HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190729plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 7/29/2019
Document dates: 07/10/2019 – 07/17/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, July 13, 2019 4:21 PM
To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff;
margaret-sasaki@live.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; hennessy; Joel Stiner; Cathy Lewis; terry; kfsndesk; newsdesk;
kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; bballpod; popoff; jerry ruopoli; vallesR1969@att.net; Doug Vagim;
huidentalsanmateo; Council, City; steve.hogg; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com
Subject:Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Saturday, July 13, 2019
To all‐ An update re Square SQ. Quite a week ending Friday, July 12, 2019:
Tues. July 9: c. at 77.96, up $4.53, up 6.17%.
Wed. July 10: c. at $78.37, up $.41, up 0.53%.
Thurs. July 11: c. at $79.45, up $1.08, up 1.38%.
Friday, July 12: c. at $82.28, up $2.84, up 3.58%.
I paid $62 for SQ on Monday, June 3, 2019. It has now advanced 32.71% in 39 days, i.e., in 5 weeks and 4 days.
Sounds a lot like 5.45% per week if it took six weeks. 5.5% per week. $1 million invested in SQ on June 3, 2019 is now
worth $1,327,097, 39 days later.
LH
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:49 AM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>
2
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David
Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, <info@superide1.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, Mayor
<mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>,
<margaret‐sasaki@live.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio
<paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Doug Vagim
<dvagim@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, Daniel Zack
<daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,
huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>,
<mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Monday, June 17, 2019
To all‐ A further update re Square, Inc. stock, SQ. I B it two weeks ago today, June 3, 2019 at $62 and it closed
today at $72.21, up $.62 today, and up 16.5% in two weeks. As always, I feel guilty about getting such easy money and I
may have to seek treatment. At that rate, my investment would quadruple in a year, a daunting prospect. I'll now lie
awake nights worrying about it.
I had to notice the huge breakdown in Target's payment system on Saturday, impacting ~187 stores for a couple
of hours. I wondered if that would have happened if Target had been using Square for their POS payment system. They
might want to consider Square now.
One week ago, I B some ATT T at $32 and it closed today at $32.30, up .94% in a week. So nearly up 1% in a
week. KCBS says that people are cutting the cable, but still that is a huge business for the likes of ATT. As they go to the
internet for things like Netflix, ATT will be a huge player there too. So a strong future for ATT. T pays a rich DIV of 6.38%
at my purchase price too, engendering further guilt feelings.
I now have a limit order in to buy more T. Maybe they'll cut the dividend soon and assuage some of those g.
feelings.
LH
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack
<daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>, Joel Stiner
<jastiner@gmail.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, <info@superide1.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk
3
<newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer
<mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, <margaret‐sasaki@live.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, Cathy Lewis
<catllewis@gmail.com>, paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, Mayor
<mayor@fresno.gov>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, Doug Vagim
<dvagim@gmail.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, Raymond Rivas
<financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, nick
yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
4
Friday, June 7, 2019
To all‐ Update on Square, SQ, 4 days after I B it on Monday, June 3, 2019 at $62: It C. at $68.46 today, Friday,
June 7, 2019, up $2.69 today, up 4.09% today. It is up 10.4% in the four days I have owned it. Hopefully, this will
continue unabated‐ joke. I think the name Square means that if you make enough money buying this stock, people
won't view you as being such a square.
SQ was $8 three years ago, and hit a high of over $101.15 in September, 2018. During the downturn in Dec.,
2018, it fell to $49.82.
Of course, we've had a big surge in the market this week, and SQ has benefited. My portfolio surged 2.23% just
today. The tariff issue is roiling the markets.
Here is an interesting announcement by Square re their Square for Restaurants product.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190606005128/en/
Just read this. I think you'd have to run restaurants to fully appreciate what this does, but the company says it is
worth serious money to the restaurants who adopt it. There's lots of restaurants in the world and that is just one
industry that Square serves.
Read the comments in the email below again re Square and where it stands in merchant processing.
During the dot‐com bubble there was a Co. called Commerce One. It allowed companies to order from each other
over the net. The rev. potential was said to be astronomical. Later some said that "Chinese arithmetic" had been used to
arrive at that. People invested fortunes in it. I just looked on Schwab for it and it's not there. I googled it and it is
headquartered in the Philippines. Don't know how they are doing now. Hopefully, very well.
