HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2026-05-28 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETThomas McLeod,
lepartrrrent of Corry unity eve
Pm
rat Nor ca ierlo AJC Director'
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MAY 28, 2026 - 6:30 PM
Join in -person at: 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Council Chambers, Tukwila, WA. 98188 To participate in
the virtual meeting at 6:30 pm:
By Phone: Dial +1 253-292-9750, Access 779 253 241#
Online: To join this meeting virtually please click on Planning Commission on the 5/28/26
calendar date on the events page located at https://www.tukwilawa.gov/events/
For Technical Support during the meeting, you may call 1-206-433-7155
ayor
I. Call to Order
IL Roll Call
III. Amendment of the Agenda, if necessary
IV. Approval of Minutes - 4/23/26
V. General Public Comments (acknowledge non -hearing -related written comments received)
VI. Old Business
None.
VII. New Business
I. Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan, Kris Kelly, Deputy Parks and Recreation Director
2. Background: Simplifying Tukwila's Mixed -Use Zoning Districts, Isaac Gloor, Senior Planner
VIII. Director's Report
IX. Adjournment
General Public Comments: Persons wishing to provide general comments on any non-public hearing, planning -
related topic may submit their written comment to BoardsComms@TuCkwilaWA.gov. Comments received before
5:00 p.m. the day before the PC meeting will be forwarded to Commissioners prior to their meeting. Materials
received after that time will be forwarded prior to the next meeting.
Reminder: Staff are available to address PC questions regarding packets. Please call or email PC Secretary Wynetta
Bivens, (206-431-3654 Wynetta.Bivens@TukwilaWA.gov) to be connected with a staff member. Thank you!
Phone: 206-43 -1800 • Emaayor@TukwilaliltA.gov • 9 ebsite: Tukwila 'l lA,gov
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff, AICP, Director
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
MINUTES
Thomas McLeod, Mayor
Date: April 23, 2026
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Hybrid Meeting - via Microsoft Teams / Public, In -Person Attendance, and
Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
Call to Order
Chair Durant called the Tukwila PC meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call
The PC Secretary took roll call.
PC Present: Chair Ann Durant; Vice Chair Alex Kaehler; Commissioners; Louise Strander,
Richard McLeland Wieser, Jacob Halverson, Jessica Parra, and Kyle Upton
Staff: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Nora Gierloff, American Institute of
Certified Planners (AICP); Senior Planner Neil Tabor, AICP, DCD; and PC Secretary
Wynetta Bivens, DCD
Appointment of PC Officers
• Chair Durant appointed Commissioner Kaehler as the 2026-2027 PC Chair, according to the
revised PC Bylaws.
Chair Durant appointed Commissioner Halverson as the 2026-2027 PC Vice Chair,
according to the revised PC Bylaws.
• The PC officers assumed their roles immediately, and Chair Kaehler chaired the remainder
of meeting.
Amendment of the Agenda
No changes to the agenda were requested.
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Durant moved to adopt the 3/26/26 Minutes. Commissioner McLeland
Wieser seconded the motion. Commissioner Stander abstained; she was absent. Motion
passed.
Written General Public Comments
There were no submittals.
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gav
1
Planning Commission Minutes
4/23/26
Page 2
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
1. PC Procedures Training, Nick Morton, Assistant City Attorney
• An overview was given on the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 2.36 PC
scope of work and duties to serve on the PC advisory board. The PC serves the Mayor
and City Council (CC), and the CC delegates workload to the PC.
• The PC were informed that Quasi-judicial decisions are no longer part of the PC scope of
work.
• The Robert's Rules Parliamentary Procedures governs PC meetings.
• An overview was provided on the revised PC Bylaws.
• Annual PC training was conducted on PC Protocols, Roles of the PC, Open Public
Meetings, and Public Records.
2. Tukwila Housing Overview, Nora Gierloff, DCD Direct()'
Director Gierloff provided a presentation on how housing has changed over time in Tukwila, how
development of housing is regulated, and the types of housing in the City. She said the takeaway she is
hoping PC will get from the presentationis how significant the changes arethat have come to the PC
and been supported by the PC. And what a real and immediate impact it has on people's lives, the
number of people that can live in Tukwila, the types of housing that are available to them, and whether
they can stay in the community as a senior when they are ready to downsize. She stated, at one point
there was no senior housing in Tukwila due to regulations and unintended regulations, which did not
work with the rules in place.
Some Key Points:
• Tukwila has a small population, has become very diverse in the past 30 years, is land locked,
built out, predominantly rental, and becoming more rental.
There is a housing crisis, the number of units needed for growth has not been produced.
Explanation was provided regarding what changed and why, such as several code changes, and
streamlined design review, which Director Gierloff said PC played a vital role in vetting the
changes, etc.
A total of 2,160 units have been built since 2014, which was a huge increase for a city the size
of Tukwila. Development included single-family houses, ADUs, townhouses, and apartments
built through development agreements and zoning changes, several of which were rent -
controlled affordable units.
• The TIB corridor was rezoned for greater density and flexibility in 2025.
• The Middle Housing Standards were adopted for the new Community Residential Zone in
2025.
• There was a walkthrough of some development projects that some of the PC had an
opportunity to tour, as well as a project under construction.
Director's Report
• Director Gierloff said that staff are working with Parks and Recreation on their Recreation
and Open Space Plan. Hopefully it will be ready and on the agenda in May.
2
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Entail: MayerTukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
Planning Commission Minutes
4/23/26
Page 3
• Neil Tabor handed out information on the Critical Area Ordinance update and upcoming
public outreach events.
• Director Gierloff thanked the new PC officers for agreeing to serve.
• There was discussion regarding PC members engaging in and being active community
members, which is fine as an individual, but PC were cautioned not to act on behalf of the
board.
Chair Kaehler thanked Commissioner Durant for serving as PC chair for the last year and her
amazing work, Commissioner Durant said it was a pleasure, it was a lot of work, and she is pride
to be serving.
Commissioner Kaehler moved to adjourn. Commissioner McLeland Wieser seconded the motion.
Motion passed.
Adjourned: 8:15 p.m.
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens, PC Secretary
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Erttait: fwiayor Tukwila A.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
4
CITY OF TUKWILA
2026 Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space (PROS) Plan Update
May 2026
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd,
Tukwila, WA 98188
Phone: 206.433.1800
www.tukwilawa.gov
TUKWILA
PARKS & RECREATION
5
6
City of Tukwila 2026 Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space (PROS)
Plan Update
City of Tukwila
WA State Recreation & Conservation
Office (RCO)
SCJ Alliance
3625 Woodland Park Ave N, #100
scjalliance.com
Chris Overdorf, PLA, ASLA
Principal -in -Charge
N:\Projects\4398 City of
Tukwila\25-000239 Tukwila PROS
Plan
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Overview ii
WaW,:yMy
WWWWWww,
*tiw\OW, I
4
Acknowledgements
City of Tukwila: Mayor's Office
Thomas McLeod - Mayor
Jo Anderson - Inclusion & Engagement Manager
Armen Papyan, Position 2
Hannah Hedrick, Position 3
Jovita McConnell, Position 6*
Joe Torres Camacho, Position 6*
Jane Ho, Position 7
Cultural Navigators
Flora Ybarra
Safia Mohamed
Tugn Du'o'ng
*Councilmember McConnell is on a medical leave of absence,
Councilmember Camacho was appointed to serve in Position
6 on a pro tem basis until her return, resignation, or upon
certification of the November 2027 General Election.
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Ov7view
City mf Tukwila Department of Parks and
Recreation
Pete Mayer Parks &Recreation Director
Kris Kelly Deputy Director
]efriPeters Parks and Recreation Manager
Michael May Parks and Recreation Manager
David Rosen Parks &Recreation Fiscal Analyst
��������U��
'�=�"�="^" ==="�=
Parks Commission
Sean Albert ([onnrnunity)
Robby Snow ([ornnnunity)
Kathleen Gantz([onnnnunity)
Gina Bernhardt Nielsen ([ornnnunity)
Graham Mills (Community)
Greg Hammond ([ornnnuni\y)
Planning Commission
Louise Strander (Resident)
Ann Durant (Resident)
A|exanderKaeh|er (Resident)
Jacob Halverson (Residemd
Richard K4cLe|andYVieser (Resident)
Arts Commission
PatBakn
Sheila Coppola
PinkvEsteU
Cynthia [hesak
Kano|aKakaria
Shavvn8e|yea
Angeline Pera|ta(Student Representative)
�A
��^ City am4w|a2026PROS Plan |mnrvicw *
CONSULTANT TEAM
SCJ Alliance (Consultant)
Chris Overdorf, PLA ASLA - Principal -in -Charge, Principal
Landscape Architect + Planner
Juliana LoIi,PLA ASLA - Project Manager & Landscape Architect
Josh Gilleland, ASLA - Parks Planner & Geospatial Analyst
Laksshita Malhotra - Parks Planner & Designer
Megan Young - Matrix Consulting Group
We respectfully acknowledge
that Tukwila is located on the
ancestral lands and waters of the
Coast Salish peoples, including
the Duwamish and Muckleshoot
people, who have lived along and
cared for the Black, Green, and
Duwamish River landscapes since
time immemorial.
We recognize their continuing
connection to these lands, waters,
lifeways, and cultural traditions, and
we honor their ancestors, elders,
and present and future generations.
As we plan for parks, open spaces,
trails, and public places in Tukwila,
we also recognize the responsibility
to care for these lands with humility,
respect, and accountability.
Land Acknowledgement
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Nan 0
view v
Co
Ill
er
V
V
er
L
~^^^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~^~~~~~-~`~~~~^~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~^~^^~~~~~^^~^~~ ~
etter..~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~_~~~~~~.~..~~~~..~~.~~~~~~~.~.~~~~~~~~.~~~..~~.~.~~~~~ xii
xecutive SLIM
ik
Introduction 2
What this Plan Does 2
[ntro*ILJCt,
in....... .................................... ~~................................ 11
Introduction 8^Purpose 12
What |sAPROS P|an7----............. ----------------------'l3
Regulatory Requirements 13
GrnwthManaQementActRequirements-------------------. 13
Washington Recreation & Conservation Office (R[O)Requirements 14
City ofTokwi|a'sRequirements. ..... ---- ... ---- ............... ------........... 15
History ofParks Planning inTukwila 16
Inventory. ... ----------...... ----------......... -----------18
Public Involvement 18
Demand QNeeds Ana|ysis--......... ----------...... ---------18
StrategicFramework ...... —......... -----...... ---....... --- ...................... ---- l8
Capital Improvement Program 18
App/ovab—...... —... —............. ---------------------........... —1g
Inventory 4� Assess
M
ent~~~.~~~~~~~.~~~~.~.~~~~~....~.~~~~.~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~ 19
Introduction 20
Regional Setting and Land Use Pattern 21
Topography and Soils ......... -------------..........
----------22
Climate... ---------......... ------........ --............... —........ ---'Z2
Hydrology and Wetlands ..... -----.......... ----------........ —....... '2Z
5tormwaterand F|nodp|ain........... ----------........ ........ -------2Z
Vegetation, Forests, and Tree [anopy 23
Wildlife and Habitat Connectivity ------............ —.......... -----....... '23
Connectivity and 8arriers---......... ------...... -------------23
10
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Overvievv vi
Demographic Context 23
|ntrodocUon----........... --............. --.................. ........................... ........ '23
Population .......... -------24
Population Characteristics 24
Race--------........ -----------------------------25
Disability Starus--..... ____ ................. --------.......... --------ZG
Income... ___ ............... ................... --.............. ..................... —.............. —........ '27
Poverty............... -----------------------27
Households 29
Planning Context ... ----------------------------29
Introduction and Land Use Context 29
Tukwila Walk and Roll Plan 2OO9... --------------------...... ... 31
ZO1ZStrategic Plan Amendment 2O28---------....... -----....... --3l
2014SouthcenrcrSubarea Plan ............ ..................................... —31
2Ol6Tukwila ADATransition Plan .... ---------.......... -------31
2017Green Tukwila 2OvearStewardship Plan .... ___ ................. ___ ...... --32
2018Tukwila Public Arts & Culture Master P|an—... ------...... ----... '33
3018PSR[Regional Open Space Conservation P|an------------33
2Ol9Older Adults and Recreation Services 33
2020Tukwila Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PR05)P|an------.... 33
King County Comprehensive Plan Updates Shoreline ... ................... ... —_34
2O22Tukwila Pond Park Master P|an---................................... —34
ZO23Foster Golf Links Business Plan ... ____ .............. ....... -----... 34
King County Countywide Planning Po|icies—...... ___ ................ -------_35
2OZ2King County Open Space Update— ... ___ .... ____ ........ -----...... '35
20Z4Comprehensive Plan Bemencs------....... -----------35
2OZ5Tukwila Community Center & Recreation Program Business Plans 36
Parks Master Planning &Design ......... ----------37
ZO26Non-Motorized Trail P|an.... ...... --------............. -----3D
How Prior & Current Planning Informs this Plan .......................... ........ —9
Existing Facilities and Programs 42
Parks and Recreation System Ove/view----.......... --...... -----4Z
Asset Inventory 45
Process--- ... ___ .................... -------............ ....... --------.... '45
Park Classifications ....... ___ .............. -----------.............. ------'4G
Existing Classifications ...................... ..................... ........ ................ ___ .......... '47
Park & Open Space Inventory ...... ......... -------49
11
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Nan �
U
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Assessment SZ
Parks & Recreation as aUoa|ity-of-LifeDriver .... ........ .................... --52
-c I|ivoUverient............................................... 63
Introduction 64
Engagement Goals 64
[ Implement a Multi -Platform Strategy to Ensure Equitable and Broad -Reaching
Public Parhcipatinn---..... ------------....... -----------'54
2. Provide a broad range of constituents with ,he ability to supply both broad
and specific action -oriented feedback. 65
5.Continue »obuild onorvalidate public sentiment from previous surveys65
Public Engagement Plan Overview 66
Needs and Assessment Survey . 6/
Survey.................... -------................ -------'69
In -Person Community Engagement 71
Public Engagement Summary ...... .................................. ............... 76
Past Survey Efforts 78
erna
rl
N
eeds
sis..~...~.....~........~....~.....~.~.......~~......~..
�
�
1
Introduction 82
Implications for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space— ..... -----------l14
Stratet`c Frame ork .~,~--........ ...~~_..~.~.~.~,.~...~,........... ...... 115
Introduction 116
Mission Statement -------............ --------------......... ---llD
AVision for Tukmi|a-----... -------------------------'l17
Strategic Direction 117
How This Framework Leads /othe OP----------------------119
Goals 8^Objectives 120
Goal PR�.Reinvest inSafe, Visible, and Functional Parks ----------'l21
Actively manage the parks portfolio so the City is not carrying assets, service
expectations, or facility types that it cannot sustainably operate.,.........,122
Goal P�3. Care Service Standards for Safety, Cleanliness, and User Experience
123
Maintain consistent, visible standards for the things residents notice most, with
simple performance metrics that Council can track. ........... —....... —... ----]23
Goal PR-4.Trails, CnnnectivityandAchveTranspormhontha/the[iry[an
Maintain 124
12
a
an
-S
Strengthen the trail and connection network with anemphasis onsafety,
continuity, and |ifecyc|eplanning, ---------.......... -------lZ4
Goal PR,5.Natural Areas Stewardship Through Smart Standards and
Partnerships----- ... —... —......... --------------...... ____ l24
Protect Tukwi|a'sopen space function without importing developed -park
maintenance expectations into natural areas 124
Goal PR-6.Transparent Annual Reporting cnCouncil -----------l25
Make it easy for Council to see whether the system is stabilizing, whore costs are
moving, and whether the plan isworking. 125
taUImprove ent Plr*gram~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~.~~~.~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~.~.~~~126
Introduction 127
How toUse This [|Pfor Decision Making -------......... --------127
Estimate o[Probable Cost 129
Project Implementation and Priorihzation---------------129
Funding Key -------------------------....... ---------l29
OPImprovements Table 129
OPProject Framework-- ... ------...... -------....... ------l32
OPProjects Map 133
Priority Trail System Project K4ap---------............. --------134
d
�
t,o
^~~^^~~^~~~~~`^~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~^~~~~~^~~~~^~~~^~^~^~~~~~~~^~~~ 1
.��
Introduction & Recap ofApproval Process 153
t
�t
pm
�
W
�A
0| l'c S
U
�
4W
.S
Attac
h
ents..~.~~....~.~...~.~~.....~.....~.~...~.~~....~~~... 1
efin~t^ons ........................................................... 161
�
�
e!
nes..................................................... 1
q0
�
3
ents,,...~..~.,...~,...,,~~.~,~.,,..,.~..~,,~.,~,...,. 165
�
1�
c/�"//ukwn^znzspxosp/^v � ov�,/rw /"
Figure 1-1:Tukwila Parks & Recreation Annual Report 2023 16
Figure 1'2:PROS Plan Process lO
Figure 21: Tukwila Proximity Map 21
Figure 2-2: Tukwila Regional Context 22
Table 2'1: Population Density 24
Table 2'2: Population Density 24
Figure 2-3: Tukwila 2023 Age 8^ Sex Population Pyramid 24
Figure 2'4: Tukwila Median Age by Sex 24
Figure 2'5: Tukwila Race 25
Figure 2'6: Population Percentages of Non -White Races in 2023 25
Table 2'3. Hispanic orLatino Population 26
Tab|eZ'4: Percentages nfTukvvi|a's Population Living with a Disability
Comparison 26
Table 2'5: Median Household Income 27
Figure 2'7: Tukwila, King County, and Washington Annual
Household Income and Benefits 27
Table 2'6: 2023 Federal Poverty Level Guidelines Per Year 28
Figure 2'8: Tukwila Population by 2023 Poverty Status Determination 2O
Table 2'7: Family and Nontarni|yHousehn|ds 29
FigureZ'9: Household Size 29
Table 2'8: Review ofPrevious Plans 30
Table 2'9: Existing Parks & Public Spaces System Overview 44
Table 2'10: Existing Trails & Pathways 46
Table 2'11:Assessment Rankings 51
Table 2'12: Existing Parks & Public Spaces System Assessment Motrix52
Table 2'13: Inventory & Management Categories Themes 8,Assessment
Indicators 54
Table 2'14:Areas of Potential Conflict or Tension Land Use Element 55
14
1� Table 2-1S:Comprehensive Plan Areas ofAlignment 58
Table 3-1:Public Engagement Timeline 62
Figure 3'1:Age Group ofSurvey Respondents 64
Figure 3'lEthnic and/or Racial Group ofSurvey Respondents 64
Figure 3'3:Primary Language Spoken atHome bvSurvey Respondents G4
Figure 3'4:Household Size ofSurvey
Respondents 65
Figure 3'5:Number ofChildren per Household ofSurvey Respondents65
Figure 3'6:Age Group nfChildren inSurvey
Respondents' Household 65
Table 4'Z:Visioning Board Results 69
Table 4-3:Visioning Board Results Write -Ins 70
Amenity 70
Figure 3'7:Recreation Preferences & Priorities Board 70
Table 5'1: Level ofService (LOS)Quantifications City -Owned Assets 83
Table 5-2: Level of Service (LO5) Quantifications Including Non -City
Owned Assets 85
Table 5'3: Park Classifications (LO5)Quantifications 86
Table 5'4:Peer LDSComparisons 88
Table 5'6: Proposed Classifications 91
Table 5-7: New Park Classifications (L[)S)Quantifications 92
1�
o�wn^xwnaznaspxospuv � ov�v/*° ,/
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Overview xii
A
' .rcANAhis
.4t4444404„.„,
4444„,„
„ .
Executive
Summary
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Executive Sli7mary 1
18
Introduction
Rooted incommunity voice, this update transforms shared hopes for
connection, belonging, and everyday access tonature into aclearer, stronger
vision for Tukwila's future.
Tukwila's parks, recreation, and open space system does more than provide places
to play. It helps define how the city feels, how neighborhoods connect, how families
gather, how culture is expressed, and how residents and workers alike experience
nature in a highly urban setting.
In a city shaped by river corridors, major transportation infrastructure, limited land
supply, and steady development pressure, parks and open spaces carry unusual
weight. They must serve daily needs, strengthen public life, support environmental
function' and remain realistic to maintain over time.
This 2026Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan updates and expands that
direction. It establishes a six -year implementation framework and a longer -range
strategy for the [ity's parks, trails, recreation assets, natural areas, and open
spaces. It is intended to guide capital investment, maintenance and operations,
land decisions, service expectations, and future funding strategy. It also supports
City decision -making under the Comprehensive Plan and helps position Tukwila to
remain competitive and ready for future grant opportunities.
What this Plan Does
This 2026 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan updates and expands our desired
° Establishes a six -year implementation framework and a longer -range strategy for the
[ity'sparks, trails, recreation assets, natural areas, and open spaces.
° Guides capital investment, maintenance and operations, land decisions, service
expectations' and future funding strategy.
° Supports City decision -making under the Comprehensive Plan and helps position
Tukwila to remain competitive and ready for future grant opportunities.
* Synthesizes related work that should be understood as companion guidance
documents, e.g., The Tukwila Community Center and Recreation Program planning
work, the Foster Golf Links Business Plan, and the Comprehensive Trails Master Plan.
° Translates community needs, system conditions, and City priorities into a practical
framework for program, facility, operations, staffing, funding, partnership, and capital
decisions across the parks, recreation. open space, and trails system.
�
K%%
��V,r
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Executive Summary 2
��J'�p ,`
�
*
�� ���
System x�ux�Glance
ance
Tukwila's system is both valuable and complex. It includes neighborhood parks, community -serving sites,
trail assets, natural areas, open spaces, special use properties, recreation facilities, and destination spaces
that serve not only residents but also workers and visitors. The system benefits from strong geographic
variety' access to the Green/Ouwannish corridor, and o legacy of earlier planning and investment. At the same
time, the City faces a different set of realities than many peer communities. Available land is limited. Some
sites face operational constraints, visibility issues, or access challenges. Several assets require reinvestment.
Maintenance expectations are not always well aligned with park type or service role. And because Tukwila
functions as both a residential community and a regional employment center, demand on the system extends
beyond asimple popu|ation'to'acreca|cu|ation.
Citywide Snapshot
0-h
Total Acres ofPark,
-- Recreation, and Open Space
���� ������.�
����»������ "
Resident Population
Daytime Population
(includingjobs and visitors)
���
�~�
Assets Across the City
10
Loca|Parka
Developed Park Sites
UU
��
Special Use Parka
Facilities with Recreation
orCivic Purpose
^�
'���
o�
Undeveloped Open Space
Natural Areas and
Conservation Lands
m %01
Trail Miles
���� �� ����
���� �� 0- 0 ��Full-Time Staff Maintenance
Department -
regional trai| wide staffing Maintenance
system (FTE) staff baseline
�
Maintained
Acres
Tied to current
baseline model
%.F°%I
ft2 Community
Center
��
��
�
Conserved
yNatura|Areas
Undeveloped
open space
a
. -.11 . . —"
Golf Course
Public w/pro shop fk
gathering place event center
Aft
Park and
BaUUfie|d Sites
Across the City
I& 1"
Partners
Regional, tribal,
nonprofit, and
community
1�
oyvrwwwnaznzsPROS Plan | uccuu,esupvvry 3
Community Co
ntext
The community context
reinforces why this matters.
Tukwila is diverse, multilingual,
and growing. The same plan
also highlighted lower physical
activity levels than the county
average. Those conditions
make astrong park, trail, and
recreation system more than an
amenity. |tispart ofthe [ity's
health, equity, and qua|ity-of-
|ife infrastructure.
��
^�1 �����d�� ��
Total Population
2'338.6 people per
square nni|e' 9.18 square
miles ofland area
�������� ����.����
Residents wfColor
31.8% identify as white
alone, 23.4%as Hispanic
or Latino
^����� |�°��
������ ������
Median Household
Income
2296ofhouseholds earn
less than $50,O0O;26.O96
below 20O96FPL
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023.
��������
Median Age
1975under age 1O,
25tn34isthe largest
age cohort
���
�.� ~���� ^���
Speak a Language
other than English
15.4% Spanish, 14.996
API languages
��.����m�
�
U����
Living with a Disability
4.996report ambulatory
difficulty; I6+96 of
residents 6S+have
disability
Informed K�"" Prior
Planning,
Focused Implementation
nnnU��������� u�� ��U��� �n�������» n ��������� K�� n����nementatUon
This update is not starting from scratch. It is built on a substantial body ofprior planning, community
engagement, park master planning, and recent concept level capital design work that together help clarify
both direction and readiness. Tukwila has already invested in citywide policy guidance, system level
recreation planning, site specific master plans, and recent park improvement concepts. This PROS update
brings those efforts together into a more cohesive and actionable framework. By aligning past public input
with current outreach, staff and leadership coordination, existing adopted plans, and the City's capital and
maintenance realities, the result is a plan that is more integrated, more grounded, and better positioned to
Citywide & System
Companion Plans
^ 2020Parks Recreation, and
Open Space Plan
^ 2015Comprehensive Plan
^ Walk and Roll Plan
~ Public Arts & Culture Master
Plan
^ Older Adults Recreational
Services Needs Assessment
^ Strategic, Shoreline, Urban
Center, and Green Tukwila
stewardship guidance
Tukwila Community Center &
Recreation Program Plan
^ Tukwila Pond
Park Master Plan
^ Tukwila
[onnnnunhx
Center Campus
and]oseph
Foster Memorial
Park Master Plan
Document
Tukwila South
Trails Master Plan
mossultum
1WRW0%VRWW
^ DuvvannishPark Renovation and
116m8'GreenRiver Trail Design
Package
^ Riverton Park Playground
Renovation and Layout Plans
~ Crestview Park Playground
Renovation Design Package
^ Joseph Foster memorial Park
Field Concept Plan
^ Tukwila Community Center
Multi -Use Field Concept Plan
^ Community Cafe Summary
20
A Strategic Framework
Taken together, the findings indicate that Tukwila
does not simply need more projects. It needs a clearer,
more disciplined framework for how its system is
classified, improved, maintained, and expanded. In
some places, the priority is reinvestment. In others,
it is activation, safer access, or stronger identity. In
others still, the right move may be to preserve natural
function, reduce maintenance intensity, or defer
major capital expansion until a site's role is better
defined.
A revised classification system and maintenance
framework are therefore central to this PROS Plan, not
secondary to it.
The community's priorities remain remarkably
consistent, even as the planning context has evolved.
The earlier plan highlighted a desire for closer
interaction with nature, stronger cultural expression,
affordable experiences for all ages, a more convenient
and accessible system, safer and family -friendly
places, reinvestment in existing parks and facilities,
and more vibrant public spaces. Those priorities
still resonate, but this update sharpens how the City
should respond. Rather than treating all park sites
alike, the PROS Plan recommends a more strategic
system built around four core directions.
kal %in
4.*\
, •
F
CC
'ticc,crcl C 4 '(< 4trit4.4t);
ccc"",,c'2,ir"irc4,0***ccmccc
• „,
"Tr7crtt
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Executive ZImary 5
Five Key Moves to Deliver Tukwila's Park System Goals
Unified System
Framework
Align
Classification,
Asset Data, &
Maintenance
Targeted Park
Upgrades
Enhance Safety,
Amenities, &
Usability
Access &
Connectivity
Improve Trails,
Routes, &
Wayfinding
Implementation Framework
To carry out the system goals, Tukwila will organize
implementation around five coordinated delivery
and service moves. Together, these moves translate
the PROS Plan from policy direction into a defensible,
grant -aware, and operationally realistic investment
program.
Develop A Unified Framework
Reconcile park classifications, acreage and asset
data, LOS expectations, maintenance responsibilities,
and capital planning assumptions into one operating
framework. This will give the City a consistent basis
for making decisions about amenities, staffing,
equipment, contracting, and long-term reinvestment.
Target High -Value Upgrades
Focus near -term capital funding on visible, practical
upgrades to existing parks. Priority improvements
should address safety, accessibility, comfort, play
value, furnishings, lighting, gathering areas, and site
organization where they can improve daily use and
build momentum.
Prioritize Access & Connectivity
Advance trail links, sidewalk gaps, crossings,
wayfinding, and safer routes to parks. In Tukwila,
connectivity is a core system need because freeways,
rail lines, steep grades, industrial corridors, and
incomplete pedestrian networks shape how people
reach public spaces.
Natural Area
Management
Protect
Habitats &
Open Spaces
Priority -Based
CIP
Fund
Projects by
Clear Criteria
Tukwila is a River City
Treat river corridors, wetlands, buffers, open spaces,
and habitat lands according to their actual function.
Some should support public use. Others should
be managed primarily for habitat, storm water,
passive access, conservation, or long-term ecological
stewardship.
.' • a ..'./. ' .t
,%
Make the Capital Improvement Plan
lmplementable
Use the six -year Parks CIP as a decision tool. Rank
projects by community benefit, condition, access,
service gaps, readiness, maintenance impact, funding
eligibility, partnership potential, and consistency with
adopted plans. This keeps the program fund -able,
defensible, and flexible.
22
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Executive Summary 6
Reinvest in Safe,
Visible, and
Functional Parks
Portfolio Right -
Sizing and Asset
Optimization
Core Service
Standards for Safety,
Cleanliness, and
User Experience
Tukwila PROS
Plan Goals &
Objectives
\WOM4ONV; tkNAINOO,NPAYV \tMVt,Y4AN'40840•\\`‘Aect \w*T4nr,W;M,,,M4,2,04t\WWW,Mwa,, AsiViV*41"00,4040401,4.,V,AW
**0 4etP4ttlAtr A0440'44*,0*k**N\VAct*O*4014041:0**4414;',4604,00k*NA4h\t"
' 7
Transparent Annual
Reporting to
Council
4441000.
“Al#40t4"
4400014‘,\
CA:02 \ t3
44,0
@ sk,skt,W
Mar
jf4g7k,'It
„NitA400'
\‘'NA4 *‘Ako,kA
A,,,,,A$AWook
Au*
ov*
Vsit44v1t4'. flONINS
*t011010*,$
Vlss%lotAkkk
,AwiAAA4AdAtv
voA$ANINTivt,s4v4t,;
\VI'V
AAVOAA
ti.'„VA 4\km
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Executive rnary 7
Policy Direction and Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
Framework 2026-2031
Implementation Priorities
1. Safe, Visible, and Functional Parks
• Stabilize existing parks first. Fix what people
experience every day
• Replace failing park infrastructure, including
restrooms, play equipment, and site furnishings
• Install lighting in priority parks and along key
internal paths to improve safety and visibility
• Open sightlines by selective vegetation removal
to address hidden or unsafe areas
• Repair and resurface pathways, parking areas,
and high -use circulation routes
• Upgrade park entries with clear signage, visibility,
and defined access points
• Address deferred maintenance backlog across all
developed parks
2. Connected System: Trails, Access,
and Safe Routes
• Make parks reachable without a car. Close the
gaps.
• Construct missing sidewalk segments within 1/4
mile of parks and schools
• Complete trail gaps between neighborhoods,
parks, and regional corridors
• Improve crossings at 1-5, SR-518, rail lines, and
major arterials
• Upgrade and formalize existing informal trails and
neighborhood cut -through connections
• Develop trailheads, access points, and wayfinding
along the Green River corridor
• Implement Non -Motorized Trails priority projects,
including bike lanes and multi -use paths
3. Activated Parks and Community
Use
• Put investment where people will actually use it
daily.
• Add flexible -use courts such as pickleball, futsal,
and basketball in existing parks
• Expand and modernize play areas with inclusive
and multi -age design
• Develop small gathering spaces with seating,
shade, and picnic infrastructure
• Install power and water infrastructure to support
events and programming
• Reorganize underperforming park spaces to
improve usability and activity
• Upgrade high -demand sites such as Cascade View,
Tukwila Park, and neighborhood parks
4. River, Habitat, and Open Space
Systems
• Leverage the Green/Duwamish corridor as a
defining system asset.
• Expand public access points to the river at street
ends and key locations
• Restore shoreline conditions and stabilize eroding
banks
• Integrate habitat restoration with passive
recreation and trail access
• Develop flood -compatible trails and overlook
points
Implement Green Tukwila restoration priorities
across open space sites
• Introduce interpretive elements tied to ecology,
culture, and history
5. System Efficiency and Co -
Investment
• Deliver projects smarter, not just bigger.
• Bundle park improvements with utility,
stormwater, and transportation projects
• Coordinate park access improvements with street
and corridor upgrades
• Align capital projects with maintenance capacity
and staffing realities
• Prioritize high -impact, fund -able projects over
large unfunded expansions
• Phase projects into buildable segments tied to
realistic funding cycles
• Target grants that support access, health, habitat,
and equity outcomes
24
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Executive Summary 8
Park Signage, Kiosk,
and Wayfinding
Improvements
Trail and Park
Lighting
Playground Impact
Attenuation Surfacing
Replacement
Park Restroom
Replacements
Park Events Setup and
Municipal Arts Fund &
Improvements
Park Furnishings,
Fixtures &
Equipment
Deferred Maintenance
Backlog Reduction &
Emergency Repairs
Riparian &
Habitat
Restoration
Safe Routes Near Parks
& Schools
2026 Parks,
Recreation, &
Open Space
Plan
Park
Improvement
Priorities &
CIP Projects
Tukwila Community
Center Campus (TCC)
Upgrades and Master Plan
Crystal Springs
Park Lighting
Replacement
Joseph Foster Memorial
Park (JFMP) Renovations
and Master Plan
TCC River
Access and
Improvements
Green River Corridor
Trailhead Improvements
& Trail Link Projects
TCC and JFMP
Turf Field
Conversions
Bicentennial Park River
Access & Trail
Connection
Riverton Park
Playground
Tukwila Pond Park
Access Improvements
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Execu0ve .Pmary 9
va that is
and main
that direti�i
strenth
vis1iIity, ad
26
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Executive Summary 10
Introduction
KUVA'Alk.4.1,404
* 6 *
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Intn-Z7ction 11
�i
0�k
�"i","
=
���
RM111111
I 1'�
Introduction
NNN00w����NN��|KNon &
Purpose
The City ofTukwi|a'supdated Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan establishes the [ity'sdirection
for parks, trails, open space, recreation facilities,
programs, maintenance, and capital investment over
the next six years.
The plan isbuilt tohelp Tukwila make better
decisions about the public spaces and recreation
services that shape daily life inthe city. |tsupports
consistency with the Growth Management Act,
strengthens the [ity's planning foundation for future
capital investment, and keeps Tukwila positioned
tocompete for Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (R[O)funding and other grant
opportunities.
Parks and recreation in Tukwila carry more
responsibility than recreation alone. They support
public health, youth development, older adult
services, cultural connection, environmental
stevvardship, neighborhood identity, active
transportation, river access, and community safety.
They also serve city with a large daytime
popu|ntion, regional employment and retail
activity, and residents whose needs vary byage,
language, income, culture, mobility, and access tV
transportation.
|tdocuments existing parks, trails, open spaces,
facilities, and recreation services, then measures
how well the system is performing against current
community needs, access conditions, level -of-service
expectations, facility conditions, maintenance
capacity, and long-term affordability. Public
engagement, stakeholder input, City staff knowledge,
related planning work, and technical analysis all
inform the findings.
n
END
|tidentifies where reinvestment ismost needed,
where access gaps remain, where partnerships nr
acquisitions may strengthen the system, and where
capital projects can deliver the greatest public
benefit.
|talso recognizes the fiscal and operational side
of implementation. New improvements must be
fund -able, maintainable, and aligned with the [itv's
�
28
City of TLkvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Introduction 12
�
�
staffing, equipment, and life -cycle responsibilities.
The resulting framework isintended \oguide
budgeting, grant applications, project sequendng'
land acquisition decisions, maintenance planning,
partnership discussions, and long-term stewardship.
It gives Tukwila apractical basis for improving parks
and recreation access while protecting the [ity's
ability tooperate and care for the system over time.
What Is A PROS Plan?
AParko, Recreation. and Open Space Plan isTukvvi|a's
primary policy and implementation document for its
parks and recreation system.
The Plan evaluates what the City has, what the
community needs, what the system can support,
and where future investment should be directed.
It connects existing conditions, public input, level -
of -service measures, access analysis, maintenance
realities, funding opportunities, and capital priorities
into one coordinated planning framework.
For Tukwila, the Plan must also fit within the broader
structure of City planning. Parks' trails, open space,
recreation facilities, and natural areas are part nf
the [|tv's growth stnstegy, capital facilities planning,
transportation network, environmental policy, public
health framework, and community identity. The
PROS Plan helps translate those broader policies into
specific actions.
Its value is in creating the adopted public record,
needs analysis, project rationale, and implementation
u
logic needed tosupport future funding requests
when projects orereadyThatindudesdncunnenting
community priorities, identifying capital needs,
clarifying acquisition and development priorities,
and showing how proposed investments advance
adopted City goals.
|npractice, the PROS Plan helps Tukwila move from
individual project ideas toa defensible system-
wide strategy. It gives elected officials, City staff,
grant reviewers, partners, and the public aclearer
understanding nfwhy projects matter, how priorities
were established, what outcomes they are intended
toachieve, and what itwill take tobuild, operate, and
maintain them.
00
�� m�m�,n����0tm�'m 1�
�� �
Requirements
� � �
���� NN0r���������s
����@���N� ����N�����N���N�N�� ���
Growth �NN Management �����
�������~°°�
Requirements
�����N N°�������M��^�
��.~ N � ��ww m *�nmm��om ~~
The Washington Growth Management Act (SK4A)
provides the statewide framework for how cities
and counties plan for land use and public facilities,
with the intent nfguiding growth inacoordinated,
sustainable way. While the Act does not dictate a
required format for Parks' Recreation. and Open
Space planning, it does require that parks, recreation.
and open space beintegrated into the [ity's
Comprehensive Plan sothese services are planned
for alongside growth, redevelopment, and long-term
community needs.
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS P�an I 9p
For Tukwila, this means parks and recreation must
beaddressed through the Comprehensive P|an's
land use direction and the capital facilities planning
framework, ensuring recreation access and open
space protection are considered aspart ofbroader
decisions about where the City grows, how it
invests in public infrastructure, and how it supports
environmental health and quality oflife. These GK4A
expectations shape the approach Tukwila uses to
develop and implement its PROS Plan, including:
° Comprehensive Planning: Cities and counties must
develop Comprehensive Plans that guide land use,
housing, transportation, and economic development.
These plans incorporate provisions for parks,
trails, and open spaces tnmeet current and future
community needs.
° Urban Growth Areas <UGAs:The GK8Adesignates
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) todirect development
while protecting rural lands. Within UGAs'
jurisdictions must ensure adequate parkland and
recreational facilities to serve expanding populations.
° Environmental Protection: The GK8Aencourages the
preservation of natural resource |ands, critical areas'
and wildlife habitat, recognizing the role of parks and
open spaces in safeguarding ecological systems while
providing outdoor recreation opportunities.
• Public Participation: The GK8Arequires community
engagement inland use and recreation planning,
ensuring that PROS Plans reflect the needs and
priorities oflocal residents.
° Capital Facilities Planning: Jurisdictions must
include Capital Facilities Plans ([|P)intheir
Comprehensive Plans, outlining infrastructure
investments —including parks and recreational
facilities —to support projected growth.
° Adequate Public Facilities: The GK4Amandates that
local governments provide necessary public services,
including parks, trails, and open space amenities, to
meet the needs ofresidents within UGAs.
Toalign with GMAprinciples and ensure compliance,
ava|id PROS Plan should:
° Inventory existing parks, trails, and open spaces
toassess current conditions and recreational
opportunities.
° Establish |exe|'of-service(LOS)standards toguide
park development and improvements based on
population growth and community demand.
° Develop Capital improvement Plan (C|P}that
prioritizes park enhancements and identifies
potential funding strategies.
° Incorporate public input to align future parks and
recreation investments with community preferences,
° Integrate with other local and regional plans to
maintain consistency with land use, transportation,
and environmental policies. Bymeeting these
requirements, Tukwi|a's2025'203l PROS Plan
strengthens the dty'sability toenhance recreational
opportunities, preserve open space, and secure
funding through the Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (o[O)and other grant programs.
This ensures that Tukwi|a's parks and recreation
system continues to evolve in a way that reflects
community needs while remaining consistent with
state planning goals.
Washington's Recreation and Conservation Office
(R[O)oversees outdoor recreation, conservation,
and funding programs that support local and
regional park projects. R[Ocollaborates with local
governments todevelop and fund projects thato|ign
with state priorities, ensuring that communities
maintain access to high -quality recreational facilities
and open spaces. Tukvvi|a'sability tosecure R[O
grant funding for parks, trails, and open space
projects depends on maintaining an R[O'connp|iant
and certified Parks' Recreation, and Open Space
(PROS) Plan.
While R[Odoes not prescribe aspecific format, page
count, nrnumber ofchapters, avalid PROS Plan
must comprehensively assess community needs and
articulate a dear strategy for parks and recreation
improvements. The Tukwila PROS Plan Update
follows the framework established in RCU Manual 2:
Planning Policies 8,Guidelines, which outlines the six
essential elements required for RCOgrant eligibility:
° Inventory: Descriptions and conditions ofexisting
facilities, lands, and programs
° Public Involvement: This section synthesizes the
methodology and results ofpublic engagement,
indudingsurveys.quesdonnai/es.openhouses.
workshops, stakeholder interviews, and the findings
nfthese methods ofoutreach. |tisimportant (and
required) to give the public ample opportunity to
beinvolved and give input onthe development and
adoption ofthe PROS Plan
° Demand and Need Analysis: Asystematic
assessment and evaluation ofthe community's
needs, preferences, and priorities tomake informed
decisions. This includes quantitative (data'driven)and
qualitative (preference'driven) analyses
30
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Introduction 14
|texamines how well the current PROS inventory
meets the criteria ofthe local comprehensive plan,
national guidelines, state guidelines, and public
satisfaction. This may also include a Level of Service
(LOS)assessment. establishing the required and
desired amount ofparks land per 1.000residents.
° Goals and Objectives: Clearly defined broad
statements nfintent that outline the vision for
the dty's parks and recreation system' along with
measurable actions toachieve these goals.
° Capital Improvement Plan (OP): Acomprehensive
table outlining and prioritizing projects and
improvements over the next 6 to 20 years. This
table should include the year ofanticipated
implementation and potential funding sources.
^ Adoption: a signed resolution or letter which
establishes formal approval bythe relevant governing
body.
Tukvvi|a's 2O25Comprehensive Plan, the Parks &
Recreation element specifically, includes most ofthe
above elements, but itnow needs tobeupdated both
to reassess current needs and desires, and tocreate
a future plan which takes into account future goals
and improvements.
��°�m� ~~�����N�°°"°�='~=
��N��� ��� N������������
������UN°�������N��^�
�m~° m � ���m m ��wmm��nm ~�
Tukvv |a's PROS Plan must satisfy three linked
requirements: local adoption, GK8Acoordination' and
R[Ogrant eligibility. Locally, the Plan is treated as
part ofthe [ity'sbroader comprehensive planning
framework. TK4[1lO4adopts the PROS Plan bv
reference aspart ofthe Comprehensive Plan,
requires a copy to be available for public review,
and directs the ordinance and Plan to befiled with
Community Development, Public Works 'Finance,
Parks and Recreation, and the ��ayor'sOffice.The
City is also considering updates to Chapter 12.84
that would remove the specific year reference and
describe the PROS Plan asthe City'sprimary planning
document for managing, improving, and expanding
the parks and recreation system. This update should
confirm the final code language before adoption so
the municipal code, adoption ordinance, and current
Plan are consistent.
This local framework matters because the PROS
Plan is not only a parks planning document. It must
guide capital budgeting, maintenance planning, land
acquisition, grant preparation, interdepartmental
coordination, and long-term stewardship. Tukvvi|a's
RFPspecifically calls for aplan that meets
federal, state and local law and funding program
requirements, coordinates with adopted City
plans and GK8A'evaluates capital needs, creates
a prioritized capital improvement plan, identifies
acquisition guidelines, addresses funding sources,
and includes parks maintenance operations plan.
The Plan also needs toremain useful within Tukvvi|a's
local legislative process. When Comprehensive Plan
amendments are required, TIVIC18.80governs the
amendment process, and Type 5decisions are made
byCity Council following an open -record public
hearing. For Type 5decisions, the Council must
issue written findings and conclusions showing how
the decision isconsistent with applicable laws, the
Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and
other City policies.
R[Orequirements reinforce the same basic
structure. Manual 2 requires a plan to include goals
and objectives, inventory, public involvement,
demand and need analysis, acapital improvement
program, and formal adoption. R[Oalso expects
the inventory toaddress existing facilities, lands,
programs, conditions, and projected maintenance
and operations costs, which directly supports
Tukwi|a'sfocus onasset management, level of
service, staffing, fleet, and maintenance capacity.
For this update, Tukvvi|a's practical requirement is
clear: adopt acurrent, publicly reviewed PROS Plan
that aligns with the Comprehensive Plan, supports
GMA-basedcapital facilities planning, documents
community priorities and system needs, sets a
realistic six -year capital and maintenance framework,
and preserves eligibility for future recreation and
conservation funding. R[O planning eligibility runs
for six years from the date the governing body
adopts the plan, and submitted eligibility materials
must include the adopted plan, public outreach
documentation, the se|f-certification checklist, and
the adoption ordinance orresolution.
�M
City of Tulkwila 2026 PROS Plan I
History
���N��N��N-�� ��N
� ����w"�~� �� ���
Parks
Planning
�N °
����0mN��� ��'N������N��
� ��0��~�' m ���0000000��
��
= Tukwila
N�� NNN0�����NN��
00� ���0��Yw�nm0��
Tukvv|a'sparks and open space
history begins vviththerivervaUey
Long before incorporation, the
Green-Duvvannish River system,
the former Black River landscape,
wetlands, forested slopes, and
valley floor shaped movement,
settlement, ecology, food systems,
and cultural life. Over time,
that landscape was changed bv
agriculture, rail, highways, flood
control, commercial growth,
industrial development, and
regional infrastructure. Those
forces left Tukwila with a parks
and open space system that
must operate within a highly
urbanized, physically divided,
and environmentally constrained
setting. 14?.S—T
The [itv'sComprehensive Plan
frames parks, recreation, and
open space aspart ofTukvv||a's
broader land use, public facilities,
environmental, transportation,
and community health framework.
