BRAC FAQ answers citizen questions about the BRAC order and its impact on maintaining the master jet base at NAS Oceana. Check back frequently as additional FAQ will be added to this list periodically. To submit a question, please click here.

What has the city done about the BRAC situation?

Why did the city buy the Near Post project land on Laskin Road when it doesn't count toward meeting the BRAC Commission demand concerning buying land in APZ-1? That project wasn't even in APZ-1. Why did the city approve that project in the first place?

What uses are "compatible" in an APZ-1 area? What is an "APZ" anyway?

I heard the BRAC commissioners talking about Lynnhaven Mall and how it's an example of encroachment around Oceana. Why did the city allow the mall to be built so close to the base?

If the city hadn't spent so much money on public-private partnerships, wouldn't it have millions of dollars to help keep NAS Oceana, its largest employer, happy?

Why didn't the city adopt measures to accommodate Oceana's mission in the past?

The BRAC Commissioners said that Oceana has been negatively impacted by encroachment around the base. Did the city allow this encroachment?

The BRAC Commission is on record stating that NAS Oceana is not the future of naval aviation for our nation.  What does the Navy and the Department of Defense have to say about that?

Does the BRAC order say to close Oceana or to realign it?  What's the distinction between those words in this situation?

What exactly are BRAC's requirements of the city?

Some say that uncontrolled growth in Virginia Beach has a lot to do with development pressures we now see around NAS Oceana. Is this true?

How many incompatible properties – residential and commercial – are there in the APZ 1 areas and what is their fair market value? How many of these properties do not have structures on them?

What has the city done about the BRAC situation?

On Dec. 20, 2005, the City Council adopted a Plan for Compliance with the BRAC Commission's Decision Regarding NAS Oceana.  The decision on whether to comply with the BRAC demands was based on facts and considerations of what is best for our community. No actions were taken until the facts were weighed and citizens had the opportunity to voice their views.

The city hired an independent firm to analyze economic impacts. This economic analysis was completed in November.

The city created work groups to analyze the land use and economic impact of the realignment of NAS Oceana, to examine legal options and issues, and to develop ways to keep the public informed and create a method for citizen input.

The city also participated on the governor's South Hampton Roads BRAC Working Group that looked at the local, regional and state impacts of the BRAC decision, and worked with the congressional delegation to address the BRAC requirements.

Also, the City Council appointed a Citizen BRAC Committee to assure that all relevant information and factors regarding the response to the BRAC order were considered. In addition, the committee reviewed and monitored the work of the staff work groups and assisted the planning process in other ways.

As work proceeds, information can be found at the city's Web site at www.VBgov.com/brac and in future City Pages. Opportunities for citizens to share their views as the process continues will be advertised in advance.

Why did the city buy the Near Post project land on Laskin Roadwhen it doesn't count toward meeting the BRAC Commission demand concerning buying land in APZ-1? That project wasn't even in APZ-1. Why did the city approve that project in the first place?

On Aug. 16, 2005, the city and the state announced a series of initiatives intended to show the BRAC Commission our continuing efforts to limit development pressure around NAS Oceana. One of these initiatives was buying an option to purchase the Near Post development, a condominium project on a roughly 6-acre site on Laskin Road, which had been referenced repeatedly by the commissioners in their Oceana discussions as a significant example of encroachment.

At that time the city clearly stated it would exercise the option to buy the property if Oceana remained open. The subsequent decision of BRAC was to do just that - to leave Oceana open and to possibly re-align the master jet base component to another site. So the city followed through on its commitment and purchased the property on Sept. 13. The $15 million purchase price was split evenly by the city and the state.

As for the earlier approval of the project, the City Council did rezone the property in November 2003. At that time, the zoning of the property would have allowed a 256-room hotel or motel or an 85-unit condo with an additional 86 hotel rooms, all without any City Council action. Instead the city negotiated a lower density zoning, which ultimately yielded a 72-unit condo plan, and the council approved it.

What uses are "compatible" in an APZ-1 area? What is an "APZ" anyway?

APZ is the acronym for Accident Potential Zone. The potential for an aircraft accident is higher in APZ-1 than in APZ-2, and both have lower potential than the clear zone.

In general, to be compatible with noise zones and APZs around a military airfield, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) recommends that noise-sensitive uses (e.g., houses, churches, amphitheaters, etc.) be placed outside the highest noise zone; that people-intensive uses (e.g., regional shopping malls, theaters, etc.) not be placed in APZ-1 areas; and that sound-attenuating methods be incorporated into building design and construction. In general, the only uses deemed compatible in an APZ-1 area are wholesale and manufacturing (with conditions), agriculture and public rights-of-way.