LH
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>,
huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, paul.caprioglio
<paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, bballpod
<bballpod@aol.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>,
<midge@thebarretts.com>, <info@superide1.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Doug Vagim
5
<dvagim@gmail.com>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, popoff
<popoff@pbworld.com>, Raymond Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,
<mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
6
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:51 AM
Subject: B 5 shrs of Square SQ at $62. Huge apparent potent. Schwab rates F
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Monday, June 3, 2019
To all‐ I B 5 shrs of Square SQ today at $62. It c. today at $60.62 down $1.33, down 2.15%.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwCgzCBnqXxLmLbmKjCzPQzgRhN
Why? See this segment of NBR for Tues. May 28, 2019: See it from 18:30 to 22:35, 4 minutes and five
seconds. See if it causes you to B some SQ too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRep75‐9y2k
Electronic payment processors, a big business with the huge growth in e commerce. They show there that Global
Payments bought Total Systems Services, TSS, for $21 billion. Buyer was down 2.98% and TSS was up 4.75% on the day
of the deal.
He says that Apple Pay and Google Pay are just digital wallets and are not competitors in this business. But a big
player is Square SQ. Based in SV, actually SF. It could be acquired by a big bank. They can't initiate such a business, so
they'll buy one. Someone has a PT of over $90 on SQ, I see on Schwab. That price would trigger guilt feelings in me,
having B SQ today at $62.
The man talking fast is Chris Brendler. Brilliant guy. I have rarely heard anyone talk that fast. To write down
what he said in ~2 minutes, I had to slide the slider back ~50 times. Sue Herrera was struggling to talk to him. Here is
what I got out of that:
He uses the term "merchant acquirers" over and over, whatever that means.
"We've seen three of the biggest merchant acquirers get acquired this year: First Data, World Pay and TSS".
"Global buying TSS is a traditional combination, trying to join the industry, trying to get bigger, a defensive move.
Trying to compete with the other two mega‐mergers".
"My favorites today, First Data‐Fi Serve and World Pay, long term".
Where is Square Inc.? "Square is smack in the middle of merchant processing. It's about the threat that
Square poses to the traditional players. Traditionally, merchant acquiring has been sold through banks. (LH. You lose
me there, but I'm sure you're right). Square has a direct model. They have the only brand name in the merchant
processing space. Square is one of the reasons you're seeing these mega‐mergers".
7
Apple Pay and Google Pay are just digital wallets that use Visa and MC. They are not really competitors in
merchant acquiring.
Could the banks be buyers of Square? "Absolutely. Square has re‐invented the space with a direct approach and
a huge brand name."
"Banks have been the "go‐to" source for merchant acquiring relationships. A small business customer walks into
the branch. He needs a checking account and he needs to accept Visa and MC. But that was 10‐20 years ago" "Now it's
all about technology. Banks continue to consolidate. The traditional players need to consolidate to get scale and to
compete on technology".
He assumes that viewers are right on the bleeding edge of this industry. The two interviewers were gasping for air
talking to him. He knows that viewers can always slide the slider on You Tube back 50 times to try to get the message. I
had to. Then, today, I B some SQ.
He talks about electronic payment processing and merchant acquiring. One generates the other, apparently.
LH
.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 14, 2019 10:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CA Supreme Court Rules for Cities to Control 5G re Health
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
FYI URGENT
CA Supreme Court Rules for Cities to Control 5G Install
Well, as California botches the Vaccine regs, at least CA Supreme court has now overruled FCC blind stupidity.
People are fighting back:
Hail Mary of FCC now derailed by California Supreme Court:
https://takebackyourpower.net/california-supreme-court-affirms-local-authority-on-small-cell-sites/
Health concerns raised. The FCC never oversaw one industry health-safety study done on
wireless in the past 35 years. Minimal government funded studies; the WHO being the last to study
more than a dozen years ago, despite the WHO deeming EMF radiation “possibly carcinogen” in
2011:
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/04/10/plan-5g-cell-phone-towers-health-concern-moraga/
Hopefully the Palo Alto City Council will look into this important
issue, as you do now have the Authority to do so.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
-Edith Gilbertson
Resident of Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 14, 2019 10:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mill Valley Blocks Cell Towers over Health Concerns
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
FYI
Mill Valley has blocked the installation of 5G Cell Towers
due to health risks. San Anselmo and Ross have already adopted similar ordinances.
