Dear Committee Members- thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of the City of Falls Church Council. SUPPORT: SB 328, this is a beneficial local tool for providing housing affordability options for local employees and request approval effective in 2026 versus a continued 2027. OPPOSE: SB454, removal of local zoning and land use approval is extremely concerning. Zoning districts developed and adopted with local input designed to meet locality public health, safety and community character. One size does not fit all. There are other options and tools to achieve the housing affordability goals such as statewide authorization to sue 15.2-2304. Thank you for your continued service, Cindy Mester, Legislative Affairs Director

I live in Botetourt County and I’m against this data center being built. It was shoved down our throats before anyone knew about it. It was kept hush hush because the Board of Supervisors signed a do not disclose agreement with google. That in itself should tell you a thing or two. Absolutely NO ONE that I know wants this monstrosity built in our county. Botetourt county does NOT have resources to provide for this data center. I’m asking you to please vote yes on SB334.

When the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors inked an agreement with Google June 24, 2025 to build a data center in exchange for community development funds, they had a press release ready to go and lined up fawning coverage in most of the local news outlets. This was the first time the public heard anything about a Google data center deal; months later, as the public learned more about the costs of data centers--including the accelerated exhaustion of water supplies for the entire region, including Roanoke City--and came out against this particular data center plan in greater numbers, the Board justified its actions in a Frequently Asked Questions page, which noted that the zoning ordinance had been amended to include data centers in November 2024 without any dissenting opinion. They neglected to mention that they called it then a "speculative" amendment, with no deals in the works. Setting aside that galling falsehood, and the absurdity in expecting the public to follow and parse the significance of every change in zoning, it's telling that there is not even such a fig leaf to point to when it comes to the Google deal itself. From the company's early 2024 scouting trip all the way up through that June 2025 Board meeting, the deal was never publicly discussed; instead it was worked out in closed-door sessions. The Board invoked Section 2.2-3711 Subsection A of the Code of Virginia of 1950 to a comical degree: in June Section A.3 protected them since "no previous announcement [had] been made of [Google]'s interest in locating or expanding facilities in the community." By July the Economic Development Authority was collecting revenue from the land sale. The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors is evasive and dissembling, but not uniquely so; while some communities are fortunate enough to have leadership that considers public opinion rather than avoiding it, too many others end up in similar situations, not learning of these deals until it's too late because these companies consider disclosure and debate bad for business. To which we say secrecy is bad for good governance. SB334, as it exists on 02/26/2026, deals a major blow against secrecy, by requiring disclosure and discussion of these proposals before they are approved. This bill should not be set aside for next year, nor watered down to a recommendation or, worse, a measure that grants localities the ability to allow these hearings. This is like granting the fox the authority to warn the henhouse of danger. Residents need state-level protections to ensure that the profound impacts of these projects are debated before they are approved, not after their elected local officials have done their petty best to convince them it's too late to do anything about it. The Southwest Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance supports SB334.

Support SB334. Residents of southwest Virginia should have a say in this as many other people who live near data centers have already reported health problems.

Vote yes on SB334

I support SB334! Big data centers are small short term gains, for huge long term labilities, simply put...this HAS to have public input, this NEEDS to be democratic...

Legislators: Local decision-making is generally the best way to assure transparency and good outcomes reflecting relevant circumstances especially in land use issues. This legislation, and others like it, despite good intent, go in the opposite direction. by mandating by-right development and amount to unfunded mandates. So, I ask that it and other by-right proposals not be enacted and we search for better ways to move forward.

Please find attached written testimony on behalf of the Institute for Justice in support of SB 454.

