Auto news on Youtube Dec 15 2018

The E.coli outbreak in romaine lettuce has been linked to a single water reservoir on a farm in California

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration identified sediment from a farm as being the source for the November outbreak

The CDC reported that the farm in question is owned by Adam Bros. Farming Inc., located in Santa Maria, California, about 160 miles northwest of Los Angeles

Santa Barbara County is one of three California counties, along with San Benito and Monterey, that the CDC is advising consumers to avoid when choosing romaine lettuce

Some romaine products are now being labeled with their harvest regions. In addition to romaine, the farm's website notes that it produces red and green leaf lettuce, celery, cauliflower and broccoli

Adams Bros. Farming is also recalling red leaf lettuce, green leaf lettuce and cauliflower harvested between Nov

27 and Nov. 30 "out of an abundance of caution, because it may be contaminated" with the same strand of E

coli that was found in the earlier romaine, according to a statement it released on Thursday

"The recall was initiated after it was discovered that sediment from a reservoir near where the produce was grown tested positive for E

coli O157:H7. Filtered and treated water from the reservoir may have come in contact with the produce after it was harvested

None of the filtered, treated water has tested positive for E. coli, all E. coli tests returning negative," the farm said in the statement

All told, there have been 59 reported cases in 15 states and the District of Columbia

Twenty-three people have been hospitalized. Two individuals developed a type of kidney failure, though the CDC did not disclose the states where those individuals were located

California and New Jersey had the most reported cases. The illnesses were reported between Oct

5 and Nov. 16.

For more infomation >> E. coli outbreak in romaine lettuce traced to California farm - Duration: 3:58.

-------------------------------------------

About The California Building Standards Commission - Duration: 9:52.

Welcome to About the California Building Standards Commission, our first in a series of educational

videos designed to help you understand the commission, the building standards code adoption

process and Title 24.

Whether you're a building code official, architect, manufacturer or builder, we hope you find

this series helpful and educational.

The California Building Standards Commission (commonly known as CBSC) is a commission within

the Department of General Services.

Its mission is to produce sensible and usable building standards, and administrative regulations

that implement or enforce those standards.

Additionally, as provided in law, CBSC's main duty is administering and overseeing California's

building code adoption process.

This includes: Conducting the formal rulemaking process,

including establishing code adoption timelines, conducting public meetings, and approving and

adopting building standards; Resolving conflict, duplication and overlap

in building standards; Codification, which includes organizing approved

codes in a written manner in preparation for publication, and;

Publishing the approved and codified building standards in the California Building Standards

Code, which is the 24th of 28 titles of the entire suite of the California Code of Regulations.

The California Building Standards code is therefore commonly known as Title 24.

Title 24 consists of multiple parts that address different disciplines of construction, such

as plumbing, fire and panic safety, and sustainability.

It is published in its entirety every three years and includes internationally developed

model codes, national standards and California amendments.

This happens during the Triennial Code Adoption Cycle which we will discuss further in a

future video called The Rulemaking Process.

So, let's get started with an overview of the commission.

The commission is comprised of ten commissioners who are appointed by the governor and represent

building industry professionals, the public and government officials.

Building standards law mandates that the governor shall appoint:

One architect; One mechanical, electrical or fire protection

engineer; One structural engineer;

One licensed contractor; One member from organized labor in the building

trades; One local jurisdiction building official (from

either a city or county); One local fire official, and;

Three public members, at least one of whom must be a person with a physical disability.

In addition, at least one of these members shall also be experienced and knowledgeable

in each of the following disciplines - energy efficiency standards,

sustainable design, construction and operation and

barrier-free architecture to ensure public buildings are accessible to, and usable by,

persons with physical disabilities.

All members of the commission serve without compensation, but receive per diem reimbursement

for commission-related travel.

The Secretary of Government Operations, or the secretary's representative, serves

as the chair of the commission.

The chairperson is a voting member if there is a tied vote.

The commission holds quarterly public meetings throughout the year.

At these meetings, state agencies present their proposed building standards and request

approval so their regulations can be published and become enforceable in Title 24.

CBSC has a staff of 15 that carries out the

day-to-day operations of the commission and is led by an Executive Director who is appointed

by the commission.

The main obligation of the Executive Director is to execute the will of the commission

by Interpreting and implementing the policies

of the commission; Managing the technical and administrative

staff; Representing the commission before the legislature,

all levels of state and local governments, and the private sector;

Ensuring other state agencies comply with regulations for adopting building standards

and that their proposed building codes are justified and not burdensome upon the public,

and lastly, Providing administrative direction for the

day-to-day work of the commission, including contractual agreements and budgeting.

