Oxnard committee forwards changes to just‑cause rules but asks staff to rework rent‑increase petition regulations

The Oxnard Community Services Public Safety and Housing Development Committee on March 25 recommended several ordinance amendments and administrative regulations to implement the city’s Just Cause Evictions and Rent Stabilization ordinances, and asked staff to return a disputed set of petition rules for further stakeholder work (committee vote 3–0).

Staff told the committee the proposed changes are intended to close processing gaps staff has encountered since the just‑cause rules took effect in 2022 and to give clarity to owners, tenants and staff on items including tenant substitution, owner move‑in timelines, registration and an administrative fee framework. Assistant City Manager or Housing staff described proposed edits to replace‑tenant rules, align affidavit timelines, and create a registration process that would enable any future program fee.

The committee approved sending the ordinance amendments and several of the administrative rules (Exhibits A, C and D in staff materials) to the City Council, while asking staff to revisit Exhibit B (the owner petition for a fair return) with additional input from stakeholders before returning it to the committee.

Why staff proposed changes: Housing staff said certain provisions are causing inconsistent outcomes and administrative burdens. For example, staff proposed that when a tenant listed on a lease vacates, replacements could be allowed on a one‑for‑one basis provided the owner may object; staff said the change aims to avoid terminating the remaining tenants’ tenancies when a roommate leaves. Staff also recommended aligning notice and affidavit deadlines for owner reoccupancy to the same timeframe and adding registration language so the city can reliably contact property owners and later assess program fees if the council chooses.

The draft regulations address multiple technical points that prompted debate. Exhibit B—staff’s proposed process for a landlord to petition for a “fair return” if the 4% annual cap prevents a viable return—generated the most comments. Outside counsel Stephen Lewis and staff explained the petition mechanism exists because courts require rent‑stabilization regimes to allow a path for owners to seek constitutionally required fair returns. Lewis said the proposed exhibit uses a base‑year comparison and net operating income methodology that mirrors approaches used by other jurisdictions and case law; he also said time limits in the ordinance constrain how elaborate the hearing process can be unless the ordinance is amended.

Stakeholders urged changes or caution. The Ventura Coastal Association of Realtors and several private property managers argued for clearer data and a broader fee study before the city adopts any fee or relies on a one‑month Craigslist snapshot. Property managers asked that substitutions be allowed only when an original tenant remains on the lease or when a new occupant is demonstrably qualified to pay rent. Tenant groups and advocates urged stronger tenant protections for no‑fault displacements and described examples where tenants said they faced harassment after exercising their rights.

Several legal questions were raised during discussion: the interaction with the Costa‑Hawkins Rental Housing Act for single‑family exemptions, application of the Ellis Act for property withdrawals (including recording requirements when an owner withdraws under state law), and how state law (Civil Code §1954) governs landlord entries and notice. Committee and staff also discussed practical timelines in the regulations; multiple commenters and a former city staffer proposed lengthening some deadlines and adding reasonable extension language to avoid “unworkable” timeframes.

Fiscal and administrative notes: Staff confirmed that the city currently has no dedicated staffing funded to administer a new anti‑harassment enforcement program and that the registration and fee program would require system investment. Staff said the fee and any per‑unit charge would be determined through a separate fee study and additional public outreach; the item considered by committee would only insert the authority to adopt fees into the code where it was missing.

Outcome and next steps: The committee voted 3–0 to forward the ordinance amendments and most administrative regulations to City Council, and directed staff to continue stakeholder discussions and return Exhibit B (fair return petition regulations) to the committee for further review. Staff estimated the ordinance and regulations would return to Council for action after stakeholder review and required sunshine‑period notice; staff suggested a likely council hearing would be in May. The committee also asked staff to add extension language to several petition timelines and to continue efforts to make registration materials user friendly for single‑family owners and small landlords.

Ending: Committee members said they wanted a stable, implementable set of rules that protects tenants while avoiding unintended burdens on long‑term small landlords; they approved the committee’s motion 3–0 and closed the item with direction to staff.