Skip to content
CouncilHound
← Projects & topics
Development project
Circle Gateway, as pictured in the city's project record

Circle Gateway

Pre-Application

Private Development · 3250 Blenheim Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22030 · topic history · city record ↗ · on the map

261 units · 16,530 sq ft retail · 11 stories · 1.64 acres

Screening estimates. These figures rank likely magnitudes with stated assumptions and ranges — they are decision-support context, not predictions. Every number traces to a source or a named assumption in the appendices below. Formulas, citations, and limitations: methodology report (PDF).

In plain terms: the project would add roughly 446 residents and about $1.0M a year in new property tax, but serving those residents costs money too. Counting the city services that actually grow with new residents, that nets out to a net gain of about $123k a year, anywhere between a net cost of about $1.1M a year and a net gain of about $1.3M a year across the assumption ranges. Fixed citywide costs are not charged to new residents; school costs follow the project's own student estimate.

Where the effects land

Loading map…

The economic map shows total captured spending by business location and named reporting clusters. The walk map uses a tighter extent around walk-arriving capture and the street segments assigned new resident walk trips; the bike map (when present) shows bike-arriving capture across the city — bikes reach farther, so it spreads wider and thinner. Dollar heatmaps are clipped to CR (Commercial Retail) zoning, and each map is scaled to its own data, so colors are not comparable across maps.

Summary

Circle Gateway is a proposed 11-story mixed-use building at 3226 and 3250 Blenheim Boulevard in the City of Fairfax, Virginia, to be built on two parcels totaling 1.64 acres currently occupied by two commercial buildings. The project would add 261 rental apartments (16 designated as affordable) and 16,530 square feet of ground-floor retail. At stabilization, this analysis estimates 352–557 new residents and a real estate tax increase of $986,000–$1,300,000 per year; the marginal-framing net fiscal impact ranges from approximately −$1,084,000 to +$1,291,000 per year, with the wide range reflecting cost-side uncertainty more than revenue uncertainty. The three assumptions the results are most sensitive to are: (1) average household size for new multifamily units (central 1.8, range 1.5–2.2 persons per unit), which drives both the resident count and associated service costs; (2) occupancy rate at stabilization (central 0.95, range 0.90–0.97), which scales all household-dependent figures; and (3) marginal cost factor (central 0.35, range 0.25–0.55), which determines what share of the non-school per-capita city budget scales with new residents and is the primary driver of the net fiscal range's width.


View metric methods and calculations →

Adjust the assumptions

Every estimate above rests on named assumptions with published ranges. If you have better local knowledge, move the sliders — adjusted values use the exact formulas of the pipeline, bounded by each assumption's sensitivity range. Travel and destination-choice parameters are excluded (they require a full model re-run). Nothing is saved or submitted.

Assumptions

Occupancy rate
0.95
0.9published: 0.950.97

share of proposed units occupied at stabilization

Household size (multifamily)
1.8
1.5published: 1.82.2

persons per occupied new multifamily unit for a typical studio/1BR/2BR mix

New-construction income premium
1.125
1published: 1.1251.25

new-construction multifamily rents draw higher-income households than the area median

Spending-survey scaling
1
0.85published: 11.15

CES line items are national averages; ±15% covers regional and vintage drift

Walk trips per resident per day
1
0.5published: 12

scales new residents into all-purpose daily walk trips for the foot-traffic flow allocation

Sq ft per office job
350
250published: 350500

existing commercial sqft -> displaced jobs; a higher value yields fewer displaced jobs per sqft

Sq ft per retail job
500
400published: 500700

proposed retail sqft -> on-site jobs

Assessed value per dwelling unit ($)
360,982.5
359,599.256published: 360,982.5458,932.463

median assessed value per unit across 3 apartment-class comps, 25th-75th percentile bounds

Retail value per sq ft ($)
275
200published: 275400

assessed $/sqft applied to proposed retail space; refine with commercial comps in a follow-up

Office value per sq ft ($)
300
200published: 300450

assessed $/sqft applied to proposed non-retail commercial space (office, medical, bank). Previously omitted, which valued every proposed office at zero

Business equipment value per sq ft ($)
8
4published: 815

rough-estimate input: the business tangible personal property base across proposed retail and office space