"Their opposition to the towers was stoked by fears they could increase cancer risks and other health
problems associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields, including fatigue, headaches, anxiety,
learning and memory disorders, heart and sleep problems, and increased cancer risk, according to the
EMF Safety Network. The group seeks to keep communities free of electromagnetic fields and wireless
radiation. "
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/mill‐valley‐5g‐antenna‐tower‐cell‐phone‐block‐13221925.php
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:55 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hospitalier, Jon
Subject:PA should have their own equip and people
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
to fill major potholes that Cal Trans can't get to. End of 2020 is over a year away.
Why not train some of the minor offense prisoners in jail to fill potholes in exchange for reduced time?
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, July 10, 2019 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Palantir is helping to separate families
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members - Take Note. Just think about all the decisions you make. Some may come back to
bite you, and hence us.
Richard Placone
Chimalus Drive
57 Year Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lucia, FreePress.net <info@freepress.net>
To: Richard C. Placone Sr. <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019, 10:12:36 AM PDT
Subject: Palantir is helping to separate families
Richard,
Palantir is a tech company that’s fueling the Trump administration’s deportation machine. Thanks to software
provided by Palantir, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is able to monitor and track people at the border like
never before. During a three-month period alone, this technology enabled ICE to arrest at least 443 people.
Tech companies shouldn't profit off of deportations and family separations. Urge Palantir to sever its contracts
with ICE.
Thanks!
Lucia
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Free Press Action
Palantir is a tech company that’s fueling the Trump administration’s deportation machine. Tell Palantir to
get on the right side of history and end its relationship with ICE.
Richard,
Palantir has multimillion-dollar contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that aid in the
horrendous human-rights abuses like family separations and deportations happening at the border right now.
2
Earlier this year, documents released under a Freedom of Information Act request showed that ICE used a software
Palantir created and sold to investigate and arrest the parents and sponsors of children who crossed the border
alone.1
According to these documents, when unaccompanied minors were taken into ICE custody, agents used Palantir
software to build profiles of these children and their families, arresting any undocumented people they discovered in
their investigations, including those who came forward to claim their children. Thanks to this software, ICE arrested
at least 443 people during a three-month period.2
These investigations are a gross overreach that violate basic human rights, Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and
the internationally recognized right to seek asylum.
Demand that Palantir stop aiding and abetting the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. Tell the
company to drop all contracts with ICE.
Palantir’s software is also used extensively by Homeland Security Investigations, the ICE division responsible for
workplace raids. Through Palantir contracts, ICE also has access to a nationwide license-plate location database,
which it uses to track and conduct surveillance of individuals and family members in order to arrest and deport
immigrants.
Because of Palantir, all this information is at the fingertips of ICE agents responsible for mass deportations and
other abuses.
Send a message to Palantir — and the entire tech industry — that we will not stand by and let them make
money off of the trauma and suffering of migrants and asylum seekers.
We can force Palantir to stop working with ICE. With increased public pressure, it will become less profitable for
the company to continue supporting ICE abuses. And the pressure is already working — academics have forced
schools to drop their ties to Palantir, and journalists and activists around the world are decrying the company’s
connection to deportations.
Thanks for all you do,
Lucia, Collette, Candace and the rest of the Free Press Action team
freepress.net
P.S. Thanks to technology provided by the company Palantir, ICE is able to scale up and accelerate its operations
and monitor and track people like never before. Tell the tech company to end its contracts with ICE and stop
terrorizing immigrant communities!
3
1. “Documents Detail ICE Campaigns to Prosecute Migrant Parents as Smugglers,” The Intercept, April 29, 2019:
https://act.freepress.net/go/31239?t=9&akid=13027%2E9388426%2EKufcrV
2. “Documents Reveal Palantir Software Is Used for ICE Deportations,” Slate, May 2, 2019:
https://act.freepress.net/go/31240?t=11&akid=13027%2E9388426%2EKufcrV
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Donate | Privacy and Copyright | Contact | Unsubscribe
Connect With Us
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Podcast
Free Press and Free Press Action Fund are
nonpartisan organizations fighting for your rights to
connect and communicate. Free Press and Free
Press Action Fund do not support or oppose any
candidate for public office. Learn more at
www.freepress.net.
Support Us
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InDonate
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Great Nonprofits 2018 Top-Rated Nonprofit
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Guidestar 2018 Platinum Seal of Transparency
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the ICharity Navigator - 4 Star Charity
You are receiving this message because rcplacone@sbcglobal.net subscribed to the Free Press
email list. You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.
