Alexandria officials warn faith-and-housing bill would preempt local historic and archaeological reviews

Alexandria staff and housing advocates told the legislative subcommittee that a pending state "faith-and-housing" bill would, as drafted, remove local discretionary approvals for covered affordable housing projects on faith- or nonprofit-owned land, a change that could undercut the city's historic-district and archaeological protections.

Bonnie, briefing the committee, said negotiators in a recent meeting focused on preserving the city’s archaeology code and historic-district processes while trying to find a way forward for the bill. "We could still impose code specific conditions that don't have discretionary review," she said, but added the bill "continues to preempt our discretionary approvals for the covered projects in the bill." (Bonnie, presentation)

Sean Ferguson of Alexandria's Office of Historic Alexandria (OHA) told the subcommittee the office is seeing progress on archaeology protection but urged closer review of the current draft to ensure historic-district protections are paired with any archaeological language. "I think we see a lot of concern with not also protecting those historic districts," he said. (Sean Ferguson, OHA)

Staff described the core tension: the bill’s aim is to remove discretionary local processes to speed affordable housing delivery, but Alexandria’s local building review (including the Board of Architectural Review process and sustainability conditions applied through discretionary site plan reviews) relies on case-by-case authority that advocates say cannot be preserved in the current form.

City staff said they are continuing negotiations through intermediaries and stakeholder groups (including the American Planning Association and housing advocates) because direct contact with the bill patron is restricted. The subcommittee agreed to pursue amendment language that might preserve archaeology and sustainability protections without reintroducing discretionary approvals that would defeat the bill’s purpose.

The subcommittee did not take a formal vote on a position; staff said time is limited in session and negotiations will continue before the committee must declare a stance. The committee kept the bill under active monitoring and asked staff to coordinate with partners on possible amendment language.

Next steps: staff will continue to seek compromise language that protects cultural resources while allowing the bill’s proponents to meet their goal of faster production of affordable housing. If suitable language cannot be secured, the city may reassess its position before committee action.