SAN ANTONIO – Two days after the City of San Antonio sued to block the conversion of an East Side warehouse to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention and processing facility, councilmembers indicated they want to explore ways to fight the agency moving into leased space at Brooks.
Councilmembers voted 9-2 Thursday approving a resolution to work and coordinate with community stakeholders on efforts to prevent or delay an ICE detention facility in the city’s urban core.
At Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones’ urging, the council first added language asking them to also take similar steps to block or delay the execution of recently reported, 15-year leases at a building at Brooks, which federal records show are linked to ICE and will reportedly be occupied by attorneys and support staff.
“I think we should take the opportunity to also communicate that we — for those of us up here that do — do not support the establishment of such a strong legal footprint. Which would again enable, I think, an even stronger presence and a type of facilitation network that would set up a larger presence here,” Jones said.
A majority of councilmembers have opposed the planned conversion of a 640,000-square-foot warehouse into a processing facility, with a planned daily population of up to 1,500 people.
On Tuesday, the city sued the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and the heads of both agencies, arguing the government had not done a required environmental review process.
“ICE has gone rogue and at the very least, we must take action to protect all San Antonians from this threat,” Jalen McKee-Rodriguez (D2), who represents the area where the facility is planned, said at Thursday’s meeting.
Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran (D3) had pushed for Thursday’s original resolution, but she opposed the mayor’s amendment, noting “Preston Hollow holds the lease.”
“We cannot come in and say, ‘You, Preston Hollow, can’t lease out to these people.’ So that’s where it gets difficult, and that why I didn’t want to — if legally we can’t do it, I don’t want to vote for what it is,” Viagran said, though she noted she ultimately voted for the amended version.
Federal records show the leases are worth $42.5 million and $9.8 million for a combined $52.3 million.
Notice identification numbers on the documents link back to separate federal records indicating the leases were meant for ICE.
Preston Hollow Community Capital, which has a controlling interest in the WatersEdge office buildings, told KSAT the leases at WatersEdge II building on Inner Circle Drive are for administrative office space.
They said they have no involvement in the East Side detention facility.
“We recognize the community’s concerns about immigration detention facilities and want to be clear about the federal office leases at WatersEdge on the Brooks campus. These leases are for administrative office space and expressly prohibit detention facilities, holding cells, and the processing of individuals or families in custody.
We understand the space will consolidate existing San Antonio-based functions of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor. The anticipated occupants are attorneys and support staff.”
Preston Hollow Community Capital
The EOIR “conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings,” according to its website, while OPLA represents DHS in immigration removal proceedings before the EOIR.
A DHS spokesperson told KSAT in an emailed statement that ICE would not confirm office locations, claiming a “coordinated campaign of violence” against its officers.
“Is it really news that when a federal agency hires more personnel that they need more space?” the emailed statement continues. “Thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we have an additional 12,000 ICE officers and agents on the ground across the country. That’s a 120% increase in our workforce.”
San Antonio’s two conservative council members, Misty Spears (D9) and Marc Whyte (D10), voted against Thursday’s resolution and have also opposed the lawsuit.
“This has nothing to do with environmental impacts. I mean, this is all … fluff and cover and a pretext for wanting to send a certain message to people,” Whyte said.
Read also:
Copyright 2026 by KSAT – All rights reserved.