HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2012 Supplemental Council AgendaPeter & Rita Redford
December 5, 2012
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Appeal of Application FER12 -0003
19870 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Saratoga City Council:
Thank you for meeting with us today to consider our request for a 10 -foot sound wall.
As you observed yesterday, our house is located adjacent to highway 9 and is exposed to
constant loud traffic noise.
To mitigate this noise, we would like to replace part of the current 6 -foot wooden fence with
a 10 -foot concrete sound wall. Because two sides of the property are located adjacent to
highway 9, the proposed wall needs to shield the front of the house and part of the side.
The elevation of the house is such that, even with the current 6 -foot fence, traffic and
vehicle headlights are clearly visible from all the front facing windows. A minimum 10 -foot
wall is required to block this.
The current 6 -foot fence is completely hidden by trees and bushes. The proposed 10 -foot
wall will also be behind trees and bushes and will be invisible from the road.
A U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) article titled
"Keeping the Noise Down: Highway Traffic Noise Barriers " analyzes the effectiveness of
noise barriers and concludes that (and I quote):
• "Noise Barriers reduce the noise level by 5 to 10 decibels, cutting the loudness of traffic
by as much as half.
• A noise barrier can achieve this level of noise reduction only when it is tall enough to
break the line -of -sight from the highway to the home.
• Noise barriers substantially improve the quality of life for people who live adjacent to busy
highways."
Thank you in advance for approving this 10 -foot sound wall. It will reduce the constant
traffic noise and will allow us to quietly enjoy our beautiful property.
Sincerely,
Peter and Rita Redford
j
19870 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070,
Appeal of Application FER12 -003
How Does a Noise Barrier Work?
Each additional 1m height m
1.5 dB(A) additional
attenuation
1n
I i
' m Receiver
Line of sight
blockage = SOW
City of Saratoga
Memorandum
To: Saratoga City Council
From: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
Date: December 5, 2012
Subject: Special Meeting Agenda Item 2 - Additional Attachment /Election Certificate
and Official Election Results
Per State law, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters has 28 days after the election to
complete the canvass of returns and provide the election officials of local jurisdictions with
the Election Certificate and Official Election Results. For the November 6, 2012 General
Municipal Election, the deadline for the canvass of returns is December 4, 2012.
Consequently, the Election Certificate and Official Election Results were not included with
the agenda packet distributed to the City Council on November 30, 2012.
The Election Certificate and Official Election Results are attached to this memorandum.
These two documents will be attached to the resolution declaring the results of the 2012
City of Saratoga General Municipal Election upon adoption by the City Council.
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RESULTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ss.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Barry Garner, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of
California, hereby declare:
1. A Presidential General Election was held in the County of Santa Clara, for
the City of Saratoga, on November 6, 2012 for the purpose of electing Two (2)
Council Members to the Governing Board.
2. The official canvass of the returns of this election was conducted by the
Office of the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the
Elections Code of the State of California.
3. The Statement of Votes Cast, now on file in my office, shows the number of
votes for each candidate for the Governing Board of the City of Saratoga and in each
of the precincts and that the total shown for each candidate are true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 4th day of December, 2012.
Barry arner, Registrar of Voters
3 �
November 6, 2012 Presidential General Electlon. Santa Clara County.
7� City of Saratoga
SARATOGA, City Council
111282012 5:36 :15 PM GRD. Touts • Pe0r 68 P.p 558 al 1286
November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election. Santa Clara County.
7a City of Saratoga
SARATOGA, City Council
11126Pte12 516'.45 PM V61.f. Totals - Pape 68 Page 559 of 1286
November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election. Santa Clara County.
74 City Of Saratoga
SARATOGA. City Council
11262013 5:36:15 PM PCT, Totals - Page 68 Page 560 a1 1236
November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election. Santa Clara County.
88 City of Saratoga
SARATOGA. Cily Council
1 12812012 536:15 PM PAGE 68 Pap 561 pf 1285
Z
QOQ
.K
N
w
w
~
F_
j
¢
m
F-
7
Z
_
F
u 3
c �
V O
s
J
E
o ¢
`o Z
—z
N o f
Y
W
p
¢
3
S
PCT 4674
PCT Rcponing
1477
273
18;5;4
112
123
VBM Reposng
1477
976
66.1%4
517
586'
PCT 4675
PCT Reponft
488
102
2019%
36
49
VBM Reporting
488
287
58.8%
148
13
PCT 4675
PCT Reporting
139C
284
20.4%
117
143
VBM Reporting
1390
901
64.8%
463
518
PCT 4678
PCT Reponvlg
99
266
26.7%
116
124
VBIA Reporting
997
543
54.5%
290
319
PCT 4679
PCT Roposing
1263
26
• 20.6%
122
133
VBM Reponino
1263
832
65.9%
423
457
PCT 685
PCT Rcponing
1049
199
19.0%
75
104
VBh1Reporting
1049
692
66.0%
341
432
PCT 4887
PCT Reposulo
852
178
20.9%
74
103
VBM Reporting
852
511
60,0%
268
321
PCT4688
PCT Rcponing
832
134
16.1%
59
74
VBM Reposing
632
524
63.0%
253
31
PCT 4689
PCT ROppmno
1506
379
25:2%
181
208
V &.t Reporting
1506
887
58.9%
458
55
PCT 4690
PCT Reponing
1477
296
20V-A
134
191
PCT 4690
VBM Rcponing
1477
925
62.6%
476
55
PCT 4695
PCT Reposng
124
231
18.5%
91
14
V8M Repmlmg
1248
813
6511%
396
502
PCT 4696
PCT Reporting -
1108
203
18.3%
Be
11
MAReporong
1,108
696
62.8 -A
364
424
PCT 4697
PCT Repmlero
1494
234
15;7%
101
127
V9IA Reporting
1494
991
66.3%
519
61
PCT 4596
PCT - Reporting
1385
226
16.3%
91
11
VEIM Reporting
1385
885
63.9°.4
464
53
PCT 4699
PCT Rcp -ung
1305
209
16.0%
112
112
VBM Reponng
1305
847
64.9'',
458
47
PCT 4702
PCT Reposing
805
165
.20.5%
79
108
VBIA Reporung
806
502
62:3%
-
221
30
PCT 4703
PCT Rep -4,9
750
153
20.4%
62
94
VBM Rcponing
750
463
61.7%
222
� 306
PCT 4711
PCT Rcponing
518
6
17,2%
3
39
VBIA Reportino
518
329
63.5 %.
150
21
PCT MAIL 4731
PCT Reporting
38
0.0%
VBM Reporting
38
2
65.8%
12
13
PCT MAIL 4733
PCT Rcponing
0.0%
vBM R4p.,I.g
100.0%
2
2
GRAND TOTALS
19,99
16,5 t 7
82.6%
4.13E
9,479
1 12812012 536:15 PM PAGE 68 Pap 561 pf 1285
Write -in Statement of Votes
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
November 6, 2012 - Presidential General Election
City Council, City of Saratoga
Only candidates that received valid write -in votes are listed in the Write -In Statement of Votes.
O
Y
J
W
cn
3:
W
0
_j
J
O
W
2
J
U
U)
z
Q
O
O
z
3
Q
O
2
2
z
H
Precinct
VBM
PCT
VBM
PCT
VBM
PCT
4674
3
1
4676
1
1
4
4679
2
4688
1
4695
1
1
1
4697
4
2
4698
1
4699
4
3
TOTAL
2
0
2
0
18
8
G -Total
2
2
26
Only candidates that received valid write -in votes are listed in the Write -In Statement of Votes.
