot programs for an additional five years, moving the sunset on them back from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2024. The bill would also modify somewhat the reporting requirements associated with the pilots, in order to better assist the California Research Bureau in its efforts to evaluate whether the programs have been successful in their stated mission: to reduce criminal activity.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that a tenant who maintains, commits or permits a nuisance upon the premises or who uses the premises for an unlawful purpose thereby terminates the lease, entitling the landlord to an order for the tenant’s eviction. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161(4).)

Existing law specifies that a person who illegally possesses certain firearms or ammunition on the premises, or who illegally possesses or sells a controlled substance on the premises, or who uses the premises to further either purpose, as defined, shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises for the purpose of determining an unlawful detainer against that person. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161(4).)

Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession of weapons or ammunition on the premises or using the premises to further that purpose. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(a-f).)

Existing law requires the city attorney or prosecutor in the authorized cities to collect specified data about its use of the weapons nuisance program and to provide that data to the California Research Bureau (CRB) for research and evaluation purposes. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(g).)

Existing law requires the CRB to submit a brief report to the Legislature by March 20, 2018, summarizing the reported data and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. (Civ. Code Sec. 3485(g)(2)(B).)

Existing law authorizes the city attorney or prosecutor in Los Angeles to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession or sale of a controlled substance on the premises or using the premises to further that purpose. Los Angeles officials, however, are not required to report any data to the CRB under this program. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.)

Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in the cities of Oakland and Sacramento to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant pursuant to Section 3486, for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession of controlled substances or using the premises to further that purpose. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.5(a).)

Existing law requires the city attorney or prosecutor in Sacramento and Oakland to collect specified data about its use of the controlled substances nuisance program and provide it to the California Research Bureau for research and reporting purposes. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.5(b).)

Existing law requires the CRB to submit a brief report to the Legislature by March 20, 2018, summarizing the reported data and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486.5(b)(2)(B).)

This bill would extend authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in a pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as specified.

This bill would extend authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in the pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful drugs or controlled substances, as specified.

This bill would eliminate many of the data points that city attorneys or prosecutors must report to the California Research Bureau (CRB) each year as a condition of participating in the pilot programs.

This bill would require the CRB to summarize the data reported by participating cities in a brief report to be submitted to the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary Committees by specified dates in 2021 and 2023.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

AB 2930 would [extend] the sunset date on the existing California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program, which has been in place since 1998. The pilot program has allowed city attorneys to initiate unlawful detainer actions against certain tenants for the abatement of nuisance behavior crimes relating to controlled substances and illegal firearms and ammunition.

Property owners are frequently unaware that their tenants have committed crimes on the premises. The UD pilot program provides for notification by the city attorney to the property owner advising of a firearm or controlled substances crime committed on the premises and requiring the property owner to evict the tenant. The tenant is also notified, thereby decreasing the chances of retaliation against the property owner.

Under certain circumstances, the property owner may be afraid to evict the tenant because of threats, gang affiliation or other intimidating conduct. Allowing the city attorney to bring the action shields fearful or vulnerable owners from retaliatory threats or violent reprisals from dangerous tenants. Eviction of the tenant committing a weapon or ammunition related violation also increases public safety and the sense of community among law-abiding tenants.

A recent example of the use of the provisions of the pilot program occurred in 2016 when Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed a narcotics and firearm nuisance abatement lawsuit against the owner of a South Los Angeles apartment complex. The buildings had become a heavily fortified gang stronghold for crack cocaine production and sales. The apartment was located less than 400 feet from a middle school and was within half a mile of an elementary school.

2. Due process considerations

Critics of these pilot programs have pointed out that they permit city attorneys and prosecutors to evict tenants on little more than probable cause. After all, these critics point out, the statutes authorize city attorneys and prosecutors to proceed with an eviction lawsuit based solely on an arrest or a warrant issued for criminal activity at the property. Once the eviction process is set in motion under this statute, the chances that a tenant could prevail are quite limited: the city attorney or prosecutor has the power of the state at that person’s disposal, while the tenant is on their own unless they can afford legal counsel or are able to find a legal aid attorney to represent them. Even with an attorney, a tenant is unlikely to be able to dispel the suspicion generated by having law enforcement and the city lined up against them.

While these are, arguably, valid due process concerns, it is also true that they are not unique to these pilot programs. Tenants frequently move out “voluntarily” when confronted by the prospect that an eviction lawsuit will be filed against them. Those who do stay rarely manage to navigate the complex procedural requirements for responding to a lawsuit within the greatly compressed timeline that eviction cases operate on. If they do manage to reach the point of appearing in court on the case, the overwhelming majority of tenants do so without the benefit of counsel, while the plaintiff landlords are nearly always accompanied by an attorney. Finally, when it comes to nuisance evictions of any kind, the standard of proof is merely “preponderance of the evidence” not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” since eviction actions are civil, not criminal cases. Thus, the testimony of a law enforcement official as to the existence of a nuisance in a rental property would likely carry the day in an eviction case independent from these pilot programs. In short, if there are due process shortcomings to this program, it may be that they are more the result of the due process shortcomings inherent in California’s eviction procedures than anything unique to these pilot programs.

Arguably, the more disturbing potential downside to this pilot program is the collateral impact on what may be relatively innocent household members. It is probably not a good thing for children to be living where unlawful weapons or drug activity is taking place, but it is definitely not a good thing for children to go homeless. The pilot programs have a provision that deals with this problem in theory: courts may order “partial” eviction forcing just some of the household members to vacate while allowing others to stay. In practice, it is hard to imagine a court issuing such an order, in part because it is hard to envision how law enforcement would monitor compliance.