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element states that the system serves residents and workers of all
ages, cultures, and language groups, while supporting healthy lifestyles, community interaction, economic
vitality, environmental conservation, vva|king, biking' and access to nature. That is the right foundation for this
update.
Parks are not separate from growth management in Tukwila; they are part of how the City serves growth,
protects livability, and invests in public infrastructure,
Tukwila Parks & Recreation
OMW
1--
�
TV�����)
Th� p,,ht,-1,p - g the pw�sfluk,,[.,_~-fit�,
TukwQoParks &Recreation
34
o~
71
`
$1,236,786
-~~^
=.=
27,812
—=
�3
2,289
0,175
Figure 1'1:Tukwila Parks & Recreation Annual Report '2O35
Year Report
J1.
��
K8id'
X
32
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Introduction 16
The system itself developed in layers. Neighborhood parks,
special use parks, trails, open spaces, riverfront resources,
school partnerships, recreation facilities, and regional recreation
assets were added over time through a mix of City investment,
partnerships, site opportunities, and community priorities.
Currently, the city identifies 32 park properties totaling 273 acres,
along with nearly 29 acres of open space, schools and recreation
sites owned by other providers, and regional trail connections that
expand the functional reach of the system.
That layered system is an asset, but it is also a management
challenge. Tukwila's parks serve nearby neighborhoods, regional
users, workers, youth, older adults, families, organized sports, trail
users, cultural events, volunteers, and people seeking everyday
access to nature. The City also coordinates with neighboring
jurisdictions, school districts, King County, state agencies, and other
providers on trails, recreation access, school sites, environmental
policy, and Green-Duwamish River frontage.
Recent parks planning has moved Tukwila toward more deliberate
system stewardship. The 2020 PROS Plan identified changing
conditions, new community needs, and priorities for building,
maintaining, and managing the system. Its structure already
recognized operations and maintenance, park activation,
acquisition and design, walkability, accessibility, wayfinding, nature
integration, programs, events, implementation, and funding as
connected parts of the same planning effort.
The need for this update is grounded in that same reality. Prior
analysis found growing maintenance demand, a maintenance
backlog, new sites added to the system, and a shift in focus from
new development and acquisition toward reinvestment in existing
parks and facilities. This update continues the shift from individual
project planning toward system -wide decision -making. It focuses
on reinvestment, access, safety, visibility, maintenance, recreation
services, natural area stewardship, equity, funding readiness, and
long-term affordability.
The central question is practical: how can Tukwila improve the
parks and recreation system in ways that are needed, fund-
able, maintainable, and consistent with the City's broader
planning responsibilities?
Planning Process
RCO gives jurisdictions flexibility in how a comprehensive parks
plan is organized. The standard is the planning record itself: clear
goals, a reliable inventory, meaningful public involvement, demand
and need analysis, a six -year capital improvement program, and
formal adoption.
For Tukwila, the planning process was organized around those
core requirements while keeping the Plan useful for local decision -
making.
The update moves from existing conditions to community needs,
from needs to service expectations, and from service expectations
to an implementation framework that can guide capital planning,
grant preparation, partnerships, acquisition decisions, and
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I IntroO'?tion 17
maintenance planning.
The intent ispractical. The Plan must help the City explain
what the system needs, why those needs matter, which
investments should move first, and how future projects can
bephased within realistic funding and operating capacity.
|talso needs tosupport future R[Ogrant eligibility without
functioning as a grant application by itself.
Following this project overview,theP|anisstructuredaround
the core elements needed for acomplete, GK8A,a|igned'and
RCO-eligible parks plan:
N0����Nm��u����
m�m���m0�m�m
�
Adescription ofthe planning orservice area, including the
physical setting and summary ofconditions ofthe complete
inventory ofeach existing outdoor recreation asset or
program.
Public Involvement
Adescription ofhow the planning process gave the public
ample opportunity tobeinvolved inplan development and
adoption.
Demand
� �� Analysis
��0������ �� ����N��m�N��
��~�mmm��m��� �� 0n0�������� ��mm��m ��=��
Ananalysis that considers your inventory work and
public involvement, balancing public demand with your
organizatinn's current capacity and future expectations.
Strategic
Framework
�������N�� �� �
���° ���=° ��� N—N���mm������� ��
The plan must support the applicant's park and recreation
mission, including the current project, with broad statements
ofintent orgoals that capture acommunity's desired outdoor
recreation resources.
Capit������°�*�N Improvement ��r0���r�UN��
al N��m N������ NN� �—
A|istofthedesiredcapita|irnprovennentsorcapite|fad|ity
programs for atleast 6years that list and prioritize desired
land acquisition, development, renovation, and restoration
projects.
Approvals
U�U� ��
�� N������N��
U�|�
Aresolution, ordinance, orother adoption instruments, such
ascommittee recommendations, showing formal approval of
the plan and planning process needed bythe governing entity
todevelop aGK4&-connp|ianLand R[D-certifiedPROS plan.
°
111k
OVERVIEW
INVENTORY &
ASSESSMENT
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
DEMAND &
NEEDS
ANALYSIS
GOALS &
OBJECTIVES
CAPITAL
IMPROVEME
PROGR
PLAN
ADOPTION
Figure 1-2:PROS Plan Process
N
'T
34
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Introduction 18
.„ •
•
! •
• "1",f.'
41i•Ots"'
Inventory &
Assessment
riti.Zt4
City of Tukwila 2026 PRO; Plan Inventory & Ass en 19
*
IWIMMall
~
".1000111011��
Introduction
Tukwila occupies adistinctive position inKing County.
|tisaresidential city, uregional employment center,
atransportation crossroads, and ariver valley
community shaped bythe Green and Duvvonnish
River system. Its parks, trails, open spaces, and
recreation facilities must serve people who live in
Tukwila, people who work there, and people who
travel into the city for shopping' events' sports'
business, and regional trail access.
The system iscompact, varied, and under pressure.
Tukvvi|a'sparkland includes neighborhood parks,
regional recreation facilities, trails, restored natural
areas, riverfrnntspaces, stnrnnwaterlandscapes,
and undeveloped open space. These assets support
recreation, public health, environmental stewardship,
cultural expression, and community gathering. They
also carry long-term obligations for maintenance,
safety, reinvestment, habitat care, and equitable
access.
This chapter establishes the factual foundation for
the PROS Plan, |tdocuments the physical setting,
community context, existing park and recreation
assets, open space resources, trails, service
characteristics, and broader planning conditions that
shape future investment decisions.
The purpose isnot only todescribe what exists. The
inventory and assessment are intended to help the
City understand where the system is working, where
gaps remain, which assets require reinvestment,
and how future projects should respond to growth,
changing community needs, climate conditions,
and available funding. The assessment isorganized
around four connected planning contexts:
�."��',4*
*«
=_.
0
Physical
N�~ N����N 0-������
� NN����N����N m�v��NN�ext
Overview
�����������0
����~m �°�°��
Tukvvi|a'sparks, trails, and open spaces are shaped
bvthe citv'sriver-valley setting, |ayeredhistory,
and role asaregional crossroads. The Green and
Duvvarnish River system, surrounding hillsides,
transportation corridors, commercial districts, and
residential neighborhoods all influence how people
36
City ofm**nazmsPROS Plan � Inventory *^asessmevt 20
oo
King County
�`~ �� `~— ^~-�
' ^
Ki tsap'
/CP
unty
10
Mike
Seattle 'I
Yo
Tacoma
City of ,
Bellevue
)City of
/
, :Tukwila'o_-�
Figure 2'1:Tukwila Proximity Map
move through the city and how they experience
public space.
The dty'shistory includes long-standing Indigenous
presence, agricultural settlement, river -based
cornrnerce, rail and highway development, and later
growth as major employment and retail center.
Those influences are still visible in Tukwila's land -
use pattern and in the way parks and open spaces
function today. Some sites provide neighborhood
recreation, while others serve regional users, protect
natural resources, support stnrrnvvaterfunctions, or
help reconnect people tothe river.
This context creates both opportunity and constraint.
Tukwila has valuable parkland, trail corridors,
natural areas, and community destinations, but the
system is also affected by freeway barriers, rail lines,
steep slopes, flood -prone lowlands, and uneven
neighborhood access. The PROS Plan must account
for these conditions byfocusing not only onthe
amount ofparkland available, but also onaccess,
safety, visibility, maintenance, ecological value,
resilience, and the ability ofthe system toserve a
highly diverse community.
For the park system, this context isfundamental.
Tukvvi|a'sparks, trails, and open spaces must
dnmore than provide recreation acreage. They
must help connect neighborhoods, improve safe
access across barriers, protect natural and cultural
resources, support daily public life, and serve one of
the rcgion's most diverse communities.
N�����°������� ���m��°���� ������ Land
N���� N��wm��N ������Nmm ��
�� �� ��mm
NN«��� ���������N�
������ �—�w����mmm
Tukwila serves both alocal and regional role. |t
provides parks, trails, open space, and recreation
programs for residents, while also supporting daily
use from workers, shoppers, hotel guests, sports
participants, trail users, and visitors. Southcenter,
5tarfireSports, Foster Golf Links, the Green River
Trail, and the city'semployment areas bring people
into Tukwila from across the region. At the same
time, residential neighborhoods are separated bv
freeways, rail corridors, major rnads'theriver, and
steep topography. Because of this land -use pattern.
park access inTukwila isnotjustabout distance.
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan � Inventory & A?
Safe, visible, and comfortable routes to parks
are central to how well the system functions.
~��~ =� �� °N
��������k��0��� ���� ��0 ��
0�� �� m�� �� �� 0
�� �� ��wm,� ��m� ��� ~~
Tukvvi|a's|andfornnincludes the flat,
historically flood -prone Green River valley
and upland areas shaped bycompact glacial
soils. These conditions affect how parks,
trails, fields, trees, s\ornnwaterfaci|ides' and
natural areas perform over time. Lowland
sites often require careful drainage and flood -
aware design, while hillsides and steep slopes
require attention toerosion, slope stability,
vegetation management, and trail durability.
Future park improvements should respond to
site -specific conditions rather than relying on
standard design assumptions.
Regional Context
�
'
\
�
^
�
_
Cit
�ofs�attle. �
-
City ofamien !
Of Mercer
City*m"
`
City of Beflet
City of ' Tukwila has a temperate maritime climate
that is typical of the central Puget Sound. City of,SeaTac
Annual rainfall averages about 4Oinches `
'
most ofitbetween late fall and early spring. �
Snow isinfrequent but possiNe. Sunnrners mxq '
are usuaUyrni|d'although recent years have
`
brought hotter and drier periods that stress
turf, trees, and riparian areas. Extended wet
����nn�rnrnhin�dvvith�hinhn�n-�ntan� w
--------�—'--''—�-�'u��r----u- z � ' �8��� `� otyy
of impervious cover make stormwater
Mile
management central topark design and
....`~/... u.-~ ....�e`.��....-�~~...�-
"p='�`'"''�� ' '=�� �'''"�� �''° "'""s''` "=''°"
strengthen the case for shade trees, drinking Figure 2'2: Tukwila Regional Context
water access' resilient turf mixes, and natural area restoration that improves moisture retention and canopy
Hydrology
� N =N
������ d����� ���� Wetlands
N~* �wmw��
�~=�~~ ���
�
,
�
o
>
. /
`
The Green and Duwamish River system is one of Tukwila's defining natural and cultural features. It shapes
the city's history, habitat, open space system, and recreation opportunities. Tributaries, wetlands, wet
meadows, and remnant drainage corridors extend ecological function into the city and provide flood storage,
water filtration, wildlife habitat, and visual relief in an urban setting. Public access to these areas should
be improved where appropriate, but riverfront and wetland -adjacent projects must also protect shoreline
functions, critical areas, habitat value, and long-term stewardship needs.
Stormwater
����=N ��N����=D��N��°��
���m�° ����������� �="��� Floodplain
Tukwila's extensive pavement, rooftops, roads, rail corridors, parking areas, commercial centers, and
industrial lands generate significant stormwater runoff. Parks and open spaces can help manage that runoff
while also improving habitat, shade, access, and neighborhood character.
Facilities such as P-17 Pond and Tukwila Pond show how stormwater, habitat, and public open space can
work together. Future park and trail projects should use green infrastructure where it can be maintained and
where it adds clear public value. The December 2025 Desimone Levee breach also reinforces the need for
38
'
flood -resistant materials, careful siting of low-lying
amenities, and recovery strategies for river -adjacent
assets.
Veget��^���*��~��~���� N�^� ����=0
ation, �—��N������� �=�m��
�� » »
�� Canopy
��������
NN~~�° ���=���~
N��
Tukwila has lost much ofits historic native forest
cover, but important canopy remains in parks'
natural areas, steep slopes, rights -of -way, and
riparian corridors. These trees provide shade,
reduce heat, intercept rainfall, support habitat,
stabilize slopes, and strengthen neighborhood
character. Invasive plants such asEnglish ivy,
Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass
continue tnaffect habitat quality, sight|ines'public
perception, and maintenance needs. Tree canopy
and forest restoration should be treated as long-
term capital asset management, with attention to
native structure, invasive -species control, canopy
succession, volunteer stewardship, and maintenance
capacity.
���°N=0N%��~ ����=� ����0=��,��
\��KNN��NNN�� ~�mm�� ���m��N����
������������^�~��°�F��
�p�*�m°m�°~~�N�N�
�
Even within adense urban setting, Tukwila supports
meaningful habitat along the Green and Duvvannish
River system, wetlands, riparian edges, forest
patches, parks, and open spaces. These areas
support sa|nnonids'waterfowl, raptors, songbirds,
amphibians, pollinators, and snna|| mammals. The
habitat network isfragmented, but parks and open
spaces still function asrefuge areas, movement
corridors, and stepping -stone landscapes. Future
design and maintenance should protect sensitive
edges, limit unnecessary disturbance, manage
lighting near habitat, restore native vegetation, and
improve ecological value where compatible with
public use.
Connectivityand Barriers
Tukwi|a'stransportation system connects the city
\othe region but divides neighborhoods from each
other. 1-5, 1-405, SIR 518, BNSF rail lines, wide arterials,
and the river create real barriers to park and trail
access. The Green River Trail and Interurban Trail
provide strong north -south connections' but east -
west access remains limited and many routes from
neighborhoods, schools, transit, and commercial
areas are indirect, uncomfortable, orunclear.
Improving crossings, sidewalks, bike facilities, lighting
where appropriate, vvayfindinQ'and neighborhood -
to -park routes should be treated as park -system
investments.
m
----------------
Demographic
N�������� ��� ��N�m Context
m�'n���00m�'��0����0NN�� ��'m�rN0N"������
�~ m
�N�����^��0���°����
Nww�m ���������N��mw
Effective park -system planning begins with aclear
understanding ofthe people the system isintended
to serve. |nTukwila, this requires looking beyond
total population and considering age, sex, race
and ethnicity, language, disability status, income,
housing tenure, household composition, and other
community -level indicators that influence how
residents use parks, trails, recreation programs, and
public open spaces.
Each data point tells part nfthe story. Age
distribution helps identify the need for youth
activities, older -adult programming, accessible
walking routes, shaded seating, and intergenerationa|
gathering spaces. Income, housing, and household
composition help reveal where dose'to'hnrne
parks, free orlow-cost programs, and safe shared
outdoor spaces may bemost important. Race,
ethnicity, language, and cultural background help
the City understand how public spaces can feel
more welcoming, legible, and useful todifferent
communities. Disability status and mobility needs
help identify where access barriers, surfacing, routes,
restroorns.crossings, and program design may limit
participation.
��
u�o//v*wnaznzoPROS Plan � mvevw�����*�,ent 23
For the PROS Plan, demographic
analysis isnot background
information only. |tshould shape
investment priorities, engagement
methods, recreation programming,
park design, maintenance decisions,
and access improvements.
Understanding who lives in Tukwila,
and how residents experience the
city, helps ensure that future parks,
trails, and open spaces are planned
for actual community needs rather
than generalized assumptions. The
goal isapark system that iseasier to
reach, more comfortable touse, and
better aligned with the daily lives of
Tukvvi|a'sresidents.
Population
��
��NN ���� ������N���
�~�� 0���N��mm Density
N�"� � �
The Tukwila community currently
has apopulation of21.479people.
Based onthe land within Tukwila,
this breaks down toapopulation
density of2,3]O.6people per square
mile. Comparatively, King County
has 98Opeople per square mile, and
Washington state has 1O3people per
square mile. This points tothe fact
that Tukwila isvery dense and needs
toensure residents have access to
parks and open spaces.
N������N8,��~����
�~�� ~=0���N��mm
���=��N°����4F���°��4F°�m��
��NN~�m w�n��~�o �~=�N~w~�
The City ofTukwila has ahigher
percentage of male residents (537%)
than female residents (46.3%).
197Y6VfTukvvi|a'spopulation is
under 18 years of age. The age
bracket that stands out amongst
the population is25to34years Vf
age, which makes upZZ.396ofthe
population. Further age breakdown
can beseen inFigure 3'2.Figure 3'3
shows that Tukwila has amedian
age nf35.indicating ayounger
population than either King County
(367years) orWashington (374
years).When broken down bvsex,
the Census estimates reveal that
Tukwila has anolder male median
age nf35.Gcompared toits female
Table 2-1: PmpmUm1imm Density
Total Population
Quantity
21,479
Population Density (Per Sq. Mile)
2,338.6
Area (Land)
Source: American Community Survey s-Ya,Estimates, 2019-2023.
Male
Female
Table 2-2: Population Density
Estimate
1[SZ9
Percent
Bj%
9,950
463%
Source: American Community Survey s-Ya,Estimates, zo10-2o23.
85Years and Older
75to84Years
6Sto74Years
55to64Years
45to54Years
�
35to44Years
cj 25to34Years
m 18to24Years
<
15tn17Years
10tn14Years
5tn9Years
Under 5Years
12%
N 96 Male
E % Fema|e
O% 4% O% 4% 8%
Percentage ofPopulation
Figure 2'3:Tukwila 2O33Age & Sex Population Pyramid
Source: American Community Survey swa,Estimates, 20m-2oo.Table opm.
0 Median Age 0 Male Median Age 0 Female Median Age
City ofTukwila
King County
Washington State
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Age
Figure 2'4:Tukwila Median Age by Sex
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2019-2023, Table DP02.
40
City o/m*wwznzsPROS Plan � Inventory &x,sessment 24
City of Tukwila
King County
Figure 2-5:Tukwila Race
Source: American Community Survey s-Ya,Estimates, mn-2oo.Table oms.
median age nf34lThis isameaningfully
different age distribution than King County and
Washington which both have higher female
median ages than males. This indicates larger
working age population cohort and cohort of
children under 1Oyears old than the cohort of
people over age 64.
Tukwila has amuch more diverse population than
the rest ofKing County and Washington State. The
main racial groups in Tukwila are those who are
white alone (31.896)'Asian alone (2396)and then
Black orAfrican American alone (17596). Figure
Z'4shows afurther breakdown ofracial groups
within Tukwila, King County, and the rest nfthe
state. Additionally, Table 3'3 on the following page
identifies that Z3.4% ofTukvvi|a's population is
Hispanic orLatino, which isahigher percentage
than the Hispanic orLatino population inKing
County (1O.896)and Washington state(14]96).
There can bedifferent ways that each racial or
ethnic group uses parks and outdoor spaces,
whether that's because ofunique traditions or
cultural norms inoutdoor spaces. It's important
to recognize the unique needs that each group
Washington State
Asian Alone
Two orMore
Races
Some Other
Race Alone
Native Hawaiian
0 and Other Pacific
Islander Alone
0 Asian Alone
American Indian
11111R, and Alaska Native
Alone
� 0ackorAfrican
American Alone
�
0 White Alone
0
Ki0 Washington State
ng County
City ofTukwila
0
QJ
m
Figuro2'6: Population Percentages ofNon-
White Rmcem|n2O23
Source: American Community Survey s-Yo,Estimates, 2mo-2oo'Table one,
City
o//vxwnaznzuPROS Plan | /m*"mryu^aAl"' 25
might have within the parks system.
Along with race' it is important to examine English proficiency and languages spoken at home.
Increasing efforts tn engage with residents in the languages represented by community members could help
make planning efforts more accessible toall.
Tukwila residents over the age nf5who
were included in theA[S data, 47396
speak language other than English
(2O23:A[SS-YearEstimates, S16O1).
Spanish isthe most spoken language
after English (154Y6)'followed by14.9Y6
ofresidents speaking Asian and Pacific
Island languages, 5196speaking other
Indo-European languages, and 11.996
speaking languages from all other
cultures. About 2296ofresidents in
Tukwila indicated that they were not
proficient in English. These indicators
should inform all community engagement
and communications from Tukvvi|a's
parks department sothat everybody has
access to parks information.
D~sa0=°N°tmm Status
Disability metrics for Tukwila are
important asthey help ustounderstand
and identify the accessibility needs of
the dty'spopulation. These disability
reports for each category should
betaken into consideration when
planning for public infrastructure and
programming. Disability impacts most
people atsome point intheir lives, so
making the community more accessible
benefits everyone and future -proofs
pub|icADA investments as the current
population ages. According to the U.S.
Census, about 1OV6ofTukwila residents
Table 2-3. Hispanic mrLatino Population
Hispanic or
Latino
Not Hispanic
orLadnn
Tukwila Tukwila King WA
Estimate %
5,031
16,448
23.4%
County% State %
10.8%
89.2%
14.1%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 201n2023,Table op05.
Table 2-4: Percentages
Living with m
With any disability
mfTukwi|m'aPopulation
Disability
Tukwila
10.8%
Comparison
King
County
10.2%
VVAState
13.3%
With ahearing difficulty
21%
27%
3.9%
With avision difficulty
2.2%
17%
3.3%
With a cognitive difficulty
4.4%
4.8%
5.0%
With anambulatory difficulty
4.9%
4.5%
6.2%
With aself-care difficulty
1.8%
1.9%
2.5%
With anindependent living
difficulty
4.4%
4.6%
58%
Source: American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810.
42
City v/muwnpzozsPROS Plan � Inventory &/xsessment 26
The median household income in
Tukwila per 2O23ACSestimates
was approximately $8O'534
compared with King County at
$132'148and Washington at
$94`S52.About 22%ofhouseholds
in Tukwila earn less than $50'000
per year. Ensuring that parks
and recreational offerings are
accessible toall income levels is
important in Tukwila.
Poverty Status
The federal poverty guidelines
�n=�npronnnn/,rn��q/rp/n
..^...�`~.~..^..�~~~�.~ _ .^~
//n*
determine . income level - ..~
households to qualify for certain
federal benehtsand proDrarns. `~
such as Medicaid, food stamps,
family and planning services,
Table 2-5: Median Household |mommne+
Tukwila
$80,534
King County
$122,148
WA State
°m 2023 inflation -adjusted dollars.
Source: American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023, Table DP03.
0 City ofTukwila
N King County
0 Washington State
Less than
$25'OOU
$25,0O to
$49,999
$5U/}0010
$74,999
$7S,00 to
$99,999
$10U'0UO
or More
ChiNren'sHealth Insurance Figure 2'7:Tukwila, King County, and Washington Annual
Program (CH|P),and National Household Income and Benefits
School Lunch Program. The Source: American Community Survey mz 5-Year Estimates m1v-2m3,Table om3.
poverty threshold defines what
poverty is and provides statistics on the number of Americans who live in poverty. There are 7 federal
poverty levels (FPUwhich are explained below:
° 100% FPL - This is the official poverty line. People at or below this level are considered to be living in poverty.
* 138% FPL - Used in determining Medicaid eligibility in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable
Care Act (A[A.
° 150% FPL - Used for some public programs, such as certain utility assistance programs or reduced -fee healthcare
services.
° 200% FPL - Used to define a broader group of economically vulnerable people who might qualify for programs like
the[hiWren's Health Insurance Program ([H|P)orsubsidized childcare.
* 25O96FPL-Used incertain programs like cost -sharing reductions for healthcare coverage under the A[A.
° 300% FPL - Some state -based programs use this threshold for eligibility in programs such as housing assistance or
state -funded health programs.
* 400% FPL - The upperthreshold for subsidies under the ACA for health insurance coverage. Households earning up
to this amount may qualify for tax credits to help reduce healthcare costs.
Cities often use 200% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPQ instead when reporting poverty because
these higher thresholds capture a broader range of economic vulnerability. The 100% FPL is considered a
very low benchmark, and many households just above this level still struggle with basic expenses, especially
in urban areas with higher living costs. The 200% and 400% FPL levels better reflect the challenges faced
by people who are not officially in poverty but face financial insecurity. Additionally, these levels are also
relevant because they correspond to eligibility thresholds for many public assistance programs. For example,
healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extend to households earning up to 400% FPL, and
programs like Medicaid and the Chi|dren's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) often cover families earning up
to 200% FPL. By reporting poverty at these higher thresholds, cities can better understand and address the
needs of a larger portion of their population, including those who may not be officially classified as living
in poverty but are still financially insecure. Table Z'6nnthe following page shows the federal poverty level
figures that were set by the US Department of Health and Human Services for 2023.
City of/v**naznzsPROS Plan � Inventory u+aw, sX)c"t 27
Table
Household Size
1
2'6:3023 Federal Poverty
100%FPL
$14,580
Level Guidelines Per
200% FPL
$29]60
Year
400%FPL
$58,330
Z
$19,720
$39,440
$78,880
3
$24,860
$49,720
$99,440
4
$30,000
$60,000
$120,000
5
$35,140
$70,280
$140,568
6
$40,280
$80,560
$161,120
7
$45,420
$90,840
$181,680
Source: UoDepartment mHealth and Human Services.
According to 2023 Census estimates, 26.8% of Tukwila residents lived below 200% of the 2023 Federal Poverty
Level and about 68% earned less than 400% of the FPL. More people in Tukwila earned less than 200% of
the poverty guidelines than in greater King County (17.6%) or in Washington (22.8%). As an example of what
this means, a household of four in 2023 earning less than $60,000 annually would be considered living below
the 200% federal poverty guideline and a household of four earning less than $120,000 annually would be
considered living below the 40096federal poverty guideline. This paints picture offinances for all residents
in Tukwila, indicating that a meaningful percentage of the population has limited disposable income available
for park fees and recreational activities.
w
City of Tukwila
King County
r��w�w�
~~`..
Washington State
Figure 2'B:Tukwila Population by3O23 Poverty Status Determination
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates, Table S1701.
Above 400% of the
Federal Poverty Line
20096`40U96ofthe
Federal Poverty Line
10096-20096ufthe
Federal Poverty Line
Below 100%nfthe
44
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan � Inventory & Assessment 28
Households
N=�
A�NN���� d� s
The average household size
in Tukwila is 27 people. This
isslightly higher than King
County (2.4)and Washington
state (2.5), which continues to
point toward Tukwila being
denser area. There are 7,91O
total occupied households,
63.8% of which are family
households and 36296are
non -family households,
The most common household
size iso2-9ersonhousehold,
which is 29.7% of all occupied
housing units. 1'person
households closely follow that,
with 29.6%ofthe population.
|tisuseful tnunderstand
how many households have
children and nfwhich ages,
especially while thinking
about park needs. 72.796of
households inTukwila have no
related children living within
them. Ofthe 19.896that do
have children, 1l996ofthose
have children who are under 6
years old, and G96have children
that are between the ages of
610 17This data can assist in
thinking through needed play
amenities and programming.
Planning
�� �
��N������N��
" N��000NNN0��
��
Context
���00�ext
Nm�����=�8N^��°����
NNN�� ~*����mw�N��.�
�� Land
Use
���� ���� 4�o�
m=wm�� �~��wm�� ����~~
������������
�����m������
This Plan guides the [itv's
efforts to provide recreational
opportunities, protect natural
resources, and enhance quality
oflife within a highly urbanized
and regionally connected
Table 2-7: Family and Nonfmmmilly Households
Households Measure
Total Number of Households
7,918
Family Households
63.8%
NonfamilyHnuseho|ds
36.2%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2019-2023.
Household Size
1-Person Household
2-Person Household
3'PersonHouseho|d
4-Person Household
5'PersonHouseho|d
6-Person Household
to
3
7-opMnrePerson Household 03.4%
Figure2'g: Household Size
Source: American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023, Table DP03.
N NORelated Children Ofthe Household Under 18
0 Households with Children Under 6Years Only
111111111 Households with Children 6 to 17 Years Old
Figureo'1o: Households with Children and Without Children
Source: American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023, Table DP03.
City n/Tukwila mzsPROS Plan � Inventory & Aa,e�mc"t 29
Table 2'11: Review mfPrevious Plans
2012 Strategic Plan Amendment 2028
Green Tukwila 20-Year Stewardship Plan
Tukwila Public Arts & Culture Master Plan
208PSR[Regional Open Space
Conservation Plan
2019 Older Adults and Recreation Services
Tukwila Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
(PROS) Plan
Foster Golf Links Operations Review and
Business Plan
Tukwila Police Dept. Strategic Plan
Various Park Master Plans & Design Efforts
Tukwila Community Center and Recreation
Program Business Plans
��b"T"
setting.
The PROS Plan isaligned with
the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA)'
VISION 2O50'and King County
Countywide Planning Policies
([pPs).and supports the
goals and policies ofTukvvi|a's
Comprehensive Plan. Together,
these frameworks ensure that
parks, trails, and open spaces
contribute to environmental
stewardship, community
health, and equitable access to
recreation.
Given Tukwi|a'srole asa regional
employment and transportation
hub with limited undeveloped
land, the PROS Plan emphasizes
strategic investment inexisting
parks, multi -use facilities,
and natural areas. Key focus
areas include improving access
and connectivity, supporting
diverse recreational needs'
and integrating parks planning
with land use, transportation,
and environmental systems.
Informed bvcommunity
input and existing conditions
analysis, the PROS Plan provides
a coordinated approach to
guiding future decisions and
investments that respond tn
NIM
46
City n/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � Inventory uAssessment 30
both neighborhood needoandregiona|dernands. safety, equity, and quality oflife outcomes, not a
discretionary service.
Tukwi�K��N~...°N ���°�NN~ �� N]��NN ��N
la ���� ����
N �������N�= Y�����N�� ��wm�� ����NN ��N��wm
����� � ����NN����������� ����~�����
������ ��� N�� �����NN���m��x Subarea
^�Y�Y���
����
��N
��N���n
Adopted in2O0y'the Tukwila Walk & Roll Plan is
the [ity's first non -motorized transportation plan,
establishing long-term vision for improving walking
and biking access citywide. |tintroduced aconnected
framework of sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and
Safe Routes toSchool, all aimed atcreating amore
accessible and equitable transportation system for
people ofall ages and abilities. Key outcomes of
the plan included implementation of infrastructure
such as the Cascade View Elementary Safe Routes to
School Trail, bike lanes onSouthcenterBlvd and East
Marginal Way, and sidewalk improvements across
major corridors like Tukwila International Boulevard
and Interurban Avenue South.
While foundational, the 2OUBplan reflects mobility
needs and land use patterns that have since evolved.
Tukwila has grown into a denser, more diverse,
and more commercially active city. Toreflect this
transformation, a new Walk & Roll Plan update is
currently underway, with the goal nfaddressing
changing travel behavior, emerging equity needs,
and increased demand for safe non -motorized
connections toparks and public spaces. This
upcoming plan will beacritical companion tothe
PROS Plan, especially insupporting park access,
regional trail connectivity, and nnu|tinnoda| recreation
opportunities.
����~N�� Strategic ��N����
���� N�� ���N����� 0~r �~N��ww
������N�=0����0�� *���*�N�
������~������������ ��������
The this plan amendment set afive-tn-tenyear
direction for investments and actions, grounded
incommunity outreach and organized around
broad goals and strategic objectives. It repeatedly
reinforces themes that matter directly to parks
work' improving public spaces, safer parks, stronger
partnerships, and more equitable opportunity
for residents. For the PROS Plan update, this plan
functions as the Oty's internal prioritization logic,
ithelps frame parks asacore delivery system for
The 5outhcenterSubarea Plan frames the district
asamajor growth and redevelopment area where
public realm quality and place identity are essential
tolong-term success. Acentral theme isrepositioning
Tukwila Pond and its edges asavisible civic asset,
including explicitly calling to"unearth Tukwila Pond"
and create anew public space amenity and anchor
for SouthcentecFor the PROS Plan update, this
directly reinforces the idea that parks and signature
open spaces in5outhcenterfunction aseconomic
development infrastructure, not just recreation
amenities, and that future investments should be
designed toshape district identity, access, and
comfort atthe human scale.
����~N�� Tukwila
�� N�^�&
N ��
���� N�� N ���������= �q�N��u�
���°������°��°���� ��N����
N���°m~�N�N~~wm �—N��wm
The City nfTukvvi|a'sADATransition Plan documented
the [ity'sfederally required AOATitle || self
evaluation and transition planning for accessibility
within the public right ofway, with aspecific focus on
sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian push buttons.
The intent was to identify physical barriers that limit
access to City programs and services' define the
methods for removing those barriers, and establish
aprioritized schedule for implementation based on
available resources. This work ispositioned asan
ongoing commitment to equal access for residents
and visitors with disahi|ities, and it is structured to
support consistent delivery through City standards,
capital projects, and private development over time.
The plan was grounded inacitywide field inventory
and compliance assessment that captured conditions
for more than 70 miles of sidewalks, roughly 1'000
curb ramps, and about 440signal push buttons,
with facility compliance evaluated against the 2O11
PROVVAGguidance. The findings indicate widespread
deficiencies, including amajority ofcurb ramps and
many sidewalks that do not meet current accessibility
City o/Tukwila znzsPROS Plan | Inventory u+aAmc"t 31
requirements, and a substantial number of signal
push button locations that are not compliant with
accessible pedestrian signal expectations. The plan
pairs these findings with a review of City policies,
practices, and design standards, then identifies
targeted updates to standards and procedures so
that new work does not recreate barriers.
Implementation was built around a transparent
prioritization model that combines an Accessibility
Index Score, reflecting the severity of barriers, with
a Location Index Score, reflecting proximity to key
destinations such as parks, schools, transit, public
buildings, and business centers. The transition
schedule is tied to planning level cost estimates
and programmed funding, with the plan identifying
about $8.1 M in 2016 dollars to remove known
barriers and noting $200,000 per year programmed
in the CIP for ADA improvements over the next five
years, alongside a broader expectation that ADA
compliance will be embedded in all capital projects
and applicable private development. The plan
anticipated that the highest priority barriers can be
addressed early, with an overall objective of resolving
known deficiencies within a 20 year horizon, and it
also flags the need to begin other Title II program
accessibility work beyond the right of way, including
public buildings and parks.
2017 Green Tukwila 20-
Year Stewardship Plan
The City of Tukwila's Green Tukwila 20-Year
Stewardship Plan provides strategies for the active
restoration and management of 138 acres of park
lands and open space, 88 of which are owned
and managed by the City's Parks and Recreation
Department. Restoring these lands is considered
critical to the health and welfare of the citizens of
Tukwila. The strategies involved in restoring and
maintaining the 138 acres of parks and natural areas
by 2036 are multi -faceted. Partners will conduct
fieldwork through workplan implementation and
monitoring. The fieldwork will be supported by
community residents and volunteers.
Sufficient resources will be provided to actively
manage the sites and provide long-term
maintenance.
The restoration efforts seek to mitigate and
counteract pressures which are diminishing the
ecological benefits provided by these wildlands, such
as:
• Reduced stormwater runoff
• Improved water and air quality
• Attractive communities and stronger property values
• Greenhouse gas reduction
• Habitat for native wildlife
+ Improved quality of life.
The intent of this plan is to articulate measurable
goals and objectives, develop strategies for achieving
these goals and establish benchmarks for evaluating
success. This plan will ensure the public investment
in these lands is effectively and efficiently allocated
across natural areas in Tukwila and that the full
implementation of this plan over the 20-year
timeframe will be achieved.
Areas included in the Green Tukwila Partnership
include the forests, meadows, wetlands, streams,
shorelines, and buffers within the City's existing park
lands. The partnership also will plan for and manage
future restoration sites intended to grow into one of
the previously listed habitats. Those areas which
are not included in the project area are the more
manicured park scape and recreational facilities
such as the park ballfields, playgrounds, beaches,
orchards, landscaped gardens, lawns and open
fields, mowed stormwater detention ponds, and
hardscaped paved parking lots and sport courts.
Agencies that make up the partnership: the City
of Tukwila, along with Seattle City Light, Washington
State Department of Transportation, King County
48
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Inventory & Assessment 32
Parks, Tukwila and High|ineSchoo| Districts,
Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
����~N�� ��.�N~~~^°N�� ��8N0=N~�� �&��m� ��
���� N�� N������NN�= �~~=��N��~ Arts ��
��NNN�FNK��� ����v����� ��N:�N�
����N����~� Nn�N�=���~~� �—N�=��
This plan sets aplace-based framework for
expanding arts and culture across Tukwila,
identifying five priority areas for investment and
action, including Tukwila Village, Southcenter,the
Tukwila International Boulevard Neighborhood,
citywide opportunities, and the Green River. |t
explicitly flags parks and open spaces asapriority
setting for arts and culture improvements, which is
important because it positions park capital projects
asdelivery mechanisms for cultural relevance,
belonging, and community identity. For the PROS
Plan update, the practical takeaway isthat park
planning should anticipate art integration from the
start' including siting, infrastructure' partnerships,
and long-term maintenance planning, rather than
treating art asan add -on late in design.
����~N�� ����N�h�� ° 0 Open
������
���� N�� �������� Regional �� ��mm
��"�� ��
���������� ����������0°���k��°���� ��N����
�� Conservation �—N
����m��� ~~�m����� ��� ��mm ���w
The Regional Open Space Conservation Plan,
prepared bvthe Puget Sound Regional Council, sets
a region scale strategy for protecting and connecting
the central Puget Sound open space system across
King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties. It treats
open space ascore civic infrastructure, not aluxury,
and itdocuments the systenn's scale and diversity
across natural lands, farmlands, working forests,
aquatic systems, regional trails, and urban open
space. |talso quantifies why this matters bytying the
network tomeasurable ecosystem service value and
by identifying where the system is most vulnerable to
growth pressure.
What makes the plan useful inpractice isits clear
risk and access logic. |thighlights the acreage most
exposed tnconversion, then lays out the primary
tools communities use to hold the line, including
acquisition, conservation easements, incentives,
stewardship support, and land use po|icy. In parallel,
itevaluates where urban residents lack nearby open
space' establishing a consistent way 10 describe gaps
inaccess and toprioritize investments that improve
day today proximity toparks, trails, and natural
areas.
For Tukwila, this isanimportant context anchor
because itplaces the Oty'sparks and open space
decisions within the Green Ouvvarnishwatershed
and amapped regional connectivity network. That
framing supports astronger PROS Plan focus onriver
corridor protection, habitat and Mondp|oinfunction,
and the trail links that connect neighborhoods to
schools, jobs,transit, and regional destinations. |t
also reinforces onequity based approach for abuilt
out city, where the real question isnot only whether
parks exist' but whether residents can reach them
safely, understand how touse them, and experience
them aswelcoming places. Finally, itstrengthens the
rationale for multi benefit investments that combine
parks, otornnvvaterperformance, and redevelopment
outcomes, positioning Tukvvi|a'sopen space and
corridor projects os practical infrastructure upgrades
that can compete well for external funding,
����~N�� ��N����N° �&=�NWN�m~ ����=0
���� N�� ��N���°m ������N��� ��"m��
������������F~���� ����N°��°����m�
Recreation Services
The older adult recreation and services work is
framed through anage friendly lens and isintended
\ntranslate community needs into innp|ennentab|e
programs, partnerships, and service delivery
improvements. The OARS summary document you
provided is particularly useful as bridge to PROS
planning because itevaluates what has actually
changed since the 2O19effort, including program
growth, partnerships' and persistent barriers that
still shape access and participation. |talso surfaces
operational realities that directly affect parks and
recreation outcomes, including facility limitations, the
importance ofculturally responsive communication,
and the need to deliver services inways that meet
residents where they are. For the PROS Plan update,
OARS should function asareality check onequity
and usability, especially around programming,
outreach, transportation barriers, and how facilities
support aging residents and caregivers.
�������� ����Q�°°"°N Parks,
Tukwila
�������� N�������N~=
������������°��0� ��Q�=0 ������8�
��.°��w�����N~�m" ��mm�� Open
��~°"m
�� ����������� (PROS) ������ �~��=m=~�~� ��"�
The 202DParks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
established asystem wide foundation for parks and
recreation policy, investment, and implementation.
|tdocumented the parks and recreation system
inventory and direction. including the [ity's 33 park
properties totaling 26O7acres, 13 miles oftrails, the
Tukwila Community Center, and Foster Golf Links,
then frames the desired future around a citywide
vision ofasafe, connected, inspiring system that
supports healthy people and places. For the PROS
Plan update, the 2020plan isthe baseline for what
Aq
City o/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � Inventory *asse_�srlhe"t 33
has been delivered, what remains unfinished, and what must beupdated
toreflect current conditions, priorities, and funding readiness.
The PROS Plan Technical Supplement provides the supporting analysis
behind the 2020plan, including the underlying engagernentrecordand
the technical methods used toevaluate level ofservice, needs, and
investment direction. |tdocuments amulti- year engagement approach
that included broad outreach and more than 500stakeholders, and it
captures the analytical backbone the City has used tojustify priorities
and identify gaps. For the PROS Plan update, the supplement isthe
continuity tool, it allows the update to refresh assumptions and metrics
while staying consistent with R[O expectations and prior methodology.
�r°���� �����N���mm ����N��������~������°���� ��N����
��Nmm ���rm=����� Comprehensive N �—N
�� � ��� ~° � �~w �~� ��° �
Updates
N��=0������*� ��0=�����N°����
�� �� � � Shoreline
�� �� �°~~ �~n ~� �m��
This element sets the regulatory and policy context for shoreline
management along Tukvvi|a'sapproximately 12.5 miles of shoreline on the
Green and DuwannishRivers. |tdescribes the Shoreline Master Program
role, shoreline jurisdiction, and the [ity's intent to balance ecological
protection' water quality, habitat function, and public access within
shoreline constraints. For the PROS Plan update' the big implication is
that shoreline parks, trails, and access improvements must be conceived
with shoreline requirements in mind early, including restoration
expectations, public access design, and long-term stewardship
2022 Tukwila Pond Park Master Plan
The Tukwila Pond Park Master Plan established afocused concept
direction for strengthening Pond Park asboth aneighborhood and
citywide asset, with emphasis onaccess, circulation, and identity. |t
highlighted core physical moves such as strengthening trail loops and
connections, using boardwalk and bridge elements to improve experience
and continuity, enhancing habitat value, clarifying entries, and aligning
improvements with realistic implementation sequencing. For the PROS
Plan update, this plan isaproject ready anchor that connects Southccnter
identity goals, shoreline and water access expectations, and system
wide trail connectivity into one actionable park investment framework.
However, the proposed implementation cost and further analysis into the
site's ecological character suggests that a different future for Pond Park
may lie in it being a strategic open space area with limited public access.
2023 Golf
Links
N�^� Business
� " ��N
�~�������N~ �� ��� NN��N�������� an
The Tukwila Pond Park Master Plan established afocused concept
direction for strengthening Pond Park asboth aneighborhood and
citywide asset, with emphasis onaccess, circulation, and identity. |t
highlighted core physical moves such asstrengthening trail loops and
connections, using boardwalk and bridge elements to improve experience
and continuity, enhancing habitat value, clarifying entries' and aligning
improvements with realistic implementation sequencing. For the PROS
Plan update, this plan isaproject reodyanchorthatconnectsSouthcenter
identity goals, shoreline and water access expectations, and system
wide trail connectivity into one actionable park investment framework.
'
50
~
4�
s�
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan � Inventory & As�essment 34
However, the proposed implementation cost and
further analysis into the site's ecological character
suggests that o different future for Pond Park may
lie in it being a strategic open space area with limited
public access.
N������ ����NNm��mm Countywide
��Nmm ����=°NN��� ����=°�������N��~°
~� � �
Planning
Policies
�����������
�~N�=���".°�
��
The Countywide Planning Policies establish
the regional framework that cities must align
vvith, including how growth, infrastructure' and
environmental systems are planned and coordinated
across jurisdictions. The document identifies Tukwila
among the cities with "countywide significance'^
which reinforces its regional role and the expectation
of coordinated planning outcomes. For PROS
planning, the [PPcontext matters most where it
touches open space networks, intequrisdictiona|
coordination, equity, and the expectation that local
planning supports regional systems and investments.
^�»�^�°� ������ ��A�NN��m ��U�d���
�������� ���Nmm County ��
�� �� � ����m�
��K���/�d� Update
��
U�"����°
This policy update refreshes countywide direction
for how open space is protected, restored, and made
accessible ascommunity needs, equity expectations,
and climate pressures intensify. It provides updated
policy guidance and implementation framing for an
open space network that delivers multiple benefits,
ecological function, public health, and access to
nature, while relying on partnership with cities
and other agencies for delivery. For the PROS Plan
update, itisahigh value alignment document for
posidoningTukvvi|a's open space work within the
countywide context, especially along river corridors
and regional connections, and for reinforcing how
equity and access goals can be translated into
coordinated actions.
����*�^� Comprehensive
° ��N
���K�����N ������N���� ����
�������� ��~~o"m m��NN�°�m~~°m�° ��N�wmw
��N������N��o�
��N�����~~�����
In its community Vision, Tukwila shares its
foundational values, ofwhich many relate to parks
and recreation:
° Respect for the past and present. This includes
strong desires towards historic, cultural, and
environmental preservation.
~ Compassion and support for families. Tukwila
values anequitable system and will examine and seek
to rectify racially disparate impacts. The community
commits to providing recreational opportunities for
children and families.
° Pride ofplace. Tukwila residents value their
environment. The city seeks sustainable models of
environmental stewardship, climate resilience, and
climate adaptation. Natural amenities and habitat
for native species must beprotected. The parks and
recreation system should be contributing toward the
community's image and attractive sense ufplace.
~ Quality opportunities for working, |iving,
and community involvement. Achieving this
value statement necessitates partnerships with
local businesses' non'prohts, and volunteers to
make recreation programming, along with other
opportunities and services, possible.