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS �- // GENERAL ELECTION
j �G�r.�F'
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
REGISTRATION & TURNOUT
450,818 70.23%
Santa Clara County
174,843 27.24%
Completed Precincts
1,000 of 1,000
Total Registration
817,837
PCT Reporting Ballots Cast
195,354 23.89%
VBM Reporting Ballots Cast
457,885 55.99%
Total Ballots Cast
653,239 79.87%
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
BARACK OBAMA
450,818 70.23%
MITT ROMNEY
174,843 27.24%
GARY JOHNSON
7,889 1.23%
JILL STEIN
4,391 0.68%
ROSEANNE 13ARR
2,298 0.36%
THOMAS HOEFLING
1,712 0.27%
UNITED STATES SENATOR
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
DIANNE FEINSTEIN 454,647 72.93%
ELIZABETH EMKEN 168,722 27.07%
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 17
Completed Precincts 246 of 246
MIKE HONDA 120,024 74.05%
EVELYN LI 42,051 25.95%
Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 18
Completed Precincts 362 of 362
ANNA G. ESHOO 154,747 69.80%
DAVE CHAPMAN 66.963 30.20%
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 19
Completed Precincts 382 of 382
ZOE LOFGREN 162,300 73.24%
ROBERT MURRAY 59,313 26.76%
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 20
Completed Precincts 10 of 10
SAM FARR 2,984. 78.24%
JEFF TAYLOR 830 21.76%
STATE SENATOR, District 13
Completed Precincts 193 of 193
JERRY HILL 59,977 53.54%
SALLY J. LIEBER 52,047 46.46%
STATE SENATOR, District 15
JIM BEALL
Completed Precincts 529 of 529
STATE SENATOR, District 17
Completed Precincts 133 of 133
BILL MONNING 43,699 63.68%
LARRY BEAMAN 24,928 36.32%
STATE ASSEMBLY, District 24
Completed Precincts 193 of 193
RICHARD S. GORDON 84,564 70.12%
CHENGZHI "GEORGE" YANG 36,041 29.88%
STATE ASSEMBLY, District 25
Completed Precincts 170 of 170
BOB WIECKOWSKI 60,004 68.56%
ARLYNE DIAMOND 27.520 31.44%
STATE ASSEMBLY, District 27
Completed Precincts 199 of 199
Completed Precincts 529 of 529
NORACAMPOS 91,816 77.63%
160,451 56.74% ROGER F. LASSON 26,461 22:37%
Page 1 of 8
A.
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
STATE ASSEMBLY, District 28
Completed Precincts 299 of 299
PAUL FONG 108,061 62.00%
CHAD WALSH 66,239 38.00%
STATE ASSEMBLY, District 29
Completed Precincts 70 of 70
MARK STONE 22,418 62.70%
TOM WALSH 13,336 37.30%
STATE ASSEMBLY, District 30
Completed Precincts 69 of 69
LUIS ALEJO 21,224 58.02%
ROB BERNOSKY 15,358 41.98%
BOARD OF EDUCATION, Trustee Area 1
I
Completed Precincts 138 of 138
GRACE H. MAH 50,010 66.75%
DAVE CORTRIGHT 24,905 33.24%
BOARD OF EDUCATION, Trustee Area 5
Completed Precincts 120 of 120
ANNA E. SONG 35,401 57
Run
. ,, Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM
BOARD OF EDUCATION, Trustee Area 5
Completed Precincts 120 of 120
DAVID
FOOTHILL -DE ANZA CCD
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts
226 of 226
LAURA CASAS FRIER
84581 34:35%
BETSY BECHTEL
69,430 28.20%
JOAN BARRAM
61,859 25.13%
GEBY E. ESPINOSA
30,332 12.32%
GAVILAN JOINT CCD, Trustee Area 1
Completed Precincts 91 of 91
MARK DOVER 24,159 69.36%
ROCHELLE C. ARELLANO 10,670 30.64%
SAN JOSE /EVERGREEN CCD, Trustee Area 1
Completed Precincts 58 of 58
RUDY NASOL 16,426 63.15%
JEREMY SUMABON 9,585 36.85 %1
SAN JOSE /EVERGREEN CCD, Trustee Area 3
Completed Precincts 79 of 79
CRAIG MANN 14,167 41.97%
LEO CORTEZ 91197 27.25%
RICHARD K. TANAKA 7,642 22.64%
ROBERTO J. SEPULVEDA 2,748 8.14%
SAN JOSE /EVERGREEN CCD, Trustee Area 7
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
MAYRA CRUZ 16,106 71.42%
SAMUEL J. LEFEVRE 6,446 28.58%
WEST VALLEY - MISSION CCD, Trustee Area 2
Completed Precincts 26 of 26
ROBERT T. 'BOB" OWENS 9,006 59.65%
BEN HERNANDEZ 6,093 40.35%
WEST VALLEY - MISSION CCD, Trustee Area 6
Completed Precincts 40 of 40
ADRIENNE GREY 13,031 69.44%
RON BONHAGEN_ 5,734 30.56%
Page 2 of 8
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
MILPITAS UNIFIED SD, Short Term
Completed Precincts 31 of 31
DANNY LAU 10,521 63.33%
VANCE VUONG 6,093 36.67%
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SD
Number to Vote For: 3
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts
45 of 45
Completed Precincts
53 of 53
CAMILLE TOWNSEND
RICK G. BADILLO
8,319
21.30%
BOB BENEVENTO
7,455
19.09%
AMY PORTER JENSEN
7,126
18.24%
MARTY CHEEK
5,500
14.08%
STEPHEN F. KLEM
5,409
13.85%
BRENDA CAYME
5,251
13.44%
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SD
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts
45 of 45
MELISSA BATEN CASWELL
18,589 27.56%
CAMILLE TOWNSEND
17,721 26:27%
HEIDI EMBERLING
16,173 23.98%
KEN DAUBER
14.973 22.20%
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 1
Completed Precincts 16 of 16
TERESA CASTELLANOS 6,747 68.72%
PAUL MURPHY 2,468 25.14%
BILL KLEIDON 603 6.14%
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 5
Completed Precincts 36 of 36
SANDRA ENGEL 11,500 61.86%
CATHY DAVIS 7,089 38.14%
SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 2
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts 63 of 63
CHRISTOPHER R. STAMPOLIS 17,260 32.65%
ALBERT GONZALEZ 16,967 32.10%
JIM VANPERNIS 12,088 22.87%
ASHISH MANGLA 6,548 12.39%
SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 3
Completed Precincts 63 of 63
MICHELE RYAN 19,483 55.59%
ELISE DEYOUNG 15,564 44.41%
CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts 129 of 129
KALEN GALLAGHER 31,725 30.23%