I heard the BRAC commissioners talking about Lynnhaven Mall and how it's an example of encroachment around Oceana. Why did the city allow the mall to be built so close to the base?

There are two points to be considered on this question. First, the key BRAC Commission directive concerns "incompatible" uses - primarily residential homes and apartments - in the Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1), the areas of highest accident potential other than crash zones. Lynnhaven Mall is located in an APZ-2, and retailing is, in fact, a compatible use within an APZ-2.

Second, when Lynnhaven Mall was built there were no identified APZs at all around Oceana. There was opposition to building the mall in its current location, including from the Navy, but there was no policy direction from the federal government making it an incompatible use.

If the city hadn't spent so much money on public-private partnerships, wouldn't it have millions of dollars to help keep NAS Oceana, its largest employer, happy?

No. Public-private partnerships do not divert money from the city's coffers. Quite the contrary: they generate a significant, positive net return to the city, which provides additional funding for schools, public safety, waste management and other city services - without taxing residents.

The investment partnership is becoming a hallmark of municipal finance as cities seek creative ways to shift the cost of providing services away from residents' real estate taxes. Our primary goals in creating public-private partnerships are building and diversifying our tax base, increasing efficiency, and enhancing the quality of life for citizens.

As a rule, General Fund tax dollars do not support the "major projects" that the city has undertaken during the past few years, including Town Center, Lynnhaven Mall expansion, 31 Ocean public infrastructure at 31st Street, the Convention Center, and the Performing Arts Center.

Virginia Beach has been cited as one of the best-managed large cities in the nation, and the continued economic vitality of our city is critical to our future well-being. If the city fails to make investments that pay off in direct tax base and better jobs, then in years to come growth in service demands could outpace our revenues, and the community could decline.

Virginia Beach 's real estate tax rate, at $1.0239 per $100 of assessed value, is the lowest in all of South Hampton Roads. Investment partnerships are one way the city can generate new revenues while keeping the real estate tax rate and other taxes low.

Why didn't the city adopt measures to accommodate Oceana's mission in the past?

Actually, the city has a long history of protecting NAS Oceana. Here are just a few of the steps we've taken:

• Spent $15.54 million to acquire 311 acres of future right-of-way in noise zones of 65 dB DNL or greater
• Spent $21.6 million to relocate two elementary schools when high noise zones were redefined.
• Spent $202 million to construct extensive roadway improvements providing access to the base - improvements that many thousands of Virginia Beach residents are also enjoying. The city has also programmed an additional $124 million in the Capital Improvements Program for several roadway projects near the base.

Since 1995 the city has also required sound attenuation measures in all residential buildings in noise zones of 65dB DNL or greater, and we have a procedure in place for the U.S. Navy to review and comment on all development in our city.

The BRAC Commissioners said that Oceana has been negatively impacted by encroachment around the base. Did the city allow this encroachment?

The BRAC Commission’s directive is based on its notion of perceived “encroachment” around NAS Oceana and orders acquisition of property in Accident Potential Zone One (APZ-1) areas to stop and reverse it.  Comments by BRAC commissioners suggest that this encroachment is largely the direct result of inappropriate actions taken over the years by the Virginia Beach City Council.

A recent analysis by the Virginia Beach Planning Department reveals that the vast majority of residential units in Oceana’s current APZ-1 areas now considered “encroachment” and “incompatible uses” by the federal government were NOT incompatible uses when the zoning for them was approved, and that they were made incompatible not by City Council action, but by expansions of the Accident Potential Zones and changes in the Navy’s OPNAV Instruction.

The comprehensive study shows that of the estimated 3,400 residential units now in the APZ-1 at least 3,280 units, or about 96 percent, were either not “incompatible” with applicable APZ guidelines at the time or predated APZ guidelines.

The remaining roughly 120 units, or about 4 percent, were built on property rezoned to uses that were incompatible with then-existing and current U.S. Navy guidelines.

Like many projects around the city, some other residential and commercial projects within the current APZ-1 areas met with varying degrees of opposition – from Navy representatives and from other interested parties – during the city’s 42-year history.  But all relevant factors must be weighed by the Planning Commission, the City Council and various city agencies in evaluating projects.  As federal government maps were drawn and re-drawn over the years, varying numbers of residential units entered or left accident potential and noise zones – at least on paper.

The BRAC Commission is on record stating that NAS Oceana is not the future of naval aviation for our nation.   What does the Navy and the Department of Defense have to say about that?