3. Deterrence or just displacement?

In theory, empowering city attorneys and prosecutors to bring nuisance eviction actions on behalf of private landlords serves the purpose of deterring or stopping the criminal activity that is taking place. The program is subject to the obvious criticism that evicting problematic tenants may not so much stop criminal activity as force it to move. Some of the data reporting required under the pilot programs was clearly designed to get at this question. (See, e.g., Civ. Code Sec. 3485(g)(1)(L) “Whether the tenant continued to engage in unlawful activity at his or her new place of residence, if known.”). Yet it would be quite difficult to track this information, and if it could be tracked, there would be no basis to conclude that the eviction was, alone, the causal factor behind either a tenant’s continued criminal activity or reform.

The program may perhaps nonetheless be justified for its effect on the immediate neighbors. The criminal activity may only have moved to a new location, but that may still come as a considerable relief to those still living at the old location. Then again of course, the neighbors at the new location may view things differently.

4. Data collection and evaluation challenges

The creators of the pilot programs designed them with a significant data collection component. It seems likely that this was motivated at least in part by a desire to see whether some of the concerns about due process and deterrence versus displacement could be monitored. To date, however, the data collected has been insufficient to seriously evaluate whether the pilot programs have been successful in achieving their stated purpose and whether critics’ concerns have played out in reality.

The California Research Bureau (CRB) receives and analyzes the data from the pilot cities in the program. According to the CRB, while the cities required to report data did so regularly, they “did not provide the full set of informational items.” Ultimately, the CRB concluded that there is insufficient data for a proper evaluation of the program with regards to crime reduction and nuisance abatement. Among the problems, the CRB wrote, is that “the information currently collected overemphasizes collecting and tracking individual tenant information. Tenant data relevant to program evaluation, such as continued unlawful activity, can be difficult and time-consuming for city attorneys to gather.”^[1]

At the same time that it renews the pilot programs for an additional five years, this bill would modify the data collection component of the programs somewhat. In response to the points raised by the CRB, the information sought now focuses more on those things that are easily within the city attorney or prosecutors’ ability to obtain. Accordingly, good faith efforts should now enable all of the pilots to which the reporting requirements apply, to send in a robust set of data. With that in mind, and in light of the fact that so few eviction matters reach the point of trial, the author may wish to consider altering the consequence for any pilot program’s failure to provide a complete data set. As currently drafted, the bill provides that tenants can raise a city’s failure to report the data as an affirmative defense to the eviction. Instead, it may better incentivize reporting if the cities can only exercise their authority to evict under the pilot if they are compliant with the data submission requirements. Such a change would also be consistent with the existing provisions elsewhere in the statute.

5. Few definitive conclusions from the data collected thus far

Despite the limited nature of the data collected, the California Research Bureau analyzed it and submitted it to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary, as required by the statutes that authorized the pilots. In its analysis of this bill, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary summarized some of the key findings in that report as follows:

1. Long Beach: Long Beach has used the pilot program to a greater degree than Sacramento, Los Angeles, or Oakland, and primarily in the area of controlled substance nuisance evictions. (2015: 42 incidents (42 controlled substance evictions); 2016: 21 incidents (16 controlled substance evictions); 2017: 47 incidents (33 controlled substance evictions, and an additional 11 both weapons and controlled substance evictions.) Roughly 60% of all incidents in Long Beach resulted in the tenant voluntarily vacating the premises, while between 10 and 20 percent resulted in an unlawful detainer being filed in court.

2. Sacramento: Sacramento has used the pilot programs sparingly in recent years (2015: 10 total incidents (7 controlled substance evictions); 2016: 7 incidents (5 controlled substance evictions); 2017: 3 incidents (3 controlled substance evictions.) Except for one incident in 2017, every incident ended with the tenants voluntarily vacating the premises.

3. Los Angeles: State law no longer requires Los Angeles to report on controlled substance nuisance evictions, so only data related to illegal weapons evictions is reflected in the recent CRB report. There were 12 such incidents in 2015 and another 12 in 2016, with over half resulting in the tenants voluntarily vacating the premises after the initial notice was given, and the remainder proceeding to unlawful detainer in court.

4. Oakland: Oakland reported 10 incidents in 2015 (9 of them involving weapons, or both drugs and weapons), 10 incidents in 2016 (7 of them involving weapons, or both drugs and weapons), and only 5 incidents in 2017 (all of them involving weapons, or both drugs and weapons). Approximately 60% of Oakland incidents resulted in the tenants voluntarily vacating the premises after the initial notice.

Program use since inception. According to the CRB, data for the last three years show a continued decline in use of the pilot program since its inception, with aggregate program use having peaked in the mid to late-2000s. The majority of program use involved controlled substances, even when ignoring the first seven or eight years of data before the illegal weapons program started. In the three cities other than Oakland, drug nuisance violations were roughly 80 percent of all incidents (only 56 percent of Oakland incidents were drug-related). A little more than half of all city incidents (55 percent) have been resolved with tenants voluntarily vacating the premises rather than contesting evictions in court. The majority of incidents have been resolved this way for all cities every year, except for noticeable dips in 2010 and 2011.

