San Diego voted to put new data centers on ice. But the development concept that helped trigger the freeze is on land the city does not control.
On October 27, 2026, the San Diego City Council unanimously approved a 45-day moratorium on new data-center development within its jurisdiction. Days earlier, investigative reporting had revealed that Manchester Financial Group was exploring a facility with a potential electrical demand of 400 megawatts at the Navy-owned Old Town campus of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, better known as NAVWAR. If built at that scale, it could be among California’s largest data centers. The city confirmed the unanimous vote; Voice of San Diego first disclosed the 400 MW discussions.
There is no approved 400 MW project. The developer says the data center is only one of several options. Yet the clash has already exposed a difficult question: What good is a city’s land-use protection when a consequential project can be considered on federal property inside the same urban community?
The paper trail begins with an electricity question
The key evidence is not a leaked blueprint or a secret military contract. It is a utility inquiry. In October, Voice of San Diego reported on emails showing that Manchester Financial Group’s president and CEO, Ted Eldredge, had contacted San Diego Community Power about the potential cost of supplying a 400 MW data center. One message dates to November 10, 2025.
Four hundred megawatts is a measure of power demand, not proof of actual electricity consumption or a signed commitment to receive that electricity. The impact would depend on the eventual design, utilization, cooling system, grid upgrades and rate arrangements. Those details have not been established for a final NAVWAR data-center project.
In statements reported by KPBS and NBC 7, Eldredge said the development team had held early informational discussions with power providers but had no negotiations or agreements in place. Other possibilities under consideration include a medical center, university campus, defense-related facilities, hotels, offices and housing.
That distinction is essential. A potential project is not a permit; an electricity inquiry is not a construction contract.
Why federal land changes the rules
The Navy’s Old Town Campus covers approximately 70.3 acres. In January 2024, the Navy selected the Manchester/Edgemoor team for exclusive negotiations over a possible redevelopment that would deliver updated NAVWAR facilities and allow other uses of the property. The Navy’s selection announcement described a potential master developer, not a completed lease or a finalized data-center authorization.
San Diego’s urgency ordinance temporarily restricts data centers subject to the city’s zoning and permitting authority. The NAVWAR site, however, is federally owned. NBC 7’s coverage of the October 27 vote and KPBS’s reporting on the Navy lease concept both describe the limits of direct city control over the redevelopment.
That does not mean the proposal is free from oversight. The Navy’s October 8, 2026 project update says it is still assessing redevelopment impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Navy expects a revised draft environmental impact statement in 2027, with an opportunity for public review and comment before a final impact statement and decision. The precise reach of any future state or local requirements would depend on how the project is structured and approved.
So the city’s freeze is real, not imaginary. Its ability to stop this particular federal-property concept is what is limited.
What residents stand to gain — or lose
Before a large computing facility entered the conversation, redevelopment concepts included thousands of homes, neighborhood retail, hotels and public spaces. The Manchester team has since said housing would remain a major component of the eventual project, according to Voice of San Diego. But the actual mix of uses, number of homes, power requirements and environmental safeguards remain unresolved.
The conflict is therefore not simply “technology versus progress.” Data centers run cloud services, business systems and AI workloads; they can bring investment and construction activity. They can also demand substantial electricity, equipment space, cooling and utility infrastructure. Whether a particular project raises residential bills, consumes significant amounts of potable water, generates disruptive sound or displaces housing depends on engineering and financing details that the public has not yet seen.
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria’s October 22 executive order announcement directs officials to study utility impacts, water demand, land use, housing and neighborhood effects. It also calls for seeking state and federal protections where local land-use power does not reach. The city’s proposed regulatory work is intended to inform decisions; it is not a finding that this specific NAVWAR concept has already caused those impacts.
Does a Navy cyber campus mean a surveillance data center?
An online video commentary circulating about the plan frames the project as a sign of mass surveillance and invokes the dystopian world of 1984. The underlying concern about concentrating digital infrastructure and power is fair material for public scrutiny. But there is a crucial evidentiary gap.
No publicly verified documentation establishes that the contemplated 400 MW commercial data center is intended to conduct mass surveillance. NAVWAR’s military information-warfare mission is real. That does not establish the identity of any future commercial tenant, the facility’s computing workloads, its data customers or its relationship to law-enforcement surveillance. Likewise, generalized video of noisy server facilities does not demonstrate the sound levels of a building that has not been designed or built.
Those questions should be asked of the Navy and development team, rather than answered by assumption. Public records about proposed tenants, contractual restrictions, cooling equipment, security arrangements, data use and environmental impacts would make the debate more concrete.
Congress is now part of the argument
On October 29, Representatives Sara Jacobs, Scott Peters, Mike Levin and Juan Vargas announced plans for legislation intended to prevent a commercial data center at NAVWAR from proceeding without local-government consultation and approval. Their statement describes a proposed intervention, not an enacted prohibition.
The announced measure also underlines a point missed in many viral retellings: city officials are not the only people with a role. Federal lawmakers can pursue legislation or oversight, the Navy controls its own redevelopment process, and the environmental review offers a formal route for public comments. None of those steps guarantees the result that residents or developers prefer.
For now, the fact pattern is unusually stark: a major electricity-intensive proposal has been discussed for federally owned urban land; the city has imposed a temporary moratorium on projects it can regulate; and members of Congress are trying to change the decision-making framework for the site.
What still needs answers?
- Will Manchester/Edgemoor formally propose a data center, and if so, what size and where on the site?
- How much housing would be included or foregone under each redevelopment alternative?
- Who would pay for new electrical connections, grid upgrades, water infrastructure and other operating impacts?
- What would independently reviewed noise, energy, water and land-use studies show?
- Would the Navy or Congress require local consent for a commercial facility on the campus?
The easiest part of this story is the phrase “1984 is here.” The harder part is following the documents before the decision is made. San Diego has already discovered that being inside a city’s boundaries is not the same as being inside its land-use authority. Whether federal ownership should give surrounding residents less say is the argument now waiting for an answer.
Question. Investigate. Reconsider.
Video and original reporting
Watch the circulating NAVWAR commentary on YouTube Shorts. This is commentary, not a verified architectural design, environmental impact study or evidence of surveillance operations. For contemporaneous broadcast reporting about the city vote, see NBC 7’s October 27 report.
Sources and further reading
- City of San Diego: October 27 moratorium statement
- City of San Diego: October 22 executive order and supporting document
- U.S. Navy NAVWAR revitalization: October 8 status and environmental review timetable
- U.S. Navy: developer selection, January 2024
- Voice of San Diego: original utility-email investigation, October 15
- Congressional delegation: proposed NAVWAR legislation, October 29
- Apep Bar’s related coverage: The Data Center U-Turn
