• Wisteria
• Vineland
• Tualatin Loop
• Shadowood/Mossy Brae
• Rosemont
• Hazella
• Halcyon
• Childs
• Borland
• Ashdown

Assets

• Space to breathe
• Tranquil lifestyle
• Peaceful/quiet/scenic
• Easy access to work
• Natural greenway/animals
• Low traffic
• Lots of bicycle/recreational opportunities
• Great well water
• Investment
• Privacy/solitude
• Closeness to West Linn, commerce and services/work
• Close to Portland
• Close to culture, city services
• Views/beauty of countryside
• Open space

Issues

• Compatibility with existing property owners
• Leverage with Metro (not enough)
• Density if UGB expanded
• Parks and greenspace need to be set aside
• Location of high density areas
• Can't partition land at this time
• More noise
• Water problems (quality, shortage?)
• Sewer issues
• Potential city
• Loake of participation from cities
• Hamlet too big and diverse to be united
• Saving existing beauty
• Transistional density
• Incompatible use--one size doesn't fit all

Opportunities

• Divide property for children--ability to partition
• I-205--Location of
• Investment--could be subdivided
• Greenspace planning
• Micro economic area use--geographic areas for certain economic uses
• Consistent planning for land use
• Homogenus microcosms
• Could be the next Dunthorpe
• Improved services--fire, police
• Comprehensive planning
  

Priorities

• Plan for expansion (4)
• Property rights--right to subdivide (4)
• One-acre zoning (4)
• Avoid incompatible land uses (5)
• No dog kennels (0)
• Micro economic development/microcosm neighborhoods(0)
• Consistent land use(0)
• Protect existing assets while expanding development(0)
• Protect watershed and healthy ecology(0)
• First class example(0)

Assets

• Environment
  Good water
  Waterway
  Open space
  Wild life
  View
  Clean Air
• Privacy – Quiet
• Rural
  Acreage
  Farming and livestock
  Good neighbors with space between them
• Property Ownership – freedom to decide
  No City Fees
  Tax deferrals
  Future land value
• Stability – generational
• Close to urban centers with services and amenities
• Good Schools

Opportunity:

• To come up with a model that represents urban and rural areas as opposed to the concentric circle of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
• To do a cohesive community plan.
• To set aside the best property for conservation efforts.
• To provide family compounds
• To set a president for future consensus building processes to deal with community issues.
• To develop a new set of Land Use rules.
• To make money.
• To develop a collective voice for the area: to communicate with Metro, Clackamas County, and the cities surrounding the Stafford Hamlet.

Issues: Current or Future, Problem or Challenge

• Water Shortage – ground water table could be disrupted or over used
• Traffic
• Development that results in overpopulation, or inconsistent development
• City Taxes – infrastructure
• Cost of growth
• Uncertainty
• Pollution (water, noise, etc.)
• Quality of Life
• Unstable land – erosion from development/landslides
• Destruction of natural habitat
• School crowding
• Loss of privacy
• Lack of land use laws
• High density development
• Affordability
• Inability to divide large parcels
• Lack of services

Emerging Priorities: (number of priority votes in parentheses)

• Equal Property Rights (9)
• Master Plan developed by the Hamlet that would inform the Land Use process (5)
• Transferable credits for open space designation (5)
• Water Table Preservation (3)
• Traffic – connectivity (0)
• Governance (3)
• Environment (8)
• Schools (0)

Assets

• River and Wildlife Corridor
• Peace & Tranquility/Quality of Life
• Open Spaces/Large Lots
• Variety of Wooded & Open Spaces
• Landscape of rolling hills
• Country setting – close to city
• Low Traffic/low congestion
• Close to shopping and freeways
• Livestock/Agriculture/Gardening
• Increasing property values
• Privacy
• Good place to raise children
• Good schools
• Lower Taxes
• Control of services
• History

Issues: Current or Future, Problem or Challenge

• Encroaching development threatens wildlife and wildlife habitat, eroding natural character of the area
• Water quality - ground water contamination in river and wells
• No public transportation
• Flooding
• Remote when utilities go out
• Property Taxes go higher as density is allowed to increase
• Traffic going down McVey to Lake Oswego will increase
• Speed is a problem on the roads
• Lack of traffic control (sheriff)
• Increased sewer, water, and traffic needs
• Metro and developers are a threat to the area as it is
• Increased crime
• Lack of bike paths and hiking trails