Planning � �
TheP|an's goals and policies contribute toshaping
the major emphasis ofthis periodic update include:
° ToIdentify opportunities toincrease housing type
��
cxyv/wxwnaznzsPROS Plan � /"a*o�&x,»�,lent 35
availability and affordability for Tukwi|a's community,
today and tomorrow.
° Toensure that City processes address historic racial
disparities inthe prioritization ofhow resources are
spent and City processes conducted.
° Tofocus future housing and job development in
the [ity'stwo regional growth centers. Southcenter
and the Manufacturing Industrial Center, while also
focusing on other opportunities for growth in transit -
oriented development areas within the City.
° Toencourage and pursue opportunities for preparing
the City, its infrasLructure, and community for the
environmental and social changes that will come with
increased climate change.
° To build the [ity's relationship with all quadrants
ofthe community, including community based
organizations, the business community, and
residents' and strive to provide the highest level of
governmental services and responsiveness.
|nthe Comprehensive P|an'sParks and Recreation
chapter, goals are described which will guide the
desired future ofthe parks system over the planning
period. Acorresponding set ofpolicies contribute
tneach parks system goal bvreflecting specific
public needs, past and current planning efforts and
priorities' and principles of planning, design, and
parks management.
° Tukwi|a'sparks and recreation system should
besafe, convenient, and connected. Parks,
recreation opportunities, and open spaces are close
to home and work and are interconnected by safe
streets' off-street trails, and public transportation.
This includes policy prescriptions to more evenly
distribute opportunities throughout the city and link
the system together through pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements.
° The City will maintain anetwork ofgreen spaces.
Recreational amenities, historical sites, rivers'
wetlands, creeks, and other natural resources are
connected to each other and neighboring networks
oflands. This will heachieved through coordination
with regional bodies, local agencies, and private
landowners toboth retain and expand the open
space system.
° Tuhvvi|a'sparks and recreation opportunities
build community cohesion byproviding places and
programs for social interaction and gatherings nfall
sizes.
° PROS facilities should beaccessible and inclusive
and PROS programming should offer attractive
and adaptive activities for people ufall ages,
abilities, and cultures.
° The City isobligated toprovide parks and facilities
that are safe, well maintained and clean, and
programs and services that are welcoming and
accessible for all people.
° Parks and recreation opportunities that promote
healthy, active lifestyles are designed and managed
toengage and enhance the natural environment and
the local economy.
These plans established anoperational, financial, and
capital investment framework for the [itv'sprimary
indoor recreation hub. |tdefined how the facility
functioned asacommunity asset, including room
scheduling, program delivery, customer service,
staffing, training, cost recovery, pricing, resident and
non'residentuse' equity and access, and long-term
maintenance obligations. The plan tested operational
scenarios through aten-year financial projection and
connected those findings torecommended operating
assumptions, repair and replacement needs,
revenue opportunities, partnership and sponsorship
options, expenditure controls, and aprioritized
six -year capital improvement program. Its findings
informed the PROS Plan bygrounding T[['re|ated
recommendations incompleted operational analysis,
making future investment decisions dependent not
only on building condition, but also on the [ity's
ability to staff, program, maintain, fund' and measure
services delivered through the facility.
�
Ic
°
�
52
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Inventory & Assessment 36
����N~N~~= ����m���mN° ��N������°���� �� ��N�m�°���� ��m~
�~��mN��^ N��Nmw�����m �~��m°mwmNnm �� ������N Efforts
���
The City has several recent park planning and design efforts that should be incorporated into the PROS Plan
as evidence of implementation progress, community direction, and capital project readiness. These materials
do more than illustrate possible improvements. They identify site -specific needs, define emerging project
scopes, document community priorities, and show where the City has already advanced design thinking for
major parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, and riverfront access. In the PROS Plan, these efforts should be
used to strengthen the needs analysis, support the capital improvement program, and clarify which projects
are ready for near -term funding, which require further study, and which should remain part ofthe longer -
range systennvisinn.
���="^U� ��K������K��� �������� �������KU� ���°� U������� � ���������^��U
^~~^~~~~^~~ ~~~~~^^~^~~~^~~~� `~`~^^-'~^ ~~~-^^^x�~~~' ~-^^`- `~—`~~'n~^~ Foster ~~~`~^^^~~^^~�^
Park Master Plans
These master plans have the broadest system impact because it addresses two important public sites as
major community anchors. At the Community Center campus, the plan frames the site as both a recreation
hub and a riverfront park, with proposed improvements that include a multi -use field, play areas, spray park
improvements, forest edge restoration, river access, overlooks, trail improvements, and stronger physical
and visual connections tothe DuvvarnishRiver.
AtJoseph Foster Memorial Park, the plan seeks to resolve a fragmented park layout by improving internal
circulation, athletic fields, courts' dog park amenities, picnic areas' play opportunities, and ecological
function. These concepts should inform the PROS P|an'scapital strategy, but they should also betranslated
into realistic phases with cost validation, permitting review, maintenance analysis, and clear distinctions
between near -term priorities and longer -range aspirations.
�� ^ U= Park �� �����K��
�������|�����un x-��n n� �m o n���no�
Green River Trail
The Duvvarnish Park renovation and 116thand
Green River Trail design package supports
the larger plan theme ofstrengthening
the Green/DuvvarnishRiver corridor asa
recreation, access, and identity spine. The
design package identifies improvements that
include upgraded play equipment, sport court
surfacing, apicnic shelter, synthetic lawn
sport field areas, pathways, planting, and
parking. |nthe PROS Plan, this effort should
beused tosupport acapital category focused
onriver corridor access, neighborhood park
renewal, and multi -use recreation. It also
creates auseful reminder that upgraded
amenities bring new |ifecyc|ecosts. Synthetic
surfacing, specialized play equipment, courts,
shelters, and higher -use field areas should be
reflected inthe maintenance and replacement
assumptions that accompany the capital
program.
Riverton and Crestview
��ao�� ��
�
The Riverton and Crestview Park design
Figure z'n:Joseph Foster Memorial Park Master Plan
Concept
��
c/�n/*kwnpznzsPROS Plan � mvevw�*as,,o�,"t 37
packages demonstrate the City's movement toward more substantial neighborhood park reinvestment.
These projects respond to several community priorities identified through engagement, especially play
quality, family comfort, park identity, and overall usability. The Riverton materials are especially useful for
the PROS Plan because they include a defined layout, materials, furnishings, play surfacing, fencing, site
amenities, and phased equipment pricing. This level of development makes Riverton a stronger candidate
for near -term capital programming and potential grant positioning, provided the City confirms project
costs' funding strategy, accessibility scope, and long-term maintenance expectations. Crestview should be
addressed in a similar way, with the PROS Plan recognizing its value as a neighborhood recreation investment
while identifying any remaining design, cost, orphasing needs.
Tn&,~=~U Community Center
TheT[C Multi -Use Field concept and the TCC Riverside Campus landscape schedule should be considered
together because they illustrate the central planning tension at the Community Center site. The campus is
expected to support higher -intensity recreation while also improving the riverfront experience and protecting
riparian function.
The field concept advances athletic capacity at one of the City's most visible public facilities, while the
riverside landscape schedule identifies riparian buffer, beach terrace, boardwalk, logjam, planting, lawn, and
hardscape improvements along the river edge. The PROS Plan should recognize this as a high -value project
area, but also as one that will require careful coordination between recreation demand, shoreline conditions'
habitat restoration, access, permitting, operations, and long-term maintenance.
2026 Non—Motorized
Trail
Plan
The Non -Motorized Trails Master Plan is a major companion plan for the PROS Plan because i1directly informs
park access, trail connectivity, equity, capital priorities, and long-term maintenance needs. It documents
Tukvvi|a's existing trail system, including numbered neighborhood trails and regional connections such as the
Green River Trail, Interurban Trail, and Lake to Sound Trail, and identifies a core system challenge: the city has
valuable trail segments, but
they remain fragmented
bvtopography, freeways,
arterials, rail corridors, the
river, and gaps between
neighborhoods, parks,
schools, transit, and
commercial destinations.
The p|an'smost important
direction isirnp|ernen\ation'
based: repair existing
trail deficiencies first,
bring current trails up
to consistent standards,
then expand the network
through strategic new
connections. This supports
a PROS Plan capital strategy
focused onreinvestment,
°
Figure o'1z:Tukwila Community Center Plan Concept
54
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Inventory & As�essrnent 38
safety, accessibility, vvoyfinding'vegetation management, and |ifecyc|e maintenance before adding new
obligations tothe system.
The plan also strengthens the PROS Plant access and equity analysis bvtreating trails as cure park system
infrastructure rather than a separate transportation topic Its proposed connections would improve links
between neighborhoods, parks, schools, transit, Southcenter, the Green/Duwamish River corridor, and
regional trail systems. The PROS Plan should carry these priorities into the needs analysis, goals and policies,
and Capital Improvement Program, while clearly identifying project phasing, lead departments, funding
strategy, permitting needs, and ongoing maintenance impacts.
U���yU��°��� � o�N������U�N�������� N��=������°� U����
������ �—wN��� N�� ������~�NN� �~N�=����N°� N"�0����°�~� �NNN~� �-8�="�
Tukwi|a'sprior plans donot
function asbackground
only. They provide
the policy direction,
site'specificconcepts.
community priorities, and
implementation constraints
that shape this PROS Plan
update. This plan carries
those earlier efforts
forward by translating
them into current system
framework, updated needs
analysis, access and equity
findings, goals and policies,
capital project priorities,
maintenance considerations,
and implementation
strategies. Where earlier
plans identify aclear
project, corridor, site need,
or policy direction, the PROS
Plan either incorporates
that item into the Capital
Improvement Program,
identifies itasalong-range
opportunity, orassigns it
toafeasibility, partnership'
maintenance, orgrant-
readiness track.
The prior planning record
points to a consistent
direction: reinvest in
existing parks, improve
safety and visibility, close
access and connectivity
gaps, strengthen the Green/
Duvvarnish River corridor,
support culturally relevant
",",=,","/""o"�,..u/, p�pv�^��wuk�mcmmoc�" c�v/n*="euvouw�
p^"a'"""""e"''"p"=`
space design, restore and `v:`ilapu*
manage natural areas,
improve ADAaccess, Figure 213 Tukwila Non -Motorized Ti| Plan Proposed
and phase larger projects inavvaythat*uflstaffing, ownership, permitting, and maintenance
realities. This update uses that direction to avoid creating a disconnected wish list. Instead, it organizes
o�o/*��//aznzspnosp/av � mvcvmryu�o�����
evt 39
Proposed TuhvvUoConnections
Cl
City of Tukwila Regional Irail ------ [rail Outside Cify, of Tukwila Bounoory
Future Regional trails
'
u'les
recommendations around what the City can advance now, what needs further definition, and what should
remain part ofthe long-range system vision.
Together, these prior plans support the PROS Plan's recommendations by showing that the City's current
priorities are not new or isolated. They are the next step in a longer planning sequence. The PROS Plan
update uses that sequence to create more defensible capital program, with projects organized by public
benefit, readiness, funding potential, equity value, maintenance impact, and implementation risk, This allows
the City to carry prior planning work forward without implying that every prior concept is funded, fully
scoped, or ready for construction within the six -year planning window.
Prior Pinning Directions
Comprehensive Plan, . G�AintheQoa|sandpnUdes
V|S|ON3O5U and[nun\ywide
'
Planning Policies
Table 3'12: Prior Planning Impacts
These plans support the
framewor�and the connechnnbe�v
and quality nflife.
How It Is Reflected In This Plan Update
PROS P|an'srole asagrowth management tool. Their direction isreflected
access open capital planning
' ' '
between housing public dimatemsi|ience
^ ' ' ' '
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan reinforces parks aspart ofTuhwi|a'spublic service system, not adiscretionary
partnership and community identity are
amenity. Its themes nfsafety, equity, public space quality, '
carried into the plan framework, needs analysis, project evaluation critzria, and implementation
strategy.
Walk and Roll P|an ' ADA
Transition Plan, and
'
��nrized�ai|P|an
These plans support the PROS P|an�emphasis onreal acceo' not �/ustmapped proximity.
Their�ndin�sare�Mectedintheacce�sandconnechvityana|ysis priority
' ' '
improvements, ADA'e|a�dcapha|need�safemu�estnpark�andproject sequencingfor�ai|
'
repair, wavfnding,crossings, and neighborhood connections.
�outhcenter�ubarea Plan and
Tukwila Pond Park Master Plan
These plans support the continued recognition of Tukwila Pond and Southcenter open space as
m�nrcivic and distric�shaping assetsThePRO�P|anca/riesthisforwmrdbvidentifvingTukwila
� ' '
Pond asastrategic long-range open space and access opportunity, while recognizing that ecological
constraints, access control, ownership coordination, cost, and maintenance capacity must guide
future phasing.
Green Tukwila 2O-Year
Stewardship Plan, PSR[Regional
Open Space Conservation Plan,
and King County Open Space
policy direction
These plans inform the PROS Plan's natural area, river corridor, habitat, and stewardship
recommendations. They are reflected inthe open space and natural systems framewnrk,Gneen/
Duwamish River corridor priorities, maintenance and restoration assumptions, and grant
positioning for projects thatcombinepub|icaccess'eco|ngica|repair,stormwaterbenefitand
climate resilience.
Pub|icA�s&[u|�ure�as�er
Plan
This plan supports the integration of public art, cultural interpretation, and place identity into
park pr projects. ThePA0SP|aneO�ct��his�hmu�hrecommendation�that�rea�artinterpreta�ion
� � '
wavfndi��andmhum|��ibi|kva�pa�ofcapha|p jo�p|unnin�espeda|�inhighly �sib|e
' ' '� `
parks trails, hverfmntsites, 5nuthcenter,Tukwi|a International Boulevard, and community
gathering spaces.
Older Adults Recreational
Services Needs Assessment
The OARS work informs the plan's treatment of recreation programming, transportation barriers,
culturally responsive outreach, social connection, caregiver needs, and age -friendly facilities, These
findings are reflected in recreation service recommendations, facility usability considerations, and
the equity lens used tnevaluate access toprograms and public spaces.
56
City v/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � Inventory &x,sessment 40
Prior PInnimg Directions
2O2OPROS Plan and Technical
Supplement
Table 3-12: Prior Planning Impacts
How It Is Reflected In This Plan Update
The 2020 PROS Plan provides the baseline for system inventory, prior needs, policy direction, and
capital project cnnhnuity.Thisupdatecarriesfnrwarde|evantunMnishedpriorihes,efreshes
assumptions based oncurrent conditions, and reorganizes projects amundreadiness,funding
potential, access benefit, maintenance impact, and implementation feasibility,
T[[Business Plan, Programming
and Foster Golf Links
Business Plan
These companion plans inform the operational side ofthe PROS Plan. Their direction isreflected
in semicede|iverKcostrecovery,pmgnamaccess'P|an'
maintenance p|anning�venuestm��yand�he|on��\ermm|enfmjnrassets such asT[[and
' ' �
Foster Golf Links,
Recent park master planning
and design efforts
Site -specific work for the Tukwila Community Center campusJoseph Foster Memorial Park,
Duwamish Park and the 116th/Green River Trail area, Riverton Park, Crestview Park, Tukwila Pond,
and other active concepts iscarried into the capital planning framework. Projects with stronger
definitinnarepnsitinnedfnrnear-termormid-termcapita|consideration'whi|eprojects with
unresolved cost, access, permitting, ownership, or maintenance issues are identified for further
planning, feasibility review, partnership development, nrlong-range implementation.
° '� ^',`
_ ___ ____
���k.79
~���
-
°
��
c/�v/wxwn"zozsPROS Plan � /me"w�uro,��nmt 41
Existing
�~~°*�u�° Facilities
����
����N��NLN�� ������NNNNLNes and
Programs
0 0m�"��0��NNN��
U����� ��� U���������°��� ���������
�—��mN��v ��om�� �&~�~�m�°���N��wm System
��Overview
�������N����
�.°m ����°"
Tukvvi|a's parks and recreation system provides essential
access to nature, physical activity, and community
gathering in a highly urbanized setting. The City maintains
roughly 276acres ofparks, open space, trails, and natural
areas that serve residents, employees, and visitors
throughout the year. These assets range from active
community parks such asTukwila Park and Fort Dent Park
that support sports, informal recreation, and large events,
to natural areas such as Duvvarnish Hill Preserve that
provide walking opportunities, environmental education,
and habitat restoration. Trail corridors, including segments
ofthe Green River Trail, expand everyday recreation and
strengthen active transportation connections between
neighborhoods, destinations, and regional systems.
Current conditions reflect high and diverse use across age
groups' cultures, and interests. Parks support community
events, volunteer stewardship, and seasonal programming
while also serving as daily spaces for walking, play, and
social connection. Initiatives such asGreen Tukwila
volunteer events and nature -based camps activate parks
and natural areasyeapround' reinforcing environmental
awareness and shared responsibility for public lands.
Foster Golf Links adds o regionally significant recreation
asset within the system, drawing both local and visiting
users.
Atthe same time, Tukwi|a'slimited land supply, high
development intensity, and location along flood -
prone rivercorridorsconstnainexpansion.increase
infrastructure vulnerability, and place steady pressure on
operations and maintenance. Because many sites must
deliver multiple outcomes within compact footprints, the
system routinely balances active recreation needs with
ecological function, cultural relevance, and resilience
objectives. A dear understanding of existing conditions,
distribution, and use isfoundational for identifying gaps,
strengthening equitable access, and guiding investments
that keep the system functional, welcoming, and
sustainable asTukwila evolves.
|norder toassess existing conditions and determine asset
life cycle, quality oflife, and level -of -service perforrnance,
acurrent, consistent, and field -verified inventory ofthe
58
City v/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � Inventory &x,sessment 42
parks and recreation system.
The following process was used todocument what
exists today and establish the baseline for the
analyses that follow.
1, Inventory and build maps ofthe existing parks.
l. Develop adetailed inventory nfeach park from the
previous planning process and gensparia|sources,
including encumbrances research and park /funding
histories.
3. Perform site tours and field investigations with
Maintenance Supervisor.
4. Update each park map and inventory form.
5. Develop anassessment rating for each park element
orcategory. More detail nnthis isfound inthe
Systems Assessment overview.
�
Tukwi|a'sparks and recreation system isaCity
service area governed through the [ity'selected
leadership, with policy direction provided by the
Mayor and City Council, Day-to-day administration is
led by the Parks and Recreation Director, a position
that isMayor-appointed and [ound|'confirnned.
The Department also relies nncommunity-facing
governance and advisory input through established
citizen advisory participation, including the Park
Commission, which provides public perspective and
continuity on parks and recreation priorities and
related initiatives.
�
�01'1'
�
rvi
�
The Department isorganized todeliver both
community programs and direct operations of
the[ity's park and recreation assets. Department
functions are typically grouped across four primary
service areas: Parks Maintenance, Operations
and Stewardship; Recreation, Arts and Events;
Golf; and Administration. The Tukwila Community
Center serves asthe primary hub for recreation
programming and asthe Department's operational
base.
|naddition torecreation programs and community
events, the Department isresponsible for
management and operations ofthe [ity'spark
system, trail corridors, and open space properties,
and for operation ofFoster Golf Links as an 18'ho|e'
PGA -certified municipal course that includes apro
shop and associated event and concession functions.
The Department also supports volunteerism and
stewardship through programs such asGreen
Tukwila and Adnpt-a'Spnt.
Across all service areas, the Department's staffing
profile includes approximately 33full-time positions,
supported bymore than ?5Opart-time and seasonal
staff who help deliver recreation programs, events,
and seasonal operations needs. Most represented
employees are covered bvTeamsters Local No. 763'
with limited exceptions noted inthe [ity'sstaffing
framework.
For parks operations and maintenance specifically,
the Park Maintenance Division isthe functional
unit responsible for day-tn'daymaintenance and
field operations across the City'spark and open
space portfolio. Current maintenance workload
(see Appendix F) includes a diverse mix of local and
regional trails, undeveloped open space and natural
area preserve properties, and the [ity'sdeveloped
park sites, totaling roughly 276acres ofdeveloped
and undeveloped parkland. This calculation includes
the area actively managed bvStarfire'was well as
other city lands managed bvparks staff.
Under the [ity'sannual budget and departmental
organizational structure 'there is current
rnaintenancestaf�ngaUncationof9.25FTE'including
one Maintenance and Operations Superintendent,
one Lead Maintenance Specialist, two Maintenance
Specialists, two Parks Maintenance Technicians,
2.25Parks Maintenance Workers, and one Facilities
Maintenance Technician.
Department budgeting isorganized bvmajor
program areas that align with how services are
delivered and tracked inthe Oty'sbudget. |nthe
[ity's2U19to2O2Obiennial budget, parks and
recreation operating expenditures were tracked
across Administration (896), Recreation (3796)' Rentals
(396)'Parks (2596),and Golf (2796)'reflecting the
Department's mix ofdirect park operations, facility -
based progrannrning,renta|s'andgo|foperadons.
For current park maintenance and operations
funding, the FY26Operations and Maintenance
budget for park and open space assets islisted at
$3.154'343'comprised ofaPark Maintenance budget
City n/Tukwila zozsPROS Plan � Inventory & Ass
�
mt 43
of$2,741'334and anAdministration budget of
$413'O09.
�
41,
Tukwi|a'srecreation system iscurrently delivered
through acombination nfT[(-basedprograms,
outdoor park and field use, senior services, youth
and teen activities, summer camps, fitness and
wellness programs, public art, special events,
volunteer stewardship, facility rentals, picnic shelter
rentals, athletic field rentals, Foster Golf Links, and
partner -supported services. T[[remains the primary
indoor hub, with meeting rooms, classrooms,
banquet facilities, acommercial kitchen, fitness,
recreation and wellness programs, preschool,
and services for seniors, adults, teens, and young
children.
This makes recreation a core operating system, not
secondary parks function. The department's current
public -facing program categories include seniors,
adult enrichment, adult wellness, teens' preschool,
after -school activities, summer camps, facility
rentals, volunteering, Foster Golf Links, and public
art.
The 2023Annual Report shows substantial recreation
use across age groups and program types. The City
reported S.554youth served through sports leagues
and programs, 28'956adults served through fitness
programming, 4'299senior adults served through
fitness programming, 5'767individuals engaged
through older adult programming, 7,223youth and
teens engaged insummer experiences, and 32'169
people served through rentals.
Those numbers matter because they show the [ity's
recreation system isalready carrying alarge share
ofpublic service delivery. The same annual report
also identifies 2O'934meals served toseniors and
youth through nutrition programs, 60'U11rounds
ofgolf played atFoster Golf Links, and $80O'000in
grant funding secured for early learning enrichment,
summer camps, older adult programming,
stevvordship, arts and events, fitness, and nutrition.
Current youth programming isnot limited to
organized sports. The City provides after -school care,
teen drop -in space, summer camps, sports camps,
TeenVentureCamp, Tukwila Outdoor Experience, and
free or low-cost summer activities. ASAP serves K'5
students Monday through Friday from the end nfthe
school day tn6p.rn,with transportation provided bv
Tukwila School District and Impact Public Schools for
their students.
Teen programming operates asasocial, recreational,
and supervised after -school service. The City
identifies teen -specific programs including Teen
Late Night, After Schoo|Teen Room, enrichment
classes, and fitness membership options. The 2023
participation data shows that summer experiences
are one ofthe systenn'smajor youth service areas,
with 7,223youth and teens engaged through free and
low-cost summer experiences.
For the PROS Plan, youth sports demand needs to
beread alongside these broader youth services.
Sports remain important, but the current program
model also depends onsupervised time, school -year
care, summer capacity, teen space, informal play,
safe access, transportation support, and affordable
participation.
Adult and senior fitness are major current service
lines. The [ity'ssenior programming includes Tukwila
Trai|ersVVonnen's Hiking Group, functional strength
training, Silver Sneakers, beginning line dancing,
fitness drumming, SAIL, free senior weight room
access for Tukwila residents 55+, open play pick|ebaU.
clinics, and open play volleyball,
Older adult programming also extends beyond
fitness. The 2O23Annual Report identifies arts,
community caf6'social hours and events, field
trips' nature walks, and foot care as part ofthe
older adult program mix. This is an important plan
finding. Tukvvi|a'ssenior programming iscurrently
functioning as recreation, health support' social
connection, food access, and aging'in'connrnunity
infrastructure.
Cultural and community programming isactive in
the current system. The [ity'spublic art program is
housed within Parks& Recreation and connects to
Arts inthe Pork' public art installations, utility box
art, and broader event programming.
The [ity'scurrent event programming also shows
how recreation, culture, and community identity
overlap. The Tukwila UNITED! programming tied
60
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan � Inventory & A�sessment 44
tnthe vvor|d's game includes afree youth soccer
tournament, esportstournaments, watch parties,
music, food, and community gathering. This is
current evidence that recreation programming in
Tukwila isnot only activity'bosed.|talso supports
civic identity, cultural visibility, youth engagement,
and community gathering.
Rentals are amajor parLVftherecreationsystenn.
T[[ room rentals, picnic shelter rentals, and athletic
field rentals support family gatherings, business
meetings, small conferences, community uses,
and outdoor events. The City identifies meeting
rooms, classrooms, banquet facilities, acommercial
kitchen' athletic fields, walking paths, picnic shelters,
playgrounds, sport courts, and park -based gathering
spaces aspart ofthe current rental and facility -use
system.
This directly affects capital planning. Indoor rooms,
gym space, kitchens, shelters, fields, restroonns'sport
courts, parking, walking paths, and gathering areas
are not just amenities. They are the physical platform
that allows recreation programs, rentals, events,
youth activities, senior services, and community
gatherings tooccur.
Outdoor recreation isdelivered through parks,
trails, athletic fields, walking paths' golf, picnic areas'
summer camps, nature walks, outdoor events, and
stewardship programs. The department's mission
connects public spaces, programs, and events to
health and fitness, personal growth' relaxation,
community connection, civic engagement, and
environmental stewardship.
Green Tukwila and related stewardship work are
also part nfthe recreation se/vice picture. In 2023'
the City reported 5'980stewardship volunteer and
work crew hours, 94stewardship parties, 12active
restoration sites' 317,298 square feet of green
space restoration, 381 native trees planted, 2'716
native plants planted, and 19.705 pounds of litter
collected inparks. This work supports maintenance,
environmental education, volunteerism, community
ownership, and outdoor engagement.
rr
The current recreation system isbroad, active, and
heavily used. |tserves youth, teens, adults, seniors,
families, renters, field users, golfers, volunteers,
artists, event participants, and facility renters, The
section does not need toargue that programming
matters. The current participation record already
demonstrates that.
The stronger plan finding isthat recreation
delivery depends nnfacilities, staffing, scheduling,
transportation, affordability, portnerships,
maintenance, and access. T[Canchors the indoor
system. Parks, trails, fields, shelters, golf, public art
locations, and restoration sites extend the system
outdoors. The capital program needs tnreflect that
connection byidentifying which projects irnprpve
program capacity, expand usable hours, reduce
barriers, support rentals, strengthen youth and
senior service, Vrimprove the [ity'sability todeliver
recreation beyond a single facility.
�A
��ffi
For parks operations and maintenance specifically,
the Park Maintenance Division isthe functional unit
responsible for day-to'daymaintenance and field
operations across the [ity'spark and open space
portfolio. Current maintenance workload includes
The following steps were executed tocapture the
institutional knowledge ofTukwila staff, while
allowing the consultant team to observe and assess
each park and trail component.
° Inventory and build maps ofthe existing parks.
° Develop adetailed inventory ofeach park from the
previous planning process and Oeospada|sources,
including encumbrances research and park /funding
histories.
° Perform site tours and field investigations.
° Update each park map and inventory form.
° Passing anassessment rating for each park element
orcategory. The overall park assessment was an
average ofthe available individual assessments.
City v/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � /mcmvry & Ass
mt 45
Classification systems provide astandardized
method for organizing, evaluating, operating, and
managing park systems. They help define the
intended role ofeach site, including its scale, level
of development, recreation function' ecological
value, cultural or historical significance, maintenance
needs, and contribution tocommunity access. Aclear
classification system also supports level ofservice
analysis, capital planning, grant readiness, and long-
term stewardship.
R[Odoes not require one universal park
classification structure, and communities often adapt
classifications to reflect local conditions. However,
the underlying purpose isconsistent: parks, open
spaces, trails, natural areas, and special facilities
should be organized in a way that helps the City
understand what each asset isintended toprovide
and how itshould bemanaged over time.
Tukm/i|a'scurrent park and open space inventory is
organized into three primary classifications: Local
Parks, Special Use Parks, and Open Space. These
classifications have provided auseful baseline
for inventory and reporting, but the updated LOS
analysis shows that they should berefined tobetter
reflect how the system functions today. Asofthe
most recent inventory, the [ity'ssystem includes 26
park properties totaling approximately 265.1 acres of
parkland and open space.
Local Parks include 1Odeveloped sites totaling
approxirnate|y51 acres. These sites are generally
located inresidential areas and range from small
mini parks to larger neigh bnrhood'servingparks.
They typically support dose'tn'honnerecreation,
informal play, gathering, walking, seating' and access
to nature.
Special Use Parks include 10sites totaling
approximately 1962acres. Under the current
classification system, this category includes
awide range nfproperties with specialized,
civic, recreational, natural area, destination, or
community -serving functions. This broad use ofthe
category isone ofthe primary issues addressed in
the classification analysis that follows. Some sites
classified asSpecial Use function astrue specialized
assets, such asgolf facilities, sports complexes,
community centers, orother citywide destinations.
Others function more like natural areas, passive
open spaces, riverfrontlandscapes, orcommunity
open spaces.
Open Space properties include 6sites totaling
approximately 1T9acres. These sites are largely
undeveloped orminimally developed and are
intended for natural area preservation, habitat
protection, Mnodp|ainfunction, and low -impact
recreational uses such aswalking and wildlife
observation. The updated classification analysis
recommends expanding this category into aclearer
Natural Area/Open Space Preserve classification so
that these lands, and similar lands currently classified
elsewhere, are more accurately reflected in the LOS
analysis.
Some park and open space sites are owned,
operated, orsupported through partnerships with
other public agencies, including school districts and
King County. These sites are included inthe inventory
where they contribute toTukwi|o's overall parks'
recreation, open space, and trails system.
For additional details ondifferent park classification,
see Appendix B'Standards &Guidelines.
City v/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � Inventory &x,sessment 46
`1-1
Existing Classifications
' —
Westrre5t — horel'ux,
Park
A 2 \
\P;11/40YASkirit,ti1/4e. 1/4 N1/4
gOaki Rick, \1/4
1/411
,,Arbite Centqr
rerind 1Vdtul r,rtr,
Existing Classifications
Local (13)
BM Open Space (11)
ISM Special Use (16)
„Salmon
' • Cm*
Ra\rrnz
•
„S`e atoll Park
City Owned Property
Schools
Churches/Religious Services
/ cputhiit/
• ", ;„,e4.
, ,Htif
8titt&I "
WM' d • ,
rkkrifeV • • —
, Ortkoir
Neighborhrtd ' ' '".,
50,,e, Pak or4e,r4v . ',
POlVd Con frntirgiy C'eoki. ,'
,S..04,g,,,, High.iine ,egrac,
1,,1,' Boionteat,..kird,e,
4,99,tge , • , ,..., ,
• : ,, 0,101., ' ' 014,
' • M",40 „,,
:".".- Center ,,,,,,,,' , „ ,•,;Y
l,poopp, p<ek Nothloo
Arl,
'
• , „ r ,, i-rergr* ,
roko Pew
Nonnorl y
'„" , rr•
", Pare
, ARtiroH'it'
NOY, PARk **Id :
, Mothrer
` onorrO,„
!,4116,
bn4,0
4,000
Feet
:/;•
Figure 2-14: Tukwila Parks System
Des Morno,
Curek Park ,
..5!„<zrerc
RIVFRIO'4
' 46 KW I L. A
P
KING 'CO#NtY
Park
SI fON
r "
1,704; to :MO
Trot
Block nyKr
¼ 110100 0
Spitrt4,,' ""lz'rnr a,
rxr, r
;g
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Inventory &Ass -Pent 47
------------------------------------------------------------------------'
1
Table 2-9: Existing Pmrkm&
Cecil Moses Memorial Park+
Public
N
Spaces System
Y
Overview
Local
�
3.0
2
North Wind's Weir
N
Y
Open Space
26
3
Chinook Wind Park
N
Y
Open Space
5.8
4
DuwamishGandens
Y
Y
Special Use
1.4
S
DuwamishHill Preserve
Y
Y
Special Use
11A
6
116thAve Mini Park
Y
Y
Local
0.8
7
Duwamish Park
Y
Y
Local
2.1
O
Tukwila Community Center
Y
Y
Special Use
127
9
[odigaFarm Park
Y
Y
Special Use
6.7
10
Riverton Park
Y
Y
Local
4.9
11
Riverton Mini Park
Y
Y
Open Space
01
12
Southgate Park
Y
Y
Open Space
10.9
13
Pamela Drive Open Space
Y
Y
Open Space
8.7
14
57th Ave South Mini Park
Y
Y
Local
0.4
15
Foster Golf Links
Y
Y
Special Use
793
16
Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
Y
Y
Local
9.3
17
Cascade View Community Park
Y
Y
Local
2.4
18
Tukwila Pool**
Y
Y
Special Use
1.3
19
Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
Y
Y
Special Use
9.9
ZO
Hazelnut Park
Y
Y
Local
0.6
21
Fort Dent Park/5tadireSpnrts****
Y
Y++**
Special Use
513
22
Tukwila Park
Y
Y
Local
6.4
23
|kawmPark (Japanese Garden)
Y
Y
Special Use
0.2
24
Nelsen Side Channel
Y
Y
Open Space
0.9
25
Crystal Springs Park
Y
Y
Local
11.0
26
Crestview Park
Y
Y
Local
109
27
Bicentennial Park
Y
Y
Special Use
13
ZO
Tukwila Pond
Y
Y
Special Use
24.8
29
P'17Pond
Y
Y
Open Space
3.6
TOTAL
276.6 acres
° Park classifications are based vnthe previous PROS Plan classification scheme.
Currently open space with osmall tmn»muarea only.
Tukwila Pool, is managed bythe Tukwila Metropolitan Pool District, not by Tukwila Parks uRecreation Department.
64
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Inventory & A,,sessmerit 48
Westerest
Park
Ci
Seattle41
Vtlettiotbistmok
Pork gat th Poitto
, .Pteotictoto
KIN
wh; Park & Open Space Inventory Map
Pono
i!•7r,i:1::".:';', ain City of Tukwila Parks & Open Space
City Owned Property
eotti e ottO&O'ttat r
Schools
Churches/Religious Services
1. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
2. North Wind's Weir
3. Chinook Wind Park
4. Duwamish Gardens
,IMOn 5. Duwamish Hill Preserve
'reek
Wine ' 6. 116th Ave Mini Park
_toot
7. Duwamish Park !;i NM*
8. Tukwila Community Center
9. Codiga Farm Park
urst Pork r
10.Riverton Park whoad
,patoc,,
11. Riverton Mini Park
ineSe#Tac
12.Southgate Park
!Hr," 13.57th Ave South Mini Park and Open Space
OOlOe'Butigo, 14.Pamela Drive Open Space
''Sottot;i
titNnorOtt 15. Foster Golf Links
16. Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
17. Cascade View Community Park
18.Tukwila Pool
19. Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
20.Hazelnut Park
21. Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
!!!!
22.Tukwila Park
23.Ikawa Park (Japanese Garden)
24. Nelsen Side Channel
25.Crystal Springs Park
26.Crestview Park
&Wan)
27. Bicentennial Park
28.Tukwila Pond Park
29.P-17 Pond
SEAT
k'‘
Des Milks
Creek Pork ,
Settlior
A,64!e;)F!y4i
tivertot „
,ro Hoigitart
Moro Boot
A0,111154
noo,
KING
RYAN HILL
Sk,,01#F01.771.5
TtKWA
SOUTI
Skyway
NG COUNTY RENT
King CQunty
Lake to SOltod
Trait Site ,
Btuck Riort'O
MM/aterworks. ttrt'
Ot ocktogre„
'" ,„ intertobon
o'tt root, Oraii Slot ot
t4ent tot
ttttt "`.2'
pityty4Pf
Rent.19
Greenbelt trtr
't* Paaf
,kottOttOtto
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Inventory & Ass§ Aent 49
Key
Tob|m2'1O: Existing Trails &
Trail
Pathways
Lmng1h(fi)
Trail Type
A
Numbered Walking Trail
1066
Walking Path
B
Numbered Walking Trail
557
Walking Path
[
Numbered Walking Trail
1375
Walking Path
D
Numbered Walking Trail
973
Walking Path
E
Numbered Walking Trail S
541
Walking Path
F
Numbered Walking Trail 6
531
Walking Path
G
Numbered Walking Trail 7
578
Walking Path
H
Numbered Walking Trail 8
716
Stairs/Wa|kinQPath
|
Numbered Walking Trail 9
508
Walking Path
]
Numbered Walking Trail 10
594
Walking Path
K
Numbered Walking Trail 11
617
Walking Path
L
Numbered Walking Trail 12
165
Walking Path
M
Numbered Walking Trail 13
384
Walking Path
N
Numbered Walking Trail 14
171
Walking Path
O
Numbered Walking Trail 15
241
Walking Path
P
Tukwila Community Center Trail
1294
Multi -Use
O
K|ickitatTrai|
1524
Multi -Use
R
Riverton Park Trail
156
Multi -Use
S
S130thStairs
158
Stairs
T
Mink|ertnGreen River Trail Connection
433
Multi -Use
U
Green River Footbridge
BJ
Multi -Use
V
59thAve 5Trail
1546
Walking Path
VV
Tukwila Pond Park Trail
677
Walking Path
X
Tukwila Pond Wetland Buffer Trail
733
Walking Path
Y
DuwamishA\UentownPedestrian Bridge
260
Pedestrian Bridge
TOTAL
3.06(mi|es)
66
City v/Tukwila zmsPROS Plan � Inventory uAssessment 50
0100
Shorewm,
Park •
Se hunt Park
• , „
LAke Boheln,
School •
'hhforeelakihrl4
Hijhond
Pkrygroin
SOOIB
W001crest
Pork
Morr0=0isirme,
Proposed Trail Improvements
Tukwila Trails
— City of Tukwila Owned Trails
-• Green River Trail (King County)
Interurban Trail (Puget Sound Energy)
Private
Trails in King County
Paved Trail
Soft Surface Trail
On Street Trail
Under Construction
Trailheads
City of Tukwila Parks & Open Space
lueo!
A. Walking Trail #1
B. Walking Trail #2
C. Walking Trail #3
D. Walking Trail #4
E. Walking Trail #5
F. Walking Trail #6
G. Walking Trail #7
H. Walking Trail #8
I. Walking Trail #9
J. Walking Trail #10
K. Walking Trail #11
L. Walking Trail #12
M. Walking Trail #13
N. Walking Trail #14
O. Walking Trail #15
P. Tukwila Community Center Trail
Q. Klickitat Trail
R. Riverton Park Trail
S. S 130th Stairs
T. Minkler-Green River Trail Connection
U. Green River Footbridge
V. 59th Ave S Trail
W. Tukwila Pond Park Trail
X. Tukwila Pond Wetland Buffer Trail
City Owned Property
Art Y. Duwamish/Allentown Pedestrian Bridge
4,000
Feet
1010
ma,visto Any,
DES Ef Or „
,%11...Stect.
101
eighb&lif
hvek ot114a101h, •
Conwhaney,T,le'r41,0,
Highline 'ea,
iietamea4k',c,ke
10,
hlots,Creek
"tC
Park
10
ei,5ete
h"
SEAT
Phdeeld
0 MERER
ISLAND'
fre —
kutOirl,st;p:
Fuji no
sk,4 !VIVO :tiafrNry,
'rho.
elhalch.
s-Ichlhch
hr,hlehInt
veht
RENTON
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Inventory & Ass.P7ent 51
Parks���=. Recreation,
�������� ���'�������N��0�
, ��^�� � �����0 n��m����0m�'0 N
� ,
N 0 ��N� Space��N���
�w���m��N N w�n������m�� ��0 0��
m m �
Trails
Assessment
N N-��NN�� ��&�����������������NL
�"����=� � �������������°�w�°�
This Inventory section pairs asystematic, itemized
inventory ofparks, open spaces, and trails with
astructured assessment process. The intent is
todocument what exists today, verify condition
and function inthe field, and translate those
observations into consistent rankings that inform
level Vfservice findings, quality oflife outcomes, and
implementation priorities.
This assessment treats the inventory asmore
than alist nfassets. |tdocuments facilities, lands,
programs, and their condition, and itincludes
projected annual maintenance and operational costs
for each site. Condition and cost are foundational \o
identifying renovation and replacement needs and
tnunderstanding overall system capacity.
Tosupport clear decision making, the assessment
is organized into two parts. First' an existing
conditions assessment summarizes the performance
and condition ofkey assets and amenities. Second, a
planning context review identifies the programmatic
and regulatory frameworks that influence how each
site functions, ismanaged, and can evolve over time.
Together, these components support consistent
comparisons across the system, clarify constraints
and opportunities, and strengthen long-term
stewardship nfthe park system.
Parks
� ~
��� N���� ��o� ��
�~��� N��� �� ������N��������"m w�~� �=
Quality -of -Life DN~°veN°
Parks, trails, and open spaces are core community
infrastructure because they translate land into daily
outcomes, physical activity, mental restoration'
social connection, identity, and resilience.
Washington's statewide recreation and conservation
planning ties park proximity and access to
improved health and 0ua|ity'of-Lifeoutcomes,
including associations between park proximity and
recreational walking and linkages between access to
green space, reduced stress, and improved mental
well-being. In the Growth Management Act context,
parks, recreation, and open space planning isalso
framed asaOua|ity'of-Lifeissue that must be
sustained ascommunities grow.
68
City n/mkvvn°zmsPROS Plan �Inventory uAusessmmt 52
Park Benefits
Because these benefits vary bvsite, the inventory
and assessment process isstructured tndocument
not only what each park contains' but the distinct
contributions itprovides based onits role inthe
system, service area, and character. Toaid budgeting,
resource allocation, and |eve|-of-serviceplanning,
parks are assessed for the benefits they deliver,
° Physical & Mental Health: Assessing apark by
expected orprojected use helps visitors know what
toexpect and allows park managers toestablish
rules and guidelines that ensure visitors' safety and
preserve the parktresources.
~ Ecological Diversity: Parks often vary interms
oftheir ecosystems and biodiverdty.Assessing
parks based ontheir ecological features can aid in
understanding and protecting these unique natural
environments.
° Cultural and Historical Significance: Some
parks are often assessed based ontheir cultural
orhistorical importance. These designations help
preserve and showcase sites of cultural heritage'
such ashistorical landmarks, archaeological sites,
and areas with indigenous significance.
° Tourism & Branding Benefits: Classifying parks
can aid in promoting tourism and attracting visitors.
Visitors often have varying interests, socategorizing
parks allows tourism agencies totarget specific
audiences with appropriate marketing strategies.
~ Educational and interpretive Benefits:
Classification helps in developing educational
programs and interpretive materials tailored tnthe
parKsunique characteristics. This enhances visitor
experiences byproviding relevant information about
the park's netura|, cu|tura|, and historical attributes.
~ Research and Conservation Planning: Scientists
and conservationists can use classification systems to
prioritize research efforts and develop conservation
plans. Byunderstanding the different types ufparks
and their specific features, they can focus nnareas
that are most inneed ofstudy and protection.
Overview of the Assessment
Process
For this plan, the assessment work iscompleted
asanextension ofthe inventory workflow, using a
repeatable sequence that connects mapped data,
field verification, and scoring.
First, the team compiled and mapped the system
inventory, including site boundaries, access pnints,
known assets and amenities, and relevant constraints
or encumbrances.
This included developing an"inventory record" for
each site that issuitable for both analysis and ongoing
system management. See Appendix Xfor the complete
inventory record for each asset.
Second, the team verified inventory accuracy and
observed conditions inthe field. This included
confirming entrances, circulation, visibility, use
patterns, comfort, and condition ofkey assets, along
with documentation that supports later scoring and
defensible prioritization.
Third, the team assigned standardized rankings across
two complementary lenses. One lens focused on
existing conditions and asset performance, including
|ifecydeand maintainability. The other lens focuses
onquality nflife contribution, emphasizing how well
each site functions for real users, inreal travel sheds,
under real constraints. These contributions were
heavi|iyinformed bvthe results coming from the Public
Engagement Plan results.
Fourth' results were quality controlled for scoring
consistency and calibration across the full system.
Where data was incomplete, the scoring included a
confidence notation sodecision makers understand
where findings are field verified versus inferred.
Finally, the assessment outputs are compiled into
park, open space, and trail profiles that can bcrolled
upinto systemwide findings for level ofservice,
equity ofaccess, maintenance and renewal needs,
and capital prioritization. This structure mirrors R[O's
guidance that needs are best determined byassessing
multiple criteria and metrics, including access issues'
maintenance levels, and capacity constraints, and that
LOStools can help identify strengths and weaknesses
inparks and trails systems.
��
o�v/m**nazozspnosr/an � /m�vm�ux,����e"/ 53
K�m�*�KU^�^�°� Assessment
n�n�x�~.nxn�uu m��.��n���«�....~xx�Categories
Each site was assessed and documented across
baseline "inventory and management" categories,
then through the Quality ofLife methodology
described below.
The baseline categories captured for every site
include location context, park classification, facility
age and reinvestment history, site history and
known issues, funding encumbrances and regulatory
constraints, condition of individual components
and amenities, and maintenance considerations,
including known repair needs and recurring problem
areas.
Sites owned, leased, ormanaged bvprivate orNGO
entities, such asStarfireSports, and assets owned
byother agencies orprivate schools are typically
included inmapping and amenity inventory,
but are not scored within the [ity'smanaged-asset
assessment results, toavoid mixing governance'
responsibility, and budget authority.
poll)
%, P
Geographic Access
Walkable mameabw
ocw""cw^,
Transit & Regional Links
Safe mBarrier-Free Access
Habitat uowm,ermty
Tree Canopy m
Green Infrastructure
Water Quality a
^to,mwmte,
Climate Resilience
uyu,ta/m,bnxv
Environmental Education
*Stewamshiv
1 ACCESS
I
03.NATURE
� .