PO Box 60238
Florence, MA 01062
Phone 202.265.1490
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 14, 2019 12:34 PM
To:Pc User
Subject:Re: WATCH: Protesters Replace American Flag with Mexican Flag at ICE Facility
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Bob
GREAT SPEAK
I want to SHARE this POST on my OTHER VENUES and WALLS PAGES
like FORWARDING E-MAILS on ALL my accounts if that's OK with you. I'm in THOUSANDS now.
I can CUT AND PASTE this on ALL the FACEBOOK GROUPS TOO. Give me a nod ASAP OK
If we don't STOP this ILLEGAL INVASION of UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS, MANY from
DISEASE INFESTED AREAS of other COUNTRIES, we'll have to accept the CONSEQUENCES.
aka WE'LL HAVE HELL TO PAY
On Sunday, July 14, 2019, 02:22:53 PM EDT, Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> wrote:
Some of the laws Trump can, and should have used, to secure the border, as he promised over 2.5 years ago, are as
follows....
1) Article 4, Section IV --US Constitution.
2) 8 USC 1158(a)(2)(C)
3) 8 USC. 1222(a)
4) 8 USC. 1225(b)(1)(A)
5) 8 USC 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV)
6) 8 USC 1182(a)(1)(A)
7) 8 USC 1182(F)
8) 18 USC 1001
THE MILITIA... Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the US Constitution, which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND, gives Congress the power to call out the MILITIA under certain circumstances, one of which is TO REPEL
INVASIONS. However, Congress has been asleep at the switch for decades now, allowing this once great country to be
over run with illegal INVADERS, numbering in the tens of millions, pretending to be asylum seekers. With them, they bring
diseases which we had thought were eradicated. They cost the US Taxpayer well over $150 BILLION per year.
Murderous crime cartels now infest us with impunity also. Hundreds upon hundreds of possible EBOLA carriers from the
Congo region were dumped onto the streets of San Antonio last month, and then seeded around the country by local
charities who charge thousands per week for transportation services. And because they saw how easy it was to just waltz
across our border, they phoned home, and now there is another caravan from the EBOLA INFESTED Congo region,
numbering around 35,000 (thirty five THOUSAND), making their way here from South America.
For decades, this has amounted to one abuse after another, and now it seems to be accelerating despite the empty
rhetoric from DJT and crew.
These TRAITORS and OPPORTUNISTS must be dealt with and eliminated, as called for in the US Constitution and US
Codes. All the while, their cohorts and dupes attempt on a large scale to eviscerate the Sacred Second Ammendment and
disarm law abiding citizens. Some would be of the opinion that they are attempting to deprive Americans of their God
2
Given Rights. I would suggest that those miscreants peruse Title 18, USC, Sections 241 and 242. That law deals with
scurrilous politicians who write laws to strip citizens of rights and liberties. And we know who they are. Stay tuned, this
ain't over yet.
Yours Truly,
RJS
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 13:13, Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Is there any doubt as to what the intention of the Kommie inspired and financed INVADERS are ? We need the
National Guard and the ARMED MILITIA on the border, 50 years ago !!!!! What does Trump not understand about this
? He has had the law on his side for 2.5 years now. The TRAITORS should be charged and hung. Anyone who does not
support the US Constitution, in its entirety, is a TRAITOR !!!!!
>
>
> https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2019/07/13/watch-protesters-replace-american-flag-with-mexican-flag-at-ice-
facility/
>
>
> Yours Truly,
> RJS
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, July 13, 2019 5:58 PM
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 06-05-19 UAC meeting -- Item IX.4 -- natural gas leakage from
CPAU's gas distribution system
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Commissioners,
At your 06-05-19 meeting, you considered an item about natural gas leaks.
06-05-19 UAC agenda:
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71703
06-05-19 -- Item IX.4 staff report (9 pages):
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71699
Below the "######" line, please find a transcript of this item, with my comments (paragraphs in red beginning with "###").
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#############################################################################################
Video -- 06-05-19 UAC meeting:
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-652019/
2:37:14:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] ** go on to agenda Item number 4. And we have Tom and Bret to comment on this. And
David as well. David, do you want to be first again?
2:37:34:
David Coale: Thank you very much. I also wanted to mention, I am a member of Carbon Free Palo Alto as well. I'm glad
to see the City is trying to address the natural gas leakage issue. Because this leakage can actually double the impact of
natural gas, in terms of the greenhouse gas effects. Which would make it about the same as burning coal.
