San Jose to create guidelines to prevent detention centers

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

San Jose is placing stronger controls on the development of private detention facilities within its borders in response to fears that the federal government may establish new immigration centers in the region.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a 45-day moratorium on any proposal to create or expand detention facilities on private land in the city. In addition, councilmembers also directed staff to draw up measures to regulate these projects. Once the initial 45 days expire, city leaders have the option to extend the development pause for up to two years.

The temporary moratorium — a strategy championed by Silicon Valley Congressmember Sam Liccardo — comes in response to the federal government’s plan to build a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that includes detention space on unincorporated land east of Gilroy.

A federal judge last week granted a request to pause construction work at the site until a lawsuit against the project brought by state and county officials is resolved. However, local leaders fear similar projects could soon follow — amid a rapid buildout of federal immigration detention capacity taking shape across the U.S.

“Our goal here is pretty simple,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who signed onto the memo behind the proposal, said at Tuesday’s meeting. “As we’ve seen down in Gilroy, these projects can be proposed quickly and really without warning, and we have a responsibility as the local authority overseeing land use to protect our residents and exercise our responsibility to ensure human health and safety, and understand and mitigate environmental impacts.”

Councilmembers Pamela Campos, Peter Ortiz, Bien Doan and Domingo Candelas also signed onto the policy memo.

Backers say the development pause is a necessary stopgap to buy the city time to draw up a more thorough policy response. As things stand, San Jose has no specific land use or zoning rules governing privately run detention centers, officials said. Without additional safeguards in place, they warn the city would have little opportunity to influence such projects when they arise.

Revelations about the planned immigration center near Gilroy first surfaced in May and ignited a firestorm of concern in the Bay Area. Opponents fear the project could enable the Trump administration to expand immigration enforcement operations in the region.

Meanwhile, the Republican-dominated Congress recently approved a massive spending package to support President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda that includes $45 billion to fund the creation of new immigration detention facilities.

Alarmed by such developments, several residents urged councilmembers to adopt the moratorium as a means of protecting local immigrants.

“Our city has the power, but most importantly, it has the duty to protect the safety of every person that lives here,” Misrayn Mendoza, an organizer with San Jose nonprofit Amigos de Guadalupe, said at the meeting. “Especially right now, when so many of our community lives in fear.”

Policy push takes shape

So long as the moratorium remains in place, the city will cease to process applications for detention center development projects on private land, though the measure carves out a number of narrow exceptions.

During the pause, staff will conduct a policy review that could lead to updates to San Jose’s zoning code and permitting processes.

For now, the measure does not cover detention center projects on public land because state and federal properties do not fall under San Jose’s jurisdiction to regulate, officials said. However, in the face of public pressure, Mahan asked staff to draft an amendment expanding the measure to include public lands as well. That proposal could go before council in the coming weeks.

Officials warn private detention centers pose numerous concerns for city planners. For example, the developments could add extra demands on local water resources, the sewage system, traffic infrastructure and emergency services.

The nature of the facilities themselves also raise alarms.

A memo outlining the moratorium plan cites blueprints, first reported by San José Spotlight, for the South County ICE facility that include plans for detention and processing areas, weapons and ammunition rooms and tactical equipment storage areas. Such facilities may force the city to contend with additional “operational and safety considerations” beyond those involved with typical commercial sites, officials contend.

A broader strategy

San Jose’s moratorium marks an early attempt to apply a playbook for opposing immigration facilities developed by Liccardo. In August, the former San Jose mayor unveiled a “toolkit” that provides policy and legal guidance for local governments. The package includes a model policy similar to the measure San Jose just passed.

Past attempts to outright ban immigration detention centers, such as a statewide measure signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, have not held up in court. But Liccardo contends states and local governments have had more success leveraging land use regulations — governing things like fire safety, environmental impacts and infrastructure capacity — to block such projects.

Two other Bay Area jurisdictions, San Mateo and Napa counties, have also taken steps to advance similar moratoriums following Liccardo’s August announcement.

Meanwhile, officials in Santa Clara County have no plans to do so because the county’s existing land use policies already include safeguards that go beyond Liccardo’s model policy, District 2 Supervisor Betty Duong said.

“Nevertheless, I applaud these efforts because not all jurisdictions have the same historical baseline, and this will help advance our entire region toward a common ground to fight the illegal and inhumane policies of the current federal administration,” Duong told San José Spotlight.

In light of Santa Clara County’s recent courtroom success, Liccardo is urging more cities and counties to take up his playbook.

“These ordinances only work before ICE comes knocking,” Liccardo said in a statement responding to last week’s news of the preliminary injunction ruling. “My office stands ready to help local leaders keep (the Department of Homeland Security) from setting its sights on their communities.”

Contact Keith Menconi at [email protected] or @KeithMenconi on X.