Quality m� Life Scoring
~���n." ��n �nn� =��K�ng
The Quality nfLife method is a structured' multi
theme scoring framework that complements
traditional level of service analysis by evaluating
practical access, usability, comfort, belonging,
environmental function, and operational
sustainabi|ity. It is designed to answer simple
question: beyond "does apark exist nearby'''how
well does itwork for the community itismeant to
serve.
Each indicator is scored on 1 to 5 scale and
recorded with oconfidence rating and brief notes
or evidence. Scores are informed bvoblend ofG|S
analysis, field observation, staff input, and document
review, with primary data sources identified tnkeep
scoring defensible and repeatable.
More information nnthis model isincluded inthe
Demand & Needs section ofthis report.
Tukwila Parks, Recreation
& Open Space System
These four categories guide how xeassess,
prioritize, and invest inparks, recreation,
open space, and trails tvenhance quality
of life for all Tukwila residents.
'
Figureo'15: Community Quality of Life Scoring
_
`
`
Physical Activity
Opportunities
Mental Health
& Stress Relief
Nature Interaction
Safe & Clean Spaces
Programs for All Ages
& Abilities
Inclusive xWelcvmmo
Spaces
^�Gathering & Event
�portunities
�
�
ftural Express& Heritage
ion
w
Volunteerism
*
Civic Engagement
`
Co
mmunity Partnerships
City of T(jkA?ila 2020 PROS Plan I Inventory & Assessment 54
Maintenance Baseline Assumptions
To link assessment findings to realistic operations planning, each site is also associated with a target
maintenance tier and baseline cost assumptions (2O25).Level 1 isassumed at$2lS51 per acre, Level 2at
$15'97yper acre, Level ]at$7,G53per acre, and Level 4at$4.000per acre. Estimated annual O&M need is
calculated as (developed acres x level cost) + (undeveloped acres x level cost). This provides a consistent,
systemwide way to discuss the operational implications of asset complexity, condition, desired service levels,
and reinvestment strategy. For more detailed analysis of these levels, please see Appendix X.
Assessment Ranking System
Two related scoring scales are used, depending onwhat isbeing scored.
For Quality ofLife indicators, the scoring is 1 to 5.where 5 reflects strong performance relative tncontext
and reflects a meaningful deficiency that limits outcomes for users. Each score is paired with a confidence
rating to indicate whether the conclusion is strongly field verified' moderately supported, or preliminary due
tolimited data.
For asset and amenity condition scoring (existing conditions and |ifecyc|e), the scale may include a Ova|ue
to indicate "not present" or "not applicable," so that missing amenities are not misinterpreted as failing
amenities. Where park level roll -ups are used, overall
site assessment scores are calculated by averaging
the applicable indicator and amenity scores, with
documentation retained so decision makers can see what
drove the result.
Arecommended interpretation for the 5tnUscale used in
existing conditions scoring issummarized tothe right.
Aadescribed above, the Inventory and assessment
process documents how parks, open spaces, and trails
perform today, both in terms of asset condition and in
terms nfQuality ofLife outcomes such asaccess, comfort,
activation' and belonging. That site level perspective is
necessary, but itisnot sufficient onits own. Long-term
performance isalso shaped bythe policy environment
that governs land use, transportation, public health,
capital investment, environmental protection, and the
regulatory constraints oropportunities that affect what
the City can realistically maintain, improve, and deliver.
For that reason, the assessment framework includes
acompanion review ofthe Oty'sbroader planning
documents and related policy frameworks that intersect
the PROS system.
Table
Score
-
2'11: Assessment Rankings
Description
E�eUentcond�nnand pe�ormano�long
remaining life, nonotable deficiencies
4
Good condition, minor wear, routine
maintenance sufficient
3
Fair condition, on visible wear, mid term repair or
renewal planning needed
2
Poor condition, functional near
' '
term repair orreplacement likely
'
[hdca|cnnd�n�h�risk
failure, immediate action needed
0
Not present nrnot applicable for this site
��
cx«v/Tukwila znzspnosp/a" | Inventory & Aav�s�cn/ 55
Key
#
1
TabUe2'12: Existing
Name
[ed| Moses Memorial Park*
Parks &
Assessment
Rating
3.3
Public Spaces
Aoneom&
Proximity
3
Sym%mnn Assessment
Envinonnmen1&
Health
4
Matrix
Cultural &
8moia|
Belonging
3
Financial &
�
Operational Sus -
tainabi|i1y
3
2
North Wind's Weir
3.0
2
5
2
3
3
Chinook Wind Park
3.8
3
5
3
4
4
DuwambhGardens
4.3
4
5
4
4
5
DummmishHill Preserve
4.0
3
5
5
3
6
116th Ave Mini Park
3.0
3
4
2
3
7
DummmishPark
2.5
3
Z
3
2
8
Tukwila Community Center
IO
4
3
5
3
9
Cndiga Farm Park
3.5
3
4
4
3
0
Riverton Park
3.3
3
3
4
3
11
Riverton Mini Park
2.5
3
Z
Z
3
12
Southgate Park
2.5
2
4
1
3
13
Pamela Drive Open Space
2.5
Z
4
1
3
14
57thAve South Mini Park
2.8
3
3
2
3
15
Foster Golf Links
3.8
4
3
4
4
16
Joseph FosterMemoria|/Lpe
Philips Park
�
28
2
3
4
2
17
Cascade Wew[nmmunhv
Park '
35
�
4
3
4
3
18
Tukwila Pool**
lO
4
2
4
2
19
Macadam Wedands&
Winter Garden
]O
'
2
S
2
3
20
Hazelnut Park
2.0
2
2
2
2
Z1
Fo�De�ParW�arO�
Sports***
4.0
4
3
5
4
22
Tukwila Park
3.0
3
4
3
Z
23
|kawaPark �apanese
Garden)
30
�
3
3
4
2
24
Nelsen Side Channel
3.3
2
S
Z
4
25
Crystal Springs Park
2.8
3
4
Z
2
26
Crestview Park
2.8
3
3
2
2
27
Bicentennial Park
3.5
4
4
3
3
28
Tukwila Pond
2.0
1
4
1
2
29
P'17Pnnd
3.0
3
4
2
3
Currently open space with asmall ,railhmdarea only.
�'Tukwila Pool, /, managed by the Tukwila Metropolitan Pool District, not byTukwila Parks & Recreation Department.
72
Tukwi|a'sComprehensive Plan has abroad focus,
yet there are many intersections between the
p|an'sElements and the PROS subject areas. The
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space chapter ofthe
Comprehensive Plan incorporates the PROS plan
bvexplicit reference tofulfill State requirements
and reflect local aspirations for the parks system.
Asstated bythe Comprehensive Plan, "this [porks]
system supports healthy lifestyles, community
interaction and identity, while supporting economic
vitality" (Comprehensive Plan, Parks' Recreation'
and Open Space Chapter).The Comprehensive Plan,
therefore, highly values land use and transportation
planning, environmental restoration initiatives'
economic development, and community activities
that are integrated with the PROS system goals,
policies, and strategies topromote ahealthy and
livable Tukwila.
This section will summarize the policy connections
between each Element and the PROS policies,
reporting upon where there are areas ofalignment,
which policies are potentially inconflict with each
other, and where there are gaps inthe PROS goals
and policies which present opportunities tobetter
integrate with each element.
The urban form, including the infrastructure and
built environment, affects the health ofresidents and
workers, aswell asthe overall community identity.
The proximity oftrails, sidewalks for safe walking,
transit connections toreduce the use ofsingle-
occupant vehidestha\contributctoairpoUution'
the availability ofrecreation programs, and access to
healthy and affordable food choices all contribute to
the health ofacommunity.
The importance ofproviding healthy living choices
isreflected throughout the Comprehensive Plan
especially inthis element, as well as in the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space, Economic Development,
and Transportation elements.
|nthe past, community members have consistently
expressed their desire for better access to
recreational opportunities, safer routes tnschools
for children, and better access tVaffordable, good
quality food, including fresh fruits and vegetables.
The U.S.Department ofAgriculture identified Tukwila
asa"food desert'~based Vnits definition that
Tukvvi|a'slow- income census tracts show asignificant
number ofresidents are located more than one mile
from the nearest supermarket.
Expanding access tohealthy food and providing job
training opportunities isanimportant City goal. The
City will continue toseek out opportunities tnensure
that community members have access to hands-on
vocational training that provides the opportunity to
become better integrated into local communities and
economies.
The following tables offer ananalysis ofareas of
alignment and potential conflicts nrtension between
the Community Character ([[) policies and the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space (PROS)policies.
Collectively, the Community Character and PROS
policies reflect shared commitment to creating
anattractive, inclusive, and culturally rich Tukwila.
Both envision acity where design, art, culture, and
recreation intersect to strengthen social cohesion
and civic pride. The main opportunities lie in
coordinated implementation —aligning art and
heritage initiatives with park programming and urban
design, while the main challenges involve balancing
activation and preservation, funding priorities,
and community preferences. When addressed
collaboratively, these two policy frameworks form
acoherent foundation for alivable and distinctive
�
f,
The Land Use Element nfTukvvi|a'sComprehensive
Plan establishes the framework for managing
projected growth through 2044while ensuring land
use decisions support quality oflife, environmental
stewardship, and equitable economic opportunity.
|tdirects the distribution and intensity ofland
uses needed toaccommodate 6'5OOnew housing
units and 15'890additinna| jobs, aligning local
planning with the Growth Management Act, Vision
2OSU'and Countywide Planning Policies. The
Element emphasizes compact, transit -supported
development, resilient neighborhoods, compatibility
nfadjacent uses, and coordinated planning across
Tukvvi|a's diverse districts and subareas.
7�
c/�n/*� �nInventory pznzspnosr/av � uA,sm��cvt 57
Primary F#cus Areas
The Land Use Element centers onseven major thernes:
1. Regional Growth Management & Compliance - Aligning with GK8A,Vision 2U5O'and countywide targets for
housing, employment, and land capacity.
2. Compact, Efficient, andTranoit'Supportive Deve|opnment- Directing growth into regional centers, transit station
areas, and mixed'usedistricts.
3. Land Use Designations & Zoning Alignment - Establishing residential, commercial, mixed -use, and industrial
designations that guide future development patterns.
4. Healthy, Equitable, and Resilient Communities - Addressing displacement, improving access to opportunity,
reducing environmental burdens, and promoting ws|kabi|ity.
5. Subarea Planning for Key Districts - Advancing tailored land use strategies for the Boeing Access Road Station
Area, Tukwila South, and Tukwila International Boulevard.
6� Compatibility & Nuisance Mitigation - Managing cross -jurisdictional impacts, airport -related noise, and
incompatible land uses.
T Investment & Revitalization - Leveraging public and private investment to catalyze redevelopment and
infrastructure improvements, especially within TIB and regional centers.
Ek.,ment Relationship
Land Use Element (Growth Management) + PROS (Recreation Infrastructure) = Livable Community
Land Use Element projects thatTukvvi|atogrovvhronn-2O'8OOto-3G'OOOrpsidentsby2044.
Table 2-13:
Theme
AccessandPomimity
Umventmry& Management
Required
1Ominute walk aoess�a|�«banier�eveh��entrancemmi|abi|hv
and| �bi|��unkersa|acoessatanivattranshadjacency
Categories Themes &Assessmnemt
Indicator
'� '� '
Indicators
Inputs
��|kshedmappi���e|dveh�cahon'
'
ADAchecks; transit mapping
Achvahonand Use
Active amenity intensity rc|adO relative to space,-
nbscmeduse and dweUdm�evening sa��andcomfort;pmgmm �� `
fit
Inventory review; field observation; '
opr��ionsinpu�pmQram
documentation and engagement
feedback
Environmental and
Health Value
Shade and heacomfort; rt;naturecnntaoLandrestorahonva|ue;
active recreation health benefit; envim'nmenta|bu��rfunction�
water and resilience role
Canopy and basi�basin
review; stewardship input; inventory
confirmation
[u|tum|and Social
�
Belonging
°
Cultural representation; �welcome and inclusion signals; gpthehng
suitability;
'�
risk
Field �«iev�artsand identity
references�hereapp|icab|�
engagement inpu��affand pa�ner
perspectives
Financial and
Operational
Sustainabi|ity
Maintenance dera|ignmen�asset complexity burden�|ifecyc|e/is�'
' '
enmmbnanceand constmintsredundancynrri�ht�izenppn�uni\y
'
Exis�in�mnd�ionsaoessmen�a�set
|o�swhereavai|ab|e'R[Oencumbmnce
'
references;
74
City o/x/xw//a20osPROS Plan | Inventory u^*sesmc"' 58
Tension
Area
Residential'
Density vs. Park
�
Capacity
TabUe2'14: Areas of Potential Conflict
Source ofPotential Conflict
Land Use assi s�mwtht��e�nf6SO0new
�''
housing units vby residents);
-' '
focuses density
� '
areas(LU 11 7) and High Density
� �
zones (LU3Z) PROS
�
asdeMdentinsomeaeas Rapid
without pmpnrdona|park enhancements creates
overcrowding and service level decline.
or Tension ' Land Use Element
Suggested Mitigation
Coordinate analysis w�hPROS park
'
service area ana|ysis Require developer contributions for
'
park improvements nrnew parkland when upzoningorlarge
developments per Land Use Policy LU1D1 Prioritize PROS
' �
park expansinn/acquisidoninaoasta�e�dfor residenha|
growth.Establish park acreage rohostandards inLand Use
development regulations for high -density zones.
Development
Pressure on
Potential Park
Sites
Land Use focuses growth inUrban Center, T|B.
Tukwila South where development pressure is
high PROS
�
parks, which may compete with Land Use economic
development priorities. Acquiring
�
becomes prohibitively expensive inareas zoned for
high -value commercial/residential uses.
Identify priority park sites early insubarea planning process
per Land Use Goals 9-1' D Include park needs assessment
in Use Land Use Policy LU
�
18'2authority toacquire/assemble parcels for parks, not
� �u�deve|npmen�Require park dedicadVnorfee�in'|ieuin
development agreements per UJl83.Consider land banking
orconservation easements before areas fully develop.
Parking
Standards vs,
�
Park Access
LandUseGna|s8pn|ide�forT|Breduceparkin�
requirementstoencnum��tmnri�wa|kin�(LU
13l LU 13 2) While � ' � �
families
'
sports equipment, picnic
'
�
access Insufficient parks drive
visitors to parks in other cities with ample parking.
`'
Differentiate parking �ondardsbvparktype�lower parking
' �
fnrurbanp|azasandnei�hborhnudparks inwalkable
area�adequateparkin�fnrre�iona|destinationpa/ks
andspn�scomp|e�s Use Land Use Policy 13.2 sha�d
�
parkin�apprnach--parkscnu|dsharepa/kin�witha�acent
~
commercial useshmeekdayvs weekend demand patterns
�
� . Pmvidesecure bicycle parking per �anspnrtatinn
Element di��tnenab|ebikeacoess.
Environmentalsensitive
Protection
vs Park
'
Development
Land Use Policy LU24equire��trictadheence '
to Natural Environment Bementpm�ctingcritical |
areaswetlands, steep Some
' ' '
sites have environmental constraints that limit
active development. PROS
'
natural areas AND developed recreation facilities.
Tension between preservation and public access.
Adopt tiered approach: (1)Preeememost sensitive areas
aspassive parks per PROS policies 21��'(�Develop less
' '3'
areas with low -impact facilities; (3)Concentrate
active recreation inalready-disturbed areas UsePROS
'
trail classification system allowing natural surface trails
insensitive areas while providing accessible paved trails
elsewhere, Coordinate Land Use critical areas review with
PROS park design tufind appropriate balance.
Industrial
Uses vs. Park
Compatibility
Land Use designates Manufacturing Industrial
[enter(M|[/L, M|[/H)covering large portion nf
city (policies LUl14'LU3]5).Industrial operations
generate noise, odors, truck traffic, and safety
concerns. PROS serves workforce with parks near
employment (policy 1.2) but industrial context
creates chaUenQinyparkenvimnment.
Establish buffer standards between heavy industrial uses and
parks. Design parks in industrial areas for appropriate uses
(walking trails, sports fields) rather than passive relaxation.
Coordinate with Land Use Policy LU82toaddress noise
impacts affecting parks. Use landscape screening and berms.
Consider parks nnindustrial sites only where compatible (e.g,
waterfront trail along industrial corridor). Prioritize worker -
serving amenities like covered lunch areas rather than full
parks.
7�
o�nrwx�nnanzspno�p/"n | mmnm��^a,�xmcvt 59
001
: r'�� *6e
Areas of Alignment ~~.~.. PROS
Plan
The Land Use Element and PROS Plan share strong
alignment across several areas, asshown inTable
2-15onthe following page.
Gaps In PROS Plan That Could Be
Strengthened ByLand Use Element
I~ No Int--gration with G�,argets or
Land Capacity Analysis
°
+ Gap: PROS doesn't reference Land Use growth
target (6'5OOhousing units, 15.89Ujobs by2044
or discuss how park system must expand to serve
population growth.
° Land Use Element Provides: Specific growth
projections, land capacity analysis (UJ1.3buildable
lands program)'density requirements, growth
distribution patterns.
~ Impact: PROS may plan park system for current
population while Land Use enables 78Y6population
inc/ease.
o Subarea-Soecific Park Policies
° Gap: PROS has citywide policies but doesn't
address unique park needs of Land Use subareas
(Boeing Access Road Station, Tukwila South, T|B
District, Urban Center, Manufacturing Industrial
Center).
~ Land Use Element Provides: Detailed subarea
goals and policies (Goals 9'l8)identifying character,
uses' priorities' and infrastructure needs for each
area.
° Impact: Subareas develop without adequate
park planning; park types may not match subarea
character orpopulation needs.
3 No Coordination, with Comprehensive
Plan Designations
* Gap: PROS doesn't explain how park needs differ
based onLand Use designations (Community
Residential vs. High Density Residential vs. Regional
Commercial vs. Manufacturing Industrial Center).
° Land Use Element Provides: Table 1showing
all comprehensive plan designations and
corresponding zoning; policies describing character
and uses ofeach designation (policies LU31-3]5).
^ Impact: Park planning doesn't adapt toland
use context; same park approach applied to
incompatible areas.
76
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plat) � Inventory & Assessment 60
4 No Developer CorAribulion or Parklarid
Dedication Requiren'rierits
^ Gap: PROS doesn't establish mechanism for requiring
park contributions when Land Use enables upzoning
orlarge developments.
° Land Use Element Provides: Framework for
public -private partnerships (Goal 18)'development
agreements(LU 183)' developer incentives (LU 18.5)'
infrastructure investment coordination (LU 18.1).
° Impact: City misses opportunities to leverage private
development for park acquisition orimprovements;
park deficiencies worsen asdensity increases.
5~No Recognition mfTransit-Griented
Develop �'Twnt laipacts on Parks
° Gap: PROS mentions transit access (policy 17)but
doesn't address how Land Use's TODpolicies create
concentrated demand onparks.
^ Land Use Element Provides: Specific TODpolicies
for Tukwila International Boulevard Station (LU 11.7'
11.9)' Boeing Access Road Station (Goal 9)' Urban
Center station areas; emphasis on mid -to -high-rise
density.
° Impact: TODareas have high population density but
may lack proportional park space; PROS doesn't plan
for urban park types appropriate to high -density
context.
6~No Arlfi~D. placernent or Gyneen
Gentr��ca,ti��.,,i,N�
° Gap: PROS doesn't acknowledge that park
improvements could contribute todisplacement
pressures invulnerable neighborhoods.
° Land Use Element Provides: Explicit displacement
mitigation policies (LU74'LU75)'affordable housing
emphasis (LU75)'equity focus (LU73),community
engagement requirements (LU6]).
* Impact: PROS investments may inadvertently
contribute to gentrification, displacing the
communities they intended tnserve.
T No Iritegration with Land Use
con1patib^|ity Policie's
° Gap: PROS doesn't address how parks function
differently when adjacent coheavy industry, regional
commercial, airports, orrailways.
° Land Use Element Provides: Land use compatibility
goal (Goal 8)and policies addressing noise (LU8.2),
nuisances(LU 8.4), airport impacts (LU 8.5-8.6),
incompatible uses (LU8])'wildfire risk (LU8.8).
~ Impact: Parks developed without consideration of
challenging contexts; user experience degraded by
adjacent incompatible uses.
8 No Parkil'and Acquisition Strategy,for
Constrained Sites
^ Gap: PROS identifies park search areas but doesn't
explain how to acquire land in areas with high
development pressure and land values.
~ Land Use Element Provides: Policies onstrategic
land acquisition and assembly (LU182).using city -
owned property strategically (LU 18.4)'coordinating
stormvvaterdetention that could create park
opportunities (LU187).
° Impact: City unable tosecure parkland ingrowth
areas because all available sites develop for higher -
value usesbeforeparkscanbeestab|ished,
9. No Coord~
Access PoKici�-
~0n with, Healthy
Food
* Gap: PROS doesn't connect recreation facilities with
Land Use healthy food access priorities.
~ Land Use Element Provides: Policies promoting
urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers
markets (LUTl'LU72).healthy food purveyors near
residential uses.
° Impact: Missed opportunities to co -locate
community gardens with parks' host farmers markets
in park spaces, integrate food production into
recreation areas.
10.N@ Recognitionmf Essential Public
Facilities Coordination
° Gap: PROS doesn't reference Land Use requirements
for essential public facilities siting with environmental
justice considerations.
° Land Use Element Provides: Goal 6onessential
public facilities coordination with environmental
justice prindp|es(LU 6]. LU 62).
° Impact: Parks not adequately considered asessential
public facilities requiring equitable distribution;
benefits and impacts not analyzed through
environmental justice lens.
77
o�o/*��nazozspnosp/"v � mvc"m�*��,munc"t 61
Theme
Table 2-15: Comprehensive Plan' - Areas
of Alignment
How They Reinforce Each Other
Shared Intent Across Both Policy Sets
Community
Gathering &
Social Cohesion
CC-1.1, CC-5.4, CC-5.5 encourage creating gathering spaces,
cultural events, and celebrations; PROS Goal 3 and 4.2
emphasize parks and recreation as venues for social
interaction and diverse programming.
Parks, plazas, and cultural venues can host
complementary programs such as multicultural
festivals, community markets, and recreational
events, strengthening civic pride and inclusivity.
Public Art &
Placemaking
CC 1.2, CC 1.4, CC 1.6, CC 4.5 and PROS 3.4 prioritize
integrating public art, creative design, landmarks, and
placemaking into public spaces,
Coordinated design of art, streetscapes, and cultural
projects can enhance visual identity and community
character, reinforcing a cohesive sense of place
across neighborhoods and parks.
Cultural &
Historical
Interpretation
CC-3, CC-3.2, CC-4, CC-4.1, CC-4.4, CC-5.4, CC-5.5 emphasize
protecting historical, archaeological, and culturally significant
sites and interpreting heritage; PROS 33 promotes
interpretation of local culture, history, and environment in
parks.
Parks and recreation spaces can host interpretive
signage, exhibits, and educational programs that
preserve heritage while enhancing recreation
experiences.
Community
Involvement /
Stewardship
CC-5.4, CC-5.5 promote participation in cultural and heritage
activities; CC-9.3 encourages interlocal collaboration; PROS
2.5, 5.4 emphasize volunteerism, public awareness, and
participatory planning.
Volunteer events, stewardship programs, and
advisory committees engage residents in both
cultural and recreational initiatives, fostering civic
pride and cross -jurisdictional collaboration,
Sense of Place /
Neighborhood
Identity
CC-1, CC-1.2, CC-1.3, CC-1.4, CC-1.6, CC-2, CC-2.1, CC-2.4, CC-4.5
emphasize visually attractive neighborhoods, placemaking,
connectivity, landscaping, and art; PROS Goal 3, 3.4, 5.2
highlight design quality and identity in parks.
Coordinated design standards, streetscape
improvements, trail connections, and park planning
strengthen a cohesive Tukwila identity and
neighborhood character.
Safety &
Maintenance
CC-1.5 emphasizes lighting and crime -reduction design;
PROS 5.1, 5.2, 5.8 focus on CPTED, high -quality design, and
maintenance,
Both sets support safe, accessible, and well -
maintained public spaces, ensuring parks, plazas,
trails, and cultural areas are welcoming and secure.
Environmental
Integration
& Green
Infrastructure
CC-2.4 promotes street trees and landscaping; CC-2 and
CC-2.1 promote continuous walkways and trails; PROS 2.4
encourages integrating natural features like streams, trees,
and vegetation.
Green infrastructure and landscaping can be
coordinated across streets, neighborhoods, and
parks to enhance environmental quality, recreation,
and neighborhood identity.
Regional
Coordination &
Strategic Facility
Placement
CC-9.2, CC-9.3 encourage strategic placement of capital
facilities and interlocal agreements; PROS 2.3 emphasizes
coordinating with regional and local plans,
Ensures park and recreation facilities are integrated
into broader city and regional plans, optimizing
public benefit, accessibility, and cross -jurisdictional
collaboration.
1 2025 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Update
78
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Inventory & Assessment 62
Public
Involvement
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Public Invo7gent(33
I
I
Introduction
/\ community's park system succeeds when planning
isgrounded inthe lived experience ofthe people
who use it. For the PROS Plan update, the City and
consultant team designed and implemented a
public involvement process that prioritized listening,
accessibility, and choice, soTukwila residents, workers,
and visitors could meaningfully shape the plan through
�
10)
multiple engagement formats and touch points.
Because grant programs and other decision
makers increasingly emphasize alignment with a
community's desired quality oflife, public involvement
was treated asthe central driver nfthe planning
process. Engagement was structured tncapture the
ideas, goals, and priorities that matter most tothe
community, and toclearly translate those needs into
actionable direction for the [itv'sparks, recreation,
and open space system.
The intent behind the approach was toavoid outcomes
being shaped only bythose most able tVparticipate
intraditional public meetings. Engagement goals and
methods were developed tobroaden participation
across neighborhoods, ages, cultures, and languages,
and tosupport anequitable distribution ofneeds,
wishes, and ideas. The result isaPROS Plan that
reflects Tukvvi|a'scommunity context and provides a
credible foundation for future policy, investnnent, and
grant readiness.
Engagement
� �
���� �� ��0������N Goals
~N N�����N��0����m�� �� Multi
N Implement �N� N��N N�N- ° �� ~~..�=~ w� wm
��N:���=��� ����������������
�-N���N��m�nm ���mw���° �
��� ~�
�������NN°�� ����NN°����0=N�� ����=�
Ensure ~° Equitable ��N �� °= ���� �� �� ��wm
���� =0 �� N=° Public
N~���� �����w &���� NN N�w
w ��w=������°�=~~NNn�m �~ ���
�� �� m~r
�������°��°����fF°����
�~��m �N��N �N
���� �.nm
Tukwila is a dense' urban city with significant racial,
80
City of Tukkla 2026 PROS Plan I Public nvolvemcnt 64
�
ethnic, linguistic, and economic diversity, aswell
asalarge daytime population that commutes
into the city for work. To ensure that public input
reflected experiences and priorities from across
neighborhoods, cultures, age groups, and user types,
the PROS Plan engagement strategy emphasized
equitable distribution ofoutreach throughout the
city. Particular attention was given to communities
with historically limited access to parks' lower
household incomes, and higher proportions of
residents who speak languages other than English,
aswell astonon-resident workers who regularly use
Tukvvi|a'sparks during the workday.
Recognizing that residents and workers engage in
different ways and face varying barriers related to
time, language, technology access, and mobility,
the City implemented omulti-platform engagernent
approach. Engagement methods included online and
paper surveys, in -person outreachatcornnnunity
events' pop-up engagement atparks and gathering
places, and direct outreach supported bycommunity
partners. Engagement materials were offered in
multiple languages toreduce language barriers,
and surveys were structured toallow participation
without requiring internetaccess. Together, these
strategies helped ensure broad and inclusive
participation and that planning outcomes were
informed by diverse and representative cross-
section of the Tukwila community.
�� Provide
broad
=^�
����N �� �� ����� ���0�����
��° �~� ��� ���~° �� ��n �*�=�� range m ~° ��N
��������^�°���N����^��� ���°��N= �FN=�� ���=°0°�F��
~�����~°�U���������� °���NN �NN~° ability
��� ������N�� ����� �=����� ����
��� supply both broad �� ~����� �� �� m ���� w�wm
��������°���� action —oriented
specific �N � N � ��
�m~��� �w ���� ���m ~�m ~°�m .°
feedback.
N~
N��d� ����
�~�������=~r��°
Public engagement for the Tukwila PROS Plan was
structured tncapture bothsystern'vvide priorities
and site'specific'actionable input. Engagement
tools allowed participants tVexpress broad values
related to park access, programming, affordability,
"Wo
��_ —�
w�
and environmental stewardship, while also providing
opportunities tocomment onspecific parks, facilities,
and types ofimprovements.
This layered engagement approach supports
informed and innp|ernentab|edecision-making
bvlinking community vision with nn'the'ground
conditions inabuilt-out urban environment. |t
also ensures that feedback can be meaningfully
translated into |eve|'of-serviceanalysis, capital
improvement planning, and future investments that
address the needs nfTukvvi|a'sdiverse population,
including families, working adults, older adults,
people with disabilities, and those with limited
disposable income.
�� ��������°��N��� �*� �~�N~N=� ���� ��N°
��° ���~°m�N�m�=�� �m� ��~=NN�� ��mw ��m
���N°����� ��NN�N°�� �����°�������
��=NN���=�~� ����NN~� ~*�����N����~�"�
�� °
����� �������N��NN�� u�NN������«�
Nm�~uum
previous m����~� surveys.
The City
ofTukwila has conducted prior outreach
and planning efforts related to parks' recreation'
and open space, including previous PROS planning,
Comprehensive Plan updates, and targeted
community engagement activities. This PROS Plan
update builds onthat foundation bvreviewing and
validating previously collected public input toconfirm
its continued relevance and toidentify areas where
community priorities may have shifted.
Given Tukvvi|a'schanging population, increasing
density, and evolving role asa regional employment
and commercial center, this effort recognizes that
community needs and park use patterns may differ
from earlier planning cycles. Validating past feedback
while incorporating new perspectives allows the City
to distinguish long-standing community values from
emerging priorities related toaccess, affordability,
cultural relevance, and use nfparks byboth residents
and the daytime workforce. This approach supports
continuity across planning efforts while ensuring
the PROS Plan reflects current conditions and lived
experiences.
',-�R",,4
A1
City n/**wn"zm*PROS p|av | pvu/,mvo94e"t 65
I
I
Public
= Engagement
Plan
Overview
The engagement plan was organized around a series of both virtual and analog, in -person events. Events and
surveys were advertised inEnglish, Spanish, Vietnamese and Somali.
#
1
Event
Touch aTruck
Table 3-1: Public Engagement Timeline
Engagement Type
Pop Up Booth
Date(s)
023G025
#Engeged
54
J
Farmer's Market
Pop UpBooth
9/7D025
30
J
Needs & Assessment Survey
Online Survey
9/22/2025'
353
4
Salmon Festival
Pop UpBooth
10/18/2025
86
S
Halloween Festival
Pop UpBooth
10302025
455(-2500)
610/15/2025'11/25/2025
Community Leaders
Engagements
conversations,|nperson & phone survey
assistance, live engagements atevents and parks
105
TOTAL
1.083
The development of the Tukwila Parks' Recreation,
and Open Space (PROS)Plan was informed bva
comprehensive public engagement process designed
toreflect the dty'sdiverse population, urban
character, and role asa regional employment center.
Public input was central to the planning effort,
providing valuable insight into how parks' recreation
facilities, and open spaces are used byresidents,
workers' and visitors' and helping to identify both
current challenges and future opportunities within a
built -out environment.
Community engagement included acombination
ofin-person and virtual opportunities intended to
reach a broad range of users and reduce barriers
toparticipation. Pop-up engagement events were
held atparks, community spaces, and other high -
traffic locations to meet people where they already
gather. These events provided opportunities for
informal conversation and hands-on activities that
encouraged participants toshare how they use
parks, what works well, and where improvements
are needed. Interactive tools such asmapping,
prioritization exercises, and visual boards were used
to identify gaps in park access, barriers related to
safety and maintenance, and desired amenities or
program types.
��uy�m�^�0,
�
21
`
Tosupplement in -person outreach and reach a
wider audience, the City conducted a Parks and
Recreation Needs and Assessment Survey that
was available online and in paper format. Surveys'
flyers, and outreach materials were created in
English, Vietnamese, Spanish, and Somali tobetter
reach Tukvvi|a'slinguistically diverse community.
The [ity'scommunity language center assisted with
survey translations, and trusted community leaders
helped distribute materials, encourage participation,
and bridge cultural and language barriers. This
collaborative approach expanded engagement
beyond traditional methods and helped reach
populations that are often underrepresented in
planning processes.
Survey responses were received from awide range
ofneighborhoods, age groups, household types,
and cultural backgrounds, reflecting both Tukvvi|a's
residential population and those who work orspend
time inthe city during the day. Public feedback
highlighted recurring themes related to maintenance
and cleanliness, safety and lighting, access to
restroonns.and the need for improved walking and
biking connections. Participants also emphasized the
importance ofaccessibility, culturally relevant spaces,
and programs that support families, youth, and older
adults.
Overall, the public engagement process reinforced
the importance of parks and recreation as essential
community infrastructure in Tukwila.
82
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Public nvolvement b6
The input gathered through surveys, pop-up events,
and community partnerships has directly informed
the needs assessment, |eve|'of-serviceanalysis, and
recommendations in this PROS Plan. By grounding
planning decisions incommunity perspectives, the
PROS Plan serves osa responsive and inclusive
roadrnopfor the future of parks, recreation, and
open space inTukwila.
Tnbetter understand how residents and users
experience and value parks, open spaces, and
recreation facilities in the Tukwila, a Parks and
Recreation Needs and Assessment Survey was
conducted asacore component ofthe Tukwila PROS
Plan process. The survey was designed togather
community -wide input on park use, recreation
preferences' access barriers' and priorities for future
investment, providing data -driven foundation for
evaluating existing conditions and identifying needs
across the park system.
The survey focused on understanding current
patterns of park use and visitation, identifying
barriers that limit participation, and gauging interest
in a range of recreational amenities, programs, and
facility improvements. Questions related to access,
safety, maintenance, environmental character,
and connections tonature offered insight into how
residents, workers, and visitors experience Tukvvi|a's
parks within adense urban environment. The survey
also included questions intended toinform system-
wide p|anningdecisions.foUowedbyadernographic
section used to assess the representativeness of
respondents relative tnTukvvi|o's population.
Tnencourage broad and inclusive participation, the
survey was offered through multiple engagement
platforms. Online surveys were complemented by
paper surveys distributed at parks, community
facilities, pop-up events, and other community -
serving |ocatimns'Surveyrnaieria|sandnutreach
were provided in multiple languages, including
English, Vietnamese, Spanish, and Somali, with
support from the [ity'scommunity language
center and trusted community leaders toreduce
language and cultural barriers. This multi -modal
and multilingual approach helped reach residents
across neighborhoods, cultural backgrounds, and
household types, aswell asindividuals who work or
spend time inTukwila during the day.
Targeted social media outreach onFacebook
and |nstagrurnwas used to promote the Needs
and Assessment Survey and advertise upcoming
in -person engagement events. Posts were created
inboth English and Spanish and boosted for several
weeks tVexpand reach and reduce participation
barriers byallowing community members toengage
from home orontheir own schedules. Combined
results show that the Spanish -language campaign
generated approximately 13'7O0views and reached
more than G,500users, while the English -language
campaign generated approximately 13'900views
and reached over G'O0Qusers, with both campaigns
resulting inmore than 13Qdirect survey link clicks
each. Engagement was strongest among adults ages
25to64,demonstrating that social media was an
effective and cost-efficient tool for reaching working -
age odu|tsandexponding access tnthe PROS
engagement process.
Full survey results are included inAppendix ['with
key findings and PROS -relevant insights summarized
inthis section. Survey questions related toparks
and recreation, excluding demographic questions,
° When you gotoaTukwila park o/trail, how long is
your average visit?
• What are the barriers that prevent you from using
your parks more?
^ Please select top 3needs you wish tosee inyour
parks & open spaces.
° Which other recreation opportunities inthe city/area
doyou use?
Additional demographic questions were included
\obetter understand the survey audience, identify
trends, and compare survey participation with
Tukwi|a'soverall population. This information helped
assess engagement effectiveness, identify gaps in
participation, and inform interpretation ofsurvey
results within the broader planning process.
I*
Understanding the demographic characteristics of
survey respondents is critical to interpreting the
Needs and Assessment Survey results and evaluating
how well community input reflects the broader
population ofTukwila. Survey participants represent
individuals who live in, work in, or regularly visit
Tukwila and whose experiences shape perceptions
ofthe [ity'sparks, recreation facilities, and open
spaces.
The survey successfully captured input from both
residents and non-resident park users, reflecting
Tukvvi|a'srole asaregional employment and
commercial center.
While the majority nfrespondents identified
osTukwila residents, anotable share of
participants reported living innearby
communities such as Renton, Skyway,
Auburn, Burien'Kent, Federal Way, and
Seattle. This aligns with Tukwi|a'sdaytime
population dynamics, where the workforce
and visitors significantly outnumber residents
during business hours. Including these
respondents provides important insight into
how parks and open spaces are used by
employees, commuters, and visitors, notjust
residents.
Survey respondents were primarily adults
inworking-age and older -adult cohorts.
Participation was strongest among
respondents between 38and SSand years Figure 3'1:Age Group ofSurvey Respondents
old, while youth and young adults were
underrepresented. This differs from Tukvvi|a's
overall population, where 1Q'796mfresidents
are under 1Qand the largest age cohort is
25-34years old (32'7%).with amedian
age of35,The higher average age ofsurvey
respondents suggests that younger residents,
including teens, young adults, and households
with school -aged children, were less likely to
participate. This isacommon challenge in
survey -based engagement and indicates a
need for youth -focused and family -centered
outreach infuture engagement efforts.
Racial and ethnic diversity among survey
respondents was less representative than
Tukvvi|a'sovera|| population. Tukwila is one
ofthe most diverse cities inWashington
State, with 31'096 of residents identifying as
White, 23'096Asian, 1J\596Black mrAfrican
American, and 23.496Hispanic mvLatino. |n
contrast, survey responses reflected ahigher
proportion ofWhite respondents and lower
participation from Hispanic/Latino residents
and several other communities of color
relative totheir presence in the city.
This gap is particularly significant given that
68'396wfTukwila residents identify asnon-
white and 47.3% speak alanguage other
than English athome, with approximately
2296reporting that English istheir second
language. While the survey was offered in
English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali,
and supported bycommunity leaders and
the [ity's Language Access Program, these
data indicate that additional engagement
strategies beyond surveys were necessary to
fully reach linguistically and culturally diverse Figure 3-3: Primary Language Spoken at Home by
populations. Survey Respondents
0 Afincan^~"ncan/Bw*
�*is~"wu"~
Prefer not msay
0 Asian or Asian American 0c=casian/Wm
6,9 Native American ''Pacific IsLa°der
Prefer to seLf describe
Figure3'2: Ethnic and/or Racial Group nfSurvey
Respondents
70
m
50
�m
�
°
CL 30
m
m
o
0Under , 010-17 018'29
It
,nmx viot°"— ^=bi, vk,.*i/ u*c,'wite
84
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I PLAAC Involvement 68
Survey respondents reflect ahousehold profile that
differs from Tukvvi|a's overall population. While the
[ity'smost common household types are one- and
two -person households, survey participation was
weighted toward |arger,fanni|y'sized households.
Approximately 6296ofsurvey respondents
reported living inhouseholds with three mrmore
people, compared toTukvvi|a'saverage household
size of2.7 people, and one -person households,
which make upnearly 3096mfall households
citywide were significantly underrepresented inthe
survey (14.3%ofrespondents)'Households with
children were also substantially overrepresented:
while fewer than 20Y6ofTukwila households
include children, more than two-thirds mfsurvey
respondents reported having one prmore
children, with strong representation from families
with elementary -age children. This participation
pattern indicates that families with children were
more likely toengage inthe survey process, providing
valuable insight into youth- and family -oriented
recreation needs, while also highlighting the need
for targeted outreach tosmaller households, single
adults, and renters through additional engagement
methods beyond surveys.
Overall, the survey was effective incapturing input
from frequent park users, working -age adults,
long-term residents, families with children and
members ofthe regional workforce. However, youth,
lower -income households, renters, single adults,
non- Eng|ish-speaking residents, and several racial
and ethnic communities were underrepresented
relative totheir share ofTukvvi|a's population.
Identifying these gaps isacritical outcome ofthe
survey analysis.
These findings directly inform the engagement
strategy moving forward. Outreach was intentionally
expanded through trusted community organizations,
in -language engagement, schoolbasedefforts'
culturally specific events, and in -person engagement
atparks, workplaces, and community hubs. This
approach ensured that future planning, investment,
and implementation efforts are informed by the full
diversity ofTukvvi|a's community.
Surve��N� NNN�u~
y N�o���~°N���
�
Why D People Love Tukwila?
Survey responses reflect u strong appreciation forTukwi|a's diversity, central location, and access to
natural features, particularly its river corridors and tree canopy. Respondents frequently cited the City's
proximity to jobs, transit' shopping, and regional destinations as a key strength, noting that parks
provide important opportunities for respite and recreation within an otherwise urban environment. Many
respondents'value Tukwila's cultural diversity and sense of community, expressing appreciation for parks
and public spaces that bring together people of different ages, backgrounds, and cultures.
0 1 Live aLorie 0 2 people 0 3 peopte S' 4 pvople �O` Other - Write In
Figure3-4: Household Size ofSurvey
Respondents
00 * 1 02 03 �','* ``Other ' Write *
Figure 3-5: Number mfChildren per Household
of Survey Respondents
40
m
�m
�
o
n-12
a,
,.—
'.—
Figure3-6:Age Group of Children in Survey
Respondents' Household
Ar_
City vrru*wo"zmoPROS Plan | pvm/cmvo9lqen, 69
Natural elements emerged osanimportant part nf
Tukwi|a'sidentity. Respondents highlighted access to
the Green and 0uxxarnishRivers, forested areas,
trails, and shaded spaces asdefining features that
contribute to quality oflife. Parks were commonly
described not only asrecreational spaces, but as
places to relax, vva|k' spend time with family, and
connect with nature close tohome Vrwork.
While respondents expressed appreciation for
Tukwi|a'sparks, many identified opportunities for
improvement. Common themes included the need
for better maintenance and cleanliness, particularly
related tolitter, restroonnconditions, and aging
facilities. Safety concerns were also frequently
mentioned, with respondents noting the need for
improved lighting, visibility, and enforcement tnmake
parks feel more welcoming and secure.
Several respondents expressed adesire for more
consistent investment inexisting parks, rather
than new park development. Requests focused on
upgrading play equipment, improving trails and
pathways, adding seating and shade, and enhancing
overall park comfort. These responses suggest that
while the system isvalued, targeted reinvestment is
needed tobetter meet community expectations.
1*1
O'k
�
�
�
Survey results identified several barriers that limit
park use and participation inrecreation. The most
commonly reported barriers include safety concerns,
lack ofnastroonns.poor maintenance, and limited
amenities that serve awide range ofages and
abilities. Accessibility challenges, including uneven
paths, limited ADAaccess, and insufficient pedestrian
orbicycle connections, were also cited asfactors that
prevent more frequent use.
Time constraints and transportation barriers further
affect participation, particularly for residents who
work multiple jobs, rely on transit, or commute long
distances. These barriers are especially relevant in
Tukwila, where alarge portion ofthe population
works outside the home orcommutes into the city
during the day. Together, these factors underscore
the importance nfaddressing both physical
conditions and broader access issues when planning
future improvements.
Survey responses indicate that Tukwila residents
and users engage most frequently with the following
outdoor recreation opportunities, ranked bvoverall
reported use and emphasis across survey questions
1. Walking paths, sidewalks, and informal walking
routes
2. Playgrounds and youth play areas
3. Open lawn areas for informal recreation
4. Picnic areas and shaded seating spaces
5. Dog -related amenities, including off -leash areas
6. Sports courts (basketbaU.pick|ehaU'and multi-
use courts)
T Trails and linear corridors along river and
greenxvayareas
8. Natural areas for relaxation and wildlife viewing
|naddition toCity-managed parks and facilities,
respondents reported frequent use ofoutdoor
recreation opportunities outside ofthe Parks and
Recreation Department, including:
1. School playgrounds and athletic fields
2. 2KingCounty trails and river access points
3. Sidewalk networks and neighborhood walking
routes
4. Regional parks and trails innearby cities
5. Commercial -area open spaces used during work
breaks
6. Destination recreation facilities such asaquatic
centers and large sports complexes outside
Tukwila
These patterns highlight theirnportanceof
connectivity, shared'usefa(i|ities' and partnerships
with other public agencies inmeeting recreation
demand.
When asked about amenities they would like tosee
added orexpanded inTukwila, survey respondents
expressed clear priorities. Desired amenities, ranked
from highest to lowest overall interest' include:
1. Walking trails and improved pedestrian
connections
2. Biking infrastructure and non -motorized
connectivity
l Playgrounds and upgraded youth play equipment
4. Improved access torivers, water, and natural
areas
�
�
�
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Public nvolvement 70
5. Shaded areas and picnic spaces
0. Restrooms and basic park infrastructure
T Improved lighting and safety features
O. Benches and seating areas
9. Sports courts (basketbaU.pic@ebaU.and multi-
use courts)
10. Open lawn areas for informal recreation
11. Community gathering spaces and event areas
12.Nature play and environmental education
features
13. Community gardens
14.VVayfindingand interpretive signage
15. Culturally inclusive spaces and programming
support
Together, these rankings reflect strong community
preference for accessible, weU'nnaintained' and
flexible amenities that support everyday use, family
activities' and connections to nature' while also
addressing safety, comfort, and equity inadense
urban environment.