Share of on-site sales that is new to the city
0.3
0.15published: 0.30.5

share of the project's own on-site receipts that is NEW to the city (new resident and visitor demand, plus sales recaptured from outside) rather than displaced from existing city businesses; displaced sales move the tax base, they do not add to it

Restaurant share of ground-floor space
0.5
0.3published: 0.50.7

share of the project's ground-floor space occupied by restaurants (the meals-tax base) rather than shop retail

Students per unit
0.08
0.05published: 0.080.12

drives the school-cost component when the education transfer and enrollment are pinned (school-split cost model); otherwise informs the school note only

Marginal cost factor
0.35
0.25published: 0.350.55

share of the NON-school per-capita cost that scales at the margin (school costs follow the student estimate directly under the school-split model)

Vehicles per household
1.4
1published: 1.41.8

rough-estimate input: converts new households to taxable vehicles for the personal property levy

Assessed value per vehicle ($)
14,000
9,000published: 14,00020,000

rough-estimate input: average taxable value per vehicle; no project-specific fleet data exists

Retail sales per sq ft ($/yr)
400
250published: 400600

rough-estimate input: annual gross receipts per sqft for the BPOL base; the low bound absorbs vacancy and lease-up

Requires a full model re-run

These parameters sit inside the travel/destination-choice model, so their effect on the results is not a simple rescaling — they cannot be adjusted live.

Walk-time decay (β)0.1 (0.05–0.15)
Walk share — neighborhood trips0.6 (0.4–0.8)
Walk share — comparison goods0.1 (0–0.3)
Walk share — grocery/entertainment0.3 (0.1–0.5)
Bike-time decay (β)0.1 (0.05–0.15)
Bike share — neighborhood trips0.02 (0.005–0.05)
Bike share — comparison goods0.005 (0–0.02)
Bike share — grocery/entertainment0.01 (0–0.03)
Own-retail sq ft per equivalent business2,000 (1,500–3,000)
Office gross receipts per sq ft ($/yr)500 (300–800)

Recomputed estimates

Economic

MetricPublishedAdjustedΔ
New households248248—
New residentsheadline446446—
Aggregate household income$54.43M$54.43M—
New annual spending: grocery$2.00M$2.00M—
New annual spending: restaurant_bar$1.87M$1.87M—
New annual spending: retail_comparison$2.39M$2.39M—
New annual spending: retail_convenience$374k$374k—
New annual spending: personal_services$545k$545k—
New annual spending: entertainment$2.02M$2.02M—
Annual capture: Fairchester Drive & Hill Street$1.88M$1.88M—
Annual capture: Blenheim Boulevard & Fairfax Boulevard$1.34M$1.34M—
Annual capture: Chain Bridge Road & North Street$1.03M$1.03M—
Annual capture: Mathy Drive & Pickett Road$709k$709k—
Annual capture: Fair Lakes Parkway & Fair Oaks Mall$627k$627k—
Annual capture: project's own ground-floor retailheadline$72k$72k—
On-site jobs removed (existing space)00—
On-site retail jobs added33.133.1—
Net on-site job change33.133.1—
New annual spending arriving on footheadline$666k$666k—
New annual spending arriving by bike$87k$87k—
Spending arriving on foot at project's own retail$35k$35k—
Implied spending per resident walk trip$4$4—
New resident walk trips per day446446—

Fiscal

MetricPublishedAdjustedΔ
Projected assessed value$98.76M$98.76M—
Projected real estate tax$1.06M$1.06M—
Real estate tax increaseheadline$1.00M$1.00M—
Personal property tax on resident vehicles (rough estimate)$201k$201k—
BPOL business license tax on project retail (rough estimate)$3,924$3,924—
Business tangible property tax (rough estimate)$5,462$5,462—
Meals tax on captured in-city dining$55k$55k—
Meals tax on the project's own restaurants (net-new, rough estimate)$44k$44k—
Local sales tax share on captured in-city retail$28k$28k—
Local sales tax on the project's own retail (net-new, rough estimate)$20k$20k—
Annual school cost within the service-cost estimates$417k$417k—
Annual service cost — marginal framing$1.24M$1.24M—
Estimated K-12 students20.920.9—
Net annual fiscal impact — marginal framingheadline$123k$123k—

Adjusted values are exact recomputations of the model's central estimates for the assumptions above — the same arithmetic the pipeline runs, evaluated in your browser. Published ranges, maps, and the narrative report are not recomputed here.

