Forest Grove City Council Special Meeting: Data Center Moratorium Public Hearing

The Forest Grove City Council held a special meeting on October 12, 2026, at 4:02 p.m. to conduct a public hearing on Resolution 2026-47, which proposed adopting a temporary 120-day moratorium on data center development and expansions within the city. After staff reports, public testimony, and council discussion, the council voted 7-0 to adopt the resolution. The moratorium is a temporary pause, not a permanent ban, intended to give the city time to study four areas of concern and consider development code amendments. It does not apply retroactively to projects that have already received land use approval.

Public Comments & Testimony

• A resident of 1405 Elm Street, a lung cancer survivor and non-smoker, spoke as a proponent. He said he hoped every council member would vote yes, argued the moratorium was needed, possibly for more than 120 days, and said emissions from data centers could hurt high-risk people like himself who have difficulty breathing. He said he had moved to Forest Grove for cleaner air and found data center development devastating.
• A second resident of 1405 Elm Street also spoke in support. He said he was upset that the planning commission approved a data center next to Fernhill Wetlands and an elementary school because it met current ordinances. He asked whether the city could update its ordinances within 120 days, cited evidence of white noise, thermal, and groundwater pollution from data centers elsewhere in the U.S., argued data centers create few jobs, and said they could lower adjacent property values.
• A resident of 1637 23rd Avenue asked neutral questions about whether the 120-day timeline was enough, whether the moratorium could be renewed, what work would occur during it, and what the plan was afterward. Staff responded that the city would review its code and possible amendments, intended to complete that work within 120 days, and noted state law allows extensions when progress is being made. No opponents testified.

Discussion Items

• Senior Planner Dan Reardon, identified in the transcript as Dan Rudin when he spoke, presented the staff report. He tied the proposal to the Forest Grove Forward Vision 2040 goals: a balanced and diversified economy with high-paying jobs; increased diverse and affordable housing; and resilient, financially sustainable infrastructure. He also referenced the city's 2025 economic opportunities analysis and 2019 housing needs analysis.
• The city followed state notice requirements. It notified the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on August 26, 2026, 47 days before the hearing, and public notice of the special meeting was given on October 11, 2026, at 3 p.m., 25 hours in advance. State law requires at least 45 days notice to DLCD and 24 hours notice for a special meeting.
• Assistant City Attorney Josh Soper, identified in the transcript as Josh Silver when he spoke, explained that the moratorium is based on the statutory compelling-need standard rather than the public-facilities-shortage standard. He read the five statutory criteria: existing regulations are inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm; the moratorium is sufficiently limited so needed housing and commercial/industrial supplies are not unreasonably restricted; alternative methods are unsatisfactory; the public harm from no moratorium outweighs adverse effects on other local governments; and the city has sufficient resources to complete needed changes within the moratorium period.
• Draft findings identified four areas of concern: data centers' rapid growth, land-extensive nature, and low employment density could harm the city's economic mix; the city's housing capacity analysis may show a need to rezone some industrial land for housing; data centers' very large electricity consumption raises infrastructure and customer-demand concerns; and data centers may have negative public health and environmental effects through air and noise pollution, waste heat emissions, heat island effects, and chemical discharges to wastewater.
• A clarification was added to Section 1 of the resolution stating that the moratorium is not retroactive to projects that have already received land use approval, consistent with the vested rights doctrine. In response to Councilor Schimmel, who characterized the Crane project as having a 2024 land use approval for three phases, staff clarified that the approval covered two buildings that could be constructed in multiple phases. The approved two buildings and associated site improvements would not be affected, but new land use applications for expansions or additional phases would be prohibited during the moratorium.
• During council discussion, Councilor Gustafson requested clear public communication on the timeline and next steps, and staff nodded in agreement. Councilor Falconer emphasized that the 120-day period allows a proper conversation about changing rules but the council must comply with legal processes to avoid litigation and wasted city resources. Councilor Schimmel raised the possibility of partnering with Hillsboro on an environmental analysis; council members agreed this should be discussed at a future work session rather than decided that evening.

Key Outcomes

• After the public hearing was closed, Councilor Schimmel moved to approve Resolution 2026-47, and Council President Valenzuela seconded the motion.
• The council voted 7-0 to adopt the temporary moratorium. Voting yes were Council President Valenzuela, Councilors Schimmel, Falconer, Martinez, Marshall, and Gustafson, and Mayor Wensell. Councilor Marshall arrived after the meeting was called to order and joined the vote.
• Mayor Wensell declared Resolution 2026-47 passed and adjourned the special meeting.