Please support SB 454. Young people like me are being crushed by the housing supply crisis. Rents are skyrocketing. The average first time homebuyer just hit 40. Young people are packed into single family homes, apartments, and basements like sardines. People are putting off having families because they can't afford a place. Experts and economists agree that this is caused by local regulations banning new housing, and agree that building housing would address the crisis. Yet, despite all of this, Virginia government continues to take the absurd step of banning new housing where it is needed most. My peers are disillusioned because they can't afford housing. My peers believe that the government will always serve the wealthy, entitled few who want as little housing built as possible. They believe that because they see that the only people local government listens to are the most wealthy, most NIMBY constituents who have the time to show up and yell at local officials at planning meetings during business hours. Many of you ran on cost of living. This is a reasonable, effective step to make housing more affordable by legalizing an increase in supply where it is needed most. Please, make good on your promises to address affordability. Please pass this reasonable reform to legalize housing near jobs.

Dear Committee Members- thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of the City of Falls Church Council. SUPPORT: SB 328, this is a beneficial local tool for providing housing affordability options for local employees and request approval effective in 2026 versus a continued 2027. OPPOSE: SB454, removal of local zoning and land use approval is extremely concerning. Zoning districts developed and adopted with local input designed to meet locality public health, safety and community character. One size does not fit all. There are other options and tools to achieve the housing affordability goals such as statewide authorization to sue 15.2-2304. Thank you for your continued service, Cindy Mester, Legislative Affairs Director

Please see attached letter in support of SB 531. This bill gives needed flexibility to landowners and will help ease the housing shortage throughout Virginia.

Virginia’s housing shortage is being driven by outdated zoning that blocks homes in the very places where people work. The Housing Near Jobs bill fixes that by allowing homes in commercial and office areas—near jobs, services, and infrastructure we already have. This means shorter commutes, lower housing costs, and a stronger economy—without raising taxes. The “Housing Near Jobs” proposal is a state-level housing supply bill aimed at addressing housing affordability and availability in areas close to employment centers. The core idea is to make it easier to build homes where jobs already exist by changing local zoning restrictions. It would legalize residential construction in many commercial, office, and retail zoning districts where housing is typically restricted, especially in high-opportunity areas with strong job markets. The intent is to allow more housing to be built “by right” (i.e., without expensive and uncertain rezoning processes), reducing costs and speeding up development near jobs. This fits into a broader effort to help workers live closer to employment centers and reduce housing cost burdens that hit families in high-demand regions hardest. The policy motivation behind the “Housing Near Jobs” bill and related proposals includes: Increasing the housing supply in high-demand job centers so that working families aren’t priced out of areas where they are employed. Cutting red tape and permitting uncertainty that can delay or deter housing development. Addressing housing affordability by enabling more homes to be built quickly and predictably close to employment hubs. Why This Bill Matters Housing costs are outpacing wages across Virginia, especially in job-rich areas. Many office parks, shopping corridors, and commercial zones sit partially empty but cannot legally have housing. When workers can’t live near their jobs, families pay more, commutes get longer, and businesses struggle to hire. What the Bill Does Allows housing by right in commercial and business districts where jobs already exist. Reduces delays, uncertainty, and costs caused by discretionary rezoning. Encourages market-driven housing production without mandates on who must build or what must be built. Benefits for Everyday Virginians Lower housing costs by increasing supply where demand is highest. Less traffic and congestion by shortening commutes. More options for teachers, nurses, service workers, and young families. Revitalizes struggling commercial areas without new infrastructure spending. Benefits for the Commonwealth Supports economic growth by helping employers attract and retain workers. Makes better use of existing roads, utilities, and transit. Reduces pressure to sprawl into farmland and rural areas. Aligns housing policy with workforce and economic development goals. Addressing Common Concerns “This takes away local control.” Local zoning has contributed to a statewide housing shortage with statewide consequences. The General Assembly already sets standards in transportation, education, and environmental protection—housing affordability deserves the same attention. “This will change community character.” The bill focuses on commercial and office areas, not established residential neighborhoods. Habitat for Humanity of Northern Virginia and D.C., which serves Arlington and Fairfax County, City of Fairfax, Alexandria and Falls Church, supports SB 454 and urge you to pass it this year!