Opportunity:

• Preserving the river corridor
• Connecting green spaces within and surrounding the Hamlet
• Opportunity to control growth (when/ what kind / how much)
• Join with the Tualatin River Keepers to maintain the quality of the river
• Enforce existing rules on pollution and vegetation/erosion/pesticides
• Maintain landscape views and forests
• Riparian Waterway
• Wildlife preservation
• Bring in Public Transportation and pathways – alternatives to cars
• Developers to fund infrastructure
• Hamlet have a voice in the county
• Build a close knit community
• Explore urban and Rural Reserves

Emerging Priorities: (number of priority votes in parentheses)

• Riparian preservation (15)
• Low Density/Low Traffic (11)
• Country Setting (2)
• Large Lot Size/Privacy (4)
• Value on Trees (2)
• Public Transportation (3)
• Access to amenities (0)
• Independent Lifestyle (3)
• Bike paths and hiking trails (2)

Assets

• Tualatin River – natural, thriving
• Country, rural setting & culture (positive neighborhood relations)
• Trees
• Wildlife corridors
• Lack of lights, sidewalks, fences
• Natural lighting
• Winding roads
• Privacy
• Community – humanistic – friendly
• Family
• Diversity – respect
• Part of Clackamas County (not other ones)
• Freedom of living
• Individuality
• Accessibility to shopping, PDX, highways
• Quietness
• Unpretentiousness – no McMansions, “hotty-toity”

Issues/liability

• Traffic, congestion
• Speeding on river
• Biking and walking safety
• No access to public transportation
• Too many tax-free owners and non-profits, mega churches that don’t pay taxes
• No respect to environment, overuse of natural resources
• Water sources, fresh water ecosystem, river quality
• Growth not in keeping with rural nature, commercialism
• Overdevelopment
• Lack of infrastructure or costly to convert
• Flooding, too much runoff because of construction and concrete
• Cutting down trees
• Too many uniform building codes
• Sewers
• Future development of empty lots
• Garbage at river landing and spring house
• Annexation
• Shift to more expensive housing
• Governance

Opportunities

• Set aside best areas for open space
• Comprehensive plan for development with rural feel
• Groupings for different lifestyles
• Parks on the river
• Bike and walking paths
• Outside activities
• Theme oriented development
• Development that keeps a community feel
• Plan for development around Wankers Corners
• Hold down scale of new structures
• Responsible management of assets
• New development is GREEN!
• Community supported agriculture
• Equestrian base
• Vinyards
• Small farms
• Voice at the table!

Top Priorities

• Preserve, protect and access to environment (natural)
• Livability/ character of the community
• Development planning
• Tied: Transportation/Accessiblity
• Voice at the table
• Infrastructure
• Governance

Assets

• Wildlife habitat
• Natural beauty, terrain
• Open space
• Diverse flora and fauna
• Privacy
• Close to amenities and services
• Can keep livestock
• Can practice agriculture
• History and rural heritage
• Good schools
• Shoot firearms on own property
• Quiet
• Children have free choice play opportunities and connection to environment
• Streams and watershed
• Natural filtration of runoff
• Good well water
• Increasing property values
• Individual septic systems
• Rural character
• Low density
• Local recreation opportunities
• Enough land to plan for the future
• Proximity to infrastructure (sewer, water)
• Close to good transportation

Issues (Some present, some conditional on development)

• Traffic congestion
• Traffic safety--future and present
• Inadequate infrastructure (sewer, water)
• Groundwater shortage
• Strain on public services
• Loss of wildlife habitat
• Sprawl
• Complaints about agriculture from newcomers
• Loss of agricultural soils and resources
• Insufficient influence with Metro and cities
• Diverse interests--hard to achieve consensus
• "Cookie-cutter" development
• Burden of open space falls unequally (large landowners required to maintain open space for benefit of small landowners)
• Inability of large properties to subdivide
• Tax increases (if incorporated into a city)
• Infrastructure costs
• New infrastructure not entirely funded by development
• Pollution (air, water, septic, noise)
• Loss of quiet, lifestyle, privacy
• Loss of most things on the Asset list
• Loss of rural character
• No buffers between cities
• Lack of "green" building codes and/or encouragement to build green
• Invasive species
• Lack of Town Center
• Jobs and housing are not always aligned
• Target for development
• "Ugly" buildings