### According to this article,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-u-s-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought
the EPA estimates that the leak rate for methane is 1.4 percent, but a new study estimates that it's 2.3 percent. The
article says that IF it were more than 3 percent, natural gas electric power plants would be no better for the environment
than coal-fired electric power plants. The article says only 7 percent of the leak problem is due to "distribution."
2
And I don't think that's where we really want to go. And so, when I read through the report, there's two things that stood
out, that are not accounted for correctly. And the first one is, the global warming potential of methane is actually 86 times
CO2, as Tom alluded to. Because it should be taken in the 20-year time frame, not the 100-year time frame. If we do the
100-year time frame, we're cooked. You know. Planet over. We really only have 10 years to solve this. So, the 20-year
time frame is the appropriate measurement to use.
2:38:33:
The second thing is that the City, in the paper, is just accounting for the leakage within the City. But when we do
transmission losses for electricity, we include the entire grid. And now, when we go natural gas, we just draw this little
line around our City, and say, well, that's it. That's not the real impact. The real impact is the entire source system. This
includes the leakage in Los Angeles, with the big storage facility down there, and all these other things that are associated
with our natural gas. So, true accounting, with the greater greenhouse potential and -- as was alluded to in some of the
earlier slides -- more like a 5 percent leakage rate -- is appropriate. Once we do this true accounting, now we have really
good information to move forward on electrification. This will, again, put the true price of natural gas where it needs to
be. And using the greater amount of -- the cost -- the per-ton equivalent of CO2, all these things will help put natural gas
in its correct place. It's not a clean fuel. It's a fossil fuel.
2:39:43:
And so, I think those are really some good points that we should spend equal amount of time on. And as you are with this
accounting for carbon in our electricity supply, which is already "carbon-neutral." Let's spend the time addressing the
larger portion of our carbon footprint, which is our natural gas supply.
2:40:02:
And just one last thing about the recs. Just looking at the 50,000-foot level, or even greater, there are two accounting
systems. One is man's accounting system, and one is nature's accounting system. Nature says if you burn fossil fuels,
you're in trouble. Man says, well, let's see, I can do some recs, and I can do some accounting here, and I can do this and
that. And so, we can kind of shift things around. In the end, there are no recs. Because we have to be 100 percent off
fossil fuels. So take this into account when you're thinking about this. And let's not get distracted by some of man's
accounting. I know it applies in the world today. But in the world tomorrow, where we are truly carbon-constrained,
saving the $7 million is just a shell game. And it's not reducing our actual carbon. The real thing is the carbon. So, be
careful with this -- you know, can we just buy recs and solve everything. It doesn't go that way. Thanks.
2:41:07:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] Thanks, Dave. Tom. Tom Kabat.
2:41:15:
Tom Kabat: All right. Thank you very much. One thing relates to what David just said. And also what Commissioner
Scharff had raised as this conundrum between the recs and offsets. And a lot of people confuse them. In fact, when I
listened to David, I had to keep substituting the word "offset." In the long run, there are no real "offsets." You have to
stop emitting carbon. But the -- one way to look at what is a rec and what is an offset, a "rec" is a rigorously-tracked
attribute from, say, a Wyoming wind generator, that is hard-metered, and then tracked by an accounting system into
accounts, and those are audited. An "offset" is a very different thing. It's a counterfactual calculation about what
someone would have done if you didn't pay them not to do this thing they say they would have done without the
money. So, here I am holding a gun to a tree. And demanding that you pay me and I'll save this tree. And then that will
be an offset. You'll save -- one tree saved. But you don't know if I really would have shot the tree. And so, they're
different that way. So, I -- I'm kind of different from a lot of environmentalists, because I really do trust recs. They're
audited. I worry a bit about offsets. I end up buying them anyway, for my past. But --
2:42:38:
OK. The other thing is about the leakage, and the different time frames. So, the methane goes into the atmosphere. And
it can be oxidized, if there's enough ozone up there.
### This source says more methane is removed from the atmosphere by the hydroxyl radical than by ozone.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11.html
3
Ozone's a very reactive gas. We're running out of it. If there's enough, it can destroy that -- or, oxidize that methane
molecule into CO2. And that's -- that gives methane, on average about a 12-year life.
### This source says the average lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is between 8.7 and 11.5 years.
https://www.sealevel.info/methane.html
Up there. Each molecule is an average of 12-year life. And if we take its warming potential, and divide it -- all the
warming it did in 12 years -- if we divide it by a big denominator of 100 years, we've lowered the apparent warming that it
did per year. And so that's the reason we're saying we think you ought to be looking at this shorter 20-year time frame,
which essentially recognizes a smaller denominator. And so, the four times as big effect of fugitive emissions.
