HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-117 Pet Prevent-A-Care CUP 12/1/86
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMATION:
CITY OF DUBLIN'
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December I, 1986
Planning Commission
Planning Staff t' tr
PA 86-117 Pet Prevent-A-Care Conditional Use
Permit for Mobile Pet Vaccination Clinics.
PROJECT:
APPLICANT AND
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
PARCEL SIZE:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING:
ITEM NO.
3 if
Conditional Use Permit request to operate a
mobile pet clinic on four separate days within
the parking lot of the Village Square Shopping
Center.
Randal A. Morrison, Vice President/
General Manager
Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc.
4122 South Moorland Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Alpha Beta Stores
P.O, Box 4903
Fremont, CA 94539
Village Square Shopping Center
Northeast Corner of the Intersection of
Amador Valley Bouelvard and Village Parkway
941-197-79
C-I, Retail Business District
Commercial/Industrial - Retail/Office
North: R-l-B-E, Single Family Residential
District - Church and Parking Lot
South: C-N, Neighborhood Business District
(AM-PM Convenience Mart - Service
Station) and R-l, Single Family
Residential District - Residential Uses)
East &
West:
R-I-B-E, Single Family Residential
District - Residential Uses
COPIES TO:
Applicant
Owner
File PA 86-117
ZONING HISTORY:
Two mobile pet vaccination clinic operators (Pet Prevent-A-Care and Pet
Medical Service) have operated mobile pet clinics on a regular basis in Dublin
since 1977. Locations have included the Payless, Gemco and K-Mart (presently
Pac 'n Save) parking lots. The Applicant indicates that Pet Prevent-A-Care
has held a total of 28 clinics in Dublin since 1977. Mobile pet vaccination
clinics carrying City of Dublin approvals include the following.
On September 10, 1982, the Zoning Administrator approved an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit for a mobile pet clinic in the Gemco
parking lot, which was held on September 18, 1982 (PA 82-017).
On December 27, 1982, the Zoning Administrator approved a mobile pet
clinic in the Gemco parking lot, which was held on January 9, 1983
(PA 82-038).
On January 6, 1983, the Planning Commission approved four mobile pet
clinics in the Gemco parking lot (PA 82-035).
On April 7, 1983, and May 16, 1983, respectively, the Zoning
Administrator approved Administrative Conditional Use Permits for mobile pet
clinics (Pet Medical Service) which were respectively held May 22, 1983, and
April 17, 1983, in the Pay1ess Drug Store parking lot (PA 83-010 and PA 83-
020).
On September 12, 1983, the City Council, through an appeal, overturned a
Planning Commission denial of a Conditional Use Permit for four mobile pet
clinics (Pet Medical Service) in the Payless Drug Store parking lot
(PA 83-037). The approved dates for the clinics were September 18, 1983,
November 20, 1983, January IS, 1984, and March 18, 1984.
On September 17, 1983, the Zoning Administrator approved an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit for a mobile pet clinic in the K-Mart
parking lot, which was held on September 17, 1983 (PA 83-051).
On December 5, 1983, the Planning Commission approved four mobile pet
clinics for the K-Mart parking lot. The approved dates for the clinics were
January 8, 1984, April 7, 1984, May 2, 1984, and September 14, 1984
(PA 83-055).
The Zoning Administrator approved an Admnistrative Conditional Use
Permit for a mobile pet clinic at the Pac 'n Save parking lot, held on
September 14, 1985 (PA 85-075),
On January 24, 1986, the Planning Director approved an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit for a mobile pet clinic at the Pac 'n Save parking lot,
which was held on February 1, 1986 (PA 86-008).
On May 5, 1986, the Planning Commission approved three clinics for the
Pac 'n Save parking lot (PA 86-027). The decision was appealed by a member of
the City Council, but the Applicant withdrew his application before an action
on the appeal could be rendered by the City Council.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
In 1983, in conjunction with the review of the mobile pet clinic request
from Pet Medical Services (PA 83-037), the Planning Department made the
determination that four clinics were not considered a temporary use;
therefore, Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit
application was required.
Section 8-48.2 (c) requires that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained
for animal hospitals and kennels.
-2-
Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to
determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need;
2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the
use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the
specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid
only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and
observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following
matters:
a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings;
b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities;
c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the
proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall
lapse and be void;
d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including
the posting of a bond; and
e) compliance wih requirements of other departments of the City/County
Government.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Categorically Exempt
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the December I, 1986, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is proposing to operate four separate mobile pet clinics
in the Village Square Shopping Center parking lot located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway,
The first proposed date, December 7, 1986, cannot be approved under this
permit as the permit cannot become effective any sooner than December 12,
1986. The dates of the remaining three clinics requested by the Applicant are
as follows: Saturday, January 31, 1987, Sunday, April 26, 1987, and Saturday,
August 29, 1987,
The Pet Prevent-A-Care mobile pet vaccination clinics are intended as a
low-cost cat and dog vaccination service. The Applicant indicates that the
fees charged are approximately one-third the rate charged by conventional
clinics (see Attachment #l).
The clinics typically last three hours and occupy a 65' X 35' area of
the parking lot. The physical features of the clinic include a van and 23'
travel trailer and tables for registration.
Pet Prevent-A-Care has a record of providing low-cost mobile pet clinics
in Dublin since 1977 with no record of complaints or problems associated with
the operation of these clinics received from private citizens. Starting with
the Conditional Use Permit request processed for Pet Medical Service in 1983,
local veterinarians have regularly voiced opposition to the approval of the
mobile pet clinics.
-3-
Local veterinarians have indicated that they do not believe the mobile
clinics are in the best interest of the City or local veterinarians. Local
veterinarians' concerns voiced in the past include:
I, Mobile clinics do not pay property or sales taxes.
2, Mobile clinics do not employ local residents.
3, Permitting mobile clinics provides them with a competitive edge over
local veterinarians.
4. Mobile clinics do not provide follow up medical service,
Attached is a letter signed by six local veterinarians which was
received by the Planning Department in February, preceding approval of the
February 1, 1986, mobile pet clinic Administrative Conditional Use Permit
(PA 86-008), The local veterinarians have previously recommended that the
City of Dublin adopt an ordinance prohibiting mobile pet clinics, Local
veterinarians have offered a low cost pet vaccination service at least once
since the last mobile pet clinic was operated (February, 1986).
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the mobile pet clinics in the City
by requiring approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit or
Conditional Use Permit, depending upon the number of clinics proposed. This
provision allows the City to apply conditions to the project to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses.
It has been, and remains, Staff's position that the mobile pet clinics
provide an important service to the community by offering low cost and
convenient pet vaccinations, encouraging individuals to vaccinate their pets,
thereby reducing the potential for rabies and other diseases, The City
Council has supported this position in the past, finding that the use provides
a service to the community in that it provides low-cost pet vaccinations (see
Background Attachment #9 - Portions of Minutes from City Council Meeting of
September 12, 1983).
Alameda County Animal Control has previously advised Staff that the
County does not provide a low-cost vaccination service,
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing,
Hear Staff presentation.
Hear Applicant and public presentations.
Close public hearing.
Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit,
ACTION:
Staff recommends the Plannng Commission adopt the attached
Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit application
PA 86-117.
-4-
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit PA 86-117
Exhibit B - Conditional Use Permit Submittals for PA 86-117
Background Attachments:
1 - Applicant's Written Statement
2 - Authorization Letter Dated September 23, 1986: Alpha Beta Director
of Services Agreement for Use of Property
3 - Zoning Map
4 - Letter Dated February 5, 1986: Local Veterinarians
5 - November 10, 1986, Letter from Dublin Chamber of Commerce
6 - November 25, 1986, Letter from City of Dublin Responding to Dublin
Chamber of Commerce Letter of November 10, 1986
7 - Staff Report - Los Angeles City Planning Department (March 29, 1984)
Regarding a Proposed Ordinance Amendment Permitting Mobile
Veterinary Medical Facilities on a Temporary Basis (with Cover
Letter Dated May 9, 1986, from City Clerk, City of Los Angeles)
8 - Portions of Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of May 5, 1986,
Pertaining to PA 86-027 Pet Prevent-A-Care Conditional Use Permit
Request
9 - Portions of Minutes from City Council Meeting of September 12, 1983,
Pertaining to PA 83-037 Pet Medical Service - Appeal of Planning
Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit Request
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 86 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 86-117 PET PREVENT-A-CARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR FOUR MOBILE PET CLINICS IN THE VILLAGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT,
NORTHEAST CORNER OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Pet Prevent-A-Care has filed an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of four low-cost pet vaccination
clinics to be held, one each, on: December 7, 1986, January 31, 1987,
April 26, 1987, and August 29, 1987, in the Village Square Shopping Center
parking lot at the northeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village
Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
application on December 1, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
prov~s~ons of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to
be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Staff has submitted a Staff Report recommending
approval of the Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
a) The use is required by the public need in that it provides a low-cost
pet vaccination service to the community and provides a service which
is not provided to the community by any public agency.
b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation
and service facilities in the vicinity in that daytime activities will
be commensurate with present use of the properties in the neighborhood.
c) The use under all the circumstances and conditions of this particular
case will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood as all applicable regulations will be met.
d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or perfor-
mance standards established for the district in which it is to be
located in that the proposed use will be compatible with adjoining uses
and will not obstruct vehicular traffic.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby
conditionally approve said application as shown by materials from the Planning
Commission Staff Report of December 1, 1986, labeled Exhibit B, and Background
Attachment 1, on file with the Dublin Planning Department subject to the
following conditions:
r~J'~ ""l=-:~'T
, ,.'
, , ,
1:..._-;.......;. C_.,~ -..- _, ..__.....,..~ :.;.,
A-
{UF
P~A1fJ!t9Lv1iO,J {Of
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with
prior to the establishment of the proposed land use activity, and shall be
sub;ect to Planning Department review and approval.
1. Layout and operation of the four mobile pet vaccination clinics shall be
as generally depicted on the site plan and as described by the
Applicant's Written Statement, both submitted with the application and
dated received by the Planning Department on October 22, 1986.
2. The clinics shall be held on Saturday, January 21, 1987, Sunday,
April 26, 1987, and Saturday, August 29, 1987. The date of the final,
fourth clinic shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director a minimum of 30 days prior to that clinic being held. If
alternate dates, in place of some or all of the three dates cited above
are requested, written authorization for the modified dates shall be
secured from the property owner and submitted as part of the request for
clinic date modification, which must be submitted for Planning Director
review and approval a minimum of 30 days prior to any proposed, modified
clinic date.
3. The Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning
Department the proposed hours of operation for each clinic. Submittal
shall be at least five working days in advance of holding the proposed
clinic.
4. A licensed veterinarian shall examine each animal prior to vaccination
and the vaccination shall be administered in compliance with the
California Administrative Code.
5. Each animal owner is to receive a receipt stating the date of the
vaccination, the type of vaccine, the lot number of the vaccine, the
veterinarian that examined the animal, and the person administering the
vaccine. Each animal owner shall also be supplied the address and
emergency phone number of a licensed veterinarian who could be contacted
in the event the animal becomes ill after the vaccination.
6. Any trash or litter resulting from the clinic shall be removed
immediately following the clinic.
7. All syringes and needles are to be moved by the Applicant to an approved
disposal site.
8. Signing is permitted on the clinic day only. Signing shall be located
in the Village Square Shopping Center parking lot only, and shall not
visually block the traffic aisles. Signage shall be restricted to use
of two 24 sq. ft. signs.
9. Main traffic aisles shall be kept free of obstructions. Customer
parking shall be located in designated parking stalls only.
10, The Applicant and Clinic Staff shall make all reasonable efforts to
facilitate dog licensing applications.
II. Within 30 days of each respective clinic, the Applicant shall provide
the Planning Staff with a survey of the place of residence of those
people utilizing the vaccination service.
12. All activities shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the
existing retail use or customers.
13. A certificate of insurance naming the City of Dublin as additional
insured in the amount of one million dollars shall be posted with the
City prior to conducting the clinics.
14. At any time during the effectiveness of this approval, the approval
shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the
Dubln Zoning Ordinance.
-2-
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of December, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Director
-3-
Planning Commission Chairperson
AMADOR VALLE...Y 8LVD.
., -0
'4 }
o -
;0 L
P1 -I
~
r- 0
~ Ii)
/-<;.
'2:
f>\
i\I
U)
~
}:>
r--.... r-
<:. 1)
P I
(>
P )>
L
-\ t:U
'\.......- J1i
~
~ G' =rJ
): ~
-\(j\
o
Z
~\\\\\\~
\\\\\\
7ClU.-
tn 1'< '"
'!\ f' 0
t~Z
\\~\~\~\\~
~ \ \ \ \ \~~ \~0
,\ \ \ \ \ \
(\ ""\\ \ \,\\\\ \ \ \ \ \
~ \ \~ \\ \ \ \ \~~~~ \\~~~
\\, \ \\\\ \
\\~~\~~~~~\\~\~\~
~-IL
V. :x:)>
-\ Il\ f"
<:: "
~a1
)> 0 -
t )c ~
-(
~~~\~\\\\\;\~\\~\\~\\~~~~
~~\\\~\~~~~-
~~;\~~~\~~\~~~\\\\\\\\\\~
~'~~\~~~\~\~~~\\\\\\\~~
) \ \ \ \') \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \i\ \ \ \ \ 'I
' I SM)/.-l-- $Hhps
['l~ ~{, r~ f)
'..D. ,........' .,;~ .v..~._.-_~__ __~ .,'"
(UP -So6/YJ/1Tft-S
<.
r
r
)>
[jl
p1
~
}J
^
~
)>
~
. 1
i
,,- ....
