Cities Index.
Received After Agenda Printed - Correspondence

Murrieta City Council
August 18, 2026

Document
Received After Agenda Printed - Correspondence
Meeting
August 18, 2026
Body
Murrieta City Council
Original file
826 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on murrieta.legistar1.com. That file is the official record.

1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562 ● (951) 304-CITY (2489) ● www.MurrietaCA.gov

CITY OF MURRIETA
TBD
Erica Martin, Director of Project Development
San Diego Gas & Electric
8330 Century Park Court
San Diego, CA 92123-1530
Re: SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink: Preliminary Route: Segment 4 Dear Ms. Martin:

On behalf of the City of Murrieta (City), I write to express the City’s opposition to the preliminary routing of Segment 4 of the Golden Pacific Powerlink project through the City of Temecula and the surrounding Southwest Riverside County region.

The City recognizes the need to strengthen California’s electrical transmission system and improve regional grid reliability. Our opposition is not directed at the underlying purpose of the project. Rather, the City is concerned t hat the preliminary Segment 4 alignment would place a major 500 -kilovolt transmission corridor through a highly developed area, creating potentially significant and lasting impacts on established communities.

Southwest Riverside County has developed into an interconnected region of established neighborhoods, schools, businesses, tourism destinations, public facilities, and critical transportation corridors. Although the proposed alignment may not pass directly through Murrieta, impacts to Temecula would affect the broader region, including community character, viewsheds, economic activity, property owners, traffic circulation, emergency operations, and future land-use planning.

The City is also concerned about introducing major transmission infrastructure into a region that regularly experiences wildfire threats and emergency evacuations. Potential impacts to wildfire response, evacuation routes, public safety operations, sensitive resources, and nearby residential communities must be carefully evaluated a nd avoided wherever feasible. Given the scale and permanence of the proposed infrastructure, mitigation measures alone may not adequately address the impacts of routing Segment 4 through established communities.

We understand that the project remains in the early planning and preliminary design phase, and SDG&E has indicated that the route is still being refined before an application is submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission. This is therefore the appropriate time to reconsider Segment 4 and identify alternatives that avoid developed portions of Southwest Riverside County.

← All documents from this meeting