2:43:33:
And then the last thing was, my former co-worker, Karl Knapp, had produced to Council -- and Council had adopted -- a
great prudency policy, dealing with a future cost when cap-and-trade was in the future and it hadn't started yet. And so,
the Council adopted a policy of recognizing that it was very likely to occur, and that they ought to start making decisions
as though it would occur. That way, they wouldn't regret any of the decision they make. And the same thing can be done
when we start thinking about all the carbon we're going to have to remove from the atmosphere -- that will cost, say, over
$100 a ton. And they need to be reducing -- removing about 25 percent of global emissions -- current global
emissions. So, almost 25 percent of the volume we're emitting now has to be removed. At over $100 a ton. So, us -- me
being a commissioner elsewhere, and you guys here, we're in the long-run prudency business. So we ought to work on
policies that recognize the long-run costs of emitting. And so, we really find, it's worth paying up to $100 a ton in order to
avoid emitting now. OK. Thanks for considering those things.
2:44:36:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] OK. Thank you, Tom. And Bret.
2:44:48:
Bret Anderson: Not much more to say, after those two got through with it. But I am very happy to see fugitive emissions
being studied. I know that, within the City, what we're studying is a small portion of the fugitive emissions of the total
supply. At the end of the memo that is part of the packet, it does say that it's probably -- well, could be -- four times more
emitted -- leaking -- outside of Palo Alto than inside Palo Alto. So, we're really just looking at kind of a very small part of
the methane leak -- emissions -- leakage. But most important, I think, is how we're -- where are these numbers going to
show up. So, where is this fugitive emission going to show up. I think I've seen it mentioned once, in one account, in one
of the S/CAP reports. Buried very deeply. But whenever we show our footprint, at least officially, on the Palo Alto
website, or in our staff reports, we're never showing, and outlining, where the methane -- fugitive emissions are. In fact,
they're ignored, for the most part, in the official accounts. But wouldn't it be an amazing news item to see that Palo Alto's
footprint for its buildings doubled or tripled overnight? You know. If we start recognizing this, and say, we're standing up,
and we're putting this, actually, in -- the reality into our accounts, and we're helping our planning efforts to focus on the
right actions, and make the right investments, because we know that this leakage is causing this additional global
warming, that is nowhere to be found in any of the official reports, that's a very big step that Palo Alto can take. So, my
big question for this is, where can we put -- where are these numbers going to show up? If we start recognizing methane
leakage as providing a significant amount of global warming, compared to what the natural gas is itself. You know, just
the burning of the gas is a small amount of the warming, if you consider the leakage that's going on in the whole supply
chain. So, I'm hoping that, at some point -- And it may be -- You know, this will be officially recognized at some point,
when California has completed some more of its studies on methane leakage. On the EPA website, it says 2.3
percent. At 2.3 percent -- that's kind of an official number that's recognized by even our own -- um -- federal
government. But that in itself almost doubles the footprint, if you think about a 20-year time frame for methane. So,
there's really no reason why we shouldn't be at least calling that out in our own planning and our own presentation of the
footprint for natural gas use in our City. Thank you.
2:47:54:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] Thank you. **
2:48:01:
Jonathan Abendschein: Very brief. I don't have a presentation on this. This was a -- prompted by a question from
Commissioner Forssell about what our emissions are. What -- How much gas leaks from Palo Alto's distribution
4
system. And we -- And I guess what I'd say is, we don't know for sure. We have two sources of information that give you
some -- maybe bound the problem a little bit. The first is this -- is a 2012 study that we did to determine whether we
needed to be reporting to the E- -- reporting estimated gas leakage to the EPA. And that calculation yielded about 4,700
metric tons of carbon being emitted due to leakage and oxidization on our system. It uses a lot of sort of nationwide
assumptions. So it's not necessarily Palo Alto specific. It is a relatively small number, relative to our total emissions,
which is in the ballpark of 150,000 to 160,000. The other source of information we have is something we track every year,
which is called "unaccounted-for gas." And is the difference between the gas that we read off the -- what is it -- four -- the
meters at the four stations where we take gas off of PG&E's system. And the total sales that we meter over that same
period of time. So, if we received -- you know, received X and sold Y, the difference between that ranges between 1.5 to
3 percent. Now, metering's an imprecise science. It is -- 2 percent is our standard -- 2 percent measuring error is a
standard for a meter that you can keep in the field. So, not all of that 1.5 to 3 percent is released to the atmosphere. That
is for sure. How much of that 1.5 to 3 percent is actually being released to the atmosphere is an open question for us,
and would require further study. So, this was an effort to get some information in front of the commission, for what had
originally been a light agenda. This is the information that we have. And we wanted to get this this in front of the
commission, to get some idea of what future research or study you'd like to see from us, and what level of priority you'd
like to make this. And I do want to emphasize that Palo Alto does do far more than the DOT requires to repair and search
for leaks. It -- PG&E is slowly starting to catch up, because of all the additional focus on safety that they've done. But
Palo Alto goes way above and beyond most gas utilities in trying to fix leaks. So, I would assume that our leakage rate --
our actual emissions to the atmosphere are lower than many other utilities. So, that's what I have to say. And, please, I'd
be happy to answer any questions.