Since the start of the pilot program 20 years ago, about one in five incidents (532 out of 2,509) progressed past the voluntary vacate stage and ended with unlawful detainer actions filed (see Table 5 in Appendix C). The percentages of cases filed for each city are 24 percent (188 of 794) for Long Beach, 20 percent (324 of 1,593) for Los Angeles, 16 percent (4 of 25) for Oakland and 16 percent (16 of 97) for Sacramento. Most cases since 1999 (86 percent) have been filed by landlords. In parallel with the overall number of incidents, the number of cases filed has also trended down over the years.

According to the CRB report, decline in the usage of the program reflects several different factors, but not necessarily the loss of any value to participating jurisdictions. Several city attorneys attested that usage of the program fluctuated from year to year depending on the availability of budget and staffing resources and the direction of law enforcement priorities for a given year. City attorneys and police departments interviewed by the CRB routinely praised the programs’ “efficiency and cost-effectiveness” as compared to other nuisance abatement strategies.^[2]

6. Proposed Amendments

In order to address the issues set forth in the analysis, above, the author has offered to incorporate amendments into the bill that would:

• prohibit city attorneys and city prosecutors from utilizing the authority provided to them under this bill unless they are in good faith compliance with all reporting requirements; and
• make the affirmative defense based on failure of the relevant city to comply with the data reporting requirements, apply to controlled substance nuisance evictions just as it already does to weapons nuisance evictions.

The specific amendments are as follows:

Amendment 1

On page 10, between lines 17 and 18 insert:

(i) A participating jurisdiction shall not be permitted to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer pursuant to this section unless that jurisdiction has made a good faith effort to collect and timely report all information to the California Research Bureau required by subdivision (g).

Amendment 2

On page 10, in line 18, strike out “(h)” and insert:

(i)

Amendment 3

On page 10, in line 23, strike out “(i)” and insert:

(j)

Amendment 4

On page 13, between lines 20 and 21 insert:

(d) A defendant may raise as an affirmative defense, the failure of the participating jurisdiction to make a good faith effort to collect and timely report all information to the California Research Bureau required by subdivision (b) for the reporting period preceding the unlawful detainer action.

Amendment 5

On page 13, in line 21, strike out “(d)” and insert:

(e)

Support: California Apartment Association; Mayor and Council of the City of Sacramento; Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker

Opposition: None known

HISTORY

Source: Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer

Related Pending Legislation:

AB 2413 (Chiu, 2018) would prohibit landlords from evicting tenants solely on the ground that they, or others, have summoned law enforcement or other emergency assistance to the dwelling to obtain help for the tenant or a household member as victims of crime or on account of medical emergency. The bill would also prohibit a local ordinance from requiring a landlord to evict based solely on the fact that the tenant has summoned law enforcement or other emergency assistance to the home to help with a situation in which the tenant or another member of the household is a victim of crime or in need of urgent medical attention. AB 2413 is pending consideration on the Senate Floor.

Prior Legislation:

AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas, Ch. 339, Stats. 2014) reauthorized the pilot program for unlawful weapons-related nuisance evictions until January 1, 2019, and renewed participation for the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento.

AB 2485 (Dickinson, Ch. 341, Stats. 2014) reauthorized the pilot program for controlled substances-related nuisance evictions pilot until January 1, 2019, and renewed participation for the cities of Oakland and Sacramento.

AB 530 (Krekorian, Ch. 244, Stats. 2009) extended the sunset date to January 1, 2014, for two pilot programs permitting city attorneys or prosecutors in specified cities to bring an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for unlawful activities regarding both weapons and controlled substances. AB 530 also added the City of Sacramento to the controlled substances pilot program.

AB 1384 (Havice, Ch. 613, Stats. 1998) created a pilot project in five specified Los Angeles Municipal Court districts to allow city attorneys and district attorneys to seek the eviction of any person who is in violation of nuisance or controlled substance law, with an operative sunset date of January 1, 2002.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 16, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

1. Benjamin Tang, A Review of the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: 2018 Update (Mar. 2018) California Research Bureau <https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/UnlawfulDetainer

   2018Report.pdf> (as of June 9, 2018). ↑

2. For further detail and the source for this summary, see Benjamin Tang, A Review of the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: 2018 Update (Mar. 2018) California Research Bureau <https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/UnlawfulDetainer2018Report.pdf> (as of June 9, 2018). ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2930

Author:(Santiago)

As Amended Ver:April 19, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for two nuisance-eviction pilot programs that conditionally allows city attorneys and prosecutors in authorized cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or controlled substances. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in a pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as specified.
2. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in the pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful drugs or controlled substances, as specified.
3. Significantly reduces data reporting requirements by eliminating many of the data items that city attorneys or prosecutors must report to the California Research Bureau (CRB) each year as a condition of participating in the pilot programs.
4. Requires the CRB to summarize the data reported by participating cities in a brief report to be submitted to the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary Committees by specified dates in 2021 and 2023.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor, absorbable costs to CRB to collect data and report to the Legislature.

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to extend sunset dates for two nuisance eviction pilot programs that authorize city attorneys in participating jurisdictions to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons and controlled substances, respectively. Authority for these pilot programs was last renewed for a four-year period in 2014 by AB 2485 (Dickinson), Chapter 341, and AB 2310 (Ridley Thomas), Chapter 339, but that authority is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2018 unless the Legislature takes action.

According to the author, the authority provided to city attorneys and prosecutors under these pilot programs is an important tool that can be used to reduce gun violence, drug dealing, and ultimately protect public safety. The author states: "The pilot program has allowed city attorneys to initiate unlawful detainer actions against certain tenants for the abatement of nuisance behavior crimes relating to controlled substances and illegal firearms and ammunition. Under certain circumstances, the property owner may be afraid to evict the tenant because of threats, gang affiliation or other intimidating conduct. Allowing the city attorney to bring the action shields fearful or vulnerable owners from retaliatory threats or violent reprisals from dangerous tenants. Eviction of the tenant committing a weapon or ammunition related violation also increases public safety and the sense of community among law-abiding tenants."

