DATE: October 13, 2026
CATEGORY: Public Hearing
DEPT.: City Attorney
TITLE: Interim Urgency Ordinance for Detention
or Custodial Facilities
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on the Filing, Acceptance, Processing, or Approval of Applications for, and the Establishment or Operation of, Detention or Custodial Detention Facilities and Custodial Processing Facilities Pending Study of Appropriate Zoning and Land Use Regulations.
SUMMARY
A February 13, 2026, overview of ICE's Detention Reengineering Initiative described a nationwide plan to expand and centralize detention capacity through eight large-scale detention centers, regional processing centers, and the acquisition of 10 existing facilities, with activation targeted by November 30, 2026. Consistent with this effort, the Department of Homeland Security acquired the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County and the California City Detention Facility in Kern County. These developments represent a substantial federal expansion of detention capacity, including in California, with direct implications for communities like Mountain View whose residents, workers, and families contribute to the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the region.
In June 2026, the State of California and Santa Clara County filed a lawsuit challenging a proposed immigration detention and processing facility on an approximately 25-acre site near Gilroy. The lawsuit claims that the federal government did not complete the required environmental review, coordinate with state and local agencies, follow the property's land use restrictions, or provide adequate information about the facility's purpose, size, and capacity. On September 11, 2026, a federal judge temporarily stopped further construction and directed the parties to propose terms describing what work must remain on hold while the case continues. Mountain View joined the amicus brief supporting that lawsuit, standing alongside Palo Alto, San José, Alameda, Hollister, and the Counties of San Mateo, Monterey, and Santa Cruz.
Concerns raised regarding the Gilroy site include the conversion of protected agricultural land; effects on sensitive species and habitat; potential hazardous-material contamination; and Interim Urgency Ordinance for Detention or Custodial Facilities October 13, 2027
impacts on roads, wastewater, drinking-water, and other infrastructure. Additional concerns include whether a facility characterized as an administrative office with short-term holding capacity could function as a de facto longer-term detention facility, potentially resulting in overcrowding, extended confinement, inadequate conditions, and increased demands on local services. The City is also mindful that increased enforcement activity near such facilities has been shown to heighten fear among community members, fearthat can deter residents from accessing City services, reporting crimes, or engaging in civic life, undermining the public safety and community trust that Mountain View has worked to build.
Mountain View has long been committed to protecting its diverse community. In 2017, the City Council adopted "Community for All" as a Council Strategic Priority, reaffirmed in the Fiscal Years 2025–27 Work Plan, to promote strategies that protect vulnerable populations and preserve the City's socioeconomic and cultural diversity. In June 2026, the Council adopted Council Policy A24, prohibiting the use of City-owned or City-controlled property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement purposes, joining Santa Clara County, the Valley Transportation Authority, and the cities of Campbell, Santa Clara, San José, and Sunnyvale in adopting similar protections.
On September 8, 2026, the City Council unanimously directed staff to research land use regulations prohibiting detention centers and to bring forward an urgency ordinance placing a temporary moratorium on detention centers, or other appropriate action, as soon as practicable.
That direction included reviewing the existing zoning code, consulting with neighboring cities, examining San José's approach, and addressing concerns about federal land (such as Moffett Field).
Congressman Liccardo has encouraged Bay Area jurisdictions to consider interim zoning controls, particularly where detention and processing facilities are not already expressly defined and regulated, given the possibility that federal agencies may pursue additional sites in Northern California. The recent court order temporarily halting construction at the proposed site near Gilroy heightens this concern, as federal agencies may evaluate alternative locations in the region. Once a lease, option, or comparable site commitment is in place, a jurisdiction's ability to adopt effective interim controls may be constrained. The City is therefore bringing forward this interim urgency ordinance to preserve the status quo while staff evaluates potential land-use, environmental, public-health, and safety impacts and develops options for permanent regulations through the regular public-review process. Other Bay Area jurisdictions are similarly evaluating interim and permanent land-use controls.
Interim Urgency Ordinance for Detention or Custodial Facilities October 13, 2027
ANALYSIS & IMPACT
Existing City Regulations
The City’s Zoning Ordinance, codified in Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code, does not expressly define detention or custodial detention facilities or custodial processing facilities. While the City’s permissive zoning structure generally prohibits uses not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted, the absence of a clear definition and classification creates uncertainty and the possibility that a proposal could be characterized under a broader use category before the City completes a comprehensive policy review. Recent events show that, without appropriate land-use regulations, detention and processing proposals may advance on accelerated timelines and with limited notice to local governments.