Opportunities

• Enhance property values by preserving rural legacy
• Create destination for rural lifestyle/experience near city
• Set example of how to preserve rural experience
• Compensate large property owners to preserve open space and habitat
• Work with government and NGOs to preserve open space, habitat, and natural resources
• Learn from other communities' successes
• Achieve diversity of densities vs. "one size fits all"
• Have affordable housing that attracts families and cultural diversity
• Preserve farmland to reduce transportation costs and impacts
• Cooperative community agricultural lands
• Build sense of community
• Create "model" community that has diversity, safety, and problem solving
• Develop "green" community
• Continue with excellent schools
• Non-motorized community (bike, walking, equestrian trails) close to jobs, amenities, nature
• Encourage easements for connectivity
• Reduce transportation congestion and impacts
• Long-term certainty in future land use
• Improve habitat for flora, fauna, and people
• Cohesive, comprehensive, orderly plan for the area
• Improved infrastructure (e.g., natural gas)
• Improved services (e.g., public safety)
• Window of opportunity to plan prior to UGB expansion
• Opportunity for vineyards, hops, etc.
• Get to know neighbors better
• Alternative power sources, e.g., solar, wind

Priorities

• Design community for sustainable future--consider future generations (6)
• Traffic planning (0)
• Preserve rural character (11)
• Create rural activity destination (2)
• Fairness for landowners (11)
• Foster political relationship with jurisdictions (3)
• Identify and conserve natural resources (2)
• Identify and conserve cultural resources (0)
• Develop conceptual plan (5)
• Change laws as needed to achieve our vision (4)
• Understand the impacts of our plans (4)
• Compliance with state land use goals, especially Goal 5 (6)
• Raise money to complete the plan (1)
• Partner with knowledgeable resources, e.g., PSU, U of O (3)
• Foster community today (3)

Assets

• Group(s) that have a “say” in the land
• Great neighbors – hood (rural setting)
• Rural area: Agriculture – Equestrian, farming – livestock
• Proximity: PDX – highway, shops, commute
• Private – rural area: forest – ravine
• Tualatin River – Wilson Creek
• Variety of topographic features and natural beauty
• Quiet: Lack of congestion
• Close to hospital and stores, metro area
• Barn (1900) – Redwood tree – history (heritage)
• Life style
• Great place to raise a family
• Preserve: open sky: vistas, landscape
• Passion of living in Stafford
• Tualatin River: wildlife, creeks, forest corridor, Wilson Creek - preserve and protect
• Financial – land – potential economic benefit
• Water – quality of drinking water

Issues

• Metro – High density without a say as to what’s done in Stafford
• Planning – Impact on Stafford
  - Determination by Metro
  - Loss of history without planning – markets, bridge – “green” space (not astro turf)
• Fate: Decisions made by others outside of Stafford
  “We know the area is going to grow; how do we grow and not lose why we think this place is so special?”
  “Development of area that would change the rural character – like apartments and many homes on small parcels of land. Any development should enhance the area and not distract from it.”
• Crime – Encroachment
• Light/Noise pollution (auto, H2O)
• Governance: UGB – Metro – Stafford
• Loss of tax-forced sale by government (loss of tax for farm status, forcing residents to sell and leave area.)
• Traffic: (Rosemont) - Congestions
• Schools - Safety
• Church - Unimproved roads
  - Speed
• Future: bicycle – auto mix of shared roads
• External traffic flows in and out of Stafford
• Lack of concern by non-Stafford residents
• Property Rights: Metro development – UGB
• Private owners zoned close to UGB unable to develop = unfair – unjust
• Just compensation
• Flexibility in sub-divisions and development
• Water rights: grandfathered rights
• Wilson Creek (Metro)
• Walking Trail: Wilson Creek/Tualatin River
• Economic Development water front properties
• Condemnation: (Metro) of land to develop (Hillsboro)
• Walking paths and/or condemnation of property along creeks and river
• Eminent domain
• Development (Cooks Butte) “Ugly” development
• Enhance the Hamlet – How?
• Lack of development model(s)
• No Beaverton
• Infrastructure: Roads – schools – done right
• How to reward those who are willing to preserve the land and not develop
• Balance of development – commercial and residential
• Concern about expanded development and crime coming into the area
• Unconscious destruction of historical area
• Location of developments