Full analysis

Project description

The project site consists of two parcels (48 3 08 002 B and 48 3 08 002 A) at 3226 and 3250 Blenheim Boulevard — a street that was formerly named Old Lee Highway — totaling 1.64 acres per the most recent project documents. The site currently contains two commercial buildings that were formerly occupied by Lotte Plaza and a 7-Eleven; as of the June 2026 pre-application briefing, those spaces were leased to HomeTrends and Class Design Cabinetry.

The proposal, as described in the June 5, 2026 pre-application briefing (the most authoritative and recent document reviewed), is an 11-story building with an overall height of approximately 118 feet 10 inches. It would contain 261 multifamily apartment homes dispersed on floors 4 through 10, of which 6% — equating to 16 units — would be designated as Affordable Dwelling Units. The ground floor would include 16,530 square feet of street-front retail. All units are rental tenure. The project's approval status is not confirmed in available documents.

A note on unit counts: the July 2022 conceptual plan listed 230 units; the June 2026 pre-application briefing and the city project directory both list 261 units. This analysis uses 261 units per the more recent document. A note on parking: the June 2026 document referenced 460 spaces, but this figure was not recovered verbatim from the documents during extraction and the parking count is therefore not carried as a confirmed project figure in this analysis.


Economic effects

New demand. Applying a stabilized occupancy rate of 0.95 (range 0.90–0.97) to 261 proposed units yields an estimated 234.9–253.2 new households, computed as proposed units multiplied by the occupancy rate. Multiplying those households by a persons-per-unit multiplier derived from Rutgers CUPR residential demographic multipliers (Listokin et al. 2006) for multifamily bedroom mixes yields an estimated 352–557 new residents (central 446). Aggregate annual household income of the new residents is estimated at $45.8 million–$61.7 million per year (central $54.4 million), computed as households multiplied by the mean income of site tract 51600300200 from ACS 5-year 2024 data ($195,124, sources B19025/B11001) multiplied by a new-construction income premium assumption.

Spending and cluster capture. New resident spending is estimated by multiplying households by BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023 category figures, scaled by income-ratio elasticities (Engel scaling). The top spending categories by central estimate are: comparison retail (apparel and household furnishings), $1.7 million–$3.1 million per year; grocery, $1.5 million–$2.5 million per year; entertainment, $1.4 million–$2.6 million per year; and restaurants and bars, $1.4 million–$2.4 million per year.

Where spending lands — Huff capture by cluster. These figures are screening estimates. The Huff model used here is a joint destination-and-mode-choice model applied to individual retail points of interest; cluster totals are a reporting rollup. The model computes each destination's share of new-resident spending using a formula of the form P(j,m) proportional to attractiveness times a mode weight times a negative exponential of travel time. Results rank where new spending is likely to concentrate and show sensitivity bounds; they are not predictions. The top clusters by central annual capture estimate are:

  • Fairchester Drive & Hill Street: $1,456,000–$2,243,000 per year (central $1,880,000), led by grocery and comparison retail
  • Blenheim Boulevard & Fairfax Boulevard: $793,000–$2,069,000 per year (central $1,339,000), led by restaurants and bars
  • Chain Bridge Road & North Street: $779,000–$1,340,000 per year (central $1,035,000), with a notable entertainment component

Additional clusters — Mathy Drive & Pickett Road ($531,000–$951,000) and Fair Lakes Parkway & Fair Oaks Mall ($466,000–$708,000) — capture a smaller share. The Huff model estimates that 57–62% of all new-resident retail spending and 62–70% of restaurant-and-bar spending would land at destinations inside the city boundary, computed as the share of Huff-model capture at points of interest within the city limits.

Project's own ground-floor retail. The 16,530 square feet of on-site retail competes as a destination in the same Huff run. Its estimated annual capture from new residents' spending is $41,000–$102,000 per year (central $71,724), composed of restaurants and bars, comparison retail, convenience retail, and personal services. This is a screening estimate subject to the same model assumptions as the cluster figures.

Foot-traffic index. The analysis estimates a foot-traffic index change of 0.1% on the 10 nearest commercial street segments. This figure is computed by allocating the new residents' modeled walk trips to street segments via exact shortest-path flows and comparing that increment to a sampled baseline betweenness index of today's population. No low/high range is published for this metric. This is a screening estimate: the baseline uses a seeded sampled betweenness index, not calibrated pedestrian counts.

Jobs. The existing commercial buildings have no on-site job estimate in project documents; the displacement figure is therefore computed as zero (existing commercial square footage divided by a square-footage-per-office-job assumption, with existing square footage not confirmed). The proposed 16,530 square feet of retail is estimated to support 23.6–41.3 on-site retail jobs (central 33.1), computed as proposed retail square footage divided by an assumed square footage per retail job. Net on-site job change is therefore estimated at 23.6–41.3 jobs (central 33.1).


Fiscal effects

Current tax. The two parcels currently generate $55,820 per year in real estate tax, computed as the current assessed value multiplied by the city real estate tax rate, drawn from the City of Fairfax Real Estate Assessment Database (Patriot WebPro, 2026) and the FY2027 adopted rate.

Projected assessed value and real estate tax. The projected assessed value is estimated at $97.2 million–$126.4 million (central $98.8 million), computed as proposed units multiplied by an assessed value per unit derived from three City of Fairfax apartment comparables built since 2011 (parcel 48 3 02 011 A: 400 units at $360,982/unit; parcel 57 1 02 031 C: 403 units at $359,599/unit; parcel 57 2 20 006 A: 268 units at $458,932/unit), plus proposed retail square footage multiplied by an assumed commercial assessed value per square foot, plus office square footage (not confirmed for this project) multiplied by an assumed office assessed value per square foot. Applied to the city real estate tax rate, the projected annual real estate tax is estimated at $1,042,000–$1,356,000 per year (central $1,059,000). The estimated real estate tax increase over the current site is $986,000–$1,300,000 per year (central $1,003,000), computed as projected minus current real estate tax.

Other recurring revenues. Several additional recurring revenue lines are estimated. Each carries significant assumption-driven uncertainty and several are explicitly rough estimates:

  • Personal property tax on resident vehicles: $87,000–$376,000 per year (central $201,000), computed as new households multiplied by assumed vehicles per household, multiplied by an assumed average vehicle assessed value, multiplied by the city personal property tax rate. This is a rough estimate; vehicles per household and average vehicle value are assumptions, not observed data.
  • BPOL business license tax on project retail: $1,218–$9,846 per year (central $3,924), computed as proposed retail square footage multiplied by an assumed gross sales per square foot, multiplied by the city BPOL retail rate, multiplied by a net-new share assumption, with an offset for resident spending that would be removed from other city businesses. This is a rough estimate.
  • Business tangible personal property tax: $2,731–$10,240 per year (central $5,462), computed as proposed commercial square footage multiplied by an assumed equipment value per square foot, multiplied by the personal property tax rate. This is a rough estimate.
  • Meals tax on captured in-city dining: $38,243–$76,252 per year (central $55,083), computed as estimated restaurant spending multiplied by the in-city capture share from the Huff model, multiplied by the city meals tax rate.
  • Meals tax on the project's own restaurants (net-new): $8,223–$155,079 per year (central $44,147), computed as ground-floor square footage multiplied by assumed sales per square foot, multiplied by an assumed restaurant share of retail space, multiplied by the meals tax rate, multiplied by the net-new share. This is a rough estimate.
  • Local sales tax share on captured in-city retail: $20,091–$37,637 per year (central $28,006), computed as in-city captured retail spending multiplied by the local sales tax share under Va. Code § 58.1-605.
  • Local sales tax on the project's own retail (net-new): $6,091–$49,231 per year (central $19,621), computed as ground-floor square footage multiplied by assumed sales per square foot, multiplied by the local sales tax share, multiplied by the net-new share. This is a rough estimate.

Service costs. Two cost methods are presented; they differ in their treatment of which city expenditures scale with new residents.

The marginal-framing method treats only services that scale with new residents as incremental costs. Non-school per-capita cost is drawn from the FY2027 adopted General Fund budget ($207,912,496 total less $76,429,791 in school tuition, divided by 25,026 residents = $5,254 per capita), then multiplied by a marginal cost factor (central 0.35, range 0.25–0.55) reflecting that fixed-overhead services do not expand with infill development. School costs are handled separately: estimated K-12 students of 13–31 (central 21), computed as proposed units multiplied by an assumed students-per-unit rate drawn from Rutgers CUPR high-rise multifamily multipliers, are multiplied by the net local cost per pupil ($19,961, computed from the FY2027 FCPS tuition contract of $76,429,791 less $14,492,271 in state education revenue, divided by 3,103 students). The resulting annual school cost component is estimated at $260,000–$625,000 (central $417,000). Total marginal-framing service cost is estimated at $723,000–$2,235,000 per year (central $1,237,000).

The marginal framing may understate costs if the project triggers a service-capacity expansion; the marginal cost factor's range (0.25–0.55) is the primary vehicle for carrying that uncertainty.

Net fiscal impact. Under the marginal framing, the estimated net annual fiscal impact — incremental recurring revenues minus service costs that scale with new residents — is −$1,084,000 to +$1,291,000 per year (central approximately +$123,000). The real estate tax increase is the single largest revenue driver. The range crosses zero, meaning that under plausible assumptions the project could be a net positive or a net negative to the city's recurring budget. The primary sources of this uncertainty are the marginal cost factor, the household size assumption (which scales both residents and associated costs), and the student-generation rate.

No external fiscal estimates were published by the applicant or city staff in the documents reviewed for this analysis; no comparison to external estimates is therefore possible.


Not evaluated in this version

Analyses of the proposed bicycle-lane corridor, trail connectivity, broader multimodal network effects, environmental impacts (stormwater, urban heat, tree canopy), and comparable-places benchmarking against similar mixed-use projects in peer jurisdictions were not computed in this version and are deferred to subsequent analysis phases.

Method notes & caveats

  • Huff capture is a screening estimate computed per business location (every retail POI is an individual destination) and aggregated to named areas for reporting; it ranks where new spending is likely to land, with sensitivity bounds — it is not a prediction.
  • The project's own retail is included as a competing destination; its capture estimates how much of the residents' spending the ground floor itself can hold on to.
  • Displaced use: Two existing commercial buildings (formerly Lotte Plaza/7-11; at time of 2026 document, leased to HomeTrends and Class Design Cabinetry). Any spending that originated on-site today is assumed negligible relative to the new residential demand.
  • Bike-arriving capture models cycling as a third mode alongside walking and driving: the bike preference is taken from the drive remainder (walk shares are unchanged), and bikes reach ~3-4x the walking distance per minute of travel time.
  • Foot-traffic flows are exact allocations of the new residents' modeled walk trips; the % comparison uses a sampled index of today's walkers, not calibrated pedestrian counts.
  • Walk-in capture per business is the walk-arriving share of the NEW residents' spending under a joint destination-and-mode choice: walking competes with driving per destination, so businesses beyond practical walking range receive effectively none of it and the rest of the spending arrives by car. It is not total pedestrian commerce. Comparing a business's walk-in capture to its total capture shows how much of its projected gain depends on being within walking distance of the project.
  • Personal property tax is a rough estimate: the city rate is pinned, but vehicles per household and average vehicle value are assumptions, not observed data. Pinning per-household budget actuals would replace this estimate.
  • On-site commercial tax lines exclude $71,724/yr of new-resident spending at the project's own ground floor, which is already counted in full in the resident-capture lines.
  • BPOL revenue is a rough estimate: the city rate schedule is pinned, but tenant gross receipts are assumed from a sales-per-sqft range.
  • School costs use the split model: 21 students (13-31) x $19,961 net local cost per pupil ≈ $416,776/yr in the service-cost estimate — a development generating fewer students carries proportionally lower costs instead of the school-heavy citywide average.
  • Service costs use the marginal framing: only services that scale with new residents, plus the project's own students at the net local cost per pupil. It understates costs if a service-capacity expansion is triggered; the marginal cost factor's range carries that uncertainty.
  • The revenue side includes the rough-estimate personal property and BPOL lines: leaving them at zero would understate revenue for taxes the city does levy, but both carry wide assumption-driven bounds.

Data sources

Computed Sep 14, 2026 · narrative by claude-sonnet-4-6 over deterministic model output (v3)