In—Person ����0��0���N��°�mm
Nmm��—��m~°�*ww ���~mmmmmm~=nm��l�
��W�������������N��
�~°w �
���=���^°"o~~.w
|naddition tuthe citywide survey, the Tukwila
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS)Plan
relied ondirect, in -person engagement noensure
that community voices were heard insettings that
felt familiar, accessible, and culturally responsive.
Given Tukvvi|a'ssize, diversity, and large number of
residents who face time, language, ortechnology
barriers, in -person engagement was acritical
component ofthe overall outreach strategy. These
efforts were designed tocomplement survey findings
bycapturing qualitative input from individuals and
families who may not typically participate in formal
planning processes.
City staff and the project team conducted outreach
atseveral well -attended community events, including
Touch-A-Tiuck'the Tukwila Farmers Market, the
Salmon Festival, and the Halloween Festival.
Engagement activities atthese events focused on
informal conversation, visual tools, and hands-on
interaction toencourage participation across age
groups and cultural backgrounds. Bymeeting people
where they already gather, the City was able toreach
residents, families, youth, and elders ina relaxed
and welcoming environment, reducing barriers to
participation and encouraging open dialogue about
parks and recreation.
Community leaders and trusted partners played
a key role inthese engagement efforts. Through
their involvement, safe and inclusive spaces were
created for community members tnshare feedback
in culturally appropriate ways and in their preferred
languages. This approach helped strengthen trust,
expand participation' and ensure that voices from
historically underrepresented communities were
included inthe planning process. Together, these
in -person engagement activities provided valuable
context tothe survey results and helped ground
the PROS Plan inthe lived experiences nfTukwi|a's
diverse community.
The project team conducted in -person engagement
atthe Touch'A-Truckevent held aithe Southcenter
Mall, a |arge.fanni|y'oriented community event with
high attendance and broad regional draw. Abooth
was set upadjacent tothe City ofTukwila Parks
and Recreation booth and included introductory
project flyers and Parks Inventory Maps. Engagement
consisted of multiple informal conversations with
A7
City n//vww/"zozuPROS Plan | pvu/cmvmYnen' 71
Tukwila residents and visitors about the PROS Plan,
current park use, and community priorities.
Flyers included a(}Rcode linking directly tothe Parks
and Recreation Needs and Assessment Survey to
encourage continued participation beyond the event.
The event attracted olarge number offamilies with
children, and engagement primarily occurred through
brief but meaningful conversations asattendees
moved throughout the event space. Participants
showed strong interest in the Parks Inventory Map,
often pointing out specific parks they use and
discussing how frequently they visit them. Common
themes raised during conversations included the
need for improved safety and access within parks' as
well as interest in maintaining and enhancing existing
park facilities. The Touch'A-Truckevent provided
valuable qualitative input from families and residents
who may not otherwise engage intraditional planning
processes and helped reinforce survey findings
related tosafety, access, and everyday park use.
The Farmers Market and Community Play Day atthe
Tukwila Community Center provided onopportunity
for more in'depth'conversational engagement with
residents in afamiliar and community -oriented
setting. Although weather conditions limited overall
attendance, those who participated were highly
engaged and curious about the PROS Plan process.
Engagement activities included Parks Inventory
Maps, interactive voting boards, and open discussion,
which encouraged participants toreflect onboth
current park conditions and future possibilities. Many
attendees shared personal experiences with Tukm/i|a's
parks and expressed appreciation for being asked to
contribute directly to planning decisions.
Feedback from this event highlighted astrong
interest in amenities that improve comfort, safety,
and year-round usability ofparks, as well as features
that support play, fitness, and connection to
nature. Participants also raised broader community
considerations, including social needs and
p|accrnakingopportunities, and shared creative ideas
such aorestoring undcrusedsites for community
gardens orimproving park designs tobetter serve
multiple user groups. Conversations reinforced the
importance ofbalancing different recreation needs,
such asensuring that popular amenities like pick|ebaU
donot replace other valued uses. Overall, this event
generated thoughtful, solution -oriented input that
added important qualitative context tnsurvey results
and helped identify both practical improvements and
long-term opportunities for Tukvvi|a'spark system.
41,
�
The Salmon Festival provided a valuable opportunity
for culturally responsive, in -person engagement
with Tukvvi|a's Hispanic and Latino community.
The bilingual nature ofthe event, conducted in
both English and Spanish, allowed staff toconnect
more comfortably and effectively with families who
may face language barriers intraditional planning
processes. This event was intentionally selected tn
broaden outreach and ensure that perspectives from
one nfTukvvi|a's largest and most active communities
were meaningfully represented in the PROS Plan.
Engagement activities included visual mapping
tools and informal conversations focused onparks,
access to nature, and family -oriented recreation. The
event'sfamily-friendly setting created avve|cnnning
environment where parents, children, and caregivers
could participate together, leading tothoughtful and
enthusiastic dialogue. Staff reported strong interest
inparks asplaces for learning, cultural connection,
and intergenerationa|activity. Feedback gathered at
the Salmon Festival reinforced themes seen across
other engagement efforts while also strengthening
representation from communities that are often
underrepresented in planning, supporting more
inclusive and equitable PROS Plan process.
�
It!
�
The Halloween Carnival provided one ofthe most
effective engagement opportunities during the
outreach process due toits broad appeal across age
groups and communities. The event attracted alarge
number nfchildren, teenagers, young adults, and
families from diverse cultural backgrounds, including
participation from Somali and other immigrant
communities. Members ofthe City'sEquity and
Social justice Commission were present and played
acritical role insupporting engagement byhelping
navigate language and cultural barriers, creating a
safe and welcoming environment for participants
to share their perspectives. The wide age range and
inclusive setting resulted instrong engagement and
meaningful dialogue around parks and recreation
needs inTukwila.
Engagement activities included survey participation
and park priority voting, which revealed clear
trends among younger participants. Recreational
opportunities were ofparticularly high value for
adolescents and teens, with strong interest expressed
�
�
City of TAvvila 2026 PROS Plin I Public involvement 72
Amenity
Larger Newer Playgrounds
Table 4'3: Yfimiom/nQ
Board Results
Events
Salmon Festival
11
Halloween
Festival
27
Total
44
Farmer's Market
&Touoh aTruck
6
Zip Line
2
11
23
36
Water Play
6
6
22
34
Restmoms
5
12
17
34
Nature Play
2
16
15
33
Art Installations
4
lO
11
25
Ninja[nurse
3
5
15
23
More Habitat/Open Space
3
15
4
22
Fitness Stations
3
5
11
19
Unique Meeting Areas
4
5
10
19
Resting Spaces
1
6
12
19
Shade Shelters
S
6
7
0
5noer/Mu|d'PurpnseAthletic Fields
1
5
11
17
Picnic Tables
2
6
9
17
Skills Course
4
2
11
17
"Whee|s"Track (Pump,Skate, Scooters)
2
5
9
16
Native Plant Gardens
5
10
1
16
Performance Amphitheater
3
2
11
15
8asketbaU/5pnrts[nurts
0
3
12
15
Misting Play
2
7
6
15
More Pathways |n&Between Parks
]
6
6
15
Local Artist/Community Installations
8
7
15
Safer, Better Connections tnParks
4
6
4
14
More, Better Parking/Access
1
5
O
14
Quiet Spaces
3
9
2
14
Picnic/GroupShe|tzrs
1
4
D
13
More, Better Biking Routes
2
7
4
13
Learning nrCommunity Gardens
3
6
4
13
Pick|ebaU
3
1
8
12
Skatepark
2
2
7
11
Increased Aesthetics/Botanic Diversity
]
3
S
11
|nterpretive/Educatinna|Graphics
]
7
1
11
Benches/RestAreas
4
4
Z
10
Baseball/Softball Field Improvements
2
3
3
O
AQ
City ofmwm|vzcooPROS mr^|Public mvmm»lhm, 73
Table 4-3:Visioning Board Rmmm|ta-VVrite-|nn
Amenity
Old Star Nursery community garden/native plant habitat/demonstration garden
Total
1
Access tohygiene facilities + clothes washing for unhuusedneighbors
1
Please consider putting a cover over the outside pickleball courts, and keep the lights on a bit later at night
1
River health
S
Healthy forest for shadehmi|d|ife/c|eanair
5
Protection nnplayground/playground safety
8
Two way bridge
7
Food truck/ice cream stand
15
i�VMMR5,'.'jI
in sport courts and skateparks. Participants also emphasized the importance of safe access to parks,
Figure3'7: Recreation Preferences &Priorities Board
playground safety, and improved biking, pedestrian, and nature trail connections.
The visioning board results provide strong insight into what Tukwi|a's community wants from its future
parks and recreation investments. The most frequently selected amenities: larger, newer playgrounds (44
votes)'zip lines (36)'and water play features (34)underscore aclear desire for active, youth -oriented
play spaces. At the same time, high support for restrooms (34), nature play (33), open space (22), and art
installations (25) suggests the community values not just p|ey, but also basic amenities, environmental
access, and cultural enrichment. Fitness stations, resting spaces, covered gathering areas, and athletic
amenities also performed well, showing interest in diverse recreation for all ages.
The write-in responses add adeeper layer nfmeaning tothe results. Suggestions included transforming the
Old Star Nursery into a native habitat or demonstration garden, adding hygiene and clothes -washing
facilities for unhoused neighbors, covering pickleball courts and keeping lights on longer, and expanding
access tnhealthy forest areas, food trucks, and restrooms. These community -generated ideas point to
deeper concerns around safety, social equity, and creative placemaking. Collectively, the results reflect a
community eager for inclusive, welcoming, and well -maintained parks that support fun, comfort, cultural
expression, and environmental care.
City of Tukvvila 2020 PROS Plan I Public Involvement 74
Toexpand outreach beyond traditional engagement
methods and better connect with communities that
are often underrepresented inplanning processes,
the City partnered with the Equity and Social justice
Commission tosupport community leader -led
engagement. Through this partnership, trusted
community representatives supported outreach
toSomali, Vietnamese, and Hispanic and Latino
residents. These leaders worked closely with the
consultant team during amajor engagement event:
Halloween Carnival, and also conducted independent
outreach efforts tailored totheir respective
communities. This approach helped reduce language,
cultural, and trust barriers while creating safe and
comfortable spaces for community members to
share feedback about parks, recreation, and open
spaces inTukwila.
Community leader outreach included direct
phone calls, one'nn'oneconversations, assistance
with completing online surveys, clnnpto'door
engagement, and pop-up discussions atlocations
where community members naturally gather.
These efforts took place atneighborhood parks,
local restaurants, community spaces, and cultural
gathering points. |naddition tosupporting survey
participation' community leaders gathered
qualitative feedback through open-ended
conversations about park use, safety, access,
and unmet needs. This outreach helped capture
perspectives from residents who may not otherwise
participate incity-led engagement due tolanguage
barriers, time constraints, or concerns related to
public visibility.
Feedback collected through this outreach highlighted
both shared priorities and community -specific
concerns. Across multiple communities, safety
emerged asamajor theme, with concerns related
tolighting, visibility, and overall security affecting
park use. Some residents expressed that fear and
uncertainty around immigration enforcement has
discouraged families from spending time inparks
orpublic spaces, particularly atcertain locations.
Despite these challenges, leaders observed that
parks remain important gathering spaces, especially
for youth and teens who regularly use parks after
school. Many community members expressed
interest in being more involved in stewardship
efforts, such asvolunteer clean-up groups, and
emphasized the need for clearer communication,
multilingual resources, and better access to
information about city programs and events.
This partnership significantly expanded the reach
Vfthe public engagement process, connecting with
nearly 15Ocommunity members across multiple
cultural and linguistic groups. Input gathered through
these efforts provided critical insight into lived
experiences that may not befully reflected insurvey
data alone and helped inform recommendations
related tosafety, access, programming, and culturally
responsive park design.
Key themes identified through community leader
outreach included:
° Safety concerns related tu lighting, visibility, and lack
of security presence
• Need for safer access toparks, including improved
pedestrian and bike connections
^ Desire for restroomfacilities tosupport daily use and
large gatherings
° Interest incovered gathering areas rosupport
affordable family and cultural celebrations
° Increased demand for site furnishings, seating, and
activity spaces, particularly for teens
° Requests for multilingual information, outreach, and
access tocity events and resources
° Support for volunteer stewardship programs to
improve cleanliness and safety
^ Interest in local concessions or vendors to activate
parks and support community use
Community leader -led engagement proved essential
inensuring that the PROS Plan reflects the needs
and priorities ofTukvvi|a'sdiverse population and
reinforces the [ity's commitment to equitable,
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Public Invo'#ernent 75
��NN��&°�� ������������N����»��
�~����NN�� Engagement
NN�
�� ��~~���~~
��NU0��0�������
��~�mmm�mm��n,�
The Tukwila Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
(PR(]S)Plan was shaped through acomprehensive
public engagement process that included anonline
Needs and Assessment Survey, in'personoutreach
atcommunity events, pop-up activities, and direct
outreach supported by trusted community partners.
These efforts reached abroad cross-section of
Tukwi|a'sdiverse population across multiple
languages and formats, helping reduce barriers
tnparticipation. Across all engagement methods,
residents consistently emphasized that parks are
essential spaces for recreation, gathering, safety, and
connection tonature, while also identifying the need
for reinvestment inexisting facilities tnbetter meet
community needs.
�� ��^��^K�^U�*"" ��K�°� ��K�°�~�~���
��m�nnzu�� xvo,~xu�nox��� ~...uu Comfort
Safety was one ofthe most frequently raised concerns
across engagement efforts. Community members
emphasized the need for improved lighting, better
visibility, and safer access to parks, trails, and
gathering areas. Concerns related tnpersonal safety,
park conditions, and broader social issues have
deterred some residents from using parks regularly.
Addressing safety through design' maintenance,
and infrastructure improvements was consistently
identified ascritical tnincreasing park use and
restoring trust in public spaces.
Maintenance and Basic
Infrastructure
Participants expressed astrong desire for better
maintenance and reinvestment inexisting parks.
Requests focused Vnclean and functional restronnns.
well -maintained playground equipment, seating and
shade, and improved trail conditions. Many residents
noted that these basic amenities directly affect how
long they stay in parks and how often they return.
Investment in foundational infrastructure was seen as
a necessary first step before adding new amenities.
Access Connect^vity, and
�����~^U^�x�
"°o~°�.on��
Improving access toparks has emerged asamajor
priority, particularly through safer pedestrian and
bicycle connections. Residents emphasized the
importance ofsidewalks, bike lanes, and trail networks
that connect neighborhoods' schools, transit, and
parks. ADAaccessibility and clear vvav0ndingwere
'A�
'I'
1��o
92
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I PUblic Involvement 76
also highlighted nsessential toensuring parks are
usable bvpeople ofall ages and abilities. Given
Tukvvi|a'surban form and large working population,
connectivity was viewed as central to equitable
access.
�������,����K ��K�����»���^�~�� ���
^~~~—~~-~~~~-~^^-^^ ~~n-n~~~^~~~^^~~~`~~~^~~^
Youth and Teens
Youth and adolescent recreation needs were
especially prominent in engagement at family -
oriented and youth -focused events. Community
members expressed strong support for sport courts,
skateparks,active recreation spaces, and flexible
areas for informal play. Parks were frequently
described asimportant places for teens togather
safely after school, underscoring the need for
amenities that support this age group while fostering
positive activity and community presence.
U���������������� U���
Parks ,~_.�».~~~~
Destination, Spaces
Unlike smaller orrural communities, Tukwila
residents consistently described parks as everyday -
use spaces rather than destination parks. Many
residents use parks briefly, frequently, and in
between daily activities such aswork, school,
errands' or caregiving. This reinforces the
importance ofproximity, comfort, and flexibility over
large, sing|e'purpnsefaci|ities. Parks that support
short visits, walking breaks' informal play, and rest
were repeatedly valued.
Wonknon~°~~ and Daytnnoo°~
Population Needs
Engagement reflected Tukvvi|a's unique role
asaregional employment center, with alarge
daytime population that differs from its residential
population. Several conversations and survey
responses highlighted the use nfparks bvworkers
during breaks orbefore and after shifts. These users
value seating, shade, walking routes' cleanliness, and
safety but may not engage in traditional recreation
U��U��^��d�����u�^���������������
^^^'-^~~~~^ ~ -' Gathering ~~n~~�`~~~~' ~~^^~�
Cultural Resonance
Residents across multiple communities expressed
interest inparks asplaces for cultural celebration,
family gatherings, and community events. Requests
included covered gathering areas, picnic shelters, and
flexible spaces that are affordable and accessible.
Participants also emphasized the importance of
multilingual communication, culturally responsive
programming, and partnerships that reflect Tukvvi|a's
diversity.
Parks were viewed not only as recreational assets'
but asvital community spaces that support
connection, identity, and belonging.
T�~st, Visibility, and the Role of
U��n��������^���
^ ~~^ ~ — '~-'^n�`~
Across in -person and community leader -led
engagement, itbecame clear that trust and visibility
are critical factors influencing participation and park
use. Engagement was most effective when facilitated
bytrusted community leaders, multilingual support,
and familiar settings. Some residents expressed
hesitation to use parks Vrparticipate in public
processes without these supports in place.
������ ����.��������� ��� Stewardship,
' ---~'—u-» Environment, -~--''-~'-~» ~~..~~
Community Involvement
Many participants expressed interest inbeing more
invo|vedincaringforparksthroughvo|unteerdean-
n 1�1
City "rTukwila zo2sPROS Plan | pvu/,mvmverc"t 77
Past SurveyEfforts
To ensure this PROS Plan reflects both long-standing
values and current community needs, past public
surveys and outreach efforts were reviewed alongside
recent engagement findings. Comparing earlier input
with the 2O35results helps identify which priorities
have remained consistent and where new patterns
nrexpectations have emerged. This approach honors
community feedback collected over time while
acknowledging the evolving context ofTukwi|a's
growing, diverse population and changing urban
landscape.
�^���U ���� ������� ���������
Fiscal Year ~~~~~-~ ~-~~~~�m�~
Priorities
�*. ��
nr��d��n������ Survey
Aspart ofTukwi|o's2O25'ZO26budget process, a
citywide ~GTC~survey was conducted in2024to
better understand resident priorities across a range
ofpublic services, including parks, recreation, and
open space. The survey gathered input from obroad
audience through both quantitative and open-
ended questions, asking residents to identify the
most important services, unmet household needs'
and ideas toimprove overall quality oflife. While
parks were one ofmany categories inthe survey, the
responses provide useful context for understanding
community values and long-standing concerns
related to public space, safety, and infrastructure.
When compared with the more focused and
inclusive public engagement conducted for the
302GPROS Plan through surveys, in -person events,
visioning activities, and direct outreach, several
consistent priorities emerge. Both efforts highlight
ongoing concerns about park maintenance, access
tmclean and safe facilities, and the need for basic
infrastructure. |nthe 2O24survey, "maintenance
and dean|incss"ranked aothe top open-ended
response, echoed by2026participants who prioritized
improved rastroomms(34nnentimns).safer access,
and updated playgrounds (44nmentions).Sidewalk
improvements, lighting, and connections tmparks
were also important inboth sets nfoutreach.
Atthe same time, the 2026engagement revealed
new and amplified needs that were less visible
in2O24.Environmental features such asnature
play (33nnentimns)'native plant gardens, and
habitat preservation surfaced more prominently
through community events and visioning boards.
Additionally, youth -oriented amenities including sport
courts, skateparks'and creative play spaces were
elevated during in -person engagement, particularly
among teens and families atthe Halloween Carnival.
Issues of social inclusion also gained prominence.
Direct outreach with immigrant and refugee
communities revealed safety concerns inparks
linked toimmigration fears and emphasized the
need for multilingual resources, shaded gathering
areas, and welcoming public spaces'
Together, the two efforts show strong alignment
in long-standing concerns while also highlighting
how Tukvvi|a's growing diversity, increased urban
density, and changing social landscape are shaping
new expectations for its park system. This PROS
Plan draws onboth past and present input tnensure
continuity across planning efforts while responding to
the evolving realities ofthe community.
����^U� ����^��������K���
'--'~'~^^~-v ~~~~`~^^^^^��~~-^^~~~~~~^
�������^K�� Programs and
.._._.-..~~.'_... .._��.~~....~.~...~
Service Plan
Conducted inearly 2024'the Parks & Recreation ETC
Survey was designed toassess resident satisfaction
with Tukvvi|a'sexisting recreation programs,
events' and communication strategies. Unlike the
broader 2026PROS Plan outreach, this survey was
intentionally limited 1oresidents ofTukwila, with
the goal ofcapturing household -level experiences and
priorities related tocity-run programming. The survey
was offered online and in print, yielding more than
250responses from awide demographic cross-section
ofthe dty'sresident population.
Key findings emphasized positive feedback mn
special events, youth programs, and culturally
relevant offerings, with many respondents reporting
satisfaction with program quality and the friendliness
nfstaff However, only 2G94said they were "very
aware" mfavailable programs and services,
suggesting acommunications gap. Many respondents
called for expanded programming during evenings
and weekends, inclusive options for all ages, and
increased language access for non-Eng|ish-speaking
residents.
When compared tothe broader, multi -layered 2026
PROS Plan engagement, which included notjust
residents, but also daytime workers, commuters,
and visitors. The 2024survey findings both align and
diverge inmeaningful ways. Shared themes include
strong community support for youth programming,
inclusive activities, and culturally responsive
events. However, the 2026outreach revealed
broader systemwide concerns, including park
safety, infrastructure maintenance, and equitable
access toclean and functional amenities, such as
restroorns'lighting, and trails.
94
a
�^
r
-
�
.�
�
W,
a,����
Additionally, the 2026outreach went beyond
resident -focused engagement bvincorporating
input from immigrant communities, non-English
speakers, the unhoused population, and out-of-
town park users. These voices brought forward
new concerns about safety, access, and social
belonging that were not prominent in the 2024
survey, illustrating the value ofexpanding outreach
beyond traditional residential channels.
Together, both efforts underscore strong community
appreciation for the [ity's programming while
highlighting the need toimprove awareness,
expand equitable access, and respond tmgrowing
demand for safe, welcoming, and inclusive public
spaces.
�� Tukwila �K�
°������ x������n� u���-Year
Stewardship Plan
The Green Tukwila P|an'svision aligns closely with
current community feedback gathered for the
PROS Plan. Residents consistently identified access
tmnature, habitat preservation, native plant
gardens, and open space connectivity astop
priorities. Many also voiced support for volunteer
opportunities and stewardship programs, echoing
the community -based implementation model atthe
heart ofthe Green Tukwila effort.
While the stewardship plan lays a strong foundation,
feedback from the 2OZ5engagement process
suggests a growing expectation for visible, accessible
results, such as enhanced trails through restored
areas, educational signage'and inclusive access
twnatural spaces. These insights underscore
continued community investment ingreen
infrastructure and validate the dty'senvironmental
goals outlined inthe plan.
��n�~°"^U ���°�UK� °� ��,�UU ��U
n���v��n� m��o�� ���� ��nn Plan
����K���
y������
While the City has made significant progress since the
20O9plan was adopted, with visible improvements
like new sidewalks, Safe Routes to School, and bike
lanes, the public response suggests that demand
has not diminished. |nfact, desire for improved
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure has grown,
especially inareas with limited transit orwhere
residents rely on walking for daily nnobi|ity. The
ongoing update ofthe Walk 8kRoll Plan presents a
hrne|y opportunity to align future investments with
this strong community demand and better integrate
active transportation with recreation planning.
Public feedback gathered through recent
engagement efforts confirms that xxa|kabi|ity,
b\keabHity, and park connectivity remain high
priorities in Tukwila. Many residents, including
those from immigrant communities, youth, and
older adults, emphasized the need for safe, well -lit
routes, ADA'sccasmibtmtrails, and better non -
motorized |inkabetmeennaighbmrhoudsand
parks. Voting boards and in -person conversations
atevents like the Halloween Carnival and Salmon
Festival consistently identified "more pathways im
and between parks^'better bike routes, and safer
access points astop needs.
����"^U�������~�A��UU�����������
^--`~`^^~`� Arts ~-~ ~~^^`- Culture ^~^~~~~~`~^
U�U�� ���� n Plan ������
��
Public feedback collected for the PROS Plan strongly
reinforces the goals mfthe Arts 06Culture
Master Plan. Across surveys, pop-up events,
and direct engagement, residents consistently
expressed enthusiasm for cultural programming,
art installations, and creative gathering spaces in
parks. Respondents emphasized the importance nf
visual idenLity, storytelling, and ce|ebradngTukvvi|a's
diversity through public art' festivals, and youth -
focused creative opportunities.
The community does not see arts and culture as
peripheral, but rather ascore tohow they experience
and value parks. There is a strong desire for parks to
bereflective ofTukvvi|a'smulticultural identity, and
to offer spaces that are joyful, expressive, and rooted
in lived experiences. These findings validate the city's
existing cultural strategy while calling for continued
investment increative, inclusive p|acernakingacross
the park system.
Q r-t
City vrru*wo,zmsPROS Plan | pvu/cmvoN'emcn, 79
Community Cafe'
Community [af6functioned asadirect public -
input source rather than a separate adopted
policy plan. Its importance was that ittranslated
resident experience into practical direction for
park investment. Participants did not describe park
needs inabstract planning terms. They identified
the conditions that shaped whether parks felt
usable day today: safety, access, maintenance,
restroorns. play spaces, lighting, parking' public
transportation access, family restroonns.walking and
running paths, outdoor fitness, multi -sport fields,
dog areas, performance areas, and regular upkeep.
That input helped this PROS Plan define ^qua|ity'
oAife^assnnnething broader than the presence of
park acreage oramenities. |nTukwila, quality meant
parks that felt safe, dean' visible, comfortable, active'
culturally welcoming, and easy toreach. The findings
influenced the PROS P|an'sneeds analysis, access
and equity framework, capital project priorities'and
maintenance assumptions by reinforcing that the
City should first reinvest in existing parks' correct
basic usability gaps, and improve the everyday
conditions that determine whether residents actually
use the system. This input also supported the p|an's
emphasis onpractical phasing: projects vvithdear
safety, access, comfort, family use, recreation variety,
and maintenance benefits were better positioned
asnear-term priorities, while larger orless defined
ideas needed additional planning, cost validation,
partnership work, orlong-range sequencing before
being treated ascapital commitments.
This also aligns with the previous PROS p|afindings'
where residents emphasized reinvesting in existing
parks, improving comfort and safety, repairing and
replacing aging features, adding amenities such
as restroorns' lighting, seating, water fountains,
improved play areas, dog areas, gardens, and better
programmed spaces, and addressing barriers caused
by maintenance and perceived safety concerns.
96
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Publh� Involvement 80
Demand & Needs
Analysis
4444
4,4444
,14444,49
44444444 -
'"g444#4r444 4 -
848, 888,188ij88,8A
'"nra"Mit'n888.8
4a0.:888,
.41.0001imm,
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Demand & Needs 9nTysis 81
��
Introduction
Demand & Needs defines what Tukwi|a'sparks,
recreation, open space, trails, golf, and facility system
must dobetter during the 2O27-2O32planning period
and beyond. The analysis uses conventional LO5
nneasures, including acres per 1'000 residents, facility
counts, trail miles, and peer comparisons, but does
not rely onthose measures alone. Tukwi|a'sneeds are
shaped bvaccess barriers, redevelopment pressure,
community diversity, facility condition, environmental
constraints' recreation demand, cultural ne|evance,
and the [ity'scapacity tomaintain what itowns,
operates, leases, ormanages. The findings from this
chapter carry directly into the Strategic Framework
and [|P by identifying where the system is strong'
where itisunderperforming, and where future
investment should focus.
Quantifications ����
����°
� ��°
N 0N N��0N��N���� N������
�������0NNN����NLNm�'NN��
Traditional park planning measures remain useful,
but they need to be treated as reference points rather
than standards. Acres per 1.000residents, amenity
counts, trail miles, and peer comparisons provide a
common language for describing system capacity,
supporting capital facilities analysis, and documenting
LOSfor funding and planning purposes.
National Recreation and Park Association's (NRPA)
Park Metrics can help with that comparison, but
the data has real limitations. |iisself-reported by
participating agencies, not every agency answers
every question, and the resulting averages and
medians reflect the responding agencies rather than a
verified standard ofneed. Some data can also reflect
older inventories, older capital conditions, nragency
practices that may beyears out nfdate. National
benchmarks rarely capture local access barriers,
maintenance expectations, redevelopment pressure,
cultural use patterns, nrthe condition and availability
of individual facilities.
For Tukwila, those limitations matter. Anational
98
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needs Analysis 82
or peer ratio may suggest adequate supply even when residents cannot safely reach a park, when a facility
is worn or unavailable, or when a park does not support the way nearby communities gather and recreate.
This plan therefore uses NIRIPA and peer data as a benchmarking tool, not as the primary definition of need.
Quantification describes supply. Qualification explains performance.
Table 5-1: Tukwi|mLOS Qualifiers
KMmmmumo
Acres
per1,O0O
residents
Primary Use
Tests general
parkland supply
against population
Limitation
Does not measure access, condition, visibility, safety, or usability
Facility counts
Identifies apparent
surpluses nrdeficits
bvamenity type
Does not confirm condition, scheduling, location, ormaintenance burden
Trail miles
Compares linear
system supply
Does not show whether trails connect people tnparks, transit, schools, jobs, or
neighborhoods
Peer
comparison
Tests whether Tukwila
is an outlier
Depends onhow each agency classifies and counts assets
Nb|kshed
analysis
Measures practical
access through
the street and trail
network
Requires interpretation where barriers, slopes, crossings, and comfort affect use
OCLmapping
Shows spatial
relationships among
access, use. risk
canopy, transit, and
community anchors
Must betranslated into capital, pn|ig( maintenance, and partnership actions
Level of Service Method
LOSisused inthis plan asudecision tool. |tisnot
asingle acreage target. The conventional LOS
tables show how Tukwila compares with national
baselines, peer communities, and future population
assumptions. The O0Lmodel then tests whether
those assets are accessible, useful, resilient, culturally
relevant, and maintainable.
��
o�n/muw/ozu2spxosp/an | Demand uweeu`nn�vs/, 83
Table
What it Measures
5-2:Tukwila L0SMethodology
How ATInforms
Decisions
LOS Layer
Citywide
parkland supply
Total acres and acres per
1.000residents
Establishes whether Tukwila isbroadly land deficient orland sufficient
Park
dassi�catinnLOS
Acres bvpark type
'
Tests whether the dassiMcatinnsystem accurately �Mpctspark h/nchon
Facility and
amenity LOS
Counts ofrecreation and
support amenities
Identifies where cnnditinn avai|abi|�xu/quan�tymayneeddoser�*iew
' `'
Trail LOS
Trail mileage and miles
per 1'00Oresidents
Supports connectivity, and regional trail coordination
'� ' �
OOL LOS
Access, health,
environment, social
connection, and O&M
capacity
Connects technical findings to lived experience and implementation priorities
DOLmapping
Shows spatial
relationships among
access, use, risk, canopy,
transit, and community
anchors
Must betranslated into capital, policy, maintenance, and partnership actions
o�^�—A��������������K��U���������U
~~^~� ~~ '^`—~- `—'^`~ SupplementalAssets
Core LOScalculations are based onCity-owned and
City -operated assets. This keeps the analysis tied tn
the parks, facilities, trails, and open spaces the City
can directly plan, fund' maintain, and improve. It also
avoids overstating City service capacity bvcounting
facilities that may not provide reliable public access.
Non -City owned parks, school grounds, partner
facilities, and adjacent public spaces remain
important to the recreation network. They can
expand practical access, support programs, reduce
pressure on City facilities, and create partnership
opportunities. They donot provide the same level of
public access certainty, capital control, maintenance
authority, orlong-term reliability asCity-controlled
assets. These sites should inform the OOLana|ysis
and partnership strategy, but they should not mask
gaps inthe City -owned system.
Facil��-*K�^K~�«» ��K�°� ������K�^�xx U ����
ity .~..*u ��...,~..n�� o�~���
Findings
°�.
n ngs
Tables 5-]and 5-4identify where Tukwila appears
above nrbelow selected baseline measures for
active recreation, passive recreation, and support
amenities. These tables screen for potential needs.
They donot create automatic construction mandates.
~
100
City of Tubvila 2026 PROS Plan I l3einand & Needs Analysis 84
Table 5-3: Level of Service (LOS) Quantifications - City -Owned Assets
ACTIVEAMEATION
Playground
Total
NRPABaoe|ine NRPA Current
Projected
M per) Renonmnnenmdon Difference Difference
11
1488.8
15.2
S
63037
3.4
1.6
1.03
Soccer/Multi-Use Field*
15
2.4
12.6
12.20
Basketball (FuU)Court
G
3.8
2.2
160
Baseball/Softball
2
2390.7
90
-7.g
8.48
Youth Baseball/Teeball
S
2390.7
9.0
Golf
30164.0
OJ
0.3
O]7
Outdoor/Beach Volleyball
O
21516.0
1.0
AO
4,16
Tennis Court
4
ll
1.8
1.42
Pick|ebaU[nurt
5
2.2
2.8
Football Field
O
11
4.1
Skate Park
O
1.0
IX
-1J4
Swimming Pool
11
'81
Fitness Station
5
1.4
3.6
3.33
Splash Pad
Walking/Nature Paths
14
0.9
5/4
O]
8,6
Open Lawn Space
4.3
-4L]
'5,Q0
NatureSpace/Prespme
11
3.6
74
6.83
Water Feature/Access
4
27
?.3
&D8
Off -leash Dog Area
2
23502.7
0)
1]
Community Garden (P'Patch)
0.9
O]
-0,02
1M~
City w vr/"�xm au*pnosp|an|o,w"vuawecu!��'k^/, 85
Table 5-3: Level of Service (LOS) Quantifications - City -Owned Assets
Planting Beds/Gardens
TNRPA Baseline NRPA Current Projected
otal
(1 per) Recommenation Difference Difference
15000.0
1.4
-0,4
1.00
Picnic Shelters
7
5000.0
4.3
2.7
2.00
Barbecue Grills
5
5000.0
4.3
0.7
0.00
Picnic Tables
75
500.0
43.0
32.0
25.00
SUPPORT ArvIENITIES
Designated Parking Area
18
1 per 2 parks
Restroom Building
6
1 per 3 parks
10
-4
-4
Benches
65
350.0
61.4
3.6
-6.43
Maintenance Building
1 per 15
2
-1
-1
;14's
1)1
1i [I z,111111111111W111111—) '
102
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Demand & Needs Analysis 86
Table 5-4: Level of Service (LOS) Quantifications - Including Non -City Owned Assets
Total NRPABaseline NRPA Current Projected
�
(1 par) Racnnnnmenation Difference Difference
Playground
Suoer/Multi'UseHe|d
Basketball (FuU)Court
Baseball/Softball
Youth Baseball/Teeball
Outdoor/Beach Volleyball
Tennis Court
RcNebaUComrt
Football Field
Skate Park
Swimming Pool*
Fitness Station
Splash Pad
Walking/Nature Paths 15
Nature Space/Preserve 13
WaterFeaure/Access 5
Picnic Shelters 7
1408.8
6303.7
2390.7
21516.0
15000.0
�
-3J6
1.03
14.20
2f@
-6.46
-4.46
017
-1JG
2.42
2.42
-O.3G
414
0,25
3.3]
0.00
1O�
o�v/mxwoaznzapxnsp|an | oemanuumocu����ys/, 87
TsbYm5-3: Pork Classifications (L0S)Quantifications
Classification Total
Local/Neighborhood
Special Use
Open Space
Sum
mRPABmme|ina NRPA Current
(1 per) Reoonnnmenation Difference
198.9
1E3
51.0
1.0
2.2
9.3
0
12.3
2.4
0
73
J3
H
Projected
Difference
5.96
'0,f9
1.4 1.04
Special Use 1989
[U
9.3
83 6.96
Open Space 23.7
5.0
1]
-19 -4VS
Sum 2766
10.97
129
1.9 0.09
D�^�u� Comparisons
������ ,�K�������������
~-^^^n~~^^ ~~`�^^~'
Peer comparison provides a practical way totest
Tukvvi|a's current parkland supply, facility mix, and
level nfservice assumptions against other nearby
systems. Nntwo cities provide perfect match. Each
community has its own land base, growth pattern'
funding structure, recreation culture, and operating
model. Still, nearby jurisdictions with similar regional
pressures can help clarify whether Tukvvi|a's system
isgenerally land rich' land constrained, facility heavy'
trail deficient' or affected by classification practices
that make direct comparison difficult.
For Tukwila, this comparison is especially useful
because the park system serves more than the
resident population. The City functions as a regional
crossroads, employment center, retail destination,
recreation hub, and transportation gateway. Parks,
trails, open spaces, and recreation facilities are
used byresidents, workers, visitors, youth sports
participants, hotel guests, commuters, and regional
trail users. Asimple resident -based acreage metric
does not capture all ofthat demand, but itdoes
provide acommon starting point for comparison.
The purpose ofpeer benchnnarkingisnot tocopy
another dty'sstandards. |tistounderstand Tukwi|a's
position within a broader public service context.
The comparison helps identify major out|iens,test
whether existing classifications are telling the right
story, and support omore defensible level ofservice
discussion with City leadership and the community.
It also helps frame investment tradeoffs' including
reinvestment in existing parks, trail connectivity,
acquisition needs, natural area stewardship,
athletic facility demand, and the long-term cost of
maintaining system that serves both local and
regional users.
Comparison
Organizations �� ����
=��00������� =����U��^.K��� = Cities
Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, SeaTac.and Burien
were selected because, together, they reflect several
nfthe pressures that shape park and recreation
planning inTukwila. Tukwila is small in residential
population, but its role in the region is much larger
than its population count suggests. |tisshaped bv
major transportation corridors, a large employment
base, destination retail, regional recreation facilities,
and ahighly diverse community. These conditions
affect park access, safety, visibility, progrannnoing,
maintenance, and the way service demand behaves
across the system.
104
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needs Analysis 88
Sealacand Burienprovide the closest South King
County comparisons. Both operate inasetting where
transportation infrastructure, arterial corridors,
aviation -related land use, demographic diversity,
and fragmented access patterns influence park
planning. Like Tukwila, these cities must provide
neighborhood -scale service while working around
barriers that can separate residents from parks'
schools, trails, and community destinations. They
also face similar equity, nnnbi|it\( and reinvestment
questions inareas where land islimited, expensive,
nrphysically constrained.
Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace add useful North
Sound corridor comparisons. Lynnwood isrelevant
because ofits major retail presence, regional draw,
and redevelopment pressure around ahighly
commercial urban form. Mountlake Terrace offers a
smaller -scale example ofacompact, largely built -out
corridor city that must make careful decisions about
park typologies, trail connections' public access'
and acquisition opportunities inaconstrained land
market.
The peer set isuseful because each city has recent
planning documentation with acreage, c|assification,
trail, and level of service information that can be
normalized for comparison. The comparison also
exposes animportant limitation: park classification
systems are not applied consistently across agencies.
That limitation is central tothe Tukwila analysis.
Beforedassification'based benchmarks can support
final level ofservice targets, Tukwi|a'sinventory
needs tnbeorganized around clear functional
categories that better align with hVvv peer systems
count similar assets.
Peer ����������
- Comparison Summary
The peer cities have anaverage population of45,854,
compared toTukvvi|a's estimated population of
21.479.|nraw acreage, the peer systems average
328.75acres ofparkland, compared toTukvvi|a's
265.10acres. That difference isexpected given
Tukvvi|a's smaller resident base.
When parkland isnormalized bvpopulation, Tukwila
compares favorably. Tukwila provides approximately
12.3Oacres per 1.000residents, compared tothe
peer average nf8]5acres per 1'0O0residents. At
the systemwide level, Tukwila isnot land deficient. |t
has comparatively strong supply ofpublic parkland
relative to its resident population.
The classification -level comparison isless
straightforward. Tukwi|a's current Special Use
acreage isfar above the peer average, while its
Natural Area acreage appears low. Tukwila shows
1962Oacres nfSpecial Use land, or9.10acres per
1'0OUresidents, compared toapeer average of
4322acres, orU.84acres per 1'0O0residents. By
contrast, Tukwila shows 1790acres VfNatural Area
land, orO.O0acres per 1.O0Oresidents, compared io
apeer average of99]0acres, orl25acres per 1'U0O
residents.
That pattern should not beread asasimple service
imbalance. |tispartly aclassification issue. Several
Tukwila properties counted asSpecial Use also
provide natural area, open space, river corridor,
habitat, orpassive recreation functions. When those
acres are placed inabroad Special Use category, the
system appears unusually heavy inspecial purpose
land and under supplied innatural areas. The land
itself has not changed. The way itiscounted affects
the level ofservice story.
Trail mileage shows amore direct gap. Tukwila has
approxirnate|y3.06 miles of trails, orO14 miles
per 1'O8Oresidents, compared tothe peer average
of1U27 miles, orU2O miles per 1'000 residents.
This comparison supports continued emphasis
ontrail connectivity, neighborhood links, access
to the Green River corridor, and safer walking
and biking connections between parks, schools,
residential areas, employment districts, and regional
destinations.
The peer comparison supports two core findings,
First, Tukwila has astrong overall parkland supply
when measured byacres per resident. Second, the
current classification structure masks how that
land functions. Arevised classification framework
isneeded before final class -based level ofservice
targets can beused with confidence inthe Demand
and Needs Analysis, capital planning, and long-range
investment strategy,
1O�
c/w"rrv*wxazozoPROS Plan | Demand &wecu��Y�y/` 89
Metric
Lynnwood
(2022)
Table 5-4: Peer
LOS Comparisons
Cities
SeaTac
(2021)
Averages
Tukwila
Peer
Mountlake
Terrace
(2022)
Burien
(2024)
Population
78116
24474
29180
51646
45854
21479
,1};.,. _"\�' \pi \\•,
'\\ }7 /'1 ```� `
h 1}
\: #1 s3 fr \ i
}y'S R3 "�\ `:'}..
i t / .
Q�#� � o �', r i ,
� # �is�//�
�\ M.s\^.�
`'`. "z ? `JS� 1 \
\
��/�/ �a� � �� � �Jt
�l � , � x, � ,
�iY � S ��� � ��{�`
`��ft ��%.t. .fin ���"t:
t}S .�\`i5' "\ <\
t. t>
�\� \ x�?i// =
{t` \. 4 't
� t l
�r �\
• > ti
}\\. t 1,
P3i,
1�\\\ l\ z� r
�r`Z\ \�i `ti
�7
�}} '., `, ��, %/
��t��s
��,�{
Acres/1000
4.5
7.9
12.1
8.1
8.15
12.30
LOS Base
3.5
8.3
12,1
9.3
8.30
3.89
,.,.
Z ,1,11i 1 }} �Ji\,1,
i�\ \ �4 s•- `e: x �
a:.,.:�J
l
�# , 2 �/ �. Ct 1Z
��7
� b lJ
12J�P
�` t ��,v.S?
�} r, \ .. •i , tt,. 1, .
.
l`,. ) �,
}21�, \\\z
i�Ztfr�`�}ii
sib>'a. e .�_..0®� v
kS�1 is \
}i. \�L
rs3 Z i,.. \
t} i`\\ \.z1i
o����\`�c1Z�{
Y.<v a� �2tx=Z �,
��
r •i ass, \�S
Pii
t / • i. � �{ {i �
� t • .\}o ���
t � r7�4 ,.
i
.1?}\\\\\\:��
a .�z �v n} wAt,..n
a �_:
z\ #)`4}'{}}3 \. it
nt \z5 \
���
Z�� �� s,
\ 2\Z? �55��
�\ �� � .. � � �
�.. .4 �\ 1\\
�x �
e /
� � � �
�. �3�JC
�\\\�•c ���i
`vg. /m_.�.
t t "
\
�\ , }7 7
�{\..,\. Z' l � s
}\S`'\ �{Jf �#,li
� \4�#tlff,/r.
1} ti�
� 1�
'i" ��,. �} � `}Q } /I
�� � 2
\4'x , ��
i�\` `}ti.. � } �f}
u\ ,. � J:�.,�
o>�}.� i,}a
Acres/1000
n/a
2.5
8.6
4.1
5.07
n/a
LOS Base
n/a
1.9
n/a
4.5
3.20
1.50
/}
�•�ct����S�\S1S'`\�.,,�"�:�'',4�
z<�\\`\
\r�}
Z '#£t t U�t\��'f }\\%1 \
�
�����i�\ , \�q" < 1�S ;. \{�\Vi1 }� c•i.{ \ ��}���I/./ J�/1 '\��\.�\1x.1
,.S
�\\o
\�\"\`' �\,//T.\J\•
S\S\\�\\��\l
�;\.
>,} {3ti�2ir.
Acres/1000
1.3
0.8
1.7
0.6
1.10
n/a
LOS Base
1.0
n/a
0.6
0.82
0.38
/
i
>/
Z? �iZ� 4
�,
'4--,
�kt {k s\. •
4i4,T�Z\\ �Z��.i�
�ala>w
Acres/1000
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.9
0.77
2.23
LOS Base
1.9
n/a
1.1
1.50
0.70
xn"
.
.. f .
,(( #
�
/ l�'{
�`\t�rl 2. 2}�,x��<"°•I Ai`�`l�'�)�l��
\liiS���f1��/O\\\:
�\ }SO �� �
\`�
� � ���Iil•1��
O\ro
.4
PIJ��\
Y `\\ \fiw
� 2 \ �3 �s \: c
,,#1 ;
1t. U il\ r �Z 2 � c
���5 1\l r,�����l
�h\ft.�\�
, 2 l / ,.�
} �{ ts, /� \\\\
\�24��i2�.'�}�%`\\\``��1
i� 1�;Z< � . �\tti�� ��I�'\�\
,t � Sl". \.7 \�Z��ttti\
\ � \J �
2 }
.53�
}}�te. �i�#�?J,`tr\�,��1,:F\���.t.}
� 'iz1/OI/ �� \',t\\�`�1}�;, \.�
/h • } }� �� >}}�1
� 1� 2 \ �tifi�
\t 2} t
� `\�ib �\ ��`\\�
�. t'�\\\\ gl\ i l LtJt{c `/
l� \ �\,,
f#�fj �. �� `t
\ r,} \ i1�4
i��e �� t
Acres/1000
1.6
0.4
1.3
0.04
0.84
910
LOS Base
n/a
0.4
n/a
0.05
0.23
0.11
Z r t \ \
� ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ }\
l � I
Z�ZZZZZZZZ ��\
Z ZZZZZZZ ��
�
�
• ifs} 1
\\ , mf<, 2"�3tj
�1
\ 1
1i
\ 1 1
r \\\\\\\\
\ \\\\\\\\\\
�� 11111111.