LINDA (JOPP) GOYTIA 25,241 24.05%
DIANE GORDON 24,687 23.52%
RICK COSTANZO 23,297 22.20%
EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
LAN.NGUYEN
MAGDALENA CARRASCO
PATRICIA MARTINEZ -ROACH
THELMA BOAC
FREMONT UNION HIGH SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
NANCY A. NEWTON
JEFF MOE
JOSEPH ANTONELLI ROSAS
253 of 253
56,329 29.63%
55,450 29.17%
48,795 25.67%
29,509 15.52%
111 of 111
38,335 44.47%
33,070 38.36%
14,804 17.17%
LOS GATOS - SARATOGA JOINT UNION HIGH SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
KATHERINE TSENG
ROSEMARY ROSSI
LORRIE WERNICK
65 of 65
12,903 39.05%
10,419 31.53%
9,720 29.42%
SAN BENITO HIGH SD, Short Tenn
Completed Precincts 1 of 1
STEVE DELAY 25 55.56%
JENNIFER COILE 17 37.78%
VICTOR N. ANYENEH 3 6.67%
Run Date[Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM Page 3 of 8
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
ALUM ROCK UNION SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
DOLORES MARQUEZ
KAREN MARTINEZ
ESAU HERRERA
LELAND LOWE
BERRYESSA UNION SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
KHOA NGUYEN
RICHARD CLASPILL
DAVID S. HERNAND
CAMBRIAN SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
JENEVA SNEED
DORON ARONSON
JAROD MIDDLETON
MATT DAY
48 of 48
10,650 32.78%
8,889 27.36%
7,349 22.62%
5,603 17.24%
40 of 40
11,520 40.34%
9,039 31.66%
7,995 28.00%
0411111179 MPA
5,339 33.42 %'
4,019 25.16%
3,497 21.89%
3,120 19.53%
CAMPBELL UNION SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts 53 of 53
MICHAEL SNYDER 15,901 41.01%
JULIET TIFFANY - MORALES 11,852 30.57%
LEAH K. READ 11,017 28.42%
EVERGREEN SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
BONNIE MACE
VICENTE M. SONGCAYAWON
BALAJI R. VENKATRAMAN
FRANKLIN- MCKINLEY SD
Number to Vote For. 2
Completed Precincts
GEORGE SANCHEZ
JOHN LINDNER
BRYAN CONG DO
LOS ALTOS SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
STEVEN TAGLIO
PABLO LUTHER
AMANDA BURKE- AARONSON
VLADIMIR G. IVANOVIC
MORELAND SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
ROBERT VARICH
JULIE REYNOLDS- GRA13BE
BRIAN PENZEL
50 of 50
15,735 39.61%
12,535 31.55%
11,457 28.84%
39 of 39
9,711 38.79%
8,630 34.47%
6,696_26.74%
39 of 39
11.,114 37.69 %I
9,976 33.83%
6,621 22.45%
1,776 6.02 %.
21 of 21
8,683 43.45%
5,915 .29.60%
5,384 26.94%
MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SD
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts
CHRISTOPHER KENT CHIANG
STEVEN E. NELSON
BILL LAMBERT
PETER DARRAH
JIM POLLART
UNION SD
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
VICKIE BROWN
HAROLD STUART
SAM ACCHIONE_
29 of 29
11,114 26.59%
10,095 24.15%
8,289 19.83%
7,581 18.13%
4,726 11.30%
30 of 30
9,168 40.35%
6,886 30.31%
6,667 29.34%
GILROY, Mayor
Completed Precincts 22 of 22
DON GAGE 8,096 53.32%
PETER ARELLANO -4:533 29.85%
DION BRACCO 2,556 16.83%
GILROY. City Council
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts 22 of 22
PERRY WOODWARD 6,828 22.46%
TERRI AULMAN 6,742 22.18%
CAT TUCKER 6,272 20.63%
PAUL V. KLOECKER 5,403 17.78%
REBECA ARMENDARIZ 5,150 16.94%
Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM Page 4 of 8
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
LOS ALTOS, City Council
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts
23 of 23
JAN PEPPER
9,288
26.71%
MEGAN SATTERLEE
5,833
16.77%
JEANNIE BRUINS
5,576
16.03%
JON BAER
4,986
14.34%
JERRY SORENSEN
4,968
1419%
ANABEL PELHAM
4,123
11.86%
LOS GATOS, Town Council
Number to Vote For:2
Completed Precincts 29 of 29
BARBARA SPECTOR 9,163 54.47%
MARCIA JENSEN 7,659 45.53%
MILPITAS, Mayor
Completed Precincts
JOSE'JOE' ESTEVES
ROB MEANS
29 of 29
13,288 73.11%
4,888 26.89%
MILPITAS, City Council
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts
29 of 29
CARMEN MONTANO
5,935
19.35%
DEBBIE GIORDANO
5,902
19.25%
GARRY BARBADILLO
5,164
16.84%
DEEPKA LALWANI
4,964
16.19%
RAJEEV MADNAWAT
4,023
13.12%
MARK TIERNAN
3,696
12.05%
OLA ROBERT HASSAN
962
3.20%
Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4 :11:49 PM
MONTE SERENO, City Council
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts 5 of 5
JULIE WILTSHIRE 1,026 36.05%
WALTER HUFF 917 32.22%
SUSAN GARNER 903 31.73%
MORGAN HILL, Mayor
Completed Precincts 20 of 20
TATE.
MORGAN HILL, City Council
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts 20 of 20
LARRY CARR 7,781 36.64%
MARILYN LIBRERS 5,469 25.75%
JOSEPH CARRILLO 4,058 19.11%
MATT WENDT 3,929 18.50%
MORGAN HILL, City Clerk
Completed Precincts 20 of 20
IRMA TORREZ 10,716100.00%
MORGAN HILL, Treasurer
Completed Precincts 20 of 20
MICHAEL J. ROORDA 10,219100.00%
MOUNTAIN VIEW, City Council
Number to Vote For: 4
Completed Precincts
33 of 33
JOHN INKS
12,200
18.88%
MIKE KASPERZAK
12,163
18.82%
CHRIS CLARK
11,854
18.34%
JOHN R. MCALISTER
11,806
18.27%
MARGARET CAPRILES
10,685
16.53%
JIM NEAL
5,919
9.16%
PALO ALTO, City Council
Number to Vote For: 4
Completed Precincts
39 of 39
LIZ KNISS
17,445
24.62%
GREG SCHMID
13,627
19.23%
PAT BURT
13,301
18.77%
MARC BERMAN
13,057
18.43%
TIMOTHY GRAY
7,668
10.82%
MARK WEISS
5,749
8.11%
SAN JOSE, City Council District 8
Completed Precincts
ROSE HERRERA
JIMMY NGUYEN
48 of 48
17,331 54.30%
14,588 45.70%
Page 5 of 8
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
SAN JOSE, City Council District 10
Completed Precincts 52 of 52
JOHNNY KHAMIS 17,834 52.57%
ROBERT BRAUNSTEIN 16,089 47.43 %'.
SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 3
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
DEBI DAVIS 19,334 61.70%
MOHAMMED NADEEM 12,000 38.30%
SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 4
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
JERRY MARSALLI 22,003 72.31%
ALMA JIMENEZ 8,424 27.69%
SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 6
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
LISA M. GILLMOR 25,572100.00%
SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 7
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
TERESA O'NEILL 12,948 43.23%
JOHN MLNARIK 10,581 35.33%
Run Date/Time: 11/28112 4:11:49 PM
SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 7
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
BILL COLLINS
SANTA CLARA, City Clerk
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
DIRI
SANTA CLARA, Chief Of Police
Completed Precincts 49 of 49
J. S
SARATOGA, City Council
Number to Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts 20 of 20
HOWARD MILLER 9,679 54.33%
MANNY CAPPELLO 8,136 45.67%
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Dist 2
Completed Precincts 121 of 121
BARBARA KEEGAN 38,058 57.26%
DAVID GINSBORG 21,801 32.80%
DREW SPITZER 6,605 9.94 %0,
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Dist 5
Completed Precincts 131 of 131
I
NAI HSUEH 38,714 51.24%
PATRICK S. KWOK 27,813 36.81%
MARY AMANDA MCCHESNEY 9,030 11.95%
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL DISTRICT
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts
108 of 108
JOHN ZOGLIN
31,559 24.94%
JULIA E. MILLER
27,919 21,99%
DENNIS W. CHILI
24,908 19.62%
WESLEY F. ALLES
21,764 17.15%
BILL JAMES
20,684 16.30%
SC:C OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, District 4
Completed Precincts 88 of 88
DORSEY MOORE 20,357 45.62%
GARNETTA ANNABLE 13,773 30.87%
BENJAMIN T. COGAN 10,489 23.51%
PURISSIMA HILLS WATER DISTRICT
Number to Vote For: 3
Completed Precincts 10 of 10
BRIAN HOLTZ 1,730 32.39%
STEVE JORDAN 1,553 29.08%
ERNEST SOLOMON 1,533 28.70%
WILLIAM BOWDEN 525 9.83 %I
Page 6 of 8
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
Proposition 30 - Temporary Education Tax
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
YES 394,991 63.19%
NO 230,095 36.81%
Proposition 31 - State Budget
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
NO 308,156 53.23%
YES 270,789 46.77%
Proposition 32 - Polit. Contributions by Payroll
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
NO 371,008 60.50%
YES 242,244 39.50%
Proposition 33 - Auto Insurance
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
NO 357,785 58.94%
YES 249,295 41.06%
Proposition 34 - Repeal Death Penalty
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
YES 336,655 54.70%
Proposition 34 - Repeal Death Penalty
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
Proposition 35 - Human Trafficking
I
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
i
YES 512,269 83.41%
NO 101,916 16.59%
Proposition 36 - Three Strikes Law
Completed Precincts 1,000 Of 1,000
YES 463,896 75.69%
NO 148,984 24.31%
Proposition 37 - Genetically Engineered Foods
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
YES 326,906
NO 293,611
Proposition 39 - Multistate Business Tax
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
YES 422,936 70.43%
NO 177,555 29.57%
Proposition 40 - Redistricting
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
YES 441,019 76.90%
NO 132,444 23.10%
Measure A - Santa Clara County - Sales Tax
i
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
YES 339,359 56.61 %,
NO 260,141 43.39 %'
Measure B - SC Valley Water Dist. - Special Tax
Completed Precincts 1.000 of 1,000
YES 434,021 73.69 %I
NO 154,970 26.31%
Proposition 38 - Education Tax
Measure C -Palo Alto - Marijuana Dispensaries
Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000
Completed Precincts 39 of 39
NO 426,738 69.70%
YES 185,545 AGAINST THE ORDINANCE 18,322 62.77%
Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM Page 7 of 8
Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION
Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012
Measure C - Palo Alto - Marijuana Dispensaries
Completed Precincts 39 of 39
Measure D - San Jose - Minimum Wage
Completed Precincts 456 of 456
YES 178,123 59.65%
NO 120,491 40.35%
Measure E - San Jose - Cardroom Gaming
Completed Precincts 456 of 456
NO 163,575 57.66%
YES 120,138 42.34%
Measure G - Morgan Hill Unified SD - Bonds
Completed Precincts 53 of 53
BONDS YES 15,243 65.74%
BONDS NO 7,944 34.26%
Measure I - East Side Union High SD - Bonds
Completed Precincts 253 of 253
BONDS-YES 102,351 71.55%
BONDS NO 40,700 28.45%
Measure J - Alum Rock Union SD - Bonds
Completed Precincts 48 of 48
BONDS YES 18;442 79.53%
BONDS NO 4,746 20.47 %'
Measure K - Berryessa Union SD - Parcel Tax
Completed Precincts 40 of 40
YES 18,868' 78.07%
NO 5,300 21.93%
Measure L - Mount Pleasant SD - Bonds
Completed Precincts 15 of 15
BONDS YES 4,482 75.48%
BONDS NO 1,456 24.52%
Measure H - San Jose Unified SD - Bonds
Completed Precincts 143 of 143
BONDS YES 63,447 71.33%
BONDS NO 25.497 28.67'/0
Measure M - El Camino Hospital Dist - Compensation
Completed Precincts 108 of 108
YES 35,311 51.55%
Measure M - El Camino Hospital Dist - Compensation
Completed Precincts 108 of 108
Run D.ate[Time: 11/28112 4:11:49 PM Page 8 of 8
MAUREEN JONES - ARCHIVIST
(408) 297 -8487
Safe Drinking Water
Keepers -of- the -We I Lo rg
1205 Sierra Ave.
k__4 d ;� San Jose, CA 95126
maureeni@pacbell.net
wW'"' pert.
o g
Keepers- of- ilieA\ eII
3
Key Findings and Recommendations
Overall, 24% of kindergarten children have
had early childhood caries (ECC). ECC can
begin as soon as a child's teeth come in be-
tween 6 and 10 months of age. By the time
Alameda County children reach kindergarten,
50% have already suffered the effects of tooth
decay.
Overall, 69% of Alameda County third graders
have already had some experience with tooth
decay, either treated or untreated. This figure
is 64% higher than the established national
Healthy People (HP) 2010 Objective of 42%
or lower.2
Chart 1: Oral Health of Kindergarten
Students, Alameda County, 2002 -2004
60 50
50
a)
40
30 24
20
a 10
0 _
Early Childhood Caries* Dental Disease
Experience **
* Kindergarteners were assessed for ECC, defined as any
decay experience on one or more of the six top, front teeth.
** Any treated or untreated decay
Chart 2: Oral Health of Third Graders and the
HP2010 National Objectives, Alameda County, 2002-
2004
rM
69
70
60 ® Alameda County
■ HP 2010 Objective
50 42 — -
m
40 ! 31
U
a- 30 21
20 '
10
0
Dental Disease Untreated Dental
Experience" Caries
2 Healthy People is managed by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Additional information on Healthy People 2010 can be obtained at the Healthy People web -
site, www.healthypeople.gov.
Overall 32% of Alameda
County third graders have
had the protective benefit of
dental sealants in contrast to
the Healthy People 2010 ob-
jective of 50 %. The proportion
of Alameda County third grad-
ers with protective dental
sealants decreased as school
poverty level increased.
In schools where 50% or
more of students are in the
free and reduced lunch pro-
gram, only 21 % of third grad-
ers had sealants. In schools
where fewer than 25% of stu-
dents are in the free and re-
duced lunch program, 47% of
third graders had sealants.
This relationship suggests
that access to preventive den-
tal treatment is related to fam-
ily income.
Recommendations:
A. Fund expansion of school -
and community -based pre-
ventive dental programs.
B. Expand funding of school -
based dental sealant pro-
grams - California Chil-
dren's Dental Disease Pre-
vention Program for unin-
sured, low- income children.
