Oxnard tenants allege landlord retaliation after filing complaints under city rent-cap ordinances; city manager says he will hire outside counsel

At the Jan. 7 meeting of the Oxnard City Council, more than a dozen tenants and tenant advocates reported what they said was harassment and retaliation by apartment owners and managers after the tenants filed complaints under two local rent and eviction ordinances.

Speakers identified multiple buildings by address, including 541 Cuesta Del Mar and the Marina Vista complex on Brookside Avenue, and described post-complaint actions that they said included threats, termination notices, demands for storage fees and announced rent increases above the city—s limit. "We are being harassed and retaliated against when we file complaints," several tenants said during the public-comment period.

The complaints cite two Oxnard ordinances enacted in May 2022: Ordinance 3013, which imposes a rent-cap of 4% for apartments, and Ordinance 3012, which establishes requirements for termination notices and eviction procedures. Tenants said landlords were seeking increases far above the 4% cap and were taking other steps that tenants called intimidation after the tenants followed the complaint process.

Tenant groups and advocates who spoke included residents from the Cuesta Del Mar complex and the Marina Vista and Terrace apartment complexes; Maria Navarro, policy advocate for the nonprofit CAUSE; Nathan Castillo of Gathering for Justice; Annabelle Taylor, founder of the Ventura County Belief Center; and Julie Pena, a former CAUSE board member. Individual residents described lost mail after building owners changed unit numbers without notice, demands for $150 monthly garage fees for stored belongings and threats of evictions. "They have been telling us that those who filed complaints would see their rent increase," Jesus Vasquez Luna said of his unit at 541 Cuesta Del Mar.

City Manager Diego addressed the council after the wave of public comments and described the city—s enforcement limitations under the local ordinance. He said the city's ordinance has "baby teeth" — limited enforcement power compared with state unfair-business-practice statutes — and that staff had pursued the Via Oxnard case with the district attorney's office. Diego said the district attorney declined to pursue an unfair-business-practice case but that the allegations often overlap with state law and other avenues for enforcement.

"We will continue to advocate with the district attorney's office," Diego said. He added that, within his authority, he plans to retain outside legal counsel with the capacity to bring stronger cases when appropriate. "I am going to hire a pit-bull attorney that can represent some of these cases where there are infractions of our ordinance," Diego said, adding the city attorney will coordinate on legal strategy.

City Attorney comments at the meeting reminded speakers that the city attorney represents the municipal corporation and not private residents; residents seeking individual legal representation were urged to pursue available nonprofit legal services or the private bar where feasible.

Council members responded with a mix of procedural guidance and offers to follow up. Councilmember Bert Perillo and others urged residents to also contact the district attorney where criminal or federal mail issues might apply; Councilmember Carmen Rodriguez and Mayor Pro Tem Teran expressed concern and said staff had heard the complaints and would follow up. Councilmember Perez asked that the council consider a unified letter to the district attorney—s office documenting the complaints; she later asked that item be scheduled as a future agenda request.

The council voted 7-0 earlier in the meeting to temporarily suspend the rules so additional public speakers could be heard; that vote allowed the large group of tenants and advocates to address the council during the Jan. 7 meeting.

What the city can and cannot do: Diego and other staff cautioned that the local ordinances limit the city—s enforcement tools and that more aggressive remedies may require state-law claims, unfair-business-practice litigation, or criminal investigation by other agencies. Diego said the city would pursue multiple avenues: continued engagement with the district attorney, and targeted outside legal action when the city has facts supporting unfair-business-practice claims.

The meeting record shows no new council ordinance or regulation was adopted on Jan. 7. Instead, the meeting produced a mix of public testimony, staff briefings and a commitment by the city manager to pursue strengthened legal enforcement strategies under his administrative authority. Residents asked the council to press for stronger remedies and to protect tenants who use the city—s complaint process from reprisals.

The council asked staff to follow up with residents, and Councilmember Perez requested that staff prepare an item to send a unified letter to the district attorney—s office documenting the complaints. Diego said he would bring options forward to the council.

Ending: Tenants and advocates said they will continue to press the city and the district attorney for remedies and asked the council to provide both immediate protection from retaliation and longer-term enforcement options. City staff said they would pursue the steps Diego outlined and return to the council with options for legal action and further enforcement steps if appropriate.