Planning commission recommends rezone of two Urban Renewal properties after tenant raises notification and displacement concerns

The Oregon City Planning Commission on Nov. 24 voted to recommend approval of a rezone and comprehensive-plan map amendment to return two Urban Renewal Agency–owned parcels — 214 Tumwater Drive and 313 South 2nd Street — to R3.5 (medium-density residential), allowing the agency to market the homes for sale to first-time or lower-income buyers.

Staff told the commission the parcels were rezoned to an institutional designation in 2008 for a public project that never developed. The staff recommendation said the land use basis supports rezoning back to R3.5: the sites are in a mixed-use downtown area with access to transit, parks and utilities, and ODOT told staff the change would not affect its system. Staff also said it generally does not recommend site-ownership–based conditions on map amendments and zone changes and did not propose conditions tied to sale or tenant outcomes.

James Graham, economic development manager speaking for the Urban Renewal Agency, said the agency plans to appraise and then market the houses with the goal of offering ownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income buyers. He said the properties are old (214 built in 1935; 313 built in 1925) and that placing them back on the tax rolls could produce more revenue than continued rental at below-market rates. "We would get more with regard to the property being on the tax roll because the rent toll on these properties are well below market rate," Graham said.

During public comment Kayla (pronounced "Kay-lee-uh") Beam, a tenant at 214 Tumwater Drive, said she learned about the process only from a community notice and that she and her family — fifth-generation Oregon City residents — were not personally notified by the property management company. She described the fear of displacement and asked for clearer communication and transition resources. "This is the only house that my kids have ever really known," she told the commission, saying an unexpected move would disrupt school, routines and finances.

Graham responded that he had instructed the property manager months earlier to notify tenants and that he would rectify the missed notification after being told a tenant reported not receiving notice. Commissioners separated their deliberation on the land-use approval from broader tenant-notification and relocation questions, and some asked staff to forward non-land-use, compassionate comments to the Urban Renewal Agency.

A motion to recommend approval of GLUA250042 / CPA25001 / CC25003 passed on a recorded vote; the transcript records at least one 'no' vote from Commissioner LaSalle and multiple 'aye' votes. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will go to the City Commission for final action; staff noted the Urban Renewal Agency is scheduled to consider the properties at its next meeting on the 17th.