I .... ....
, ........
.... . ....
-.... I
.... .... ,
....-1
I-
.1
;~~;}j~f~ -0i:.~X:'"
.-- . " - '.. ,~ ,.
/
'I
I. I .1 I- " .1
~
.......
I
~
!fife 11-. /f)atf/LL(j/ff
',,' C/-lNI6,~tY~"
'.
City Council Members:
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc.'s
mobile vaccination clinics in the parking lot of commercial centers. similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc. is a desired,
needed service. a community service, and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
PRINTED NAME
WRITTEN SIGNATURE
4(.;"
'15':1-- 81'75"
?;;7
~/(i<3' .?'
6.
7
, .
-,
10,
11.
12.
13.
16.',
2
"
City Council Members:
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc.'s
mobile vaccination clinics in the parking lot of commercial centers. similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc. is a desired.
needed service. a community service. and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
PRINTED NAME
WRITTEN SIGNATURE
rea cdcl1P~ #
J.
47/ - 13'Cs-
5.
<:~ - ',. -: :~~ ")0-;. / c
~./-..:.-.:... .~ J .j,t.- j
";,~i,'
3. -~T-'
I
1:..,,'
() p' i.~ -
1. ,,(.,,5
v ~ <
j.
. '. I.' , I
'-I (... (- " /...; _:oj
/')1'.- '/;.)./
/'t' .' ( ,'/' 1
~p-l9 - -'/('>
S"H
/:;' y-;~: - ./.~ .~-,'~~
Ii) t.....' . l
'-f-'f /- C' :)f;
... . ......- - {:
"'- '--...., '--.... - ~n <----.,,--.....
18./
I,
19.
,,~
, ,
-6], if
24.
2
City Council Members:
~
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc."s
mobile vaccination clinics 'in the parking lot of commercial centers, similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc. is a desired, .
needed service, a community service, and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
PRINTED NAME
WRITTEN SIGNATURE
rea ccfJ1PNf #
i-jl$ -
<]I '-/7- ;,;; < ~~-<,
0,4;'1 ~'~ d,,:U.,4tL
2.
3.
-,. ,
';'J-- /,
(, (c (,.-~,.,rt, k
"" ) ,
(:) _.r....... ,\.>
"\ ", I, r
~_ '"\....-' /;~ '- l-~
1->
if
"
I,'
9.
i
,',
~'i . '1
'! ,y
;' ,', ' '
.,..- ~
-x:: l({
,-,..",,!,-
.... -J
......'
r', I r
~L J.. j'- 1. --.
<;' ';, -
~ ~ --'~- "
~ _.' }';-. ---i,J, .
~ ,
, <t -
, ':,:, ~/i J...'}
',~ .~.... .,
\
/ "-..;
,/(// - /,'/
~ I ~....., ,~
~-----, .....
()c-'. (,{'I/-u~~i -:i~ I
)/
-~--.,/(; i
I/!/J
15.
1 r
.0.',
.1--). >., ~
.( -..". ~ ;' "7.. -i, ('< !
//~ . fJi:/~ it f;, /'
,; ", j c/:'______
'/ 4"/. /
."'~-
'-1/..-:;
!
;L", (T7 ~ <<< k...(
./
::...c,
Ij <:.....~- l.......~,~~"(:.'
V-+:-.;..:::
I I
(r '("
(
"r
./ /.
, I
";7-"'c':
- -f'
.\- -'.:~, 1.H
.-
./ 71
)
/
~ >/_~e:...
"
/7;
_.~.,A..;
" .'....... /
,,--
l ( ,,~
22. .:'>
....
f
'-""
St:
A" ')",
....,.....~v'
23. U, f2;~i4~-f~
24 '
'{~/ 1'/~)~1
25.
Sl 1'7 (1{r;' --jrH(' /,{ '(
II .~_.
I. c.' , x __
!/Jf 1,._...# ._ ,1 ;
nf~ t~ I"
I'
I (
..c{
City Council Members:
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc.'s
mobile vaccination clinics 1n the parking lot of commercial centers, similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc. is a desired,
needed service, a community service, and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
-
3.
WRITTEN ~IGNATURE
PRINTED NAME
2.
~.
:.1. _ I
') ~(.
6., i'\IGi./'-e
" --. .
'-- ~Ij(: _. ....~-:. ~
,/1)- Y-I3 - ~ 51 /.
-t1t-<l(.~(
, 1;- 8 'f.{- . /1)/ .,
If.. .- - '}''"':) .. .-. 7 .~lo
I : '7 ~ 6-- /.. '- .......
I, ,- / I '?."
f1~ 4-..2 - ,.>6:
(f /"; (I I
"'-- f:-)~"7"" --..
25.
~
0,
City Council Members:
We the undersigned support ,the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc.'s.
mobile vaccination clinics in the parking lot of commercial centers. similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc. is a desired.
needed service. a community service. and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
ADDRESS
treet & Clt
(',
.I
V9'y,/-7' V
~2b- 27&'5
h 7~-'f:fr-t
( !
'-'"
,f _;
~;,"-
(jL...()"
;., ~~'- ~_:.-
c: [) ;<.)? '~/\
L/ /-7- Q/,,':;',' /
7'(~ /~~
\.; ~
" co <50., <:..."/1_
,-.)~-:..' '....::,
VL/7-c,,;zb :.s
\"'/, - C' ;;.I)C/
23.
24.
, _ - r i' '\
City Council Members: K'\ \
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc.'s ~
mobile vaccination clinics 1n the parking lot of commercial centers, similar to ~
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc. is a desired,
needed service, a community service, and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
WRITTEN SIGNATURE
/
ADDRE.sS
treet & Clt
2- 718 (r.
cdJ1P1f #
Ifwi-SZ'-tc
l(' iJ '7 /?'''-,
"': . --. / /"'--
\
City Council Members:
.~
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc.'s
mobile vaccination c1 inics "in the parking lot of commercial centers. similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc. is a desired.
needed service. a community service. and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
PRINTED NAME
f,.J.s
:-r
2.
6 :'; A
.\ ,
, '-'
7. .
.,p " "
I' J/ "'" ,-7/'
3, !
L'0:A {2 L
9.
<."'i/'----~
YU? 1/,/-'
17 -7v.b-.-i
&- (~o:> <2.
L).I;'--; L i," /' ,--
,-/<''/_ .r -....... I '-..
.I ( ,- '__ '~---:)
()
24.
25.
~(,2-'190'-
,^-
"
City Council Members:
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc.'s
mobile vaccination clinics 'in the parking lot of commercial centers. similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care. Inc. is a desired.
needed service. a community service. and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
WRITTEN SIGNATURE
12.
13,
,
l .
15.
16,
,
1 .
18.
19.
2 .
21.
22.
23.
24.
2 .
City Council Members:
\
We the undersigned support the continued operation of Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc.'s
mobile vaccination clinics "in the parking lot of commercial centers, similar to
those they have frequented since 1978. Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc. is a desired,
needed service, a community service, and an excellent promotion for the commercial
sites that host their service.
PRINTED NAME
WRITTEN SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
treet & Clt
rea cdJWNf #
. Z Z~I
(iV 6, 'c/'v)
'/ ~s:'
y:..;? '~I' ~
.:// -)._.~i2~- ?!)"':/7
1
u..:' c:....,
7S?(
y/s--: )-'l.:?- (fC~
')>/.____5' 0 feZ
~, I '~F-
<_,t, c..", 1,_" l\')
"J,-C"A..-L--
3~,j"'"
Y tit - (I.; ",-,:"
16.
l-
11 .
1
1
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2 .
-3'
~
r~oro Sef>
/1)fl6IU PFr ~~/N
680
~
\0
1// C / N / r Y" ? LAN (NO SCAJ.E)
~tf7ME;{'
11 LI'II JJ BETA
;11/JRI<6T
22, -175" ~'rr.
I5'S!.
y/<
<4C/,
@
?/./O?'3
~,7S0 $"Q.;:r.
01 12 ~
It)
'f
....
00tH
g
<:J
, @)-
(f!j;
;04 ~.
", :.p .-f' /A' ~
", r~)-
@
~ IIOF5 @
01 12, ISO s;Q,,n: 01 ~.:ao >Q,FC.
Ql 90~ ~ 60~ ~
,
lli& WILlli& IID)]JW~l1(Q)~J]1~1r @@o
.I3t"c; I, !ii/IrE /45" . 3000 SAN&> NI"" ,eOA,t;J, .MENto ,.cAe,..., Of. 9402S PHONE (415) 85-1-6911
.4J!:CJ./lrEcr.' a~~.1) WA/.rER KL/ErZ/I\IG . 7440<;;/~A,eOAI/G, ".4 ./OI.tA. aA, S2037
'.
,'. .
~:'
(gPP~
~~I LLd
WtrA1iUr^JI
. ----...:
'--
1\10 r 4 ,.oAer
"I
~'
~
i;::{ S/TE SUMMARY
"51 TE' AREA
BUIL//INGS
'?ITE/BLfJG. eAT/O
PARKING-
PA2klNG EATIO
278.483 >a1T.
Sr:l,p:
3.7/71:>1
2.8J;; C4RS
I CAe/22.0 ~,,rr.
ILLAG
~
~
"'t
~
"t
[I] T/Ot'Stt ~(.-J
'@] UTiL.J T1 /Y1t~ 1JitE/f
~
o 50 Fr.:r
E SHOJ!lPI:NG
CmN'rJ:R
DUI3L tAl CAL/FoeN/4
.I5$tZJ rfr'i Ji7E )fCZLJ Uff~ 9"~~"'B~
"lC.7S
.'C ,.~....._..<-....___.."
.. .....,_....,.
.~.'4 .... >
. _ '. ,'. . .. _': .::-;-r.~~~~~~~.t.~..:..'.-::~,:.L~:i'".,\.~:..~...~~:L':'.....,. :::.~:7"7..-,..-~.~,:-....-::..-:-~,.7';~_.~.:~~-- .'--::::-:.--:-....._,. .~-";".--:7.,.......~_.:--~.:.::..'"'.,.-"" ,.~-.c'_..- :J.~~~,.,.~~-:~..::'.::...,!'~.:~ :~U....:.1:~.~ ::--'-~,-'" ..--'-,.,-:-,-.. ~...:~__.._.-'~.-:---.- --, -'," .-..-: .~'h_-:'_ ---.-- .--:-:-:---'-~'--:,"":"'-'--,:",,:1'"~ .
.; '-"':'"~''''''''''-'''''''~''~''-'
;
"
ReCEiVED
OCT 2 2. '1986
October 22, 1986
DUBLIN PLANNING
City of Dublin
Planning Commission
Dear Commission Member:
Pet ,Prevent-A-Care,
service. We hold
since 1976.
Inc, is a low-cost, mobile, dog and cat vaccination
clinics throughout the West Coast and have done so
We provide our low~cost service 'in clinics operated from mobile units
set up in the parking areas of shopping centers, schools and colleges,
hotels, and other locations that ,are handy and convenient for the
public. Ninety percent of our clinics are in shopping centers. Service
is swift, professional and always friendly. Our price is about one-
third of many conventional clinic rates. The length of an average
clinic is three hours.
One of our main objectives is to educate pet owners as to the importance
of a regular vaccination schedule. This objective not only helps pets
and their owners, it also helps get more people to use their local
veterinarians on a regular basis for vaccinations and other problems.
We increase business for local veterinarians by attracting pet owners
that veterinary hospitals do not reach; people who have ceased
vaccinating their pets because of cost, or who have never vaccinated
them. Since we are in an area for clinics for only a few hours duration
a few times a year, we are easy to miss. Those who do miss us are now
concerned to get their pets vaccinated. They go to a local
Veterinarian. On top of all of this, we make many emphatic referrals to
local veterinarians for physicals, and a variety of health programs.
After hundreds of clinics we've refinded the setting-up of on-site
clinics almost to a science. We have, at one time or another, adapted
to almost every conceivable parking situation. We tidy up the parking
area before we begin, if it needs it. The area is constantly monitored
and cleaned by a staff member during the clinic, and is thoroughly
cleaned when the clinic is over. Often, a site is left cleaner than
when we arrived.
;'-~~~~~{~:;{~:.~.:>~ '.
"0.....:::.:-.._;-
,-,",
~.i;.. ,"', :. ;:..1". -.