Short summary of pilot program authority. The two pilot programs at issue here authorize city attorneys and prosecutors in participating jurisdictions, rather than the landlord or property owner, to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving illegal weapons and controlled substances. This special statutory authority is unusual because traditionally only a landlord has the authority to file an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for recovery of possession of the property. The city attorney, on the other hand, is not a party to the rental contract or lease.

Under the pilot programs, a city attorney or city prosecutor may file an unlawful detainer action against any person for creating a nuisance on the property by using the premises, or allowing them to be used, for a controlled substance or weapons-related purpose. The city's action would be predicated on its belief that a specified drug or weapons-related offense has occurred on the subject real property, based upon an arrest or warrant by a law enforcement agency, that constitutes a public nuisance.

In any unlawful detainer action brought by the city prosecutor or city attorney under the pilot programs, the public prosecutor must first give 30-calendar days of written notice documenting the alleged nuisance or illegal activity to the landlord and the offending tenant. This notice is designed to give the landlord the first opportunity to file an unlawful detainer action against the offending tenant. The landlord may then either file the action or assign the right to bring the unlawful detainer action to the public prosecutor. If the landlord fails to file an unlawful detainer action, or fails to prosecute such an action diligently and in good faith, then the city attorney or city prosecutor may begin the eviction process by sending the tenant a notice to quit. If the landlord neither evicts the tenant, nor assigns the case to the city attorney, the city attorney may join the landlord and the offending tenant as co-defendants in the suit, and upon prevailing, impose specified penalties upon the landlord.

Due process concerns. Since its inception, there have been longstanding concerns that the program facilitates displacement of tenants through eviction (or more often, through voluntary removal) at the expense of ensuring due process protections for tenants. For example, under the pilot program, authorities can begin the nuisance eviction process by sending an initial notice to a tenant and landlord based upon "an arrest or warrant by a law enforcement agency, reporting an offense committed on the property" and "documented by the observations of a law enforcement officer or agent." (Civil Code Section 3485 (a).) Tenant advocates note that this standard allows the nuisance eviction process to begin based on a mere arrest or warrant, rather than a conviction, for an alleged drug- or weapons-related offense. In such cases, there has been judicial determination of the underlying illegal conduct that is the basis for the eviction, but the program nonetheless allows authorities to issue written notices that are the precursor to eviction proceedings.

As past CRB reports on the pilot programs have shown, all available evidence reported from participating jurisdictions indicates that, for a variety of reasons, a majority of tenants who receive these pre-eviction 30-day notices never make it to a trial on the merits. This means that reviewing courts are frequently unable to weigh the merits of the city attorney's rationale for initiating an unlawful detainer action under this program. Tenant advocates note that some individuals, particularly immigrant or unrepresented tenants, may be fearful of asserting their rights even if they have a valid claim of right to possession or defense against the eviction proceeding, and instead will voluntarily vacate the property to avoid further government attention after having received the initial warning letter. On the other hand, this is a common fact pattern in unlawful detainer cases in general and is not specific to the notices provided pursuant to the pilot programs. However, the fact that the occupants of the property voluntarily remove themselves from the premises without an unlawful detainer trial on the merits of the case does not necessarily mean the program is "successful." Instead, it simply indicates that the program effectively displaces persons under a set of circumstances that do not necessarily require a trial on the merits of the case—thus raising potential due process concerns.

Evaluation of crime reduction and nuisance abatement objectives. Under existing law, participation in the program also requires the city attorney to report specified information to the CRB about city attorney involvement, property owner response, court processing, and tenant reaction. The law requires CRB, in turn, to evaluate and report the merits of the program to the Legislature. Both pilot programs require an unusually lengthy and detailed range of data variables to be collected by the city attorney and reported to the CRB in each case that the pilot program authority is utilized by the city attorney. These reporting variables were developed by the Judiciary Committee in conjunction with CRB staff several years ago in an effort to facilitate an ambitious research study to evaluate the merits of the pilot program—particularly its efficacy in achieving the long-stated goal of the program, namely, to achieve nuisance abatement and make neighborhoods safer from crime.

Summary of program data reported to CRB. The most recent CRB report to the Legislature evaluating the pilot programs was received in March 2018 and reflects analysis of data reported for the years 2015 to 2017, inclusive. According to the CRB, data for the last three years show a continued decline in use of the pilot program since its inception, with aggregate program use having peaked in the mid to late-2000s. The majority of program use involved controlled substances, even when ignoring the first seven or eight years of data before the illegal weapons program started. In the three cities other than Oakland, drug nuisance violations were roughly 80% of all incidents (only 56% of Oakland incidents were drug-related). A little more than half of all city incidents (55%) have been resolved with tenants voluntarily vacating the premises rather than contesting evictions in court. The majority of incidents have been resolved this way for all cities every year, except for noticeable dips in 2010 and 2011.

