Oxnard committee backs work on tenant anti‑harassment ordinance, asks staff to revise language

The Oxnard Community Services Public Safety and Housing Development Committee on March 25 reviewed a proposed tenant anti‑harassment ordinance and voted to direct staff to make recommended changes and bring the item to the City Council for further consideration (3–0).

The ordinance, as drafted by the Housing Department with outside counsel, would add Article 3 to Chapter 27 of the Oxnard City Code to prohibit specified landlord conduct citywide and create civil and criminal enforcement paths, staff said. Assistant Director Albert Meyers told the committee the measure was drafted after tenant complaints alleging tactics such as threats to report immigration status, refusal to make repairs, and other actions intended to force tenants to vacate so landlords could reset rents.

The ordinance would make specified harassment violations misdemeanors and would allow tenants, the city or an organization to pursue civil damages and attorney fees, Meyers said. The housing department estimates the rule would apply to roughly 22,000 rental units in Oxnard and recommended adding a partially dedicated assistant city attorney and a full‑time housing investigator to enforce complaints.

Interim Housing Director Brenda Lopez and housing staff described enforcement models used in other California cities. Meyers and outside counsel Stephen Lewis noted the city examined Santa Monica’s model, where a staffed unit investigates complaints and the city attorney’s office pursues cases; Santa Monica receives roughly 200 complaints a year and pursues litigation in about 5–10 cases annually, staff said.

Stakeholders at the meeting urged changes to the draft. The Ventura Coastal Association of Realtors’ first vice president, Walter Morris, said landlords and property managers support protections for tenants but warned that the ordinance should not unintentionally limit lawful property‑management activities such as routine inspections and insurance‑required documentation: “We absolutely recognize the importance of…holding bad actors accountable. At the same time, we must ensure that the responsible housing providers…also have the right of way,” Morris said.

Several property managers echoed that inspections are financially and legally necessary. Broker Janet Brissler said inspections “are essential for tenant safety, property preservation, and legal compliance” and that managers are willing to accommodate tenants with alternatives such as video walkthroughs.

Tenant advocates and tenant organizers described complaints they say show harassment in Oxnard. Maria Navarro, speaking for CAUSE and tenant groups, summarized cases in which tenants said landlords made immigration‑status inquiries and offered repeated buyouts after tenants used city complaint processes. Barbara MacElroy Ortiz, a tenant advocate, said the ordinance is meant to target “bad actors” and should not affect landlords who follow legal notice procedures.

Legal staff proposed edits to address concerns raised in letters from tenant and landlord groups. Assistant City Attorney Elle McCarron said the draft language would be amended to preserve the city’s ability to enforce the ordinance while avoiding conflicts with civil‑litigation privileges established under Civil Code section 47 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica (41 Cal.4th 1232). Counsel also recommended clarifying that communications made in connection with pending litigation or litigation preparation would not be treated as prohibited harassment.

Committee members and staff discussed several drafting points the city attorney’s office will revise, including the ordinance’s interplay with state law on entry and notice (Civil Code section 1954) and how to word exceptions for litigation communications. The committee approved a motion directing staff to make the recommended changes and return the item to the council, and staff said they will circulate revised language to the parties that submitted letters before returning to the council.

Staff noted financial implications. Housing staff and the city manager’s office said implementing an enforcement unit would require adding approximately two positions (a partially dedicated assistant city attorney and a housing investigator) and that mid‑range salaries and benefits produced an estimated annual cost of about $505,000. The committee did not approve funding tonight; staff said fee and budget questions would return to council as separate policy items.

Next steps: staff will draft the ordinance edits discussed at the meeting, circulate the revisions to stakeholders that submitted comments, and return the item to the City Council. Staff said the timeline under discussion would likely bring the ordinance to the full council for first reading in May.

Ending: The committee approved the direction to staff 3–0 and closed public comment on the item after roughly one hour of testimony and discussion.