:\tl~~t~i;' . . .
r ~~" ffe>:ft"" r.rr'T'j'
4 C ~ C~, ~1 .; 'tfHt.L.;
'.,,',,1 '" "','t", f'''" ''''''~'''!Ii,. "'~'", '
, :1 j.J C;. ,.~ 1".; f] :,:C'j '1 \,
, Ii i III Ii ~ l&;"'" ~ .;:: .Li w'" '
,:' ~/'/Z/ L &v/.5" ft/,e'l7/eI1/ S~81/I.
-
- 'h::- ..":.: ~._.
"
City of Dublin - October 22~ 1986 - Page 2.
We begin each clinic at least one-half hour before our announced
starting time, to insure that no lines or crowds accumulate. Our
advertisements specify that dogs be on leashes and cats in carriers or
boxes; the animals are never out of control. For the same reasons,
traffic is never a problem.
We have a Dodge van pulling a 23-foot travel trailer. Including our
rig, we rope off an area approximately 65' X 35' for lines and
registration tables. The clinic layout is attractive and orderly. Our
staff is well trained and very efficient, so order is always kept.
We have held 28 clinics in Dublin since 1977, and have never received a
single complaint from anyone that was not Veterinarian induced. That we
are a desperately needed service in your cor.~unity is verified by the
turnout of between 200 and 350 people at every clinic we have held.
Some local veterinarians say we give nothing to the community, and take
money out of town. The fact is that we give Dublin the opportunity to
make a choice as to how much they will pay for vaccinations for their
pets, and we leave more money in the pockets of your citizens, to spend
as they see fit, than does any other Veterinarian in the San Ramon
Valley, for the same service. Don't take that choice away from your
community.
We ,are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to hold our clinic at the
Alpha Beta, at the corner of Village Parkway & Amador Valley Blvd. on
Sunday, December 7, 1986; Saturday, January 31, 1987; Sunday, April 26,
1987; and, Saturday, August 29, 1987.
Enclosed with this application are copies of petitions signed in Dublin
on one afternoon in May, 1986, by 201 area citizens, showing their
support of our vaccination program, Don't let these, and hundreds more,
down.
Sincerely,
/~//~
~anda1 A. Mo~:~:'
Vice President/General Manager
RAM: me
Ene.
. '..~:~-~'.:-
(
RETJR~ TH]S COpy
--
...........-t
THE ORIGINAL
lOW COST
PREVEN~IVE VETERINARY SERVICE
S.ANTA naSA .:c:..A
Date: September 23. 1986
To: ^'p~a Beta
'Ron Reynolds
~st Off1ceBox4903
-Fremont.CA '94539
r<ECEi\lED
OCT 2 2 1986
DliBlIN PLANNING
r
i
Dear Sir/Pocdam:
Please let ~his 1etterstar~ as an ~grf€~ent for the use of
the pro~erty as described below, f0f the p~rpOSE of holding a
dog and ,cat vaccination clinic, on the dftE!~ctes listed
t.e ~ ow:
DUBLIN: Sunday, December 7, 1986 Alho:
Hours: Tentative Sit., Jan. 31, 1987
Alpha Beta Shopping Center parking lot Sun., A~ 26, 1987
Corner of Vlll~ge ParkHay & Amador Valley Road sat., Aug. '29, 1987
hE hereby hold you haro.,less and ourselves resporsible for all
events C0~necte~ with our clinic. We are fully insurE~ a~~ e
certificate of our ins~ran~eis enclcsed.
Signed
PleaSE sigrl the EnclCSE~ cePi of tnis lEttE
rEturn it to us. A ~~lf-td~r2ssed f~\f1(~
your convenience.
T~ank yc~. and yours t~uly,
~A,~~~'~
, (;,...
Rar,Gel h. ILrrison '
Vice President
Title
Date ~- ,:;).. 9 --- ~ to
RAI'l:cw
"
:\
\
\
. \
',\,'
, \,,'
,..,_;,\..c,.;,
"
~ . ," -
.<- , ",. .','" . ,_. . '"-'. .".
._.__.._~..~~_....-.._r... .,.-........ _ _ _.~.~.~
"
, '
'n' ,.",..~ -I ""!!U "', · P~'T' "
,~ ~ M :',"~,~,"~ I!"". I'j,:,.\l. ;~.:;f, ':1 ",. , 2'
~~~~\ ~ ~ t:,.:~ % . ~;.<:: -r//:~ ;~'JI r:'r~:
J;:i~ a~';;;;"'i~li;lHLi
4t/77/tJ /?-I Pf!7 C/YI/ 725 fiLE
&oP1 /';?tJ~ry ~W;V~
\..
...
(')
fA 8"- ',7
/,/,.
:0
!~
nZ
~
;~ :;~~ ~
-<-? ::-
V>
,.,..,
m
~
;=
~
...
,..
,..
"-
r
,..
...
(
'~I/i--.,~,
...l-.....L \
~ I yI .
l
"'=
o
. ...-:-c
;;:-00
~~
~~
:;!o::""l
t.. ~
~---,
........,
"0"","[.[.
OCh..G",_n
I
,.J
.,
~n
~~
..
i:\~
,
3l'7.~,).o:IO
III
:r
'"
'"
-l
'8~ . '" .I.~~~;
. ~ w~~~
\.. n:
N ' " ~ ~
&i ~-<: ~~. g~
VI _ 8. ?
n ..11(......(01"011I
::;
-<
i ~
S ~
,..
:z
"""IE"""ED IT
'MOOM~~"" C__M_ Coil........ ,..\11
A PART OF THE
/ ZONING MAP
THE CITY Or:
DUBLIN
~ CITY OF
DUBLIN
PRr""T~""
OUBU' OCT 21986cAUF';"'^
~ SANTlNA 6 <~=
. THOMPSON 'NC,
...." -'..-. .~.... JII'?::, ''', ,.,'.~, ' l"',', -,"',' ~,., T :;
," " ,'..' ,,0 , ' " 'Jl
;{. -\- '-
...:. ~i l"., -~ ..~ .:a4~_J
.. -~#q- ~/T?
'1:: ... ,
r'
'"
;.>'.\>::"~',.
(jf~."'{. .
......,..,
,~:
- . F~bruary 5, 1986
. ~',
" R E C E J Y E 0
FES 21 1986:
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
DUBLIN PLANNING
Dear Hr. Tong:
As business people in your community, we would like the same protection from
outside street vendors as given to other businesses. The veterinarians in
your community assist in school programs, 4-H programs, local SPCA, and
scouting programs. Emergency care is available twenty-four hours a day for
injured domestic and wild animals. This care is discounted to'Animal Control
This discount is given to decrease the burden on the Animal Control budget and
to ensure humane medical care until an owner is located, an adoption made, or
disposal is required by Animal Control.
We also make a contribution to these same city and county budgets through our
property and sales taxes. A mobile vaccination clinic only pays taxes (other
than a permit fee) on its profits to the Sate and Federal governments.
There have been previous discussions of zoning requirements to prevent mobile
clinics withoyt instituting a legal battle. Enclosed is an example of a large
government in our State instituting zoning to protect their local businesses.
. If we cou1d'assist you in acquiring a copy of this ordinance, please let us
know. The Southern California Veterinary Medical Association would be happy
to advise and supply us with a copy of the zoning ordinance. If the
veterinary practices can assist the cities with any animal problems, please
ca 11 . '
We would appreciate the same consideration we give our cities and public on a
voluntary basis.
Sincerely,
Clinic
J~1 U'71/i0t2-/
GENE W. NAGEL -. V,__
Dublin Veterinary Clinic
GL-R:.----e~k~/f
~-~vi;r'~
'. LARRY ~CHER - '.,. ' ,I
Alcosta Veterina:~ Clinic
.~i~~~
WI lAM R. EVANS~ _ '
Parkway Veterinary Hospital
711/1 '"l:"n/l '1-1. }2",!J} /b:, OJ /L(
MARGAREq7 H. Rf>BERTS-,~ _ ' "
All Creatures Veterinary Hospital
... .,...,">'.'}'I n rilrl!llllltt1T f
~.'~';~~ . '\:~' /" ,;~ t rl f~ .~ \
~ A j ~ f, ;,~;: "'Y';1 ;,i' .
2/vjg~ ~~i "~":L~:;~~~
~C~ Ve-/d~$VS
.
. Profit Making Techniques and Business Trends for Small Animal Practice
"
: :,VOLUME 4, ISSUE 55
:' NOVEMBER, 1985
~IINSIDE THIS ISSUE:
Another Ruling Against
Mobile Clients.......Page 1
Details on Assignable _
Covenants.......~..:.Page 2
Federal Trade Commission
Comments on Advertising
Medical Services.....Page 3
IRS Tips on Charitable'
Contributions..~.....Page 3
Administrate and Control
(. Your Petty .Cash..... .page 3
Lease-backs and The .
IRS--An'Update.......Page 5
1
Christmas Bonus
Dilerna...............Page 6
Objectives For Your
Practice Valuation...Page 7
JIM GURNEY SEMINARS
Miami Dec 3&4
Tampa Dec 10&11
San Francisco Jan 7&8
Los Angeles Jan 21
San Diego Jan 22
San Antonio Jan 28&29
Sacramento Feb 4&5
Phoenix Feb 11&12
'TO REGISTER BY PHONE, CALL:
( National: (800)342-5462
Calif: (408)438-4414 or
Calif: (408)438-4941
'MOBllE~CUNICS lOSE'ZONING"
(FIGHT IN L.A.:.<
OWners of mobile veterinary clinics ",.'
have lost a fight to change Los
Angeles' city ordinance prohibiting
them from resuming operations there.
,The ~ity Council voted to uphOld an'
ordinance that requires veterinary.
services to be dispensed from in-
side an enclosed building.
The mobile clinic owners began
battling for an ordinance change
about two~and-a-half years ago,
when the city started enforcing the
zoning requirement and told the
operators that they would no longer
~e allowed to set up shop in park-
~ng lots. The mobile clinic owners
then sought an exemption from the
zoning ordinance and a prolonged
series of hearings ensued, ending
in September's City Council vote.
The Southern California Veterinary
Medical Association (SCVMA) and
local business groups opposed the
attempted zoning change.
Explains CVMA Executive Director,
Don Miihan, "The association fought
the change primarily for two reasons.
First, we don't think that quality
veterinary medicine can be prac-
ticed from a parking lot behind
some grocery store.
Secondly, we feel that everyone
should play.by the same rules. A
stationary hospital must meet
dozens of local regulations and
pass various inspections, so a
mobile operator should not be able
to move into a parking lot and
practice without meeting those
same conditions." '
.
Published by James K. Gurney and Associates, North America~Leading Veterinary Management Consultants
~..-...,_.---.-. ._-.....- ',..
, '
"- ...._7":;.:~..;_~-::::~:. ~~ ~ :~>;"~?:~::"'-~'~. ~. -.
'. .;':~~/::::'::l;;~?i,.~;:::.~,~~~~:t~~~;:-...:..
:._ ': _'.'-::'.~;-..:'..w, : ~. ._
.' -, . .~: .~:- -" "
. . 'i~~: :-'- . :":
~ :-.
. -::-',.: !;..~. ~ --:: ~.:.
~ c ~~7;c.~:~:::: '
. ;;.~t~~:_~~'~':~.c~::':'~ :"(~
.-~;~.~~' '~'~:..;':<
. ..-._."i/
, .
.,-
,. ';~~M~~ilt;~r:;,~'
"
li,,~ '~~'i~~i~ary Management Idea?:'!
;~~i},.~':;\::!Z~l~~~i1;rt;..".
" .
. ~
,.. t;.. f' ~ . 'f
. ."4' :. .......
. ,. .,' , .
......
}
...~~~~~~{t;~:~~~~r~:':~: ~.
Mahan'~ adds'i,thaemany 'local
businesses\were-~concerned that ..
a zoningchange"would pave the
'way for -:a proliferation of
parkinglot'merchandising.
"They,felt:it'would be hard to
keep out ,dentists or clothes
sellers ~'fand : a'! communi ty of
flea ma:rkets~\<l6uld develop."
"-':.' ~~;>;~{~-:_~;~:~€'j~:,~
The repercussions of the Los
Angeles vote are hard to fore~
see. However,-Mahan notes
that the city is viewed as a
precedent~setter. consequentlY,
local governments elsewhere ,in
california' or:in other states ,:
may review:zoning ordinances
to see if mobile clinics fit
into their community's "spirit
of planning.n-
COURT SUPPORTS ASSIGNABLE
COVENANTS
Last June ~e told you about
"restrictive covenants,"
agreements signed by e~ployees
who promise not to se.t up a
practxce in head-on competition
with,their former boss.
One of the sticking points for
such agreements has been their
"assignability," or whether
they still apply once a prac-
tice has been sold. The con-
census among lawyers and finan-
cial consultants has been that
restrictive covenants have
little chance of being enforced
after a practice is sold, since
the agreement represents a
contract between the original
employer and the employee.
But now, a Minnesota appeals
court has ruled in favor of
such assignability in a case
involving a dental practice.
