Falls Church Council Reviews Draft Affordable Living Policy Ahead of Planning Commission Referral

City staff and neighborhood advisory members presented a draft Affordable Living Policy to the Falls Church City Council on Monday, May 19, asking the council for feedback ahead of a planned referral of the draft to the Planning Commission.

The policy, which staff said will become part of the city’s comprehensive plan if adopted, sets targets across rental housing, homeownership, preservation, housing diversity and services for people with very low incomes. "The request tonight is to get the council feedback on this draft as a setup for an action by the city council to formally refer this draft amendment to the planning commission at your regular meeting on June 16," staff member Dana Lewis said.

Why it matters: folding an Affordable Living Policy into the comprehensive plan gives the city a consistent policy reference when considering zoning and development decisions and creates metrics staff will track on an online housing dashboard slated to go live after adoption. The draft includes numeric goals for the share of affordable units in new development, targets for committed affordable stock and a funding goal the draft labels as a target for 2040.

Most important facts: the draft updates the city’s five‑year policy and lays out prioritized goals, an action plan and monitoring. The work group that drafted the update met repeatedly over the past year and included renters, homeowners, developers and lenders, Jeff Pearson, co‑chair of the Affordable Living Work Group, said. "This is a document that has had a lot of inputs. A lot of input," Pearson said. Brian Bowden, chair of the Human Services Advisory Council, described the process as broad and ongoing: "The process is not over yet. But, it's a step in the right direction to solve the affordable housing crisis."

Council feedback focused on a few recurring topics: preserving units whose affordability covenants will expire (Pearson Square and The Fields were cited as examples), whether the stated dollar and annual funding targets should be framed as stretch goals, and the importance of prioritizing deeply affordable units (30–50% AMI) because many households on the city’s wait list fall into that income range. Councilmember Laura Downs praised the action plan and gap analysis and pressed for clarity on outreach to residents in properties with expiring affordability covenants. "How do those residents find out — how far in advance do they find out?" she asked; Lewis replied the city had not briefed residents yet because staff did not want to "cause panic" until the city has a plan.

Staff presented a proposed timeline: council work session feedback in May; Planning Commission consideration in June (work session and public hearing dates were discussed for June and July); a council final work session in August and adoption in mid‑August, after which the city will publish the housing dashboard. Staff also described policy elements that would be subject to later ordinance work, including an update to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance and next steps for governance, outreach and a standing affordable housing fund. "As soon as we're adopted, we're putting that dashboard up," Lewis said.

What was not decided: the council did not vote on the draft. Staff requested direction and public comment before a formal referral; no formal motions or votes were recorded at the May 19 work session.

Next steps: staff will incorporate feedback from the council and from outreach sessions with commissions and the public, then move the draft to the Planning Commission for review and a public hearing, with further council consideration and an expected adoption hearing in August. The council asked staff to clarify in the draft and accompanying materials what it means for the policy to be in the comprehensive plan (guidance rather than a binding regulation) and to label large funding goals as stretch targets where appropriate.

Ending: Councilmembers and volunteer leaders said they welcomed the dashboard and called for broader community engagement while staff returns with refined language about funding expectations and the outreach approach for residents living in properties with expiring affordability covenants.