I sincerely urge you to support this bill. For too long, we have allowed restrictive single use zoning to make our cities and towns less livable, more expensive, and more exclusive. Enabling our neighbors to live where they work and do business is a common sense solution to a problem that is forcing people to abandon the places that they want to live in order to live a walkable, transitable lifestyle. If you want families and young people to stay in our communities, you must make space. To spike this bill over concerns from localities would be to ignore what your constituents are asking for. We want to live, work, play, and plant roots in our neighborhoods, but right now, too often, because a city colors a street map and attaches an arbitrary zoning classification, we can't do that forcing communities into sprawl and exclusivity. Please, reject what has been, and move towards what can be and in every major country and growing region in this country has shown to be the pattern of development that people want and can thrive in.

Chesterfield has 4 specific corridors for commercial development that SB454 would eventually eliminate. In a growing county, allowing for by-right development of multi-family would hinder the ability to have the commercial that all residents need. We need land for goods and services and not over development of one specific sector of the housing market which by-right will bring. Please allow localities to continue to determine what is best by NOT supporting this bill.

City of Falls Church Council respectfully submits comments on tje following: 1) Suppprt SB74 for furthering permossive affordable housing statewide, we all are working together 2) Support SB589- good step forward on tree onservation a key priority as the City has been a tree city USA for 47 consecutive years 3) Oppose SB454 as localities must have ability to oversee zoning diatricts for benefit of its community and one size does not fit all, SB 717 overlay model is a preferred approach to addressing housing affordablility. Thank you for your consideration.

My name is Letty Hardi, and I serve as Mayor of Falls Church. I’ll caveat that I'm speaking on my own behalf. I want to offer perspective from a locality that has legalized detached backyard cottages and assuage concerns. ADUs are a small, commonsense tool that help communities meet real needs—whether it’s a place for an aging parent, a grown child saving for their own home, a teacher or nurse who wants to live near where they work, or a homeowner looking for modest supplemental income so they can afford to stay in their home. In the cities that have legalized backyard cottages - they have shown to be a small, incremental step. They don't flood the neighborhood with cars, they don't destroy community character - they are a very incremental change that allows property owners to add flexibility to their property as needs change. And in fact, if you care about preserving older more affordable housing stock instead of large McMansions, allowing backyard cottages can be a real option. Today the default is someone aging may sell their smaller, older home and then a developer razes that starter home and turns it into that McMansion. Instead, if they were allowed to build an ADU, the original home could be preserved. ADUs provide flexibility and choices for people as their housing needs change. If we want to solve the housing crisis - you have to face the reality that majority of our land is dedicated to single family zoning and allowing people to add backyard cottages in their neighborhoods is a baby step to allow that land to be used for smaller forms of housing - ADUs have to be part of the toolbox.

Please see attached letter in support of Senate Bill 531.

The North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL) joins the City of Virginia Beach and the Virginia Municipal League in opposing SB531. As you did for the companion HB611, we ask that you continue SB531 to 2027 to allow stakeholders time to work out amendments that can gain wider support. Speaking on behalf of SB531 before the Senate Local Government Committee, the Patron Senator Srinivasan claimed 3 times, including in direct response to a direct question from a Senator, that the substitute was permissive. HOWEVER, the primary provision of this bill in paragraph B still states: "Zoning ordinances for single-family residential zoning districts shall be deemed to include accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use, and no locality shall require compliance with any other requirements except as provided in this section." As it was for HB611, this is an unnecessary and inappropriate pre-emption of local zoning authority. We request an amendment to either remove this paragraph or make it permissive, as the Patron claimed was intended with the substitute, rather than pre-emptive. We also still take exception to paragraphs D.6, E.1, and E.2, with our requested amendments to these stated in my email to each of you. We continue to support allowing ADUs in our neighborhood, provided that they are on lots that can reasonably accommodate them and that our city can determine appropriate requirements for them. We would support this bill with the amendments requested above, but we cannot support this bill in its current form.

Pacific Legal Foundation supports Senate Bill 531. Please see attached comments.