The construction of new or conversion of existing buildings or properties to detention or custodial detention facilities or custodial processing facilities has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, strain local infrastructure, create zoning and land-use conflicts, and adversely affect public health, safety, and well-being. Without an interim moratorium, an application could be submitted and asserted to fall within an existing use classification before the City determines whether additional standards are necessary. The moratorium would provide a limited study period to evaluate possible approaches to use. The interim urgency ordinance would not predetermine the content of any permanent regulation. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo while staff completes the analysis and returns through the ordinary public-review process with options for Council consideration.
Interim Urgency Ordinance
Government Code Section 65858, City Charter Section 514, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 36.58.05 authorize the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance when a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare exists, and approval of additional permits or entitlements would actualize the public danger. The proposed ordinance includes findings that, while the City studies the issues and develops appropriate regulations, allowing private property to be used for a detention or custodial detention facility or a custodial processing facility would create the public health, safety, and welfare risks described in the ordinance. A temporary moratorium is therefore necessary to preserve the status quo during the study period. A vote of 4/5 of the City Council (6 members) is required for the adoption of the proposed interim urgency ordinance, and it would take effect immediately.
Covered Uses and Definitions
To prevent circumvention through terminology or a broader use classification, the ordinance defines a “covered use” as any detention or custodial detention facility or custodial processing facility, whether proposed as a principal, accessory, temporary, intermittent, or component use Interim Urgency Ordinance for Detention or Custodial Facilities October 13, 2027
and regardless of the name used to characterize it. The ordinance would define the following additional terms:
• Detention or custodial detention facility: Any building, structure, property, or land used to confine, detain, hold, house, maintain custody of, or otherwise restrict the movement of one or more persons under governmental authority or an arrangement with a governmental entity, whether temporarily, overnight, or for a longer period. The definition includes jails, prisons, detention centers, holding or confinement facilities, correctional facilities, civil or immigration detention facilities, juvenile detention facilities, and substantially similar uses.
• Custodial processing facility: Any building, structure, property, or land used primarily to receive, admit, book, register, fingerprint, photograph, search, screen, interview, evaluate, classify, stage, transfer, transport, release, or otherwise process persons who are in custody or being taken into custody. The definition applies even if persons are held only temporarily, no overnight accommodations are provided, or the facility is described as an office, field office, intake center, reporting center, transfer center, transportation center, or similar use. • Operator: Any public agency or private entity that owns, leases, manages, controls, staffs, funds, contracts for, or operates a covered use.
• Person in custody: A person whose freedom of movement is restrained under actual or asserted governmental authority, including a person who is detained, confined, arrested, transported under restraint, required to remain at a facility, or not free to leave without authorization.
Temporary Moratorium
This interim urgency ordinance would remain in effect for 45 days from its adoption or until November 27, 2026. During the ordinance’s effective period, the City would not accept, process, deem complete, review, approve, or issue any application, permit, certificate of occupancy, business license, similar-use determination, or other approval for a covered use. No person or entity could establish, commence, locate, convert property to, expand, or operate a covered use within the City. A covered use could not be recharacterized as a governmental, professional, or administrative office; a public, quasi-public, institutional, emergency, or transportation use; or another broader classification to avoid the moratorium.
Limited Exclusions
The moratorium would not apply to routine law-enforcement activities, lawful restrictions incidental to medical or residential care, ordinary supervision in schools and childcare settings, Interim Urgency Ordinance for Detention or Custodial Facilities October 13, 2027
offices or hearing locations without a custodial component, or transportation through the City that does not involve detention or processing within the City.
Study of Permanent Regulations
The City is studying the issues and will bring forward land-use regulations governing the use and/or a citywide prohibition in the near future. The Environmental Planning Commission would review any proposed zoning ordinance and provide its recommendation to the City Council. If the regular public-review process cannot be completed within the initial 45-day period, staff will return to the City Council to request an extension of the interim urgency ordinance, as permitted by state law. The City Council may extend the interim urgency ordinance by a maximum of twenty-two months and 15 days.
FISCAL IMPACT
No anticipated fiscal impact.
LEVINE ACT
California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-toplay-limits-and-prohibitions.html Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the proposed interim urgency ordinance.
2. Do not adopt the proposed interim urgency ordinance.
3. Provide other direction.
Interim Urgency Ordinance for Detention or Custodial Facilities October 13, 2027
PUBLIC NOTICING
Agenda posting. The ordinance was published at least two days prior to adoption in accordance with City Charter Section 522.
Prepared by:
Jannie Quinn
Interim City Attorney
Mitesh Bhakta
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Celena Chen
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Attachment: 1. Interim Urgency Ordinance