The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning 2026-05-28 Item 7.1 - Parks & Recreation Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) UpdateCITY 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