C. Promote the widespread
application of dental seal-
ants, particularly for children
at risk for dental caries, by
reducing professional and
personal barriers.
Chart 6: Percentage of Third Graders with Dental Sealants by School
Poverty Status, Alameda County, 2002 -2004
50
45
40
35
a, 30
25
ri 20
15
10
5
0
47
<25%
29
25-49%
71
> =50%
% Students Free or Reduced School Lunch
Chart 7: Percentage of Third Graders with Dental Sealants, Alameda
County, 2002 -2004, Compared to HP 2010 Sealant Objective
0
50
40
m 32
30
U
N
CL 20
10
0 --
Alameda County
14
50
HP 2010 Objective
1`2A
411
A
zkr NO-Y "A
N
-,PM, 'A3
siU -:D
ARM
W!, N
izA 4P.
u Mr
-- -- -- ------
-41 "� w 3
Wf7
xJS .41 t,
-'j;F
4tS
jw,
gg.
U
-�; W-o
C-2
rwF-,..
ji�
L:N! p"
37
a i
O-Unt ..",lRd" p I
y
11
i
9�
31
41
51
i
6�
7
8
9
10i
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0- e
Butte 8.3% $7.56 $90.72 $94.05
Yontere-y 10.0% $8.67 $ 104.04 $99.26
AVERAGE 0.1%-10% $8.51 $102.08 $102.561
Orange 11.0% $13.52 $162.24 $172.43
Santa Clara 12.0% $11.89 $142.68 $150.55
Yuba 13.0% $9.23 $110.76 $123.23
Del Norte 16.0% $6.02 $72.24 $58.76
San Luis Obispo 20.0% $7.78 $93.36 $93.66
Placer 24.0% $9.57 $114.84 $113.86
Sierra 33.0% $2.67 $32.04 $34.13
Humboldt 35.0% $5.68 $68.16 $71.47
Merced 39.0% $8.41 $100.92 $75.57
AVERAGE 1 1 % -40% $8.31 $99.69 $99.30
San Mateo 62.0% Not Available Not Available $100.67
Marin 63.0% $8.11 $97.32 $96.43
Solano 83.0% Not Available Not Available $102.70
AVERAGE 41%-90% $8.11 $97.32 $96.43
Alameda 91.1% $9.07 $108.84 $104.72
Contra Costa 99.0% $10.65 $127.80 $115.29
San Francisco 100.0% $12.07 $144.84 $143.98
AVERAGE 91%-100% $10.60 $127.16 $121.33
'if the figures for a specific county were not available in 1995, since they could not be used in the
calculation of the 1995 average, they were left out of the calculation of the 1994 average also.
4. This court can easily verify that the values in the above table are taken directly from
California Department of Health Services' records (Exhibit ). For example, in the
above table, the figure for Alameda County in the third column of the above table is
59.07. This corresponds to the value in the right -hand column headed " COST PER
ELIGIBLE" (under the larger heading "MONTHLY AVERAGE ") across from the row
labeled "DENTIST" first table of Exhibit _ (Alameda County). This value, 9.07, refers
to total dental costs per eligible recipient in Alameda County per month. The figure in the
fourth column of the first of the above table is derived from taking the figure in column 3
and multiplying it by 12 to get the dental cost per recipient on a per year basis. Similarly,
the figures for the percentages of fluoridation (which appear in column 2) for each of the
counties is exactly the same as those listed for the State of California by the California
State Department of Health Services (Exhibit �.
3
_ IIA% \
Preserving the perfect tooth
You might think there isn't much to be
said about dentists' attitudes toward and
acceptance of pit and fissure sealants that
hasn't already been said —and then re-
peatedly debated. Despite 16 years of dis-
cussion since the debut of sealants, only a
small proportion of dentists believe in
what the advocates of sealants say, and
still a smaller number provide this service
for all or even most of their pedodontic
patients. This underuse has become a
"Catch -22" situation: few dentists pro-
vide sealants because few patients de-
mand sealants because, in turn, few den-
tists recommend sealants.
Although dentists' disbelief in the pre-
ventive value of sealants may be a major
reason for their underwhelming accep-
tance, it certainly isn't the only one. Sur-
vey reports by the ADA's Health Founda-
tion contain long lists of reasons dentists
cite to justify their not using sealants. As
recently as 1982, the most popular ex-
cuses, in preferential order, were that
"they don't last very long in the mouth,"
"it is possible to seal in decay," and
"placing occlusal fillings is preferred."
A 1981 conference was arranged by the
Council on Dental Materials, Instru-
ments, and Equipment specifically to
examine these and other concerns, such
as reimbursement. Remedies for the
underuse of sealants were recommended
at that time. Apparently the prescribed
medicine hasn't taken hold.
You'd think this dissension within our
profession would discourage even the
most die -hard advocates of sealants. Yet,
in reading this month's "Emphasis,"
you'll see that just the opposite is true.
Data from years of clinical evaluations
now corroborate unequivocally the
caries - preventive efficacy of intact seal-
ants. Numerous investigations show that
properly placed sealants have a high re-
tention rate and allay fears of incidental
entrapment of cariogenic bacteria. We
now know much more about the clinical
techniques and indications for sealant
application, and the cost - effectiveness of
the procedure in both private and
community-based preventive programs.
The proponents of dental sealants have
also been buoyed by several recent au-
thoritative reports. In May 1971, JADA
published the first report on sealants by
the Council on Dental Materials, Instru-
ments, and Equipment. Twelve years
later in September 1983, the latest in this
series was published. Reconfirming its
position that pit and fissure sealants are
safe and effective, the Council adds that
sealants "... should be used as a part of a
total caries - preventive program that also
includes, among others, optimum fluo-
ride treatment and restricted frequency of
refined carbohydrate intake."
Another report, this time from a Con-
sensus Development Conference con-
vened by the National Institutes of
Health, appeared in last month's JADA.
Developed by a panel of practicing den-
tists, biomedical investigators, academi-
cians, a dental hygienist, a statistician,
and representatives from public interest
groups, the report concludes, in part, that
sealants are both safe and "highly effec-
tive," and urges that". . . intensive efforts
should be undertaken to increase sealant
use."
Perhaps the most compelling factor
favoring increased use of sealants, how•
ever, is the changing character of dental
disease itself. Because of the remarkable
success of fluoride use in caries preven-
tion, particularly on smooth tooth sur-
faces, dental caries has become primarily
a disease of pits and fissures of teeth. It is
estimated that 84% of the caries expen
ence in the 5- to 17- ear -old o ulation
involves toot surfaces wi its an is•
sures. Although uori es cannot a ex-
pected appreciably to reduce our Tnc
Bence of caries on these su aces, sea ants
can.
The addition of pit and fissure sealants,
as indicated, to comprehensive caries
prevention programs holds the promise
that many of our patients will enter their
adult years with absolutely cariesfree
mouths. It means that we have reached a
time when we should view our wondrous
restorations of teeth as, first and foremost.
failures of caries prevention. It means that
we and our patients must come to realize
fully the inestimable value of teeth that
have never required restoration.
The ultimate example of the art and sci-
ence of dentistry is the perfect tooth.
I 1�j
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATI04
aae • iADA, Vol. tUe. March t96a V01.108, P.448, March 1984
Pit and Fissure Tooth Decay and Fluoridation
"Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures
(grooves), mainly on the.chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces
only comprise about 15% of all, permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay
in U.S. children in 1986 -87."
