HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2012 City Council Packet SupplementalL/
oj S A Rq\
O
lFORi
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 209 2012
SPECIAL MEETING — 5:00 P.M. — ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 5:00 P.M.
REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
June 14, 2012)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION —5:00 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(a))
Name of case: Lee v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. I-
12-CV - 225772)
CALL JOINT MEETING TO ORDER — 5:30 P.M. SARATOGA SENIOR
CENTER — SAUNDERS ROOM — 19655 ALLENDALE AVENUE
1. Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Homeowners and Neighborhood Associations
Recommended Action:
Informational Only
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the
office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of
materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also
available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the
posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the
time they are distributed to the City Council.
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 4081868 -1269. Notification
24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA title III
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Crystal Morrow, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for public review on June
14, 2012 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the
City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 14`x' day of June 2012 at Saratoga, California.
A a-o'u
C st Morrow
City Clerk
2
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL .5
NAME
ADDRESS
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ' TELEPHONE NO.
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: --2 bw-,
,. �
NAME / G
ADDRESS
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM NO.
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT:
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCEL
NAME �OJ-4e &l
�l
SUBJECT
V V; Iot WO D ot,(IYU I k !' .a/�
No
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO.
TIME OF DAY CARD d FELLED OUT:
CITY OF SARATOGA
L(? REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
NAME iPL @0Q, G0 P- 1- '1- C- ' (, & ( -2.
ADDRESS__
SUBJECT L v G t
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT:
TELEPHONE NO
IA-
�) 5
r�
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 P.M. — CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
June 14, 2012)
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non- Af!endized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding.actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None,
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended action:
Approve City Council minutes for the meeting on June 6, 2012.
2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment
cycles:
May 31, 2012
June 7, 2012
Annual Approval of the City's Investment Policy
Recommended action:
That the City Council review and approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year
2012/13.
4. Adoption of Ordinance No. 292 Allowing Tasting Rooms as a Permitted Use in the
Village
Recommended action:
Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 292 amending the zoning
regulations related to alcohol sales within the Village.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 293 related to Impervious Surfaces and Lot Coverage
Recommended action:
Staff recommends the Council waive the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No.
293 amending the Zoning Regulations related to impervious surfaces and lot
coverage.
6. Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II — Award of Construction Contract
Recommended action:
1. Move to declare the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award the
construction contract
2. Move to approve resolution amending the annual budget
7. Resolution in Support of Santa Clara Valley Water District Parcel Tax
Recommended action:
Approve the attached resolution in support of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Plan Parcel Tax to be placed on the
November 2012 ballot.
Authorization for Santa Clara County Used Oil Payment Program Application
Recommended action:
Authorize the City Manager to sign a letter giving the County of Santa Clara
authorization to submit a regional Used Oil Payment Program application and act on
behalf of the City of Saratoga.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
9. Community Event Grant Request — Wildwoodstock 2012
Recommended action:
Provide direction on the community event grant request in the amount of $2,578 for
Wildwoodstock 2012.
10. Conditional Use Permit Fee Reimbursement for the French Tailor
Recommended action:
Consider the applicant's request for a $3,400 reimbursement in fees for an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
11. Direction on Retail Alcohol Sales
Recommended action:
Provide direction to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City
Council on allowing retail alcohol sales as a permitted use in commercial zoning
districts.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Chuck Page
City School Ad Hoc
Hakone Foundation Board
Hakone Foundation Executive Committee
Let's Move City Ad Hoc
Santa Clara County Cities Association
Santa Clara County Cities Association Selection Committee
TEA Ad Hoc
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association
West Valley Sanitation District
Vice Mayor Jill Hunter
Hakone Foundation Board
Historical Foundation
KSAR Community Access TV Board
SASCC
Village Ad Hoc
West Valley Flood Control & Watershed Advisory Committee
Council Member Emily Lo
Association of Bay Area Governments
Highway 9 Ad Hoc
Library Joint Powers Authority
Sister City Liaison
Village Ad Hoc
Council Member Howard Miller
City School Ad Hoc
Council Finance Committee
Postal Service Liaison
Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission
Saratoga Ministerial Association
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority
Council Member Manny Cappello
Chamber of Commerce
Council Finance Committee
County HCD Policy Committee
Highway 9 Ad Hoc
Let's Move City Ad Hoc
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
TEA Ad Hoc
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the
office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of
materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also
available on the City Website at www.sarato ac ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the
posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the
time they are distributed to the City Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868 -1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title
11)
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Crystal Morrow, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on June 14, 2012,
at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at
www. sarato anus
Signed this 14`h day of June 2012 at Saratoga, California.
Cryst l orrow
City erk
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City
Video Archives at www.sarato ag ca.us
E,
TO RK11
07/04
07/18
08/01
08/15
09/05
09/19
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2012
Regular Meeting — (5:30 p.m. — Community Center) Joint Meeting with
HOA's
Fourth of July —City Hall closed
Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Destination Saratoga Committee
Recess
Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with Hakone Foundation
Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Parks and Rec /PEBTAC
Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees
10/03 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Saratoga/Monte Sereno Community
Foundation
10/17 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission
11/07 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Library Commission
11/21 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association
12/04 City Council Reorganization
12/05 Regular Meeting — Joint meeting with HPC and Historical Foundation
12/19 Regular Meeting
Arlene Goetze — Advocate Against Toxins for Children
3 minutes to Saratoga City Council - -June 20, 2012
I'm Arlene Goetze, an Advocate Against Toxins for Children. I've been emailing you for
5 months on fluoride. I hope you've read some.
In 1956 I worked for fluoridation for Tom Lawson McCall, running for Ore. Governor.
Fluoridation won but has never been implemented in Portland. I have also worked for the first
Bishop of San Jose and written articles for Washington Post, Army Times, Mercury News. I do
have credible acceptance of what I write.
AB733 signed by Wilson in '95 says cities over 10,000 must fluoridate. The website
for Santa Clara County Water Board says they are exempt...so why are they planning to put
fluoride in water of some 15 cities without public discussion? Who gives them the right?
What is your part in this practice of putting a. toxic drug in your city water which cannot be
controlled by those who deliver it?
Most shocking in my research is the USDA 8 years ago reported that over 400 baby and
adult foods have fluoride..many in greater amount than water. NO ONE KNOWS THIS whom
I have asked in 6 months. Babies should have almost none up to age I ... they
should have none in formula or perhaps even in bathing. Just where will parents get water for
the babies for a year ? ??
1. San Jose ranks #1 in dental health of 100 US cities. It also ranks 28 of 28 cities for
overdosing babies —even without fluoride.
2. 88% of children in San Jose have dental insurance and most see the dentists each year.
The Children's Health conference May 22 says 14% of Head Star only kids have cavities.
3. So for possibly a few thousand kids in E. San Jose...why is Saratoga getting a toxic waste
of fertilizer?
4. Drugs come with lists of side effects. New Hampshire says water bills must warn parents'
babies should not be given fluoridated water.
5. A lawsuit in So. Calif. is suing a water board for the ethical decision of medicating
people without permission. Will you or Water Board be sued for ethics on this issue?
Please study your handouts and challenge this possible action by the Water Board.
Your handouts include
1. Guidelines for Making Ethical Decisions (Europe does not fluoride because it is unethical. Only 5% of
world fluoridates).
2. Risks and Benefits of Water Fluoridation, Dr. Cindy Russell for Santa Clara AMA
3. One copy of The Case Against Fluoride for your Saratoga representative to the Water Board
4. 2 pages of USDA chart of Food with Fluoride. (USDA fluorideinfood website)
Arlene Goetze, MA, writer /researcher on health for 45 years, Advocate Against Toxins for Children, founderidirector of
Catholic Women's Network newspaper, instructor /practioner on Eating for Health, EMT (accupunture without needles), and
What Makes Prayer Heal. Published in Washington Post, Army Times, Mercury News. Mother of 7 /grandmother of 18.
USDA National Fluoride Database - -- -Baby Foods
from USDA fluorideinfoods
Cereal, oatmeal, with applesauce and bananas, junior
a
2
z
14
C
Cereal, rice. with applesauce and bananas, strained
16
2
2
31
c
Cereal. nre. with mixed fruit, junior
3
1
3
3
C
Dessert. custard pudding. vanilla. junior
4
2
4
4
0
3
C
Dessert. dutch apple. junior
2
0.3
3
5
1
2
2
45
0
45
C
Dessert, fruit dessert. junior
18
8
9.7
6.4
4
2
28
0
48
C
Dessert, peach cobbler. junior
29
9.8
5
11
60
C
Dinner, chicken noodle, junior
2
5
7
C
Dinner, macaroni and cheese, junior
6
2
C
Dinner, spaghetti. tomato, meat, junior
2
1
4
2
9
46
G
16
C
Dinn er. turkey and rice. junior
20
8.7
4
2
45
0
57
C
Dinner, vegetables and beef, junior
21
11.4
0
42
0
44
C
Dinner, vegetables and ham, junior
14
9.6
4
5
13
0
19
C
Dinner, vegetables and turkey, junior
8
2.6
3
2
C
Fruit, apple and blueberry, junior
1
2
1
1
5
0
8
C
Fruit, applesauce, junior
2
1.4
3
2
1
1
C
Fruit, applesauce, strained
1
0
0
C
Fruit, apricot with tapioca. junior
0
1
2
2
29
C
Fruit, bananas, pineapple with tapioca, junior
16
C
Fruit, bananas with tapioca, junior
36
2
1
33
12
40
12
C
Fruit, mango with tapioca. strained
12
1
C
Fruit, peaches with sugar, strained
0
2
0
0
6
C
Fruit, peaches, junior
3
12
4
2
1
1
6
2
C
Fruit, pears and pineapple, junior
1
0
17
0
29
C
Fruit, pears. junior
9
4.7
4
2
1
1
C
Fruit. pears. strained
1
3A
2
20
43
C
Fnnl, plums with tapioca. junior
2
2
2
C
Fruit, pntnes, without Vitamin C, strained
2
5
22
0
55
C
Juice apple
12
87
2.9
16.1
6
8
11
133
0
170
a
Juice apple and cherry
45
13.1
4
27
8J
0
122
C
Juice. apple and grape
19
9.4
8
4
69
9
Juice, apple and peach
13
2
12
14
C
Juice, apple and prune
10
1
10
10
C
Juice. apple - cranberry
2
1.0
3
0
3
0
6
C
Meat. beef. junior
3
2
1
5
C
Meat, ham.. junior
10
2
5
14
C
Meat, lamb. junior
44
2
21
66
C
Meat, turkey, junior
3
1
3
3
C
Vegetables and bacon, junior
2
1
1
C
Vegetables, carrots. strained
1
5
1
35
0
31
c
Vegetables, carrots, junior
12
32
6.9
2
32
32
C
Vegetables, com, creamed. junior
3.1
5
4
21
0
17
C
Vegetables, green beans, junior
12
2
15
16
C
Vegetables. green beans, strained
16
c
Vegetables, peas, strained
25
2
23
1
28
11
0
12
C
Vegetables, squash, junior
5
2.2
4
2
1
1
C
Vegetables, squash. strained
1
5
1
22
0
39
c
Vgetables, sweetpotatoes. junior
10
4.0
1
1
C
Vegetables. sweelpotatoes. strained
1
2
Fluoride for babies: American Academy of
Pediatric Dentistry, 2008
1-6 mo Norte '31
6 mo to 3 yrs .25 mg � �
3 yrs to 6 yr .50 mg `
6 ;•r to 16 yr .75 mg
http: #N%mrw.agR org nuxhat olicies guidelines/
P,fltaoridetlteraw ndf
Formula -fed babies w /fluoridated water get 170 times
the fluoride as breastfed babies. Fluoride is not a
nutrient.
Bathing Dangers: in 1991, the EPA concluded that the
average person absorbs more contaminants from bathing
and showering than from drinking polluted water. Children
are most at risk. The EPA in June 30, 1998 report, "Children
have a greater surface - area -to- body - weight ratio than
adults, which may lead to increased dermal absorption."
Children's tissues, organs and biological systems are still
developing, with several stages of rapid development from
infancy to adolescence. This rapid growth, combined with
;mrrraturity of body organs and systems, predisposes
r_hildren to potentially more severe consequences within
c-ertain age ranges and windows of vulnerability
The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN)
reports that the US has seen "a worrisome increase^ in
childhood diseases that may be linked to chemicals in the
environment.
