宜宾双眼皮手术的价格贵吗宜宾额头脂肪填充管多久,宜宾祛除眼袋医院,宜宾韩式丰胸美容医院,宜宾隆鼻视频全过程,宜宾双眼皮有多少种类型,宜宾哪家整形医院丰胸最好,宜宾哪家整形医院祛斑好

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (KGTV) - An East County woman was devastated to find out the money she spent to buy a new cat likely went to con artists.“I just felt like I lost my sense of love for humanity,” Suzi Moon told Team 10. Moon’s Maine Coon cat, Teka, recently passed away. She was 15-years-old and a longtime member of her family.“He was the best cat ever,” Moon said. When he died, she was heartbroken.“I was in an emotional mode,” Moon said. “I wanted to get another one because I just was so used to that cat.”Moon searched online and found a website that advertised pure Maine Coone cats. She emailed the website and got a response. “They emailed me back and this cat that I saw on the website was a gray cat. Beautiful,” she said.She also spoke to someone on the phone, who sounded legitimate. The man asked her questions, such as whether or not she was having the cat indoors and if she was declawing the cat. Moon eventually scraped up 0 and sent the money through Zelle, something she now regrets.The day the supposed seller was supposed to ship the cat to her, he asked for more money for a special crate. “We need to have you cash app, send ,000 more,” Moon said. After back and forth with the seller and refusing to pay more, Moon said they eventually blocked her number. The 0 she paid was gone. The website, puremainecoons.com, is no longer active. Team 10 found the website on petscams.com, a site that bills itself as a pet watchdog website. The Better Business Bureau said pets are the top scam when it comes to online purchases. The average loss is 0. Moon wanted to share her mistake with others in hopes nobody else falls victim to this scam.“I just felt violated. There [are] people out there taking advantage like that. It’s disgusting,” Moon said.Team 10 called the person Moon said she spoke with about the cat. That man hung up before answering any questions. The BBB suggests do not buy a pet without seeing it in person. The organization also recommends conducting an internet search of the photo. If you see the same picture on different websites, it could be fraud. 2112

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Pacific Gas & Electric Co. power lines may have started two wildfires over the weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area, the utility said Monday, even though widespread blackouts were in place to prevent downed lines from starting fires during dangerously windy weather.The fires described in PG&E reports to state regulators match blazes that destroyed a tennis club and forced evacuations in Lafayette, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) east of San Francisco.The fires began in a section of town where PG&E had opted to keep the lights on. The sites were not designated as a high fire risk, the company said.Powerful winds were driving multiple fires across California and forcing power shut-offs intended to prevent blazes. More than 900,000 power customers — an estimated 2.5 million people — were in the dark Monday, nearly all of them in PG&E's territory in Northern and Central California.Southern California Edison had cut off power to 25,000 customers and warned that it was considering disconnecting about 350,000 more.PG&E is under severe financial pressure after its equipment was blamed for a series of destructive wildfires during the past three years. Its stock dropped 24 percent Monday to close at .80 and was down more than 50 percent since Thursday.The company reported last week that a transmission tower may have caused a Sonoma County fire that has forced nearly 200,000 people to evacuate.PG&E told the California Public Utilities Commission that a worker responded to a fire in Lafayette late Sunday afternoon and was told firefighters believed contact between a power line and a communication line may have caused it.A worker went to another fire about an hour later and saw a fallen pole and transformer. Contra Costa Fire Department personnel on site told the worker they were looking at the transformer as a potential ignition source, a company official wrote.Separately, the company told regulators that it failed to notify 23,000 customers, including 500 with medical conditions, before shutting off their power earlier this month during windy weather.Before a planned blackout, power companies are required to notify customers and take extra care to get in touch with those with medical problems who may not be able to handle extended periods without air conditioning or may need power to run medical devices.PG&E said some customers had no contact information on file. Others were incorrectly thought to be getting electricity.After that outage, workers discovered 43 cases of wind-related damage to power lines, transformers and other equipment.Jennifer Robison, a PG&E spokeswoman, said the company is working with independent living centers to determine how best to serve people with disabilities. 2789

