City of Forest Grove

This document outlines the City of Forest Grove's Council Action Plan for the 2026-2028 period. The plan aims to define council priorities and identify Vision 2040 action items for staff execution over the next three years. It synthesizes existing Vision 2040 goals, incorporates ongoing past priorities (totaling 26 items), and considers new council-submitted priorities. Key discussion areas include enhancing pedestrian safety, developing a climate action plan, exploring affordable housing initiatives through construction excise taxes and SDC rate studies, and integrating urban forest and bird-safe dark sky programs into the comprehensive plan. The plan emphasizes effective resource allocation, annual review, and strategic alignment with the community's vision.

The meeting commenced with a work session of the Forest Grove City Council, which included no public comment. Staff presented proposed revisions to the development code, organized into five sections: industrial standards, residential standards, non-residential uses, non-residential standards, and mandatory adjustments. The primary focus of the initial discussion centered on industrial standards, specifically proposing changes to building setbacks and maximum height, informed by comparisons with surrounding cities like Cornelius, Hillsboro, and Beaverton. Council members expressed concerns regarding the extent of the proposed restrictions, particularly how they might impact economic growth and small businesses on already encumbered parcels, especially concerning setbacks adjacent to residential zones. Staff clarified that the proposed setbacks and height allowances were intended as a starting point to address the current lack of limitations and potential issues such as building right up to property lines, though they confirmed they are not rigidly committed to the exact proposed figures.

The session included two work sessions. The primary discussion concerned federal activities and the development code, with a focus on federal immigration enforcement. Key topics involved providing background on the city's declaration of a state of emergency and subsequent resolution and ordinance designating Forest Grove as a sanctuary city. Discussions also covered the implementation of the sanctuary city ordinance, including staff training, signage, and resource availability. A significant portion of the meeting involved detailed questions regarding the distinction between judicial and administrative warrants for federal immigration agents entering private homes, staff response protocols, and potential legal challenges against ICE. Furthermore, updates were provided on evolving legal frameworks, including a lawsuit in Minnesota challenging the anti-commandeering doctrine, and the investigation by the US Department of Justice into state/local officials. The session also reviewed Emergency Operations Plans (EOP) and Incident Action Plans (IAP), covering coordination, information flow within the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and the key responsibilities of the City Council during emergencies. Law enforcement collaboration on best practices, especially concerning officer-involved shootings with ICE agents, was also noted.

The work session focused on building grants, including reviewing the Vision 2040 plan purpose and background related to the grants. The agenda involved scoring applications, discussing the scoring rubric, and gathering program feedback. Seven qualified applications were reviewed, totaling $337,000 in requests against a $350,000 budget, with an anticipated total investment over half a million dollars. Key discussions involved whether to establish a minimum score threshold for future cycles, with consensus leaning towards implementing one moving forward. The body ultimately reached a consensus to fund all seven projects for this cycle. Future program considerations included adding criteria such as minimum project cost, differentiating between capital improvements versus maintenance/operations, and emphasizing the inclusion of new housing units as a high-value factor for scoring.

The meeting addressed federal activities related to immigration. Key discussion points included reviewing a previously sent letter to the attorney general and its response, and considering a draft letter from a Councilor to the state legislature regarding federal immigration activities. The council also discussed potential letters regarding federal legislation and the district attorney. A significant portion of the discussion focused on state legislative action concerning federal immigration issues during a short session, including critical deadlines for bills to move forward. Council members debated the nature of proposed legislation, expressing concerns that some bills were framed as 'protection' but appeared purely litigious or retroactive in nature, lacking immediate enforcement mechanisms to stop current suffering. There was consensus to support the package of bills but a desire to refine advocacy for clear enforcement. Furthermore, the council discussed the composition of the governor's executive order task force on this matter, noting the absence of local representation such as city mayors, and advocated for inclusion.