Here's a brief run-down of the
case: A dentist contracted to
work for a Minnesota dental
practice for one year. The
contract included a restrictive
covenant, calling for him not
. :.{~~;, ',.~_',~L~.~~~~,:)j/!l1rxrf-.~5~-\~~_: :::.
to set up shop withinthre'e'~?:1R'7"
miles of the practice 'for three
years after the contract t s : ex- ,"'"
piration. The covenant also ~
provided that the dental:rec-
ords of patients would at:all'
times remain the property
the employer. .'
The final paragraphof'the '
covenant said 'that the agreement
would be binding to successive
owners of the practice.
,Six months after the dentist
started work there, the em-
ployer sold the practice., '
Roughly two months later,' the
employed dentist quit his job
and set up his own practice--
within three miles of his for-
mer boss'. Moreover, the
former employee used the con-
fidential patient list to
solicit clients. Hence, the
new owner of the practice where
he had worked sued for breach
of the covenant and misappro-
_priation of trade secrets.' 0
The initial trial court ruled
that the restrictive covenant
was not assignable. However,
the appellate court disagreed,
ruling that the covenant was
needed by the business to
protect its goodwill.
, The two courts agreed, however,
that the employee should not
have used the list of patients
to solicit business.
While the new appeals court
ruling bodes well for the
authority of restrictive
covenants,' it doesn't mean that
courts,elsewhere will follow
Minnesota's lead. Not only
have the courts been reacting
differently to covenants, but
some states have passed laws
curtailing the scope of these
noncompetition ~ontracts. ()
still, a covenant improves the
value of a ~ractice. So, we
2.
-... --.-::-:-: :~-::"~":"":~.-~':
.. . ~-' .. --
~. - -'. -- - -.- -
-:'!.-.'..._~-:
. --,-,..-.,". ,,'
.. '.. ,"
<' ~~,t~~~,~{~:,~l~~;,~".;~q~~~~A'::~' .~ "',', ,'.
.,:.0(......
,-'.:r'.:;'''
,,~~x; ....""f~/:
....
'. .....-
.....
,
i~21,R{~~t~('(:;J;~~~':~;.., '
a:t!.~-~f:;~f :-~~:.:-~~--~-~ ;'.:Y'}l~[i0t~"?~:>'"
~ -. '
/(~.
~.__...'--....,- . .-.-,..
old in heritage - new in ideas
.
U In
Chamber of Commerce
.: ;: c t: j If E D
NOV 17 1986
DUBLIN PLANNING
November 10, 1986
\
Planning Commission Members
City Council Members
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 100
Dublin, California 94568
Attention: Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
Re: PA 86-117 - Pet Prevent-A-Care Mobile Pet Vaccination Clinic
Conditional Use Permit
Dear Commission & Council Members:
The Dublin Chamber of Commerce is in receipt of the application referral dated
October 30, 1986 in regard to the Conditional Use Permit for a mobile vaccination
clinic sponsored by Pet Prevent-A-Care Mobile Vaccination Clinic.
If my memory serves me correctly, this matter was heard before the Dublin Planning
Commission in May, 1986 at which time the Commission approved the Conditional Use
Permit. However, prior to the actual finalization, the issue was contested by
a Member of the City Council and therefore referred to the City Council who in
turn denied approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on a zoning ordinance
requiring the clinic to be in a stationary four wall enclosed building.
For the above reasons the Dublin Chamber of Commerce hereby requests that the
City deny the Conditional Use Permit and continue to allow our City veterinarians
to keep our business in Dublin as well as the continuance of the vaccination
clinics sponsored by the Valley Humane Society in conjunction with our valley
veterinarians.
Four clinics have been scheduled by the valley veterinarians and Valley Humane
Society, the first being in Pleasanton on January 17, 1987 followed by one in
April in Dublin, July in Livermore and again in Dublin in October, 1987. The
Valley Humane Society along with our local veterinarians offer a discount to
Senior Citizens as well as provide information on spaying and neutering of animals.
A brief examination of the animal is done prior to the vaccination. Any further
treatment or diagnosis of an animal is referred to the owner's veterinarian. Jt
should be noted that all animals are treated or vaccinated by licensed A.H.T.'s
and that a licensed veterinarian is on the premise at all times.
The Valley Humane Society notifies the public of the clinics through the local
radio station as well as the local newspapers, the Tri-Valley Herald and the
Valley Times and through the use of flyers.
7986 Amador Valley Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
(415) 828.6200
H
~ ;l, !
~
Planning Commission Members
City Council ~e~bey~
November 10, 1986
Per the City Planning Commission meeting in June, 1986, no permit is needed for
these clinics. '
For the City's information, the Valley Humane Society reports the' clinic gave
369 vaccinations, 158 people attended the clinic of which 76 were Senior Citizens
who were given a discount. There were 35 attending from Dublin; 32 from
Pleasanton; 60 from Livermore; 3 from Tracy; 26 from the Danville-San Ramon area
and 3 from the Hayward-San Leandro area.
The application states petitions were signed in Dublin on the afternoon in
May, 1986 by 201 area citizens showing their support of our vaccination program.
We feel as a Chamber of Commerce, we too, support our local veterinarians and
the Humane Society in "Keeping the Green in Dublin".
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincera;:~r& ~ ~
~E .E'GE'ON CA~ Chairma,
i~~~ment/Educationleommunity
Development Committee
JBC:nf
cc: Dr. Evans, Parkway Veterinary Hospital
Dr. Nagel, Dublin Veterinary Hospital
Dr. Roberts, All Creatures Veterinary Hospital
j
...,.'
"
Development Services
P,O, Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
Planning Zoning
Building & Safety
Engineering Public Works
829-4916
829-0822
829-4927
November 26, 1986
Joanne Bergeron Castro
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
7986 Amador Valley Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Castro,
The City of Dublin Planning Department is in receipt of your November 10, 1986
letter pertaining to the Conditional Use Permit request of Pet Prevent-A-Care,
Inc. The Conditional Use Permit application has been filed for the proposal
to operate four one-day mobile pet vaccination drives in the Village Square
Shopping Center parking lot.
Within your letter you correctly cite that in May, 1986, the Dublin Planning
Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit application by Pet Prevent-A-
Care, Inc. to operate three one day mobile pet vaccination clinics in the Pac
'N Sav parking lot, 6605 Dublin Boulevard (City File PA-86-027).
Unfortunately, you incorrectly indicated in your letter that the request was
subsequently denied on appeal before the Dublin City Council. wbile the
Commission's action was appealed to the City Council, the Applicant withdrew
the request prior to the item being considered by the Council. The City
Council's action on the item was limited to noting that the request had been
withdrawn (see enclosed portion of the minutes of the City Council meeting of
June 9, 1986).
As regards to mobile pet vaccination clinics, the most recent direction from
the City Council can be found through their action in 1983 whereby, through an
appeal, the Council overturned a Planning Commission denial of a Conditional
Use Permit (PA 83-037) for four mobile pet clinics in the Payless/Albertson
parking lot (see enclosed portion of minutes of the City Council meeting of
September 12, 1983).
The Staff appreciates rece~v~ng input from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on
any matter before the Planning Commission or City Council. Staff is willing
to answer any Chamber inquiries pertaining to Planning Applications, with a
hope that such inquiries will be made to avoid the dissemination of incorrect
or misleading information.
On a side issue, it would be helpful for you to clearly indicate in any
transmittals from your office whether the positions stated are reflective of
formal actions taken by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors or
strictly positions your voicing independently as the Chairman of the
Government/Education/Community Development Committee of the Chamber.
A IT ACHMENT b
;/cv 2-::-,11$(0 ~ r?brn CI7T7 7Z /)t/ffi:;N'
CII-17vJgee- tTF COftI/Y/PJ::rc-
~:t:.-::q:--,.-
ill:.,
--<
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at
829-4916 at your convenience.
Sincerely,
!: J.tT-'
Senior Planner
KJG:slh
Enclosures
cc: PA 86-027
PA 86-117
City Council members
Planning Commission
Dr. Evans, Parkway Veterinary Hospital
Dr. Nagel, Dublin Veterinary Hospital
Dr. Roberts, All Creatures Veterinary Hospital
".:
.~'>f~}i~A1,1/' ;- -.~
,. .\.'\:1Jf.$~!t'r
. - .. ';-i, -~.., -~_:.~~/'}f\""'~~~'~/'
.,~,
,~-------- .--
I '
(
[.TY
/-~\
OF Los ANGELEb J
CALIFORNIA
WHEN MAKING INQUIRIES
RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER.
REFER TO FILE NO.
OFFICE OF
CITY CLERK
ELIAS MARTINEZ
CITV CLERK
ROOM 395. CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES. CA 90012
485-5705
CF 83-1664
TOM BRADLEY
MAYOR
May 9, 1986
Kay Keck, City Clerk
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568:
Dear MS~~('k.t-
Attached please find a complete xeroxed copy of Council File No.
83-1664 pertaining to mobile veterinary facilities. The issue was
initiated by Councilman Finn on September 20, 1983 and considered by
the Planning and Environment Committee on September 27, 1983. On
October 7th the City Council adopted said Committee's report
instructing the City Planning Department, with the cooperation of the
City Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance which would allow
mobile medical facilities in certain zones.
The City Attorney's Office transmitted a final ordinance dated May 1,
1985. On August 7, the City Council considered another Planning and
Environment Committee and final ordinance. The City Council by a vote
of 5-9 (Ayes 5, Noes, 9) failed to adopted said issue. On August 8,
1985 the file was then place in our vault indicating that said file
was now moot.
Very truly yours,
C\,,~ '\/')' ~,~\r .-
C ~ ""o.:_~,___
ELIAS MARTINEZ ~
Ci ty Clerk 0
EM : am /.. ..r.L. . "- ;;, )
Attachments ( sole,l,f~ (J....{Ill\.c.h t'YIU\.tI &V1 Y
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
...,. .~O,.~_, ..-.- - .
..~:J/J:;
,,,.,~ ;: r: t ~ f:~~ t:~"T 7
, :t, ,~. J J '~~i hl:lLll '
t/~Nf) ft1~4zS ~/7J7tV1lJfr .
--r;;r c/;-t/ tfF bJ ,frVtJr4f> ,4ev;~, ,
/ ~~ // e- ,/~ CL/ /VIe> :;;,{<.
,/"4 "C VF/- . . "J"-r~ ';':~i\ -.,
~'S.{~~~~~~iji_~j(~Y5f~ ~. ~ ,~ .~ ,
, :'1
':Ln.i... 1>....,;.1.""'.... ~t,i.h\\-iIi -.........--'.-.-,.;It';:O''';:'.....'.l'...~,,,_.-,,..,--,
.~~" ~~.;~o-E'i>~"'-'~.':~:;.
, ',,1 ~"".
. . !~~
"'F:~~:)" Los Angeles c'ity Planning Department
.W!.~~</ Room 561 CityHall
..-,.... .'<'
~.r}:...~...,.
.",., ...'. , ,','~'r;"~',.,.."..~;O,; _' .',' :O""~.
'.' ._"'''..,,-.A~"'.,-' ',-..a;,' ',- ..h_......~~:I.~"I".~f..'~^.1 '_.ir~-'!-'.;t,.1'.. ~.,-'~-(~..
~'.l';t~.-~.}-.;I:~~_.:..~~,:_~~~~~.....-.\ .:. . ..~~~~;~~-~_.... 'w ~."
. ,-","",' '~3:'~i'~""T'~""",C..' .,.<:".~,d~~"\ -- ,~.." ,~
o
tj:~'.:~
CITY PLAN CASE NO. 84-091 (CA)
COUNCIL FILE NO. 83-1664
DECISION DATE:
March 29. 1984
FROM:
City Planning Commission
Calvin S. Hamilton ~ j ~
Director of Planning ~
TO:
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT - PROPOSED ORDINANCE PERMITTING
MOBILE VETERINARY MEDICAL FACILITIES ON A
TEMPORARY BASIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Page
1
STAFF REPORT
2
Request
Discussion
Conclusion
Environmental Impact
2
2
4
4
APPENDIX "A" (Proposed Ordinance)
Attached
~!i~ ,
~
A
Page 1
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
In response to a Planning and Environment Committee motion, the
Planning Department has prepared a proposed ordinance (Appendix A),
which would permit, on a temporary basis, mobile veterinary medical
facilities in parking areas in all of the parking and commercial zones and
in most of the industrial zones. The Committee directed that the
proposed ordinance be referred to the City Planning Commission for
public hearing and r~commendation.
ACTION RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF: That the Commission
Adopt the staff report as its report on this subject.
Find:
1. In accordance with Charter Section 96.5(5), the subject proposed
ordinance (Appendix II A" ) is in substantial conformance with the
purposes, intent and provisions of the General Plan in that it will
facilitate the provision of some low-cost, preventive, veterinary
medical services to the public, thus helping to fulfill one program
of the Citywide Plan to "solicit Federal, State, County and private
participation in the acquisition and development of health and
protection facilities".
2. In accordance with Charter Section 97.2(1)(a). the subject proposed
ordinance is directly related to the General Plan, specific plans or
other plans being prepared by, the Planning Department and will
have a beneficial effect upon said plans in that it will provide for
the provision of temporary, low-cost, veterinary medical facilities in
areas of need.