The Oral Health of Cafifornia's Children A NEGLECTED EPIDEMIC: Selected Findings and
Recommendations from the California Oral Health.Needs Assessment.of Children, 1993 -94. p. 14.
"Because the'surface- specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining
decay is found in the pitsand. fissures (chewing, surfaces) of children's teeth; those surfaces'that are
not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride."
Letter, August 81, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H. Director Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC,) Atlanta GA to Congressman Kenneth Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Washington, D.C.
"Nearly 90 percent of cavities in schoolchildren occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits
and grooves, where fluoride is least effective."
Facts. From The National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall,
Minnesota. ' May 28, 1992.
"Let me begin by saying that fluorides are most effective in preventing decay-On the smooth
surfaces of teeth. However, the chewing surfaces.of posterior are not smooth. They have crevices
.and pits' and it is our,experience that fluorides don't really get access to these pitted areas."
Hearings: Subcommittee of the,Committee on Appropriations, House of.Representatives. March
1984. Dr. Harald Loe, Director of the National.Institute of Dental Research:
"Fluoridation and the use of.other fluorides have been saccessful'in decreasing the prevalence, of
:dental caries on the smooth surfaces of teeth. Unfortunately, these efforts have much less effect on
dental caries that occur in the pits and fssures'of teeth (particularly on the biting „surfaces of teeth)
where more than 85 percent ofdentO caries now occur.”
Toward: Improving the Oral Health of Americans. Public Health Reports.Vol 108; No 6. Nov 1993.
"The program focused on four caries- prevention techniques: sealants, a plastic-like coating applied
to the chewing surfaces of back teeth and to pits and fissures on the sides of teeth (these surfaces are
most prone to decay and ones which fluorides cannot'protect adequately) ".
Dental study upsets the accepted wisdom. Science News. Vol. 125,. No. 1. Jan.7, 1984.
"It is estimated that 84% of the caries experience in, the 5 to 17 Year -old population involves tooth
surfaces with pits and fissures. Although fluorides cannot be expected appreciably to reduce our
incidence of caries on these-surfaces, sealants can."
Preserving the perfect tooth. Editorial. JAmerican Dental Association Vol. 108. March 1.9 84.
"The type of caries now seen in British Columbia's children of 13 years of age, is mostly the pit and
fissure type. Knudsen in 1940, suggested that 70 percent of the caries in children was in pits and
fissures. Recent reports indicate that today, 83 percent of all caries in North American children is of
this type. Pit,and fissure cavities aren't considered to be preventable by fluorides, they are prevented
by sealants."
Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line?
No. 10, 1987.
References available: Maureen Jones (408) 297 -8487
A.S. Gray, DDS, FRCD(C), JCanadian Dental Asso.
r'
Baby Bottle Tooth Decay aka Early Childhood Caries:
After decades of promoting water fluoridation.for the sake of disadvantaged
children, the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry announced
on December 18, 2008 they had received a record $24. million from the National
Institutes of Health to fight early childhood caries, also known as `baby bottle tooth
decay" or "nursing caries ".
Published dental literature has long noted fluoridation's failure:
1) Auge. K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little
girl's smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been
fluoridated since 1954.)
"Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents'
propensity to let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The
result is a sort of sleep -over parly for mouth bacteria." said pediatric dentist Dr.
Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6- year -old with
decayed upper teeth. Dr. Brad Smith,.a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his
practice treats up to 300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries.
Last year, Children's Hospital did 2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed
from the condition, Smith said, and it is especially pervasive among children in poor
families.
2) Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race /Ethnicity
Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter
2003.
Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping
milk /sweet substance was among Latinos /Hispanics (72 % among Head Start and
65% among non -HS) and HS Asians (56 %0). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant
decay rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether
or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.
3) California Department of Health Services. Maternal and Child Health
Branch, 1995; Our Children's Teeth: Beyond Brushing and Braces.
33% of Head Start children and 13% of non -Head Start.preschool children had Early
Childhood Caries /Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD).,
1) In non - fluoridated urban regions. 40% of Hispanic preschool children had
BBTD.
2) In fluoridated urban regions. 45% of Asian Head Start preschool children had
BBTD.
4) Allukian. M. Symposium. Oral Disease: The Neglected Epidemic - What Can Be
Done? Introduction: Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993.
"Oral Disease is still a neglected epidemic in our country, despite.improvements in
oral health due to fluoridation, other forms of fluorides, and better access to dental
J
care. Consider the following: 50 percent of Head Start children have had baby
bottle tooth decay." (Bullet #5 of 8.)
5) Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle
Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports;
107: 167 - 73,1992.
By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three ofthe
four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5- year -olds was significantly higher than for 3-
year -olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based
on fluoride status for the total- sample or other variables.
6) Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native
American Populations. J Pub Health Dent, 47:94 -97, 1987.
The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from
17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53 %. The surveyed communities had a mixture of
fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water
fluoridation the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites
survey
7) Watson MR et al. Caries conditions among 2 -5- year -old immigrant Latino
children related to parents' oral health knowledge, opinions and practices.
Community Dent Oral Epid; 27: 8 -15, 1999.
The finding of 47% of the children having experienced dental caries in their primary
teeth does not differ greatly with other studies of low socioeconomic status and
racial ethnic groups. (Washington D.C. has been fluoridated since 1952.)
88) Weinstein P et al. Mexican - American parents with children at risk for baby
bottle tooth decay: Pilot study at a migrant farmworkers clinic. J Dent for Children;
376 -83, Sept -Oct, 1992.
Overall, 37 of the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD.
Compliance in putting fluoride drops in bottle once a day was identical
between BBTD and non BBTD groups.
9) Bruerd B et al. Preventing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: Eight -Year Results. Public
Health Reports: 111,• 63 -65, 1996.
In 1986, a program to prevent BBTD was implemented in 12 Head Start centers in
10 states. In three years BBTD decreased from 57% to 43 %. Funding was
discontinued in 1990.
10) Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers..
Pediatric Nursing; 21:515 -519, 1995.
"Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is
about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in
communities with a fluoridated water supply."
11) Blen M et al. Dental caries in children under age three attending a university
clinic. Pediatric Dentistry; 21:261- 64,1999.
Of 369 children who attended the University of Texas - Houston Health Center
(Houston is fluoridated), 56% between 2 and 3 years old. had decay. Among the 3
year olds, 46% had more than three decayed teeth. The children without decay
were weaned.from the bottle "at an average age of 10 months. Those with
severe decay were weaned at 16.9 months.
12) KoW D. City to launch battle against dental 'crisis'. Boston Globe, Nov. 27,
1999.
18% of children 4 years old and younger seen in the pediatric program at Tufts
University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby bottle tooth decay.
Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. Boston was fluoridated in 1978.
13) Thakib AA et.al. Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future
dental caries. Pediatric Dentistry; 19 :37- 41,1997.
In summary, initial primary incisor caries is a risk factor for developing future
carious, extracted, and restored teeth.
14) Duperon DF. Early Childhood Caries: A Continuing Dilemma. CA DentAssocj;
23: 15 -25, 1995.
The primary precipitating factor for this 100 year old problem is prolonged use
of the bottle or breast past 9 to 12 months of age. North American Indians have
reported an incidence of 53 percent,.Inuit (Eskimo) children have shown a 60 %-
65% incidence and Mexican American migrant farm workers, 30 %.
PIT AND FISSURE TOOTH DECAY
"Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the
pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of back teeth.
Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent
tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay.in U.S. children in 1986 -87."
Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993194 California Oral
Health NeedsAssessment
"Because the surface - specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent
of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of
children's teeth; those surfaces that:are not as affected by the protective benefit of
fluoride."
Letter, August 8, 2000, from feff'rey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDCAtlanta GA.
"Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with
vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective."
Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent
Marshall, MN, 5192.
THE DECEPTION
Fluoridation has historically been "sold" to politicians and civic leaders by using
photos of rampant Baby Bottle /Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible
decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of 'strep mutan
bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on
tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto
the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.
50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle /Sippy Cup tooth decay from
high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A.. steady source of sugar is supplied to the
bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria's
acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the
permanent teeth.
In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES
Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993 -94 California Oral Health
Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers -of- the- Well.org, #17
Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:
1) For preschool children, ... any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures
(fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and,
2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in
preventing, dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the
results will be meaningless. and,
3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought.to be more prone to developing
caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be
examined for both preschool and elementary children.
The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD
are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or
adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but
is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of
elementary school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!
Maureen Jones
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water _ www.Keepers -of- the- Well.org
1205 Sierra Ave.
San Jose, CA 95126
408 297 -8487
6 WHrrFORD ADv DENT REY IUNE 1994
(ca. 10%) than those in plasma, whereas the concentrations in
parotid and submandibular ductal saliva are slightly lower.
The concentrations in these oral fluids, however, change
simultaneously and in proportion to those in plasma
(Whitford, 1989).
Fig. 2 shows the ductal salivary -to- plasma fluoride
concentration ratios of five young adult humans after
swallowing 10 mg fluoride as sodium fluoride (Whitford,
1989). The average pre -dose plasma concentration was 0.67
µmol/L, the average peak concentration, which occurred
within the first hour, was 15.2 µmol/L, and the average after
two hours was 12.4 µmol/L. In spite of the rapidly changing
plasma concentrations and the fact that there is a brief lag -
time when stimulated saliva is moving through the ductal
system, the ratios fell within a narrow range. The average
ratios for the submandibular and parotid secretions were 0.88
and 0.79, respectively. These data indicate that plasma
fluoride concentrations can be closely estimated based on the
analysis of ductal saliva. Parotid saliva is easily collected
with the Lashley cup or some similar device. Collection of
submandibular saliva (including some sublingual saliva)
requires the fabrication of a customized collection device.
Whole saliva has variable but higher fluoride concentrations
than ductal saliva that do not correlate well with plasma
concentrations which is probably due to exogenous
contamination from food, water, dental products, etc., and
fluoride that may migrate from dental plaque. The literature
appears to contain no data concerning the fluoride
concentrations of the oral minor mucous glands.
Renal Excretion
After about 50% of an ingested fluoride dose has been
absorbed, plasma concentrations decline rapidly. This is due
to renal excretion and uptake by calcified tissues. Fluoride is
1.c
�
O.S
u
0
E 0.E
0
a
0.7
U_
Li
0
—' 0.6
0
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Hours After 10 mg F Dose
Fig. 2— Ductal saliva -to- plasma fluoride concentration
ratios for two hours after ingestion of 10 mg of fluoride
(Whitford, 1989; reproduced with permission).
freely filtered through the glomerular capillaries and then
undergoes a variable degree of tubular re- absorption. Among
the halogens, the renal clearance of fluoride is unusually
high. The clearances of chloride, iodide, and bromide in
healthy young or middle -aged adults are generally less than 1
or 2 mUmin, whereas that of fluoride is about 35 mUmin.
The range of values among individuals within a given study,
however, is high. Waterhouse et al. (1980) reported a range
of from 28 to 52 mL/min, and Schiffl and Binswanger (1982)
reported a range from 12 to 71 mLJmin.
These investigators did not attempt to determine why the
clearances differed so much. Other studies with humans and
laboratory animals, however, have found that fluoride renal
clearance is directly related to glomerular filtration rate (Spak
et al., 1985), urinary pH (Whitford et al., 1976; Ekstrand et al.,
1982), and, under some conditions, flow rate (Chen et al.,
1956). Like the gastric absorption and migration across cell
membranes of fluoride, the mechanism for the tubular re-
absorption appears to be the diffusion of HF. Thus, factors
such as the composition of the diet, certain drugs and
metabolic or respiratory disorders, and the altitude of residence
that affect urinary pH have been shown or can be expected to
affect the metabolic balance and tissue concentrations of
fluoride (Whitford, 1989). The effect can be profound. In a 30-
day study with rats that were acidotic, "normolotic ", or
alkalotic, the fluoride concentrations in plasma and incisor
developing enamel were about twice as high in the acidotic
group as in the alkalotic group, while those of the control
group were intermediate (Whitford and Reynolds, 1979).
While there appears to be no information on the renal
handling of fluoride in the elderly, there is some for young
children. Spak et al. (1985) concluded that their data from 4-
to -l8- year -old patients "... suggest that children have lower
renal fluoride clearance rates than adults ..." They thought
that their findings were due to a higher extra -renal clearance
by the developing bones of the children, an effect which has
been demonstrated clearly in growing rats and dogs
(Whitford, 1989). Ekstrand et al. (1992) studied the renal
clearance and retention of orally administered fluoride in
infants whose ages ranged from 38 to 411 days. They
reported that the percentage of the dose that was retained, i.e.,
not excreted in the urine, increased as the dose (adjusted for
body weight) increased. This suggested a dose - dependen
mechanism for fluoride uptake by calcified tissues, a
phenomenon not known to occur in adults. Overall, an
average of 86.8% of the dose was retained by the infants,
which is about 50% higher than would be expected for adults.
The renal clearance values ranged from 3.8 to 9.3 mUmin.
They concluded that "... the pharmacokinetics of fluoride in
infants reveal(s) a completely different pattern compared to
what has been found in adults." There is a clear need for
more information about the renal handling and general
metabolism of fluoride in young children and the elderly.
Fluoride in Calcified Tissues
Approximately 99 %D of the body burden of fluoride is
associated with calcified tissues. The fluoride concentration
INTAKE AND METABOLISM OF FLUORIDE
G.M. WHITFORD
Department of Oral Biology
School of Dentistry
Medical College of Georgia
Augusta, Georgia 30912-1129
Adv Dent Res 8(1):5 -14, June, 1994
Abstract —The purpose of this paper is to discuss the maj .
factors that determine the body' burden of inorganic fluoride
Fluoride intake 25 or more years ago was determined main]
by measurement of the concentration of the ion in th
drinking water supply. This is not necessarily true toda
because of .ingestion from fluoride - containing denta
products, the "halo effect", the consumption of bottled water
and the use of water •purification systems in the home
Therefore, the concentration of fluoride in drinking water
may not be a reliable indicator of previous intake. Under
most, conditions, fluoride is rapidly and extensively absorbed
from the gastrointestinal tract. The rate of gastric absorption
is inversely related to the pH of the gastric contents. Overall
absorption is reduced by calcium and certain other cations
and by elevated plasma fluoride' levels. Fluoride removal
from plasma occurs by calcified tissue uptake and urinary
excretion. About 99% of the body burden of fluoride is
associated with calcified tissues, and most of it is not
exchangeable. In general, the clearance of fluoride from
plasma by the skeleton is inversely related to the stage of
skeletal development. Skeletal uptake, however,. can be
positive or negative, depending on the level of fluoride
intake, hormonal status, and other factors. Dentin fluoride
concentrations tend to increase throughout life and appear to
;be similar to those in bone. Research to determine whether
dentin is a reliable biomarker for the body burden of fluoride
is recommended. The renal clearance of fluoride is high
compared with other halogens. It is directly related to urinary
pH. Factors that acidify the urine increase the retention of
fluoride and vice. versa. The renal clearance of fluoride
decreases and tissue levels increase when the glomerular
filtration rate is depressed on a chronic basis.
This manuscript was presented during a Workshop on
Methods far Assessing Fluoride Accumulation and Effects in
the Body, sponsored by the National Institute of Dental
Research (Bethesda, MD), January 13 -15, 199.3.
This work was supported in part by USPHS Research
Grants DE- .06113 and DE -06429 from the National Institute
of Dental Research; National. Institutes of Health, Bethesda,
MD 20892.
FLUORIDE INTAKE
The major sources of fluoride in the United States are food,
drinking water, beverages, and' fluoride - containing dental
products (Myers; 1978; Burt, 1992). The atmosphere carries
some fluoride, but it supplies only a small fraction of the
daily exposure except in heavily polluted areas (Hodge and
Smith, 1977). Most foods have fluoride concentrations less
than 0.5 ppm (raves, 1983), the major exception being
marine fish, which have concentrations that from about
6 to 27 ppm (Muhler, 1970). Most drinking water supplies to
which fluoride is not added in controlled amounts have
or concentrations less than 0.3 ppm, but- a few have levels.in the
e. 4 =6 -ppm range, particularly in the southwest and north
y central states (Centers for Disease Control, 1985). The
e recommended concentration range is 0.7 -1.2 ppm, depending
y on the average regional temperature. Approximately 55% of
1 the US population is served with water containing fluoride
within this range. The lower levels are recommended for
warmer regions where water intake tends to be higher
(Galagan andVermillion, I957):
Beverages include soft drinks, fruit juices and drinks, tea,
and Gatorade as well as several others consumed less
frequently. Beverage fluoride concentrations reflect those in
the water used for preparation. In general, they range from
0.1 to about 1.4 ppm except for tea,• which contains up to 7
ppm (Clovis and Hargreaves, 1988; Pang et al., 1992).
Dental products have fluoride concentrations that range
from 230 ppm in over - the- counter �ritouthrinses to 12,300
ppm in APF gels which are applied topically to the teeth by
dental professionals'. Toothpastes, the most frequently used
dental products, contain fluoride at 1000 -1500 ppm either as
sodium fluoride or disodium monofluorophosph ate.
The average daily intake of dietary fluoride by young
children whose water supplyis optimally fluoridated is
approximately 0.5 mg or 0.04 -0.07 mg/kg per day (McClure,
1943; Ophaug et al., 1980a,b, 1985; Featherstone and
Shields, 1988). It was determined in the 1930's and 1940's
that this intake range was "optimal" in that it provided a high
degree of protection against denial caries and a I.ow
prevalence of dental fluorosis. There is no reason to think
that the effect of this level of intake would be any different
today than it was 50 years ago.
Table 1 summarizes the results from several studies that
determined dietary fluoride intake data for various age
groups. Intake by infants depends mainly on whether they are
fed breast milk or a formula. Human. breast rnilk contains
only a trace, of fluoride and provides less than 0.01 mg/day.
Infants fed breast milk can be in a negative, fluoride balance
for some time, which indicates a net loss from bones and
probably teeth (Ekstrand et al., 1984). Ready -to -feed
formulas generally contain fluoride at less than 0.4 ppm
(Johnson and Bawden, 1987; McKnight =Hanes et al., 1988),
while formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water
C
4
City of Saratoga - Speaker Card
Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to
provide any information you do not wish to provide.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
1 would like to speak about:
Agenda Item? Yes
Support
Date: e- C�-
Name: Z L1,11 cl J /ti
Group /Organization:
:t L ► n r y
No -5E- Agenda Item number
Oppose Neutral
a cq /
Address:(optional)
Telephone: (optional)
Email: (optional)
City of Saratoga - Speaker Card
Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
This card will help the meeting run smooth/V, but Vou are not required to
provide any information you do not wish to provide.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
Agenda ItemP Yes
Support
Date:
Name: jp
Group /Organization:
Address: (optional) _
Telephone: (optional)
Email: (optional)
No Agenda Item n,
Oppose Neutral
(?\. AS c--
ber h5 I
Speaker Guidelines
• If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board
( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on
the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting.
• Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit
the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all
items on the Agenda.
• Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative
Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting.
• Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of
whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and
accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record, In accordance with
the Public Records Act, anv information you provide on this form is available to the public. You
may elect not to include your address and telephone number.
• Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one
spokesperson,
• City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
City of Saratoga Spoaker Card
Please Note- City.Council meetings arg,both, liveand delayed broadcast.
an in
de.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
1" ` Q / �(Q, Ore
I woUldlike to speak about:
- - - --- - - V
Agenda Item? Ye,s No Agenda. Item n,U_Mb,.eK_
tuppoit, qO00SO Neutral
Date;
Name: .-
W1
Grouplorganizatiow
Address- ('optional)
U
Telephone,(bptional),_
Email; ,(optional)
Speaker Guidelines
• If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board
( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on
the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting.
• Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit
the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all
items on the Agenda.
• Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative
Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting.
• Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of
whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and
accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with
the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You
may elect not to include your address and telephone number.
• Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one
spokesperson,
City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
City of Saratoga - Speaker Card
Please Note City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to
provide anV information Vou do not wish to provide.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
I would li
Agenda Item? Yes Nom— Agenda Item number
Support Oppose Neutral
Date:
Name:
Group /Organization:
Address: (optional)
Telephone: (optional)
Email: (optional)
Speaker Guidelines
• If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board
( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on
the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting.
• Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit
the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all
items on the Agenda.
• Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative
Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting.
• Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of
whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and
accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with
the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You
may elect not to include your address and telephone number.
• Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one
spokesperson,
• City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
City of Saratoga Speaker Card
Please Note City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
--r- sj.- *;Hn r,m cmnnfhly_ but you are not required to
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. F /G
I would like to speak about: _ V
Agenda Item? Yes
Support
Date: 1 2 _ S
Name:
No ZAgenda Item number
Op "pose Neutral
Group /Organization:
Address:(optional)
Telephone :(optional)
Email: (optional)
City of Saratoga - Speaker Card
Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to
provide any information Vou do not wish to provide.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
I would like to speak about:
Agenda Item? Yes
Support
Date:
Name:
Group /Organization:
Address: (optional) _
Telephone: (optional)
Email: (optional)
No I Agenda Item nW,6er.
Oppose Neutral
,i�►1
(" v [.� a,
f�j �
S O01M �
1M Cm
_ ne.3 tage&M4
Speaker Guidelines
• If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board
( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on
the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting.
• Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit
the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all
items on the Agenda.
• Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative
Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting.
• Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of
whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and
accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with
the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public, You
may elect not to include your address and telephone number.
• Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one
spokesperson.
City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.