Comments by Navy and Defense Department officials during the BRAC Commission's deliberations supported retaining the East Coast master jet base at Oceana.  Following are a few direct quotes:

". . . from the Navy's vantage point, we believe that Oceana continues to serve the fleet well, that the challenges that you mention regarding encroachment and Oceana have been and are manageable . . . .  The co-location of Oceana with the fleet in Norfolkis a significant advantage.   . . . Oceana continues to be the Navy's best option for its master jet base on the East Coast." – Admiral Robert F. Willard, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, July 18, 2005.

"NAS Oceana is the most suitable option of all East Coast tactical aviation bases for the present and is manageable for the foreseeable future." – GordonEngland, Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense, July 20, 2005.

"Oceana meets current operational training requirements with the level of encroachment that exists today in the surrounding community.  Changes to flight tracks and procedures have been implemented periodically, but they have not impacted the ability to meet requirements.

"The Department's position has been, and remains, that NAS Oceana is the most suitable option as a Navy East Coast master jet base in support of East Coast Fleet carrier operations, and we have a plan to ensure its viability into the future, assuming community support." – Anne Rathmell Davis, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy for Base Realignment and Closure, Aug. 3, 2005.

". . . pursuant to the authority granted by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Act, the Department of Defense conducted a thorough analysis of all military installations in the United States and Territories on an equal footing, with military value as the primary consideration.  It was through this process that the Department concluded that NAS Oceana remained the most suitable option for an East Coast master jet base for the foreseeable future.  That position has not changed." – Admiral M. G. Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, Oct. 29, 2005.

Does the BRAC order say to close Oceana or to realign it?  What's the distinction between those words in this situation?

The BRAC alternative that moves the fighter jets to another location calls for "realigning" Oceana, NOT closing it.  This realignment would involve relocating the fighter aircraft, directly associated operations and their personnel to a new master jet base elsewhere.  The military would retain ownership of the Virginia Beachbase and the property, and it would likely maintain some existing military operations and possibly some new ones on the base. 

Conversely, closure of NAS Oceana would mean that there would be no military operations at the base.  The federal government would still retain ownership of the property, but there would at least be the possibility that the government would sell the base to a willing purchaser, including, potentially, the City of Virginia Beach

What exactly are BRAC's requirements of the city?

The text of the BRAC Commission's requirements in the final report is:

"Realign Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, by relocating the East Coast Master Jet Base to Cecil Field, FL, if the Commonwealth of Virginia and the municipal governments of Virginia Beach, VA, and Chesapeake, Virginia, fail to enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of Naval Air Station Oceana by the end of March 2006, to wit: enact state-mandated zoning controls requiring the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake to adopt zoning ordinances that require the government body to follow Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) guidelines in deciding discretionary development applications for property in noise levels 70 dB Day-Night, average noise level (DNL) or greater; enact state and local legislation and ordinances to establish a program to condemn and purchase all the incompatible use property located within the Accident Potential Zone 1 areas for Naval Air Station Oceana, as depicted in the 1999 AICUZ pamphlet published by the US Navy and to fund and expend no less than $15 million annually in furtherance of the aforementioned program; codify the 2005 final Hampton Roads joint Land Use Study recommendations; legislate requirements for the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake to evaluate undeveloped properties in noise zones 70 dB DNL or greater for rezoning classification that would not allow uses incompatible under AICUZ guidelines; establish programs for purchase of development rights of the inter-facility traffic area between NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress; enact legislation creating the Oceana-Fentress Advisory Council."

Some say that uncontrolled growth in Virginia Beachhas a lot to do with development pressures we now see around NAS Oceana. Is this true?

Growth in Virginia Beach was never uncontrolled.

Our city reached its peak year for building permits in 1986, and since 1991 the city’s Comprehensive Plan has been coordinated with the Navy ― developed with land-use policies that were based on the Navy’s AICUZ programs. In 1994 the city’s zoning ordinance was even amended to adjust certain land uses so that they would be compatible with these AICUZ programs.

However, the rules changed on Dec. 19, 2002. That’s when the Navy issued its new OPNAV Instruction, which revised the way the Navy views land-use compatibility. Before Dec. 19, only a small amount of land was not compatible. But when the rules changed on that day, some 34,000 existing homes were instantly and automatically rendered incompatible. The day before, they were compatible.

It is important to note that for the most part the city has been in line with the OPNAV instructions since they were issued.

How many incompatible properties – residential and commercial – are there in the APZ 1 areas and what is their fair market value? How many of these properties do not have structures on them?

As of Sept. 1, there were roughly 3,400 residential units in the APZ-1 areas with an estimated appraised valuation of $397 million. There were an estimated 189 business units in the APZ-1 area not deemed compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. These properties had an estimated appraised value of $78.9 million. There were also an estimated 241 undeveloped parcels of land in the APZ-1 zone.