Falls Church staff ask council to initiate Virginia Village engagement; RFP work targeted for May

Falls Church City staff asked the council to authorize a public‑engagement phase for Virginia Village and to place an initiating resolution on next week’s agenda so the city can begin drafting an RFP for redevelopment guidance.

The staff presentation laid out the rationale for updating two small‑area plans that cover the roughly 4.5‑acre Virginia Village neighborhood (about 3.5 acres within the South Washington Street small‑area plan and roughly 1 acre within the downtown small‑area plan). Staff said small‑area plan updates are intended as focused reconciliations — not full rewrites — to align the older plans with the city’s recently adopted comprehensive plan and affordable‑living policy.

"This item before you tonight is a work session on an initiating resolution. This would enable staff to go out and start the community engagement process," Jack (staff member) told the council, explaining that March and April would be devoted to outreach and synthesis with an RFP drafting effort in parallel. Staff described a target to issue an RFP in May, allow submissions through late June and use the summer for selection.

Housing staff (Dana) said outreach has already begun: staff met with current Virginia Village residents and Winter Hill residents, will provide translated materials and are finalizing a relocation policy. "We have a relocation policy that we're finalizing," Dana said, adding that the city has used the policy before and expects to help cover rent differences for relocated households.

Council members pressed staff on several points during the discussion. Some members urged the city to be careful with public messaging so residents do not assume immediate displacement is imminent; staff replied that any physical displacement would be several years out because financing (including Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits) and site planning remain to be completed. Several councilors and commissioners also asked whether it makes sense to consolidate guidance from the two separate small‑area plans into a single document for clarity and whether the zoning map will need to be amended to make redevelopment predictable.

Staff described several procedural protections and next steps: consulting property owners (staff said letters were sent to owners and follow‑up meetings occurred), holding additional board and commission briefings in April, and returning to council with a memorandum of agreement that clarifies roles between the city and the Economic Development Authority. Staff said they are considering a real‑estate advisory consultant to help finalize the RFP and a selection committee to evaluate proposals.

On funding timing, staff cautioned that timing is compressed by tax‑credit cycles. "If we don't win the tax credit in that year, we'd have to wait another cycle," a staff member said, noting the plan assumes staff and the selected developer can align finance sources but that alternatives exist if a competitive cycle requires waiting.

The council did not vote on a resolution at the work session. Staff requested council direction to place an initiating resolution on the next council meeting agenda to begin the public outreach phase. Staff will return with the initiating resolution and additional materials for council consideration.