Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff: private immigration detention centers are not an allowed zoning use; board directs monitoring and rapid alert if proposals arise
Summary
Planning staff reported July 7 that privately owned or leased immigration‑detention facilities are not listed as allowed uses in Santa Barbara County zoning; federally owned or leased facilities are not subject to local land‑use rules. The board directed staff to monitor for inquiries or applications and to alert the board and county counsel immediately if a proposal appears; supervisors discussed the possibility of an urgency moratorium if a private proposal arises.
Planning staff told the Board of Supervisors on July 7 that privately owned or leased immigration‑enforcement detention centers are not an allowed use under current Santa Barbara County zoning tables, and that the code’s permissive structure means a use not listed in the land‑use table is not permitted. Staff said the county’s “similar use” pathway does not identify a comparable use that would allow building or conversion of a detention facility on private land.
Staff noted a separate legal constraint: county land‑use and development codes do not apply to properties that are federally owned or federally leased. County Counsel joined Planning staff in explaining that local land‑use controls therefore cannot prevent federal agencies from siting facilities on federal property or property the federal government leases and occupies; however, staff also stressed that private proposals would encounter no permit path under current zoning.
The board voted unanimously to receive the briefing and to direct Planning to monitor for private inquiries and to alert the board and county counsel immediately should an application or inquiry arrive. Several supervisors said they would move promptly to seek an urgency moratorium with clear local findings if a private proposal were submitted; County Counsel advised that an urgency moratorium can be adopted immediately (45‑day initial period, extendable with a four‑fifths vote) to provide time to analyze impacts and prepare permanent code changes if needed.
Public commenters urged more immediate action: civic groups asked the board to consider noncooperation policies, independent inquiries into local cooperation patterns with federal enforcement, and proactive regulation to prevent rapid conversions of warehouses into detention centers.
What’s next: Planning will monitor for proposals and notify the board and counsel; supervisors signaled readiness to pursue an urgency moratorium or other regulatory responses if a private proposal arrives.