The Executive Director is assisted by a Deputy Executive Director who oversees the technical

staff and the rulemaking processes, and a Staff Services Manager who oversees administrative

staff and office management duties, including human resources, contracts and budgets.

Our technical staff consists of employees

who have a range of expertise in architecture, construction, the trades, legislation and

rulemaking.

This team: Interfaces with state agencies during the

rulemaking process, ensuring that proposed regulations meet the requirements of law;

Organizes rulemaking files for review; Develops building standards which CBSC has

the authority to propose, and Prepares rulemakings that have been through

the agency amendment and public review process for presentation to the commission for approval.

After new regulations are approved, technical staff will then

File approved building standards with the Secretary of State;

Work with the publishers of Title 24 to ensure that the approved regulations are properly

codified and then printed for dissemination and use by architects, engineers, builders,

inspectors, building officials and others, and

Manage the receipt, documenting, and filing of local ordinances, which are building codes

adopted by cities, towns and counties including provisions above and beyond Title 24.

In addition, our technical staff provides training and education to code users including

building officials, design professionals, tradespeople and state agency code developers.

CBSC training includes subjects such as code change updates, how to use Title 24, and how

to develop and propose building standards.

The administrative staff of CBSC is made up of employees who are experienced in office

management and support functions.

The members of this team: Coordinate and facilitate public meetings

of the commission, including sub-committees and Code Advisory Committee meetings.

This includes setting up the live video and audio broadcasts, issuing public meeting

notices and agendas, and compiling all of the materials necessary for such meetings.

This staff also: Manages CBSC's website, which is a window for

the public to access all things Title 24 and CBSC;

Produces educational publications for use by state agencies and the public;

Issues the CALCode Quarterly, our newsletter designed to keep in touch with our constituents

and state jurisdictions that have a relationship with CBSC;

Tracks legislative bills that may impact Title 24, and

Administers the Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund.

This fund was established in 2009 by Senate Bill 1473 and is intended to support CBSC's

education and outreach activities, with an emphasis on green building standards.

This is why it's sometimes called the Green Fund.

In addition to the commissioners and staff, there are six discipline-specific code advisory

committees that perform technical review of proposed building standards before they are considered by the commission.

The committees are established by the commission every three years for the following specialties:

Accessibility.

Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Energy.

Structural Design and Lateral Forces.

Health Facilities.

Green Building; and Building, Fire and Other.

Each committee has a maximum of nine voting members, none of whom are commissioners or

staff of CBSC.

There may also be non-voting ex-officio members from involved state agencies.

Each committee has subject-matter-expert representatives from the public and building trades.

Working together, the executive, technical and administrative staff provide the commission

and its committees with all necessary support required for the adoption and approval of

building standards for Title 24.

So, that's it in a nutshell!

CBSC is a small and vital commission that produces

an essential outcome - the building standards for the state of California.

In another video session we'll explain the details of the rulemaking processes that we touched

upon here.

As always, please contact us if you need assistance with rulemaking procedures, or help understanding

and utilizing the codes, or if you have a question about the commission.

Thanks for joining us today.

For more infomation >> About The California Building Standards Commission - Duration: 9:52.

-------------------------------------------

Del Oro Loses State Championship In Southern California - Duration: 1:01.

For more infomation >> Del Oro Loses State Championship In Southern California - Duration: 1:01.

-------------------------------------------

E. coli outbreak traced to California - Duration: 0:42.

For more infomation >> E. coli outbreak traced to California - Duration: 0:42.

-------------------------------------------

Death sentences plummet across California. Riverside County, which led the U.S. in 2017, has had zer - Duration: 7:37.

Death sentences plummet across California. Riverside County, which led the U.S. in 2017, has had zer

In 2015 and again in 2017, Riverside County held the grim distinction of sending more people to death row than any other county in the nation.

But so far this year, no one in Riverside County has been sentenced to death, reflecting a trend seen in California and across the country, according to a new report.

Five California counties, among the 10 with the most death sentences nationwide in the last five years, either had no sentences or no more than two, according to the report by the Death Penalty Information Center.

In fact, no U.S. county handed down more than two death sentences a first since executions resumed more than 40 years ago after they had been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Analysts attributed the decline to more selective charging by prosecutors and more skeptical juries. Some pointed to frustration in California about the lack of executions as well as the bloating of death row and the costs of capital trials.

