Efficacy of Military and Community Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region Daniel Cloutier A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning University of Washington 2020 Committee: Robert Freitag Branden Born Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Urban Design and Planning © Copyright 2020 Daniel Cloutier University of Washington Abstract Efficacy of Military and Community Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region Daniel Cloutier Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Robert Freitag Department of Urban Design and Planning Washington State’s Puget Sound region is home to three major military installations that work in partnership with neighboring communities to develop land use plans, policies, and regulations supportive of the U.S. Department of Defense mission and community development goals. This thesis evaluates the efficacy of land use compatibility planning processes employed by cities and counties surrounding Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Naval Base Kitsap, and Naval Station Everett. Findings indicate that these military installations and community partners generally engage in effective compatibility planning; and that enduring relationships, adequate resourcing, and relevant planning tools are significant contributors to compatibility planning efficacy. Based on these findings, this thesis recommends the establishment of structured partnerships, the advancement of localized planning guidance and tools, and advocacy for compatibility program funding as considerations for Puget Sound military installations and civilian communities engaging in compatibility planning. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Question .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Process ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region ....................................................... 3 1.4 Existing Compatibility Planning Research ..................................................................... 4 1.5 Document Structure ........................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Compatibility Drivers ..................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Compatibility Processes and Tools ............................................................................... 12 2.3 Compatibility Advocacy ............................................................................................... 20 2.4 Conclusion and Gaps in Research ................................................................................. 25 Chapter 3. Research Methods ....................................................................................................... 26 3.1 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.3 Data Definitions and Collection Procedures ................................................................. 28 3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29 Chapter 4. Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 45 4.1 Joint Base Lewis-McChord........................................................................................... 46 4.2 Naval Base Kitsap ......................................................................................................... 73 4.3 Naval Station Everett .................................................................................................. 100 Chapter 5. Puget Sound Compatibility Analysis ........................................................................ 116 5.1 Compatibility Planning Process Efficacy ................................................................... 116 5.2 Compatibility Planning Best Practices........................................................................ 117 5.3 Compatibility Planning Challenges ............................................................................ 121 Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 126 6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 127 6.2 Theory Development .................................................................................................. 129 6.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 133 6.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 136 6.5 Further Research ......................................................................................................... 138 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 140 References ................................................................................................................................... 142 Appendix: Stakeholder Interview Questions .............................................................................. 148 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Research Process Diagram ............................................................................. 30 Figure 3.2. Temi Web-Based Transcription Screenshot ................................................... 32 Figure 3.3. Dedoose Project Summary Webpage ............................................................. 33 Figure 3.4. Process Effectiveness Rating Chart (Example) .............................................. 37 Figure 3.5. Compatibility Planning Best Practices (Example) ......................................... 41 Figure 4.1. Study Area Map .............................................................................................. 45 Figure 4.2. Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Pierce County .............................................. 46 Figure 4.3. JBLM Process Effectiveness Rating Chart..................................................... 58 Figure 4.4. JBLM Compatibility Planning Best Practices ................................................ 62 Figure 4.5. JBLM Compatibility Planning Common Challenges ..................................... 67 Figure 4.6. Naval Base Kitsap and Kitsap County ........................................................... 73 Figure 4.7. NBK Process Effectiveness Rating Chart ...................................................... 86 Figure 4.8. NBK Compatibility Planning Best Practices .................................................. 90 Figure 4.9. NBK Compatibility Planning Common Challenges....................................... 95 Figure 4.10. Naval Station Everett and Snohomish County ........................................... 100 Figure 4.11. NSE Process Effectiveness Rating Chart ................................................... 106 Figure 4.12. NSE Compatibility Planning Best Practices............................................... 110 Figure 4.13. NSE Compatibility Planning Common Challenges ................................... 113 Figure 5.1. Puget Sound Region Compatibility Planning Best Practices ....................... 119 Figure 5.2. Puget Sound Region Compatibility Planning Common Challenges ............ 122 i LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Compatibility Planning Analysis Data Inventory (Example) .......................... 31 Table 3.2. Compatibility Recommendation Implementation (Example) .......................... 31 Table 3.3. Compatibility Planning Process Effectiveness Rating Codes.......................... 34 Table 3.4. Dedoose Stakeholder Interview Code Structure .............................................. 35 Table 3.5. Case Study Implementation Status (Example) ................................................ 36 Table 3.6. Individual Stakeholder Process Effectiveness Rating Summary (Example) ... 37 Table 3.7. Combined Stakeholder Process Effectiveness Rating Summary (Example) ... 38 Table 3.8. Stakeholder Best Practices: Frequency of Occurrence (Example) .................. 39 Table 3.9. Stakeholder Challenges/Barriers: Frequency of Occurrence (Example) ........ 40 Table 3.10. Case Study A Efficacy Summary (Example) ................................................ 41 Table 3.11. Case Study Data Comparison (Example) ...................................................... 42 Table 4.1. JBLM Compatibility Planning Analysis Data Inventory ................................. 48 Table 4.2. JBLM JLUS Compatibility Recommendations ............................................... 49 Table 4.3. JBLM Compatibility Recommendation Implementation ................................ 52 Table 4.4. JBLM Compatibility Recommendation Implementation Summary ................ 57 Table 4.5. JBLM Individual Stakeholder Process Effectiveness