3. In accordance with Charter Section 97.2(1)(b). the subject
proposed ordinance is in substantial conformance with the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice,
in that it will permit the operation of low-cost veterinary medical
facilities providing preventive veterinary services such as
immunization, which will safeguard not only the health of pet
animals, but also of humans.
Approve the proposed ordinance and recommend its adoption to the
City Council.
.....
';';,:,c";':~.
"'~'."" "."'",, ',' " '. ""
;..?;" . ."
f'
~
Page 2
ST AFF REPORT
Request'
On September 27, 1983, the City Council approved a motion
(Finn-Farrell) to direct the Planning Department, in cooperation with the
City Attorney, to draft an ordinance which would allow mobile medical
facilities in parking areas in the industrial, commercial and parking
zones by right, pr;ovided such services are to operate no longer than
one day in any month and are limited to areas in compliance with current.
parking requirements. It was further moved that bloodmobiles be a
permitted acc'essory use in all zones.
On October 7, 1983, the Planning and Environment Committee approved a
motion (Finn-Farrell) to direct the Planning Department, in cooperation
with the City Attorney, to draft an ordinance which would allow mobile
medical (animal) facilities in required parking areas in the M (except the
MR). C, P and PB Zones by right, if such medical and preventive
services are to operate no longer than one day in any month, provided
such areas are in compliance with current parking requirements and
ing ress and eg ress is not blocked for emergency pu rposes.
Discussion
Apparently, for some years now, mobile medical facilities offering such
diverse services as chest X-rays, blood pressure tests, immunizations
and the like have proliferated as people are drawn by the low cost and
convenience that these services offer. However, they have been and
continue to be illegal because the Municipal Code forbids "open air"
businesses and requires them to be located in a permanent structure.
The Red Cross has been providing a badly needed service for many
years, collecting blood in bloodmobiles, but also apparently illegally.
Organizations offering such services, although technically in violation of
the Municipal Code, were not generally prosecuted because they
performed a community service and did no apparent harm. However,
recently one such organization which offers low-cost vaccinations against
rabies and other diseases for pets has come under fire from the
veterinary medical establishment on the basis of unfair competition. This
organization will typically locate its mobile units in shopping center
parking lots for two to three hours, three to four times a year in any
one location, usually in the evening or on weekends. These operations
are now being scrutinized by the Department of Building and Safety
and, in some cases, closed down with stop orders. An equally vehement
group has arisen from the ranks of pet owners and health professionals
to defend these services and urge their legalization. A petition signed
by 1,113 apparently satisfied customers of the pet vaccination service
protesting the stop orders was received by a Counci I office recently.
The City's own Department of Animal Regulation has stated that the stop
orders by the Department of Building and Safety" .. .could have a
deliterious effect on the epidemiological consideration regarding the
disease (rabies) within the City of Los Angeles. Finally, we believe that
this stop order will also impact other activities in the City, which would
~
F
f~
I
Page 3
.
include the Red Cross, Heart Association and Lung Association to name
just a few. II The Department also praised the mobile vaccination clinic
for turning over to it copies of all the vaccination certificates, thereby
greatly enhancing their record keeping ability.
- ,
However, on December 20, 1983, the General Manager of the Department
of Animal Regulation indicated in a letter to the chairman of the Planning
and Environment Committee that the Department was now opposed to
amending the Zoni,ng Code to permit the mobile clinics for animals
because it is "detrimental to the private veterinary sector and thus.
places in jeopardy the excellent cooperative public and safety program
now in place for animals. II The Board of Animal Regulation
Commissioners is expected to make a recommendation on this matter soon.
Discussions with a spokesman for the Southern California Veterinary
Medica I Association indicated that the Association, in cooperation with
State and local agencies, operates low-cost rabies vaccination programs
for dogs (and sometimes cats) in all communities at various times. This
program is mandated by the State which requires low-cost rabies
vaccinations to be made available for dogs in every community at least
once a year. The veterinarians apparently donate their services, so
that the only costs are for the mobile units, equipment and vaccine. In
fact the State and County must approve the proposed charges for the
vaccinations beforehand to ensure that the public is receiving the
service at cost. In 1983, 7,474 immunizations were given at a charge of
$3 each in Los Angeles City at 107 mobile clinics. This number was
down from 1980 and 1981 when the figures were 13,013 and 11.792
immunizations, respectively. In 1979 the first private mobile veterinary
clinic started business in Los Angeles and gave 11,419 immunizations.
In the years since,' the number has ranged between" ,000 and 14,000
immunizations. These figures may indicate that the City clinics have lost
some business to the private clinics, but this is uncertain.
It can also be argued that as many of the mobile veterinary medical
facilities are profit-making businesses, to give them an advantage by not
requiring them to locate in a permanent structures, with the attendant
expense this entails, could be construed as unfair to others who have
obeyed the law and operate their business' according to Code.
Ironically, though, representatives of the mobile veterinary service point
out that they refer many sick animals to local vets, thus actually
increasing their business. They also point out that most of the animals
that they vaccinate probably would not have been vaccinated otherwise
as their clients often do not partonize veterinarians.
However, the president of the Board of Animal Regulation Commissioners,
who is a veterinarian in private practice, has pointed out, in a
preliminary hearing on this subject, that none of the 40 veterinarians he
recently talked to at a meeting had ever, to their knowledge, had an
animal referred to them by the mobile veterinary clinics. Also,
apparently 20 percent of these veterinarians had been called on to treat
animals suffering reactions to immunizations given them at the mobile
clinics. One argument against permitting these clinics is that the
veterinarians who administer the immunizations are not available for
t
.
"''''''~
~,
r' -~
~
. _..~
Page 4
follow-up care, if it should be necessary. The same can also be said of
the City-operated clinics, however.
It is the feeling of the president of the Animal Regulation Commission,
apparently, that the private mobile veterinary clinics are unnecessary
and would set a dangerous precedent for other businesses wishing to
operate out of lower cost mobile facilities. He pointed out that there has
not been a single case of rabies in a native dog (as opposed to a dog
coming from elsewhere) in Los Angeles since 1959. He contends that
this indicates that tlie City-operated clinics are doing the job. However,
the State Department of Health Services has indicated that at least 50
percent of dogs in the State are not protected against rabies. The
years 1980 through 1981 saw the highest incidence of rabies since 1945
in California, and not just among dogs. Apparently the greatest problem
now is among cats. only 5 percent of which have been immunized against
rabies. It seems that there might be enough immunization business to go
around. Both City clinics and private mobile clinics may be necessary,
according to another Animal Regulation Commissioner. " '
The subject proposed ordinance would permit mobile veterinary medical
facilities to operate in parking areas in the Parking, Commercial and
Industrial (except MR) Zones for a maximum of 72 hours in any month.
Presumably, this would prevent them from becoming permanent
businesses in anyone location. Also, they could only operate in
parking lots which are in compliance with current Code requirements and
could not interfere with vehicular access or traffic flow within the lot.
The Chief Zoning Administrator felt that 72 hours was a better time
period than 24 hours for both the mobile human medical clinics (being
prepared as a separate ordinance) and the subject clinics, because it
permits greater flexibility.
The provision for permitting these facilities has been included in the
proposed ordinance within the "Exceptions" under Section 12.22, adjacent
to the exceptions for other temporary uses such as the sa Ie of Christmas
trees. carnivals and rides and infrequent helicopter landings. In
addition, a definition for "mobile veterninary medical facility" is proposed
to be added to Section 12.03, "Definitions".
Conclusion
Despite some opposition from persons in competition with such services,
staff feels that mobile veterinary medical facilities provide needed medical
services at little or no cost to the public on a temporary basis and
shou Id be permitted.
Environmental Impact
Under Article III, Section 2 (m) of the Los Angeles City CEQA
Guidelines, "the adoption of ordinances that do not result in impacts on
the physical environment", are exempt from CEQA. Inasmuch as the
instant proposal will not have an effect on the environment, such
exemption is appropriate in this instance. An exemption from CEQA was
granted on January 3, 1984.
! Ii
I
I
I
. I
I
,
1 I
2 I
I
I
J I
4 I
,I
5 .'
'I
6 !I
Ii
7
I
8
9
10
11 I
I
12 i
I
I
13 I
Ii
14 11
II
I
,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
A",
( -', -~.
n
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR DISCUSSION
An ordinance amending Sections 12.03 and 12.22 to permit mobile
medical veterinary facilities in established parking areas in the P, PB,
CR, Cl, Cl.5, C2, C4, CM, Ml, M2 and M3 Zones on a temporary basis.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS
FOllOWS:
Sect ion 1.
Section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is
hereby amended by adding the following definition in proper alphabetical
sequence:
Mobile
Medical
Veterinary
Facility
a
unit,
easily
transportable in one or more sections, which provides primarily
diagnostic or preventive medical services for anir:1als at low cost
or ~ cost on a temporary basis .!!2. anyone location.
i
f'~,'0
( ''}
~
DISCUSSION DRAFT A-2
Sec. 2. A new Subdivision 14 of Subsection A of Section 12.22 of
the Los Angeles MLlnicipal Code is hereby added to read:
14. Mobile Veterinary Medical Facilities and Bloodmobiles.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Article to the contrary,
any mobile veterinary medical facility may operate for no more
than
hours
in
72
month in an
established parking area in
any
the
P, PB, CR,
Cl,
Cl. 5 ,
C2,
C4,
CM, Ml,
--
M2
and
Zones, provided the parking area meets all requirements of the
Municipal
Code
and the operation of the facility does not
interfere with vehicular access or traffic flow within the parking
area.
Sec. 3. The City Clerk shall certify. . .
CTY008
,
M3
_;~''''.- d"~":',:~:- ""-c' :-;~, :,,',-.. -, , , ,'- ".,,>: ". ",...,.."
i. ,;fto'-. .".";",~",~"',;iJ'~-'-~'~.'''''J_ ..~,. ::.s..--~<r."~' -
1. '~""."~'~~~~'"J~:':-;':~~:-_;-:;":;~-:;-;~'~~~,/~ ..' ~ .~ ~--:::-_.;':-~ .~ ':r'_ -"1;t-~..- . ~.~.~~
,t:'::".:,:.;.: _,'.:
, A
Los Angeles City Planning Department
Room 561 City Hall
_,' .. L~"'~"'f'-'
~'. ~;...'>~.. .~.>'(.r;;~ . ....!~.
.....,,~~~.'l~~"""1.:,_.::~_~t.,:-.
, '
· F:';;. ;:) :
1. t l ,'.. ,"
," ".': "
.' '7",':-;;;'./
..-.... \,"r'..
I[ " . ._.....
A
"".-' "'.,
CITY PLAN CASE NO. 84-091 (CA)
COUNCIL FILE NO. 83-1664
DECISION DATE:
March 29, 1984
TO:
FROM:
City Planning Commission
Calvin S. Hamilton ~ j ~
Director of Planning ~'
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT - PROPOSED ORDINANCE PERMITTING
MOBILE VETERINARY MEDICAL FACILITIES ON A
TEMPORARY BASIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
STAFF REPORT
1
2
Request
Discussion
Conclusion
Environmental Impact
2
2
4
4
APPENDIX "A" (Proposed Ordinance)
Attached
c' .
';,i):~:;P;~S~~';} .,
.,'..
',:",:,
~ "-" ,
(4
.~""
,,'---:~
Page 1
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Commission, on August 30, 1984, directed staff to develop a ministerial
procedure by which the City could keep track of mobile veterinary clinics
operating in the City, The following supplemental staff report contains the
outline of such a procedure.
Staff still feels, however, that mobile veterinary clinics which only give
immunizations and conduct diagnostic testing should be permitted by right in
parking areas in the ~, C and M (except MR) Zones and that additional
regulation is not necessary at this time.
ACTION RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF: That the Commission -
Adopt both supplemental staff reports and the staff report dated
March 29, 1984 (attached), as its reports on this subject.
Make the findings contained in the report, dated March 29, 1984 (attac_hed).
Approve the proposed ordinance (Appendix B) and recommend its adoption to
the City Council.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL S1 AFF REPORT
Request
On the occasion of the public hearing on August 30, 1984, the Planning
Commission directed staff to develop a procedure, preferrably ministerial,
whereby the City could obtain the following information from the operators of
any mobile veterinary clinic in the City: (1) location, dates and hours of
operation of mobile clinics in the City, and (2) proof of the possession of all
required licenses and permits. The Commission also requested that mobile
veterinary medical clinics be required to supply to each customer the location
of a licensed veterinarian who could be contacted in case of a negative reaction
to an immunization.
Discussion
Appendix B, which is the staff's recommended proposed ordinance, has been
only slightly modified since the Planning Commission considered it on August
30, 1984.
The earlier version permitted "any mobile veterinary medical facility providing
immunizations and diagnostic blood tests only...." Appendix B permits "any
mobile veterinary medical facility providing immunizations and diagnostic testing
only". This change would pe.J:ffiit diagnostic tests other than blood tests,
including, for example, CA TSCAN tests which are often best done from mobile
units, because of the high cost of the equipment.