Since the start of the pilot program 20 years ago, about one in five incidents (532 out of 2,509) progressed past the voluntary vacate stage and ended with unlawful detainer actions filed (see Table 5 in Appendix C). The percentages of cases filed for each city are 24% (188 of 794) for Long Beach, 20% (324 of 1,593) for Los Angeles, 16% (4 of 25) for Oakland and 16% (16 of 97) for Sacramento. Most cases since 1999 (86%) have been filed by landlords. In parallel with the overall number of incidents, the number of cases filed has also trended down over the years. (Benjamin Tang. "A Review of the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: 2018 Update." California Research Bureau, Mar. 2018. Available at: https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/UnlawfulDetainer2018Report.pdf)

According to the CRB report, decline in the usage of the program reflects several different factors, but not necessarily the loss of any value to participating cities. Several city attorneys attested that usage of the program fluctuated from year to year depending on the availability of budget and staffing resources and the direction of law enforcement priorities for a given year. City attorneys and police departments interviewed by the CRB routinely praised the programs' "efficiency and cost-effectiveness" as compared to other nuisance abatement strategies.

Data collection and reporting requirements. Existing law requires the 2018 report to indicate whether the cities of Sacramento and Oakland have regularly reported data to the CRB. According to the CRB, both cities "regularly reported their program use, but did not provide the full set of informational items." The CRB concluded that "there is insufficient data for a proper evaluation of the program with regards to crime reduction and nuisance abatement, but the accelerated unlawful detainer procedure is cost-effective when compared to lawsuits and is successful at evicting individual nuisance tenants." CRB also noted that: "Another barrier to compiling and assessing data is that the information currently collected overemphasizes collecting and tracking individual tenant information. Tenant data relevant to program evaluation, such as continued unlawful activity, can be difficult and time-consuming for city attorneys to gather."

In its last two reports to the Legislature, the CRB has done an admirable job of evaluating the merits of the pilot program to the fullest extent possible, based on the incomplete data it received from participating cities. For better or worse, it makes little sense to keep requiring the full range of study variables to be reported each year now that the CRB has completed its study, even though the incomplete nature of past data reporting has limited its ability to make conclusions about the efficacy of the program. Accordingly, recent amendments reduce reporting requirements by eliminating the collection of various data items, including select variables tracking individual tenant information. In considering future evaluation of the pilot program, the author may wish to explore adopting recommendations made by CRB, including a possible shift of focus to measuring the effect of pilot program usage upon neighborhood nuisance levels, using either qualitative or quantitative analytical methods, or both.

Five-year sunset date. As recently amended, the bill establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2024 for both the controlled substances- and weapons-related nuisance eviction programs. The bill would continue the participation of all currently authorized cities, and corrects a drafting error in Section 3486.5 that unintentionally omits Long Beach from the authorizing provisions of the weapons-related nuisance program.

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003038

Date of Hearing: May 2, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2930

Author:(Santiago) – As Amended Ver:April 19, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill reauthorizes, until January 1, 2024, two nuisance eviction pilot programs that allow city attorneys in participating jurisdictions to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons and controlled substances. The bill also requires the California Research Bureau (CRB) to report information on the use of the eviction program to the Legislature and reduces the types of information required in current law to be collected by the CRB from each jurisdiction that brings such eviction proceedings.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor, absorbable costs to CRB to collect data and report to the Legislature.

COMMENTS:

This bill extends, until January 1, 2024, the pilot program to authorize city attorneys in four cities—Los Angeles, Sacramento, Oakland, and Long Beach—to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving weapons or drugs. This authority is unusual because, traditionally, only the landlord has authority to file an unlawful detainer against a tenant for recovery of possession of the property. According to CRB, the cities have made declining use of the program.

The Legislature has extended the program several times, most recently in 2014 when it established the current program sunset of January 31, 2018.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: SUBSTANCES PILOT PROGRAMS

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD TWO EXISTING PILOT PROGRAMS THAT AUTHORIZE WEAPONS-RELATED AND DRUG-RELATED NUISANCE EVICTIONS BE REAUTHORIZED FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2024, AS SPECIFIED?

SYNOPSIS

As proposed to be amended, this bill seeks to reauthorize, until January 1, 2024, two nuisance eviction pilot programs that allow city attorneys in participating jurisdictions (the cities of Los Angeles, Sacramento, Oakland, and Long Beach) to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons and controlled substances, respectively. Authority for these pilot programs was last renewed for a four-year period in 2014 by AB 2485 (Dickinson) and AB 2310 (Ridley Thomas), but that authority is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2018 unless the Legislature takes action. This special statutory authority is unusual because, traditionally, only the landlord—not the city attorney, who is not a party to the rental contract or lease--has the ability to file an unlawful detainer against a tenant for recovery of possession of the property.

In March 2018, the California Research Bureau published its most recent evaluation of the nuisance eviction pilot programs. According to the Bureau, the participating cities of Sacramento and Oakland regularly reported their use of the program, but did not provide the full set of informational items that were intended to facilitate a more robust research study of the program. Consequently, the CRB found there was insufficient data for a proper evaluation of the programs' ability to meet its objectives to reduce crime and increase nuisance abatement. As proposed to be amended, the bill recognizes the limitations of the current research reporting requirements, and eliminates certain data items from further reporting requirements for cities that continue to participate in the pilot programs. The bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles City Attorney, and supported by the Sacramento City Attorney and the California Apartment Association. There is no known opposition to this bill.