While small year to year fluctuations in sentencing numbers are to be expected, the report said, the nationwide data reflects significantly greater reluctance by prosecutors and juries to seek and impose death sentences from a decade ago or even five years ago.

The report said Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, Kern and San Bernardino counties were among the top 10 producers of death sentences nationwide in the last five years.

Riverside went from 17 death sentences in those years to zero this year, Los Angeles from 14 to two, Orange from six to one, Kern from four to zero, and San Bernardino from three to zero.

Riverside County Public Defender Steven Harmon said prosecutors there seek far fewer death sentences than they did a decade ago, a decline he attributed to more selective charging by newer district attorneys.

County Dist. Atty. Mike Hestrin, who was just elected to his second term, supports the death penalty and has sought death sentences in 2018 in cases that have not yet been resolved, Harmon said.

But his view of when to use the death penalty is far more measured than past district attorneys here in Riverside, Harmon said. So the number of cases filed as death penalty cases has been reduced dramatically.

Although support for the death penalty has been waning, California voters in recent years have decided to keep it.

Instead of abolishing it, voters most recently passed a measure intended to speed up executions.

The new law removed some impediments to executions, but they remain blocked by court orders.

A death penalty prosecution can take three or more years to complete, so the number of sentences handed down each year reflects charging decisions that were made in the past.

Hestrin noted that in his first year as district attorney, Riverside handed down more death sentences than any other county in the country, a reflection of charging decisions by his predecessor.

I definitely am pro death penalty, but I do believe it should be reserved for those cases that absolutely need it, Hestrin said.

He said he decides whether to seek the death penalty after talking to victims and considering the defendants background and the gravity of the offense, not the cost to the county, he said.

Capital cases are expensive to try, and appeals are costly and time consuming.

If I started thinking about the cost, we wouldnt ever do it, Hestrin said.

Riverside County remains strongly in favor of the death penalty, Hestrin said, and jurors recommend death in the vast majority of capital cases prosecutors bring.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey attributed the decline in part to her offices pretty intense screening of about 200 murder cases annually that could result in a death sentence.

She said a committee goes over the facts of the crime, whether there were multiple victims, whether rape or torture was involved and whether the defendant had a disability or other possible mitigating circumstances. The evidence of guilt has to be super strong, she added.

She said her office sought a death sentence in only 2.7 percent of the cases that were reviewed in the last year.

The decline reflects my view that while the death penalty is legal, it should not be imposed haphazardly, and it should be reserved for a very small number of cases, she said.

The Death Penalty Information Center, which generally takes a critical look at capital punishment, said 25 people in eight states were executed in 2018, the fourth straight year with fewer than 30 executions. Texas accounted for more than half at 13.

Outgoing Kern County Dist. Atty. Lisa Green said she has a formalized process for deciding whether to seek the death penalty that includes no consideration of expense or the fact that California has not executed anyone in 12 years.

She said she suspects her process may have led to more selective charging than that of her predecessor, who served for 28 years.

We waive death in many more cases than we seek it, said Green, who is retiring.

Greens office did seek the death penalty in a trial this year, but the jury deadlocked. She said her office decided not to seek a new trial, and the defendant received a life sentence.

San Bernardino County Public Defender Chris Gardner said prosecutors there are seeking fewer death sentences because juries arent supporting them.

A death penalty trial in San Bernardino County this year ended in a sentence of life without parole instead of death, he said.

San Bernardino prosecutors are spending more time evaluating potential capital cases and seeking information from defense lawyers before charging, Gardner said.

The death penalty report said that 62 executions were scheduled in 2018 across the U.S. but that many were postponed for consideration of such things as new evidence or mental competency and others were halted by commutations or reprieves.

For the first time in 25 years, fewer than 2,500 prisoners face active death sentences, the report said.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, noted there will be random variations in death sentences for any one county from year to year.

He attributed the downward trend in death sentences to a lower murder rate and a tendency by prosecutors and jurors to be more selective.

That does not obviate the need for the death penalty in a truly heinous case, Scheidegger said.

When capital punishment was first restored in the 1970s, prosecutors often sought the death penalty for every defendant for whom it was possible, he said.

Now there is more of a general agreement not to seek it in routine cases, he said.

New death sentences nationwide this year remained near record lows, at 42, the report said. One in seven were imposed by judges without a unanimous jury recommendation.

Among those newly sentenced to death were at least two foreign nationals, three who were 21 or younger at the time of the crimes and several who exhibited clear signs of mental illness, the report said.

Washington this year became the 20th state to end the death penalty when its Supreme Court found its application unconstitutional.

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.