Opportunities

• Democratic process
• Opportunity to work together and have a stronger voice
• Individuals to have “say” over their own land
• Opportunity to have a “say” in how the land is used
• Opportunity to create mixed-type of needs
• Hamlet as role model as to type of community developed
• Compromise – Work together
  - Altruistic
• Needs: Satisfy – state > Demands
  - Metro
• Regional - Stafford
• Consensus – Master Plan
  - Regional Plan
• Mixed development – rural housing
• Preserve – Wildlife, open space, vistas, water, walk, bicycle paths, parks
• Separate City: Ability to control growth of Stafford
• Have a voice prior to planning – Metro – UGB growth
• Representation
• Preserve rustic appeal
• Prevent Beavertionization (and file-cabinet living)
• Preserve rustic soul of Stafford Community
• Work with Metro – Damascus Plan rejection
  - Stand as an equal
  - Retain community
• Solid choices – Learn from past mistakes
  - Have working models
• Leadership: building trust in the community

Priorities

• Preserve rural area – wildlife (7)
• Local Control (6)
• Equity (4) (compensate non-developers for land preserved)
• Mixed use (2)
• Fiscal liability (2)
• Satisfy needs of a variety of people and approaches (1)
• Life style (1)
• Environment (1)
• Consensus (1)
• Traffic – roads (1)
• Infrastructure (1)
• Impact/decisions by other communities (0)
• Community heritage/history (0)

Assets

• Space between homes – low density
• Neighbors know each other
• Light traffic
• Process to discuss common issues/shared value system
• Proximity and access to Tualatin River
• Open/green space/park-like setting
• Wildlife
• Privacy
• Crime free
• Quiet
• Rural feel
• Horses & Livestock
• Good Schools
• Close to freeway/hospitals
• Prefer Clackamas to Washington County
• County agencies – easy to deal with
• Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue – go above and beyond duty
  - personal touch
  - quick response

Issues

• The future of the Shaber and P&D nursery lands behind Halcyon
  - Traffic & Access
  - Congestion
  - Density
  - Loss of open space
  - Use – designated/incompatible
• Infrastructure development & cost of sewers and water
• California-style development
• Designation of open space
• Density
• Scenic Hwy. designation – don’t forget****
• Independent development
• Loss of autonomy – city regulations
• Over-crowding of schools
• Borland Road traffic
• Increased water/river traffic
• Noise
• Taxation

Opportunities

• Tualatin River water quality
• Costs of infrastructure paid for by new development stakeholders so residents don’t foot the bill
• No tax exempt development (economic)
• Choice of type of development
• “World Class” type of development (plan development)
• Boulevards vs Five Lane thoroughfares
• Look to other attractive and successful developments in other parts of the country
• Could cede from Hamlet – Tualatin, LO,WL
• Create Halcyon City
• Make a profit on sale of land

Priorities

• Rural quality of life – open spaces, larger parcels (10)
• Consider financial impact of any development (6)
  - Development pays for itself – no citizen impact
• Positive management of the Tualatin River corridor (3)
• World Class Community – visual, water quality, quiet environment, self-sufficient (3)
• Incorporate sustainable practices (2)
• Traffic – corridors, light (no congestion) (2)
• Use model or standard for green development (2)
• Scenic highway designation (1)
• Input into development decisions (1)
• Refer to original plat map when considering new development (1)
• Number of acres per unit (1)
• Sense of cohesive neighborhood (0)
• Maintain quality schools (0)

Assets

• Wildlife
• Openness (open spaces)
• Quiet environment
• Natural landscape
• Trees and creeks
• Rural dist. yet close to amenities
• Easy access to downtown
• Lack of commercialism
• Lifestyle
• Quietness and privacy
• Tualatin River access
• River wildlife and bird habitat
• Forested near horizons (viewscape)
• Rudy’s and Mrs. Cook’s barns – historic piece (agricultural heritage)
• Scenic view
• Emotional ties
• People - characters