2:51:33:
Commissioner Segal: Thanks for putting this together. It's super helpful. I would like to see methane estimated at the 20-
year level, and not the 100-year level. I think that's a more fair accounting for that. And it would also be -- I don't know --
interesting to understand if we upgraded those -- the most vulnerable pipes -- how much of an impact that might have on
reducing emissions. And what that cost would be, to reduce those --
2:52:04:
Jonathan Abendschein: Yeah. And this is actually one place -- another place -- where Palo Alto's -- actually has
excelled. We -- So, it -- OK. So, that -- I can take that as something that we should go back and study. But I also just
want to highlight some of Palo Alto's sort of aggressive replacement that we've done, of some of our -- So, we had a -- of
ABS -- ABS pipe. Do we want to talk about that at all?
2:52:34:
Dean Batchelor: So, I think the think the thing is, is that if you look at -- just even at this Figure 1 portion of it -- you'd look
at the unaccountable percentage of gas -- you can see the ** bar is actually closing, going down into the 2018 portion of
it. And I think the thing is, is that it's due to -- after we do these leak surveys, you know, we go out and we actually are
replacing the oldest gas pipe that's out there. We have had a mixture of PVC pipe -- we have ABS, that we just got rid
of. And we still have -- And then, everything else is high-density poly
### I assume he means high-density polyethylene (HDPE). But the City sometimes uses medium-density polyethylene
(MDPE) for gas pipes.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44699
Which is better for avoiding leaks? Furthermore, both HDPE and MDPE have unimodal and bimodal variants.
http://www.janatechnology.com/usercontent/whitepapers/bimodal-pes-contribution-to-life-expectancy-extension.pdf
Which of these variants is better for avoiding leaks?
and other gas pipe. And so, about -- I'd say maybe about 55 percent of the system right now is in the high-density aspect
of it. So, I think the thing is, is that's the reason why we see that these leakage is going down. Over the system portion of
it. And, I think the thing is, is that we can go back and look at -- We send a -- this report, from our leakage -- on an
annual basis -- to the DOT. So, we can go back and look at, you know, what we did 10 years ago. We can go back and
see what we did -- I don't know how far the reports actually go back. But we'll go back as far we can, and take a look at
that portion of it. But we can calculate over the period of time. But, I think -- is, we can continue to move forward. You
know, we are looking at the oldest pipe that's still out there. And now we are into this PVC section of pipe, which is
probably around -- 45 miles?
2:54:15:
5
Jonathan Abendschein: Yeah. That sounds about right.
2:54:16:
Dean Batchelor: I think so. About 40-45 miles worth of PVC main -- and -- that's out there. That we're in the process,
right now, of replacing. It's probably going to be somewhere -- my guess is it would be -- is that that's probably an 8-10-
year time frame. Maybe a little shorter than that. Maybe about 5-7 years. At that point. So, it will take us a little bit of
time. And then, at that point, the system will be pretty much, then, all steel and high-density pipe.
2:54:56:
Jonathan Abendschein: And we do have data on leak rates by pipe -- by ...
2:54:50:
Dean Batchelor: By segment of pipe.
2:54:52:
Jonathan Abendschein: Yeah. We have -- We have data on leak rates by material.
### Does this data distinguish between HDPE and MDPE? Between unimodal and bimodal? The data on page 5 of the
staff report
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71699
reports on "plastic" pipes, without distinguishing among PVC, ABS, and PE, let alone distinguishing the various kinds of
HDPE and MDPE. The DOT report cited on pages 6-9 of the staff report DOES report PE separately from ABS and PVC,
but doesn't distinguish between HDPE and MDPE.
