Lemon Grove passes temporary tenant-protection ordinance after residents testify about looming evictions

Lemon Grove — The City Council voted 4–1 on Feb. 3 to adopt an urgency tenant-protection ordinance aimed at blocking no‑fault evictions tied to remodeling that residents say have already displaced longtime tenants.

The temporary measure requires 120 days' notice for all no‑fault just‑cause terminations, mandates relocation payments equal to one month of HUD small‑area fair‑market rent plus one month of the tenant's current rent (and larger payments for households under 80% of area median income, seniors 60 and older, disabled residents or households with minor children), and includes a 180‑day sunset so the council and staff can refine a permanent ordinance.

The ordinance followed nearly three hours of public comment focused on a single complex at 3280 Olive Street (variously referenced in testimony as Olive Tree/Sarah Grove Apartments), where many tenants said they received 60‑day notices and reported early‑morning jackhammering and heavy construction. “I am definitely in support of the emergency ordinance,” said Denise Terrell, who said she spoke for her 75‑year‑old parents at that complex. Tenants described noise, permit concerns and the prospect of paying two to three times current rents if they tried to return after renovations.

Advocates and legal services groups urged swift action. “This is a huge opportunity that you all have in front of you to pass the strongest tenant protection in the entire county,” said Jose Lopez Aguino, director of the San Diego office of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. Joanne Francis, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, told the council the group provides tenant legal services and urged adoption of the urgency ordinance to prevent avoidable displacement.

Staff framed the draft against state law. City Attorney Kristen Steinke and City Manager Tony Winnie explained that California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019 requires just‑cause terminations and sets minimum relocation rules for some no‑fault evictions, but that local governments may enact ordinances that provide stronger protections. Staff described how other San Diego County cities handle relocation payments and how they define “substantial remodel” or demolition.

Council members debated process and language. Several members said the draft was produced very quickly and contained inconsistent definitions (for example, differing age thresholds for a “senior” exemption in separate sections). Council member Smith said he supported stronger protections but was uncomfortable adopting a still‑drafted ordinance from the dais; Council member Altamirano urged more time to refine technical definitions. Mayor Snow countered that a temporary urgency ordinance was warranted to stop further displacement while staff and a stakeholder committee finish technical work.

An earlier motion to adopt Attachment A as an urgency ordinance failed because urgency measures require a four‑fifths vote and the roll call produced 2 yes / 3 no. Council then adopted a revised urgency motion, which included the 120‑day notice and the described relocation payments, with a 4–1 vote.

The council directed staff to convene stakeholder meetings (including resident representatives, housing and tenant‑advocacy groups, landlords and the Planning Commission), to do targeted community outreach in neighborhoods and congregations, and to pursue a path for a permanent ordinance. Staff noted the city has previously allocated about $250,000 in ARPA diversion funding for eviction‑diversion programs and is in discussions with local providers about an RFP to deliver services.

The ordinance is prospective only; City Attorney Steinke confirmed it would not roll back notices already served before the ordinance's effective date, though she said the city could consider other enforcement or litigation options in closed session if council so instructed. Council members suggested additional tweaks to the demolition definition and evidence requirements (for example, contractor declarations and permit proof) during the 180‑day interim.

The council scheduled follow‑up work: stakeholder meetings, planning‑commission review, and a second reading or a permanent ordinance to be developed in coming months. The meeting adjourned after a closed‑session period with no reportable action.

What’s next: staff will return with a refined ordinance and an outreach plan; council members asked staff to prioritize practical language that is legally enforceable and to provide clearer thresholds for "demolition" or "substantial remodel."