Santa Clara County sues to stop planned ICE facility

Santa Clara County leaders and California Attorney General Rob Bonta are suing to stop the construction of an ICE facility near Gilroy, after this news outlet first reported on the federal government’s plans and obtained blueprints showing the building would hold and process detainees.

Officials announced the lawsuit Wednesday, naming U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the project site’s property owners — an LLC belonging to a development firm known as Elmwood Capital Group — as the defendants. County leaders who studied the 111-page blueprints concluded the facility could hold up to 150 individuals. They said the facility appears to be designed to hold detainees before transporting them to larger detention centers.

“We can’t tell from the blueprints exactly how ICE might classify this facility, but what we do know is alarming,” County Counsel Tony LoPresti said. “It’s the type of facility that’s been the subject of lawsuits throughout the nation for warehousing people in inhumane conditions. It’s the type of facility that has signaled increasing enforcement throughout the region.”

Bonta said he’s pushing to stop the facility as part of a broader effort — totaling more than 70 cases against the federal government — to expose and bring an end to the mistreatment of people in existing ICE facilities across California.

“Instead of working to improve these conditions and treat detained individuals with the humanity and dignity they deserve, the administration is trying to jam in a new facility in a community that does not want it,” Bonta said. “The administration may claim this is only an ICE office with only a short term detention capacity. But we’ve seen what that really means in other instances. Across the country, ICE has misused short-term holding facilities as de-facto long-term detention sites where people face overcrowding … without required safeguards.”

The county argues the facility is unlawful because federal authorities didn’t consult with them or solicit feedback on the project, and that the land is exclusively zoned for agricultural uses. Officials also raised concerns the facility is being built on a 25-acre plot of land with a history of hazardous materials stemming from longstanding research and development activities.

“We’ve uncovered three decades of documented leaks and spills of chemical compounds at this site,” LoPresti said. “The blueprints shockingly appear to call for a hookup to a sewer system. The closest sewer system is almost a mile away. And the septic system is designed for a modest daytime use, not for a 24/7 use with 60 employees and approximately 150 detainees.”

County leaders said they will seek to inspect the property and could pursue a state warrant to do so.

Representatives for ICE and DHS were not immediately available for comment.

Time is of the essence, as construction is already underway with workers spotted around the area. LoPresti said the county is looking for the court to take action “quite soon,” but it’s unclear when a hearing will take place.

Santa Clara County faces a steep uphill battle. While the property is not zoned for a detention center, the federal government could argue federal laws take precedence over local ones. At the same time, the county has historically been a leader on local jurisdictions’ resistance to federal immigration crackdowns. The county led a coalition, which included San Francisco, suing to stop attempts to cut funding to cities and counties that declare themselves sanctuaries for people without citizenship. Officials have also taken steps to coordinate real-time responses to ICE operations and ban immigration authorities from using county property for enforcement activity.

“We have the experience, the resources and the qualified personnel to carry out this case,” District 1 Supervisor Sylvia Arenas, whose represents South County where the project is located, told San José Spotlight.

Federal procurement records originally suggested there would be a 4,000-square-foot detention center with office space. But the blueprints later outlined an ICE facility with interview and holding rooms, spaces for mothers with infants, visitation rooms, weapons and ammunition rooms, tactical equipment storage, offices for ICE personnel and a fitness center.

ICE previously denied plans for a facility at the location. After San José Spotlight asked about the project blueprints, an agency spokesperson described the project as an “ICE office” and denied it being a detention facility.

The facility’s disclosure has reverberated through neighboring regions. Monterey County officials in May voted to take another look at their land use policies to block future federal government projects within their jurisdiction. They also voted to join any lawsuit Santa Clara County files against the Gilroy project.

Research has shown that communities near ICE facilities see upticks in enforcement activity and higher rates of arrests.

Rebeca Armendariz — a former Gilroy councilmember and organizer with Bay Resistance, the ICE OUT Coalition and Community Agency for Resources, Advocacy and Services — said sprawling distances between ICE offices and major highway traffic congestion have historically hindered the agency’s operations in the Bay Area.

“We knew that, together with (a possible takeover of a federal prison in Dublin) and this Gilroy facility, there could be an increase of ICE activity in the Bay Area,” Armendariz told San José Spotlight. “They haven’t been able to do it because they lack infrastructure in this area. And we’re ready to push back.”

Contact Brandon Pho at [email protected] or @brandonphooo on X.