\ �® ?I�
3 � �#}5.��
��. � �\}���\
��/�Z'c. �� �t3�t
"\\\ t}> '1\\/ a
�
3 \
�3 3 \\
} �}}33 � � Ali �%
�} �� � (l1\\\
t�. ,.�, <<i�
�1
J \
������������
I \
\\\\\\\ \
ZZZZZZ
L\} � }t \ �Z� �
itk �� `�,\ \, 1
fll\� 2J �t< l}
�}��t`� .���
r..? i �,
. t 3
f f3 Zf
? � � \ � }
�� �. �
�}
, �t�1
} \.. t. \1 {n
fi
l
� �
�3
ot?�
1 t \
i 11111
i \ \
ff \\
fi 1
•o\\\.\,\
;� .�}��=�Z'}1 �`�{�?Z��\�
�\/,, '`a��/���\\"\\�,}�lii���A
�.Z., ��3}�%
Acres/1000
1.1
3.2
n/a
2.45
2.25
0.80
LOS Base
3.0
n/a
2.70
2.85
1.34
`\ l
{}Z {
� # } 1
JS . t
�
x \\
, \ t .
>
) t ?, �
t \. t<
\ \\
\\ \
} \ l \\
t \ 7 }
J
ZJ \.
. 4 c�{s, tx,
„• , { �
�, i.'\ \. S
\ �
� \ \ \ 7 \ S
1
\ \} J3 t } I \
`\ I �?5 { Z ?}
t� l i
t } t
l i
l it }S �
i Z J
J 1 1 f
� , 2 3
1 t
i \
l /
�i�I�S�%����`rr}�����iM1���rs�,�r���}��?�{�3�35��i�,i'`���cte}t�S�T�4}}t�t�fi
} �� \1
ft 4 \ir��7
C 4�� �t
� �i},
l \ �
S•f � 1i
f/1i� \� �Z 2 Z
, � � �� \c
F z c ," � t1
y� .. t.h� �
2 t \
� r� 2 ro
��i��\,3S}`L.�\�»3���ii��\�Z}���k;�cb�\`�,"\2���`'{`}}}}}x����
��t r ,/Ji
f {i 2 <
S \\ i t i. �)
�, ���. �2 ,2,. �I�„
\ .�
� \ �
// c � .: <
C � - l� i.'t
��a �,���\�
Z7 \� \
� �ti��t{attic#���i}��}\iii2�s�`Tsulnml.,...}}��L�ti��\t,�
� �
l �� I f • \ /I
\ ��
�
, .\� ;�z�� ��
1
Acres/1000
0.09
n/a
0.01
0.02
0.04
n/a
LOS Base
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.03
0.03
0.01
106
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needs Analysis 90
Lynnwood
(2022)
n/a
Table 5-4: Peer LQGComparisons
Mountlake
Terrace
(2022)
��U��������^���� �K��U��^���
.-.~~,--'~-._---.-' -.'._-'�,~.,~~~Recommendations
n/a
The revised classification framework improves
the credibility ofthe LOSanalysis. |talso makes
the system easier tomanage, fund, maintain, and
explain.
Reclassification isnot abookkeeping exercise. |t
affects project ranking, grant eligibility, maintenance
expectations, acquisition priorities, and how the
City explains need to elected officials, residents, and
funding agencies.
Under the revised classification approach, Tukvvi|a's
total parkland acreage does not change. What
changes is the interpretation. Natura|Area/Open
Space Preserve lands become more visible asamajor
part ofthe system rather than being buried within
Special Use. Special Use becomes clearer bvfocusing
on facilities and destinations with distinct operating
models, such asFoster Golf Links, Tukwila Pool, Fort
Dent/Starfire'and other specialized assets.
The strongest planning conclusion isthis: Tukwila
does not need broad acreage expansion asits
primary strategy. |tneeds aclearer and more
disciplined strategy for managing, connecting,
reinvesting in, and improving the land i\already has,
while still preserving targeted acquisition, easement,
partnership, and urban open space opportunities
where growth or access gaps justify them.
8eaTec
(2021)
0urien
(2024)
r/a
Averages Tukwila
�'�
=~
Alignment with Peer and NRPA
� � �� ��� �� ��«,���
~=��U�o�nx00��nx~.U���~,v"°�o��^ono�.�_=U.p"��
Classifications
�"CA"04
With the revised classifications applied, Tukwi|a's
peer and NRPA'sty|ecomparisons become more
useful. The inventory now compares similar park
functions more directly, which isthe basic purpose nf
benchnnarking.The [ity'stotal parkland acreage has
not changed, but the interpretation ofthat acreage is
now more accurate and applicable tothe resident's
needs.
Under the updated inventory, Special Use decreases
from 198.9acres to131.9acres. That equals
approxinnate|y61 acres per 1'000 residents today
and 5.3acres per 1.O0Oresidents under the 2O50
population assumption of25'OOO.Natural Area/
Open Space Preserve increases to61.Oacres, or
approxinnate|yZO acres per 1'000 residents today
and 2.4acres per 1'0OOresidents in2O5O.
These shifts correct the earlier overstatement of
special-purpose acreage and the understatement
1O7
City w o,/v�om aa*pxosp/ov | om eavuawrcu\�&k^/, 91
ofnatural area and open space acreage. More
importantly, they show that Tukwila continues to
have ostrong overall parkland supply. The revised
inventory includes approximately 2G53acres, or
12.9acres per 1'O00residents today. Under the 2O5O
population scenario, the system would still provide
opprnxirnate|y11] acres per1.00O residents.
The planning conclusion ismore balanced. Tukwila
is not simply carrying a surplus of Special Use land,
and its open space system isnot aslimited asthe
previous table suggested. The City has a diverse
parkland portfolio with a meaningful natural area
and open space component that supports habitat
protection, floodp|ainfunction, river corridor
value, passive recreation, urban heat reduction,
neighborhood character, and long-term resilience.
For implementation, benchnnarkingshould inform
direction rather than dictate acreage targets. The
priority isnot tochase ageneric acreage standard.
|tistouse the revised inventory toconfirm where
Tukwila isstrong, where access orcondition gaps
remain, and where investment should focus.
Natural Area/Open Space Preserve lands need o
different investment model than developed parks,
athletic facilities, or Special Use destinations.
Their needs are centered onstewardship, access
management, trail upkeep, invasive species control,
habitat restoration, targeted safety improvements,
and long-term monitoring. 8yseparating these lands
into the right asset class, Tukwila can benchmark
more defensibly and tie future decisions tothe actual
function, condition, and management needs ofeach
parktype.
Tukwila continues \ohave astrong overall parkland
supply. The revised inventory includes approximately
265.3acres, or12.0acres per 1'0UOresidents today.
Under the 205Opopulation scenario, the system
would still provide approximately 11.1 acres per 1.00U
residents.
Table 5'5: Classification Framework
Small-scale neighborhood access, seating,
small play, identity, and nearby gathering
Onse4o'hnmedaily recreation, informal
play, gathering, and walkable access
Multi -use recreation serving multiple
neighborhoods orcitywide users
Specialized facilities orsites with distinct
operating models, citywide draw, revenue
potential, or facility -specific purpose
Habitat, canopy, river corridor, passive
recreation, Ooodp|ainfunction,
sk)rmwatervalue, and ecological
resilience
Focus onvisibility, safety, seating, small amenities, access, and low -
burden maintenance
Focus onplay, turf, paths, comfort, lighting, restmomswhere
appropriate, ADA access, and lifecycle renewal
Focus nnfields, courts, events.res�nnm�paMWn�|a�eroa�phngs
circulation, and higher maintenanceintensity
Focus onbusiness planning, cost recovery, |ife9c|creplacement,
staffing, revenue, and partnership structure
Focus onstewardship, trail management, invasive species control,
habitat restoration, access management, monitoring, and risk
reduction
AMR
108
City ofTukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand &Needs Analy_�is 92
Key #
1
Table 5-6: Proposed
Name
Cecil Moses Memorial Park*
Classifications
Proposed Classifications
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
(TRAILHEAD ONLY)
Current
Classification
Local
2
North Wind's Weir
Open Space
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
3
Chinook Wind Park
Open Space
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
4
Duwamish Gardens
Special Use
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
5
Duwamish Hill Preserve
Special Use
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
6
116th Ave Mini Park
Local
Mini -Park / Pocket Park /Totlot
7
Duwamish Park
Local
Local/Neighborhood
8
Tukwila Community Center
Special Use
Community Park
9
Codiga Farm Park
Special Use
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
10
Riverton Park
Local
Local/Neighborhood
11
Riverton Mini Park
Open Space
Mini -Park / Pocket Park / Totlot
12
Southgate Park
Open Space
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
13
Pamela Drive Open Space
Open Space
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
14
57th Ave South Mini Park
Local
Mini -Park / Pocket Park / Totlot
15
Foster Golf Links
Special Use
Special Use
16
Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
Local
Community Park
17
Cascade View Community Park
Local
Local/Neighborhood
18
Tukwila Pool*
Special Use
Special Use
19
Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
Special Use
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
20
Hazelnut Park
Local
Local/Neighborhood
21
Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
Special Use
Special Use
22
Tukwila Park
Local
Local/Neighborhood
23
Ikawa Park (Japanese Garden)
Special Use
Mini -Park / Pocket Park / Totlot
24
Nelsen Side Channel
Open Space
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
25
Crystal Springs Park
Local
Local/Neighborhood
26
Crestview Park
Local
Community Park
27
Bicentennial Park
Special Use
Mini -Park / Pocket Park / Totlot
28
Tukwila Pond
Special Use
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
29
P-17 Pond
Open Space
Natural Area / Open Space Preserve
City of Tuk
a 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Neel Kn9ysis 93
Tab|eG'7:
New Park
Total
Classifications
NRPA BaomUimm
(per 1000 pop)
(U0S) Quantifications
Tukwila
^Wcrmm/1000
Current
Projected
Classification
Difference
Difference
Mini Parks
3.4
5.3
3.4
-1.9
-2.85
Local /Neighborhood
500
1.0
2.3
1.3
1.00
Community Parks
304
11
1.4
0.3
012
Special Use
81.9
1.0
6]
5.1
4.27
Natural Areas / Open Space
Preserves
61.0
3.6
lO
'U D
416
�� Community— ^ Quality °��
u�v�K�������x��—�*����� ����nx�� ��o
U ^�� �� °� Demand �� Need
�Un���u������� ���������� ���u u�������
The Quality -of -Life LOS model gives Tukwila a more
useful way todefine need. Conventional measures
can show how many acres, trails, oramenities the
City has, but they do not explain whether those
assets improve daily life. For this plan, level of service
is measured by how well parks, trails, facilities,
programs, open spaces, and partnerships help
people reach recreation, stay healthy, connect with
nature, gather with others, and experience public
spaces that feel safe, clean, welcoming, and worth
returning to.
Tukwila needs this broader model because the park
system isvaluable, varied, and difficult to navigate.
The system includes neighborhood parks, regional
trails, riverfrontspaces, forested open spaces,
athletic fields, the T[['Foster Golf Links, the pool,
partner facilities, recreation programs, school -
related assets' and specialized sites. These resources
serve residents, workers, students, visitors, youth
sports users' older adults, and cultural communities
in a city shaped by freeways, rail corridors' steep
grades, industrial areas, large commercial blocks, the
Grcen/DuvvannishRiver, and incomplete pedestrian
connections. Asinnp|e acreage standard cannot
explain those conditions orsupport adefensible
capital program.
The model isorganized around four categories
shown in Figure 5-1: Access & Equity, Health & Well -
Being, Nature & Environment, and Community
&Socia| Connection. Access @ Equity evaluates
geographic access, walkable and bikeab|e
connections, transit and regional links, vvayfinding'
signage'and safe barrier -free access. Health &
VVeU'Beingevo|uates physical activity, mental health
and stress relief, nature interaction, safe and dean
spaces, and programs for all ages and abilities.
Nature & Environment evaluates habitat and
biodiversit}\tree canopy, green infrastructure, water
quality, storrnvvater,climate resilience, sustainobi|it}\
environmental education, and stewardship.
Community & Social Connection evaluates
inclusive and welcoming spaces, gathering and
event opportunities, cultural expression, heritage,
volunteerism, civic engagement, and community
partnerships.
Together, these categories create the bridge between
documented need and the C|PThey help explain why
the capital program emphasizes reinvestment, safety,
trails, active recreation, open space stewardship,
cultural p|acernaking.access improvements, and
projects the City can fund' operate, and maintain
overtime. The model also helps distinguish between
different types ofneed. One project may add
capacity. Another may restore afailing asset. Another
may improve access tVanexisting park. Another
may reduce long-term operating risk. Each can be
important, but each solves different problem.
The [)OLmaps that follow apply this model spatially.
They show where access, transit, trails, visitor
patterns, Moodp|ainexposure, tree coverage, and
nearby community -serving institutions affect
how parks perform. The maps do not replace the
LOStables. They explain why the same acreage
or facility count can produce very different public
110
City uf Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needs Analysis 94
Geographic Access
Walkable & Bikeable
Connections
Transit & Regional Links
Wayfinding & Signage
Safe & Barrier -Free Access
Habitat & Biodiversity
Tree Canopy &
Green Infrastructure
Water Quality &
Stormwater
Climate Resilience
& Sustainability
Environment& Education
& Stewardship
QUALITY
OF LIFE
MODEL
Tukwila Parks, Recreation
& Open Space System
These four categories guide how we assess,
prioritize, and invest in parks, recreation,
open space, and trails to enhance quality
of life for all Tukwila residents.
value depending on location, condition, access,
environmental setting, and relationship to the
surrounding community.
Access & Equity
Access & Equity evaluates whether people can reach
parks, trails, recreation facilities, and open spaces
safely, comfortably, and without unreasonable
barriers. This is a defining issue in Tukwila because
the city's park system is interrupted by freeways,
rail corridors, steep grades, industrial areas, wide
arterials, large commercial blocks, incomplete
sidewalks, and limited crossing opportunities. A
park may appear close on a map but still function as
difficult to reach for a child, older adult, person with
a disability, or household without consistent vehicle
access. For that reason, this plan treats access as
a practical measure of service, not just a distance
calculation.
H w Equity informs a estrl l )ris
Equity is applied through the investment decision.
Projects should receive stronger priority when they
improve service for residents who face greater
barriers to parks, trails, facilities, programs, or safe
public space. In Tukwila, those barriers include
limited practical access, higher reliance on nearby
public space, safety or comfort concerns, cultural or
social barriers, environmental burden, and limited
Physical Activity
Opportunities
Mental Health
& Stress Relief
Nature Interaction
Safe & Clean Spaces
Programs for Ali Ages
& Abilities
Inclusive & Welcoming
Spaces
Gathering & Event
Opportunities
Cultural Expression
& Heritage
Volunteerism &
dtC' Civic Engagement
Community Partnerships
City capacity to take on improvements that cannot be
maintained.
Walkshed Gap & Spatial Equity Analysis
Understanding where parks exist is only the first
step in evaluating how well a park system serves
its community. The more meaningful question is
who can actually reach these spaces in their daily
lives. In Tukwila, physical proximity does not always
translate into true access. Freeways, rail lines, steep
grades, industrial corridors, and fragmented sidewalk
networks create some of the most pronounced
access barriers in the region. These barriers shape
where residents can walk comfortably, where
children can travel independently, and which
neighborhoods rely most heavily on the limited open
spaces near their homes.
The s 10.. in Walkshed
A 10-minute walk is considered an important park
access metric for several reasons. A 10-minute walk
(approximately 1/2 mile on level ground) as a park
access metric is important because it promotes
physical activity, equity, sustainability, social
interaction, and overall community well-being. It
aligns with various health, environmental, and social
goals the City has and should encourage staff and
policymakers to prioritize accessible green spaces as
a fundamental part of Tukwila's development and the
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Neel An
y
s 95
Parks Visitors
Legend
Parks Visitors
Number of Visitors per Year
18,000 - 40,000
40,000 - 80,000
80,000 - 300,000
a No Data
•3 Tukwila City Limits
A. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
B. North Wind's Weir
C. Chinook Wind Park
D. Duwamish Gardens
E. Duwamish Hill Preserve
F. Duwamish Park
G. Tukwila Community Center
H. Codiga Farm Park
I. Riverton Park
J. Riverton Mini Park
K. Southgate Park
L. 57th Ave South Mini Park
M. Foster Golf Links
N. Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
O. Cascade View Community Park
P. Tukwila Pool
Q. Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
R. Hazelnut Park
S. Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
T. Tukwila Park
U. Ikawa Park (Japanese Garden)
V. Crystal Springs Park
W. Crestview Park
X. Bicentennial Park
Y. Tukwila Pond Park
Z. P-17 Pond
City of Normandy
Park
4,000
Feet
112
N
A
City of
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
City of Renton
City of Kent
Local Park Walksheds
Legend
rely Local Parks
N.,"7 Local Parks 10 Minute Walkshed
N
4,000
Feet
Cecil Moss Memorial Park
an Pa
7th Ave Sout '�„ ini Park
oseph Foster Meorial/Lee Phis Park
Cascade iew Coi
unity Park',
Crestview Pat
Hazelnut Park
Crystal Springs Park
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Demand & Needl,In`tlysis 97
Adjacent Parkland Walksheds
.509
Legend
Adjacent Parks
Eld Adjacent Park 10 Minute Walkshed
(AV
509
N
4,000
Feet
99,
sigook,
Kubota Gardens
:J
Black River Forest
tt3
Mcnnicken Heights Park
Bow Lake Park
Valley Ridge!Park
Boeing Ro3kIThree Friends Fishing Hole]
114
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand 8 Needs Analysis 98
Open Space Walksheds
509,
Legend
Open Space
Open Space 10 Minute Walkshed
N
4,000
Feet
A
r
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needlln§ysis 99
tr)
Special Use Area Walksheds
Legend
Special Use Parks/Facilities
Special Use Parks/Facilities 10
Minute Walkshed
4,000
Feet
N
Duvvarnish Hill Preserve
Foster G
Macada
ilatisk,44
Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
ds & Winter Garden
awa Park (Japanese Garden
k
Bicentennial Pa
ukwila Pond Park
116
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needs Analysis 100
(c)
Special Use Area Walksheds
Legend
N'IFN
Special Use Parks/Facilities
Special Use Parks/Facilities 10
--"J Minute Walkshed
4,000
Feet
N
Duvvarnish Hill Preserve
Foster G
40,
Macada
ly,wirotunmqVif"
'14,vs,ok.y
Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
talk
ds & Winter Garden
awa Park (Japanese Garden
k
Bicentennial Pa
„yyom:
'40.4M
ukwila Pond Park
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Demand & Needs A
a iys, 101
Walkshed Gap Analysis
Wesrcrest
Park
Moran L)esimone
Park South Ptrrk
Meadow
Tukwila Trails
•--- City of Tukwila Owned Trails
• Green River Trail (King County)
• Interurban Trail (Puget Sound Energy)
•• - ° Private
Proposed Trail Connections
Tukwila City Parks
City Owned Property
Salmon
GcekPork
Salmon
Creek
Raw`na
Jacob Ark+baum
Area Park
ahurst Park
Lake Borten
School
Nernorml Purk
kc
A
Puget Lake Park
Haze! Sound
Velfoy Park
Pork
Pork
Linde
Hill Park
8urien
Comrnunity
Center
Dottre Harper Park
TOWSpook
Park
Lakeview
Pork s
Barren'
Walker
Creek SS
'City Hall Pork
Normandy Pork
any Pork
Mst Pork
4,000
Feet
Matoisto Park
118
Mushier
Memorial
Pork
,_ Des Mai
Memorial Park
Moehottun
Park Br
Pkyfreld
South 1Gr06}t,�
Sita.coL (J I'
Pork'
Angle
Lake PC
Rm`nier
Plnyfreld
ihay er Pi
ae
Lakeridga
Pork
pity L5k'aiUK tit Lvz_a an j uertiLLt1LL k lv e<ks [ti tS tuZ
Bryn Map
Park
Parks Near Transit Stops
Legend
Parks Near Transit Stops
King County Transit Stops
King County Transit Routes
ra Tukwila City Limits
A, Duwamish Gardens
B. Duwamish Hill Preserve
C. Duwamish Park
D. Tukwila Community Center
E. Riverton Park
F. Foster Golf Links
G. Cascade View Community Park
H. Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
I, Hazelnut Park
J. Tukwila Park
K. Ikawa Park (Japanese Garden)
L. Crystal Springs Park
M. Crestview Park
N. Bicentennial Park
„
City of Normand'
Park
N
4,000
Feet
city o
Burien
City of Kent
119
Parks Near Non -Motorized Trails
Legend
Parks Near Trails
Tukwila Trails System
•� Tukwila City Limits
A. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
B. North Wind's Weir
C. Foster Golf Links
D. Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
E. Crestview Park
F. Bicentennial Park
G. P-17 Pond
City of Normandj'
Park
4,000
Feet
120
N
A
City o
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
16,2
City of Renton
City of Kent
Over -Served Local Park Areas \
Legend
MO Over Served Local Park Areas
Local Parks
Tukwila City Limits
A. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
B. Duwamish Park
C. Riverton Park
D. 57th Ave South Mini Park
E. Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
F. Cascade View Community Park
G. Hazelnut Park
H. Tukwila Park
I. Crystal Springs Park
J. Crestview Park
--
City of Norman
Park
-To
4,000
0
z Feet
N
A
City o
Burien
City of Seattle
City of SeaTac
City of Renton
City of Kent
121
crj
0
Over -Served Special Use Areas
Legend
MO Over Served Special Use Areas
Special Use Parks/Facilities
ur, Tukwila City Limits
A, Duwamish Hill Preserve
B. Tukwila Community Center
C. Codiga Farm Park
D. Foster Golf Links
E. Tukwila Pool
F. Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
G. Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
H. lkawa Park (Japanese Garden)
Bicentennial Park
J. Tukwila Pond Park
-
City
City of Normandy.
Park
4,000
Feet
122
L.„
City o
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
<16,,
rk4t4,.
City of Renton
City of Kent
Over -Served Open Space Areas
Legend
en Over Served Open Space Areas
Open Space
ur, Tukwila City Limits
A. North Wind's Weir
B. Chinook Wind Park
-- C. Riverton Mini Park
D. Southgate Park
City of Normand
Park
4,000
Feet
City of
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
City of Renton
City of Kent
123
Over -Served Parklands
Legend
•72 Tukwila City Limits
En Over Serviced Areas
Parks w/ 50% Land Area Over Served
# of Over Serviced Areas Within Park
1
=2
L,3
A. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
B. North Wind's Weir
C. Chinook Wind Park
D. Duwamish Gardens
E. Duwamish Hill Preserve
F. Duwamish Park
G. Tukwila Community Center
H. Codiga Farm Park
I. Riverton Park
J. 57th Ave South Mini Park
K. Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
L. Tukwila Pool
M. Hazelnut Park
N. Crestview Park
City of Normandy
Park i
4,000
Feet
124
N
A
518,
City o
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
McMick
City of Renton
City of Kent
community's desired quality nflife.
° Physical Activity and Health: Encouraging
people totake a 10'nninutewalk toaccess a park
promotes physical activity. Regular physical
activity has numerous health benefits, including
reducing the risk ofobesity, heart disease, and
other chronic health conditions. Parks provide
opportunities for exercise and recreation, and
making them easily accessible promotes active
lifestyles.
• Equity and |nc|ush/ity:A 10'nninutewa|k
metric can help address issues Vfequity and
indusivity.When parks are easily accessible on
foot, itmeans that people who don't have access
tnpersonal vehicles orpublic transportation
can still enjoy greenspaces.ThisisespeciaUy
important inurban areas where many residents
may not own cars.
• Reducing Environmental Impact: Encouraging
people towalk instead nfdrive toparks can
reduce the environmental impact ofurban
transportation. This metric aligns with
sustainabi|itygoals bvreducing the use offossil
fuels and decreasing traffic congestion.
° Social Interaction: Easy park access can foster
community and social interaction. When parks
are within a short walking distance, people are
more likely tomeet their neighbors and gather
inthese communal spaces, which can have
positive social and mental health benefits.
• Economic Benefits: Parks can provide economic
benefits tothe surrounding community,
including increased property values and aboost
to local businesses. When parks are accessible
by a short m/a|k' more people are likely to use
them, potentially leading tnincreased economic
activity inthe area.
° Safety: When parks are easily accessible, it
can enhance safety byincreasing the number
ofpeople using the park. More foot traffic can
deter criminal activity, making the parka safer
place for all users.
+ Public Heath and WeU'being:Parks provide
spaces for re|uxation, stress reduction' and
connection with nature, which can contribute
�
�
Health & Well -Being evaluates how the parks and
recreation system supports physical activity, mental
restoration, youth development, older adult wellness,
inclusive recreation, and year-round service delivery.
This tenet iobroader than park amenities. |tincludes
play areas, fields, courts, trails, restroorns'open
lawns, picnic areas, the Tukwila Community Center,
aquatic services, school partnerships, events, and
recreation programs. Afacility only meets demand
when itisavailable, safe, maintained, accessible,
scheduled, and matched tothe activities the
community uses.
This is a key point for the [|P because recreation
need isoften expressed through the condition and
usability ofexisting assets. Aworn play surface,
unavailable restroonn' poor lighting, deteriorated
court, overextended field, oruncomfortable
gathering area can reduce participation even when
the park technically exists. Public input reinforces
this: residents continue to identify safety, cleanliness,
restroonns' lighting, walking routes, play, fields,
gathering areas, and family -friendly amenities as
basic expectations for afunctional park system.
Health & Well -Being supports reinvestment in
assets that people rely on everyday. |tgives the
City strong planning basis for improvements to
play areas, athletic facilities, restroonns' surfacing'
lighting, event infrastructure, flexible gathering
spaces' community center assets, and recreation -
supportive site improvements. |talso creates a useful
test for new amenities: the City should understand
how each improvement will be proQrannnned, staffed'
maintained, renewed' and funded before advancing
itasacapital priority.
�
r
�
�
r
�
�
Nature & Environment evaluates the role of
parks, open spaces, trails, canopy, habitat areas,
wetlands, storrnwaterlandscapes, and the Green/
OuwarnishRiver corridor aspart ofTukxvi|a'spublic
infrastructure. These lands provide shade, habitat,
flood storage, air quality benefits, climate resilience,
visual relief, restoration value, walking opportunities,
and access to nature in a highly urbanized setting.
Their value is not always reflected by acreage alone.
This tenet matters because open space isnot asingle
service type. Some sites should support daily public
access, walking, interpretation' and nature contact.
Other sites may bemore appropriately managed for
habitat' slope stability, storrnwaterfunction' tree
health, or long-term stewardship. Treating all open
space asifitshould function like developed parkland
would create unrealistic expectations and, in some
places, unnecessary maintenance orenvironmental
impacts.
For the Demand and Needs analysis, Nature &
Environment helps identify where capital investment
should improve public access and where investment
should focus on stewardship. River access, canopy,
shade, habitat restoration, trail -edge management,
1
m«m*��|azmopxos�
~
109
4
Parks Within High -Risk Floodplains
50%
Legend
ED Parks Within High -Risk Floodplains
FEMA High Risk Flood Plain (100yr)
im Tukwila City Limits
RIM
A. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
B. North Wind's Weir
.. C. Chinook Wind Park
D. Tukwila Community Center
E. Codiga Farm Park
F. 57th Ave South Mini Park
G. Foster Golf Links
H. Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
I. P-17 Pond
City of Normandy
Park I
4,000
Feet
126
404
N
A
City of Seattle
49
• a
RA' ad
49
:96o
City o
Burien
6 99
City of SeaTac
Park Tree Coverage
Legend
Tree Canopy
Coverage Percentage
1 10-33%
33-66%
66-100%
( .�
A. Cecil Moses Memorial Park
B. North Wind's Weir
C. Chinook Wind Park
D. Duwamish Gardens
E. Duwamish Hill Preserve
F. Duwamish Park
G. Tukwila Community Center
H. Codiga Farm Park
I. Riverton Park
J. Riverton Mini Park
K. Southgate Park
L. 57th Ave South Mini Park
M. Foster Golf Links
N. Joseph Foster Memorial/Lee Philips Park
O. Cascade View Community Park
P. Tukwila Pool
Q. Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
R. Hazelnut Park
S. Fort Dent Park/Starfire Sports
T. Tukwila Park
U. Ikawa Park (Japanese Garden)
V. Crystal Springs Park
W. Crestview Park
X. Bicentennial Park
Y. Tukwila Pond Park
Z. P-17 Pond
City of Normandyi E�
Park
4,000
Feet
N
A
City o
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
City of Renton
ZI
City of Kent
127
invasive species control, otornnvvatercoordination'
and climate resilience all have capital and operating
implications. These needs may not look like
traditional park development, but they are essential
tothe long-term performance ofTukvvi|a'ssystem
and amajor e|ernenttoit'sconnnnunityidentity
This tenet supports OPprojects that strengthen
environmental function' improve access to nature
where appropriate, reduce long-term risk, and
protect assets the City already owns ormanages.
|talso helps prevent overbuilding insensitive
areas oradding improvements that exceed the
site's ecological capacity orthe [ity'smaintenance
resources.
Community & Social Connecti
on
Community & Social Connection evaluates
whether parks and recreation spaces help people
feel vve|corne' connected' and represented. In
Tukwila, this is a core demand factor because
the system serves a multilingual and culturally
diverse community, along with workers, students,
visitors, families, elders, youth sports users' and
community organizations. A park can provide
standard amenities and still feel hidden' generic,
uncomfortable, or disconnected from the people it is
meant toserve. Clear signs, visible entries, seating,
shade, picnic areas, flexible gathering spaces, public
art, interpretation, cultural programming, and
multilingual communication all influence whether
people understand and use a place.
This tenet also explains why activation belongs in
the Demand and Needs analysis. Some parks need
reinvestment because they are heavily used and
carry alarge share ofthe systern'sdaily public value.
Others need targeted improvements because they
are underused' hard to find' poorly connected, or
unclear in purpose. Community & Social Connection
supports [|P priorities related to gathering spaces,
picnic shelters, event infrastructure, public art,
vvayfinding'cu|tura| p|ocernaking.flexible use areas,
and partnerships with schools, nonprofits, health
providers, arts partners, cultural navigators, and
community groups. |talso gives the City astronger
basis for investing inparks asplaces ofidentity and
belonging, not only ascollections offacilities.
Ho-,:\f the
CIP
odBl Stipports a I00lplementa6le
The (}uo|ity+mf-Lifemodel provides the basis for the
OPscoring and project cateQories.Aproject should
rise inpriority when itaddresses documented
need, improves access, supports recreation use,
strengthens environmental function, reinforces
community connection, improves safety, reduces
|ifecyc|erisk, orcan bedelivered and maintained
responsibly.
This model also helps the City avoid overconnnnitting.
Projects that add new maintenance obligations
without oclear service gap, funding path, staffing
strategy, orpartnership structure should be phased'
rescoped'orheld until they are ready. For the 2U27
through Z032planning period, the [|Pshould focus
onimprovements that make Tukwi|a'sexisting
system safer, more usable, more connected, more
resilient, and more realistic tooperate over time.
128
coyofmuw/azm*PROS Plan 1 112
Parks Near Religious Services
Legend
Parks Near Religious Services
Churches/Religious Services
im Tukwila City Limits
A. Duwamish Park
B. Riverton Park
C. Riverton Mini Park
D. Cascade View Community Park
E. Tukwila Pool
F. Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden
City of Normandy,, „„
Park
4,000
Feet
N
A
City o
Burien
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
City of Renton
City of Kent
129
_
`
N�����N°��^��°������ �~�N~ �����N=^=
Implications N��� Parks,
x
������N°����^�°���� ����=� ��������
Recreation, ��mm�� Open
�w.~mm
Spacen�
U�"�~�~°
The Demand and Needs analysis points toaclear
direction for Tukwila: improve daily access, reinvest
in existing assets, strengthen cultural relevance,
expand active use, and align capital decisions
with long-term maintenance and staffing capacity.
Tukvvi|a'sneeds are not defined byacreage alone.
They are shaped byhow residents, workers, youth,
older adults, families, and visitors experience the
system through safe routes, visible park entries,
usable facilities, welcoming public spaces, reliable
programs, and well -maintained natural areas.
Physical conditions make these needs more complex.
F|oodp|ains'wet soils, steep slopes, fragmented
street networks, geologic constraints, heat, smoke,
and habitat sensitivity all influence how parks
and trails are planned, built, programmed, and
maintained. |nsome locations, this means durable
surfacing, elevated boardwalks, storrnvvatep
sensi1ivedesign's|opestabi|ization'shodedroutes.
drinking fountains, covered gathering areas, and
flexible spaces that remain useful under changing
seasonal and climate conditions. Along the Green/
Duvvannish River and tributary corridors, restoration
can improve ecological function while supporting
interpretation' cultural education, walking, wildlife
�
`
viewing, and
|nm+innpactrecreatinn.
Connectivity remains central. Tukwi|a's role as
regional crossroads creates both opportunity and
burden. Parks and trails serve residents, employees,
visitors' and regional trail users, yet access is often
interrupted by freeways, rail lines, arterials, industrial
lands, incomplete sidewalks, and disconnected trail
segments. Future level ofservice decisions must
focus on real access, not theoretical proximity.
Investments that connect neighborhoods toparks,
schools, transit, the Community Center, Southcentcr,
and the river corridor carry direct quality oflife value.
Recreation demand follows the same pattern.
Community input and system analysis show strong
interest insafe, comfortable, active, and culturally
meaningful places for play, walking, fitness, field
sports, gathering, stewardship, events, and informal
use. Detailed recreation trends and supporting
market context are provided in the Appendix; this
section focuses onthe planning implications for
Tukvvi|a'spark system.
Together, these findings establish the basis for
the PROS P|an'scapital and policy direction. The
[itv's highest priorities are to care for and improve
the parks people already use, close access and
connectivity gaps, strengthen the relationship
between parks and community identity, expand
activation where itcan besupported, and phase
improvements with the staffing, funding, and
maintenance systems needed tosustain them.
coyumuw/azm*PROS Plan 1 114
A Strategic
Framework
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Strategic FriAlork 115
Introduction
The Strategic Framework establishes how Tukwila
will move from community priorities and technical
findings to investment decisions. It connects policy,
planning, operations, maintenance, partnerships,
and capital projects into one decision framework
for the full parks and recreation system, including
parks, recreation programs, trails, open space, the
TCC, Foster Golf Links, leased properties, and future
recreation facilities.
This section does not replace the plan's goals and
objectives. Those goals remain the policy foundation.
The purpose of this framework is to show how those
goals should be applied when the City evaluates
system priorities, protects existing assets, responds
to growth, maintains service levels, and decides
which projects move into the CIP.
Tukwila's system is different from many park systems
because it serves a small residential population, a
much larger daytime population, major employment
and retail districts, regional transportation corridors,
culturally diverse neighborhoods, and public spaces
shaped by the Green and Duwamish River corridor.
A simple acreage model does not explain what the
system needs. The City's decisions must be based
on access, condition, safety, visibility, recreation
function, program demand, site control, equity,
maintenance capacity, funding readiness, and long-
term public value.
Mission Statement
Tukwila Parks and Recreation
enhances quality of life for
residents, businesses, and
visitors through a high -quality
system of public spaces,
programs, facilities, trails,
natural areas, events, and
recreation opportunities that
support health and fitness,
personal growth, relaxation,
community connection, civic
engagement, cultural expression,
and environmental stewardship.
132
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Strategic Framework 116
A Vision
N �Tukwila
Tukvv|a'sparks, trails, open spaces, recreation
facilities, and golf course will function asaconnected
system ofwelcoming, high -performing public places
that reflect the dty'scultural richness, environmental
setting, and regional role. Parks will be easy to find,
safe toreach, comfortable touse, and maintained at
a level that supports public trust. Recreation facilities
and programs will remain affordable, inclusive, and
responsive toTukvvi|a'sdiverse residents. Natural
areas, riverfrontlandscapes, and Tukwila Pond will
bemanaged ascivic and ecological assets. Future
investments will strengthen existing parks first,
close access and connectivity gaps, support growth
where itisoccurring, and align capital improvements
with the staffing, funding, and maintenance capacity
needed tosustain them.
Strategic Direction
The direction of this plan is to improve system
performance before expanding obligations. That
means maintaining and reinvesting inexisting parks,
facilities, trails, open spaces, and recreation assets
while still preparing for growth, redevelopment, and
future partnership opportunities.
Several priorities shape that direction:
^ Parks need tobesafer, more visible, easier roreach,
and more comfortable tn use.
° Trails and access routes need toclose real gaps
caused by freeways, arterials, rail corridors,
topography, disconnected sidewalks, and unclear
wayfinding.
° Recreation facilities need tosupport affordable
programs, older adults, youth, families, adaptive
recreation, cultural activities, community events,
aquatics planning, and the role ofT[[asthe [ity's
primary recreation hub.
° Foster Golf Links needs tobeevaluated asboth a
recreation asset and an enterprise operation with its
own business plan, capital needs, revenue context,
and maintenance responsibilities.
° Open space and natural areas also need amore
deliberate management approach.
° Tukvvi|a'sriverfronrparks, forested sites, wetlands,
Tukwila Pond, and Green Tukwila restoration areas
provide habitat, shade, stormwaterbenefit, public
health value, and nature -based recreation. They also
require ongoing stewardship, invasive species control,
tree management, volunteer coordination, and
operating resources. These landscapes should not
betreated aspassive acreage without maintenance
The City should use this plan tomake disciplined
choices. Some projects anereadvforcapita|
investment. Some need feasibility analysis, site -
control review, master planning, business planning,
environmental review, cost estimating, partnership
agreements, urgrant positioning before they should
compete for construction funding. The OP should
reflect those distinctions.
K�^�U^ Priorities
��*^
x—exu����� x—��K�nxu�es
The direction nfthis plan istnimprove system
performance before expanding obligations. That
means maintaining and reinvesting in existing parks,
facilities, trails, open spaces' and recreation assets
while still preparing for growth, redevelopment, and
future partnership opportunities.
The goals and objectives inthis chapter provide
the policy basis for the [ity's parks' recreation'
open space, trails, golf, and facility decisions. They
should guide Comprehensive Plan alignment, capital
facilities planning, grant applications, development
review, partnerships, and future budget decisions.
The Public Recreation Overlay should beused asone
tool for protecting and supporting public recreation
functions, but itshould not betreated asthe only
policy mechanism that shapes the system. Base
zoning, redevelopment standards, growth targets,
frontage improvements, critical areas, transportation
investments, and public access requirements all
affect how parks and recreation service isdelivered.
This distinction matters most inSVuthcenter,
T|B'and Tukwila South, where future needs may
bemet through amix oftraditional parks, urban
open spaces, trail connections, public realm
improvements, private development contributions,
easements, partnerships, and recreation facilities.
|nthese areas, the policy question isnot only how
much park land the City owns. The more important
question iswhether residents, workers, and visitors
have safe, visible, and functional access to recreation.
gathering space, trails, programs, and nature.
Leased and partner -controlled properties need
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan � Strategic �L
separate policy treatment. They
may provide real recreation
value, but they donot offer the
same certainty nsCity-owned
land. Before those properties
are counted asstable long-
term level of service assets,
the City should consider site
control, renewal terms, public
access, capital responsibility,
operating responsibility, and
the consequence oflosing the
site. Crestview should remain
opriority park resource, but
long-term capital commitments
should bematched tothe
outcome oflease orownership
negotiations.
��U���^��� ���~K��^�^��
Planning ..~~..~.,~`~
Planning work should focus on
places where growth, access
gaps, public demand, and
implementation readiness
overlap. The vva|kshedgap and
spatial equity analysis should
guide new access routes' park
connections, safe crossings,
trail links, acquisition priorities,
and partnership opportunities.
The highest -value planning
work will help residents reach
parks and recreation facilities
safely, especially where the
street network, topography,
freeways, rail corridors, orland
use patterns make dose'to-
horne access harder than u map
suggests.
}
�
Tukwila Zoning
Low Density Residential
L�Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
�N'mmce
� |Mixed Use Office
L_|wmrkpine
Residential Commercial Center
Neighborhood Commercial Center
Regional Center
Regional Commercial
=mm/"""/Commercial Mixed Use
Commercial Corridor
Commercial Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
� .� /m.���"�oma�mom"�vuom
N"',1, Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy
Pond
Transit Oriented Development
Tukwila Valley South
4,000
Feet
Growth inSnuthcenter,T|Q'and
Tukwila South requires more urban parks strategy.
These areas need public spaces and recreation
connections that can serve future residents and
workers without assuming that every need will be
met through large land acquisition. Development
review, transportation projects, frontage
innprovernents, public access easements, plazas,
trail corridors, and activeground'|eve| public nea|rn
improvements should all hecoordinated with the
[ity'srecreation goals.
The Transportation Impact Fee program creates an
important opportunity because itnow accounts for
person -trip modeling and bike and pedestrian LOS
standards. Park access projects that also improve
walking, biking, safe routes, transit connections,
(
{
or trail continuity should be coordinated with
transportation funding where they serve both
mobility and recreation outcomes.
Facility planning should advance before major
construction commitments where cost' operations.
partnerships, orsite decisions remain unresolved.
This applies to aquatics planning, potential pool siting
atT[[' nnsqorT[[ improvements, Foster Golf Links
investments, and existing park master plans that
need updated cost, phasing, orfeasibility review.
Aproject should not move into the near -term [|P
simply because itappears inaprior plan. |tshould
move forward when the purpose, cost, public benefit,
operating impact, funding strategy, and readiness
level are clear.
>
'�
134
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan � Strategic Frannewurk 118
The Citv's first responsibility is to take carp of what
italready owns, operates, leases, and manages. This
principle does not prevent new parks' new trails, new
recreation facilities, ornew partnerships. It requires
each new obligation tobeevaluated against staffing,
equipment, contracting, |ifecydereplacement, utility
cost, stewardship requirements, and maintenance
standards before the City commits tn construction.
The asset inventory, condition assessment,
classification system, and LOSmatrix should guide
how the City sets maintenance expectations. A
neighborhood park, riverfrontsite, open space
parcel, trail corridor, community center, pool, and
golf course donot require the same level Vfstaffing,
inspection, replacement, risk management, or
customer service. Those differences should shape
the maintenance operations plan, annual budgeting,
procurement, contracting, and future capital
sequencing.
This approach also affects project ranking. Asmaller
project that corrects drainage, lighting, AOAaccess,
restroorncondition, surfacing, play value, field
function, signage'orvisibility may have ahigher near -
term priuritythana|argerexpansionpro]nctthat
creates new maintenance responsibilities without
resolving existing deficiencies. The City should
also evaluate natural area projects for stewardship
capacity, not just construction cost. Habitat
restoration, tree canopy work, invasive species
management, and riverfrnntimprovements require
follow-through after the capital project is complete.
The [|Pshould bethe capital expression ofthis
framework. Projects shou|dadvancevvhenthey
address documented need, protect existing
investment, improve safety oraccess, respond to
community priorities, support adopted planning
direction, serve areas with access orequity gaps,
align with grant criteria, and can beoperated and
maintained after construction.
Near -term projects should favor readiness and
public benefit. This includes reinvestment inexisting
parks and facilities where condition, safety, visibility,
accessibility, lighting, drainage, rcstroonns,comfort,
or |ifccyde needs are limiting use. It also includes
trail and access projects thatdoscdocunnented
gaps and connect neighborhoods toparks, schools,
transit, the TC[,the pool, Foster Golf Links, Tukwila
Pond, the Green/DuvvannishRiver, and regional trails.
Projects with unresolved lease, ownership,
environmental, permitting, design, stakeholder,
cost' or operating questions should remain in the
plan, but they should beassigned tofeasibility,
planning, partnership development, nrlong-range
implementation until they are ready for capital
funding. This protects the credibility ofthe six -
year prngrarnvvhi|epreservinginnportantfuture
opportunities.
The City should continue tnadvance projects that
express Tukvvi|a'sidentity, including culturally
relevant public spaces, riverfrnntaccess' ecological
restoration' public art, community gathering,
nature -based recreation, and connections between
neighborhoods and civic destinations. These
projects should bephased around funding, grant
competitiveness, partnership potential, site control,
and maintenance capacity.
The OPthat follows applies the Strategic Framework
to specific projects. It does not rank projects
byinterest alone, and itdoes not assume every
desirable project is ready for construction. Each
project is evaluated by its system role, policy
support, response to documented need' access
and equity benefit, condition or|ifecydeurgency,
implementation readiness, funding potential, and
operations impact.
This gives the City defensible basis for capital
decisions. It supports reinvestment before
expansion, connects access improvements togrowth
and transportation planning, distinguishes ready
projects from projects needing more work, and
positions Tukwila for grants without over committing
local funding or staff capacity.
�01
,
Goals Objectives
Below is a draft policy framework calibrated for a City that is managing an operating deficit, and needs the
PROSP|antofunctionasoninnp|ennentationtoo|thattightensdecision'nnoking'right-sizesservice|eve|s'
and makes performance measurable. It is built directly off the service tier and staffing logic in the Park
Operations and Maintenance guidelines and associated staffing model, including the maintenance Level 1-5
definitions, cost- pe r-se rvice tier assumptions, and the documented gap between current and recommended
maintenance capacity.
Reinvest in Safe,
Visible, and
Functional Parks
Portfolio Right -
Sizing and Asset
Optimization
User Experience
�
`
^
k"0111
Now
�
136
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Fian � Strategic Framework 120
Goal PR-1. Reinvest in Safe, Visible, and
Functional Parks
Stabilize the parks system by matching service commitments to available resources,
protecting public safety, and using maintenance tiers and cost data to guide decisions.
Objective 1.1: Adopt a Citywide Maintenance Tier Map (Level 1-5) as the
primary operating standard.