SAN DIEGO, Calif, (KGTV) - An information meeting Thursday evening is one of the final steps before plans to expand the Miramar Landfill are sent to the state. Currently, the landfill is expected to close Sept. of 2025, but this new plans will extend that to an estimated closure of Nov. of 2031, and also increase the height of the landfill by a maximum of 25 feet. Program Manager for the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency Bill Prinz said these dates could change depending on how quickly trash is put into the landfill. He also said this increase in capacity means about 10 million cubic yards of trash are being added to the already about 87 million cubic yards. Currently, 87,760,000 cubic yards of Gross Airspace are being used, and the plan will bring the maximum height to 97,354,7355 cubic yards of Gross Airspace. The meeting Thursday, May 28 is from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. and will be information focused. The public can tune in virtually to listen, ask questions and offer feedback, however no decisions will be made. Prinz said the LEA will send the plans, including the feedback from the meeting, to Sacramento, and the state will have 60 days to either accept or deny the plan. He said he does not expect them to deny it.The attend the meeting, click here: https://bit.ly/may10meeting 1307

SAN DIEGO (KGTV)— Some people in San Diego are still feeling the shakes after yesterday's Ridgecrest Earthquake. It is prompting concerns about activity along San Diego County's own fault lines. Living in California, we can never say, "We never saw it coming." But seismologists said yesterday's quake was very rare. "It comes along here [points at map] and meets another fault perpendicular, and that's not typically what I work on or what I've seen before," Scripps Institute of Oceanography seismologist, Dr. Debi Kilb, said.The epicenter was not close to California's most known and large fault line, the San Andreas. "This is where our main 6.4 [Magnitude quake] occurred," Dr. Kilb said. "You can see, it's not on any of these really well-known faults. So it's occurring on a fault that's unmapped or unknown."Here in San Diego, there are also many smaller, lesser-known fault lines, like the Rose Canyon Fault. It meets the shore near La Jolla, travels right underneath Interstate 5, through Downtown San Diego, and exits out of the Silver Strand. Dr. Kilb said the Rose Canyon Fault has been seismically inactive since before 1900. The more active fault locally is the San Jacinto Fault near Anza Boreggo. But if a quake were to emerge out of Rose Canyon, it could potentially be very damaging to our area. Being along the coast, San Diego could be under water. "Yes, you can definitely get a tsunami from that," Dr. Kilb said. However, she said a tsunami is most likely in San Diego, after a massive earthquake near an active fault, off the Oregon or Washington Coast. In preparation, the City of San Diego is retrofitting many buildings, like the iconic California Tower in Balboa Park. By the end of the seven-month construction project, the Tower should be able to withstand a significant quake. But aside from buildings and bridges, Dr. Kilb said WE should always be preparing for the next "Big One.""Now is a good time to just look around and say, 'Is there anything breakable on my shelves that I should take down? Are the bookcases actually secure to the ground?' So just do a walkthrough," Dr. Kilb said. You are also encouraged to talk with your family about an emergency plan and have a 3-day emergency kit ready for every family member, including pets. Having a USB drive with important photos and paperwork may also be helpful. 2357

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (KGTV) - Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez announced she will introduce two new housing bills in the state assembly this week.One of them aims to prohibit developers from separating affordable housing units from market rate units in the same building.The bill came in response to a fight last summer between Canadian developer, Pinnacle and Civic San Diego, the city agency that was responsible for overseeing design approval.Pinnacle had submitted plans for a building on 11th Avenue between A & B Streets. The main tower was 32 stories tall and would be available at market rates. The tower was attached to an eight-story building that would house 58 affordable units, in order to satisfy the density bonus granted to Pinnacle for this and two other projects in the area.But Civic San Diego rejected the plan on the grounds that the affordable housing units had a separate entrance and restricted access to amenities in the 32-story tower, including the pool.“We can’t create a system that allows developers to separate out folks,” said Gonzalez at a press conference on Monday.A draft summary of the bill, AB 2344, stated it will “prohibit the owner or agent of an owner from isolation the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or area within the structure.”After Civic San Diego rejected the proposal from Pinnacle, the developer came back with a new plan that eliminated the eight-story affordable housing section entirely. That plan was also rejected by Civic San Diego.10News reached out to Pinnacle for a comment, but a lawyer said they could not say anything because the project “remains a subject of potential litigation.” 1687