SUMMARY: Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for two nuisance-eviction pilot programs that conditionally allows city attorneys and prosecutors in authorized cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or controlled substances. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in a pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons or ammunition, as specified.
2. Extends authority, until January 1, 2024, for the cities of Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland to continue to participate in the pilot program that conditionally allows the city attorney and prosecutors in these cities to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful drugs or controlled substances, as specified.
3. Significantly reduces data reporting requirements by eliminating many of the data items that city attorneys or prosecutors must report to the California Research Bureau each year as a condition of participating in the pilot programs.
4. Requires the CRB to summarize the data reported by participating cities in a brief report to be submitted to the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary Committees by specified dates in 2021 and 2023.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a tenant who maintains, commits or permits a nuisance upon the premises or who uses the premises for an unlawful purpose thereby terminates the lease, entitling the landlord to restitution of the premises under unlawful detainer. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 (4).)
2. Specifies that a person who illegally possesses certain firearms or ammunition on the premises, or who illegally possesses or sells a controlled substance on the premises, or who uses the premises to further either purpose, as defined, shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises for the purpose of determining an unlawful detainer against that person. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 (4).)
3. Authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession of weapons or ammunition on the premises or using the premises to further that purpose. (Civil Code Section 3485, subd. (a) to (f).)
4. Requires the city attorney or prosecutor in the authorized cities in 3), above, to collect specified data about its use of the weapons nuisance program and provide it to the California Research Bureau for research and reporting purposes. Requires the CRB to submit a brief report to the Legislature by March 20, 2018, summarizing the reported data and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. (Civil Code Section 3485 (g).)
5. Authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in Los Angeles to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession or sale of a controlled substance on the premises or using the premises to further that purpose. Los Angeles officials, however, are not required to report any data to the CRB under this program. (Civil Code Section 3486.)
6. Authorizes, until January 1, 2019, the city attorney or prosecutor in the cities of Oakland and Sacramento to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant pursuant to Section 3486, for committing nuisance violations involving the illegal possession of controlled substances or using the premises to further that purpose. (Civil Code Section 3486.5 (a).)
7. Requires the city attorney or prosecutor in Sacramento and Oakland to collect specified data about its use of the controlled substances nuisance program and provide it to the California Research Bureau for research and reporting purposes. Requires the CRB to submit a brief report to the Legislature by March 20, 2018, summarizing the reported data and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. (Civil Code Section 3486.5 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill, sponsored by the city attorney of Los Angeles, seeks to extend sunset dates for two nuisance eviction pilot programs that authorize city attorneys in participating jurisdictions to bring eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons and controlled substances, respectively. Authority for these pilot programs was last renewed for a four-year period in 2014 by AB 2485 (Dickinson) and AB 2310 (Ridley Thomas), but that authority is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2018 unless the Legislature takes action.

Need for the Bill. According to the author, the authority provided to city attorneys and prosecutors under these pilot programs is an important tool that can be used to reduce gun violence, drug dealing, and ultimately protect public safety. The author states:

AB 2930 would [extend] the sunset date on the existing California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program, which has been in place since 1998. The pilot program has allowed city attorneys to initiate unlawful detainer actions against certain tenants for the abatement of nuisance behavior crimes relating to controlled substances and illegal firearms and ammunition.

Property owners are frequently unaware that their tenants have committed crimes on the premises. The UD pilot program provides for notification by the city attorney to the property owner advising of a firearm or controlled substances crime committed on the premises and requiring the property owner to evict the tenant. The tenant is also notified, thereby decreasing the chances of retaliation against the property owner.

Under certain circumstances, the property owner may be afraid to evict the tenant because of threats, gang affiliation or other intimidating conduct. Allowing the city attorney to bring the action shields fearful or vulnerable owners from retaliatory threats or violent reprisals from dangerous tenants. Eviction of the tenant committing a weapon or ammunition related violation also increases public safety and the sense of community among law-abiding tenants.

A recent example of the use of the provisions of the pilot program occurred in 2016 when Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed a narcotics and firearm nuisance abatement lawsuit against the owner of a South Los Angeles apartment complex. The buildings had become a heavily fortified gang stronghold for crack cocaine production and sales. The apartment was located less than 400 feet from a middle school and was within half a mile of an elementary school.

Short summary of pilot program authority. The two pilot programs at issue here authorize city attorneys and prosecutors in participating jurisdictions, rather than the landlord or property owner, to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving illegal weapons and controlled substances. This special statutory authority is unusual because traditionally only a landlord has the authority to file an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for recovery of possession of the property. The city attorney, on the other hand, is not a party to the rental contract or lease.

Under the pilot programs, a city attorney or city prosecutor may file an unlawful detainer action against any person for creating a nuisance on the property by using the premises, or allowing them to be used, for a controlled substance or weapons-related purpose. The city’s action would be predicated on its belief that a specified drug or weapons-related offense has occurred on the subject real property, based upon an arrest or warrant by a law enforcement agency, that constitutes a public nuisance.

In any unlawful detainer action brought by the city prosecutor or city attorney under the pilot programs, the public prosecutor must first give 30-calendar days of written notice documenting the alleged nuisance or illegal activity to the landlord and the offending tenant. This notice is designed to give the landlord the first opportunity to file an unlawful detainer action against the offending tenant. The landlord may then either file the action or assign the right to bring the unlawful detainer action to the public prosecutor. If the landlord fails to file an unlawful detainer action, or fails to prosecute such an action diligently and in good faith, then the city attorney or city prosecutor may begin the eviction process by sending the tenant a notice to quit. If the landlord neither evicts the tenant, nor assigns the case to the city attorney, the city attorney may join the landlord and the offending tenant as co-defendants in the suit, and upon prevailing, impose specified penalties upon the landlord.