As one EPA scientist put it, "a shower cubicle can be
considered an `exposure chamber.' Exposum to volatile
contaminants absorbed via the long would be about double
the same amount from drinking water. In the bath, under-
arms j axiilal, scrotal and vaginal areas as well as the groin
absorb far greater amounts than in the normal unwashed
l i }Cann test."
I he percentages for absorption are: scalp (32 percent), ear
canal (46 percent), forehead (36 percent), plant of foot (13
percent). forearm (9 percent), palm (12 percent) ,scrotum (100
percent) . hap:!/ iLxvw. sbwater .info/Whingwalemoncems.htmI
WS )A IJanor.al It Iiwiid,; Dalabase Page 13
Item "
Mean
Std
Num
Min
Max
Lower Upper
Confidence
Uerv_
Source
Statistical
NOB No.
No, of
References
mcg /100g"
Error
datapts
Value I
Value
351/. ES 195%
EE
Code
I Code
I Code I
Comments
Studies
Fruit juice drink, blends (not cranberry), ready -to -drink
49
Z5
8
22
80
31
67
C
i•.
1
4
14122
1
Levy 1992 -2003
14327
14334
14341
Fruit juice drink, FIVE ALIVE, ready -to -drink
8
0.3
3
8
9
7
10
C
A
1
4
97547
1
Levy 1992 -2003
Fruit juice drink, grape, ready -to -drink
32
21.2
3
9
74
0
123
C
A
1
4
14282
1
Levy 1992 -2003
Fruit juice drink, orange, ready -to -drink
55
2
19
90
C
A
1
4
42270
2
Levy 1992 -2003
Stannard 1991
Lemonade, ready to drink
25
7.5
13
3
80
8
41
B
A
1
4
97548
1
Levy 1992 -2003
Tea, brewed, microwave, all
322
4.9
36
260
383
312
332
A
A
1
2 3
97549
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, microwave, Mid -West
319
10.1
8
272
358
295
343
B
A
1
2 3
97550
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, microwave, Northeast
309
13.0
7
264
374
277
340
B
A
1
2 3
97551
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, microwave, South
322
4.9
13
260
383
312
332
A
A
1
2 3
97552
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, microwave, West
310
10.4
8
260
354
285
335
B
A
1
2 3
97553
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, all
269
8.0
33
159
355
253
286
A
A
1
2 3
14352
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated. Mid -West
293
17.2
7
220
355
251
335
B
A
1
2 3
97554
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, Northeast
279
15.9
7
237
342
240
318
B
A
1
2 3
97555
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, South
264
11.5
11
217
331
239
290
B
A
1
2 3
97556
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, West
247
19.7
8
159
312
200
293
B
A
1
2 3
97557
1
NFNAP #
Tea. brewed, regular, all
373
6.2
63
257
533
360
385
A
A
1
2 3
14355
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, regular, Mid -West
393
16.8
13
312
533
357
430
A
A
1
2 3
97558
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, regular, Northeast
357
13.9
14
294
466
327
387
A
A
1
2 3
97559
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, regular, South
381
7.2
23
324
445
366
396
A
A
1
2 3
97560
1
NFNAP #
Tea, brewed, regular, West
355
14.1
13
257
466
324
386
A
A
1
2 3
97561
1
NFNAP #
Tea. iced, ARIZONA, ready -to -drink
123
6.3
21
84
191
110
136
A
A
1
2 3
97562
1
NFNAP
Tea, iced, COOL NESTEA Natural Lemon, ready -to -drink
90
3.5
31
62
133
83
97
A
A
1
2 3
14137
1
NFNAP
Tea, iced, LIPTON BRISK Lemon, ready -to -drink
72
4.6
63
38
207
63
82
A
A
1
2 3
97563
1
NFNAP
Tea.. instant, powder, unsweetened
89772
1
C
A
1
14366
1
NFNAP
Tea, instant, powder, unsweetened, prepared with tap water
335
RPA
6
14367
Tea, instant, powder, with lemon and sugar
584
1
C
A
1
14370
1
NFNAP
Tea, instant, powder, with lemon and sugar, prepared with tap
116
RPA
6
14371
water
Thirst quencher (sport drink), GATORADE, ready -to -drink
34
1
A
1
14382
1
NFNAP
Thirst quencher (sport drink), POWERADE, ready -to -drink
62
1
A
1
14382
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, AQUAFINA
5
0.6
16
1
9
4
6
A
A
1
2 3
97564
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, CALISTOGA
7
2
D
A
1
97565
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, CRYSTAL GEYSER
24
4
D
A
1
14556
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, DANNON
11
1.3
12
5
20
8
14
A
A
1
2 3
97566
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, DANNON FLUORIDE TO GO
78
1
A
1
97567
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, DASANI
7
1.2
20
2
19
4
9
A
A
1
2 3
97568
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, EVIAN
10
0.6
16
7
15
9
12
A
A
1
2 3
97569
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, NAYA
14
4
D
A
1
97570
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled, PERRIER
31
1
D
A
1
14384
1
Stannard 1990
Water, bottled, POLAND SPRINGS
10
1
D
A
1
14385
1
Stannard 1990
Water, bottled, PROPEL FITNESS WATER
2
2
A
1
97571
1
NFNAP
Water, bottled. SARATOGA
20
1
D
A
1
97572
1
Stannard 1990
Water, bottled, VERYFINE FRUIT2O Water
6
2
A
1
97573
1
NFNAP
Water. bottled, VOLVIC
34
1
D
A
1
97574
1
Stannard 1990
Water, bottled, store brand
16
11
C
A
1
97575
1
NFNAP
Water, frozen (ice)
11
3
B
A
1
2 3
97576
1
NFNAP
Waters, tap, all regions, all (includes municipal and well)
71
2.8
288
1
193
66
77
A
A
1
1 2 3
97577
1
NFNAP
Waters, tap, all regions, municipal $
81
2.9
238
2
193
75
86
A
A
1
1 2 3
14429
1
NFNAP
Waters, tap, all regions, well
26
4.8
50
1
162
17
36
A
A
1
1 2 3
97578
1
NFNAP
Waters, tap, Mid -West, all (includes municipal and well)
88
5.1
68
4
167
78
98
A
A
1
1 2 3
97579
1
NFNAP
Guidelines for Ethical Decisions
What is Ethics?
Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that
tell us how human beings ought to act in the many
situations in which they find themselves -as friends,
parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers,
professionals, and so on.
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:
Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide
important information forour ethical choices. Some
people have highly developed habits that make them
feel bad when they do something wrong, but many
people feel good even though they are doing something
wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfort-
able to do the right thing if it is hard.
Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious,
but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do
advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not
address all the types of problems we face.
Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law
does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can
deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically
corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law
can be a function of power alone and designed to serve
the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult
time designing or enforcing standards in some important
areas, and may be slow to address new problems.
Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms.
Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become
corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the
United States was to slavery before the Civil War).
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfac-
tory ethical standard.
Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can
provide important data to help us make better ethical
choices. But science alone does not tell us what we
ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for
what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for
how humans ought to act. And just because something
is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be
ethical to do it.
Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard
There are two fundamental problems in identifying the
ethical standards we are to follow:
1. On what do we base our ethical standards?
2. How do those standards get applied to specific
situations we face?
If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law,
accepted social practice, or science, what are they based
on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us
answer this critical question. They have suggested at
least five different sources of ethical standards we
should use.
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Santa Clara University
Santa Clara, CA 2009
Five Sources of Ethical Standards
1. The Utilitarian Approach
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one
that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put
it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over
harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that
produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all
who are affected- customers, employees, shareholders, the
community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances
the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to
all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The
utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to
increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.
2. The Rights Approach
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical
action is the one that best protects and respects the moral
rights of those affected. This approach starts from the
belief that humans have a dignity based on their human
nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they
do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a
right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other
ends. The list of moral rights - including the rights to make
one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told
the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so
on -is widely debated; some now argue that non- humans
have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply
duties -in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
3. The Fairness or Justice Approach
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the
idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use
this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings
equally -or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard
that is defensible. We pay people more based on their
harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an
organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over
CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay
of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on
a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an
imbalance of power and hence is unfair.
4. The Common Good Approach
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion
that life in community is a good in itself and our actions
should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that
the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of
ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all
others - especially the vulnerable -are requirements of such
reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common
conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone.
This may be a system of laws, effective-police and fire
departments, health care; a public educational system,
or even public recreational areas.
5. The Virtue Approach
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical
actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal
virtues that provide for the full development of our
humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits
that enable us to act according to the highest potential
of our character and on behalf of values like truth and
beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity,
tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self - control,
and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics
asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become
if I do this ?" or "Is this action consistent with my
acting at my best ?"
Putting the Approaches Together
Each of the approaches helps us determine what
standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There
are still problems to be solved, however.
The first problem is that we may not agree on the
content of some of these specific approaches. We may
not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights.
We may not agree on what constitutes the common
good. We may not even agree on what is a good and
what is a harm.
The second problem is that the different approaches
may not all answer the question "What is ethical ?" in
the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us
important information with which to determine what is
ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more
often than not, the different approaches do lead to
similar answers.
Making Decisions
Making good ethical decisions requires a trained
sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for
exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weigh-
ing the considerations that should impact our choice
of a course of action. Having a method for ethical
decision making is absolutely essential. When
practiced regularly, the method becomes sofamiliar that
we work through it automatically without consulting
the specific steps.
The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we
face, the more we need to rely on discussion and
dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by
careful exploration of the problem, aided by the
insights and different perspectives of others, can we
make good ethical choices in such situations.
We have found the following framework for ethical
decision making a useful method for exploring ethical
dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.
A Framework for Ethical Decision
Making -- Recognize an Ethical Issue
Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone
or to some group?
Does this decision involve a choice between a good and
bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between
two "bads "?
Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is
most efficient? If so, how?
Get the Facts
*What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are
not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I
know enough to make a decision?
* What individuals and groups have an important stake
in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why?
* What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant
persons and groups been consulted? Have 1 identified
creative options?
Evaluate Alternative Actions
Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:
* Which option will produce the most good and do the
least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)
* Which option best respects the rights of all who have a
stake? (The Rights Approach)
* Which option treats people equally or proportionately?
('The Justice Approach)
* Which option best serves the community as a whole,
not just some members? (The Common Good Approach)
* Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I
want to be? (The Virtue Approach)
Make a Decision and Test It
Considering all these approaches, which option best
addresses the situation?
If' I told someone I respect -or told a television audience -
which option I have chosen, what would they say?
Act and Reflect on the Outcome
How can my decision be implemented with the greatest
care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?
How did my decision turn out and what have I learned
from this specific situation?
This framework for thinking ethically is the product of
dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center forApplied
Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors
include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J.
Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David
DeCosse, Claire Andre, and Kirk O. Hanson. It was last
revised in May 2009.
P - -�•-
The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation
by Paul Connett, PhD
A graduate of Cambridge University, Connett holds a Ph. D.
from Dartmouth College and joined the, faculty at St. Lawrence,
NY in 1983. He directs The Fluoride Action Network and is
co- author of The Case Against Fluoride.. In addition to
.fluoridation, he has spoken in 44 countries and given 1700
talks on chemical analyS(S of incineration and solid waste.
Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenom-
enon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead
was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT
was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms
spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables.
One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluori-
dation remains untouched.
For over 50 years US government officials have con-
fidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe
and effective ". However, they are seldom prepared to defend
the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many
arguments against fluoridation, it is overwhelming.
To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical
from the scientific arguments.
For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount,
the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply
not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on
people without their "informed consent ". The bad news is
that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington,
DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people
watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments
are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scien-
tific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is nei-
ther "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the
arguments in several categories:
Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:
1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to
medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to
fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer
while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code on human experimentation.
As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for
Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:
"1 am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not -too-
distant future, will be consigned to medical history. Water
fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmaco-
therapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medica-
tion - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more
individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection
of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means
exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."
As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician
from the UK and advisory board member ofthe recent
government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):
"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for
a person he has never met, whose medical history he
does not know, a substance which is intended to create
bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you
like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because
some children suffer from tooth decay.' It is a preposter-
ous notion."
Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:
1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being
exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 200 1) admit that the benefits
are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is
universally available, is a more rational approach to
delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while
minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water
fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if
not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) if fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would
expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01
ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water
(IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non- fluoridated communities are already
getting the so- called "optimal" doses from other sources
(Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-
exposed to fluoride.
Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:
1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's
benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos
1983; CDC 1999,200 1; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999;
Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is
ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which
is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA
1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming
down just as fast, if not faster, in non - fluoridated industrial-
ized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986;
Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest UD survey showed only a minute difference
in tooth decay between children who had lived all their
lives in fluoridated compared to non- fluoridated conununi-
ties. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown
to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the
poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority
of which have been fluoridated for decades.
Absurdities page 2
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in
Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth
decay did not go up but continued to go down
(Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997,2000;
Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).
Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:
1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more
brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence
from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological
studies is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will
contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering
the production of melatonin a very important regulatory
hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of high
percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children
have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally
fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and
McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a
connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in
young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the
current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water
increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner
et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water
have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agentscommonly
used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into
children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are
also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
R) The margin of safety between the so- called therapeu-
tic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these
end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.
Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:
1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford
to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to
purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition
which is known to make children more vulnerable to
fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & SChoUr 1952; Marier &
Rose 1977, ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the
costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental
fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.
Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT
COST- EFFECTIVE becasue:
1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually
reaches the target. Most ends upused to wash the
dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns.
2) It would be totally cost - prohibitive to use pharmaceuti-
cal grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been
tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply.
Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to
most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous
waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) if it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even
though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and
more cost - effective approach would be to provide fluoridated
bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach
would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled.
Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.
Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLYPRO-
MOTED.
1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically
endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been
completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride
today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentra-
tion" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to
monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they
have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow
each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what
the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before
they fluoridate, even though they know that this level
indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that
fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though
her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D.
thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the Interna-
tional Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in
Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation
were both six years out of date in the research they Cited on
health concerns.
Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN
PUBLIC DEBATE.
The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this
practice in open debate because they know that they would
lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around
the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridat do
so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a
first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second
hand information produces second rate confidence when they
are challenged to defend their position. Their position has
more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do
know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and
hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recita-
tion of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation
instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made
clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The 2
Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the
Aw
Absurdities pgge 3
promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of
political power not on rational analysis. The question
to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health
Service choosing to exercise its power in this way ?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated
over several generations of decision makers - are
always difficult to ascertain. However, whether in-
tended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us
from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the
world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat
children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight
the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our
nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind
eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink ma-
chines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if
fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling
sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and
ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large
industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution
has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists
have ever conceived. of fluoride as a'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which
can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine com-
pounds are being introduced into commerce in the
form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides.
Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose
just as much a threat to our health and environment as
their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they
are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumu-
late in the food chains and our body fat), those
organizations and agencies which have acted to limit
the wide -scale dissemination of these other haloge-
nated products, seem to have a blind spot for the
dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it
continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the
interests which stand to profit from the public being
misinformed about fluoride.
Unfortunately, because government officials have put
so much of their credibility on the line defending
fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak
honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case
of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such
as the American Dental Association to concede health
risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if
they were to do so.
However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless
essential - in order to protect millions of people from
unnecessary harm - that the US Government begin to
move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly
absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents.
They were able to do this with hormone replacement
therapy.
But getting any honest action out of the US Government
on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like
driving a nail through wood - science can sharpen the
nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it
home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to
educate the American people and then recruiting their
help to put sustained pressure on our political repre-
sentatives.
At the very least we need a moratorium on fluorida-
tion (which simply means turning off the tap for a few
months) until there has been a full Congressional
hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by
scientists on both sides. With the issue of education
we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key
studies are available on the internet and there are
videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and
protagonists whose work has been so important to a
modern re- evaluation of this issue.
With this new information, more and more communi-
ties are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the
local level. On the national level, there have been some
hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Head-
quarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the
Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re- examined.
However, there is still a huge need for other national
groups to get involved in order to make this the national
issue it desperately needs to be.
I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with
me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can't
than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one
of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the
US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation
without further delay. It is not going to be easy.
Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system"
backed up by special interests and by entrenched
governmental power and influence.
Paul Connett, PhD, author of The Case Against
Fluoride.
All references cited can be found at http: //
www.fluoridealert.org /health /biblio.litml
"EPA has more than enoup_h evidence to shutdown fluoridation riftht now." Dr. Robert Carton 3
The Science and Ethics of Water :Fluoridation
by Howard Cohen, BA, MA, PhD and David Locker, BDS,
PhD, Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, 2001;
67(10):578 -80.
SCIENTISTS FIND FLUORIDATION OUT
DATED & QUESTION ITS MORALITY.
NEW YORK - Fluoridation may be immoral with
benefits exaggerated and risks minimized, reports
Howard Cohen, Ph.D., and David Locker, BDS, Ph.D.,
professor and director of the Community Dental Health
Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Univer-
sity of Toronto in the November, 2001.
"Ethically, it cannot be argued that past benefits,
by themselves, justify continuing the practice of
fluoridation," write Cohen and Locker.
Fluoridation is a scientific controversy and substan-
tial benefits recorded in early fluoridation trials, 50 years
ago, are no longer found today, they write.
"Although current studies indicate that water
fluoridation continues to be beneficial, recent re-
views have shown that the quality of the evidence
provided by these studies is poor," report the au-
thors. The few sound studies that exist indicate small
differences in decay between fluoridated and
nonfluoridated child populations, they found.
Studies on Canadian populations show even less
evidence that systemic fluoride reduces tooth de-
cay, they report; further, studies on adults are largely
absent.
Fluoridation does have risks. "Fluoridation in-
creases the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis"
(white spotted, yellow or brown permanently stained
teeth), they report.
"Currently, the benefits of water fluoridation are
exaggerated by the use of misleading measures of ef-
fect, such as percent reductions," writes Locker and
Cohen. "The risks are minimized by the characteriza-
tion of dental fluorosis as a 'cosmetic' problem."
"The impact of dental fluorosis from water fluo-
ridation should not be underestimated." says Hardy
Limeback, PhD., DDS, Preventive Dentistry, U. of
Toronto. "The percentage of the population with
severe enough dental fluorosis requiring costly
dental restorations to repair defective tooth struc-
ture has been steadily increasing. Dental fluoro-
sis should never have been classified as a simple `cos-
metic' side effect - it is a biomarker for systemic
fluoride poisoning during early childhood.
Research being conducted at the U. of Toronto has
shown that low daily doses of systemic fluoride from
drinking water and other sources permanently affect
bone and tooth growth and the mechanical proper-
ties of these hard tissues," says Limeback.
"Standards regarding the optimal level of fluo-
ride in the water supply were developed on the
basis of epidemiological data collected more
than 50 years ago. There is a need for new
guidelines for water fluoridation that are based
on sound, up -to -date science and sound ethics. In
this context, we would argue that sound ethics pre-
supposes sound science," they write.
"In the absence of comprehensive, high -
quality evidence with respect to the benefits
and risks of water fluoridation, the moral sta-
tus of advocacy for this practice is, at best, in-
determinate, and could perhaps be considered
immoral." writes authors Locker and Cohen. "In
the absence of a full account of benefits and risks,
communities cannot make a properly informed deci-
sion whether or not to fluoridate..."
Locker and Cohen also recognize that fluorida-
tion doesn't allow individuals to opt out,
thereby, eliminating their freedom to choose.
And, they explain, psychological studies on adoles-
cents show effects of dental fluorosis are as serious
a concern as overbite and overcrowded teeth.
"Cohen and Locker's investigation does not ad-
dress other risks of fluoridation that researchers re-
port, but most dentists ignore, including increased lead
absorption in children, bone fractures, neurological
impairment, thyroid dysfunction and more," says law-
yer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coali-
tion Opposed to Fluoridation.
http : / /www.ncbl.nim.nih.gov /pubmed /19343280
Hardy Limeback, PhD., DDS, Head of Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto. University of Toronto
hardy.limeback(ri)utoronto.ca http: / / +vww.iluoridealert.org
"Fluoridation presents unacceptable
risks to public health, and the govern-
ment cannot prove its claims of safety. It
is clear that fluoride is mutagenic, and
that it may well cause cancer. EPA has
attempted to silence scientists who do
not follow the party line. Fluoridation
constitutes unlawful medical research.
It is banned in most of Europe; Euro-
pean Union human rights legislation
makes it illegal. "
Former EPA senior scientist Robert J. Carton, PhD
__ 1%�
9
Water Fluoridation; Revisiting the Risk Benefits Ratio
A second opinion by Dr. Cindy Russell, 2001
Chairperson of the Santa Clara County Medical Assn. Environmental Health Committee (2001)
Dr. Cindy Russell wrote this as an individual for the Environmental Committeee. Her views were not that of
the stated policy of the SCCMA. She is presently a Board Certified plastic surgeon with the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation now in 2012.
N. B. Some figures in this paper need updating for 2012.
* Fluoride is now in 21% of Santa Clara County water (not 16 %), and 2/3 of U.S. water (not 49 %).
* 41% of youth (not 22 %) are now estimated to have fluorosis (stains on teeth and bone stress)
* About 5% of the world is fluoridated; half of that is Canada and the U.S.
Summary of the following 6 pages
P. 1: * Fluoride: most controversial issue for dentistry
• Recent studies bring new light
• Environment: 20,000 tons of fluoride dumped in water
• AB733 mandates fluoride in CA waters in 1995
• Prevention of cavities not due to water but other factors
* EPA votes 1997 to reverse Mandate to fluoridate water
P. 2: * Mechanism of dental decay due mostly to topical application, not in water
• Saliva with fluoride prove negligible in cavity prevention
• Studies for tooth decay show water fluoride decreases as fluoride in food increases. Pit and fissure
cavities not affected by fluoride. No study proves water fluoride helps cavities.
• Fluoride everywhere: baby food, teas, wines, especially beverages
P. 3 * Overdosing: Increasing problem (fluorosis 22% then but now is 41% or more)
• What is Fluoride? It is not a nutrient.
• Types of fluoride used in drinking water: all are toxic industrial pollutants
• How does fluoride work or act'? All studies done are on other forms of fluoride and not type put
into drinking water
• Fluoride is absorbed in gut with only half excreted by kidneys. Over lifetime,
it accumulates in high levels in bones with some in the brain.
P. 4 * Acute toxicity: calcium, manganese, magnesium are all affected negatively. 600 deaths found.
• Chronic toxicity: 43 million cases in China have occured. Minor neurological cases in U.S.
• Bone Effects, arthritis and hip fractures. Human skeletal fluorosis is well documented.
• Neurologic effects: brain is affected
P. 5 * Effected with lead and alumnum: lead is leached from pipes as water flows through. Lead
levels in kids drop after fluoride is removed from water.
* To Fluoridate or Not?
Despite the fact that fluoridation has enjoyed overwhelming scientific endorsement in the
past, most of the world has rejected fluoride. The reason is that the long term environmental and
health effects of fluoride are insufficiently known (71 -73). In my opinion, recent evidence has taken
us beyond that. The bioaccumulative, toxic and synergistic aspects of fluoride are worrisome for
humans and ecosystems.
P. 5 -6 * Bibliography of studies
Submitted by Arlene Goetze, MA, writer /researcher on health, March 2012
Advocate Against Toxins for Children; Email: photowrite67 @yahoo.com
do
Water Fluoridation; Revisiting the
Risk Benefits Ratio
A second opinion by Dr. Cindy Russell,
Chairperson of the SCCMA Environmental
Health Committee (2001)
Water fluoridation has been and continues to be
one of the most highly controversial issues in the history
of dentistry. Since the 1950'x, many communities in the U.S
and abroad have fluoridated their water in an effort to
reduce tooth decay. Currently about 49 %n of the U.S.
population is artificially fluoridated (hydrofluorosilicic acid,
sodium silicofluoride and sodium fluoride) and 7% has
natural water fluoridation (calcium fluoride). (CDC) Japan
and most of Europe have stopped water Fluoridation due to
reports of adverse health effects.
SCCMA's current policy is pro water fluoridation.
Recent studies, however, have shed new light not only on
the mechanism of action of fluorides cariostatic effects
(topical vs systemic) but also on the increasing amounts of
fluoride we are currently exposed to in food and juices.
There are also numerous articles, including epidemiologic
and basic research, which point to adverse human and
environmental health effects of long term exposure to what
are considered "optimal" levels of fluoride in our water.
I have reviewed many of these studies on both sides
of the argument and believe that in light of these new
findings we should not be fluoridating our water but
instead we should carefully readdress the science, ethics
and risk/benefit of water fluoridation
There is ample evidence that there is an increasing
rate of dental fluorosis (white /brown spots on the teeth)
due to excess ingested fluoride.(10) In addition a growing
body of evidence links increased hip fracture rates with
water fluoridation. Some basic research articles suggest
subtle neurologic effects of fluoride in doses 5 -10 times that
of "optimal" exposure. There is also a recent large epide-
miologic study indicating fluoride increases aluminum and
lead levels in our water supplies and blood levels due to a
leaching effect on water pipes.(] 7)
Environmental Concerns
Approximately 20,000 tons of fluorides are dumped
into the US ecosystem each year from fluoridated water
that is flushed down the toilet and used in the garden. The
same concentration of fluoride used to fluoridate our water
(I ppm) is lethal to salmon. Levels of 0.2ppm has been
found to affect upstream migration of endangered salmon
species in the Columbia River, contributing to increased
mortality seen. (62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)
Given the widespread use of fluoridated water in public
water supplies, the benefit or risk will affect large numbers
of people. If there is a risk this could pose a significant
public health problem. As with lead, mercury, pesticides
like DDT, PCB's and many other bioaccumulative toxins we
are exposed to daily, it took many years to discover the
association between the agent and chronic toxicity. It
takes even longer to even attempt to reduce or stop the
human and environmental exposure.
Why the decision to Fluoridate?
Currently only 16% of California water supplies are
fluoridated as compared to about 50% nationwide. In
1994 Pollick et al wrote an unpublished and unpeer
reviewed study called Report of the California Oral
Health Needs Assessment 1993 -1994 which supported
water fluoridation. The authors, using their study,
lobbied Legislators for the passage of AB733, the state
mandate calling for 167 cities and water districts to add
fluoride to their water. This mandate passed handily.
Thus, since 1995 California cities one by one have been
going through the process of deciding whether or not to
fluoridate their water supply. Santa Cruz recently rejected
fluoride, while Mountain View voted for fluoride.
INDEPENDENTREVIEW OFNEEDSASSESSMENT
The City of Escondido near san Diego was in the
process ol'deciding whether or not to fluoridate their
water and asked for an independent review of the
California Oral Health Needs Assessment, the document
that was the basis for the 1995 California mandate to
fluoridate water. The analysis was performed by the
internationally renowned Senes Oak Ridge Inc, Center for
Risk Assessment in Tennessee. The study focused on
the relationship between prevalence of dental caries and
such factors as use of fluoridated water, use of fluoride
supplements, use of dental sealants, prevalence of
specific feeding practices and occurance of Baby Bottle
Tooth Decay. They concluded "The results of the study
as reported by Pollick et al. (1994) do not support its
primary conclusion, namely that increased fluoridation
of public water supplies and increased supplementaion
of fluoride in nonfluoridated areas are warranted. The
differences in caries incidence with fluoridation status as
reported by Pollick eta]. (1994) are probably due to other
factors, primarily economic status and presence or
absence of dental sealants."
Who opposes water fluoridation?
In 1997 the union of EPA toxicologists, biologists,
chemists and other professionals at EPA headquarters in
Washington, D.C. voted unanimously to sponsor the
California Safe Drinking Water Initiative to reverse the
California State Legislative Mandate to fluoridate water
in cities with populations greater than 10,000.
The EPA made this recommendation after reviewing
the body of evidnece over the last 1 1 years, including
animal and human epidemiologic studies indicating a
causal link between fluoridation and genetic damage,
neurologic impairment, bone pathology and other
adverse health effects such as fluorisis.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, President of the Canadian
Association of Dental Research, called for an end to
water fluoridation in a statement made in April, 1999.
He stated that experts all over the world were concerned
after reviewing the literature, finding no evidence that
ingesting fluoride protects the teeth . Health concerns
included accumulation and cytotoxicity of fluoride in
bone.
Dr, John Colquhoun, Priciple Dental Officer for the City
of Aukland,New Zealand was an articulate and successful
proponent of water fluoridation for many years through-
out New Zealand. After a world study tour and examining
carefully complete statistics for New Zealand he found
that there were fewer cavities and more children ages 12-
13 cavity -free in the non - fluoridated part of New Zealand.
He reexamined the statistics, called collegues all over the
world and reviewed large -scale studies. In 1997 he came to
the conclusion that water fluoridation had little or no
effect on cavity prevention but had health conse-
quences.(68)
Mechanism of Dental Decay and Fluoride Benefit
Our teeth are composed of a thin layer of dental
enamel (I -2mm) which forms a hard protective layer over
the tooth. The enamel consists of 87% by volume a
mineral crystal of calcium and phosphate in a
hydroxyapetite -like structure. 13 % of the enamel by
volume is protein, lipids and water which form the
diffusion chanells through which acids and minerals can
travel in or out of the teeth.(] 1) The supporting stucture
of the tooth is dentin composed of by volume 47%
mineral, 33 %protiens,lipids and 21 %wter
Dental decay occurs when the oral bacteria feed on
carbohydrates and produce acids such as lactic and acetic
as by products of metabolism. These acids diffuse in the
tooth substance and dissolve calcium and phosphate
from the subsurface minerals leading to cavity formation.
This is termed demineralization. As saliva travels over the
tooth it can neutralize the acid and allow for remineral-
ization of the calcium and phosphorous.
The cariostatic mechanism of fluoride has yet to be
fully understood (and some question its cariostatic effects
at all). Fluoride reportedly has two topical effects on
cavity prevention. Remineralization is enhanced by
fluoride in the oral cavity. Fluoroapatite -like material that
precipitates on the surface of the crystals allegedly makes
in the enamel more resistent to attack by acids. In addition
there is a direct antibacterial effect of fluoride by enzyme
inhibition.(11)
It was always assumed that fluoridated drinking
water had a systemic effect by incorporation into the
dental enamel. Most dental researchers today believe the
mechanism of fluoride is due to a topical effect.(23)
Limeback (12) states that teeth that develop in the
presence of fluoride have higher levels of fluoride in the
enamel and dentine. Recent studies by Li(13) showed that
teeth exposed to years of fluoridated water had elevated
levels of fluoride in the enamel but the fluoride content in
the enamel surfaces, where the process is dynamic,
showed no significant increase in fluoride. Limeback
reviewed 13 articles commonly sited in support of the pre -
eruptive effect of fluoride and found that all had design
flaws, including not separating topical vs systemic
benefits.(12)
Water fluoridation and Salivary Levels
Examining Saliva concentrations with ingestion of
fluoridated water shows approximate levels of 0.01 ppm
which would give negligible if any benefit in cavity
prevention. (14)
Studies of ingestion of fluoride supplements show
serum and salivary levels peak at 30 minutes and therefter
decline to a baseline level of 0.02 ppm after I to 2 hours.
(12) Limeback cautions that it is no longer acceptable to
use fluoride supplements on large populations due to the
risks of dental fluorosis from excess ingestion(12).
DO STUDIES SHOW FLUORIDE REDUCES TOOTH
DECAY) Therc are well over 113 studies that report a caries
reduction with fluoridation of the watec(I ), (2'). Current
studies indicate, however, that the effectiveness of water
fluoridation has decreased as the benefits of other forms
of fluoride have been used e.g. fluoridated toothpaste,
mouthrinses and fluoride treatments to teeth.(3). Fluoride
is now found in many foods and beverages as well. See
below. Newbrun concludes fluoridation reduces cavity
formation only 15 -35% in adult teeth.(3)
Others disagree as to the the true benefits of fluorida-
tion at all because most of thecaries seen are of the pit and
fissure type which are not affected by fluoride(24)
Yiamouyiannis analysis of data from the National Institute
of Dental Research examining 39,207 U.S. school children
released in 1988 showed no difference in tooth decay in the
fluoridated vs non-fluoridated communities.
The Diseased, Missing or Filled Teeth(DMFT) per child
was identical at 2.0. The percentage of decay -free children
in the fluoridated, non - fluoridated and partially fluoridated
areas was 34%,35% and 31%, repectively. (9) Heller
used the same data and found similar decay free rates in
fluoridated and non - fluoridated groups.(10)
There is no large scale, controlled, double - blinded
study that shows any benfit to adding fluoride to the water
according to Dr. Hardy Limeback , President of the Cana-
dian Association of of Dental Research , in an interview
April, 1999.
Fluoride in Our Food: The "Halo" effect of fluoridation
As communities fluoridate their water supply there is
more fluoride everywhere. It is discharged into sewage
treatment plants, streams and is incorported in foods and
beverages made in citifies that are fluoridated. Banting
estimates dental fluorosis is 60% attributed to other
fluoride sources and 40% from water fluoridation.(4)
Independent lab analysis of fluroride concentrations of
available ready to eat products showed that 42% of 43
fruit juices contained more than Ippm of fluoride. Pure
fruit juices , especially grapes, contained high levels of
fluoride (up to 6.8 ppm), thought to be due to the fluoride
containing pesticides widely used on grapes(5). A limited
list from Stannard (5)is on table 1 and includes an indepen-
dent evaluation as well (7). It is noted that children's
f)
ingestion of fluoride from fruit juices can be sustantial and a
factor in the development of fluorosis.(6)
Product Name Company/ Location Fluoride concentra-
tion (ppmF or mg/L)
Cranberry
Ocean Spray, Middleboro, MA
0.15
Grape Beverage
Tropicana, Bradenton, FL
0.47
Apple
Ocean Spray, Middleboro, MA
0.78
CocacolaClassic
--------------------------------- - - - - --
0.98
Apple -Grape
Hi -C, Houston, TX
1.16
Grape
Welch's Concord, MA
1.28
Apple 100%
Minute Maid, Houston, TX
1.30
White Grape
Welch's, Concord, MA
1.95
Kellogs Fruit Loops Cereal (solid) ------------ - - -2.1 mg /kilogram
Gerber Graduate Berry Punch ------------------ - - - - --
3.0
White Grape
Gerber, Fremont, MI
6.80
Overdosing on Fluoride: Dental Fluorosis Is An Increasing
Problem
Dental fluorosis is a well - documented undesirable tooth
affect that results from ingestion of too much fluoride in the
preemptive phase of tooth development. (10) Dental fluorosis
is characterized by chaulky white spots or striations on the
teeth and in severe forms pitting with brown stains occur. It
is defined as a hypomineralization of enamel and has greater
surface and subsurface porosity than is found normally. The
disorder increases with higher levels of fluoride intakc.(15),
(16) Optimal levels of water fluoridation (0.7 -1.2 ppm) still
produce fluorosis,.albeit mild.
Dental fluorosis has increased substantially in coun-
tries where fluoridation is practiced. Fluorosis is found in
22% of the population in the US overall (1) and in optimally
(0.7 -1.2 ppm) fluoridated communities only 33% have no
visible signs of fluorosis.(] 0). Levy reviews the relatively
high amount of fluoride in mouth rinses, professional and self
applied gels and supplements. (8) Because of this overexpo-
sure many dentists are concerned about ingestion of
fluoridated toothpastes (aproximately I mg per application)
and dispensing fluoride supplements.
What is Natural fluoride?
Fluoride is a halogen. Like its family members chlorine,
iodine and bromine it forms stong bonds with other elements.
Fluoride compounds come in many forms. Calcium fluoride,
leached from rocks, can be found in sonic natural water
supplys. It is poorly absorbed from the gut unlike other
fluoride compounds ( sodium fluoride, and hydrofluosilic
acid) used in our water and as tablets.
Is fluoride a Nutrient?
No. Despite billions of years of evolution fluoride like many
heavy metals (lead, mercury) is not required for a healthy
functioning body. It is not a required trace mineral.
What fluoride compound is used in our water supply? A
protectant or pollutant?
Fluoride compounds used in our water supply are of three
types- fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate or sodium
fluoride. Fluorosilic acid and sodium tluorosilicate which
are used in about 50 % of our water supplys are consid-
ered toxic industrial pollutants and a by product of
fertilizer, aluminum and 50 other manufacturing
processes that also discharge large amounts of fluoride
into the air that are sold to cities instead of being dis-
posed of as high level hazardous waste.
These fluoride compounds also contain small
amounts of other unwanted byproducts including lead,
arsenic, mercury, cadmium and nickel which are not.
analyzed prior to shipment. All studies done on fluoride
have been done with medical grade sodium fluoride. No
clinical studies have ever tested silicofluorides for safety
or efficacy.
It is interesting to note that sodium fluoride and sodium
fluosilicate were once widely employed as insecticides
especially on grapes.
Sodium fluoride has a toxicity rating between 4 (very
toxic)and 5 (extremely toxic) in Gosselins "'Clinical
Toxicology of Commercial Products".(] 8) i.e the lethal
dose is between 5 -500 mg /kg. Calcium fluuride is poorly
absorbed from the gut and has a toxicity rating of 3
(moderately toxic) due to its low solubility and ionization.
WHAT IS FLUORIDES MECHANISM OFACTION?
Fluoride is a "general protoplasmic poison." At least
four major functional derangements are recognized: l)
enzyme inhibition of cellular respiration and glycolosis,
2) hypocalcemia, 3) cardiovascular collapse, 4) specific
organ damage.(18)(58)
A study in the J Chem Soc in 1985 describes how
fluoride disrupts hydrogen bonding between
biomolecules. The most important weak hydrogen bonds
are between amides in DNA. (20)
Fluoride Metabolism in Man
Fluorosilicates are rapidly absorbed through the gut
(85 -95% absorption). Once ingested only 50% of the
fluoride is excreted by the kidneys.(16)(25) (26). 99% of
the fluoride is incorporated into calcified tissue i.e bone,
teeth. ( I6). Fluoride is strongly bound to apatite and
calcium phosphate compounds in bone where it accumu-
lates through the years. Thus over a lifetime fluoride can
accumulate in bone at high levels.(22)
I % is stored in soft tissues such as the brain(27)
specifically the pineal gland which is not protected by the
blood brain ba►rier(2I )
Acute Toxicity of Fluoride
The affinity of fluoride for calcium may lead to
hypocalcemia manifested by tetany, siezures, CNS
depression and coagulopathy (28) (59). Zinc, manganese
and magnesium may be rendered unavailable leading to
inhibition of enzyme systems dependent on these.
Interference by fluoride in the potassium reflux between
red blood cells and serum may lead to lethal ventricular
1achycardia.(27)
Hyperfluoridation accidents have been reported at least
three times(29) with levels of 40 -50ppm Flouride. Acute
symptoms can occur after 5mg ingestion and included
abdominal cramping(66 %), headache(49 %), diarrhea(42 %),
vomiting(13 %), itching(10 %) (29)
600 deaths from fluoride poisoning show that 5 -10
grams of sodium fluoride taken at one time in an adult is a
Certainly Lethal Dose(CDL). In children less than 6 the
CDL is 500 mg.(59)
Chronic Toxicity of Fluoride
Skeletal and dental fluorosis are established manifesta-
tions of chronic fluoride toxicity.(30)(31) In China, 43
million dental fluorosis cases and 2,370,000 skeletal
fluorosis cases may have occured because of exposure. to
fluoride emissions and drinking contaminated water.(36).
Several studies focusing on neurologic effects have shown
chronic exposure to cause symptoms of fatigue, headache,
decreased concentration, memory disturbances, motor
incoordination and depression. (32)(33)(34)
Bone Effects of Fluoride: Arthritis and Hip Fractures
Fluoride's bone effects by most authorities is considered
to be toxic. Fluorides are retained preferentially in bone
incorporating into the hydroxyapatite and altering the
structure of the crystals. Fluoride decreases the mechani-
cal competence of the bone. (54). Human skeletal fluorosis
is well documented(36). Preclinical skeletal fluorosis is
asymptomatic but shows increased bone mass on xray.
It was felt in the 1980's that fluoride's ability to
increase bone density may help women with osteoporosis,
however, the opposite was discovered. Four clinical trials
demonstrated that when fluoride was administered in an
effort to treat osteoporosis and prevent hip fractures that
although bone density improved, the hip fracture rate
increased along with symptoms of joint pain in those
women treated with fluoride. The chairman of the FDA
advisory committee at the time was quoted as saying "The
FDA should quietly forget about fluoride."
The National Research Council in 1993 (16) reviewed
these 3 U.S. studies (37) (38) (39) and one European study
of "osteoporosis " therapy (40) using Sodium fluoride in
doses of 50 -80 mg daily, equivalent to 5 -10 times the daily
fluoride intake of persons living in fluoridated communities.
They report that in all three US studies there was an
increase in hip fracture rates as well as peripheral
fractures.(42)(53) Fluoride was found neither safe nor
effective as a treatment for osteoporosis.(53)
The NRC also reviewed 10 studies comparing fracture
rates in fluoridated and non fluoridated communities. Three
studies did not show any increase in fractures. (50) (51)(52)
however seven (43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49) did find a
significant increase in hip fracture incidence .
Chronic ingestion of fluoride may produce mild
skeletal fluorosis in our population. This is now being
studied in Canada. The severity of symptoms of skeletal
fluorosis correlate with the level and duration of exposure of
fluoride. Phase 1 there is sporadic pain and stiffness of
joints, xrays show osteosclerosis of the pelvis and vertebral
column. In phase 2 there is chronicjoint pain and stiffness
and increased osleoscerosis in cancellous bones. Phase
three is characterized by crippling fluorosis with deformi-
ties of the spine and major joints, calcification of the
ligaments of the neck and vertebral column and muscle
wasting.
According to the NCR Report "Crippling skeletal
fluorosis might occur inpeople who have ingested 10 -20 mg
of fluoride daily for 10 -20 years"(] 6) In 1952 Soriano from
Spain reported 28 cases of a criplling bone disorder called
periostitis deformans from wine containing high doses of'
fluoride(up to 15ppm). This was presumably from the
fluoride pesticides used on the grapes. Radiologically there
was I) osleoscerosis with osteoporosis; 2) almond -sized
periostoses which simulate bone tumors; 3) osteophytes
that invade tendons and ligaments. Bone bioassays show
levels of above 4,OOOppm. He stated that the diagnosis
could go unrecognized or incorrectly diagnosed as cronic
polyarthritis or rheumatoid disease.(22)
Neurologic Effects of Fluoride
High doses of chronic fluoride exposure are known
clinically to cause neurologic symptoms such as general-
ized malaise, decreased concentration, decreased memory,
depression, headaches. (32)(33)(34).. It is known that
fluoride can cross the blood brain barrier especially in
utero and that it deposits in the pineal gland.(21)(27)(61)
There has been very little investigation into the link
between fluoride and CNS effects at lower exposure.
Recent research by Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D. has shown
cognitive and behavioral effects on rats with serum levels
of 5- I Oppm Fluoride.(55) These levels are lower than those
found in some dental fluoride treatments
In 1995 Dr. Mullenix, it neuropsycopharmacologist
and head of the Toxicology Department at Harvard's
Forsyth Dental Center for 12 years, published the first
laboratory study demonstrating the neurotoxicity of sodium
fluoride in rats. She was asked to study fluoride and
expected to find nothing. In study after study she found
that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride,the effects on
behavior depended on age of exposure and that fluoride
accumulates in brain tissue. Prenatal exposure caused
hyperactivity while adult rats exposed to fluoride exhibited
"couch potatoe syndrome." The authors state "Experience
with other developmental neurotoxins prompts expectations
that changes in behavioral function will be comparable
across species."
Her work has been honored in the Yearbook of Oncology
for the predictability and applicability of her basic science
research to clinical medicine working with childhood
leukemia patients. Dr. Mull inex was dismissed from her
position as chairman immediately after publishing her work.
A susequent lawsuit ended in a settlement with sealed
results.
Li in 1995 published a study showing reduced
intelligence in children in China with moderate or severe
fluorosis.(57) Zhao in 1996 compared two villages in China
and found statistically significant lowering of IQ in children
Ell
L%
id
living in the village with high water flouride (7 -81Q
points).(60) Both studies demonstrate that IQ is lower in
all age groups in the high fluoride population suggesting
neurological damage in early development.
EFFECTS WITH LEADANDALUMI NUM
Fluoride forms complex ions with many metal ions and
due to its corrisivity has been found to leach lead from
water pipes and increase levels of lead in children's blood..
A recent study was published in the August, 1999 issue
of the International Journal of Environmental Studies by
Professor emeritus Roger Masters at Dartmouth Col -
lege(I7), who describes the findings after analyzing over
280,000 Massachusetts children. They found that
silicofluorides- the fluoride compound most widely used in
treating public water supplies- are associated with an
increase in childrens lead blood levels.
Children in 30 communities that use these chemicals
were over twice as likely to have over 10 micrograms per
deciliter of blood lead. The correlation with blood levels is
especialy serious because lead poisoning is associated
with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity,
substance abuse and crime.
Lead levels droppped in two comunity water systems by
half after fluoride was discontinued. When the town of
Thu•mont, Maryland banned water fluoridation with
hydrofluosilic acid in 1994 the lead levels went from a high
of 130 ppb to 31 ppb and the average blood level went from
9.26 ppb to 7.11.
Lead levels in the water dropped from 32 ppb to 17 ppb
when the Tacoma Public Utilities in Washington state
temporarily discontinued using fluoride in the public
water system due to a drought in the sumer of 1992
Dr. Karl Jensen reported long term studies (52 weeks)
with rats given aluminum fluoride at 0.5 ppm or sodium
fluoride at 2.1 ppm (current water fluoridation level is
I ppm). In both treated groups, the aluminum levels in the
brain were elevated.relativc to controls. The researchers
speculate that fluoride in water may complex with the
aluminum in food and enable it to cross the blood brain
barrier. Neurotoxic effects similar to alzheimer's were seen
in the brain tissue. (2)
To Fluoridate or Not to Fluoridate?
Despite the fact that fluoridation has enjoyed over-
whelming scientific endorsement in the past, most of the
world has rejected fluoride. The reason is that the long
term environmental and health effects of fluoride are
insufficiently known (71 -73). In my opinion, recent
evidence has taken us beyond that. The bioaccumulative,
toxic and synergistic aspects of fluoride are worrisome for
humans and ecosystems.
Newer reviews of the literature point to a marginal i f any
improvement in dental caries. I urge you to reconsider
your position on this important public health issue. The
potential hazards far outweigh the possible benefits and
reasonable alternatives to reduce cavities exist other than
water fluoridation. (This paper is Dr. Russell's position
and not the official position of the SCCMA.)
1) Brunelle,J.A., Carlos, J.P., J. Dent. Res69(spec lssue):723-
727,Februay,1990
2) Murray,J.J. Caries Research 27(Supp):2 -8, 1993
3) Newbrun,E. J. Public health Dentistry 49,No. 5:279- 289,1989
4) Lewis, D.W.,Banting,D.W., Water fluoridation: Current
Effectiveness and Dental Fluorosis. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol
22:153 -158, 1994.
5) Stannard, J.G., Fluoride concentations of Infant Foods, J Clin
Ped Dent vol 15, No. 1: 88 -40, 1991
6) Kiritsy, M.C., Levy, S. M., Assessing Fluoride Concentrations
of Juices and Juice - Flavored Drinks, JADA Vol 127:895 -902, July
1996 10366 Roselle St., Suite C, San Diego, CA. 92121. For
Channel 10 News, 6/17/98-
7) Analytical Testing Report. by Expert Chemical Anaylsis
8) Levy, S.M., Total Fluoride Intake and Implications for Dietary
Fluoride Supplementation, J Public health Dentistry, Vol. 59, No.
4:211-223, Fall 1999
9) Yiamouyiannis, J.A., Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay:
Results front the 1986 -1987 National Survey of U.S.
Schoolchildren, Fluoride, Vol. 23;No.2:55- 67,April, 1990
10) Heller, K.E. Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying
Water Fluoride Concentrations, J Public Health Dentistry, Vol.
57 :No. 3:136 -143. Sumer 1997
11) Featherstone, J.D, The Mechanism of Dental Decay, Nutrition
Today, May /June 1987
12) Limeback, H., A Reexamination of the pre - eruptive and post -
eruptive mechanism of the anti- caries effects of fluoride: Is there
any anti- caries benefit from swallowing fluoride.
13)Li,J. Fluoride profiles in different surfaces of human permanent
molar enamels from a nturally fluoridated and non - fluoridated
area. Arch Oral Biol, Vo. 39:727 -31, 1994
14) Diesendorf, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public
Health, Vol 21, No. 2: 188, 1997
15) Butler,W.J. Prevalence ol'dental mottling in school aged lifetime
residents of 16 Texas communities, Am J Public Health 75:1408-
1412
16) Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Research Council,
National Academy Pres, 1993
17) Masters, Roger, International Journal of Environmental studies
August, 1999
18) Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, fifth edition,
Robert Gosselin, Roger Smith and Harold Hodge., Williams and
Wilkins. 1984
19) Schmidt, G, Kruppers,C, Nuclear Science and Technology,
Report EUR 15448. P 121 ISBN 92- 827 - 4076 -5 Published by
European Commission, Luxembourg 1995
20) Edwards, , Poulos, Kraut, Journal of Biological Chemis-
try, 1984, vol 259,p 12984
21) Luke, J. A., Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal
Gland, Abstract, Caries Research, 28:204, 1994
22) Soriano, M. Crippling arthritic Bone Changes from Fluoride in
Wine, Radiology, 87(6):1089 -1094, Dec. 1966
23) Carlos, J. Comments on Fluoride, J of Pedodon ties, pg 135-
136, Winter 1983
CDC -US Dept Health Service, CDC, Atlanta Georgia
24) Editorial- Preserving the Perfect Tooth. DADA, Vol. 108, 3/84
25) Spencer, H., Fluoride metabolism in Man, The American
Journal of Medicine, Vol. 49: 807 -813, 1970
26) Zipkin,L The effects of the absorption of fluoride.IV The
deposition of fluoride in human skeletal tissues as related to
fluoride in drinking water. Arch. Indust. Health 21: 329, 1960 5
27) Spittle,B.,: Psychophannacology of Fluoride: A review,
International Clinical Psychopharmacology, Vol. 9:79 -82, 1994
28) Baltazar, R.F., Acute Fluoride Poisoning Leading to Fatal
Hyperkalemia. Chest, 78:660 -663, 1980
29) Peterson, L. Community Effects of a municipal Water Supply
Hpyerfluoridation Accident. Amer J Public Health 78:711 -713,
1988
(30) Singh,A. Endemic Fluorosis: Epidemiological, clinical and
biochemical study of chronic fluorine intoxication in Panjab(India).
Mediciene,42:229 -246, 1963
31)Waldbott,GL., Chronic Fluorine Intoxication from Drinking
Water. Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology, 7:70 -74,
1955
32) Czerwinski, E. Fluoride Induced Changes in 60 Retired
Aluminum Workers. Fluoride, 10: 125 -136, 1977
33) Waldbolt,GL.Preskeletal Fluorosis near an Ohio Enamel
Factory: A preliminary Report. Veterinary and Human Toxicology,
21:4 -8, 1979
34) Waldbott,GL. Subacute Fluorosis Due to Airborne Fluoride,
Fluoride, 16,72 -82
35) Jensen, Karl, Brain Research, (1998 ), Vol 784, pg 284 -298.
36) Ando,M. Health Effects of Indoor Fluoride Pollution from
Coal Burning in China, Envir Health Perspectives, Vol.
106(5):239 -244, 1998
37) Dambacher, M.A. , Long -Tenn Fluoride Therapy Of POSI-
menopausal Osteoporosis, Bone, 7:199 -205, 1986
38) Riggs,B.L., Effect of Fluoride Treatment on the Fracture Rate
in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. New England
Journal of Medicine, 322:802 -808, 1990
39) Kleerekoper, M.E. Continuous Sodium Fluoride Therapy
Does Not Reduce Vertebral Fracture in Postmenopausal
Women(Abstracl).. J Bone Miner Res, 4(suppl 1) s376, 1989
41)Marnelle, N. Risk - Benefit Ratio of Sodium Fluoride Treatment
in Primary Vertebral Osteoporosis, Lancet, 2:361 -365, 1988
42) Hedlund,L.R.Increased incidence of Hip Fractures in
Osteoporotic Women Treated with Sodium Fluoride. J Bone
Miner Res, 4:223 -5, 1989
43) Sowers, MFR, A Prospective Study of Bone Mineral Content
and Fracture in Communities with Differential Fluoride Exposure,
Amer J Epid 133:649 -660, 1991
44)Keller, C. Fluorides in Drinking Water. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures
and Bone Health. Bethesda MD April 10, 1991
45)May,DS, Hip Fractures in Relation to Water Fluoridation: An
ecologic Analyisis. Paper presented atthe Workshop on Drinking
Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health.
Bethesda MD April 10, 1991
46) Jacobsen,SJ , Regional Variation in the Incidence of Hip
Fracture among White Women Aged 65 years and Older. JAMA,
264:500 - 502,1990
47)Jacobsen,SJ, The Association Between Water Fluoridation and
Hip Fracture Among White Women and Men aged 65 Years or
Older. A National Ecologic Study. Annals of Epidemiology, 2:617-
626, 1992
48)Danielsonn,C. Hip Fractures and Fluoridtion in Utah's elderly
Population. JAMA, 268:746 -774, 1992
49) Cooper, C. Water Fluoridation and Hip Facture (Letter)
JAMA, 266:513 -514, 1991
(50) Cauley, J.A. Public health Bonus of Water Fluoridation: Does
Fluoridation prevent osteoporosis and its related fractures?
(Abstract) Amer J Epidemiology 134:768, 1991
51) Jacobsen,SJ , Hip Fracture Incidence Before and After
Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply, Rochester, Minnesota.
Amer J Public health, 83:743 -745, 1993
52) Gogglin, JE, Incidence of Femoral Fractures in Postmeno-
pausal Women. Public Health Reports, 80:1005 -1012, 1965
53)Lindsay, R, Fluoride and Bone- Quantity versus Quality,
Editorial NEJM, Vol. 322(12), March 22,1990
54) Sogaard, CH, Marked Decrease in Trabecular Bone Quality
After Five Years of Sodium Flouride Therapy- Assessed by
Biomechanical Testing of Iliac Crest Bone Biopsies in Os-
teoporotic patients., Bone, Vol. 15(4):393 -399, 1994
55) Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, Public Health and
Human Services, February 1991
56) Mullenix, PJ, Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats,
NeurotoxicologyandTeratology ,Vol. 17(2):169 -177, 1995
57) Li, XS, Effect of Fluorine Exposure on Intelligence in Children,
Fluoride, Vol. 28(4):189 -192, 1995
58)Goodman and Gilman: The Phannacologic Basis of Therapeu-
tics. New York: Macmilan, 1975, pp 1545 -1547
59) Heifetz, S.B. The Amounts of Fluoride in Current Fluoride
Tharapics: Safety Consideratioins For Children. Journal of
Dentistry For Children, pp257 -269. July - August 1984
60) Zhao, L.B. Effect of a High Fluoride Water Supply on
Children's Intelligence, Fluoride, Vol. 29(4):190-192, 1996
61) He, H. The Effects of fluoride on the Human Embryo. Chinese
Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases, 4:(3):136 -137, 1989
62) Dey, D. B., Fluoride Effects on Salmon at John Day Dam,
Columbia River, 1982 -1 986, North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, 9:154 -162, 1989
63) Neuhold, J.M., Effects of Sodium Fluoride on Carp and
Rainbow Trout. Transactions, American Fisheries Society, 89:358-
370, 1960
64) Pimental, R. Influence of Water Hardness on fluoride Toxicity
to Rainbow Trout. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
2:381 -386, 1983
65) Damakaer.DM, Dcy,DB. Evidence for Fluoride Effects on
Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982 -1986,
North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9:154 -162,
1989
66) Dave, G. Effects of Fluoride on Growth, Reproduction and
Survival in Daphnia Magna, Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology, 78c(2):425 -431, 1984
67) Groth 111, E, An Evaluation of' the Potential for Ecological
Damage by Chronic Low Level Environmental Pollution by
Fluoride, Fluoride, 6(4):224 -240, 1975
68) Colquhoun, J. Why 1 Changed My Mind About fluoride.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41:1- 16,Autumn 1997
69) Price,W.A., Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Heuber,
New York, NY, 1939,
70) Smith, G., Tooth Decay in the Developing World: Could a
vaccine help prevent cavities? Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine , 312:440 -453, 1988.
71) Nyt fra miljostyrelsen (Newsletter of National Agency of
Environmental Protection, Denmark). Special issue (in English),
February, 1977.
72) Fluor i karies- forebyggande syfte. (Report of Swedish
Fluoride Commission) SOU, Stockholm: Statens offentiga
utredningar, 1981. English - language summary, 21 -30.
73) Grimbergen. G.W., A A double blind test for the detennina-
tion of intolerance to fluoridated water (preminary report),
Fluoride, 7:146 -152. 1974.
74) Press release May 24, 2000. Canadian Dental Association.
Dr. Hardy Limeback. www .tluoridealert.org /limeback.efm
75) Biology of Plants. Fourth edition. Peter Raven, Ray Evert, 6
Susan Eichorn. Worth Publishers, Inc.
End
Memo
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
Date: June 19, 2012
Re: City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 6
Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II — Award of Construction Contract
Sealed bids for Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II were opened on Tuesday, June 19,
2012. A total of three contractors submitted bids ranging from $1,261,512 to $1,616,892.
All bids were much higher than the Engineer's Estimate of $900,000.
As stated in Cooperative Agreement among Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos, in case bids
indicate a cost overrun exceeding 10% of the Estimated Construction Cost, Saratoga will reject all
bids and the parties will work to obtain an agreement on alternate scope of work (paragraph 3.b of
the attached Cooperative Agreement). The lowest bid is 40% higher that the engineer's estimate.
Therefore it is recommended Council reject all bids and direct staff to discuss the alternate scope of
work with Monte Sereno and Los Gatos and re -bid the project with alternate scope of work after
obtaining the agreement with parties.
All items removed from the scope of work in Phase II as a result of the developing alternative
scope of work will be added to the scope of work in Phase IV of the Project. Grant funding for
Phase IV has already been awarded.
Additionally, it is recommended the Council approve the budget resolution accepting the grant
funds from Phase I. The resolution has been submitted with the staff report.
COOPERATIVE AGREEINIENT
FOR HIGHWAY 9 SAFETY LNIPROVEMENTS — PRASE 11
THIS AGREEMENT, by and among the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation ( "Saratoga "), the 'TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation ( "Los Gatos "),
and the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation ( "Monte Sereno ") (collectively
referenced herein as "parties" and individually referenced as a "party") sets forth the terms of
cooperation among the parties in proceeding with Phase II of the Highway 9 Safety
Improvements..
RECITALS
A. Phase II of the Highway 9 Safety Improvements ( "Phase II" or "Project ") involves a
Design Component and a Construction Component. The Design Component consists of
design and engineering of the following features: pedestrian improvements along
Highway 9 extending approximately from Oak Street in Saratoga to the Monte
Sereno /Los Gatos City limits. The improvements include, but are not limited to, asphalt
walkways, curbs, concrete sidewalks, retaining walls, roadway modifications, driveway
modifications, and striping. The Project does not include the San Tomas Aquino Creek.
crossing. The Construction Component consists of constructing some or all of these
features depending on fund availability. The features to be included in the Construction
Component will be determined mutually by the parties to this agreement following
completion of the Design Component in accordance with this Agreement.
B. Except for connection with existing features and traffic lane closures in the 'Town of Los,
Gatos, the features included in Phase 11 are located within the territorial jurisdictions of
the City of Saratoga, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Monte Sereno. During
the project construction phase, certain features located in Los Gatos may be added to
Phase 11. The County of Santa Clara is not a party of this Agreement. A separate
Agreement will be developed between the City of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara
for cost sharing purposes based on the jurisdictional location of the improvements. For
the purpose of allocating design costs between the City of.Saratoga and the City of Monte
Sereno in this Agreement, costs attributable to the County of Santa Clara will be
allocated to the City of Saratoga.
C. Pursuant to Metropolitan Transportation Commission's ( "MTC ") Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Program, Monte Sereno applied for and received approval for a federal
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( "CMAQ ") grant for safety improvements to
Highway 9 Phase L Not all CMAQ grant funds were expended during Phase L Unused
Highway 9 Phase 11 Cooperative Agrcement Page 1 of 9
CMAQ funds were transferred to Phase II and are available for the Design Component of
Phase II. CMAQ funds are authorized for payment of eighty-eight and one half percent
(85.5 %) of the Final Design Cost as defined below. Saratoga and Monte Sereno agree to
share the remaining portion of the Final Design Cost (the "Design Cost Local Share ") as
set forth in this Agreement. The estimated cost of the Design Component is $522,000 of
which $462,000 is available from CMAQ grant funds and the remaining $60,030
represents the estimated local share to be allocated between Monte Sereno and Saratoga
pursuant to this Agreement.
D. Pursuant to Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETY -LU), Saratoga has applied for and received approval for a Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant for the Construction Component of Phase II.
HSIP funds are authorized for payment of ninety percent (90 %) of the Final Construction
Cost as defined below. Saratoga and Monte Sereno agree to share the remaining portion
of the Final Construction Cost (the "Construction Cost Local Share ") for the construction
features located in each jurisdiction as set forth in this Agreement. The estimated cost of
the Construction Component is S 1,000,000 of which $900,000 is available from HSIP
grant funds and the remaining $100,000 represents the estimated local share to be
allocated between Monte Sereno and Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement.
E. The California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans ") has authorized the parties to
proceed with the Design Component using the CMAQ funds. The parties will seek.
Caltrans authorization to proceed with the Construction Component prior to undertaking
work on that part of the Project.
F. The Parties desire to execute this Agreement in order to delineate their respective rights
and obligations concerning the administration, design, financing and construction of
Phase 11.
Hi_nwav 9 Phase 11 Cooperative Agreement Page ? of 9
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
Scope of Project. The Project includes the design, engineering, and construction of the
highway improvements described in the recitals. All work shall be performed in
accordance with plans and specifications approved by Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and all
local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Project or whose approval is
otherwise required for receipt of CMAQ funds (with respect to Design Component
approvals) and HSIP funds (with respect to Construction Component approvals).
Allocation of Design Component Costs.
(a) The term "Final Design Cost," as used herein means the total of all expenditures
relating to the Design Component, including, but not limited to, engineering,
surveys, testing, inspections, topographic maps, geotechnical, soils and
environmental surveys and reports, preparation, submitting and revision of all
required permit applications, preparation of plans and specifications and other bid
documents, publication, printing and advertising of the Project, and the personnel
costs of Monte Sereno and Saratoga pursuant to section 4 of this Agreement based
upon actual time expended in connection with the Design Component plus all
applicable overhead expenses. The Final Design Cost shall be determined upon
completion of the Design Component but in no event shall exceed $522,000
without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
(b) The Design Cost Local Share shall be apportioned between Monte Sereno and
Saratoga based on the cost of designing the.improvements that will be located
within each jurisdiction stated as a percentage of the Final Design Ccst as shown
on the attached Exhibit A to this agreement. The Design Cost Local Share
attributable to the County of Santa Clara will be allocated to the City of Saratoga.
The parties estimate that Monte Sereno will pay 37% (thirty seven percent) or
$22,104 of the local share and Saratoga will pay 63% (sixty three percent) or
$37,926 of the local share, however this is an estimate only and the final
allocation shall be based on the local share of the actual design costs. Payment of
the Design Cost Local Share shall be made in accordance with section 4 of this
Agreement.
(c) Each party is permitted to approve additional improvements within their own
jurisdiction beyond the scope of the work approved for the CMAQ and HSIP
grants provided that it pays the additional design costs associated with those
improvements and any resulting additional costs of administration.
Highway 9 Phasc 11 Cooperative Agreement Page 3 of 9
Scope of Construction Component.
(a) It is expected that the total cost of constructing features included in the Design
Component will exceed the funds available for the Construction Component.
Following completion of the Design Component the parties will agree upon the
features to include in the Construction Component and determine the Estimated
Construction Cost. If no such agreement is reached by the ninetieth (90th) day
after completion of the Design Component, this Agreement shall automatically
terminate pursuant to section 11 of this Agreement. The "Estimated Construction
Cost" is the estimate of the construction costs determined prior to the opening of
bids for the award of the construction contract, plus an agreed additional amount
based on an estimation of project administrative costs pursuant to section 4 of this
Agreement.
(b) If, upon the opening of bids for the award of a construction contract, there is a
cost overrun of no more than ten percent (10 %) of the Estimated Construction
Cost, the parties shall proceed with the Construction Component in accordance
with this Agreement. However, if such bids indicate a cost overrun exceeding ten
percent (10 %) of the Estimated Construction Cost, Saratoga will reject all bids
and then the parties will work to obtain an agreement with the parties to this
agreement and Caltrans regarding an alternative project design. If no such
agreement is reached by the sixtieth (60th) day after the opening of bids, this
Agreement shall automatically terminate pursuant to section 11 of this
Agreement.
4. Allocation of Construction Component Costs.
(a) The term "Final Construction Cost," as used herein means the total of all
expenditures relating to the Construction Component, including, but not limited
to, construction contract administration, notifications, construction staking,
demolition, clearing, grubbing, grading, construction of pedestrian walkway,
bridges, driveway approaches, crossings, and other structures as needed, testing,
inspections, preparation of as -built plans, and the personnel costs of Monte
Sereno and Saratoga based upon actual time expended in connection with the
Construction Component plus all applicable overhead expenses. The Final
Construction Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Construction
Component but in no event shall exceed 51,000,000 without the prior written
consent of Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
(b) The Constntction Cost Local Share shall be apportioned between Monte Sereno
and Saratoga based on the cost of constructing the improvements that will be
located within each jurisdiction stated as a percentage of the Final Construction
Cost. The funds available for construction are not expected to be sufficient to
construct all features designed in the design phase of the project. The parties will
decide which features are going to be constructed in construction phase of the
project when detailed construction cost estimate is available for the project. Final
Hi,,hwav 9 Phasc U Cooperative Agrccment Paget of 9
allocation of the construction cost shall be based on actual costs and the location
of the construction. Payment of the Construction Cost Local Share shall be made
in accordance with section 5 of this Agreement.
(c) Each party is permitted to approve additional improvements within their own
jurisdiction beyond the scope of the work approved for the CMAQ and HSIP
grants provided that it pays the additional construction costs associated with those
improvements and any resulting additional costs of administration.
Pavment of Project Costs.
(a) In addition to its own share of the Final Design Cost and Final Construction Cost,
and in anticipation of reimbursement by Caltrans through the release of the HSIP
and CMAQ Grants, Saratoga shall periodically advance funds necessary to make
payments that are intended hereunder to be paid with the HSIP and CMAQ
Grants, provided, however, that in the event that Saratoga has not received full
reimbursement from Caltrans for any prior advance made, Saratoga may, at its
option, withhold any payment requiring that it advance funds if said payment is
not legally required to be made at that time.
(b) Monte Sereno shall deposit with Saratoga $5,000 (five thousand dollars) of its
Design Cost Local Share within thirty (30) days of execution of this agreement.
The remainder of the Design Cost Local Share shall be deposited by Monte
Sereno within 30 days after receipt of an invoice from Saratoga. Monte Sereno
shall deposit half of its estimated Construction Cost Local Share with Saratoga
within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice from Saratoga following the award
of a construction contract unless the bids will be rejected pursuant to this
Agreement.
(c) Upon completion of the Design Component and the Construction Component,
respectively, Saratoga shall furnish to Monte Sereno a detailed accounting of the
Final Design Cost and Final Construction Cost, as applicable. In the event the
accounting shows that the amount deposited by Monte Sereno exceeded its share
of the applicable final cost, the excess shall be reimbursed within thirty (30) days
after the accounting is completed and approved by Saratoga and Monte Sereno.
In the event the accounting shows that the amount deposited by Monte Sereno is
less than its share of the applicable cost, Monte Sereno shall pay the deficiency to
Saratoga within thirty (30) days after the date the accounting is sent. Monte
Sereno is obligated to pay any deficiency resulting from Project Changes it
approved pursuant to this Agreement or any deficiency resulting from reasonable
additional or unanticipated costs of administration incurred by Saratoga .
Project Administration. The parties agree that the Project will be managed cooperatively
by the parties. Representatives of the parties shall work together to accomplish the
t-ii�hway 9 Phase 11 Cooperative Aereement Page 5 of 9
Project. However, certain parties shall be responsible for administering certain portions
of the Project as set forth below.
(a) Saratoga shall be the lead agency for the Project for purposes of administering the
HSIP and CM_AQ Grants, preliminary engineering of the Project, which shall
include, but not be limited to, the Preliminary Study Report, the Project Report,
and compliance with CEQA and NEPA. Saratoga shall oversee the design and
bidding of the Project, shall award the contract for the Project and shall obtain all
permits necessary for the Project. Saratoga shall enter into all contracts necessary
to implement the Project provided the contract is approved by the parties.
(b) Saratoga shall be responsible for overseeing construction of the Project. Saratoga
shall provide oversight and inspection services for the Project.
(c) The parties must each approve the plans and specifications for the Project.
Saratoga shall not enter into any contract in excess of $25,000 or increase any
contract by more than $25,000, for the performance of professional, consulting or
construction services without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno.
(d) The Parties shall promptly review and respond to all materials submitted by one
to the other for review and approval in connection with the Project. No approval
in connection with the Project shall be unreasonably withheld.
(e) For public meetings held in connection with the Project, each party is responsible
for providing the notification of its residents that it determines is appropriate.
Right -of -way Acquisitions. No right of way acquisitions are expected to be a part of. the
Project. If it is determined that the acquisition of any right -of -way is required for the
Project, the party having territorial jurisdiction over the property to be acquired shall be
responsible for obtaining such right -of -way and conducting any proceedings that may be
necessary in connection therewith; provided, however, no contract for legal services shall
be awarded and no eminent domain action shall be commenced without the prior
approval of the other parties and Caltrans. In the event acquisition of right -of way is
necessary to the base project, the City in which the right -of way is located shall pay for
the acquisition of the right -of -way. Any delay costs caused by the acquisition shall be
shared by the parties in proportion to their portion of the Design Cost Local Share. In the
event a party desires to acquire right -of -way which is not necessary for the base project,
that party shall bear both acquisition and delay costs.
�. Insurance Requirements. All contracts awarded for design or construction of the Project
shall include a requirement that the consultant and/or contractor, at all times durin,
design and construction and until final acceptance of the work, maintain in full force and
effect the following insurance policies:
(a) Broad form comprehensive liability insurance having a combined single limit of
not less than S 2,000,000 per occurrence, naming Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte
HiL,hway 9 Phase 11 Cooperative Agreement Page 6 of 9
Sereno, and their respective officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees
and volunteers as additional insured thereunder.
(b) For construction contracts, builder's risk insurance covering the replacement cost
of the improvements, with a loss payable clause naming Saratoga, Los Gatos and
Monte Sereno, as their respective interests may appear.
(c) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by state law, together with
employer's liability insurance having a coverage limit of not less than S 1,000,000
per accident.
(d) For design consultants, professional liability insurance having a limit of not less
than 51,000,000.
(e) Liability insurance as required by the permitting agencies.
9. Bonding Requirements. The contractor who is awarded the contract for construction of
the Project shall be required to provide performance and payment bonds in the amount of
one hundred percent (100 %) of the contract price.
10. Proiect Records. The parties shall keep and maintain a complete copy of all costs and
expenditures relating to the Project, together with a complete copy of all plans,
specifications, reports, contracts and other documents relating to the Project, and the
same shall be available for inspection by the parties at any time during usual business
hours. Saratoga, as the project lead, shall provide other parties to this agreement,
electronic and durable reproducible copies of the Design and As Built Construction
documents related to project features located within their jurisdictions.
11. Termination of Agreement.
(a) This Agreement is executed by the parties in reliance on the HSIP and CMAQ
Grants. In the event a grant agreement is not executed between Saratoga and
Caltrans, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and each of the parties
shall be released from any further obligation or liability hereunder.
(b) In the event a contract for construction of the Project is not awarded pursuant to
section 2 of this Agreement or for any reason prior to December 30, 2010, this
Agreement shall terminate unless extended by mutual consent of all parties
hereto.
(c) Upon termination in accordance with the terms of this section, Saratoga shall
refund to Monte Sereno any balance of its contributions remaining after deduction
of the costs incurred by Saratoga up to the date of termination and payable by
each party under the terms of this Agreement
Highway 9 Phase 1.1 Cooperative Agreement Page 7 of 9
12. Limitation of Liability. No party to this Agreement shall be responsible or liable to any
other party or parties for any act or omission made in good faith in connection with the
performance of its duties hereunder, nor shall any party be responsible or liable for any
act or omission by any consultant or contractor retained for the performance of any
services related to the Project. Saratoga and Monte Sereno shall contribute equally
towards any loss, liability, expense, claim, costs (including costs of defense), stilts, and
damages of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the
performance of the Project. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt any party,
including its employees and officers, from its own fraud, willful injury or violation of law
whether willful or negligent.
13. Dispute Resolution. The parties shall make a good faith effort to settle any dispute or
claim arising under this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve such disputes or claims,
they shall submit them to non - binding mediation in the County of Santa Clara, California,
or by mutual agreement in any other location. If mediation does not arrive at a
satisfactory result, arbitration, if agreed to by all parries, or litigation may be pursued. In
the event any of these dispute resolution processes are involved, each party shall bear its
own costs and attorneys fees.
14. Jurisdiction and Severability. This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted
under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this
Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara. If any part of this
Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null
and void insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the remainder of this Agreement shall
be in full force and effect.
15. Assignment. Except as provided in section 6 of this Agreement, no party may assign any
right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment
of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
Monte Sereno and Los Gatos acknowledge and accept that a portion of the project
management duties of Saratoga stated in section 6 of this Agreement will be provided by
contractors whose services will be engaged by Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement.
16. Parties in Interest. This Agreement is entered only for the benefit of the parties executing
this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person.
17. Waiver. No failure on the part of any party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder
shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor
does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of
a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
18. Amendment. No modification, waiver, termination, or amendment of this Agreement is
effective unless made in writing and signed by all parties.
19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or
written, between the parties hereto with respect to the Project and contains all of the
Highway 9 Phase it Cooperative Agrcemcnt Page 8 of 9
covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such
services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no
representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been
made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which is not embodied
herein, and that no other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this
Agreement shall be valid or binding. No alteration or variation of the terms of this
Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year last
written below.
City of Saratoga
Citv of Monte Sereno
Town of Los Gatos
By:
By:
By:
Dave Anderson,
Brian Loventhal,
Greg Larson,
City Manager
City Manager
Town Manager
Date:
Date: 1 /61/p
Date: (Z
Attest:
�nn
Attest:
*te
e,
inistrator
ullivan,
City Cl erk
Andrea Chelemengos,
City Clerk
Date: /- % A
Date: J
Date: 1 C) , Z -R—)
Approved as to Fonn:
Approved-as to Form:
Approved as to Form:
Richard Taylor,
Kirstin Powell,
Michael M.? t.?Iic
City Attorney
City Attorney
Interim Town 5 torr•t<v
Date: 1 \p
Date: l- —I o
Date: / — Z °'Z v / r✓
F\SA[L4TOGA\Contracts \tfwy 9 Phase [[coop agreement 11-1 [ -09 (RS "r Comments 1 1 -1 7 -09).doc
Flighway 9 Phase 11 Cooperative A;Reement Pale 9 of 9
EXHIBIT A
Highway 9 • Phase 0 Estimated Design Coat
r -A n r r
rug va
Sarataga -t County: $26,419 • $11,506 = $37,925 63%
City of Monte Serena: $22,104 37%
Bridge over San Tomes Aquino Creek is not Induded
No Improvements In Los Gelo6 In this phase
Updated 12-09 -09
subconsitnts
-
BKF finduda Re
.__. -
with suboonalints
location
",, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,
dasl n cost
11,5 % local match
a,wm
location
u. mama
design cost
i.."a
111.5% Iccal mail
location
Uly of monte
dusi n cost
Sareno
11.5% local match
Se rnant 1 Vv;kafy to Mendalsohn
3 000
$
$ 3,000
f 11,822
$ 14,822
100%
S 14,822
1,706
0%
0%
$
E
meet 2 Tlxea Oaks We to FrulNale
5 3 000
$ 3 000
24 296
27 298
100%
27 296
$ 3 139
0%
f
0%
S
E
Seward 3 Frultvale to V1a Colina
3 000
$
$ 3,000
24,382
27,382
100%
S 27,382
3,149
o%
S
0%
S
S enl 4 Via Cowie to El Camino Grande
Se ent 6 Austin to Ctulto
Se rd 6 Quito b Daves
Se nenl 7 Daves b Lexington
3 000
3 000
$ 3 ODO
f 3.000
i 3,720
S 6680
f 3.720
$ 5580
$ 9,840
24 720
S 8 400
f 19,800
16,5w
$ 33,300
15.120
$ 28 380
15,779
23.155
13.870
26 165
$ 32,339
S 66,455
28,990
S 64 546
100%
0%
0%
0%
32,339
$
S
$ -
f 3,719
S
5
0%
100%
100%
0%
$
$ 56,455
f 28 fl00
$
S
S 6.492
S 3 334
f
0 °:
0%
0 %
10C%
S
$
54.645
f
$
f
$ 6 273
Se t 8 Lexington to Grandview
3 000
S 3,720
4,200
10,920
13,962
f 24.882
0%
-
S -
0%
$
100%
$ 24.882
$ 2.8
Segment 9 Across from Oak Place Incl. r -o -w survey
S t 10 Aloha to Vickery
3 000
$ 3.000
$ 1.860
$ 1,900
$ 2,400
2,400
7,260
7,300
30,094
15,799
37.354
$ 23,099
100%
100%
37.354
S 23,099
S 4,296
$ 2,656
0%
0%
$
i
0 %
p
$
Se rent 1 t El Camino Grande to Austin
Searnent 12 Grandview to Vlewflukl
S ment 13 Viewheid to Rose
Segment 14 Rose tu LG -MS Cif Limits
S 3 000
3 000
f 3 000
3 000
S 7,440
3,720
1 860
E -
32,802
9,000
7 200
$ 2.400
$ 43,042
16,720
f 12,060
$ 5,400
$ 23,997
31,076
16 48T
$ 23,291
$ 67,039
$ 46,796
28 547
$ 28,691
86%
0%
0%
0%
S 66,983
S -
S
-
S 6,653
$
$
15%
0%
0%
0%
f 10,056
-
$
$
$ 1,156
$
$
f
0%
100%
100%
100%
$
S 46,796
$ 28.547
$ 28,691
$
5,382
$ 3.283
$ 3,299
Total
$ 42000
$ 39 100
122 962
$ 204 082
294 175
498 237
$ 21fl 275
$ 25 217
95 501
$ 10 983
S 183 481
E 21,098
Cil s Administrative Costs bid hlvitatlons advertisements eh
23,763
10 458
f 1 203
E 4 555
S 523.61
$ 6 750
S 1,006
Grand Total
522-000
229 733
26,419
100,056
11,5061
192 211
E 22 104
rug va
Sarataga -t County: $26,419 • $11,506 = $37,925 63%
City of Monte Serena: $22,104 37%
Bridge over San Tomes Aquino Creek is not Induded
No Improvements In Los Gelo6 In this phase
Updated 12-09 -09
of 5A�
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL.
Updated Staff Report
Lrfioa??.
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: James Lindsay DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Allowing Tasting Rooms as a Permitted Use
in the Village
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Re- introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending the City Code to allow
tasting rooms in the CH zoning district, and direct staff to place the ordinance on the consent
calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 2012, the City Council conducted a public hearing and introduced an ordinance that
would add Section 15- 06.695 and amend Section 15- 19.020 (b)(3) and 15- 19.050(a) of the City
Code. The addition and amendments are as follows:
Add the following definition for a tasting room into Article 15 -06 of the City Code. -
"Tasting Room" means a commercial establishment that does not contain a kitchen and is
devoted to the sampling and sales of wine or beer produced on or off the premises.
Include tasting rooms, not exceeding four thousand square feet in area, which provide
direct customer service on -site between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M to the list
of permitted uses in the CH zoning district.
The Council directed staff to place the matter on the consent calendar at their following public
hearing. Ordinance 292 is attached.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Staff received information from Cooper - Garrod Estate Vineyards regarding the proposed
definition of tasting room after the City Council packet was published for the June 20`" meeting.
They have requested that the word consumption be included in the definition so that it is clear to
the ABC that the City is allowing full glass on -site purchases. We have reviewed the request and
support the following modification to the definition:
15- 06.695 — Tasting Room
"Tasting Room" means a commercial establishment that does not contain a kitchen and is
devoted to the sampling, consumption, and sales of wine or beer produced on or off the premises.
While this change does not affect the policy direction of the City Council it would require the
Council to re- introduce the modified ordinance and adopt it with a second ready in July.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 292 (modified)
ORDINANCE NO. 292
An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending
Saratoga City Code Articles 15 -06 and 15 -19 Concerning Tasting Rooms
ZOAl2 -0005
Findings
The City of Saratoga wishes to amend certain articles and sections of the City Code in
order to promote the attraction of wineries or wine - related businesses to the City of
Saratoga's commercial historic districts.
2. Following a study session and public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga considered proposed amendments to the City Code at a duly noticed public
hearing on May 9, 2012 and thereafter recommended adoption of this ordinance.
3. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on June 6,
2012 and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection
with that hearing introduced this ordinance on June 20, 2012.
Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Adoption.
Articles 15 -06 and 15 -19 of the Saratoga City Code are hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit
"A ". Text to be added is indicated in bold double underlined font (i.e. Lxampk and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (i.e. e}e). Text in standard font is adopted without
change. Sections within an Article that are not included in Exhibit "A" are unchanged from the
existing City Code.
Section 2. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub - section, paragraph, sub - paragraph, sentence,
clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-
section, paragraph, sub - paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section,
sub - section, paragraph, sub - paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is held
invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this
ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the
remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been
eliminated.
Attachment 1
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed ordinance, amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code
Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of
causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the
activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance the amendments and additions would have
minimal impact on the environment.
Section 4. Publication
This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of
general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 20`h day of June 2012, and was adopted by the following vote
following a second reading on the 181h day of July 2012:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
Chuck Page,
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY
Crystal Morrow,
CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Exhibit A to Ordinance No.
An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending
Saratoga Municipal Code Articles 15 -06 and 15 -19
ZOAl2 -0005
Proposed amendments are shown below. Text to be added is bold double underlined (gxanWh
and text to be deleted is shown in strikeout (fie). Text in standard font is adopted without
change.
ARTICLE 15 -06 DEFINITIONS
"Tasting Room"
means
a commercial establishment that does not contain a kitchen and is
devoted to the
sampling,
consumption. and sales of wine or beer produced on or off the
premises.
ARTICLE 15 -19 C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
15- 19.020 General regulations.
The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City:
(a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any commercial district,
unless a use involves the operation of a business providing direct customer service (including,
but not limited to, conducting a delivery service) on -site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and
6:00 A.M., in which event such use may be allowed upon the granting of a use permit pursuant
to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter:
(1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any
establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages.
(2) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in
Article 15 -40 of this Chapter.
(3) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off - street parking facilities as set
forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter.
(4) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use.
(5) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular
telephone and other wireless communications.
(b) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in any commercial
district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter:
(1) Restaurants.
(2) Markets and delicatessens.
(3) Any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, with the exception of
tasting rooms, provided for in Section 15- 19.0500(3) of this Code.
(4) Hotels and motels.
(5) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(6) Institutional facilities.
(7) Community facilities.
(8) Game arcades.
(9) Gasoline service stations on sites abutting Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga/Los
Gatos Road or Saratoga Avenue and accessible directly from such arterial road; provided,
that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be conducted within an
enclosed structure.
(10) Animal establishments, as defined in Section 7- 20.010(c) of this Code. All animal
establishments shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in
Section 7- 20.210 of this Code.
(11) Public buildings and grounds.
(12) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways
and structures, storage tanks, transmission lines and cable television facilities.
(13) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use.
15- 19.050 - C -H district regulations.
(a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15- 19.020(a) of this
Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH -1 and CH -2 districts: (1)
professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either
above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail
establishment; and (2) personal service businesses that are above street level, and personal
service businesses that are at street level but do not have primary access from Big Basin Way or
across the front lot line, and (3) tasting rooms, not exceeding four thousand square feet in
area, which provide direct customer service on -site between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and
11:00 P.M.
(b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15- 19.020(b) of this
Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH -1 and CH -2 districts, upon
the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter:
(1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when
located at street level and having street frontage.
(2) Theaters.
(3) Religious and charitable institutions.
(4) Mixed -use development conforming to the design standards found in Article 15 -58
(5) Personal service businesses at the street level that have primary access from Big Basin
Way or across the front lot line.
AW ABC Licenses
.................... Active: 1 !
�► PC &N Threshold: Off -Sale Retail Only
`' 6/20/2012
Active:l .
5076 °mil � Active: 2 PC &NThreshold: 3
PC &N Threshold: 3
F�. MoW Eden R Active:0 Y
PC &N Threshold: 3 °
4 PC &N Threshold
Active: 0 The number of licenses
plo a.._1 `' PC &N Threshold: 4
�- + triggering a local finding of
w i b Public Convenience or
Saratoga 1S{' 1 a� ;, Necessity by Census Tract
70280
ay 14
Congress Springs Rd
Active: 2 a s
PC &N Threshold: 2 1 _
..................- 1--~'`
9 r 1
507 3.02
y Monte ._: ✓`Z .
Sereno 48956
,...`., ,r �. 5070.01