RULES COMMITTEE: 4/22/2026
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 26-169
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: April 22, 2026
April 9, 2026 – April 16, 2026
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from J. Westzier, received April 13, 2026, regarding: Foraging/Food availability.
2. Letter from Blair Beekman, dated April 13, 2026, regarding: Blair Beekman. Monday, April 13, 2026 ..... To consider, SJ public letter writing.
3. Letter from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), received April 16, 2026, regarding:
NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RATE INCREASE REQUEST FOR ITS DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (DCPP) 2027 COST RECOVERY APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) A.26-03-031. ____________________________
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
Public Record: 1
4/13/26, 12:45 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Blair Beekman. Monday, April 13, 2026 ..... To consider, SJ public letter writing.
From b. beekman
Date Mon 4/13/2026 12:31 PM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear San Jose city govt, and community,
I wanted to write, to San Jose city govt & community, to remind and prepare yourselves, that the State of California, has passed & approved, Ca. Senate bill 707.
From the first words, of an informative Cal Matters fact sheet, at the bottom, of this letter ....... This bill SB 707, beginning July 1, 2026, and until January 1, 2030, would require an eligible legislative body, as defined, to comply with additional meeting requirements, including that, except as specified, all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public, to attend via a 2-way telephonic service or a 2-way audiovisual platform, as defined, and that the eligible legislative body, take specified actions to encourage residents to participate in public meetings ......
The city govt of San Jose, and the San Jose community, will need to prepare itself, for the many, upcoming additions & updates, that there can be, for city of San Jose public meetings, with the approval of SB 707. There is a full fact sheet, at the end of this letter. It can help better clarify, my own initial words, on this subject.
I have now been living in San Diego, for the past few years, now. I have previously lived, in the San Jose area, for 15 years. I still travel & visit often, between San Diego & the SF Bay Area. The city of San Diego, in the past 3 months, has had 3 city council/committee public meeting agenda items, and public discussions, on the passage, and upcoming implementation, of Ca Senate bill 707. I hope, the city of San Jose, can also be considering, how to begin to ask for, public input and ideas, from the https://outlook.cloud microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtNDc4 Yi 1 hN2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5M... 1 /2 Public Record: 2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. everyday SJ community. And how the future of SB 707, can work well in San Jose, for at least, the next four years, if not longer.
Among local California govts, I have always felt San Jose, has created important examples, to make very clear, that SJ public meetings, need to have a certain level, of good community practices & decorum. I hope the San Jose community can continue, its previous good efforts, that very specific, derogatory statements, will not be acceptable, in the SJ public meeting process.
First amendment rights, are important. But to note, there simply can be a difference, in respecting every person, and their initial ideas & feelings, on subject matter, in public meetings. Compared to people, simply making, very specific, derogatory statements, in the community public meeting space.
I hope everyone of the San Jose community, wants to be working towards, well-intentioned, respected concepts, of public meeting decorum. And a conversational middle ground.
As most local Ca govt entities, follow Brown Act public meeting rules - public accessibility ideas, for Ca. Brown Act public meetings, is simply heading towards, a more open, thoughtful, and creative process.
A good luck, in how the San Jose community, can help prepare, in good terms, state of Ca. Brown Act public meetings, to have a two-way, phone service, and/or audiovisual platform - something of a Zoom app - for public comment, at its public meetings, beginning July 1, 2026. sincerely,
blair beekman
explanations of SB 707.
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca 202520260sb707 to peace, dialogue, trust, and not continual war.
4/13/26, 12:45 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/2 DATE: April 13, 2026
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RATE INCREASE REQUEST FOR ITS DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (DCPP) 2027 COST
RECOVERY APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) A.26-03-031
What is being requested?
PG&E is requesting $595 million in revenue for 2027 to recover forecasted costs associated with the continued operation of DCPP. As the owner of DCPP, PG&E is allowed to collect operating costs from customers of the large electric utilities in California with no additional markup. Based on a predetermined share of each utility's allocation of statewide DCPP costs, PG&E would recover $340 million, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) would recover $208 million and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) would recover $47 million. The requested revenue reflects forecasted costs necessary to support statewide electric grid reliability and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while DCPP continues operating.
How would this impact the typical residential customer? The bill for a typical non-CARE bundled residential customer using 500 kWh per month would increase from $197.51 to $198.59 or 0.5%, compared to current bills. Actual impacts will vary depending on usage and the applicable Base Service Charge, if eligible.
Additional information
You can read more about PG&E’s request and make public comment by visiting apps.cpuc.ca.gov/c/A2603031. For questions about participating in CPUC matters, you can contact the Public Advisor’s Office at Public. [email protected], 1-866-849-8390, or 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102. Please reference A.26-03-031 in any communication with the CPUC.
Questions about the request
Detailed rate information will be sent directly to customers in a bill insert in April 2026.
If you have questions about PG&E’s request, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TTY, call 711. Para obtener mas informacién sobre como este cambio podria afectar su pago mensual, llame al 1-800- 660-6789 ° if lfaan Exe 1-800-893-9555.
If you would like an electronic copy of the filing and exhibits, please write to the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Diablo Canyon Power Plant 2027 Cost Recovery Application (A.26-03-031) P.O. Box 1018
Oakland, CA 94604-1018
Message paid for by customers.
Public Record: 3