Due process concerns. Since its inception, there have been longstanding concerns that the program facilitates displacement of tenants through eviction (or more often, through voluntary removal) at the expense of ensuring due process protections for tenants. For example, under the pilot program, authorities can begin the nuisance eviction process by sending an initial notice to a tenant and landlord based upon "an arrest or warrant by a law enforcement agency, reporting an offense committed on the property" and "documented by the observations of a law enforcement officer or agent." (Section 3485 (a).) Tenant advocates note that this standard thus allows the nuisance eviction process to begin based on a mere arrest or warrant, rather than a conviction, for an alleged drug- or weapons-related offense. In such cases, there has been no trial or judicial determination of the underlying illegal conduct that is the basis for the eviction, but the pilot program allows authorities to issue written notices that are the precursor to eviction proceedings nonetheless.

As past CRB reports on the pilot programs have shown, all available evidence reported from participating jurisdictions indicates that, for a variety of reasons, a majority of tenants who receive these pre-eviction 30-day notices never make it to a trial on the merits. This means that reviewing courts are frequently unable to weigh the merits of the city attorney’s rationale for initiating an unlawful detainer action under this program. Tenant advocates note that some individuals, particularly immigrant or unrepresented tenants, may be fearful of asserting their rights even if they have a valid claim of right to possession or defense against the eviction proceeding, and instead will voluntarily vacate the property to avoid further government attention after having received the initial warning letter. On the other hand, this is a common fact pattern in unlawful detainer cases in general and is not specific to the notices provided pursuant to the pilot programs. However, the fact that the occupants of the property voluntarily remove themselves from the premises without an unlawful detainer trial on the merits of the case does not necessarily mean the program is "successful." Instead, it simply indicates that the program effectively displaces persons from targeted properties under a set of circumstances that do not necessarily require a trial on the merits of the case—thus raising potential due process concerns.

Evaluation of crime reduction and nuisance abatement objectives. Under existing law, participation in the program also requires the city attorney to report specified information to the CRB about city attorney involvement, property owner response, court processing, and tenant reaction. The law requires CRB, in turn, to evaluate and report the merits of the program to the Legislature. Both pilot programs require an unusually lengthy and detailed range of data variables to be collected by the city attorney and reported to the CRB in each case that the pilot program authority is utilized by the city attorney. These reporting variables were developed by this Committee in conjunction with CRB staff several years ago in an effort to facilitate an ambitious research study to evaluate the merits of the pilot program—particularly its efficacy in achieving the long-stated goal of the program, namely, to achieve nuisance abatement and make neighborhoods safer from crime.

Summary of program data reported to CRB. The most recent CRB report to the Legislature evaluating the pilot programs was received in March 2018 and reflects analysis of data reported for the years 2015 to 2017, inclusive.

1. Long Beach: Long Beach has used the pilot program to a greater degree than Sacramento, Los Angeles, or Oakland, and primarily in the area of controlled substance nuisance evictions. (2015: 42 incidents (42 controlled substance evictions); 2016: 21 incidents (16 controlled substance evictions); 2017: 47 incidents (33 controlled substance evictions, and an additional 11 both weapons and controlled substance evictions.) Roughly 60% of all incidents in Long Beach resulted in the tenant voluntarily vacating the premises, while between 10 and 20 percent resulted in an unlawful detainer being filed in court.

2. Sacramento: Sacramento has used the pilot programs sparingly in recent years (2015: 10 total incidents (7 controlled substance evictions); 2016: 7 incidents (5 controlled substance evictions); 2017: 3 incidents (3 controlled substance evictions.) Except for one incident in 2017, every incident ended with the tenants voluntarily vacating the premises.

3. Los Angeles: State law no longer requires Los Angeles to report on controlled substance nuisance evictions, so only data related to illegal weapons evictions is reflected in the recent CRB report. There were 12 such incidents in 2015 and another 12 in 2016, with over half resulting in the tenants voluntarily vacating the premises after the initial notice was given, and the remainder proceeding to unlawful detainer in court.

4. Oakland: Oakland reported 10 incidents in 2015 (9 of them involving weapons, or both drugs and weapons), 10 incidents in 2016 (7 of them involving weapons, or both drugs and weapons), and only 5 incidents in 2017 (all of them involving weapons, or both drugs and weapons). Approximately 60% of Oakland incidents resulted in the tenants voluntarily vacating the premises after the initial notice.

Program use since inception. According to the CRB, data for the last three years show a continued decline in use of the pilot program since its inception, with aggregate program use having peaked in the mid to late-2000s. The majority of program use involved controlled substances, even when ignoring the first seven or eight years of data before the illegal weapons program started. In the three cities other than Oakland, drug nuisance violations were roughly 80 percent of all incidents (only 56 percent of Oakland incidents were drug-related). A little more than half of all city incidents (55 percent) have been resolved with tenants voluntarily vacating the premises rather than contesting evictions in court. The majority of incidents have been resolved this way for all cities every year, except for noticeable dips in 2010 and 2011.

Since the start of the pilot program 20 years ago, about one in five incidents (532 out of 2,509) progressed past the voluntary vacate stage and ended with unlawful detainer actions filed (see Table 5 in Appendix C). The percentages of cases filed for each city are 24 percent (188 of 794) for Long Beach, 20 percent (324 of 1,593) for Los Angeles, 16 percent (4 of 25) for Oakland and 16 percent (16 of 97) for Sacramento. Most cases since 1999 (86 percent) have been filed by landlords. In parallel with the overall number of incidents, the number of cases filed has also trended down over the years. (Benjamin Tang. “A Review of the California Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: 2018 Update.” California Research Bureau, Mar. 2018. Available at: https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/UnlawfulDetainer2018Report.pdf)

According to the CRB report, decline in the usage of the program reflects several different factors, but not necessarily the loss of any value to participating jurisdictions. Several city attorneys attested that usage of the program fluctuated from year to year depending on the availability of budget and staffing resources and the direction of law enforcement priorities for a given year. City attorneys and police departments interviewed by the CRB routinely praised the programs' "efficiency and cost-effectiveness" as compared to other nuisance abatement strategies.