Action 1.1.1: Assign a maintenance Level (1-5) to every park, trail segment, and major
facility, and publish the map as an adopted appendix to the PROS Plan.
Performance Metric:
a. 100% of assets assigned a Level within 12 months of Plan adoption.
Action 1.1.2: Establish systemwide minimums that protect safety and core usability.
Performance Metric:
a. 0 Active parks maintained below Level 3
b. Major developed parks maintained at Level 2
c. Undeveloped areas maintained at Level 4 or 5 with scheduled safety monitoring.
Action 1.1.3: Limit Level 1 maintenance to civic anchors and the highest visibility spaces,
where Council explicitly authorizes the premium service cost.
Performance Metric:
a. Annual Council review of all Level 1 areas, with documented rationale and cost.
Objective 1.2: Make staffing and productivity targets explicit and trackable.
Action 1.2.1: Use "developed acres per maintenance FTE" as a primary productivity
benchmark.
Performance metric:
a. Maintain developed parkland workload at or below 18.8 developed acres per FTE (Level 2 guidance), or
document why an exception is being accepted.
Action 1.2.2: Track the maintenance staffing gap annually and tie decisions to a phased,
deficit -aware staffing plan.
Performance metric:
a. Publish annual "current vs. target" maintenance capacity using the City's approved plan for closing the
gap through staffing, contracting, tier adjustments, or asset changes.
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Strategic Frairlt Work 121
Action 1.2.3: Protect preventative maintenance capacity by policy, even during constrained
budget cycles.
Performance metric:
a. Annually report the % of planned preventative work completed for priority assets (playgrounds, hard
surfaces, restrooms, sports courts, trail structures).
b. Objective 1.3: Require full lifecycle and O&M impact accounting for every capital decision.
Action 1.3.1: Require every CIP project to include an "O&M Impact Statement" that
estimates staffing hours, annual cost exposure, and the maintenance Level the project will
require once built.
Performance metric:
a. 100% of CIP projects include O&M impact, and projects that increase net annual O&M must identify
the offset or funding source.
Action 1.3.2: Use service tier cost assumptions as a screening tool in CIP prioritization.
Performance metric:
a. Annually report projected O&M cost exposure by maintenance Level using the Plan's adopted
assumptions (for example, the City's current cost -per -acre framework by Level).
Actively manage the parks portfolio so the City is not carrying assets, service
expectations, or facility types that it cannot sustainably operate.
l t r
v t
tt
Action 2.1.1: Establish a repeatable "retain, reinvest, convert, partner, or divest" decision
test for City -owned parcels, using maintenance Level, public use, safety risk, equity value,
and Quality of Life outcomes as the criteria.
Performance metric:
a. Review 20% of the portfolio each year, completing a full cycle every 5 years.
Action 2.1.2: Where appropriate, convert low -use developed areas to lower maintenance
natural -area standards (Level 4-5) while maintaining safety monitoring.
Performance metric:
a. Annual reporting of acres converted, and estimated annual O&M savings.
Action 2.1.3: Where appropriate, pursue transfers, shared management, or divestment for
assets that do not align with City priorities or cannot be maintained to minimum standards.
Performance metric:
a. Annual Council action list with expected cost and risk outcomes.
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Strategic Framework 122
Objective 2.2: Prioritize "fix what we have" before expanding the maintenance
footprint.
Action 2.2.1: Establish a policy that new assets or major expansions must be net -neutral to
the General Fund unless Council authorizes a dedicated funding plan.
Performance metric:
a. 0 unfunded increases in annual O&M obligations from capital delivery.
Action 2.2.2: Focus near -term capital spending on projects that reduce risk and lower
long-term maintenance burden (durable materials, simplified layouts, reduced irrigated turf,
more efficient equipment rooms).
Performance metric:
a. Each major project demonstrates an O&M efficiency gain or documents why it cannot.
Goal PR-3. Core Service Standards for Safety,
Cleanliness, and User Experience
Maintain consistent, visible standards for the things residents notice most, with
simple performance metrics that Council can track.
Objective 3.1: Establish minimum response and inspection
standards for safety and health
Action 3.1.1: Define a standard response time for safety hazards (downed limbs, critical
failures, high -risk conditions).
Performance metric:
a. 90% of safety hazards addressed within the adopted response window, reported quarterly.
Action 3.1.2: Align restroom and high -use area servicing frequencies to the adopted
maintenance Levels.
Performance metric:
a. Compliance reporting for Level 1-2 restrooms and trash service in peak season, with exceptions
documented.
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Strategic FrMrk 123
Objective 3.2: Protect a minimum maintenance Level for all active parks
Action 3.2.1: Maintain the policy floor that no active park drops below Level 3, unless
Council explicitly approves a temporary exception tied to a budget action and a corrective
plan.
Performance metric:
a. 0 unapproved exceptions annually.
Goal PR-4. Trails, Connectivity, and Active
Transportation that the City Can Maintain
Strengthen the trail and connection network with an emphasis on safety,
continuity, and lifecycle planning.
Objective 4.1: Maintain core trails to a safe, reliable standard
Action 4.1.1: Maintain heavily used trails at Level 1-2, consistent with the O&M guidelines.
Performance metric:
a. Annual trail condition summary and documented inspection cadence.
Action 4.1.2: Establish a lifecycle renewal policy for paved trails and structures.
Performance metric:
a. Adopt a resurfacing and renewal schedule consistent with typical 10-15 year reinvestment cycles
b. Report progress annually.
Goal PR-5. Natural Areas Stewardship Through
Smart Standards and Partnerships
Protect Tukwila's open space function without importing developed -park
maintenance expectations into natural areas.
Objective 5.1: Maintain undeveloped areas at the appropriate
service Level, with safety monitoring
Action 5.1.1: Maintain undeveloped parkland at Level 4 or 5, paired with scheduled hazard
monitoring and targeted intervention (illegal dumping, hazard trees, invasive outbreaks).
Performance metric:
a. Annual reporting of safety checks completed and priority interventions delivered.
Action 5.1.2: Expand stewardship capacity through partners and volunteers where it
reduces City burden and improves outcomes.
Performance metric:
a. Annual volunteer hours and partner -delivered work value tracked as in -kind O&M support.
140
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Strategic Framework 124
Goal PR-6. Transparent Annual Reporting to
Council
Make it easy for Council to see whether the system is stabilizing, where costs are
moving, and whether the plan is working.
Objective 6.1: Publish a Parks System Performance Dashboard
each year
Action 6.1.1: Report, at minimum, these metrics annually:
Performance metric:
a. Maintenance Levels map compliance, developed acres per FTE
b. Trails maintained to Level 1-2
c. Number of Level exceptions approved
d. Cost per acre by maintenance Level
e. Preventative maintenance completion rate
f. Current staffing gap relative to the City's staffing model.
Action 6.1.2: Tie CIP recommendations and funding actions directly to dashboard findings.
Performance metric:
a. Every annual CIP update includes a short "what changed and why" section that references the
dashboard measures.
WIN"
" TR'
'73MPRIST. 7341WWW,
VP-41* A.•
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Strategic Fratntiork 125
4.0
Capital
Improvement
Program
142
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Plan Adoption 126
�
Introduction
The Capital Improvement Pngmm(C|P)isthe
implementation bridge between the PROS Plan and
the City'sannual decisions about funding, staffing,
partnerships, grant applications, maintenance, and
capital delivery. It translates system needs into a
working program that can be reviewed, adjusted,
and acted onosconditions change. The program
does not assume that every listed project vvi||rnove
directly to construction during the six -year planning
period. Some projects are ready for near -term
design, funding, nrdelivery. Others need additional
p|anning, public review, cost refinement, site control,
permitting, interdepartmental coordination, or
partner commitments before they can advance.
Keeping those projects visib|egives1he[ityastronger
position when grant cycles open, land becomes
available, redevelopment occurs, transportation or
utility projects move forward, or regional partnerships
create new implementation opportunities.
For Tukwila, the [|Pisalso asequencing tool. |t
helps the City decide which projects should move
first, which projects need additional preparation,
which projects shou|dbebund|edvvithotherpub|ic
investments, and which projects should remain in the
long-range program until timing, funding, or readiness
�r`
��"����^���@��
improves. The following exhibits provide the working
structure for those decisions.
N—N0�����m� NN*��� ��N=°�� ��N�� ��~N°
N-0�~�� �n� �����~ This ��N�— N���
Decision
� ° ° Making
���������N���� �� N����
�~ ~� �~�m N��N���� mw ~° ° � � ��
The C|Pshould boused asaconnected set of
decision tools during budgeting, grant preparation,
capital planning, partnership discussions, property
review, and staff work planning. Table 6'1,shown on
the next page, includes all the tools used and how
they are tobeused asthe City advances its OP.
The scoring guide explains how projects were
evaluated. The matrix summary shows program
scale, cost, timing, and category distribution.
The improvements table provides project -level
detail on cost, readiness, funding strategy, and
implementation window. The maps show where
priority investments are located ensuring an
equitable distribution of projects, and also where
park, trail, access, and system gaps overlap. Together,
these tools help the City decide whether tnadvance
a project, pursue funding, complete feasibility
nrmaster planning, resV|vesite'contro| issues'
coordinate with partners' orhold the project until
timing improves.
ZK
j4�
u�of/vxwn"2maPROS Plan � Capital /mvmvcme",/�am 127
Tab|mG'1:
Tool
C|PTom|o Used in This Chapter
Function
[|PPriohdzadon
Scoring Guide
Establishes the criteria and weighting u»edN
evaluate capital priorities.
OPMatrix
Summary
Summarizes cost, project cnunt, priority
�
ratings, implementation timing, and
category -level investment.
OP
Improvements
Table
Identifies individual projects, planning -level
costs, scores, funding strategy, readiness'
and implementation notes,
Priority
� '
Projects Map
Shows where priority par�fad|it�rive�mnt
`
acquisition, renewal, and aoessinvestments
' '
are concentrated.
Priority Trail
Projects Map
Shows where parks[|P priorities overlap
^ and jeUshnmthe
�
curnentNon'MotorizedTrai|s Master Plan.
Project �����»�����^&���
~ ^ ~�~�~ Categories
Before projects
are scored,
they need to
be organized
bvthe kind of
public value they
are intended
todeliver. The
project categories
help the City
distinguish
|ifecyde repairs
from access
improvements,
recreation
investments,
river and habitat
work, acquisition
opportunities'
and cultural or
system support
projects. This
matters because
each type of
project has a
different funding
path, readiness
test, maintenance
implication, and public benefit argument.
Several projects supportrnorethanonecategVry
Tukwila Pond combines access, habitat, visibility,
public art, environmental education, safety, and
Category
Safety, Renewal, and
System Stewardship
Table 6'2: Project Categories
Primary Purpose
Repairs, replacements, accessibility improvements, lighting, surfacing, furnishings,
restrooms, drainage, building systems, and other work needed to keep existing parks
safe, usable, maintainable, and aligned with adopted service expectations.
Trails, Access, and
Safe Routes
Trail connections, sidewalk and crossing coordination, neighborhood |inks.
wayfinding, access lighting, trailheads, and routes connecting parks with schools,
transit, neighborhoods, employment areas, and regional trails.
Active Recreation
and Community Use
Play, athletics, aquatics feasibility, flexible recreation, gathering space, events,
informal activity, and improvements that expand daily use of existing parks and
River, Habitat,
Climate, and Open
Space
River access, habitat restoration, shade, tree canopy, stormwaterfunction, heat
response, open space stewardship, and long-term environmental performance.
Land Acquisition and
Opportunity Sites
[uhora|P|acemaking
and System Support
Acquisitions, easements, civic parcels, pocket parks, access corridors, redevelopment
opportunities, and partnership sites that may help close service gaps or preserve
future park and open space options.
Art, interpretation, signage, cultural identity, gateways, civic sites, historic resources,
and systemwide improvements that make public spaces easier to find, understand,
and connect toTukwi|a'sidentity.
Southcenterpublic realm objectives. Hazelnut Park
combines civic history, arts' public gathering, building
reuse, stakeholder coordination, and park renewal,
The assigned category identifies the primary capital
purpose; the implementation strategy should still
144
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Cap�tal Improvement Program 128
�� Projects
���^� Scored
uo�� �������� �m���� �����n���u
The scoring guide isdesigned togive the City a
consistent method for comparing projects that
differ in sca|e, cost, purpose' and readiness. It does
not replace staff judgment, emergency action,
critical liability response, or Council direction. It
creates a shared methodology for evaluating safety,
access, equity, |ifecyc|econdition, climate response,
recreation value, O&M benefit, grant potential,
and implementation readiness before projects are
advanced into the [|P matrix.
The weighting system gives the greatest influence
to criteria tied most directly toTukwi|a's core capital
responsibilities. Safety and asset stewardship,
connectivity and access, equity and service gaps,
climate response, and Ufecyde performance each
receive 1596 because they have the strongest
connection tndocumented system needs, public
benefit, long-term City responsibility, and defensible
capital investment.
Recreation activation, river and open space value,
and O&M/|ifecyc|ebenefit each receive 1O%.These
criteria help distinguish projects that expand
use, improve environmental function, orreduce
maintenance burden, while recognizing that they may
not apply equally tnevery project type.
Grant and partnership readiness and implementation
readiness each receive 5Y6.These criteria help
determine timing and sequencing, but they should
not outweigh underlying public need. Aproject
should not rise to the top only because it is easier to
fund nreasier tndeliver. Readiness helps determine
when aproject can move; the higher -weighted
criteria help determine why itshould move.
Criterion
Table
Weight
6-3: C|P Prioritization Scoring Guide
What |tMeasures
SafetSa��andAs ��
y -
Stewardship
15�
Corrects safety aging
�� ' ^ '-o� '
exposure, and |ifecvdedeficiencies.
Connectivity and
Access'
15%
Improves park access' trail links, crossings, wayfinding' first- and last -block connections, or
access ina�asaffe�edbv�eeways rai|cnrhdor�a�eha|s�ee�.Uopo��phKorincomp|�e
pedestrian networks. '
Activation and
Recreation Capacity
0�
Expands pmX�mmin��exi�|hxp|ayva|u��h|edc�aquadc�ea�e/in�pven�,
daily '� ~
orcommunity recreation opportunities.
River, Habitat, and
Open Space Value
1O�
Supports the Green/DuwamishRiver corrido�Tukwila Pond natural wildlife habitat,
' '
open space stewardship, nrnature access.
Climate and
Environmental
Response
Equityand�cmice
Gap Benefit
O&M and Lifegc|e
Benefit
Grant and
Partnership
Readiness
Implementation
15%
15%
lU�
S%
5�
Adds shad�cannp��ormwa�rbene�t habitat cnrhdorfuncdon
- ' '
ormore durable site materials and |andscapes �
Directs investment toward underorvedaeasculturally lower -access
' '
neighborhoodsyouth older people and residents with fewer
' ' ' '
recreation choices.
Reduosmai�enanceburden replaces improves
' ' ''
responsibility, urprevents higher future repair costs.
Positions the p jectforout�idefunding matching partner donations
� ' ' ' '
spnnsorship�ori�e�Qencycnnrdina�nn �
Reflects whether the pn4ecthas adearscnp�planning basis site cnstbasi�
' ' '
City of"rukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Capital Improvement
129
Priority
���x�~���u ^ ���*� «���U
. �U��. .^ Criterion .~=~.U��� ="~="e
Each criterion israted oneU.1'3'or5scale to
distinguish primary, meaningful, limited, and non -
applicable benefits without creating a false sense of
precision. The score isaplanning judgment based on
documented need, project purpose, public benefit,
readiness, and staff review.
The selected score is multiplied by the criterion
weight. Ascore of5receives the full value ofthat
criterion'3 receives5OY6' 1 receives ZD96'and O
receives novalue. This structure gives appropriate
credit for secondary benefits while preventing
incidental benefits from scoring the same as core
project drivers.
Score
Table
6'4: Prioritization Criterion Rating Scale
Rating
Rating
��ron�/Primary
Benefit
Thep jectdi��dyaddnssesthecrkehon andthebeneOti�cenka|0o�hepn�ectpurpnse
�� ' '
The project should beable to demonstrate clear public need measurable benefit, or strong
'
policy connection,
Moderate /
—
Meaningful Benefit
~
Thep jectsuppo�sthec�ehoninadearandd��n�b|eway but the ben��isnot
� '
the phmarydhverofthe p j��orapp|iestoamore|im�eda�� user �ou�asa�or
� '
implementation phase.
Limited /Incidental
Benefit
The project hassomere|atinnshiptothecrite/ion.butthebenefitisindirect.minnr,uncertain'
nrsecondary tothe main project purpuse.
-
Not Applicable /No
Clear Benefit
Theproject doesnotmeaningfullyadd�s the criterion, oorthereisnntennuohe�dencetn
assign abenefit,
Weighted Score
The weighted score combines the individual
prioritization criterion ratings into one comparable
project score. Each raw score is multiplied by its
assigned criterion weight, and the weighted values
are added together. The maximum possible score
is5.O.For example, aproject that scores 5ona
criterion weighted at 15% receivesO75 points toward
its total score, vvhi|c a project that scores 3 on that
same criterion receivesO.45 points. The table below
explains how the City should use the resulting score
when reviewing, updating, oradvancing C|Pprojects.
Weighted Score
Use
Tab|eG-G: Prioritization Weighted Score Use
Use in C|P Decisions
First screen
Use the weighted scoretncnmparere|ativepub|icbenefitacmssthefuUpmQram.
Readiness check
Confirm whether project j��is�advforimp|emcn�dn�ncedsp�nnin�o/dependsonmwnc�hi��an�,
� `
permitting, orpartnership decisions.
Annua|upda�e\on|
Reanrepnge�swhen cn��mmne�hi��adiness public asset fundin5eligibility, or
' ' '
maintenance assumptions change.
Not aconstruction
order
Donot treat the score asanautomatic sequence for design orcnnstruchon
'
Not adeletion tool
Dnnot remove |nweponhprojects jects ifoutside timing, acquisition, redevelopment, easements, nrgrant
�
cycles may make them important later.
Table G'G'shown onthe next page, provides the full scoring guide deigned tobeused toevaluate each
proposed [|P project before itisentered into the matrix. Each criterion includes decision question' assigned
weight, rating scale, planning rationale, and verification sources snthat scores are tied tn documented
need, field conditions, access and equity analysis, maintenance realities, grant readiness, and adopted City
priorities.
146
O�y of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Cap�tal Improvement Program 130
Criterion
Weight
Table
Q
No
relationship
6'8: C|P Primriomtimn
1
Indirect
or minor
benefit
Scoring
Rating
3
Meaningful
~
Guide
5
Primary dhvernf
the p project
�
Use in C|P
Suppn�zthe saf�vi�b|�and
functional
Planning Question
Does the p jectcnnectav�ib|e�a���cond�nn
� `' '
liability,
'�
Verification notes
[Vn�rmagainst cnnd�ionass�sme�s staff
'
wmrknnjer�and�eNnbse�ahons �
Does the p jectimpmvewa|kinQ biking transit
�� ' ' '
ADAwavMn�in�nrc|nse�o'homeaccesstoparks?
' wayfinding,
No
relationship
Indirect
or
access
benefit
Improves access
atonesiteor
segment
Closes akey aness
'
gap or strengthens
asystem
connection'
Supports trail, safe and
' '
access priorihes
'
Confirm with walk -shed mapping, barrier
analysis,transportation and pa�e|aoess
'
conditions
Does the pnqectsupport receadnn.events, p|a�
gathering, cultural use, orday�n'dayparkue�
1O
No clear
relationship
Limited user
benefit
Modemtesite nr
program benefit
Major park use
'
program,or
benefit
Supports acdveuse recreation
'
capacity, and public |ih�
'�
Confirm pub|iccomments
' '
P|acecai d�� and shenhse�a inns
' observations.
�
Does the pnUectimprmer�e/access open
'
function, habitat restoration, or
' ' ' '
10
No clear
relationship
Indirect
benefit
Site -level
environmental or
open space bene�t
Primary river,
habita�oropen
space project
Keeps the Green R�e�Tuk�|a
Pond and
'
visib|eintheOP
[on�rmwith crihca|aneas shoreline
'
requirements, Green an�masterp|ans
' ' '
'��
Does the p ectreducehea�impmve�had�
suppo�low-carbon a�ess improve
'
respond \oMnodinX or
'
resilience? resilience?
No
relationship
Minor or
indirect
benefit
Clear project-
specific benefit
Primary dimatenr
resilience benefit
Adds adirect dimate
prioridzahnn|ayertothe[|P
[on�rma�ain�[bvdim�eacdon�cr�ca|
'
areas,canopy flood and design
' '
standards.
Does the p octscm�anaco�sQa�unde�emed '��
area, youth older lower -income
' ' ' '
renters, language -diverse users or
' '
disabilities?
No
relationship
Limited or
indirect
benefit
Moderate benefit
tnanidentified
user
Direct benefit to
aclear access nr
equity
Helps explain whvpnqects
'
matter toTukwi|a'sfull
communbx
'
Confirm accessana|y�is
' '
engagement findings, and ADAtransition
'
priorities,
'
Does the project reduce deferred maintenance,
improve maintainability, replace failing asse� or
'
make semicede|�erymore e�denD
1O
Adds burden
without
offset
MinorU&M
relevance
MndemteO&Mor
|K�'��|ebeneU�
Major
� '
liability, or
'�
cycle benefit
ConeUzcapha|p|annin�to
mai�enancerea|ihes �
[nnMmnv�thmain\enances\af[ass��a�e
'
inspection andrep|acement�chedu|es
' '
Does the project align with likely grant programs,
partnerships, match adopted plans, or
' ' '
exishngma�erplan?
No clear
funding path
Limited
funding
alignment
Potential grant or
partner
Strong grant
nrpartner fit
with
planning basis
Shows grant -aware project
pnsidnnin� �
Confirm current grant ru|ese|h�bi|i��match
' ~ '
andhminQb��reapp|ic��inns �
1'17
CNP Project Framework
The projects on the following pages are the capital implementation of the PROS Plan. They carry forward
the findings from the planning context, community engagement, inventory, access and LOS analysis, equity
review, demand and needs assessment, goals and objectives, and implementation framework.
Projects were included based on the prioritization process and supporting assessments, including
documented need, system condition, access barriers, public benefit, equity value, readiness, funding
potential, O&M implications, and alignment with adopted City direction. Not every identified need became a
capital project. Sorneiternsvveneaddressedthroughpo|icy'openations.partnerships.rnaintenancepracdces,
future planning, orlong-range monitoring instead.
The project determination and prioritization sequence moves from priority to place to detail:
* The CIP Projects Prioritization Table, Table 6-7, identifies which projects rise highest in the current cycle.
° The Priority [|PProjects Map identifies where major park, facility, access, riverfront, acquisition, renewal, and system investments are
concentrated.
° The Priority Trail Projects Map identifies where park priorities overlap with the Otak Non -Motorized Trails Master Plan.
° The Priority OPProject Radnna|eandP|anA|i nment, Table 6-8, connects the priority projectsbacktnthefindingsandpo|icydirecdnn
established earlier inthe PROS Plan.
^ The Priority Cl P Projects Matrix, Table 6-9, provides the full working list with cost, timing, category, funding, readiness, and
implementation notes.
° The Priority OPProjects MathxSummary,Tab|e640,pmvdesasummarynverviewnf\he[|Pproject costsincluding the framework
148
City mTukwila 2usPROS Plan � Capital Improvement pm:ram 132
1-114/freV7it
ter '.,',,,g.,;-,
„S )•-• - .! , ' ' '
','"' 1 olithVa?kAiiite,o7d,' ':,9
CIP Projects Ma
Corresponding Goal/Objective:
Goal PR-1: Reinvest in Parks
Goal PR-2: Asset Optimization
Goal PR-3: Core Service Standards
433,,
3133P Goal PR-4: Trails and Connectivity
wi44,11*,,
Goal PR-5: Natural Areas Stewardship
Goal PR-6: Transparent Reporting
Crystal Springs Park Lighting
Replacement
Tukwila Community Center (TCC)
Campus MP Phase 1
Joseph Foster Memorial Park (JFMP)
Master Plan Implementation
TCC River Access, Internal Pathway, and
Campus Circulation Improvements
Riverton Park Playground
TCC Turf Field Conversion
JFMP Turf Field Conversion
0 Bicentennial Park River Access & Trail
Connection
Green River Corridor Trailhead Access
Improvements
0 Tukwila Pond Park Access
Improvements
System Wide Improvements
• Park Signage, Kiosk, and Wayfinding
Improvements
• Trail and Park Lighting
• Park Restroom Replacements
• Playground Impact Attenuation Surfacing
Replacement
• Park Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment
• Emergency Repairs
• Park Events Setup
• Municipal Arts Fund / Improvements
DES M WAVES
'
irpier Beal
iet
„Kiovt, Ri fiat;
' „Gardens
5,ypikimr
„„Park
,F14.*Pittotms'
3/1Ely,7-9,
Er�or
S'ound 7`0,a0te
Biqa Ayer,
vatqrwc#4
$p1n3frook
GrffpbFit
fke.'
'"4' 141 44, 't
- Konl
"VD
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan 1 Cp tal Improvement1r9arn 133
Norrh
Shorewood
Park
Highland eldrk
Playground
- Seattle
Othello -Streik h "B. " 7fiiK
see'S' e5s'554'
— ,
Singh Pork PlOyground
Cesar it,
Pk:mem se,„
\he , eichiaroanit
Bt,
Priority Trail System Project Map
6,0
ttkt I
Benefit:
see Tukwila Trails
t
City of Tukwila Owned Trails
Green River Trail (King County)
--- Interurban Trail (Puget Sound Energy)
----- - Private
— Proposed Trail Connections
Tukwila City Parks
City Owned Property
Sikkim
Creek Park
„Soltion ArSelkinke
Mum
t Patine
Creek
hewn Arnbinen
HaBBI Sound
ikk° 1 oke Park
Area Park Park
Seolturst Pore
Luke Bailor
School
1,4E17,ot-dot Par",
Gni:Ikea Park
Linde
; Pare
Bonen
Correntiney
arter
bete Harper Park ; Mitlenon Par
ToWlmk
Squint
Park
takevietit
Pare
- Backe/
Moslem
Memorial C
Park ;
5555
Memaribl Piked
' Mk,
,Warker „ ctt
Creek tie WilsortGorb '
Prison:id
,tity Hall Park
islorlOodndy Park
any Pork
Nist kit oc
4,000
en,
Southern
Heights P
reek`N
4 est
ledligitekta
Sit
ithtS1
• t
Manhattan • he,„tsk
he
Pork
ne
Mayfibid
Feet N
the
no tofiebeke
Mariesto Pork •
st,trot nothttAkt-tot
krtatod P ttikr
1. • Angle
koke Pas*
tech
64'
tchord,
; r
943.
ri,critt'ier Be
yobton For
ohdVo.
eer Sh,4gO
Adidn*C
Bout RO
Moyer Pldite
Cakddidge
Park
Wier Gime
,tileadwaters'
keyway Awe
m Skyway Fauns\
aye
tereo
h0t,
Seto
Smingtbrone,
Greenbelt
pi
Seli
Intelenan
' nee rrai Site
d:'
rt, -
4, #
4,... t
t
South
FIS;orcer
'Ouvneld
Bryn Mawr
Park
-55,
kola'
Greenbelt
150
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Capital Improvement Program 134
Project
Safety
Asset
Stewardship
4
Connectivity
/ Access
5
Activation /
Recreation
CapacityOpen
4
Table
Estimated
River/
Habitat /
8'7: C|P
Climate/
Environmental
Resilience
Projects
Costs
5
Prioritioation
Equity/
O&M/
Grant /
|nmp|e'
nmentation
Readiness
3
Summary |nmp|e'
Weighted
Score p'|o'itY mnen1ation
Ranking Window
Service Gap
Life -Cycle
Partnership
Readiness
5
2027-2032
[|P
Space
5
Benefit
5
Benefit
3
4
5
4
S
5
5
]
5
Z
Long -Term/
Aspiratinna|
4
S
4
5
4
5
3
S
3
4.30
2037-2U32
[|P
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
5
3
425
3027'2O3Z
[|P
4
5
4
5
5
4
3
5
2
425
Z027'2032
[|P
4
4
5
2
3
5
5
5
5
410
High
2027'2032
[|P
4
5
3
5
4
4
]
5
3
4.05
High
2027'2032
[|P
'
S
5
3
1
4
S
3
5
3
3.95
High
2027'2032
[|P
4
4
5
]
4
4
3
5
3
3.90
High
2827'2032
[|P
1�1
c/�vr*�w|nzozsPROS pun | cnp/'"l lmvmvemco��r0gwm 135
Project
Safety
Asset
Stewardship
4
Connectivity
/ Access
4
Activation /
Recreation
CapacityOpen
5
Table
Estimated
River/
Habitat /
8'7: C|PProjects
Costs
Climate/
Environmental
Prioritioation
Equity/
O&M/
Grant /
5
|nmp|e'
nmentation
Readiness
4
Weighted
Score
3.80
Summary
p'|o'itY
Ranking
High
|nmp|e'
mnen1ation
Service Gap
Life -Cycle
Partnership
Readiness
Window
2027-2032
[|P
Space
1
Resilience
3
Benefit
4
Benefit
5
5
5
]
1
3
4
5
3
4
3.80
High
2027-2032
[|P
5
5
2
O
4
5
3
5
3
3.75
High
n
2UZ�2O32
[|P
3
4
4
2
4
5
3
4
3
3.65
High
2037-2032
[|P
4
4
4
1
3
4
5
4
3
3.60
High
2027'2032
[|P
4
4
S
O
3
5
3
5
3
3.60
High
2027'2032
[|P
4
4
5
1
]
4
]
5
3
`
�`-
2027J032[|P
5
4
4
O
2
4
5
3
4
/ —50
H=
2027�O32� [|P
4
5
3
1
3
4
3
4
3
'' 3.45
2027-2832� [|p
5
5
3
1
2
4
3
]
4
; 3.45 ` '
2027-2032
[|P
152
City offukvvila 2026 PROS Plan I Capital improvement Program 136
Project
Safety
Asset
Stewardship
Connectivity
/ Access
Activation /
Recreation
CapacityOpen
Table
Estimated
River/
Habitat /
8'7: C|PProjects
Costs
Climate/
Environmental
Prioritioation
Equity/
O&M/
Grant /
|nmp|e'
nmentation
Readiness
Weighted
Score
Summary
p'|o'itY
|nmp|e'
mnen1ation
Service Gap
Life -Cycle
Partnership
Readiness
Ranking
Window
2U27-2O3Z
[|P
Space
Resilience
Benefit
Benefit
2027-2O32
[|P
2O27-20]2
[|P
2027-2U32
OP
Z027'2U32
[|P
Medium
2027'2032
[|P
Long -Term/
41O '
Aspirationa|
^
Long -Term/
4
4
4
'
'
Aspiradnna|
1��
or"r/uww/a2m*PROS Plan | up//al/mpmvemco���Zmm 137
Project
Table 6-0: CUP Project
Rationale and Plan Alignment
Public Conmrnen1/ Needs Link
Targets Southcenter'saccess gaps bvaddingtrai|headoznn��ion�pncke�s�|e
`
access nodes, w�y�nding and transit,
' ' ' '
workers, visito�,and the Green Rivercnrridn�
Climate, O&M, and Delivery Note
Prioritize durable mate/ia|sacces�ibi|it�inspectinnmudnes
' '
replacement cycles,
' �
Goal / Policy Thread
Safe,
'
area access,
' '
Supports long-range public interest `�' ' in �On8|trai|cnnnechv�v low -carbon '
transportation, and
'
v8Ueytrai|sy�ems.IN
Prioritize durable materia|s accessibility,
' '
replacement go|e�and mai�enances�before reOna|5o}pin�
Safe, tmi|UnkaQes
' '
river connections.
IV q
Addresses repeated needs for clearer trai|heads,safer access points, wayfinding,
and entry identity along the Green River corridn�with emphasis nnbarrier
�ducdonanddim�e�hend|ymobi|�x
Prioritize durable materia|sacces�ibi|it�inspectionmudnes
' '
replacement cyc|e�and mai�enances�ffinput b�ore�na|scopin�
Safe,
'
access, trail
` �"
Builds on strong demand for better Green River visibility and access at the TCC
campus while ADAaccess event
' ' '
be�eenthe rive��e|ds,parNng,and building entries.
Prioritize durable materia|s accessibility,
' '
replacement cycles,
'
Safe, ped/bike
'
a(ze�strai||inkaQ��
' '
Responds tnSou\hcenterarea needs for visible open space, walking loops,
stnrmwmterinterpretation habitat and residents
' ' ` ' —`
shoppers, and visitors.
Prioritize durable mateha|�aoessibi|�xinspectinnmudne�
'�
replacement cycles, and maintenance staff input before final scnping.
Network nature river
' '
access, habitat and resilience.
Addresses high demand for reliable, year-round field capacity, youth sports
access,
' '
impmvinQ|he'[yc|epe�orm8nceover natural grass,
Prioritize durable m8teria|saccessibility,
' '
replacement cycles, and
'
Opportunities healthy Safe
' '
andfuncdon�|parks
'
Responds to demand for river access�mi| continuity, small-scale park '
bvimpnmin��her�|adnnshipbe�v between the
' ` '
andnearbvTukwi|aUrban[enteruser��
Prioritize durable materials, accessibility, inspection routines,
' '
replacement cycles, and
' �
�ah� convenient connected system, pcd/bike
'
access, tmi||inkag:�
' .
Responds toneeds for safer walking and biking interfaces where park access
overlaps v�thschool mutes crossings, curb traffic and
' ' ' '
#rs�and|a��b|ockconnections.
Prioritizedurab|emateria|s accessibility,
' '
replacement and
' �
Safe, ped/bike
'
access, tmi||inka��s
' '
Translates community and staff priorities for the T[[campus into phased
impmvementsthat impmveaccessprogramming, events, river field
- ' ' '
Coordinate with Public Works school transit, ri�h�o�wm�
' ' '
vegetation management, lighting, si aQe and ADArequirements.
Opportunities hea|thypenp|eandp|aces
' '
activation, flexible programming,
154
City of Tulkwila 2026 PROS Plan I Capital Improvement Program 138
Table 6-0: CUP Project
Rationale and Plan Alignment
Project Public Conmrnen1/ Needs Link
Responds \Dathletic field demand seasonal ' `
Tukwi|aHiUbvcrcatinDmor�dur8b|e�e|dcapa[ityandredu[inQthemaint�n8nce
`
burden0fhe8vi|yuspdnatu/a|turL
Climate, O&M, and Delivery Note
Coordinate with Public Whrk�school aco�s bans��oh�o�wav
' right-of-way,
ve�e��Onman8�ement|�hd��5� �Qe and
" " signage, �
Goal / Policy Thread
Opportunities he3�hvpeOp|eandp|a[�s
' ��' '
einve�men1in�x��n�p�r�3
'
Addresses accessibility, trip hazards drainage a�in�parkin�surfaco
' ' '
and trail or pathway wear identified through field review and reinforced by public
needsforsafe�easierparkaoos.
Coordinate with Public Works, school access, transit' right-of-way,
vegetation managemen�|ighhng�i�na��andADArequirements
' �
Safe, inviting, affordable, well-maintained,and
funcdona|parks �
� Ties directly to access -gap mapping and public concerns about walking to parks and
schools across incomplete sidewalk networks, steep grades, freeway edges, and
' other local barriers.
Coordinate with
Publicr' Whrks' school access, transit' right-of-way,
vegetation mana@ement|ightingsi�na��8ndADAequir�ment�
' �
Safe, convenient and connected system' ped/bike
access, trai||inka��s
' �
Responds tnSouthcenter'slimited dose-to-workand dose-to'homepark access bv
'
advancing poc�tparks interim redevelopment shade
' ' ' '
seoting,andsmaUdvic@pthe/inQp|acesintheurbancentec
Coordinate w�hPublic Wbrks school transit ri�h�u�wav
' ' ' ''
ve�e\�tionmana�emen�|i�htin� si�na��andADArequirem�nts
' �
[|nse�n*vorkaoes�urbance�e/pub|icspace�
community identit�equitable occess and
'
p|acemaking.
Responds toclear user needs for e|iab|edean accessible ' '
parks, while reducing recurring maintenance complaints and extending the life of
[nrecnmfo�fad|i�es.
Coordinate with Public Works, school access, transit, right-of-way,
vegetation manaQementUDhtingsi�na��andADArequir�ments
' �
Safe, inviting, affordable, well -maintained, and
function�|parks
'
Responds tnfamily recreation needs and play access gaps inRiverton bvren��n�
`
acore neighborhood amenity with safe�more indusiv�and more accessible play
features.
��nrpa�ne�hipp jectKeepinthep|anasahi�h*a|u�|n��ran��
� �
cnnnecdnnunless afunding nrrigh�n�waynppn�unitymoves it
forward.
Opportunities for aU hea|thypenp|eandp|aces
' '
activahnnMexib|epm�rammin�
' �
Advances adopted welcoming,
' '
be�erconnected neighborhood park space with
' '
acn���po��andcommunhvuse�
Increased
' '�
predictability, Final
'
addreohea��had��onnwa�[inMU,andrep|acemer�nseme.
Opportunities for aU hea|thypeop|eandp|ace�
' '
activation,
` Mexib|epmDramming '
Directly supports family and youth recreation needs bvkeepinQp|ayareassafe
` '
accessible, and comp|ion�and bvreducin�c|osurescousedbvwmm' displaced, or
failing surfacing, ` `
Phase with �a�ngcapacit�pmgrammingneeds' sports demand, event
operations,inspections, and
' �
Safe, inviting, affordable, weU'maintained' and
functinna|parks �
Advances public interest indeane�safer neighborhood trail mutesbvimproving
`
surface conditions, vegetation management, drainage, signaXe' and connections to
nearby parks and streets�
xstronger grant
Priority �based nnimpmved�e|dmai|abi|�'�
ipusihnning'andeducedwearonnatura|tur[Fina|scupeshou|d
nc|udpheat mitigation, shade, drainage, maintenance equipment, and
replacement funding.
Saf�convenient andconnected system, ped/bike
access' trail linkages.
1��
c/n"rm*wnaunzsPROS p/"n | cav/u/mv,"vemcorpPgnm 139
Table 6-0: CUP Project
Rationale and Plan Alignment
Project Public Conmrnen1/ Needs Link
Supports comments about safer walking routes and more comfortable after -work
use'espedaUywheretrai|segmentr'parkingareas'andparkentriesfee|iso|atedor
poorly visible,
Climate, O&M, and Delivery Note
Phase with staffing capacit�programming needs' sports demand, event
operations, inspections and|un��/mrep|acementcost�
' ' �
Goal / Policy Thread
Safe, inviting, affordable, weU'maintained' and
functinna|parks �
Provides vandalism, drainage
' ' ' '
failures, damaged amenities, and other conditions that affect safety, acces
public confidence before they become larger capital problems. s' and
Phase with staffing capacity, programming needs, sports demand, event
operations, inspections, and long-term replacement costs.
Safe, inviting, affordable, weU'maintoined' and
functional parks'
Addresses wayfinding and system identity needs by improving park identification,
trail orientation, rules communication, and na�gadnnfor residentsvisitors, and
—
multilingual u»e�acmoMle��em.
Phase with staffing capacitKprogramming needs' sports demand, event
operahon�inspechon�and |nn��rmreplacement cos�
'
Safe, inviting, affordable, weU'maintained' and
functional parks
Supports community ^ �'
loading,staging, storage, seating, and
' ' '
staff and more welcoming for residents.
Coordinate shoreline, Onodp|ain critical habitat climate
' ' ' '
resilience,permitting, '
Opportunities hea|�hvpcnp|eandp|accs
' ` '
activation, flexible programming
'
Responds tocommunity concerns about comhnrtperceived '
usability inneighborhood parks, and advances inventory findings that older lighting
and visibility gaps reduce year-round use.
Use asacompanion investment tied \osigns, trai|h:ads' river access,
parks' and Sou�hcenterpub|icspaces.
Safe, inviting' affordable, well-maintained,and
functional parks
Supports requests for more comfortable places tosit, gather, supervise children,
and use parks inhot nrwet weaLhe�while rep|adngaging benches tables, trash
' '
neceptade�and�xturec
Acquisition should bppursued ifnwnership partnership, grant
' '
nrmatch strategy becomes favnrab|e �
Safe, affordable, wpU'maintained and
' ' '
functional parks
Supports public comments and plan goals around identity, belonging, cultural
expression andinterpn�ationbvembeddin�ar�stnryteUin� andp|acemakin�intn
' ' '
park and capital projects.
�
2033+funding islongterm nropportunisticUseacquisidnncriteria0o
screen access, maintenance' equity, climate, and partnership value.
�ensenfcnmmunit�cu|tura|herita�e public artand
'
p|acemaking
Maintains capacity
` '
andnedeve|upmentopportunities' particularly inhard-tn'semeareas where
conventional park development sites are scarce.
[nnrdin�ew�hTu��|aPon�G�enR�eraoes�phva��on��e
'
transit stops, bicyc|e/pedestrianmutes' lighting, signa@e' and
maintenance agreements. ROM p|acehu|dersshould beconfirmed.