..-;. "-- ~~_..: .'-. ~
.> ..:.~.O"O~ ,-;-
.,,' ':I~~t;:~~.~~:,;j. "
. ", .~.. 4 .
.\~~8'.~~~;~'.: ,"- '. .
, ,
"e?f.F::;.~~~::~;::;'~</ '
.'.-.~:,,:.
..._..;.I.......:.......;..:.....<-,,--~-_..
. '. "
_.~..~- ._-~......--"".........~....~.-'-'"-'~ -_...."--~'.....~-"'-
(:-:)
()
Page 2
Appendix
addition,
requested
A has been modified in the same way that Appendix B has, and, in
includes language which would create the registration procedure
by the Planning Commission.
As a part of a yearly registration procedure, the operators of mobile clinics
would be required to submit copies of all required licenses from the State for
the operation of the mobile units themselves and for the practice of veterinary
,medicine. In addition, on an on-going basis, the mobile clinic operators would
be required to submit to Animal Regulation a schedule of the location, dates
and times of operation of any mobile clinics in the City at least 15 days prior
to the date of operation of such clinics. Copies of the initial registration and'
subsequent schedules would be submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety, as that Department has the responsibility for enforcing provisions of
the Planning and Zoning Code. A fee to cover the costs incurred by the
Department of Animal Regulation is necessary and has been initially set at
S100.
In order to develop such a procedure, various City departments ,were
approached to determine which would be willing to undertake and would be
appropriate for the registration procedure, including the City Clerk's Office,
Department of Animal Regulation, City Planning Department and Department of
Building and Safety.
The City Clerk's Office indicated that they could not require any information
other than name and address as part of the Business Tax Registration
process. That Departm~nt had been advised by the City Attorney that they
do not issue a permit, and therefore could not attach any requirements to the
issuance of their Registration Certificate.
Staff next approached the Department of Anil]'lal Regulation to determine if a
procedure could be developed whereby that Department would register mobile
veterinary clinic operators in the City.
That department held two meetings of its Board of Commissioners to consider
undertaking the registration procedure. At its second meeting, .November 19,
1984, the Board adopted the following motion unanimously-:
The Board requests that mobile veterinary clinics operate under the
Department of Animal Regulation and the clinics, pay a yearly fee of $100
30 days in advance of the first clinic and per site fee of $25. In
addition, the clinics (should) file a schedule 15 days in advance with the
Department of each location for the following 15 days and furthermore,
that the name and telephone (number) of a licensed veterinarian located
within a 5-mile radius who has agreed to provide emergency service for
24 hours for any medical problems that arise from medical services
rendered in the clinic be made available.
At its first meeting on November 5, 1984, the Board of Animal Regulation
Commissioners had expressed several r:oncerns. The General Manager of that
Department and one of the Commissioners reiterated their concern that the
operation of mobile veterinary clinics in the City would result in a decrease in
attendance at the City-SCVMA (Southern California Veterinary Medical
Association) State-mandated rabies clinics. The fear is that the SCVMA may
then be forced to withdraw from the City program if they begin to lose money
-~.-~~,"_......".., ....".. ."
'-'. .
.;~~~;~~~'';;'.>.':c ,':,-.
. " _.;". .;; ,:-.~'_:..::. :"'~'':~;''~;;;;:;4_:~:~ .':...-;:;::;":;';';,-:-,:. .
':"-":~'::-:/'-'."'-':::~'. -' .
~i~?~~~l3-':. ,,"
~ .~...:.:=.:::.i.:'- '~:.:''''':'-::~''~
.~: ,;,.....:r1..~~~1......:' ,""'<__:,;:;:...........
(1
{\
Page 3
through lack of attendance. The Department of Animal Regulation is concerned
that the City would then have to conduct its own rabies clinics. If this
became necessary, the Department could be forced to contract with
veterinarians, mobile or fixed-base, at a cost higher than present cost, or
even hire its own veter'inarians at a substantially higher cost, all to comply
with the state requ i rements.
Another fear expressed was that mobile clinic operators would not service
lower income areas of the City. The City may then find itself operating clinics
only in the less profitC}ble areas which are not serviced adequately by the
private ope,rators.
Information supplied by "Pet Prevent-a-Care" reveals that that company has
held clinics in or adjacent to most of the low-income areas of the City. The
accompanying chart (Exhibit A) list the communities in or adjacent to the City
which were visited by "Pet Prevent-a-Care" in the last five years.
The Department of Animal Regulation is justified in their concern, however,
since there is no guarantee that private mobile clinics would adequately serve
all parts of the City. It is this unknown yet potentially adverse impact on the
Department's budget which is the basis of their expressed concern.
With regard to the motion approved by the Animal Regulation Commission, staff
feels that the imposition of a S25 fee for each clinic over and above the animal
registration fee of S100 is unnecessary as the Department of Animal Regulation
would only be receiving and filing the schedules for the clinics; no additional
administrative costs are necessitated for the individual clinics. The cost of
administration is with the initial registration and the review of documents.
Furthermore, S25 per clinic can quickly add up to exorbitant costs, far beyond
any justified administrative costs. For instance, 100 clinics, not an excessive
number, would cost S2,500 for a company. If the Commission approves a
registration procedure, staff agrees with a S100 yearly fee, but not with a per
clinic fee. Fees can always be increased in the future if costs should so
justify.
With regard to the prOVISion to the customer of the name of a veterinarian to
be contacted in case of an adverse reaction, staff feels this is unnecessary
and may even be undesirable. The City clinics have never felt this to be
necessary in the past. It could lead to favoritism, and perhaps other legal
problems. The City Attorney's Office has indicated that this would be
tantamount to interferring with the practice of veterinary medicine, which is
pre-empted by the State. Liability is another question. Who is liable if a
visit to a recommended or listed local veterinarian results in the animal's
death, or if the veterinarian cannot be reached and the animal dies? Is the
mobile clinic operator liable for listing or recommending that veterinarian?
This question may cause mobile clinic operators to be reluctant to provide
listings of local veterinarians.
,-- .
17"1
()
Page 4
Presently, both fixed-base vets and mobile vets who conduct clinics provide
daytime phone numbers which can be called for assistance. For after-hours
sel"vice, most people use their yellow pages for a 24-hour animal hospital in
the most convenient location in ,"elation to their residence. Staff feels this
availability (yellow pages) is so universal that there' is no justification or
reason to get involved with the above-mentioned issues.
Two other departments which might be good candidates for overseeing a
ministerial procedure are Building and Safety and City Planning. The
Department of Building' and Safety has experience processing ministerial
applications, and has the necessary infrastructure, public counter, cashier,'
etc., as does the Planning Department. In addition, Building and Safety
enforces the Zoning Code, and as such will enforce his ordinance. It may be
appropriate for them to also accept the applications in accordance with the
ordinance. City Planning would also be appropriate since this is primarily a
land use issue, and that Department is experienced in judging land use issues.
Another benefit offered by the Planning Department is cost; staff sees no
difficulty at this time in performing the registration procedure for'the
proposed cost of $100, whereas apparently the Department of Animal Regulation
feels it would be unable to keep the cost down to this figure.
Conclusion
Staff feels that the proposed reg'istration procedure is workable, but
unnecessary. The practice of veterinary medicine is well regulated by the
State, and in fact the State Board of Veterinary Examiners recently decided
not to recommend any changes in the regulations relating to mobile veterinary
clinics (see Supplemental Staff Report, dated August 30, 1984). Staff,
therefore, recommends the adoption of Appendix B, as originally proposed.
However, if the Planning Commission still desires to set up a registration
procedure, it is recommended that the Department of City Planning or the
Department of Building and Safety be chosen to oversee the procedure. Staff
feels that burdening the Department of Animal Regulation with such a
procedure may be unfair when that department has continually reiterated its
opposition to any procedure which permits mobile veterianary clinics to operate
in the City, and feels that such a procedure may in fact have an adverse
impact on their department. This ordinance involves land use issues more
than animal issues, in any case, and so it may be more appropriate for the
Planning Department or Building and Safety to undertake its implementation.
"-
,'-,"
'. -"'. >-.,-,.
;~~~r;!4t:s~,;
~
lS~~
~'~'
'.,>-:\
...5.,~
''-:ti''/
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:
Mr. Tong said after the Planning Commission meeting the
Applicant had requested furt r consideration of their request
for one 18-foot propane stora e tank by the Planning
Commission and, as a res , Staff e-noticed the public hearing.
Mr. Tong advised that s' ce that tim a letter had been received
from the Cal-Gas repr entative, with awing their request for
the public hearing. e stated that the ction taken at the
Planning Commfssio meetingo~~pril 21, 6, would stand.
SUBJECT: PA8~027 Pet Prevent-A-Care Conditional
Use Permit f~r mobile pet clinics.
Cm. Mack reviewed the format used for public hearings, and opened
the public hearing. Ms. O'Halloran said that over the past six
years several clinics similar to the proposal had been held
successfully and had not generated any complaints. She said that
local veterinarians had voiced some objections to these clinics
in the past on the basis that the mobile clinics are permitted
unfair business advantages to those holding the clinics.
However, Ms. O'Hal1oran advised that the City Council has
encouraged operation of the clinics. .She said that Staff was
recommending approval, subject to the 14 Conditions outlined in
Exhibit B of the Staff Report.
Randy Morrison, Applicant, said he was in agreement with the
Staff Report as it was written.
Gene Nagle said he has operated a Veterinarian Hospital in Dublin
since 1971 and had no objections to the concept of low-cost
clinics, but that he felt they should be held-within a structure
such as the one in which he must hold his practice. Dr. Nagle
said his concern is that the community does not benefit
financially from the clinics, and that there are low-cost clinics
already available, such as the rabies clinic provided by the
County. ~
Eric Young, representative of Pet Prevent-A-Care, gave a history
of the organization and responded to Dr. Nagle's statements. He
reviewed some examples of the opposition his organization has
received from veterinarian businesses,'and s~id that because of
this oppo~ition, the District Manager for trre Gemco Stores has
asked-that clinics not be held at the Dublin Store.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-52
May 5, 1986
, o~~ ~~..'-.'
, ..
. . - -, ~'.-", ,.
. -.',' ,. ''- '.- .~: ..- .,.,
.:: ::<~~. .t'~-~:~ ~~~:1?rt~:..
AlTA .R5!'1~~ ~~?,!'~?' 8
4.~~~. ~11 ~ . i~ ~
l~ ~ i (;~',t [~ .- ';.J<, t ',! ,jj
"l\;jiHt~i~ ~
"::>~'f'>;_~:V':"':;"i.,:".):!k,l!:l1rN' tfr' ,,4I11/v' 1BS ~ ;: C,
',~r:"""~N&" tJr /YJiAj 5; 1'1$6
"';c"_~,~~~~'l!:::'~2~~>"':"i~"':'<":';' '" ' . . ,':.c.,.,.,.c:.i~>.,
.~;.j~:.--l;<-~~ :. ;..- -.;.
(-'7"
~
~,~
Dr. William Evans, Parkway Veterinary Hospital, said his concerns
did not necessarily address the funds taken away from private
businesses in the City, and that private businesses are not
subject to sales taxes. He stated that his concern was that if
this type of business is authorized, other mobile clinics or
services may be authorized as well, such as mobile dental
clinics, and that the community derives no source of income or
financial benefit from the mobile clinics. Dr. Evans said the
local veterinarians operate an emergency clinic. Dr. Evans said
that they are working with the S.P.C.A. to offer additional
discounted services to pet owners. He advised that vaccinations
are available at $10 for dogs or cats through the Danville
Veterinary Hospital and Amador Valley Hospital in Pleasanton, and
that the County offers a low-cost clinic at the Fair Grounds in
June. In response to a question raised by Cm. Raley, Dr. Evans
indicated that for distemper vaccinations, a physical
examination, ~ tag, and a receipt he charges $21 for adult cats,
and $22 fo~ adult dogs; he said he charges $17 for the rabies
vaccination only.
Mr. Young said the Pet Prevent-A-Care clinics offer rabies
vaccinations at $3.95 and the 6 plus 1 shots at $7.50, for a
total of $11.45 for everything for the dogs, and $9.50 for
everything for the cats except the feline lukemia shots, which
cost $10.00 each.
Mr. Evans said the Alameda County Public Health Department offers
a yearly clinic at either $3.00 or $3.50 per rabies vaccination,
which is mandated by State law.
Joanne Bergeron Castro, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, spoke on
behalf of local veterinarians. She distributed a copy of a
letter sent to the veterinarians on April 14, 1986, and said that
a letter had also been sent to the Mayor, indicating the
Chamber's support of the veterinarians' opposition to mobile pet
clinics.
Mr. Morrison stated that each year in the City of Dublin when the
permits have been applied for, local veterinarians indicate that
they can provide the same services as the mobile clinics at low
rates, but that they have not done so. He said he thought it was
important to examine the services offered the community more than
the impact to local veterinarians.
"
.'"
Dr. Evans said that an attempt, in conjunction with the S.P.C.A.,
is being made to organize low cost clinics, but this is still in
the preliminary stage. He commended the City for r~quiring that
physical examinations be made at the time the vaccinations are
given. ~ '.