Effect of local nuisance eviction ordinances. The CRB report suggests another possible explanation for the decline in reported usage of the state pilot programs—namely, the availability of local nuisance eviction ordinances in some cities which can be used for similar goals. CRB explains:

The necessity and value of the state program is also affected by the presence of similar local ordinances. Both Los Angeles and Oakland, prior to joining the state pilot program, had already adopted municipal ordinances that allowed their city attorneys to initiate unlawful detainer actions for nuisance abatement. . . As their uses are not reported, local ordinances could be less cumbersome substitutes for the state statute. If more unlawful detainer actions are pursued using the local ordinances, then there could be less need for the state program, which would explain its declining use. . . The nuisance abatement effects from unreported uses of local ordinances are unknown and complicate evaluations of the effectiveness of the state program. (Id. at p. 8.)

Cities have broad police powers to address nuisance problems, and both Los Angeles and Oakland have passed ordinances that allow their city attorneys to notice property owners and tenants for specified nuisance violations and, under certain conditions, to initiate nuisance evictions to the extent allowed by state law. In some respects, the state pilot program offers elements that local ordinances do not (for example, authorizing partial evictions, or allowing action upon commercial properties). As long as a local nuisance eviction ordinance does not impermissibly conflict with or is not preempted by state law, it may serve as another useful tool in the toolbox for city attorneys. However, as noted by the CRB, it is difficult for the Legislature to evaluate the effectiveness of the state pilot program in improving neighborhood public safety when only a proportion of nuisance evictions being undertaken are reported or known to the researchers.

Proposed amendments reduce data collection and reporting requirements. Existing law requires the 2018 report to indicate whether the cities of Sacramento and Oakland have regularly reported data to the CRB. According to the CRB, both cities "regularly reported their program use, but did not provide the full set of informational items."

The CRB concluded that "there is insufficient data for a proper evaluation of the program with regards to crime reduction and nuisance abatement, but the accelerated unlawful detainer procedure is cost-effective when compared to lawsuits and is successful at evicting individual nuisance tenants." CRB also noted that: "Another barrier to compiling and assessing data is that the information currently collected overemphasizes collecting and tracking individual tenant information. Tenant data relevant to program evaluation, such as continued unlawful activity, can be difficult and time-consuming for city attorneys to gather."

In its last two reports to the Legislature, the CRB has done an admirable job of evaluating the merits of the pilot program to the fullest extent possible, based on the incomplete data it received from participating cities. For better or worse, it makes little sense to keep requiring the full range of study variables to be reported each year now that the CRB has completed its study, even though the incomplete nature of past data reporting has limited its ability to make conclusions about the efficacy of the program. Proposed amendments to the bill seek to reduce reporting requirements by eliminating the collection of various data items, including select variables tracking individual tenant information. In considering future evaluation of the pilot program, the author may wish to explore adopting recommendations made by CRB, including a possible shift of focus to measuring the effect of pilot program usage upon neighborhood nuisance levels, using either qualitative or quantitative analytical methods, or both.

Proposed amendments establish a five-year sunset date. As currently in print, the bill eliminates the current January 1, 2019 sunset date for both pilot programs. As proposed to be amended, the bill would instead establish a sunset date of January 1, 2024 for both the controlled substances- and weapons-related nuisance eviction programs. The bill would continue the participation of all currently authorized cities, and corrects a drafting error in Section 3486.5 that unintentionally omits Long Beach from the authorizing provisions of the weapons-related nuisance program.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In addition to support from the city attorneys of participating jurisdictions, the bill is also supported by the California Apartment Association, who writes:

AB 2390 will help rental property owners keep residential communities safe by authorizing prosecutors to bring eviction actions against individuals who use the property to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition as well as to use to sell controlled substances. Unfortunately, this illegal activity can leave tenants and property owners to live in fear of retaliation should they seek to evict the tenants. Many times, witnesses are unwilling to step forward to testify, leaving property owners without sufficient evidence to pursue the unlawful detainer action. CAA supported the original legislation that created these pilot programs, and we appreciate your work to continue them.

Previous Related Legislation. AB 1384 (Havice) Ch. 613, Stats. 1998, created a pilot project in five specified Los Angeles Municipal Court districts to allow city attorneys and district attorneys to seek the eviction of any person who is in violation of nuisance or controlled substance law, with an operative sunset date of January 1, 2002.

AB 530 (Krekorian) Ch. 244, Stats. 2009, extended the sunset date to January 1, 2014 for two pilot programs permitting city attorneys or prosecutors in specified cities to bring an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for unlawful activities regarding both weapons and controlled substances. AB 530 also added the city of Sacramento to the controlled substances pilot program.

AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas) Ch. 339, Stats. 2014, reauthorized the pilot program for unlawful weapons-related nuisance evictions until January 1, 2019, and renewed participation for the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento.

AB 2485 (Dickinson) Ch. 341, Stats. 2014, reauthorized the pilot program for controlled substances-related nuisance evictions pilot until January 1, 2019, and renewed participation for the cities of Oakland and Sacramento.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles City Attorney's Office

Sacramento City Attorney's Office

California Apartment Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: