The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-05-2012 Supplemental Council AgendaPeter & Rita Redford December 5, 2012 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Appeal of Application FER12 -0003 19870 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Saratoga City Council: Thank you for meeting with us today to consider our request for a 10 -foot sound wall. As you observed yesterday, our house is located adjacent to highway 9 and is exposed to constant loud traffic noise. To mitigate this noise, we would like to replace part of the current 6 -foot wooden fence with a 10 -foot concrete sound wall. Because two sides of the property are located adjacent to highway 9, the proposed wall needs to shield the front of the house and part of the side. The elevation of the house is such that, even with the current 6 -foot fence, traffic and vehicle headlights are clearly visible from all the front facing windows. A minimum 10 -foot wall is required to block this. The current 6 -foot fence is completely hidden by trees and bushes. The proposed 10 -foot wall will also be behind trees and bushes and will be invisible from the road. A U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) article titled "Keeping the Noise Down: Highway Traffic Noise Barriers " analyzes the effectiveness of noise barriers and concludes that (and I quote): • "Noise Barriers reduce the noise level by 5 to 10 decibels, cutting the loudness of traffic by as much as half. • A noise barrier can achieve this level of noise reduction only when it is tall enough to break the line -of -sight from the highway to the home. • Noise barriers substantially improve the quality of life for people who live adjacent to busy highways." Thank you in advance for approving this 10 -foot sound wall. It will reduce the constant traffic noise and will allow us to quietly enjoy our beautiful property. Sincerely, Peter and Rita Redford j 19870 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070, Appeal of Application FER12 -003 How Does a Noise Barrier Work? Each additional 1m height m 1.5 dB(A) additional attenuation 1n I i ' m Receiver Line of sight blockage = SOW City of Saratoga Memorandum To: Saratoga City Council From: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk Date: December 5, 2012 Subject: Special Meeting Agenda Item 2 - Additional Attachment /Election Certificate and Official Election Results Per State law, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters has 28 days after the election to complete the canvass of returns and provide the election officials of local jurisdictions with the Election Certificate and Official Election Results. For the November 6, 2012 General Municipal Election, the deadline for the canvass of returns is December 4, 2012. Consequently, the Election Certificate and Official Election Results were not included with the agenda packet distributed to the City Council on November 30, 2012. The Election Certificate and Official Election Results are attached to this memorandum. These two documents will be attached to the resolution declaring the results of the 2012 City of Saratoga General Municipal Election upon adoption by the City Council. CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RESULTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Barry Garner, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby declare: 1. A Presidential General Election was held in the County of Santa Clara, for the City of Saratoga, on November 6, 2012 for the purpose of electing Two (2) Council Members to the Governing Board. 2. The official canvass of the returns of this election was conducted by the Office of the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. 3. The Statement of Votes Cast, now on file in my office, shows the number of votes for each candidate for the Governing Board of the City of Saratoga and in each of the precincts and that the total shown for each candidate are true and correct. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 4th day of December, 2012. Barry arner, Registrar of Voters 3 � November 6, 2012 Presidential General Electlon. Santa Clara County. 7� City of Saratoga SARATOGA, City Council 111282012 5:36 :15 PM GRD. Touts • Pe0r 68 P.p 558 al 1286 November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election. Santa Clara County. 7a City of Saratoga SARATOGA, City Council 11126Pte12 516'.45 PM V61.f. Totals - Pape 68 Page 559 of 1286 November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election. Santa Clara County. 74 City Of Saratoga SARATOGA. City Council 11262013 5:36:15 PM PCT, Totals - Page 68 Page 560 a1 1236 November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election. Santa Clara County. 88 City of Saratoga SARATOGA. Cily Council 1 12812012 536:15 PM PAGE 68 Pap 561 pf 1285 Z QOQ .K N w w ~ F_ j ¢ m F- 7 Z _ F u 3 c � V O s J E o ¢ `o Z —z N o f Y W p ¢ 3 S PCT 4674 PCT Rcponing 1477 273 18;5;4 112 123 VBM Reposng 1477 976 66.1%4 517 586' PCT 4675 PCT Reponft 488 102 2019% 36 49 VBM Reporting 488 287 58.8% 148 13 PCT 4675 PCT Reporting 139C 284 20.4% 117 143 VBM Reporting 1390 901 64.8% 463 518 PCT 4678 PCT Reponvlg 99 266 26.7% 116 124 VBIA Reporting 997 543 54.5% 290 319 PCT 4679 PCT Roposing 1263 26 • 20.6% 122 133 VBM Reponino 1263 832 65.9% 423 457 PCT 685 PCT Rcponing 1049 199 19.0% 75 104 VBh1Reporting 1049 692 66.0% 341 432 PCT 4887 PCT Reposulo 852 178 20.9% 74 103 VBM Reporting 852 511 60,0% 268 321 PCT4688 PCT Rcponing 832 134 16.1% 59 74 VBM Reposing 632 524 63.0% 253 31 PCT 4689 PCT ROppmno 1506 379 25:2% 181 208 V &.t Reporting 1506 887 58.9% 458 55 PCT 4690 PCT Reponing 1477 296 20V-A 134 191 PCT 4690 VBM Rcponing 1477 925 62.6% 476 55 PCT 4695 PCT Reposng 124 231 18.5% 91 14 V8M Repmlmg 1248 813 6511% 396 502 PCT 4696 PCT Reporting - 1108 203 18.3% Be 11 MAReporong 1,108 696 62.8 -A 364 424 PCT 4697 PCT Repmlero 1494 234 15;7% 101 127 V9IA Reporting 1494 991 66.3% 519 61 PCT 4596 PCT - Reporting 1385 226 16.3% 91 11 VEIM Reporting 1385 885 63.9°.4 464 53 PCT 4699 PCT Rcp -ung 1305 209 16.0% 112 112 VBM Reponng 1305 847 64.9'', 458 47 PCT 4702 PCT Reposing 805 165 .20.5% 79 108 VBIA Reporung 806 502 62:3% - 221 30 PCT 4703 PCT Rep -4,9 750 153 20.4% 62 94 VBM Rcponing 750 463 61.7% 222 � 306 PCT 4711 PCT Rcponing 518 6 17,2% 3 39 VBIA Reportino 518 329 63.5 %. 150 21 PCT MAIL 4731 PCT Reporting 38 0.0% VBM Reporting 38 2 65.8% 12 13 PCT MAIL 4733 PCT Rcponing 0.0% vBM R4p.,I.g 100.0% 2 2 GRAND TOTALS 19,99 16,5 t 7 82.6% 4.13E 9,479 1 12812012 536:15 PM PAGE 68 Pap 561 pf 1285 Write -in Statement of Votes SANTA CLARA COUNTY November 6, 2012 - Presidential General Election City Council, City of Saratoga Only candidates that received valid write -in votes are listed in the Write -In Statement of Votes. O Y J W cn 3: W 0 _j J O W 2 J U U) z Q O O z 3 Q O 2 2 z H Precinct VBM PCT VBM PCT VBM PCT 4674 3 1 4676 1 1 4 4679 2 4688 1 4695 1 1 1 4697 4 2 4698 1 4699 4 3 TOTAL 2 0 2 0 18 8 G -Total 2 2 26 Only candidates that received valid write -in votes are listed in the Write -In Statement of Votes. Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS �- // GENERAL ELECTION j �G�r.�F' Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 REGISTRATION & TURNOUT 450,818 70.23% Santa Clara County 174,843 27.24% Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 Total Registration 817,837 PCT Reporting Ballots Cast 195,354 23.89% VBM Reporting Ballots Cast 457,885 55.99% Total Ballots Cast 653,239 79.87% PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 BARACK OBAMA 450,818 70.23% MITT ROMNEY 174,843 27.24% GARY JOHNSON 7,889 1.23% JILL STEIN 4,391 0.68% ROSEANNE 13ARR 2,298 0.36% THOMAS HOEFLING 1,712 0.27% UNITED STATES SENATOR Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 DIANNE FEINSTEIN 454,647 72.93% ELIZABETH EMKEN 168,722 27.07% U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 17 Completed Precincts 246 of 246 MIKE HONDA 120,024 74.05% EVELYN LI 42,051 25.95% Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 18 Completed Precincts 362 of 362 ANNA G. ESHOO 154,747 69.80% DAVE CHAPMAN 66.963 30.20% U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 19 Completed Precincts 382 of 382 ZOE LOFGREN 162,300 73.24% ROBERT MURRAY 59,313 26.76% U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, District 20 Completed Precincts 10 of 10 SAM FARR 2,984. 78.24% JEFF TAYLOR 830 21.76% STATE SENATOR, District 13 Completed Precincts 193 of 193 JERRY HILL 59,977 53.54% SALLY J. LIEBER 52,047 46.46% STATE SENATOR, District 15 JIM BEALL Completed Precincts 529 of 529 STATE SENATOR, District 17 Completed Precincts 133 of 133 BILL MONNING 43,699 63.68% LARRY BEAMAN 24,928 36.32% STATE ASSEMBLY, District 24 Completed Precincts 193 of 193 RICHARD S. GORDON 84,564 70.12% CHENGZHI "GEORGE" YANG 36,041 29.88% STATE ASSEMBLY, District 25 Completed Precincts 170 of 170 BOB WIECKOWSKI 60,004 68.56% ARLYNE DIAMOND 27.520 31.44% STATE ASSEMBLY, District 27 Completed Precincts 199 of 199 Completed Precincts 529 of 529 NORACAMPOS 91,816 77.63% 160,451 56.74% ROGER F. LASSON 26,461 22:37% Page 1 of 8 A. Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 STATE ASSEMBLY, District 28 Completed Precincts 299 of 299 PAUL FONG 108,061 62.00% CHAD WALSH 66,239 38.00% STATE ASSEMBLY, District 29 Completed Precincts 70 of 70 MARK STONE 22,418 62.70% TOM WALSH 13,336 37.30% STATE ASSEMBLY, District 30 Completed Precincts 69 of 69 LUIS ALEJO 21,224 58.02% ROB BERNOSKY 15,358 41.98% BOARD OF EDUCATION, Trustee Area 1 I Completed Precincts 138 of 138 GRACE H. MAH 50,010 66.75% DAVE CORTRIGHT 24,905 33.24% BOARD OF EDUCATION, Trustee Area 5 Completed Precincts 120 of 120 ANNA E. SONG 35,401 57 Run . ,, Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM BOARD OF EDUCATION, Trustee Area 5 Completed Precincts 120 of 120 DAVID FOOTHILL -DE ANZA CCD Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 226 of 226 LAURA CASAS FRIER 84581 34:35% BETSY BECHTEL 69,430 28.20% JOAN BARRAM 61,859 25.13% GEBY E. ESPINOSA 30,332 12.32% GAVILAN JOINT CCD, Trustee Area 1 Completed Precincts 91 of 91 MARK DOVER 24,159 69.36% ROCHELLE C. ARELLANO 10,670 30.64% SAN JOSE /EVERGREEN CCD, Trustee Area 1 Completed Precincts 58 of 58 RUDY NASOL 16,426 63.15% JEREMY SUMABON 9,585 36.85 %1 SAN JOSE /EVERGREEN CCD, Trustee Area 3 Completed Precincts 79 of 79 CRAIG MANN 14,167 41.97% LEO CORTEZ 91197 27.25% RICHARD K. TANAKA 7,642 22.64% ROBERTO J. SEPULVEDA 2,748 8.14% SAN JOSE /EVERGREEN CCD, Trustee Area 7 Completed Precincts 49 of 49 MAYRA CRUZ 16,106 71.42% SAMUEL J. LEFEVRE 6,446 28.58% WEST VALLEY - MISSION CCD, Trustee Area 2 Completed Precincts 26 of 26 ROBERT T. 'BOB" OWENS 9,006 59.65% BEN HERNANDEZ 6,093 40.35% WEST VALLEY - MISSION CCD, Trustee Area 6 Completed Precincts 40 of 40 ADRIENNE GREY 13,031 69.44% RON BONHAGEN_ 5,734 30.56% Page 2 of 8 Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 MILPITAS UNIFIED SD, Short Term Completed Precincts 31 of 31 DANNY LAU 10,521 63.33% VANCE VUONG 6,093 36.67% MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SD Number to Vote For: 3 Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 45 of 45 Completed Precincts 53 of 53 CAMILLE TOWNSEND RICK G. BADILLO 8,319 21.30% BOB BENEVENTO 7,455 19.09% AMY PORTER JENSEN 7,126 18.24% MARTY CHEEK 5,500 14.08% STEPHEN F. KLEM 5,409 13.85% BRENDA CAYME 5,251 13.44% PALO ALTO UNIFIED SD Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 45 of 45 MELISSA BATEN CASWELL 18,589 27.56% CAMILLE TOWNSEND 17,721 26:27% HEIDI EMBERLING 16,173 23.98% KEN DAUBER 14.973 22.20% SAN JOSE UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 1 Completed Precincts 16 of 16 TERESA CASTELLANOS 6,747 68.72% PAUL MURPHY 2,468 25.14% BILL KLEIDON 603 6.14% SAN JOSE UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 5 Completed Precincts 36 of 36 SANDRA ENGEL 11,500 61.86% CATHY DAVIS 7,089 38.14% SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 2 Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 63 of 63 CHRISTOPHER R. STAMPOLIS 17,260 32.65% ALBERT GONZALEZ 16,967 32.10% JIM VANPERNIS 12,088 22.87% ASHISH MANGLA 6,548 12.39% SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SD, Trustee Area 3 Completed Precincts 63 of 63 MICHELE RYAN 19,483 55.59% ELISE DEYOUNG 15,564 44.41% CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 129 of 129 KALEN GALLAGHER 31,725 30.23% LINDA (JOPP) GOYTIA 25,241 24.05% DIANE GORDON 24,687 23.52% RICK COSTANZO 23,297 22.20% EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts LAN.NGUYEN MAGDALENA CARRASCO PATRICIA MARTINEZ -ROACH THELMA BOAC FREMONT UNION HIGH SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts NANCY A. NEWTON JEFF MOE JOSEPH ANTONELLI ROSAS 253 of 253 56,329 29.63% 55,450 29.17% 48,795 25.67% 29,509 15.52% 111 of 111 38,335 44.47% 33,070 38.36% 14,804 17.17% LOS GATOS - SARATOGA JOINT UNION HIGH SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts KATHERINE TSENG ROSEMARY ROSSI LORRIE WERNICK 65 of 65 12,903 39.05% 10,419 31.53% 9,720 29.42% SAN BENITO HIGH SD, Short Tenn Completed Precincts 1 of 1 STEVE DELAY 25 55.56% JENNIFER COILE 17 37.78% VICTOR N. ANYENEH 3 6.67% Run Date[Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM Page 3 of 8 Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 ALUM ROCK UNION SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts DOLORES MARQUEZ KAREN MARTINEZ ESAU HERRERA LELAND LOWE BERRYESSA UNION SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts KHOA NGUYEN RICHARD CLASPILL DAVID S. HERNAND CAMBRIAN SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts JENEVA SNEED DORON ARONSON JAROD MIDDLETON MATT DAY 48 of 48 10,650 32.78% 8,889 27.36% 7,349 22.62% 5,603 17.24% 40 of 40 11,520 40.34% 9,039 31.66% 7,995 28.00% 0411111179 MPA 5,339 33.42 %' 4,019 25.16% 3,497 21.89% 3,120 19.53% CAMPBELL UNION SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 53 of 53 MICHAEL SNYDER 15,901 41.01% JULIET TIFFANY - MORALES 11,852 30.57% LEAH K. READ 11,017 28.42% EVERGREEN SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts BONNIE MACE VICENTE M. SONGCAYAWON BALAJI R. VENKATRAMAN FRANKLIN- MCKINLEY SD Number to Vote For. 2 Completed Precincts GEORGE SANCHEZ JOHN LINDNER BRYAN CONG DO LOS ALTOS SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts STEVEN TAGLIO PABLO LUTHER AMANDA BURKE- AARONSON VLADIMIR G. IVANOVIC MORELAND SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts ROBERT VARICH JULIE REYNOLDS- GRA13BE BRIAN PENZEL 50 of 50 15,735 39.61% 12,535 31.55% 11,457 28.84% 39 of 39 9,711 38.79% 8,630 34.47% 6,696_26.74% 39 of 39 11.,114 37.69 %I 9,976 33.83% 6,621 22.45% 1,776 6.02 %. 21 of 21 8,683 43.45% 5,915 .29.60% 5,384 26.94% MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SD Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts CHRISTOPHER KENT CHIANG STEVEN E. NELSON BILL LAMBERT PETER DARRAH JIM POLLART UNION SD Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts VICKIE BROWN HAROLD STUART SAM ACCHIONE_ 29 of 29 11,114 26.59% 10,095 24.15% 8,289 19.83% 7,581 18.13% 4,726 11.30% 30 of 30 9,168 40.35% 6,886 30.31% 6,667 29.34% GILROY, Mayor Completed Precincts 22 of 22 DON GAGE 8,096 53.32% PETER ARELLANO -4:533 29.85% DION BRACCO 2,556 16.83% GILROY. City Council Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 22 of 22 PERRY WOODWARD 6,828 22.46% TERRI AULMAN 6,742 22.18% CAT TUCKER 6,272 20.63% PAUL V. KLOECKER 5,403 17.78% REBECA ARMENDARIZ 5,150 16.94% Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM Page 4 of 8 Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 LOS ALTOS, City Council Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 23 of 23 JAN PEPPER 9,288 26.71% MEGAN SATTERLEE 5,833 16.77% JEANNIE BRUINS 5,576 16.03% JON BAER 4,986 14.34% JERRY SORENSEN 4,968 1419% ANABEL PELHAM 4,123 11.86% LOS GATOS, Town Council Number to Vote For:2 Completed Precincts 29 of 29 BARBARA SPECTOR 9,163 54.47% MARCIA JENSEN 7,659 45.53% MILPITAS, Mayor Completed Precincts JOSE'JOE' ESTEVES ROB MEANS 29 of 29 13,288 73.11% 4,888 26.89% MILPITAS, City Council Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 29 of 29 CARMEN MONTANO 5,935 19.35% DEBBIE GIORDANO 5,902 19.25% GARRY BARBADILLO 5,164 16.84% DEEPKA LALWANI 4,964 16.19% RAJEEV MADNAWAT 4,023 13.12% MARK TIERNAN 3,696 12.05% OLA ROBERT HASSAN 962 3.20% Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4 :11:49 PM MONTE SERENO, City Council Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 5 of 5 JULIE WILTSHIRE 1,026 36.05% WALTER HUFF 917 32.22% SUSAN GARNER 903 31.73% MORGAN HILL, Mayor Completed Precincts 20 of 20 TATE. MORGAN HILL, City Council Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 20 of 20 LARRY CARR 7,781 36.64% MARILYN LIBRERS 5,469 25.75% JOSEPH CARRILLO 4,058 19.11% MATT WENDT 3,929 18.50% MORGAN HILL, City Clerk Completed Precincts 20 of 20 IRMA TORREZ 10,716100.00% MORGAN HILL, Treasurer Completed Precincts 20 of 20 MICHAEL J. ROORDA 10,219100.00% MOUNTAIN VIEW, City Council Number to Vote For: 4 Completed Precincts 33 of 33 JOHN INKS 12,200 18.88% MIKE KASPERZAK 12,163 18.82% CHRIS CLARK 11,854 18.34% JOHN R. MCALISTER 11,806 18.27% MARGARET CAPRILES 10,685 16.53% JIM NEAL 5,919 9.16% PALO ALTO, City Council Number to Vote For: 4 Completed Precincts 39 of 39 LIZ KNISS 17,445 24.62% GREG SCHMID 13,627 19.23% PAT BURT 13,301 18.77% MARC BERMAN 13,057 18.43% TIMOTHY GRAY 7,668 10.82% MARK WEISS 5,749 8.11% SAN JOSE, City Council District 8 Completed Precincts ROSE HERRERA JIMMY NGUYEN 48 of 48 17,331 54.30% 14,588 45.70% Page 5 of 8 Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 SAN JOSE, City Council District 10 Completed Precincts 52 of 52 JOHNNY KHAMIS 17,834 52.57% ROBERT BRAUNSTEIN 16,089 47.43 %'. SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 3 Completed Precincts 49 of 49 DEBI DAVIS 19,334 61.70% MOHAMMED NADEEM 12,000 38.30% SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 4 Completed Precincts 49 of 49 JERRY MARSALLI 22,003 72.31% ALMA JIMENEZ 8,424 27.69% SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 6 Completed Precincts 49 of 49 LISA M. GILLMOR 25,572100.00% SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 7 Completed Precincts 49 of 49 TERESA O'NEILL 12,948 43.23% JOHN MLNARIK 10,581 35.33% Run Date/Time: 11/28112 4:11:49 PM SANTA CLARA, City Council Seat 7 Completed Precincts 49 of 49 BILL COLLINS SANTA CLARA, City Clerk Completed Precincts 49 of 49 DIRI SANTA CLARA, Chief Of Police Completed Precincts 49 of 49 J. S SARATOGA, City Council Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts 20 of 20 HOWARD MILLER 9,679 54.33% MANNY CAPPELLO 8,136 45.67% SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Dist 2 Completed Precincts 121 of 121 BARBARA KEEGAN 38,058 57.26% DAVID GINSBORG 21,801 32.80% DREW SPITZER 6,605 9.94 %0, SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Dist 5 Completed Precincts 131 of 131 I NAI HSUEH 38,714 51.24% PATRICK S. KWOK 27,813 36.81% MARY AMANDA MCCHESNEY 9,030 11.95% EL CAMINO HOSPITAL DISTRICT Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 108 of 108 JOHN ZOGLIN 31,559 24.94% JULIA E. MILLER 27,919 21,99% DENNIS W. CHILI 24,908 19.62% WESLEY F. ALLES 21,764 17.15% BILL JAMES 20,684 16.30% SC:C OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, District 4 Completed Precincts 88 of 88 DORSEY MOORE 20,357 45.62% GARNETTA ANNABLE 13,773 30.87% BENJAMIN T. COGAN 10,489 23.51% PURISSIMA HILLS WATER DISTRICT Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts 10 of 10 BRIAN HOLTZ 1,730 32.39% STEVE JORDAN 1,553 29.08% ERNEST SOLOMON 1,533 28.70% WILLIAM BOWDEN 525 9.83 %I Page 6 of 8 Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 Proposition 30 - Temporary Education Tax Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 YES 394,991 63.19% NO 230,095 36.81% Proposition 31 - State Budget Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 NO 308,156 53.23% YES 270,789 46.77% Proposition 32 - Polit. Contributions by Payroll Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 NO 371,008 60.50% YES 242,244 39.50% Proposition 33 - Auto Insurance Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 NO 357,785 58.94% YES 249,295 41.06% Proposition 34 - Repeal Death Penalty Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 YES 336,655 54.70% Proposition 34 - Repeal Death Penalty Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 Proposition 35 - Human Trafficking I Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 i YES 512,269 83.41% NO 101,916 16.59% Proposition 36 - Three Strikes Law Completed Precincts 1,000 Of 1,000 YES 463,896 75.69% NO 148,984 24.31% Proposition 37 - Genetically Engineered Foods Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 YES 326,906 NO 293,611 Proposition 39 - Multistate Business Tax Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 YES 422,936 70.43% NO 177,555 29.57% Proposition 40 - Redistricting Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 YES 441,019 76.90% NO 132,444 23.10% Measure A - Santa Clara County - Sales Tax i Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 YES 339,359 56.61 %, NO 260,141 43.39 %' Measure B - SC Valley Water Dist. - Special Tax Completed Precincts 1.000 of 1,000 YES 434,021 73.69 %I NO 154,970 26.31% Proposition 38 - Education Tax Measure C -Palo Alto - Marijuana Dispensaries Completed Precincts 1,000 of 1,000 Completed Precincts 39 of 39 NO 426,738 69.70% YES 185,545 AGAINST THE ORDINANCE 18,322 62.77% Run Date/Time: 11/28/12 4:11:49 PM Page 7 of 8 Santa Clara County OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION Cumulative Totals November 6, 2012 Measure C - Palo Alto - Marijuana Dispensaries Completed Precincts 39 of 39 Measure D - San Jose - Minimum Wage Completed Precincts 456 of 456 YES 178,123 59.65% NO 120,491 40.35% Measure E - San Jose - Cardroom Gaming Completed Precincts 456 of 456 NO 163,575 57.66% YES 120,138 42.34% Measure G - Morgan Hill Unified SD - Bonds Completed Precincts 53 of 53 BONDS YES 15,243 65.74% BONDS NO 7,944 34.26% Measure I - East Side Union High SD - Bonds Completed Precincts 253 of 253 BONDS-YES 102,351 71.55% BONDS NO 40,700 28.45% Measure J - Alum Rock Union SD - Bonds Completed Precincts 48 of 48 BONDS YES 18;442 79.53% BONDS NO 4,746 20.47 %' Measure K - Berryessa Union SD - Parcel Tax Completed Precincts 40 of 40 YES 18,868' 78.07% NO 5,300 21.93% Measure L - Mount Pleasant SD - Bonds Completed Precincts 15 of 15 BONDS YES 4,482 75.48% BONDS NO 1,456 24.52% Measure H - San Jose Unified SD - Bonds Completed Precincts 143 of 143 BONDS YES 63,447 71.33% BONDS NO 25.497 28.67'/0 Measure M - El Camino Hospital Dist - Compensation Completed Precincts 108 of 108 YES 35,311 51.55% Measure M - El Camino Hospital Dist - Compensation Completed Precincts 108 of 108 Run D.ate[Time: 11/28112 4:11:49 PM Page 8 of 8 MAUREEN JONES - ARCHIVIST (408) 297 -8487 Safe Drinking Water Keepers -of- the -We I Lo rg 1205 Sierra Ave. k__4 d ;� San Jose, CA 95126 maureeni@pacbell.net wW'"' pert. o g Keepers- of- ilieA\ eII 3 Key Findings and Recommendations Overall, 24% of kindergarten children have had early childhood caries (ECC). ECC can begin as soon as a child's teeth come in be- tween 6 and 10 months of age. By the time Alameda County children reach kindergarten, 50% have already suffered the effects of tooth decay. Overall, 69% of Alameda County third graders have already had some experience with tooth decay, either treated or untreated. This figure is 64% higher than the established national Healthy People (HP) 2010 Objective of 42% or lower.2 Chart 1: Oral Health of Kindergarten Students, Alameda County, 2002 -2004 60 50 50 a) 40 30 24 20 a 10 0 _ Early Childhood Caries* Dental Disease Experience ** * Kindergarteners were assessed for ECC, defined as any decay experience on one or more of the six top, front teeth. ** Any treated or untreated decay Chart 2: Oral Health of Third Graders and the HP2010 National Objectives, Alameda County, 2002- 2004 rM 69 70 60 ® Alameda County ■ HP 2010 Objective 50 42 — - m 40 ! 31 U a- 30 21 20 ' 10 0 Dental Disease Untreated Dental Experience" Caries 2 Healthy People is managed by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional information on Healthy People 2010 can be obtained at the Healthy People web - site, www.healthypeople.gov. Overall 32% of Alameda County third graders have had the protective benefit of dental sealants in contrast to the Healthy People 2010 ob- jective of 50 %. The proportion of Alameda County third grad- ers with protective dental sealants decreased as school poverty level increased. In schools where 50% or more of students are in the free and reduced lunch pro- gram, only 21 % of third grad- ers had sealants. In schools where fewer than 25% of stu- dents are in the free and re- duced lunch program, 47% of third graders had sealants. This relationship suggests that access to preventive den- tal treatment is related to fam- ily income. Recommendations: A. Fund expansion of school - and community -based pre- ventive dental programs. B. Expand funding of school - based dental sealant pro- grams - California Chil- dren's Dental Disease Pre- vention Program for unin- sured, low- income children. C. Promote the widespread application of dental seal- ants, particularly for children at risk for dental caries, by reducing professional and personal barriers. Chart 6: Percentage of Third Graders with Dental Sealants by School Poverty Status, Alameda County, 2002 -2004 50 45 40 35 a, 30 25 ri 20 15 10 5 0 47 <25% 29 25-49% 71 > =50% % Students Free or Reduced School Lunch Chart 7: Percentage of Third Graders with Dental Sealants, Alameda County, 2002 -2004, Compared to HP 2010 Sealant Objective 0 50 40 m 32 30 U N CL 20 10 0 -- Alameda County 14 50 HP 2010 Objective 1`2A 411 A zkr NO-Y "A N -,PM, 'A3 siU -:D ARM W!, N izA 4P. u Mr -- -- -- ------ -41 "� w 3 Wf7 xJS .41 t, -'j;F 4tS jw, gg. U -�; W-o C-2 rwF-,.. ji� L:N! p" 37 a i O-Unt ..",lRd" p I y 11 i 9� 31 41 51 i 6� 7 8 9 10i 11 12 13 14 15 161 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0- e Butte 8.3% $7.56 $90.72 $94.05 Yontere-y 10.0% $8.67 $ 104.04 $99.26 AVERAGE 0.1%-10% $8.51 $102.08 $102.561 Orange 11.0% $13.52 $162.24 $172.43 Santa Clara 12.0% $11.89 $142.68 $150.55 Yuba 13.0% $9.23 $110.76 $123.23 Del Norte 16.0% $6.02 $72.24 $58.76 San Luis Obispo 20.0% $7.78 $93.36 $93.66 Placer 24.0% $9.57 $114.84 $113.86 Sierra 33.0% $2.67 $32.04 $34.13 Humboldt 35.0% $5.68 $68.16 $71.47 Merced 39.0% $8.41 $100.92 $75.57 AVERAGE 1 1 % -40% $8.31 $99.69 $99.30 San Mateo 62.0% Not Available Not Available $100.67 Marin 63.0% $8.11 $97.32 $96.43 Solano 83.0% Not Available Not Available $102.70 AVERAGE 41%-90% $8.11 $97.32 $96.43 Alameda 91.1% $9.07 $108.84 $104.72 Contra Costa 99.0% $10.65 $127.80 $115.29 San Francisco 100.0% $12.07 $144.84 $143.98 AVERAGE 91%-100% $10.60 $127.16 $121.33 'if the figures for a specific county were not available in 1995, since they could not be used in the calculation of the 1995 average, they were left out of the calculation of the 1994 average also. 4. This court can easily verify that the values in the above table are taken directly from California Department of Health Services' records (Exhibit ). For example, in the above table, the figure for Alameda County in the third column of the above table is 59.07. This corresponds to the value in the right -hand column headed " COST PER ELIGIBLE" (under the larger heading "MONTHLY AVERAGE ") across from the row labeled "DENTIST" first table of Exhibit _ (Alameda County). This value, 9.07, refers to total dental costs per eligible recipient in Alameda County per month. The figure in the fourth column of the first of the above table is derived from taking the figure in column 3 and multiplying it by 12 to get the dental cost per recipient on a per year basis. Similarly, the figures for the percentages of fluoridation (which appear in column 2) for each of the counties is exactly the same as those listed for the State of California by the California State Department of Health Services (Exhibit �. 3 _ IIA% \ Preserving the perfect tooth You might think there isn't much to be said about dentists' attitudes toward and acceptance of pit and fissure sealants that hasn't already been said —and then re- peatedly debated. Despite 16 years of dis- cussion since the debut of sealants, only a small proportion of dentists believe in what the advocates of sealants say, and still a smaller number provide this service for all or even most of their pedodontic patients. This underuse has become a "Catch -22" situation: few dentists pro- vide sealants because few patients de- mand sealants because, in turn, few den- tists recommend sealants. Although dentists' disbelief in the pre- ventive value of sealants may be a major reason for their underwhelming accep- tance, it certainly isn't the only one. Sur- vey reports by the ADA's Health Founda- tion contain long lists of reasons dentists cite to justify their not using sealants. As recently as 1982, the most popular ex- cuses, in preferential order, were that "they don't last very long in the mouth," "it is possible to seal in decay," and "placing occlusal fillings is preferred." A 1981 conference was arranged by the Council on Dental Materials, Instru- ments, and Equipment specifically to examine these and other concerns, such as reimbursement. Remedies for the underuse of sealants were recommended at that time. Apparently the prescribed medicine hasn't taken hold. You'd think this dissension within our profession would discourage even the most die -hard advocates of sealants. Yet, in reading this month's "Emphasis," you'll see that just the opposite is true. Data from years of clinical evaluations now corroborate unequivocally the caries - preventive efficacy of intact seal- ants. Numerous investigations show that properly placed sealants have a high re- tention rate and allay fears of incidental entrapment of cariogenic bacteria. We now know much more about the clinical techniques and indications for sealant application, and the cost - effectiveness of the procedure in both private and community-based preventive programs. The proponents of dental sealants have also been buoyed by several recent au- thoritative reports. In May 1971, JADA published the first report on sealants by the Council on Dental Materials, Instru- ments, and Equipment. Twelve years later in September 1983, the latest in this series was published. Reconfirming its position that pit and fissure sealants are safe and effective, the Council adds that sealants "... should be used as a part of a total caries - preventive program that also includes, among others, optimum fluo- ride treatment and restricted frequency of refined carbohydrate intake." Another report, this time from a Con- sensus Development Conference con- vened by the National Institutes of Health, appeared in last month's JADA. Developed by a panel of practicing den- tists, biomedical investigators, academi- cians, a dental hygienist, a statistician, and representatives from public interest groups, the report concludes, in part, that sealants are both safe and "highly effec- tive," and urges that". . . intensive efforts should be undertaken to increase sealant use." Perhaps the most compelling factor favoring increased use of sealants, how• ever, is the changing character of dental disease itself. Because of the remarkable success of fluoride use in caries preven- tion, particularly on smooth tooth sur- faces, dental caries has become primarily a disease of pits and fissures of teeth. It is estimated that 84% of the caries expen ence in the 5- to 17- ear -old o ulation involves toot surfaces wi its an is• sures. Although uori es cannot a ex- pected appreciably to reduce our Tnc Bence of caries on these su aces, sea ants can. The addition of pit and fissure sealants, as indicated, to comprehensive caries prevention programs holds the promise that many of our patients will enter their adult years with absolutely cariesfree mouths. It means that we have reached a time when we should view our wondrous restorations of teeth as, first and foremost. failures of caries prevention. It means that we and our patients must come to realize fully the inestimable value of teeth that have never required restoration. The ultimate example of the art and sci- ence of dentistry is the perfect tooth. I 1�j JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATI04 aae • iADA, Vol. tUe. March t96a V01.108, P.448, March 1984 Pit and Fissure Tooth Decay and Fluoridation "Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the.chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all, permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986 -87." The Oral Health of Cafifornia's Children A NEGLECTED EPIDEMIC: Selected Findings and Recommendations from the California Oral Health.Needs Assessment.of Children, 1993 -94. p. 14. "Because the'surface- specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pitsand. fissures (chewing, surfaces) of children's teeth; those surfaces'that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride." Letter, August 81, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H. Director Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC,) Atlanta GA to Congressman Kenneth Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Washington, D.C. "Nearly 90 percent of cavities in schoolchildren occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective." Facts. From The National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, Minnesota. ' May 28, 1992. "Let me begin by saying that fluorides are most effective in preventing decay-On the smooth surfaces of teeth. However, the chewing surfaces.of posterior are not smooth. They have crevices .and pits' and it is our,experience that fluorides don't really get access to these pitted areas." Hearings: Subcommittee of the,Committee on Appropriations, House of.Representatives. March 1984. Dr. Harald Loe, Director of the National.Institute of Dental Research: "Fluoridation and the use of.other fluorides have been saccessful'in decreasing the prevalence, of :dental caries on the smooth surfaces of teeth. Unfortunately, these efforts have much less effect on dental caries that occur in the pits and fssures'of teeth (particularly on the biting „surfaces of teeth) where more than 85 percent ofdentO caries now occur.” Toward: Improving the Oral Health of Americans. Public Health Reports.Vol 108; No 6. Nov 1993. "The program focused on four caries- prevention techniques: sealants, a plastic-like coating applied to the chewing surfaces of back teeth and to pits and fissures on the sides of teeth (these surfaces are most prone to decay and ones which fluorides cannot'protect adequately) ". Dental study upsets the accepted wisdom. Science News. Vol. 125,. No. 1. Jan.7, 1984. "It is estimated that 84% of the caries experience in, the 5 to 17 Year -old population involves tooth surfaces with pits and fissures. Although fluorides cannot be expected appreciably to reduce our incidence of caries on these-surfaces, sealants can." Preserving the perfect tooth. Editorial. JAmerican Dental Association Vol. 108. March 1.9 84. "The type of caries now seen in British Columbia's children of 13 years of age, is mostly the pit and fissure type. Knudsen in 1940, suggested that 70 percent of the caries in children was in pits and fissures. Recent reports indicate that today, 83 percent of all caries in North American children is of this type. Pit,and fissure cavities aren't considered to be preventable by fluorides, they are prevented by sealants." Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? No. 10, 1987. References available: Maureen Jones (408) 297 -8487 A.S. Gray, DDS, FRCD(C), JCanadian Dental Asso. r' Baby Bottle Tooth Decay aka Early Childhood Caries: After decades of promoting water fluoridation.for the sake of disadvantaged children, the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry announced on December 18, 2008 they had received a record $24. million from the National Institutes of Health to fight early childhood caries, also known as `baby bottle tooth decay" or "nursing caries ". Published dental literature has long noted fluoridation's failure: 1) Auge. K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl's smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.) "Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents' propensity to let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of sleep -over parly for mouth bacteria." said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6- year -old with decayed upper teeth. Dr. Brad Smith,.a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children's Hospital did 2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and it is especially pervasive among children in poor families. 2) Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race /Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003. Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping milk /sweet substance was among Latinos /Hispanics (72 % among Head Start and 65% among non -HS) and HS Asians (56 %0). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water. 3) California Department of Health Services. Maternal and Child Health Branch, 1995; Our Children's Teeth: Beyond Brushing and Braces. 33% of Head Start children and 13% of non -Head Start.preschool children had Early Childhood Caries /Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD)., 1) In non - fluoridated urban regions. 40% of Hispanic preschool children had BBTD. 2) In fluoridated urban regions. 45% of Asian Head Start preschool children had BBTD. 4) Allukian. M. Symposium. Oral Disease: The Neglected Epidemic - What Can Be Done? Introduction: Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993. "Oral Disease is still a neglected epidemic in our country, despite.improvements in oral health due to fluoridation, other forms of fluorides, and better access to dental J care. Consider the following: 50 percent of Head Start children have had baby bottle tooth decay." (Bullet #5 of 8.) 5) Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167 - 73,1992. By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three ofthe four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5- year -olds was significantly higher than for 3- year -olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total- sample or other variables. 6) Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. J Pub Health Dent, 47:94 -97, 1987. The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53 %. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites survey 7) Watson MR et al. Caries conditions among 2 -5- year -old immigrant Latino children related to parents' oral health knowledge, opinions and practices. Community Dent Oral Epid; 27: 8 -15, 1999. The finding of 47% of the children having experienced dental caries in their primary teeth does not differ greatly with other studies of low socioeconomic status and racial ethnic groups. (Washington D.C. has been fluoridated since 1952.) 88) Weinstein P et al. Mexican - American parents with children at risk for baby bottle tooth decay: Pilot study at a migrant farmworkers clinic. J Dent for Children; 376 -83, Sept -Oct, 1992. Overall, 37 of the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD. Compliance in putting fluoride drops in bottle once a day was identical between BBTD and non BBTD groups. 9) Bruerd B et al. Preventing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: Eight -Year Results. Public Health Reports: 111,• 63 -65, 1996. In 1986, a program to prevent BBTD was implemented in 12 Head Start centers in 10 states. In three years BBTD decreased from 57% to 43 %. Funding was discontinued in 1990. 10) Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers.. Pediatric Nursing; 21:515 -519, 1995. "Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply." 11) Blen M et al. Dental caries in children under age three attending a university clinic. Pediatric Dentistry; 21:261- 64,1999. Of 369 children who attended the University of Texas - Houston Health Center (Houston is fluoridated), 56% between 2 and 3 years old. had decay. Among the 3 year olds, 46% had more than three decayed teeth. The children without decay were weaned.from the bottle "at an average age of 10 months. Those with severe decay were weaned at 16.9 months. 12) KoW D. City to launch battle against dental 'crisis'. Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 1999. 18% of children 4 years old and younger seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby bottle tooth decay. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. Boston was fluoridated in 1978. 13) Thakib AA et.al. Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future dental caries. Pediatric Dentistry; 19 :37- 41,1997. In summary, initial primary incisor caries is a risk factor for developing future carious, extracted, and restored teeth. 14) Duperon DF. Early Childhood Caries: A Continuing Dilemma. CA DentAssocj; 23: 15 -25, 1995. The primary precipitating factor for this 100 year old problem is prolonged use of the bottle or breast past 9 to 12 months of age. North American Indians have reported an incidence of 53 percent,.Inuit (Eskimo) children have shown a 60 %- 65% incidence and Mexican American migrant farm workers, 30 %. PIT AND FISSURE TOOTH DECAY "Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay.in U.S. children in 1986 -87." Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993194 California Oral Health NeedsAssessment "Because the surface - specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children's teeth; those surfaces that:are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride." Letter, August 8, 2000, from feff'rey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDCAtlanta GA. "Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective." Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5192. THE DECEPTION Fluoridation has historically been "sold" to politicians and civic leaders by using photos of rampant Baby Bottle /Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of 'strep mutan bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay. 50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle /Sippy Cup tooth decay from high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A.. steady source of sugar is supplied to the bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria's acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the permanent teeth. In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993 -94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers -of- the- Well.org, #17 Effectiveness) and stated in her critique: 1) For preschool children, ... any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and, 2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing, dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless. and, 3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought.to be more prone to developing caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for both preschool and elementary children. The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of elementary school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit! Maureen Jones Citizens for Safe Drinking Water _ www.Keepers -of- the- Well.org 1205 Sierra Ave. San Jose, CA 95126 408 297 -8487 6 WHrrFORD ADv DENT REY IUNE 1994 (ca. 10%) than those in plasma, whereas the concentrations in parotid and submandibular ductal saliva are slightly lower. The concentrations in these oral fluids, however, change simultaneously and in proportion to those in plasma (Whitford, 1989). Fig. 2 shows the ductal salivary -to- plasma fluoride concentration ratios of five young adult humans after swallowing 10 mg fluoride as sodium fluoride (Whitford, 1989). The average pre -dose plasma concentration was 0.67 µmol/L, the average peak concentration, which occurred within the first hour, was 15.2 µmol/L, and the average after two hours was 12.4 µmol/L. In spite of the rapidly changing plasma concentrations and the fact that there is a brief lag - time when stimulated saliva is moving through the ductal system, the ratios fell within a narrow range. The average ratios for the submandibular and parotid secretions were 0.88 and 0.79, respectively. These data indicate that plasma fluoride concentrations can be closely estimated based on the analysis of ductal saliva. Parotid saliva is easily collected with the Lashley cup or some similar device. Collection of submandibular saliva (including some sublingual saliva) requires the fabrication of a customized collection device. Whole saliva has variable but higher fluoride concentrations than ductal saliva that do not correlate well with plasma concentrations which is probably due to exogenous contamination from food, water, dental products, etc., and fluoride that may migrate from dental plaque. The literature appears to contain no data concerning the fluoride concentrations of the oral minor mucous glands. Renal Excretion After about 50% of an ingested fluoride dose has been absorbed, plasma concentrations decline rapidly. This is due to renal excretion and uptake by calcified tissues. Fluoride is 1.c � O.S u 0 E 0.E 0 a 0.7 U_ Li 0 —' 0.6 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Hours After 10 mg F Dose Fig. 2— Ductal saliva -to- plasma fluoride concentration ratios for two hours after ingestion of 10 mg of fluoride (Whitford, 1989; reproduced with permission). freely filtered through the glomerular capillaries and then undergoes a variable degree of tubular re- absorption. Among the halogens, the renal clearance of fluoride is unusually high. The clearances of chloride, iodide, and bromide in healthy young or middle -aged adults are generally less than 1 or 2 mUmin, whereas that of fluoride is about 35 mUmin. The range of values among individuals within a given study, however, is high. Waterhouse et al. (1980) reported a range of from 28 to 52 mL/min, and Schiffl and Binswanger (1982) reported a range from 12 to 71 mLJmin. These investigators did not attempt to determine why the clearances differed so much. Other studies with humans and laboratory animals, however, have found that fluoride renal clearance is directly related to glomerular filtration rate (Spak et al., 1985), urinary pH (Whitford et al., 1976; Ekstrand et al., 1982), and, under some conditions, flow rate (Chen et al., 1956). Like the gastric absorption and migration across cell membranes of fluoride, the mechanism for the tubular re- absorption appears to be the diffusion of HF. Thus, factors such as the composition of the diet, certain drugs and metabolic or respiratory disorders, and the altitude of residence that affect urinary pH have been shown or can be expected to affect the metabolic balance and tissue concentrations of fluoride (Whitford, 1989). The effect can be profound. In a 30- day study with rats that were acidotic, "normolotic ", or alkalotic, the fluoride concentrations in plasma and incisor developing enamel were about twice as high in the acidotic group as in the alkalotic group, while those of the control group were intermediate (Whitford and Reynolds, 1979). While there appears to be no information on the renal handling of fluoride in the elderly, there is some for young children. Spak et al. (1985) concluded that their data from 4- to -l8- year -old patients "... suggest that children have lower renal fluoride clearance rates than adults ..." They thought that their findings were due to a higher extra -renal clearance by the developing bones of the children, an effect which has been demonstrated clearly in growing rats and dogs (Whitford, 1989). Ekstrand et al. (1992) studied the renal clearance and retention of orally administered fluoride in infants whose ages ranged from 38 to 411 days. They reported that the percentage of the dose that was retained, i.e., not excreted in the urine, increased as the dose (adjusted for body weight) increased. This suggested a dose - dependen mechanism for fluoride uptake by calcified tissues, a phenomenon not known to occur in adults. Overall, an average of 86.8% of the dose was retained by the infants, which is about 50% higher than would be expected for adults. The renal clearance values ranged from 3.8 to 9.3 mUmin. They concluded that "... the pharmacokinetics of fluoride in infants reveal(s) a completely different pattern compared to what has been found in adults." There is a clear need for more information about the renal handling and general metabolism of fluoride in young children and the elderly. Fluoride in Calcified Tissues Approximately 99 %D of the body burden of fluoride is associated with calcified tissues. The fluoride concentration INTAKE AND METABOLISM OF FLUORIDE G.M. WHITFORD Department of Oral Biology School of Dentistry Medical College of Georgia Augusta, Georgia 30912-1129 Adv Dent Res 8(1):5 -14, June, 1994 Abstract —The purpose of this paper is to discuss the maj . factors that determine the body' burden of inorganic fluoride Fluoride intake 25 or more years ago was determined main] by measurement of the concentration of the ion in th drinking water supply. This is not necessarily true toda because of .ingestion from fluoride - containing denta products, the "halo effect", the consumption of bottled water and the use of water •purification systems in the home Therefore, the concentration of fluoride in drinking water may not be a reliable indicator of previous intake. Under most, conditions, fluoride is rapidly and extensively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. The rate of gastric absorption is inversely related to the pH of the gastric contents. Overall absorption is reduced by calcium and certain other cations and by elevated plasma fluoride' levels. Fluoride removal from plasma occurs by calcified tissue uptake and urinary excretion. About 99% of the body burden of fluoride is associated with calcified tissues, and most of it is not exchangeable. In general, the clearance of fluoride from plasma by the skeleton is inversely related to the stage of skeletal development. Skeletal uptake, however,. can be positive or negative, depending on the level of fluoride intake, hormonal status, and other factors. Dentin fluoride concentrations tend to increase throughout life and appear to ;be similar to those in bone. Research to determine whether dentin is a reliable biomarker for the body burden of fluoride is recommended. The renal clearance of fluoride is high compared with other halogens. It is directly related to urinary pH. Factors that acidify the urine increase the retention of fluoride and vice. versa. The renal clearance of fluoride decreases and tissue levels increase when the glomerular filtration rate is depressed on a chronic basis. This manuscript was presented during a Workshop on Methods far Assessing Fluoride Accumulation and Effects in the Body, sponsored by the National Institute of Dental Research (Bethesda, MD), January 13 -15, 199.3. This work was supported in part by USPHS Research Grants DE- .06113 and DE -06429 from the National Institute of Dental Research; National. Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892. FLUORIDE INTAKE The major sources of fluoride in the United States are food, drinking water, beverages, and' fluoride - containing dental products (Myers; 1978; Burt, 1992). The atmosphere carries some fluoride, but it supplies only a small fraction of the daily exposure except in heavily polluted areas (Hodge and Smith, 1977). Most foods have fluoride concentrations less than 0.5 ppm (raves, 1983), the major exception being marine fish, which have concentrations that from about 6 to 27 ppm (Muhler, 1970). Most drinking water supplies to which fluoride is not added in controlled amounts have or concentrations less than 0.3 ppm, but- a few have levels.in the e. 4 =6 -ppm range, particularly in the southwest and north y central states (Centers for Disease Control, 1985). The e recommended concentration range is 0.7 -1.2 ppm, depending y on the average regional temperature. Approximately 55% of 1 the US population is served with water containing fluoride within this range. The lower levels are recommended for warmer regions where water intake tends to be higher (Galagan andVermillion, I957): Beverages include soft drinks, fruit juices and drinks, tea, and Gatorade as well as several others consumed less frequently. Beverage fluoride concentrations reflect those in the water used for preparation. In general, they range from 0.1 to about 1.4 ppm except for tea,• which contains up to 7 ppm (Clovis and Hargreaves, 1988; Pang et al., 1992). Dental products have fluoride concentrations that range from 230 ppm in over - the- counter �ritouthrinses to 12,300 ppm in APF gels which are applied topically to the teeth by dental professionals'. Toothpastes, the most frequently used dental products, contain fluoride at 1000 -1500 ppm either as sodium fluoride or disodium monofluorophosph ate. The average daily intake of dietary fluoride by young children whose water supplyis optimally fluoridated is approximately 0.5 mg or 0.04 -0.07 mg/kg per day (McClure, 1943; Ophaug et al., 1980a,b, 1985; Featherstone and Shields, 1988). It was determined in the 1930's and 1940's that this intake range was "optimal" in that it provided a high degree of protection against denial caries and a I.ow prevalence of dental fluorosis. There is no reason to think that the effect of this level of intake would be any different today than it was 50 years ago. Table 1 summarizes the results from several studies that determined dietary fluoride intake data for various age groups. Intake by infants depends mainly on whether they are fed breast milk or a formula. Human. breast rnilk contains only a trace, of fluoride and provides less than 0.01 mg/day. Infants fed breast milk can be in a negative, fluoride balance for some time, which indicates a net loss from bones and probably teeth (Ekstrand et al., 1984). Ready -to -feed formulas generally contain fluoride at less than 0.4 ppm (Johnson and Bawden, 1987; McKnight =Hanes et al., 1988), while formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water C 4 City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. 1 would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes Support Date: e- C�- Name: Z L1,11 cl J /ti Group /Organization: :t L ► n r y No -5E- Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral a cq / Address:(optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smooth/V, but Vou are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. Agenda ItemP Yes Support Date: Name: jp Group /Organization: Address: (optional) _ Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) No Agenda Item n, Oppose Neutral (?\. AS c-- ber h5 I Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. • Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. • Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record, In accordance with the Public Records Act, anv information you provide on this form is available to the public. You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson, • City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. City of Saratoga Spoaker Card Please Note- City.Council meetings arg,both, liveand delayed broadcast. an in de. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. 1" ` Q / �(Q, Ore I woUldlike to speak about: - - - --- - - V Agenda Item? Ye,s No Agenda. Item n,U_Mb,.eK_ tuppoit, qO00SO Neutral Date; Name: .- W1 Grouplorganizatiow Address- ('optional) U Telephone,(bptional),_ Email; ,(optional) Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. • Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. • Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson, City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide anV information Vou do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would li Agenda Item? Yes Nom— Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. • Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. • Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson, • City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. City of Saratoga Speaker Card Please Note City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. --r- sj.- *;Hn r,m cmnnfhly_ but you are not required to Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. F /G I would like to speak about: _ V Agenda Item? Yes Support Date: 1 2 _ S Name: No ZAgenda Item number Op "pose Neutral Group /Organization: Address:(optional) Telephone :(optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information Vou do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes Support Date: Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) _ Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) No I Agenda Item nW,6er. Oppose Neutral ,i�►1 (" v [.� a, f�j � S O01M � 1M Cm _ ne.3 tage&M4 Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. • Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. • Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public, You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson. City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.