On motion by Cm. Raley, 'and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a
unanimous voice vote, the public hearing was closed.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-53
May 5, 1 986
.,....
\
~~~___.__~~...;r;.'
~ '.-' ",..'. -,;
."":;;~;0~'.}J:.i;()i~}.:..';<-" .'
.. ~'~ - ;.<;~.::-:"':.
rG~
Ra,~'-,'
\ ~'tE!
<~..
In response to a question from Cm. Petty, Mr. Young said all of
the clinic's staff members are trained to spot physical problems,
and when they do, although they do not diagnose the problem, they
urge the pet owners to take their animals to a veterinarian for
diagnosis and treatment.
Cm. Petty, Cm. Barnes and Cm. Burnham indicated their support of
the clinics. Cm. Raley said he thought the same consideration,
should be given to veterinarians as to other local businesses,
and because the veterinarians are not in support of the clinics,
they should not be authorized. He stated that in the case of the
Marg-ett Art and Craft Fairs, the local merchants supported the
Fairs, and so he supported them. He stated his opposition to the
clinics.~m. Mack also opposed the clinics and said she thought
it would be more appropriate to hold them within enclosed
buildings.
I
On motion byCm. Barnes, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and with a
majority vote, a Resolution was approved for PA 86-027 Pet
Prevent-A-Care Conditional Use Permit-for three mobile pet
clinics ih the Pac 'n'Save parking lot. Cm. Raley and Cm. Mack
voted in opposition to the motion.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 86-027 PET PREVENT-A-CARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR THREE MOBILE PET CLINICS IN THE PAC 'N SAVE PARKING LOT,
6605 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SUBJECT: A 86-028 Amador La
o -Site "For Ren ' Directional Si ns
Con itional Use ermit (extension of
PA 8 012 and 85-054) to allow the
contin ed use of two Off-Site "For Rent"
Directi a1,,$i ns for the Amador Lakes
Condomin~ A artment Complex.
Cm. Mack opened the public heari~ r. Gailey reviewed the
history of the current Off-Si~' "For ~ent" Directional Signs,
and summarized the reasons presented b~\the Applicant for
justification of the contin~~d use of th~ signs. Mr. Gailey
referred to the chart supp ~ed as Attachme t #4 of the.~taff
Report dated May 5, 1986, nd said that th turnover rate of
units in the project for the Amador Lakes Co plex was within the
average range seen for omparable projects. e advised that
Staff recommends the anning Commissi9n adopt Resolution
denying the Conditio 1 Use Permit requestJlo~I ow continued use
of two exisiting Off-Site "For-Rent" Directional igns.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-54
May 5, 1986
'. . ~ .,
"." '- "- '~'.. -,
.~ ~ ;. .,'
I.'
I""
,I."
~','
~'~
('
.... ~~'
'.
, '~.
~..~5;~
,.".,,' ,~.',,'
'.:' ,~,;
((
~
('
t,/!. ~~
q -12..-~Sr
After discussion, Staff was direct
any traffic studies have been d with
intersections and if not, r st Chris
signals at both intersec .
check with the County to determine
respect to signalizing these
Kinzel to look at the need for
if
* * * *
~o..o_,,>_,o,
PUBL I C.',HEARING-:n:-"",'",,~,
~E'T .:MEn ICAL~:~n~:RVi'cE";(;ij)PEALl
..;...~~
On August 15, 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed an application submitted
by Pet Medical Service to conduct a series of 4 low cost pet vaccination
clinics in the payless Drug Store parking lot. Their request was for a
conditional use permit. The Planning Commission at that time voted on a
motion to approve the application, but that motion failed on a 2-3 vote. The
application was denied because the application failed to receive a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
The issues that were raised at the Planning Co~~ission meeting regarding this
application were: 1) the frequency of the clinics and 2) the need to support
local businesses. In terms of the frequency of the clinics, the applicant
proposes 4 clinics between September 1983 and March 1984. The Planning
Commission expressed concern that this was too many clinics in such a short
timeframe. The second concern regarding supporting local businesses. A
representative of a local veterinarian commented that local veterinarian
support local schools, businesses and community activities and that they are
subject to local taxes and restrictions. He, at that time, suggested that
the applicant be subject to either higher taxes or higher fees. The Planning
Commission indicated that they were concerned about supporting local
businesses and took that into consideration in th~ir deliberations.
Staff recommended that the City Council approve the appeal and approve the
application subject to the drafted conditions of approval. Staff felt that
the low cost clinics would encourage individuals in the community to
vaccinate their pets and thereby reduce the potential for rabies. Staff
further felt that the frequency of the clinics seemed to be reasonable and
that the clinics would not conflict with supporting local businesses.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
David McC1un from Pet Medical Service addressed the Council and stated he
felt the service they are offering was explained well by Mr. Tong. Mr.
McClun requested that, if the application is approved, the P1cnning Staff and
applicant would agree on the dates of the clinic. The Council indicated that
it concurred.
Dr. Evans from the Parkway Veterinarian Clinic expressed feeling that this
was unfair support for the price of a conditional use permit. They pay $25,
conduct their business, then leave. Dr. Evans objected to this as he
supports this town, he supports employees in this town, and supports the
community. He supports an emergency clinic to offer after hours emergency
care, and also if there are problems with reactions to a vaccination on the
part of an animal, after Dr. McC1un has left town.
~.r,.,,,. ..'...,',.,".""', ',',!..,"'".'.'~,
"Regular Meef,i'ng'J
CM-2-151
'"1'~~~~~r9a1
------
A II ACHMENT ~
~T!/I'Yr:J or C/?y &vll/a?- /11~/l/t/~
~ Strf>T: /Z-J/18$ACE77/VQ-
,.c--'.,
i(
/",
Cm. Hegarty questioned the frequency of the proposed clinics.
The fee schedule was discussed.
Cm. Burton questioned the possib1ity of coordinating the clinics and
licensing. The Council asked that Staff contact the County to determine
whether or not tpe County would provide a licensing table or mail-in license
forms in the City at such clinics, and whether or not the County could
provide a handout at the clinics which would at least give pet owners
information with respect to the cost of a license and how and where to obtain
animal licenses.
Dr. McClun was requested to provide the City with statistics related to the
place of residence of those people utilizing this service.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 45-83
APPROVING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
AND APPROVING PA 83-037 - PET MEDICAL SERVICE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
TO ALLOW THE CONDUCT OF 4 LOW COST PET VACCINATION CLINICS
PUBLIC HEARING
HERITAGE COMMONS APPEAL
equested a determination of
tage Commons Planned Development
the property owners, Heritage
that the proposed modification be
Mr. Dennis Neeley of Neeley/Lofrano, Inc.,
whether a proposed modification to the He
is minor or not. Mr. Neeley, representi
Common Joint Venture, requested a findi
considered minor.
Heritage Commons was approved as a
by Alameda County in November, 198
Development, 1497th Zoning Unit,
The project involved a
south of Amador Valley
mix of 309 units was:
condominium units on a 22 acre site,
Stagecoach Road. The overall approved
No. (% ) Units Size in sq. ft.
8 (3 ) Studi 440
7 (2 ) 1 Be oom 858
247 (80 ) 2 B tl.room 850-1400
47 (15) 3 edroom 1400-1590
General provision
phases with prior
Commons was appr
of the Planned Development authorized construction in
pprova1 of the Planning Director. Phase I of Heritage
ed in the fall of 1982, with the following mix of 79 units:
CM-2-152
Regular Me
September 12, 1933
j
--
o-Id in heritage - new I.. ideas
.,.
U In
Chamber of Commerce
/Qc~'
I
/;/J
(~ ~ Ir~f~
December 1, 1986
Planning Commission Members
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Attention: Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
Re: PA 86-117 - your letter of Nov. 26, 1986 regarding Pet
Prevent A Care Conditional Use Permit application
(City file PA86-027)
Dear members of the Commission,
The Dublin Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted on
Nov. 12, 1986 to support our local veterinarians, and are
hereby requesting the Planning Commission to reject the
application of Pet Prevent-A-Care.
The local Veterinarians, in conjuntion with the Valley Humane
Society, are presently holding pet clinics and there is always
a Veterinarian present who gives a professional inspection
of the animal. They also provide information on spaying and
neutering.
The real question is a policy issue. Do we want businesses
who do not have any connection with our community to come in
and work in an open parking area and compete directly against
local established businesses?
Sincerely,
~
~
nne Bergeron C
Bo d of Director, Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Chairman, Government, Education, Community
Development Committee
7986 Amador Valley Boulevard
95,y
Dublin, California 94568
(415) 828-6200
Ro~~d of Directors Meeting
November 12, 1986
Page 3
The October
attendance.
Mixers.
Mixer was held at the Compri Hotel and there was more than 125 people in
Bill stated he would Hke to see more Directors in attendance at the Chamber
Membership Retention: Maria Scott repo~ted that.she hasasked,fle~Cnmnittee to mingle
ilrnong new members and to try and ei1ch Slt at a dlfferent tabledul'ing membership luncheon
meetings to berome better acquainted with the r1embership, rather than the A'11oassadors
sitting_together. Membership renewal packets are being personally delivered, with so
many nevI members it takes several, people to accomplish this task.' Discussion followed
cflncenl1ng a head table at r1elJ1bership ,luncheon meetings, the Roar'd suggesting that for
the November meeting not having a head table and see how well it works.
, New Membership. Harvey Tulchinsky reported that the Membership Drive derived 27 new
members bringing the Chamber's total to 399 as of October 31, 1986. Harvey thanked
everyone for their hard work and enthusiasm in making the Membership Drive so successful.
Government/Education/Community Development. cloAnne Castro \'!as absent f!'om Board meeting,
however, Don Babbitt reported on a meeting Dave Burton and himself attended recently
concerning the valley Chambers and Chabot College in sponsoring a series of seminars
for small businesses. Don stated these would be wor'~shop type seminars and that the
group would be meeting again on November 25th when a formal proposal will be presented
at that time. Basically what the group needed to know is whether the Dublin Chamber of
Commerce would support such a concept and if it had any ideas (lr suggestions for types
of workshops to be conducted, days and times best suited for the small husinessperson,
etc. nOTION was made by Poy HOl'et, seconded by Ivan t~orse that the Chamber investigate
the possibilities of small business seminars with other valley Chambers. VOlE: UNANIMOUS.
Bill Foster reported that JoAnne Castro had received an application from the City for
a conditional use permit for Pet-Prevent-A-Care requesting four, one day clinics in
the Dublin area. JoAnne has sent a letter to the City stating the Chamber too~ a stand
against these out-of-the-area mobile type clinics last May, opting to support the local
veterinarians and that the Chamber still supports that action. local veterinarians are
providing four clinics with reduced rates for seniors and low-income families four times
a year at different locations in the valley to try and service as many people within the
valley as possible. The Board was in support of JoAnne's letter, ~
/"Evaluation Committee - Jim Wharton reported that out of 12 evaluation f(lnns mailed out
r'ecent 1 y only two res ponded. He a 1 so repoded tha t the Bus i nes s person of the Yea r
applications have been mailed to the Membership and a selection will be made at a later
date.
Newsletter - It was noted that this month's newsletter was expanded to eight pages in
order to accomodate all the new members due to the member~hip drive. In order for the
Chamber to have eight pages on a regular basis more advertisers would be needed to pay
for the additional cost of printing.
Pr'ogr'ams - Ivan "orse reported that Sgt. DiFranco of the [1"b1in police I)epar'tment will be
the guest speaker at the November luncheon meeting. The topic Sgt.ViFranco w!11 be
speaking on is 'how to minimize holiday crime within a business. 'lhelnstallatlon of
Officers & Directors will be the December program.
fublicity - It was st.ated that an article appeared in the Valley Times concerning the
Chamber's November 'luncheon meeting and the guest speaker.
Valley Economic - DonBi'lbbitt repflrted the Committee ;s still looking for a purpose,
that a half day seminllr is planned to discuss new goals for the Committee ilmi goals that
were not met in 1986. Rill Foster stated that the 1987 Board may want to take a look at
IJ C /71 'is
1?-I-'0t:,
valley
humane
society
A Chapter of
Pets and Pals, Inc
Decem ber 1, 1986
To:
Dublin Planning Commission
From:
Vicky Crosetti; President
Valley Humane Society
In Dublin's Planning Commission's Resolution #86 to be considered December 1, 1986,
it is stated under subsection "a" that the Planning Commission finds that Pet
Prevent-A-Care should be granted a conditional use permit because: "The use is required
by the public need in that it provides a low cost pet vaccination service to the community
and provides a service which is not provided to the community by a public agency.n
The Valley Humane Society does, in fact, provide this service. The V.H.S. provides it,
and other services, to the City of Dublin, year round.
The Valley Humane Society was established in the Tri-Valley Area in May, 1985. The
Society has 80+ members and 13 participating veterinarians.
