Design review committee backs King Street Justice Center sketch plan with conditions over massing concerns

The Design Review Committee on June 11 recommended approval of the King Street Justice Center sketch plan with conditions, after extended presentations from the project team and hours of committee deliberation about the building’s massing and pedestrian-scale impacts.

The committee’s recommendation asks the applicant to address the pedestrian-level massing of the building’s south-facing Simpson/Willow elevation, to study additional articulation and landscape screening on the north and east facades, and to refine exterior materials to reduce perceived bulk. The committee voted to forward the sketch plan to Planning and Zoning with those conditions.

Project proponents told the committee the building is a three-story, approximately 79,000–80,000-square-foot public safety complex proposed for the northwest corner of King Street and Simpson Street. Jason Berning, the project manager and owner’s representative, said the design team revised the package after prior DRC feedback and that the core program—courts, detention, sheriff and operations—drives the building footprint and internal circulation. “We don’t have a 50‑story building. We’re a 3‑story building,” Berning said.

James Taylor, a principal with Anderson Lisonbee Dale, described why the site and stacking strategy were chosen. He said modern courtrooms, secure circulation for people in custody, jury and judge separation, ADA upgrades and code-compliant circulation drove the building’s width and depth. Taylor said earlier iterations that included a larger or more distributed footprint produced higher costs or complex phasing, and that the current corner location allows the county to keep the Clifford Hansen Courthouse functioning during construction.

Members of the design team and county staff acknowledged the project’s size and complexity. The applicants presented iterations that reduced the prominent stair tower and trimmed a large Simpson Street canopy; designers showed before-and-after massing and facade studies intended to break down the perceived scale on primary street fronts. The project team also noted the site slope provided an opportunity to partially bury portions of the building and keep visible parapet heights near 45 feet on King Street.

Committee discussion focused heavily on the south (Simpson/Willow) elevation and the overall pedestrian experience along the blocks adjacent to the site. Several committee members said the King Street and Simpson Street elevations had improved but remained concerned that the building’s mass, as seen from Willow and the Simpson approach, could feel overbearing to pedestrians. “I struggle with this project from the Willow Street side,” one member said during deliberations; another described the building as “imposing” on that side and urged further refinement.

The county’s administrator, Jody Plann, told the committee the project has tight budget and schedule constraints tied to county capital funding. Plann said the county had set aside roughly $30 million toward the project and needed to advance the design to preserve funding and meet cost contingencies. “We are out of money and delays and additional requirements . . . will kill this project, quite frankly,” Plann said.

Design-review discussion included alternatives considered by the team—moving the detention function, splitting program elements across sites or using tunnels/overpasses for secure transfers—and why the team landed on the stacked, three-stream circulation (public, private/judicial, and secure inmate circulation) favored in modern courthouse design. The applicants cited California and federal court design precedents and GSA best practices for courtroom depth, jury circulation and security separation.

Formal action: after debate the committee considered a motion to recommend denial but ultimately adopted a motion to recommend approval of the sketch plan with conditions. The conditions recorded in committee discussion (and forwarded to Planning and Zoning) call for: (1) reducing the perceived mass and improving the pedestrian-level experience on the south (Simpson/Willow) elevation through additive/subtractive massing, canopies or other measures; (2) further developing articulation and fenestration interest on the east and north facades and studying opportunities for landscape screening; and (3) refining material choices and facade detailing to reduce the building’s perceived bulk.

Next steps: with the DRC recommendation the application will proceed to Planning and Zoning and later to the Council as part of the development-plan review and permitting process. Committee members and the project team noted that additional, more detailed design work is expected in subsequent development-plan submittals and that the applicant will bring refined studies addressing the DRC conditions.

The presentation to the committee included site plans, stacked sections showing secure vertical circulation, and façade before-and-after studies; applicants emphasized that the building was sized to meet security, courtroom and detention-code standards and to limit lateral movement of people in custody across public corridors during court operations.

The committee’s recommendation is advisory; Planning and Zoning and, ultimately, the Town Council retain formal review authority under local regulations. The project team and county staff requested a timely response so the county can proceed within its funding and construction schedule.