[|nse4n'homeaccess' open space preservation,
acquisition criteria
Preserves along-term opportunity toclose service gaps, protect open space, and
secure future park land inMcMickenwhere acquisition timing, owner interest, and
Use this asaflexible partnership and opportunistic acquisition line
Maintenance responsibility, security, lighting, irrigation, trash' and
Expanded parks, preserved open space, equitable
accessacquisition guidelines
156
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Capital Improvement Program 140
park/
Asset
Service
^�rew
Project
���m
Tmb|mG-9: MaoterC|P
Funding
�t'a�m��
Matrix
2028
2039
Estimated
2030
3032
2033+
2027-32
Subtotal
Total
Projects
2027
Costs
2031
Quality of
Project Life
—" �mte�mr�
Cmm1
Trails, Access,
and Safe Routes
SouthceNrr
Green River
Corridor
Southcentzr
Access/
' [nnno��hv
Proposed Grant;
Partnerships; Fund
Balance; Private
Development Coordination
$O
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$250,000
$500,080
$950,000
$1,450,000
Trails, Access,
and Safe Routes
'
Access/S�temwide
Connectivity'
R[OGmntFundBa|ance
�O
�O
�0
�O
$O
�U
�650OOOO
' '
�U
$650000O
' '
Trails, Acna��
'
and Safe Routes
S�s�emwidc
'
Access/
Connectivity'
Proposed Grant; Fund
Balance 'Dcdicated/
Restricted Rev
$1O0O0O
'
�O
$0
$350O0O
'
$250O0O
'
�2SO000
'
�2SU000
'
*O5O000
'
$110000O
' '
Trails, Access,
and���Rnutes
Tukwila
Community
Center Campus
Allentown
Access/
Connectivity
[onne[tivity
Fund Balance; Proposed
Grant
'
��47�0OO
'
�12�OOU0
' '
�O
�O
�U
�0
�4550OOU
' '
$�55�O00
River, Habitat
`
Climate, and
Open Space
Tukwila Pond
Park
Southce�zr
Access/
Connectivity
Proposed Grant; Fund
Balance; Partnerships
�
$O
$O
$0
$U
$U
$�75�OOO
$350OUO0
' '
��25�0UO
$625�000
'
Active Recreation
and Community
Use
Tukwila
Community
Center Campus
Allentown
Activation /
RecreadOn
Capacity
YAF'Large; Proposed
Grun�FundB8|8nce
$1 4800OO
' '
�1 UOOUOO
' '
�0
�O
�O
�U
�U
��480OOO
'
��48OOOO
' '
Trails,Access,
'
and Safe Routes
Bicentennial
Park
Tukwila Urban
[enter
Access/
Connectivity
Fund Balance; Proposed
'
Grant
$O
$8
$8
$15U0OO
'
�25O00O
'
�8
�8
�4O08OU
'
�4O000O
'
Trails,Access
'
and Safe Routes
Systemwide
System Wide
Access/
Connectivity
Fund
'
Grant; Utility Revenues
$250000
$250000
$250000
$250000
$250000
$250,000
$250,000
$1 5O0,00O
$1 758UUO
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan I Capi(al 1V
park/
Asset
Service
^�rew
Project
���m
Tmb|mG-9: MaoterC|P
Funding
�t'a�m��
Matrix
2028
2039
Estimated
2030
3032
2033+
2027-32
Subtotal
Total
Projects
2027
Costs
2031
Quality of
Project Life
—" �mte�mr�
Cmm1
Active Recreation
and Community
Use
Tukwila
Community
Center Campus
AllentownPmpnsedGran�Funden\o�n
Activation/
Recreation
Capacity
Balance; PaPartnerships
�
$250U0O
'
�12500U
'
�250000
'
�5O00U
'
�115�0OO
'
�2O00OOO
' '
�1UOOU0O
' '
�3825O0U
' '
�4825OUO
' '
Active Recreation
and Community
Use
Joseph Foster
Memorial
Tukwila Hill
Activation/
Recreation
Capacity'
YAF'Large'Pmp�s�d
'
Grant; Fund
$8
$U
$0
02OOOO
'
$2]lO00O
' '
�0
�U
�243O' 'O0O
000
�Z43O' '
Safety Renewal,
and System
Stewardship
Systemwide
System Wide
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Dedicated/Restricted Rev
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$300,000
$350,000
Trails,Access,
'
and Safe Routes
Systemwide
'
System
'
Access/
connectivity
Fund Balance; Proposed
'
Grant; Ud|ityRevenues
$1ZS00O
'
�12�O0O
'
�12500O
'
$12500O
'
�1�500O
'
�125O0U
'
$12500O
'
$750UOO
'
�D75OOU
'
, Land Acquisition,
Pocket Parks
'
and Opportunity
19 Sites
Snuthcenter
Inuthcenter
PncketPark/
Opportunity
Site
Partnerships; Private
Development
Coordination; Fund
Balance;
confirmed
$U
$75OU0
'
�15OOOO
'
$2SOOOO
'
$2SOOOO
'
$25OOUU
'
$5UUUUU
'
*975000
'
$l475DO0
' '
Safety, Renewal,
��� `' '
and System
Stewardship
Systemwide
System Wide
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Dedicated/Rest/ictedR2v,
R[OGrantS
$O
$O
$300'000
$O
$300,000
$0
$600'000
$600'000
$1'200'000
Active Recreation
Use
Riverton wertonPark
Riverton
Activation/
Recreation
Capacity
R[OGrant; P|F
$O
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$O
$O
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
Active Recreation
�
and Community
Use
Joseph Foster
Memorial
Tukwila Hill
Capital
Program
Proposed Grant; Fund
Balance; Partnerships
$12OUU8
'
�U
�Z34OUOO
' '
�46O800
'
�5OOOOU
'
�8
�0
�]42OOO8
' '
�34�0000
' '
158
City a/uww|azn26PROS p/"n | covoa/Improvement Program 142
park/
Asset
Service
^�rew
Project
���m
Tmb|mG-9: MaoterC|P
Funding
�t'a�m��
Matrix
2028
2039
Estimated
2030
3032
2033+
2027-32
Subtotal
Total
Projects
2027
Costs
2031
Quality of
Project Life
-" �mte�mr�
Cmm1
Safety, Renewal,
and System
Stewardship
Systemwide
System Wide
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Dedicated/Restricted Rev
$61,000
$61,080
$61,080
$61,800
$61,800
$61,080
$61,080
$366.008
$427,008
Trails, Access'
andSafeRnutes
Systemwide
System Wide
A[ ess/
connectivity
Fund Balance
$100'000
$100'000
$108'000
$100'000
$100'000
$100'000
$O
$600'000
$600'808
Safety Renewal,
Stewardship
Systemwideand��tem �temwide
System Wide
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Fund Balance
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$300,000
$350,000
Safety, Renewal,
and System
Stewardship
Systemwide
System Wide
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Fund Balance
$50,000
$50.000
$50,000
$50,000
$50'000
$50,000
$100,000
$300,080
$400,000
Safety, Renewal,
and System
'
Stewardship
AC
Systemwide
'
System
'
Access/
Connectivity
Fund Balance
$1l5U00
'
�1�5OOO
'
�1�5OOO
'
�1150O0
'
�1150O0
'
�11580O
'
�1�5OOO
'
�690000
'
�8U50OU
'
Active Recreation
and Community
Use
Systemwide
System Wide
Activation/
Recreation
Capacity
Fund Balance
$O
$60,000
$0
$60,000
$0
$60,000
$O
$180,000
$180,000
Safety, Renewal,
and System
'
Stewardship
Crystal Springs
Park
McMicken
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Fund Balance
$1O58O0
,
�0
$0
�8
�U
�0
�0
$185O0O
,
�1858OU
,
Safety, Renewal,
and System
Stewardship
Systemwide
System Wide
Asset
Renewal /
Safety
Fund Balance
$50,000
$58,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$300,000
$350,000
1�%
park/
Asset
Service
^�rew
Project
���m
Tmb|mG-9: MaoterC|P
Funding
�t'a�m��
Matrix
2028
2039
Estimated
2030
3032
2033+
2027-32
Subtotal
Total
Projects
2027
Costs
2031
Quality of
Project Life
—" �mte�mr�
Cmm1
Cultural
P|acemaNngand
System Support
Systemwide
'
Svs�mVWde
'
Cultural
P|acemaking
Dedicated/Restricted Rev
$1O�O0O
$10�000
$l0�OU0
$10�O0O
$10�O0O
$10�000
$10�OU0
$6U�OOO
$7U�0OO
Land Acquisition,
Pocket Parks
and Opportunity
Sites
Systemwide
'
System
'
Acquisition
Opportunity
Fund Balance
$0
$0
$0
$0
$O
$O
$2O0UO0U
' '
�0
�2O0�OOU
'
Land Acquisition,
Pocket Parks
'
and Opportunity
Sites
Crestview Park
McMicken
Acquisition
Opportunity
VVVVRP Local Parkc
�
Proposed Grant; Fund
Balance
$O
$O
$O
$0
$0
$O
$SU0OU00
' '
�D
�5U0UU0O
' '
Active Recreation
and Community
Use
Tukwila
Community
Center Campus
Allentown
Feasibility
/Fad|ity
Planning
FundBa|ance�KinQ
'
County
Partnerships;
Grant
$1OO000
'
�lO000O
'
�0
�O
�O
�0
�0
�ZO00OO
'
�20O0OU
'
Cultural
P|acemakinQand
System Support
Hazelnut Park
/ Old City Hall /
Old B52
Tukwila Hill
Master
Planning/
Civic Site
Fund Balance; �Municipa|
Arts; Partnerships
$75OUO
'
�U
�0
�O
�U
�U
�0
�O
�175O00
'
Safety,
'' '
and System
'
Stewardship
Systemwide
'
System
'
MasterRene�a|
Planning
/Renewa|
Strategy
Fund Balance;
'
Grant; Partnerships
`
$0
$0
$lO0000
'
�U
�10O000
'
�0
�2OOOOO
'
�2O0O0O
'
�400008
'
Totals:
$4'091.000
$4,881.000
$5,491.000
$3'991'000
$6,286000
$6,686i000
$20J51.000
$]1']26'000
$62.077000
City Of TUkwila 2026 PROS Plar I Capitil Improvement Program 144
��U�� Projects
���������^�o�� �°" System ����u��������
~~^^ ^ —��~--- Overview ~~^ ~ ~-'-^ --� -~�~-~~' Category
The [|Pcategories explain why projects wereprioritized.Thesystenn'areasunnnnarybe|nvvshovvshovv
those priorities translate into the major parts of the parks, open space, trails, and facilities system. This view
helps staff, Council, and the public understand what capital work is being advanced, what should move in
the six -year program, and where additional planning, funding, orsite-control work is needed before major
investment occurs.
System Area
Parks
Tmb|mG-1Q: Projects Overview by System Area
Capital Direction
Park investments focus on renewal, safety, accessibility, play and recreation value, furnishings, lighting,
site organization, and flexible spaces that support daily use, events, informal gathering, and recreation
programming, Near -term safety,
' ' ^'
usability issues. More complex sites, including Hazelnut Park, should move through master planning before
major capital commitments. Crystal Springs, Cascade View, Bicentennial, and other candidate parks should be
evaluated through the park -level master planning trigger before larger reinvestment occurs,
Open Space
Open space investments focus on river access, habitat, shade, stewardship, climate response, stormwater
interpretation, and visibility of natural assets. Tukwila Pond should be carried forward as a phased open
space and Southcenter public realm priority, with near -term emphasis on fund -able improvements such as
perimeter trail access, visibility, safety, habitat value, stormwater interpretation, and partnership -ready public
realm improvements. Larger master plan elements should remain in the long-range program until design,
permitting, maintenance responsibilities, partner roles, and funding are better defined.
Trails
Trail investments focus on numbered trail repairs, Green River corridor access, Southcenter trailhead
connections. park -to -neighborhood links, safe routes interfaces, wayMnding' lighting, easements, and regional
trai|courdination Six -year priorities should align with the Otak Non -Motorized Trails Master Plan where trail
trail
gaps and park access gaps overlap. Longer -range connections, including links toward the Chief Sealth Trail,
should remain visible where feasibility, ownership, funding, and intequrisdictinna| coordination still need to
be resolved.
Facilities
Facility investments focus on the TCC campus, aquatic facility renovation or expansion feasibility, building
systems. HVA[.fie|d improvements, nestrnoms, storage' utilities, parking' maintenance -supporting
infrastructure, and other capital needs tied to recreation service delivery. Facility projects should be tested
against operating cost, staffing, lifecycle replacement, program capacity, campus circulation, and long-term
maintenance before major capital commitments are made. Aquatic feasibility should be evaluated as part of
the broader TCC campus context rather than as a stand-alone capital assumption.
Capital work in each system area should follow the same readiness -based decision process used for the
full [|P Projects with a clear scope, funding path' and operating responsibility can move toward design
or implementation. Projects with unresolved ownership, cost, stakeholder, environmental, access, or
maintenance issues should first move through feasibility, master planning, site -control review, or partnership
development. This keeps near -term investment practical while preserving long-range opportunities that may
become viable through grants, redevelopment, acquisition, or partner action.
����`U ^� Corridor Priorities
��i ..=U. ��� ==���K�� . ����..�es
Trail and corridor improvements in the CIP are framed around two parallel outcomes, strengthening the City's
internal access network and expanding regional connections that neinforceTukvvi|a's role at the crossroads
ofthe regional trail system. The Otv'sfunded and proposed trail projects respondtodocurnen1ednuedsfmr
safer cross city connections, stronger linkages between Southcenter destinations and regional trails, and
improved access to the Green Duvvarnish River corridor.
Within the six year capital program, this direction is reflected in targeted lighting investments on the Green
River Trail through Southcenter and in the Green River Trail to [hiefSea|th Trail Connection project, which
1�1
c/�v//u**nazoz»PROS Plan � cov/'"|/mpmvpme"'��g&m 145
advances study, design, permitting, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting the Green
River Trail to the future Boeing Access Road light rail station and onward to the [hiefSea|th Trail terminus
in Seattle through a multi jurisdiction partnership framework. These corridor investments are paired with
the ongoing numbered trails improvement program, which provides the steady year over year mechanism
for repairs, safety upgrades, access improvements, and easement actions that keep the neighborhood scale
network functional.
o�U�� n����� ����������
-- �_�~_— _'�
The cost summary translates the project |istintousix-yearand|onI-rangeinvestnnent9rograrn.|tshou|dbe
used for budget discussions, grant planning, capital facilities coordination, and annual updates. The summary
separates near -term projects fronn|nngeprangeneedssnthe[itycandistinguishwhatrnayheactionab|e
during the 2O27-2U32planning period from projects thatrequireacquisitinn'easernents'partnerships'
additional planning, or future funding.
Thesix'yearprngrannisvveightedtnwardacdverecreation'trai|access'riverfrnntandopenspace
implementation, and lifecycle renewal. The long-range program carries major acquisition and regional
trail connection costs that depend on ownership, grant timing, partnership readiness, and feasibility. That
distinction keeps near -term projects actionable while preserving larger opportunity -based projects for future
funding' acquisition' and partnership windows.
Table
Metric.
SUMMARY OF OVERALL COSTS AND:OROJ:ECTS
8-11: CUP Matrix Summary
Value
Project Count
2027-2032 Cost
Total Cost
30
LI AN
tal/I NO,
11
AIR, I'Nli
16
3.61
SUMMARY OF COSTS BY CATEGORY
WIN 44�
NN
IN
We
so in
10 wo
us
ag
162
City wTukwila 20o*PROS Plan � Capital /mvmv mco/pmamm 146
Annual ������������^��������ra00 --- _ Funding '� -'�
The annual cost table should show how the six -year
program isdistributed bvyear, funding status, and
likely funding type. |tshould identify secured or
City -controlled funding separately from unsecured'
competitive, orpartnership-dependent funding. This
isimportant for transparency because aproject may
appear inthe [|Peven when the full funding package
has not yet been secured]
Planning -level costs were developed from available
project scopes, adopted ordraft City capital
information, prior master plans, trail planning
assumptions, comparable project costs,and
professional judgment. These costs are intended
for planning, sequencing, and grant positioning.
They should berefined asprojects advancethrough
feasibility, design' permitting, site -control review, and
construction documentation.
�,
��
"=n=Ung Strategy
The funding strategy matches each project type to
the most appropriate funding path. The full funding
options table should heincluded inthe appendix.
This chapter summarizes the funding logic snthe
reader understands how secured and unsecured
sources are expected towork together.
Secured or[iiy'cnntroUed funding tools include local
capital funds, adopted OPallocations, REE'[park
impact fees where eligible, fund ba|ance, parks and
trails funds, utility funds where the project has a
utility purpose, King County levy pass -through funds,
and other locally directed sources. These sources
are most important for safety repairs' |ifecyc|e
replacement, local match, feasibility studies, design
readiness' emergency work, and projects that are
important but may not compete well for grants.
°
City -Controlled
Funds
R[Oand
State Outdoor
Recreation
Grants
King County
Funding
Transportation
and Active
Transportation
Sources
Habitat,
Stormwater,
F|ondp|ain,
and Watershed
Sources
Arts,
Culture, and
P|acemaking
Sources
Safety repairs, |ifecvc|ereplacement, local
match, feasibility planning, design readiness'
urgent maintenance -related capital work, and
projects with limited competitive grant fit.
Park acquisition, development, renovation,
trails, water access, youth athletic facilities,
aquatic lands enhancement, outdoor
recreation planning, and grant -ready capital
projects with strong public access value.
Parks levy allocations, open space
acquisition, healthy community projects,
youth and amateur sports, aquatic facilities,
baUMe|ds'conservation, water quality, and
flood -related improvements.
Safe Routes to Parks and Schnn|s, sidewalks,
crossings, trail connections, bikeways'
wayfinding'complete streets, and access
improvements tied tomobility and safety.
Gnzn/DuwamishRiver work, Tukwila Pond
mpmvements'riparian restoration, fish and
wildlife habitat, water quality, stormwaier,
flood risk reduction, and climate response.
School District,
Transit,
Utility, and
Redevelopment
Partnerships
Legislative,
Federal,
Philanthropic,
and Private
Sources
Public art, interpretation, gateways, cultural
identity, artist -led projects, civicsites'and
public realm activation.
Shared fields, access easements, frontage
improvements, trail links, station -area
access, utility corridor improvements,
green infrastructure, and public realm
npmvementsdelivered through coordinated
High -visibility projects whhadopted
plan support, regional benefit, strong
public narrative, local match, and aclear
implementation path.
1��
u�o�/v*wnazmspno�p/vv�capua//mvmvem:"/°*��m 147
Unsecured orcompetitive funding tools include R[O
grants, King County grant programs, VVSDOTand
transportation sources, PSR[funds, King County
Flood Control District programs, Ecology, salmon
recovery and watershed sources' 4[u|ture' state
legislative appropriations, federal discretionary
funds, private development contributions, school
district partnerships, transit agency coordination,
utility partnerships, sponsorships, donations, and
philanthropic support. These sources should be
targeted toward projects with strong access' equity,
recreation, youth, riverfront'troi[ habitat' dirnote'
acquisition, orpublic health benefits.
r
�
�
Aproject shou|dbeconsideredgrant-readyon|y
when the City can document the need, scope,
cost' site control, public benefit, equity and access
rationale, match strategy, maintenance responsibility,
and implementation schedule, Astrong [|P score
helps position aproject, but itisnot enough bvitself.
Different projects need different grant narratives.
Afield renovation should explain capacity, youth
access' |ifecydecondition, maintenance, and
scheduling value. Ariver access project should
explain shoreline access' habitat compatibility, safety,
public visibility, and long-term stewardship. Amaster
plan should explain why planning is necessary before
capital investment. An acquisition should explain
public access value, service gap reduction' feasibility,
stewardship, and timing.
The [|Ptools point tofour coordinated investment
tracks. These tracks explain what the program is
trying to accomplish beyond the individual project
list.
System Reliability and Lifecyc|eRenewal should
remain the [ity's first capital ob|igationThesc
projects repair, replace, or modernize assets where
condition' safety, accessibility, liability exposure, or
maintenance burden justify near -term investment.
This includes playground surfacing, pavement and
trip hazard mitigation, trail repairs' parking area
improvements, restroorn and building systems, and
other basic infrastructure that keeps the system safe,
usable, and maintainable. These investments may
not always bethe most visible, but they reduce risk,
extend asset life, and prevent deferred maintenance
from becoming alarger capital and staffing burden.
Access, Connectivity, and Wavfmdim@should be
treated as an equity and usability strategy, not
secondary enhancement. Tukvvi|a'sparks and trails
are affected by freeways, rail corridors, arterial
streets, topography, ownership gaps, missing
sidewalks, and limited river crossings. Investments
in trail access' park'to'neighborhoodcnnnectinns'
numbered trail improvements, lighting, signage,
kiosks, and vvayfindinghelp residents, workers,
and visitors reach the system more safely and
comfortably.
Catalytic P|acammaking and Destination Activation
should focus larger investments where parks
can improve identity, visibility, gathering, safety,
economic vitality, and public realm function. Projects
such asTukwila Pond, TC[campus improvements,
river access, event infrastructure, and civic gathering
spaces can deliver multiple public benefits at
once, which strengthens their value for grants,
partnerships' and phased capital implementation.
Master Planning, Acquisition, and Site -Control
Readiness should guide projects where the City
needs more certainty before committing major
capital dollars. Master plans, feasibility studies,
acquisition review, easement negotiation, and
partnership agreements are appropriate when sites
have unresolved ownership, stakeholder, access,
cultural, facility, or O&M questions. This track helps
the City avoid premature capital decisions while
keeping important opportunities visible and ready
for the right funding or partnership window.
�
r
4�,
�
r
�
�
�
r
Project scoring identifies capital priorities. Park -level
scoring helps determine whether a site is ready for
capital investment orneeds amaster plan first. This
tool isimportant because some parks have combined
issues related tocondition, access, safety, ownership,
public use, stakeholders, orlong-term role. In
those cases, isolated improvements may solve the
wrong problem nrcommit funds before the City has
resolved the larger site strategy.
The threshold should trigger review, not automatic
action. Staff should still consider urgency, safety,
grant timing, ownership' partner interest' public
process, and whether smaller project can proceed
without compromising the long-term role ofthe park.
See Table 6-12onthe next page.
City mTukwila 2msPROS Plan � Capital Improvement prog"m 148
Park -Level
Sompo
Table 8-13: Master Planning
Response
Triggers
Response
4
' '
Park �
'� —'��
Advance ta�e�dcapha|p je��|�vdecenep|acemeNs'O\o5O
accessibility upgrades, orgrant-ready improvements.
3'Utn3'9
Park isfunctional but has notable
deficiencies.
Use focused feasibi|it�' concept or phased scoping
before major capital investment.
— �
25tn29
Master
'
ta�e�
[onMnnwh�herdlesheneedsafuUma��rp|an' targeted
plan, orredevelopment strategy.
Be|owZ.5
Full master plan should be prioritized.
Prepare amaster plan before major capha|wmrkbssausethe
site likely has combined condidon, access, function, safety,
operations, ownership, orlong-term role issues.
Any score with
major ownership,
facility, cultural,
or stakeholder
complexity
Planning orfeasibility may berequired
regardless ofscore�
Resolve readiness b�orem�nrinvestment.
Facility Feasibility, Site -Control, and Master Planning Flags
Some projects connotbeunderstnVdthroughscoringa|one.T[[Aouatics'[restviewPark'Haze|nutPork'
and other parks needing master plans involve ownership, operating cost, facility feasibility, stakeholder
coordination, building reuse' or long-term site role. This tool flags those projects so the City can complete the
right planning nrsite-control step before committing major capital funds.
Site
C|P
Table 8-14: Master Planning
Action
Triggers
Decision Issue
T[[[ampus
Aquatic
' Feasibility Planning
Evaluate whether aquatic investment isbest addressed
through renovation, expansion, partnership, shared -use
agreement, orafuture capital project, Thestudyshnu|d
indudecapi�a|cos�opemdn�corts��n� maintenance,
'
utility demands, parking, access, programming, equity, and
' ' ' '
fundin�imp|icadnna|tshnuNbecoordinatedwhhbmader
T[[campus planning snaquatics, indoor recreation, field use,
river access, parking, circulation, and community gathering
space are not planned separately.
Crestview Park
5he'[nntm|/AcquisidonFeasibi|ityand
Interim Capital Strategy
Crestview isowned bvHigh|ineSchool District. Major City
investment should beevaluated against long-term site -control
risk acquisihunfeasibi|i��oranotherdurab|ea�reement
' .
The staff -reported $5million appraisal should becarried asa
planning -level acquisition p|acehn|deruntil verified through
City records, appraisal documentation, and discussions with
the District.
1��
u�o�/v*wnaznzspno�p/a" � capua//my/=emco/r�U�m 149
Site
C|P
Table 8-14: Master Planning
Action
Triggers
Decision Issue
Prepare amaster plan for the full civic park parcel, including
Old City Hall and Old FS52.The plan should address access,
parking, visibility, safety, historic interpretation, building
Hazelnut Park/ Old
City Hall / Old F552
Haze|nutPark[i�c�ite Master Plan
euseoodon�pub|�ar�eventus�|andscapecham�e�
maintenance, and phased capital implementation. Stakeholder
engagement should include Tukwila Historical Society,
Rotary Club nfSeaTasTukwi|a,Tukwila Arts Council, Parks
Commission, nearby residents, and City staff.
Crystal Springs,
Cascade View,
Bicentennial, and
Park Master Plan Update Program
Use park -level weighted scores todetermine which sites
require full master plans, targeted site plans, orfocused
feasibility work before major capital investment. Final
other parks needing
candidate sites should beconfirmed with Parks leadership and
current plans
maintenance staff before adoption.
���N� � U ��*
==.."���� n� .�=~
The O8'K8 and Lifecyc|e Test
connects the [|Ptothe
maintenance assessment, LOS
matrix, staffing assumptions,
equipment needs, and
maintenance responsibility findings
developed through this PROS Plan.
it should be applied before projects
move from the [|Pinto design,
grant application, or construction.
The purpose istoconfirm the true
cost ofownership before the City
adds new assets, expands service
levels, or replaces existing facilities.
This test ismost important
for projects that add lighting,
restroorns'synthetic turf,
boardwalks, specialty surfacing,
habitat areas, new trails, river
access, event infrastructure, public
art, Vrexpanded campus facilities.
These improvements can provide
strong public value, but they also
create inspection, cleaning, repair,
utility, replacement, staffing, and
contracting obligations. Linking the
[|Ptothe O&M assessment helps
the City decide whether a project is
ready toadvance, needs adifferent
scope' requires outside services, or
should bephased until operating
capacity isin place.
O&M Question
Table 6'15: O&M Lifeoyc|mTmot
Required Direction
Will the p project �
educeanexisdng
maintenance
burden?
Prioritize where replacement, drainaQe surfacing,
'
standardization access, or reduceslong-term
' '
workload orrisk
'
Will the project adda
specialized asset?
Identify inspection, cleaning, repair, utility, staffing, equipment,
and contract needs before funding,
Can staff maintain
the improvement
� with current staffing,
fleet, equipment, and
contracts?
If notidenhfvtheoperating gap b�oredesign orgrant
' '
commitment.
Does deferral
increase future cost
or liability?
Treattheproject not d�� discretionary
�as|U�go|erenewa| '
enhancement �
Does the project
require anew
maintenance
standard?
Connect the capital decision tothe maintenance operations
plan and LO5matrix.
166
City mTukwila 2usPROS Plan � Capital /mymv mco/pmuram 150
Acquisition and Opportunity Sites
Acquisition should beguided bvaccess value, public
benefit, feasibility, and long-term stewardship
responsibility. Sites should advance only when they
help close service gaps, improve access tooralong
the Green/DuvvarnishRiver, protect open space or
habitat' create trail corridors' support future public
realm improvements, or secure srna|| but meaningful
park opportunities in areas where traditional park
acquisition is un|ike|y.
Crestview should remain visible in this framework
because future investment depends onthe
ownership path. Other acquisitions, easements,
donations, redevelopment -linked public spaces, and
frontage opportunities should bescreened against
the same standard. Aproperty becomes apublic
asset only when the public benefit isclear and the
City can reasonably manage the long-term obligation.
Annual��� �
.^��.�����^"
Pro�O���������������&���
= Management
Performing an annual review
tool keeps the OPuseful after
adoption. It gives staff a regular
process for updating costs, tracking
completed projects, revising scores,
responding toasset condition
changes, checking grant readiness,
reassessing O&M impacts, and
adding orholding projects as
funding, ownership, partnerships,
and community needs change.
Annual updates should be
documented clearly sostaff,
Council, partners, and the public
can understand why projects rnove'
pause, change cost, shift funding
strategy, orrequire additional
planning. This supports the
goals and objectives ofthe PROS
Plan byimproving departmental
transparency and making capital
decisions easier to track across
budget cycles.
Progress should be measured
through visible outcomes: safety
repairs completed, failing assets
replaced, access barriers reduced,
trail gaps closed, lighting and
vvayfindinginsta||ed' master
plans advanced, aquatic feasibility completed, site -
control issues resolved, habitat and shade improved,
acquisition opportunities secured, and maintenance
risk reduced. Used this way, the capital program
becomes Tukvvi|a'sdecision framework for making
park, recreation, open space, trail, and facility
investnnentsfund'ab|e. maintainable, and defensible
during the ZO27'2032planning period.
Coordination with other City Projects
Park and open space improvements should be
reviewed alongside other planned municipal projects'
such as transportation and public works initiatives.
Coordinating efforts allows for shared resources,
reduces redundancy, and enhances the overall
impact ofimprovements. Aligning projects vvith
broader City goals ensures that parks contribute tn
Tukwi|a'sdesired quality nflife.
Table 8-16:
Annual Review &Program K8anmgmnmmmt
Annual Review
Test
Why |tMatters
Hastheasset
condition changed?
Failing surfacing, lighting, drainage, structures, restmoms play
' ' ' ' '
equipment furnishings, and building
' ' `
concerns and higher future costs,
Does the project
�
addrpssanequityor
access gap?
|nvestmentsshou|dhe|preduceba/rierscreatedbv�eeways
'
~ rail corridors, arterial topography,
' ' ''
sidewalks, income, age' disability, language access, and uneven
park distribution.
Is the project
operationally
feasible?
New improvements should not exceed the [itv's staffing,
equipment, inspection, contract, fleet, utility, urmaintenance
capacity.
|sthepnqec�ready
for funding?
~
Competitive pr�ectsneed adearscnpe cost site control
' '
��h permitting public benefit,
' '
schedule.
Does the park need
master planning
before capital
investment?�
Parks bdnwthe master planning thresho|dnrsheswith
'
unresolved ownershi�(ad|it�cu|tura| urstakeho|doissucs
' '
need planning before major capital funds are commiUzd
Can the project be
paired with another
public orprivate
investment?
Access, frontage, trail, s\ormwater, utility, public rea|m,
and habitat improvements are often easier to deliver when
coordinated with transportation, redevelopment, Onndp|ain.or
utility work.
Hasthefundin�
strategy changed?
Grant cycles, levy allocations, local match capacity, partner
'�
priorities appraisal andcnnstructioncostscanchange
' '
the timing or feasibility of a project.
1�7
c/�vrm*w/uzu2»PROS Plan Ic"n/m|/mr,ovpmevtr��am 151
„:.
168
Plan Adoption
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement Program 152
Introduction
Recap�
NNNNL������NN��NLN���� ��~
=-�� Approval
�°�
0�N ��& N ��������������
��� � �����Nm�"����� Process
mm
For this plan tobeformally adopted and meet
the requirements outlined by the Washington
Recreation and Conservation OMice(R[O)' it must
undergo athorough review and approval process
involving multiple entities consistent with the formal
approval process dictated by Tukwila Municipal Code
(TK4[).This process ensures transparency, public
engagement, and compliance with all necessary
guidelines, ultimately culminating in formal adoption
by the governing body. Once approved by R[O, the
plan qualifies the City ofTukwila tnapply for RCO'
administered grants for up to six calendar years from
the date ofadoption.
With the depth nfpublic and staff involvement made
over the execution ofthis planning process, the
following review and approvals have been included:
110
�
^
' "I
1��
o�o//vwwnaznzsPROS Plan �capua//my/=em,o/r���m 153
111
•
r s
issi
tt
170
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement Program 154
111
issi
L
a
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement1r7glam 155
cil
•
t
•
172
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement Program 156
c I
•
t
•
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement1r7Ann 157
•
f-
r
c list
174
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement Program 158
•
f-
r
c list
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Plan Capital Improvement
159
•
April 2026
17
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Flan Appendix 160
A �� Terms ��� Definitions
Washington State Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) has found that many terms commonly used in
recreation planning do not have consistent definitions from one plan to another. RCO suggests, but does not
require, the following definitions compiled from various sources, including Washington Administrative [ode,
Department of Natural Resources, and Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission used in this master
parks plan include:
Term
Table Al: Terms & Definitions
Dmfimitimn#
The public's ability to physically use land or water.
Active Recreation
Predominately human muscle powered recreational activities.
Camping
An overnight stay inatent nrother non -permanent structure.
Capital Improvement Program (UP)
A list or description of proposal capital projects.
Capital Project
A project that results in redevelopment of an existing property, acquisition of new
property, nranew built facility with abudget that excess *1O'O0U.0O
Consumptive
Recreation that physically consumes resources; examples include berry picking, shellfish
harvest, hunting, fishing.
Development
Dispersed
� Impact (Low, Medium, High)
�
Improve
Level of Service
aintain
Multiple -use
Adevelopment project isconstrucdonorwmrkresultinginnewe|ements.induding
but not limited to structures, facilities, and/or materials to enhance outdoor recreation
resources.
Recreation that is scattered or spread across the landscape and not concentrated at a
specific site. Examples include trail uses, camping, walking, cycling, and jogging.
The effect that recreational uses have on resources including but not limited to soils,
water, species, habitat, sites, and facilities.
Expanding an existing site or facility to serve more uses or more types of use.
Measure ofthe current status ofaparkandrecreadonsystemasawho|ebasednnehher
quantitative or qualitative characteristics.
To maintain existing areas and facilities through repairs and upkeep for the benefit of
outdnnrrpereahonists.
Use by more than one type of recreation on the same facility.
�7
c/�nx"+wnazoz6pxosp|^n � ^�7c�mx 101
Term
Table Al: Terms & Definitions
Dmfinitimn#
Non -consumptive
Resnu�erecneahnnthat depends on but resources; ' forexamp|e
' '
photographing wildlife.
Park
Land or an area set aside for a special purpose, but particularly for leisure or recreation.
' Tot|nbW1ini'Park/Pocket Parh-a small local park nrcivic space accessible tothe
general public without the capacity for large outdoor recreation activities like field
sports and often associated with playground equipment for toddlers and young
children.
' Neighborhood Park - a local -scale park with a service area of a reasonable walking
distance, typically 8mile, but upto1 mile.
' [ommunbvPark-acnmmunitvsca|eparkfaci|hvhasaserviceareatypica|lynfl'5
miles that includes the city limits nfatown orcity.
' Regional Park -alarger park facility intended Vzserve populations and uses from
multiple jurisdictions.
' State Park -apark facility owned and managed bvthe State nfWashington.
' Marine Park -astate nrregional park facility intended \oserve populations
spanning multiple jurisdictions with primary access via watercraft .
' OavusePark-anykindofparkfad|hxthatdoesnotaUmmnvemighuessuchas
camping.
' SeasVna|Parks-anykindofparksintendcdfnruseinspedhcseasons.
Passive
Activities usually conducted in place and requiring minimal physical exertion such as
picnicking, watching a sports event, sun bathing, or relaxing.
Qualitative~
An adjective relating tnthe quality nfsomething interpreted byits intrinsic non -numerical
characteristics other than some quantity ormeasured value.
Quantitative
Relating �n��measuh��ormeasured bvthequan�� t nfmmethingoWainedusing a
`
numerical measurement process.
Recreation
Activities of a voluntary and leisure time Nature that aid in promoting entertainment,
pleasure, play, relaxation, urinstruction.
Renovate (Renovation)
The activities intended to improve an existing site or structure in order to increase
its useful service life beyond original expectations or functions. This does not include
maintenance activities to maintain the facility for its originally expected useful life,
ResURestoration
Bringingasiteback\ohshistoricfuncdnnaspartofanatura|ecosystemnrimpmvingdle
ecological functionality ofasite.
Shared Use
Use bvmore than one type ofrecreation nnthe same facility.
Trail
According tothe Washington State Trails Plan (R[O' 2013):
^... opath, mute, way, righ��woy, orcorridor posted, signed, or designated as open for travel
orposo�cbv&h��enen�pub��hu�no�nnnno0vde�unm�dosqnen�r&he�onspn��bVnof
' ' ��" ' `
commercial goods orservices bymotorized vehicles.^
A trail is a recreational facility that also can serve as a non -motorized route for
178
City "x"kvwlaoosPROS Plan � xrreou/x 162
Standards ��� Guidelines
There are six basic park and greenspace facility types typically utilized by municipalities:
° Pocket Parks / Mini -Parks / Tot Lots
~ Neighborhood Parks
° Community Parks
~ Natural Areas &Greenspaces
° Trails, Bikeways & Paths
° Special Facilities
��K�K��1�7� ���U��U� �
POCKET PARKS MINI -PARKS
v�ovu��^TOT LOTS
Pocket parks are very small and serve alimited
radius (up tV 1/4'rni|e)frorn the site; they provide
passive and play -oriented recreational opportunities.
Examples of pocket parks can include a tot lot with
play equipment such asaclimber, slide Vrswings;
aviewpoint; orwaterfront access areas such asat
street ends.
Asmall urban plaza orcivic recognition project may
also beconsidered apocket park. Parking isnot
often provided atpocket parks, although lighting
may be used for security and safety.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Neighborhood parks are generally considered the
basic unit nftraditional park systems. They are
small park areas designed for unstructured play
and limited active and passive recreation. They are
generally 3'5acres insize, depending onovariety
offactors including neighborhood need, physical
location and opportunity, and should meet a
nnininnunn size of acre in size when possible.
Neighborhood parks are intended toserve
residential areas within short walking distance
(up toY2'rni|e radius) ofthe park and should
begeographically distributed throughout the
community. Access ismostly pedestrian, and park
sites should be located so that persons living within
the service area will not have tocross amajor
arterial street orother significant natural orman-
made barrier, such asravines and railroad tracks, to
get to the site.
Additionally, these parks should belocated along
road frontages tnimprove visual access and
community awareness ofthe sites.
Generally, developed neighborhood parks typically
include amenities such aspedestrian paths, picnic
tables, benches, play equipment, amulti-use open
field for youth soccer and baseball, sport courts
ormulti-purpose paved areas, landscaping and
irrigation. Restroonnsare not provided due to high
construction and maintenance costs. Parking is
also not usually provided; however, on'street'ADA
accessible parkingsto||(s) may be included.
Neighborhood park development may proceed in
phases.
COMMUNITY PARKS
Community parks are larger sites developed for
organized play, contain a wider array of facilities and.
asaresult, appeal toamore diverse group ofusers.
Community parks are generally 2Oto5Oacres insize,
meet aminimum size of2Oacres when possible and
serve residents within a 1'rni|c radius ofthe site.
|nareas without neighborhood parks, community
parks can also serve oslocal neighborhood parks.
|ngeneral, community park facilities are designed
for organized orintensive recreational activities
and sports, although passive components such os
pathways, picnic areas and natural areas are highly
encouraged and complementary toactive use
Since community parks serve alarger area and offer
more facilities than neighborhood parks, parking
and restroornfacilities are provided, Community
parks may also incorporate community facilities,
such ascommunity centers, senior centers oraquatic
��
o�"//"�wn^zozspnospwv�o����/x 163
^
NATURAL AREAS & GREENSPACES
NATURAL AREAS
Natural areas are those which are preserved to
maintain the natural character nfthe site and are
managed tVprotect valuable ecological systems,
such asriparian corridors and wetlands, and tn
preserve native habitat and Wodiversit}. In managing
for their ecological value, these natural areas may
contain adiversity nfnative vegetation that provides
fish and wildlife habitat and embodies the beauty
and character nfthe local landscape. Low -impact
activities, such aswalking, nature observation,
and fishing are allowed, where appropriate, and
horseback riding isalso permitted on certain sites.
GREENSPACES
Greenspacesare passive -use open spaces and turf
areas without developed amenities orstructured
functions.
TRAILS & BIKEWAYS
Trails are non'nnotorizedtransportution networks
separated from roads. Trails can bedeveloped
tnaccommodate multiple uses orshared uses,
such as pedestrians' in line skaters, bicyclists, and
equestrians. Trail alignments aim toemphasize a
strong relationship with the natural environment
and may not provide the most direct route from a
practical transportation viewpoint.
'~~
Bikeways are different than trails inthat their
principal focus isonsafe and efficient non -motorized
transportation. Bikeways serve distinctly different
user groups than trail users. Typical bikeway
user groups would include bicycle commuters,
fitness enthusiasts and competitive athletes. Their
emphasis isonspeed, which can create conflicts
with recreation -type trails and their respective user
groups.
For shared -use trails, itisimportant that the
alignment and cross sections bedesigned with
flexibility toaccommodate higher speeds, passing
zones and greater widths. Surfaces will vary with
intended use and environmental considerations.
Additionally, parking, consistent signage(wav0nding,
access, use hierarchy) and interpretive markers or
panels should beprovided osappropriate.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Special facilities include single -purpose recreational
areas such asskateparksand display gardens, along
with community centers, aquatic centers and public
plazas innrnear the downtown core. Additionally,
publicly -accessible sport fields and play areas of
public schools are classified asspecial facilities;
while they often serve asproxies topublic parks,
school sites have restricted daytime access and offer
limited recreational use during non -school hours. No
standards are proposed concerning special facilities,
since facility size isafunction ofthe specific use.
m
°
0
�
�
180
City of Tukvvila 2026 PROS Plan � Appendix 164
City of Tukwila 2026 PROS Flan
A
dix 165
CONSULTING SERVICES
2
TO:
FROM:
BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE
Thomas McLeod, Mayor
Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff, AICP, Director
Tukwila Planning Commission
Nora Gierloff, AICP, Community Development Director
Isaac Gloor, Senior Planner, DCD
May 28, 2026
Background: Simplifying Tukwila's Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
The Department is considering the potential to simplify the City's portfolio of mixed -use zoning
districts by exploring consolidation of those that may be duplicative or underutilized, including
Office (0), Residential Commercial Center (RCC), Mixed Use Office (MUO), and Regional
Commercial Mixed -Use (RCM).
DISCUSSION
Background
All land in the City that is not part of the public right-of-way is divided into zones (click here to
review the zoning map). Each zone has a separate chapter within the Tukwila Municipal Code
(TMC). Each zone's chapter includes zone -specific development standards, including those
relating to height, residential density, setbacks, and more. The kinds of land uses that are
permitted in each zone are listed in the TMC's Table of Allowed Land Uses.
The City of Tukwila has 21 separate zones and overlays, each with their own development
standards and permitted uses. Some of these zoning districts have been created or amended
recently and reflect the current citywide goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Other zoning districts
reflect and protect specific local and regional needs, such as industrial districts or the Tukwila
Urban Center that contains the Southcenter Subarea. However, Tukwila also regulates six mixed -
use zoning districts that broadly overlap in permitted uses and development densities:
• Mixed -Use Office (MUO): This zoning district spans 13 contiguous parcels, all adjacent to
Tukwila International Boulevard just south of 133rd Street. The total area of this zone is less
than 7.5 acres. The zone permits medium density commercial and residential uses.
• OfficeLO): This zoning district is present: along Southcenter Boulevard, encompassing
parcels near City Hall; along 51 Si Ave S, near Interestate-5; along Military Road,
encompassing areas near Olumpic Heritage Behavioral Health Hospital; and on two small
parcels in the Allentown neighborhood. The zone primarily permits medium density
commercial and office uses, and low -density residential uses.
• Residential Commercial Center (RCC): This zone only exists in small pockets of the City,
generally in small business districts that serve surrounding residential areas. Permitted
uses in the RCC include commercial and residential uses at low to medium densities.
• Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC): This zone primarily spans parcels within the
Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) neighborhood, with some islands in other mixed-uu
3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
PAGE 2
areas. It received major updates in 2025 as part of a comprehensive plan implementation
effort for the TIB neighborhood. It permits commercial and residential uses at medium to
high densities.
• Regionaf_Commercial (RC): Areas within this zone are exclusively within the TIB
neighborhood. Like the NCC, it received major updates in 2025 and permits commercial
and residential uses at medium to high densities.
• Regionaf_Commercial Mixed -Use (RCM): This zone spans areas near Interurban Avenue S
between 1-405 and 1-5 and some parcels along Southcenter Boulevard. The zone permits
commercial and residential uses at medium densities.
Table 1: Generalized Basic Development Standards
MUO
0
RCC
NCC
RC
RCM
Maximum Number
of Homes Per
Parcel
3 homes
per
parcel
+
1 home
per
3,000 sf
of lot
area
1
home
per
parcel
3 homes per
parcel
+
1 home per
2,500 sf of lot
area over
5,000 sf
No Limit
No Limit
3 homes
per parcel
1 home
P f of'l0o 0
area over
3,000 sf
Minimum
Setbacks
Front
15 ft
25 ft
15 ft
0-6 ft
0 6 ft
20 ft
2nd Front
12.5 ft
12.5 ft
10 ft
0-6 ft
10 ft
Sides
10 ft
10 ft
5 ft
0-10 ft
10 — 30 ft
Rear
10 ft
10 ft
10 ft
0-10 ft
10-30 ft
Maximum
Permitted Heights
45 ft
35 ft
35 ft
Ranges
from 65 ft
to 125 ft
Ranges
from 65 ft
to no limit
35 ft
The four zoning districts which have not received significant recent updates (MUO, 0, RCC, and
RCM) broadly overlap in permitted densities and uses. They all envision low to medium density
commercial development, with some emphasizing residential and mixed -use components more
than others. The Office district in particular stands out for its low residential allowances and
restrictive development standards. None of those four zoning districts permit residential density at
a level high enough to support mixed -use development, and they all feature setbacks and height
limits that make walkable or amenity rich development challenging.
The updates to the RC and NCC zoning districts, completed in 2025, overhauled the development
standards to support medium to high density commercial and residential development. The update
also included a program designed to incentivize development to provide neighborhood amenities in
exchange for additional development rights.
Discussion
The Department has determined that the four zoning districts that have not been recently updated
(MUO, 0, RCC, and RCM) are not strongly differentiated by purpose or development, and progress
towards the City's housing and development goals may be furthered by consolidating the zones
into a single zoning district. This could involve the creation of a new zone, or a re -zone to one of
Tukwila's more recently amended mixed -use zones.
184
INFORMATIONAL MEMO PAGE 3
Simplifying Tukwila's mixed -use zones has the potential to provide multiple benefits, including:
• Simplified development standards for property owners, site developers, and City of Tukwila
reviewers could improve ease of development of mixed -use parcels;
• More permissive development standards could permit greater residential and commercial
densities that support the mixed -use project development envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan;
• Cohesive standards across different areas of the City could increase flexibility and ease of
development;
• Greater flexibility in permitted uses and densities could allow development or redevelopment
of underutilized parcels, particularly those with aging office buildings;
• An expansion of the development incentive program to other mixed -use zoning districts could
incentivize neighborhood serving uses (such as daycares or community centers) in more
areas of the city;
• Permitting increased residential densities in mixed -use zones could enable more of Tukwila's
residents to live within walkable and pedestrian friendly environments, as many of these
mixed -use zoning districts are in transit rich neighborhoods. Adopting higher density
standards could also help Tukwila pursue compliance with State mandates reg_ar_ding
transit -oriented development, due in 2029.
Next Steps
The Department is beginning discussions with the Planning Commission regarding possible
changes to the Mixed -Use Office, Office, Residential Commercial Center, and Regional
Commercial Mixed -Use zoning districts, with the goal of simplifying the zoning maps, modernizing
development standards, reducing redundancies, and incentivizing development of underutilized
properties.
The Department anticipates that discussions with the Planning Commission regarding specific
zoning code and comprehensive plan amendments to support these goals will continue through
summer and autumn of 2026.
Discussion Questions
• How do you engage with areas within any of these mixed -use zones?
• What kinds and scales of development do you think the City should incentivize in mixed -use
zones?
ATTACHMENTS
1. Simplifying Tukwila's Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Presentation
5
SimpLifyingTukwiLa's Mixed -Use
Zoning Districts
Planning Commission
May 28, 2026
Tukwila's Zones
• 21 separate zones or overlays
• Six generalized mixed -use zones:
• Mixed -Use Office (MUO)
• Office (0)
• Residential Commercial Center (RCC)
• Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC)
• Regional Commercial (RC)
• Regional Commercial Mixed -Use (RCM)
Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Planning Commission
05/28/2026
Mixed Use Zones Development Standards
111111110111111111111111111
Maximum Number of
Homes per Parcel
Minimum
Setbacks
Front
2nd Front
Side
Rear
Maximum Height Lii
MUO
3 homes
per parcel
1 home
per
3,000 sf of
lot area
1 home per parcel
3 homes per
parcel
1 home per 2,500
sf of lot area over
5,000 sf
15 ft 25 ft 15 ft
12.5ft 12.5ft loft
10 ft 10ft 5 ft
loft 10 ft loft
45 ft 35 ft 35 ft
3 homes per
parcel
No Limit No Limit 1 home per
3,000 sf of lot
area over
3,000 sf
0-6 ft
0-6 ft
0-10 ft
0-10 ft
Ranges from
65 ft to 125 ft
0-6 ft
20 ft
10 ft
10-30ft
10-30 ft
Ranges from
65 ft to no 35 ft
limit
• Broad overlap: Mixed Use Office (MUO), Office (0), Residential Commercial Center
(RCC), and Regional Commercial Mixed Use (RCM)
• Low to medium density
• Commercial development envisioned, with varying scales of residential uses.
Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Planning Commission
05/28/2.02.6
Regional Commercial (RC) & Neighborhood
Commercial Center (NCC)
• Largely exist near Tukwila International
Boulevard.
• Received major updates in 2025
• Support medium to high density commercial and
residential development.
• Include incentives to support neighborhood
amenities.
Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Planning Commission
05/28/2026
4 Other Mixed Use Zoning Districts:
MUO, 0, RCC, RCM
• Not been recently updated.
• Not strongly differentiated by purpose or
development patterns.
• Not significantly contributing toward Tukwila's
housing and development goals.
• May benefit from consolidation into a single
district:
• Either the creation of a new zone, or
• Rezoning parcels into one of Tukwila's more recently
amended mixed use zones (such as NCC).
Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Planning Commission
05/28/2026
Potential Benefits of Mixed -Use Zone
Simplification
• Simplified development standards
• More permissive development standards
• Cohesive standards across various geographies
• Greater flexibility in permitted uses and densities
• Greater ability to incentivize neighborhood
amenities
• Foster walkable and transit rich complete
neighborhoods.
Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Planning Coi rrnission
05/28/2026
Questions and Discussion
How do you engage with
areas within these mixed -
use zoning districts?
What kinds and scales of
development should the
City incentivize in mixed -
use zones?
Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Planning Commission
05/28/2026