Because that's what you're looking for. Right? Is the impact of replacing the highest-leak-potential pipes.
2:55:03:
Dean Batchelor: Right. Um hum.
2:55:06:
Chair Danaher: The other piece of data it would be good to know is if PG&E tracks their estimates -- their leakage in their
system. It would be helpful. It -- When we talked Monday, you didn't know if that data was available. And if it's not
available or not.
2:55:20:
Jonathan Abendschein: Yeah. It should available. So the -- They're mandated to report that to the Ca- -- Air Resources
Board. So we can bring that back as well.
2:55:28:
Chair Danaher: Thanks. All right. Any more comments or questions?
2:55:31:
Commissioner Forssell: Just a quick one. Thank you. This is like chock full of good information. I just wanted to second
the notion that we should be using a 20-year time horizon. And when I brought this stuff last month, it was in the context
of wondering if there was any appetite on the UAC, or Council, or in the community for expanding the green gas program,
to offset not just consumed and combusted natural gas, but to account for fugitive emissions as well. And so, to my mind,
that would include transmission as well as distribution. It's great to have a start on understanding how well we're able to
estimate distribution. But, to Commissioner Danaher's point, it would be great to understand transmission as well. All that
said, I feel like it's premature to do a deep dive into another, like, set of thinking about carbon accounting. And we really
should prioritize the electric portfolio. Because I think that we'll find some similar themes in thinking will apply to thinking
about the gas. So, this is not a request to come back next month. But eventually.
6
2:56:00:
Dean Batchelor: Thank you for that. Yeah. I think what we could do is, we can -- we'll put it on the future agenda portion
of it. And bring it back before the end of the year. I think that that's fair. We can go ahead and go back and -- As
Jonathan says, you know, we have pipe type, we have leakage portion of it, we have records that go back. So, we'll go
back and take a look at it from a deeper dive portion of it. And then, I think the other thing is, as Jonathan mentioned, too,
is that we can go to CARB and look at some of the transmission pieces, and probably PG&E's distribution systems, as
well, from that point.
2:57:24:
Commissioner Smith: So, I have one other comment. With respect to Figure 1, thank you for going through that. The
one percent drop between 2016 and 2018 you attributed primarily to the replacement of existing pipeline
distribution. Right? And then we highlighted that we have roughly 40 to 45 percent yet to go? And that will take
approximately 5-7 years. Do we anticipate another one percent drop over that period?
2:57:45:
Dean Batchelor: I would believe so. I would. Because the problem -- what's happening is that, with the PVC pipe that's
in the ground today, we -- it's basically, when it was put in -- It's basically like your sprinkler pipe. That's all it is. And so,
what we're finding is, is that -- and what we're mostly concerned about is, when the earth's shifting right now, is that the
glue that's holding the joints in place are actually kind of deteriorated. And -- But the ground is so compacted that, at this
period of time, as long as the pipe doesn't shift, we're not finding any -- that many leaks out there. But what we have
found is, when we were doing the work on University, when the contractor was shaking the ground a little bit out there was
-- they were cutting the trench line -- we found that there was actually a couple leaks out there. Actually, it broke
apart. The line just separated. Where the joints. So, we're more concerned about that. And, like I say -- So, we're
willing to try to move a little quicker in trying to get this PVC out of the system. One of the advantages that we have over
PG&E is, is that we only have a 25-pound system. We only put 25 pounds of gas to our whole system. Where PG&E will
run 60-90 pounds. And then, what's actually going into our homes is actually regulated down to a quarter of a
pound. That's all that goes inside the home. At that point.
2:59:05:
Commissioner Smith: Are you referencing the fact that it's harder to do pressure testing on the lines?
2:59:09:
Dean Batchelor. No, no, no. I'm just saying, is that the reason why we're not seeing the leakage that we're ‐‐ that you
would normally see ‐‐ If we had the pressure that what PG&E had, with PVC pipe, we'd ...
2:59:17:
Commissioner Smith: We'd have a much larger leak.
2:59:18:
Dean Batchelor: Yeah. We'd have leaks everywhere, at that point. But with the lower pressure that we have on the
pipes right now, we're not seeing the leakage. But we know where all this pipe is at. So that's why I said, we can wait 5
years to start re‐ ‐‐ And we're in the process right now of replacing.
2:59:35:
Commissioner Smith: Thank you.
2:59:38:
Chair Danaher: All right. Commissioners, is it all right if we move on to the next agenda item?
7
2:59:42: