Written Testimony regarding SB388 Catherine Novelli Dunn Loring, VA I appreciate Sen. McPike’s and Del. Cole’s attempts to write an affordable housing law that can take effect quickly, and I support the nature of the law. The suggestions below will strengthen SB388 and allow it to achieve its goals. By including the “by right” exception to zoning laws for affordable housing developments on church lands, the bill completely removes the church’s neighbors from the equation. Zoning hearings allow neighbors to speak up when there are changes proposed to their neighborhoods’ continuity, and should still be required for faith-based developments. However, the zoning / permitting process should not be used to defeat the proposed affordable housing developments, which often happens. Instead of the zoning exception “by right,” set a time limit on municipal zoning boards. This will continue to allow neighbors an opportunity for a hearing, but will remove constraints against developments caused by multiple municipal delays. Similar to above, allowing a “by right” exception to local zoning ordinances completely disempowers all neighbors from being able to speak out to protect their property values. In so doing, all neighbors are denied their rights to negotiation on the project. Instead of “by right,” the proposed development should be required to maintain the continuity of the neighborhood where it will be located, i.e. high-rise buildings where there are other high-rise buildings; town homes and single-family houses where there are other town homes and single-family houses. By empowering the neighbors around the development to be heard, the law will encourage negotiation for the appropriate building for the neighborhood and thus promote buy-in by the local neighbors. This kind of buy-in support by existing neighbors is crucial for these developments to succeed. The area median income in Fairfax County is about $150,000. Allowing rent to be as much as 80% of AMI, as SB388 is currently worded, would mean $10,000 per month. A Fairfax County school teacher starts at a salary of approximately $58,000 per year. In order to be affordable, rental housing should cost about 30-35% of monthly income. In this example, the Fairfax County teacher should only be charged $1450/month in rent. As written, with 80% AMI, this bill does not promote affordable housing -- it promotes housing at market rates. Please change the percentage of AMI to be 35% or less for renters. Similarly, please change the percentage of AMI to be 60% or less for affordable housing purchases. The last thing we want to see is this law abused for private profit. Please include language that does not allow subleasing or short term rentals. Please do more to encourage affordable first-time homebuying, rather than additional renters in our area. Fairfax County has plenty of affordable rental housing available, but no affordable homebuying opportunities. Homebuying promotes the kind of generational wealth and security upon which the American dream is based. Virginia should move forward with legislation to promote affordable home ownership. Catherine Novelli cnovelli@mac.com

SB388 we ask that you vote nay to this bill.

Written Testimony regarding SB388 Patricia Vanstory Dunn Loring, VA I appreciate Sen. McPike’s and Del. Cole’s attempts to write an affordable housing law that can take effect quickly, and I support the nature of the law. The suggestions below will strengthen SB388 and allow it to achieve its goals. By including the “by right” exception to zoning laws for affordable housing developments on church lands, the bill completely removes the church’s neighbors from the equation. Zoning hearings allow neighbors to speak up when there are changes proposed to their neighborhoods’ continuity, and should still be required for faith-based developments. However, the zoning / permitting process should not be used to defeat the proposed affordable housing developments, which often happens. Instead of the zoning exception “by right,” set a time limit on municipal zoning boards. This will continue to allow neighbors an opportunity for a hearing, but will remove constraints against developments caused by multiple municipal delays. Similar to above, allowing a “by right” exception to local zoning ordinances completely disempowers all neighbors from being able to speak out to protect their property values. In so doing, all neighbors are denied their rights to negotiation on the project. Instead of “by right,” the proposed development should be required to maintain the continuity of the neighborhood where it will be located, i.e. high-rise buildings where there are other high-rise buildings; town homes and single-family houses where there are other town homes and single-family houses. By empowering the neighbors around the development to be heard, the law will encourage negotiation for the appropriate building for the neighborhood and thus promote buy-in by the local neighbors. This kind of buy-in support by existing neighbors is crucial for these developments to succeed. The area median income in Fairfax County is about $150,000. Allowing rent to be as much as 80% of AMI, as SB388 is currently worded, would mean $10,000 per month. A Fairfax County school teacher starts at a salary of approximately $58,000 per year. In order to be affordable, rental housing should cost about 30-35% of monthly income. In this example, the Fairfax County teacher should only be charged $1450/month in rent. As written, with 80% AMI, this bill does not promote affordable housing -- it promotes housing at market rates. Please change the percentage of AMI to be 35% or less for renters. Similarly, please change the percentage of AMI to be 60% or less for affordable housing purchases. The last thing we want to see is this law abused for private profit. Please include language that does not allow subleasing or short term rentals. Please do more to encourage affordable first-time homebuying, rather than additional renters in our area. Fairfax County has plenty of affordable rental housing available, but no affordable homebuying opportunities. Homebuying promotes the kind of generational wealth and security upon which the American dream is based. Virginia should move forward with legislation to promote affordable home ownership.

Opposition to SB 388 / HB 1279 (Faith-Based Housing) The proposed legislation allowing religious organizations to develop housing "by-right" is fundamentally unfair to other citizens and property owners who are required to follow the standard public zoning process. Key Points of Opposition: • Special Treatment: No specific group should be allowed to "jump the line." If a parcel of land is to be rezoned for high density, it should undergo the same public scrutiny, traffic studies, and community input sessions required of any other developer or homeowner. • Lack of Local Oversight: By-right development strips away the rights of neighboring residents to voice concerns about infrastructure, school capacity, and neighborhood character during public hearings. • Inconsistent Standards: Granting a subset of land owners (faith-based organizations) different land-use rights than their secular neighbors creates an unequal playing field and undermines the integrity of local comprehensive plans. Local land-use decisions should remain a public, transparent process applicable to all equally, regardless of the owner's mission or affiliation.

I fully support efforts to expand actual affordable housing development that preserves oversight by local officials as well as citizen input into a timely (or time constrained) approval process. Out of great respect for the Chief Patrons, I have shared these comments in advance of this hearing as well as met with Senator McPike and Delegate Cole’s teams twice. I truly appreciate the intent of SB388 and the updates Sen McPike has made as it evolved. With amendments by the committee, this bill could have the maximum benefit possible for those most impacted by the affordability crisis. 1- Please change the wording to a maximum affordable rental of 35% of AMI which is based on the starting salary of a new school teacher (In Fairfax this is a $58K/yr income, based on a 2026 projected AMI of $160K at a rent of 30% of income, that is 35% of AMI). Currently this bill has a maximum rent of $3,200 in Fairfax County which is too much for a teacher, allowing for $100 in monthly utilities, their maximum monthly rent should be $1,350. In another scenario, it takes 5 people working full-time at 2026 minimum wage to afford an apartment at 80% AMI in Fairfax County. For affordable purchase, please set a maximum affordable ownership of 60% of AMI. This uses the same formula but based on $100K/yr income which reduces the mortgage from $4,800 as the bill is written to an actual affordable $2,400 per month (Not including utilities.) 2- As this is legislation for affordable housing provided through non-profits and churches (No land acquisition cost and likely the developer will receive federal dollar-for-dollar tax credit for the construction), please change to language to 100% of the residential occupancy will be affordable housing (With limits of 35% AMI max rental & 60% AMI max ownership) 3- Please include language that all occupants of a (rental) unit’s income must be disclosed annually, and it be illegal to sublease at a rate higher than the original rent or owners to rent above their mortgage. 4- Please include language that provides for local officials to review these proposals through an expedited or timely approval process and requires community hearings and participation for these proposed church and non-profit real estate developments. 5- Please include language to create affordable first-time home ownership opportunities. While affordable rental housing is important and more is needed, ownership is a crisis as there are ZERO affordable houses for purchase in my area. The current draft wording of SB388 unintentionally allows housing costs that are far too high--As written, SB388 does not provide affordable housing due to the incorrect high rental and purchase limits. The bill also lacks wording to support first-time homeowners, young working families, senior living options and housing for those with disabilities. Thank you for your consideration on additional amendments to SB388.

Considerations to enhance the draft language of SB388 I fully support efforts to expand affordable housing development that preserves oversight by local officials as well as citizen input into a timely (or time constrained) approval process. I appreciate the intent of SB388 and the updates Sen McPike has made as it evolved. With amendments by the committee, this bill could have the maximum benefit possible for those most impacted by the affordability crisis. Suggested updates to SB388: 1- Please change the wording to a maximum affordable rental of 35% of AMI which is based on the starting salary of a new school teacher (In Fairfax this is a $58K/yr income, based on a 2026 projected AMI of $160K at a rent of 30% of income, that is 35% of AMI). Currently this bill has a maximum rent of $3,200 in Fairfax County which is too much for a teacher, allowing for $100 in monthly utilities, their maximum monthly rent should be $1,350. In another scenario, it takes 5 people working full-time at 2026 minimum wage to afford an apartment at 80% AMI in Fairfax County. For affordable purchase, please set a maximum affordable ownership of 60% of AMI. This uses the same formula but based on $100K/yr income which reduces the mortgage from $4,800 as the bill is written to an actual affordable $2,400 per month (Not including utilities.) 2- As this is legislation for affordable housing provided through non-profits and churches (No land acquisition cost and likely the developer will receive federal dollar-for-dollar tax credit for the construction), please change to language to 100% of the residential occupancy will be affordable housing (With limits of 35% AMI max rental & 60% AMI max ownership) 3- Please include language that all occupants of a (rental) unit’s income must be disclosed annually, and it be illegal to sublease at a rate higher than the original rent or owners to rent above their mortgage. 4- Please include language that provides for local officials to review these proposals through an expedited or timely approval process and requires community hearings and participation for these proposed church and non-profit real estate developments. 5- Please include language to create affordable first-time home ownership opportunities. While affordable rental housing is important and more is needed, ownership is a crisis as there are ZERO affordable houses for purchase in my area. The current draft wording of SB388 unintentionally allows housing costs that are far too high. As written, SB388 does not provide affordable housing due to the incorrect high rental and purchase limits. The bill also lacks wording to support first-time homeowners, young working families, senior living options and housing for those with disabilities. Thank you for your consideration on additional amendments to SB388.

Considerations to enhance the draft language of SB388; I fully support efforts to expand actual affordable housing development that preserves oversight by local officials as well as citizen input into a timely (or time constrained) approval process. Out of great respect for the Chief Patrons, I have shared these comments in advance of this hearing as well as met with Senator McPike and Delegate Cole’s (HB1279) teams twice. I truly appreciate the intent of SB388 and the updates Sen McPike has made as it evolved. With amendments by the committee, this bill could have the maximum benefit possible for those most impacted by the affordability crisis. Suggested updates to SB388: 1- Please change the wording to a maximum affordable rental of 35% of AMI which is based on the starting salary of a new school teacher (In Fairfax this is a $58K/yr income, based on a 2026 projected AMI of $160K at a rent of 30% of income, that is 35% of AMI). Currently this bill has a maximum rent of $3,200 in Fairfax County which is too much for a teacher, allowing for $100 in monthly utilities, their maximum monthly rent should be $1,350. In another scenario, it takes 5 people working full-time at 2026 minimum wage to afford an apartment at 80% AMI in Fairfax County. For affordable purchase, please set a maximum affordable ownership of 60% of AMI. This uses the same formula but based on $100K/yr income which reduces the mortgage from $4,800 as the bill is written to a more affordable $2,400 per month (Not including utilities.) 2- As this is legislation for affordable housing provided through non-profits and churches (No land acquisition cost and likely the developer will receive federal dollar-for-dollar tax credit for the construction), please change to language to 100% of the residential occupancy will be affordable housing (With limits of 35% AMI max rental & 60% AMI max ownership) 3- Please include language that all occupants of a (rental) unit’s income must be disclosed annually, and it be illegal to sublease at a rate higher than the original rent or owners to rent above their mortgage. 4- Please include language that provides for local officials to review these proposals through an expedited or timely approval process and requires community hearings and participation for these proposed church and non-profit real estate developments. 5- Please include language to create affordable first-time home ownership opportunities. While affordable rental housing is important and more is needed, ownership is a crisis as there are ZERO affordable houses for purchase in my area. The current draft wording of SB388 unintentionally allows housing costs that are far too high--As written, SB388 does not provide affordable housing due to the incorrect high rental and purchase limits. The bill also lacks wording to support first-time homeowners, young working families, senior living options and housing for those with disabilities. Thank you for your consideration on additional amendments to SB388.