Issues

• Miserable farm animals (old dumps)
• Urban surprises not regulated – potential health issues (ie, cell phone towers, unregulated drainage)
• Impacts from Tualatin/LO/WL – requiring development to their standards
• Encroachment of Tualatin/LO/WL
• Expansion of UGB
• Metro requirements
• Traffic congestion
• Traffic safety - speeding
• Maintaining rustic nature of Stafford while accommodating growth
• Available water for current and future uses
• Wetlands and resources not given economic value
• Maintaining wildlife and bird habitat long-term
• Impact of assessments ($$) – Infrastructure costs
• Public comprehension of agricultural and rural misapplied
• Rural but not agriculture – need to be clear about what to preserve
• Outside developers will exploit area – insensitive development
• Commercial build-up
• Potential of strife between neighbors due to radical change
• No tree ordinance/private property rights
• Domino effect without planning – potential loss of feel of area
• Pac man parcelization of land – domino effect without planning
• Spread of higher density development
• How to put in place a plan
• Governance – power of Hamlet to control

Opportunities

• Measure 49 protects rural character
• Proactive opportunity
• Metro TRC (Three River Conservancy) purchasing property – ability to set aside the best
• Tax local cities to purchase development rights
• Good area to use green building methods
• Opportunity to meet and get to know neighbors
• Study other societies to know how they co-exist
• Set own priorities – i.e., sidewalks, preserve wildlife, bike paths
• Community support for issues
• Make Tualatin River a destination point – increase awareness and value of resource
• Community supported agriculture
• Opportunity to see impacts from development and chance to talk about impacts

Priorities

• Traffic Safety – Narrow Roads (8)
• Preserve rural lifestyle and nature – wildlife/historic (6)
• Development Impacts (5)
  - Traffic
  - Water/Ground Water
  - Loss of Property – eminent domain
  - Loss of wildlife
  - $$ - Infrastructure costs
  - Livability
  - Increased Taxes
  - Increased zoning without ability to develop
• Property Rights (4)
• Education on other solutions (Happy Valley) (3)
• Pollution control – visual/water/air/noise (1)
• Environmental issues/impact – pollution control, visual pollution (0)

Assets

• Livability
• Natural environment
• Location
• Amenities
• Accessibility
• Freeway access
• Schools, parks, churches
• United neighborhood
• Potential opportunity
• Property values

Challenges

• Traffic congestion
• Transportation planning
• School crowding
• Infrastructure
• Sewer
• Water
• Governance
• Access to properties
• Partner with cities/relationship
• Political uncertainty of decision makers
• Differences of opinion within hamlet
• Small landowners, Large landowners
• Fairness
• Staying united
• Livability
• Prevent urban sprawl

Opportunities

• Property development
• Return on investment
• Green
• Environmetal enhancement
• LEED system
• Sustainability
• Maximize resources of area
• Utilize professionals, technology
• Accommodate and guide development, not piecemeal
• Pre-planning for roads
• Clarify utilities for future
• Want Community Center for hamlet on Borland/Core area/Center
• Preserving natural features for public enjoyment

Emerging Priorities: (number of priority votes in parentheses)

• Good master plan for Stafford/Borland area first that reflects the neighborhood
  priorities (7)
• One community does not restrict priorities of other neighborhoods (8)
• Good master plan for the hamlet (3)
• Phased implementation of master plan (0)
• Take advantage of governmental help/funds for planning/vision (1)
• Plan for infrastructure (4)
• Plan for roads (0)
• Livability (0)
• Natural resources (1)
• Quality Community Center/Core Area (3)
• LEED system (5)

Assets

• Lower property taxes
• Environment
• Rural, quiet – Lack of density
• Wildlife/old growth
• Protect property values
• Close to freeway/other and Portland areas
• Good schools
• Air quality
• Small farms
• Good place for kids

Issues

• Cultural Diversity
• Traffic
• Higher density
• Infrastructure
• Over-crowded schools
• Water supply
• Higher property tax
• Loss of uniqueness
• Peace
• Privacy
• Safe & secure environment
• Monster homes – inconsistent development
• Noise
• No walking/bike paths

Opportunities

• Improve schools
• Preserve open space and wildlife corridors
• Improve streets/roads and prepare for growth
• Develop clean industrial opportunity
• Improve fire/police
• To have a voice in the future
• Find common ground with various interests
• Build community

Priorities

• Control density (13)
• Maintain Quality of life (6)
• Plan around open spaces and wildlife corridors first (before adding density) (7)
• Ensure infrastructure for growth (3)
• Maintain voice – start to finish (1)
• Noise abatement (0)
• Preserve buffer (1)
• Preserve aquifer (3)