We held our first low cost vaccination clinic October 4, 1986 at Parkway Veterinary
Hospital, 6851 Village Parkway, Dublin. Parkway Hospital is owned by Dr. William Evans
who donated the use of his building to the Humane Society, thereby eliminating the need
for us to obtain city use permits. Figures for attendance at this clinic, geographical
breakdown of attendees, type and number of vaccinations given are attached.
We have scheduled four more such clinics for 1987:
January 17 Pleasan";]'on
April 5 Dublin
July 12 San Ramon
October 17 Dublin.
All of these clinics will be held inside existing veterinary hospitals.
. Any problem(s) noted by the A.H.T. in a pre-vaccination examination is
immediately referred to the on-premise veterinarian who then examines the
animal and gives a written recommendation to the pet owner to see a regular
veterinarian, if warranted (form attached).
At our clinics, staffed by volunteers, the following procedures are followed and
provided:
. All vaccinations are administered by California State Licensed
Technicians (A.H.T.).
Po. BOX 9001-220
PLEASANTON. CA 94566
4, ~!
. Appropriate city/county license forms are given to the pet owner when a
dog receives a rabies vaccination.
. All attendees are given a sheet outlining possible vaccine reactions, listing
local Emergency Veterinary Hospital phone numbers, and explaining the need
for rabies vaccination in cats as well as dogs (copy attached).
. Attendees with unaltered animals are given a handout, "The Dollars and Cents
of Spaying and Neutering (copy attached).
. Cat carriers and dog leashes are provided to those pet owners not having
them.
. Traffic direction is handled by several volunteers who also talk to waiting
owners about responsible pet ownership and the need for spay/neuter and
licensing.
**. A 33 1/3% discount on vaccinations is given to pet owners over the age of
60. As you can see from the attached attendance breakdown, almost half
the attendees at our last clinic fell into this category.
. Reminder postcards will be mailed out to attendees to let them know when
annual boosters ~re due.
Our vaccination clinics would not be possible without the support of local veterinarians.
These are the same veterinarians who helped the Valley Humane Society become a viable
organization. They provide services to us, our foster animals, and animals adopted through
us.
Many of the stray animals coming to us, incidentally, come off the streets of Dublin.
With Dublin having so few hours of animal control services provided weekly, we at Valley
Humane are frequently called to pick up a stray, help find a lost pet, or provide housing
for a stray or injured animal.
The vaccination clinics we plan will be our major fundraisers for the year. The monies
brought in by these clinics will be reinvested in the communities we service. Valley
Humane patronizes not only the local veterinarians, but also boarding kennels, pet stores,
grocery stores, and newspapers.
We are members of the Chamber of Commerce, provide educational programs at
pre-schools and service organizations like Lions, and participate in Dublin's St. Patrick's
Day celebration.
In addition, I represent the Tri-Valley Area on the County Animal Control Advisory Task
Force which is planning the new shelter to be built in the near future to replace the Santa
Rita facility.
In short, we support Dublin and other Tri-Valley communities.
The Valley Humane Society is asking the Dublin Planning Commission to make a choice
to support your local Humane Society instead of an outside street vendor. There can
be no questions that our vaccination clinics are in compliance with local ordinances;
they are held indoors.
The Valley Humane Society, local veterinarians, and local merchants will appreciate
your support of the V.H.S.
MISSION:
valley
humane
society
A Chapter of
Pets and Pals, Inc.
To educate the community on the need for responsible pet ownership, including
the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats, and to assist in the placement
of abandoned/stray and injured animals.
ACTIVITIES:
1. Develop educational programs
2. Rescue abandoned animals
3. Sponsor foster homes
4. Place unwanted pets in suitable homes
5. Sponsor/support humane legistlation
6. Assist other community organizations
7. Give lectures/demonstrations
8. Acquire and maintain an animal shelter
9. Conduct fundraisers
BACKGROUND:
The Valley Humane Society, a non-profit organization, is a chapter of Pets
& Pals, Inc. Our parent organization is a statewide organization which was
formed in 1947. Our chapter was established in May 1985. The Valley Humane
Society supports animal welfare in the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and
Livermore, as well as areas generally surrounding these cities.
MEMBERSHIP:
75+ members
MEETINGS:
The third Tuesday of each month
General public meeting held annually
P. O. Box 9001-220
Pleasanton, CA 94566
valley
humane
society
A Chapter of
Pets and Pals. Inc
Valley Humane Society Vaccination Clinic,October 4,1986 (first such clinic)
Location : Parkway Veterinary Hospital,Dublin
Time: 2p.m.- 5p.m.
Personnel: Two teams of two technicians vaccinating, eight volunteers per-
forming a variety of functions, veterinarian on premise(Dr.Campbell).
Total vaccinations given:369; 103 Dfl~P,99 FCR,167 Rabies
Prices: 36 per vaccination,$4 for persons over 60; 76 senior citizens attended.
Advertising: Valley Times,Herald,KKIQ,direct mail to members and other
Valley organizations,flyets,also "free" articles in papers including Path.....ays.
Attendance breakdown by city: Dublin 35,Pleasanton 32,Livermore 60,Tracy 3,
San Ramon/Danville 26,San Leandro/Eayward 3. Total:158.
Breakdown of attendees by veterinarian named as their regular vet:
Have no regular vet: 70. These people were given a list of our 12 partici-
pating veterinarians and told that any pet should be seen by a vet for a
full scala physical exam at least annually. Any person with an w1altered
animal was told verbally about the need for spay/neuter and given our
flyer on the same.
Regular vet: Evans 21,Fullmer 6, Stannard 6, Young 12, Gardner 4, Bird 8,
*
Plone 6, Black 7, Nagle 4, Connelly 2, Krome 2, Roberts 2, Powers 1,
* * *
Kelsey 1, Scharg 1, McClan 1, Holt 1, San Leandro/Hayward vet 3. Star(*)
over vet's name indicates that we are not sure wh~re this vet practices
but the person listing them as a reg~lar vet lives in the Valley area.
Referrals for medical nroblems:One pet was referred to the regular vet
for an existing health problem,diagnosed by the attending veterinarian.
Other referrals: In addition to those owners advised to alter their
pets, the technicians in attendance told about thirty percent of
the attending O'Nners that they should consult a vet regarding the
possible need for dentals and about twenty percent to consult their
regular vet for management of obesity.
Report prepared by Vicky Crosetti
1'0. BOX 9001-220
PLEASANTON. CA 94566
valley
humane
society
A Chapter of
Pets and Pals. Inc.
LOW COST VACCINATION CLINIC
Your pet has just been vaccinated at the Valley Humane Society Vaccination
Clinic.
Please be aware that sometimes after vaccination, animals, especially young
ones, may appear a little sleepy or unwilling to play or eat for up to 24
hours following vaccination. If your animal received a rabies vaccination,
it may favor one of its rear legs for a day or two or exhibit some tender-
ness in that area. All of these reactions are possible and you should not
worry.
However, if your animal exhibits other symptoms like swelling, intense and
prolonged itching, or high fever (normal for cats & dogs is 101 to 1020 F)
you should have the animal seen by your regular veterinarian or at an
Emergency Veterinary Clinic. Emergency clinic phone numbers are:
. Dublin 828-0654 . San Leandro 352-6080
. Fremont 656-0672 . Concord 798-2900
Please note: If a puppy or kitten (under 6 months) was vaccinated today
for canine parvo/distemper or feline distemper, THIS IS ONLY ONE OF A
SERIES OF VACCINATIONS YOUR PET NEEDS FOR FULL PROTECTION!! One vacci-
nation will not protect it against these diseases. These vaccinations
must be given on a schedule or you will lose the benefit from this
vaccination. Call your regular veterinarian for more information.
The State of California requires that dogs be vaccinated for rabies at
four months of age, then again at one year of age, and then every three
years afterward. You cannot license your dog without a rabies vaccination
certificate and the law requires that you license your dog.
The state does not require rabies vaccinations for cats. However, we
highly recommend rabies vaccinations for cats because they often come in
contact with wildcats, raccons, skunks, and possums. Cats exposed to a
rabid animal and not vaccinated must be quarantined for six months or
euthanized.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT STERILIZATION (SPAY/NEUTER) OF YOUR PET SHOULD BE
DONE AT SIX MONTHS OF AGE. Cats and dogs begin to become sexually
mature at this age and will produce unwanted litters. A few facts:
during the spring/summer/fall "kitten season," 30,000 kittens are born
daily in the U.S. and 17,000 are put to sleep daily; cats can become
pregnant again just 2-3 weeks after delivering a litter even though
they are nursing kittens.
Thank you for supporting the Valley Humane Society (a Chapter of Pets &
Pals, Inc.) by attending our vaccination clinic. Please look for future
clinics.
PO, BOX 9001-220
PlE^5ANTON. CA 94566
THE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY
IS SPONSORING A
LOW COST CAT & DOG
VACCINATION CLINIC
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4th
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Parkway Veterinary Hospital
6851 Village Parkway
Dublin
(Veterinarian on premises)
VACCINATIONS $6.00 (CASH ONLY)
FOR OWN ERS OVER 60 - $4.00
Canine distemper/parvo (DHLPP)
Feline distemper/upper respiratory (FCR)
Canine or Feline rabies
A CHAPTER OF PETS & PALS, INC.
P. O. BOX 9001-220, PLEASANTON, CA 94566
m:
. ,
.
THE DOLLARS AND CENTS OF SPAYING AND NEUTERING
-You just have to help me. I'm stuck with a litter of puppies/kittens, and
I can't find homes for them. I'm going crazy.-
This refrain comprises at least one third of the calls taken by the Valley
Humane Society. When asked why their adult animal was not altered, most
people reply, -I couldn't afford it.- When asked if altering is planned,
the reply is usually, -As soon as I have the money.-
Alright, we agree that altering your animal costs money: perhaps up to
$100.00 for a very large fema~e dog. However, the cost of not altering can
be several times that amount. What if your animal has birthing difficult-
ies? Are you going to watch her die? No, you're going to go to a vet and
get shots to help her delivery ($12-$15 each), or you spend $200-$300 for a
C-section, or to remove a retained puppy or kitten. Maybe your animal is
weak and dies in surgery. Then, you're stuck with a litter you either
euthanize or you bottle-feed around the clock every three hours for three
weeks. Mother's milk replacer is about $1~50 for a five-ounce can.
If she delivers with no problems, a nursing mother requires one and half
times as much food, or ideally a higher-quality (more expensive) food.
Then, at four to five weeks you have to buy for the litter, and feed them
until placement. But wait, two or three weeks after delivery the mother
may develop eclampsia (or milk fever) caused by low calcium levels due to
nursing. Back to the vet, spend over $100.00. Can't put the kids back to
nursing on Mom, so you're bottle-feeding the litter.
Perhaps Mom never develops any problems, but you didn't know she was going
to breed, so you didn't have her wormed or vaccinated prior to del ivery.
She's passing those worms on to her litter, which could be fatal to them,
and they have no maternal antibodies against canine parvo or distemper, or
the feline upper respiratory diseases. Back to the vet ($$$), or perhaps
you and your children watch the litter die in spite of the vet's best
efforts. Even if your female animal never breeds, due to the fact that you
either exercise extreme control during heat cycles, or you board her ($5-$9
per day) every cycle, she can still develop uterine infections like met-
ritis or pyometra (pus in the uterus, requiring an emergency hysterectomy),
or mammary tumors. Do you let her die, or do you spend several times a
spay fee trying to save her life?
Your male animal: He's never going to have a litter, so why bother neuter-
ing him? Quite frankly, men are usually the hardest for us to convince
that neutering is necessary, because they seem to identif~ with their male
animal. -I sure wouldn't want it done to me, ha, ha, ha. Well, the joke
is on you, my friend, but it won't seem funny when your male pet develops
testicular or mammary tumors or prostate trouble, or gets hit by a car,
shot, or torn to shreds by another aale animal while he roams looking for a
female companion. All of these things are going to cost you big bucks. If
you want to keep your pet alive, that is.
The final harsh financial fact is this: If you can't afford or choose not
to treat your animal for any of the aforementioned problems, EUTHANASIA AND
DISPOSAL ARE GOING TO COST ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT AS SPAYING/NEUTERING. In
dollars and cents, that is. The emotional cost will be considerably
higher.
-over-
If you have a pregnant ani.al right now, have the litter aborted and your
animal spayed at the same time. If you have a litter of kittens, remember
that f..ale cats will breed again while they are still nursing a litter.
The valley Humane Society cannot take in your unwanted pets. We can only
offer you advice. OUr foster homes are all full with stray and rescued
anlaals. Our budget is strained. We need adoptive homes for our foster
anlaals which currently include over twenty c..ts and kittens, several mixed
breed puppies of various sizes, and a list a mile long of referred animals.
Please call or write if you want to adopt or join.
Please handle your personal responsibilities toward the animals you own, or
have allowed to breed. ~ sympathize with you, but our time and energies
right now must be spent on educating the general public, raising the funds
needed to ~ort our foster program, and on .aking known the need for a
better animal shelter in the Tri-Valley ,area.
Support us. Let your elected representatives know that you want to see a
new shelter project succeed.
valley humane
society ,
AC~oI
Pm Ind '''s. In(