CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - At the April 14 meeting, the Citrus Heights City Council considered whether to make permanent the urgency ordinance for fireworks regulation and enforcement that was passed unanimously last year.

The urgency ordinance imposes a $750 fine for social hosts who allow illegal fireworks on the property. Any subsequent violation results in a $1,000 fine. The ordinance also includes a time of use restriction for legal fireworks, with any use between 11:00 PM and 9:00 AM incurring the same fine. The urgency ordinance is set to expire this June, so by adopting a permanent change to the ordinance now, the Council would ensure a consistent policy remains in place.

Councilmember Bret Daniels took issue with time of use violations receiving the same fine as illegal fireworks use. He said that while he is bothered by fireworks set off late into the night, he doesn’t feel that those violations are in the same category: “Those two violations are definitely two different things in the level of severity.” He said it “seems to be a little extreme” and asked that the Council consider a smaller fine for the time of use violations.

Councilmember Steve Miller agreed that a smaller fine would be more appropriate for legal fireworks violations.

Vice Mayor Tim Schaefer said that many cites have banned all fireworks, and as a result they don’t have much of an issue with illegal fireworks. He said that imposing the fine tells the public “Don’t take advantage,” because if people are able to follow the rules, then the Council won’t have to consider a total ban. “Personally, I think that things are a little out of control right now, and I don’t have an issue with a heavy fine for afterhours use,” said Schaefer.  

Mayor Porsche Middleton said she thought the fines were appropriate as written in the ordinance: “It’s just a way for folks to know that we’re serious about this.” She said it was best to “come out strong,” so violations should be fined across the board.

Councilmember Jeannie Bruins was on the fence at first, but then agreed that it was best to remain consistent with the existing urgency ordinance and maintain the same fees as written.

Councilmember Daniels motioned for approval of the ordinance with the change to a $250 fine for afterhours violations, which was seconded by Miller. The motion failed 2-3, with Bruins, Schaefer, and Middleton dissenting.

Councilmember Bruins motioned that the urgency ordinance be adopted permanently as written. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Schaefer and passed 3-2, with Miller and Daniels dissenting.

The Council also reviewed drive-through facilities and related policies—an item requested for discussion by Vice Mayor Schaefer.

There are 70 drive-through locations in the city—which include restaurants, coffee shops, pharmacies, carwashes, and banks—and 49 of those existed prior to the City’s incorporation. Most of the drive-throughs are located at major intersections.

Existing regulations in the general plan discourage a concentration of auto-intensive services while ensuring that drive-through businesses are allowed where they are compatible with the surrounding area. The Planning Commission reviews applications for new drive-through businesses, and the process includes a traffic study to make sure the queue doesn’t back up into the public roadway.

Quick-service restaurants, which include those with drive-throughs, generate a significant amount of sales tax revenue for the City. In 2021, approximately $1.5 million in sales tax revenue came from restaurants, and more than half of that total ($760,000) came from the quick-service sector. And while many restaurants experienced steep declines during the pandemic, drive-through sales remained consistent.

While drive-throughs are popular and convenient, there are associated challenges. The amount of space needed for the vehicle queue can limit the land uses for the surrounding area, making it difficult to approve residential or mixed-use development nearby. And drive-throughs generally offer lower-wage jobs, impact air and noise quality, and can have a negative community perception.

Staff explained that the Council could opt to maintain the current policies on drive-throughs, or they could implement more regulations or even impose a temporary moratorium or a permanent ban on new drive-through businesses.

Vice Mayor Schaefer said he is “big fan” of the restaurant Raising Cane’s, and he was excited when the popular chain opened a location in Citrus Heights. But he said that constituents reached out to him with concerns about the traffic congestion caused at the Greenback and Birdcage intersection due to the drive-through restaurant’s popularity. Schaefer cited other popular drive-throughs, including In-N-Out Burger and Chick-fil-A, that have similar traffic issues. He asked, “How can we manage this better?”

Councilmember Bruins said she wants to ensure that Citrus Heights remains committed to being a “business friendly community” where it is easy to do business. “I am typically in favor of less restrictions than more restrictions,” she said. Bruins also thought the traffic issues at Raising Cane’s were isolated to the first weeks after they opened, due to the public’s excitement about the popular chain coming to Citrus Heights. She said the traffic volume has stabilized and that the Council shouldn’t “overreact to something that was a single event in time.”

Councilmember Daniels said he doesn’t want to limit development of drive-throughs since these businesses provide a significant amount of tax revenue. And he doesn’t want to discourage businesses from buying property in Citrus Heights due to concerns that their ability to develop it would be restricted.  

Councilmember Miller said, “We can’t be talking about being a business friendly city and then turn around and talk about moratoriums on how they conduct their businesses.” While he said he’d support more work on planning the traffic circulation of these types of businesses, he said, “When our zoning allows for this type of business, denying that is unacceptable to me.”

Vice Mayor Schaefer agreed that they don’t want a perception that the City isn’t friendly to businesses, “but we also have community members, and we want to listen to the community.” He said people reached out to him with concerns, so he felt it was his responsibility to bring this issue forward.

Mayor Middleton said it’s also important to remember that these locations are private property and are not owned by the city. So, while the City should ensure that a business is a good fit for the location, additional restrictions shouldn’t be imposed.

Councilmember Miller added that while he has seen complaints on social media about the number of drive-throughs in the city, he only heard directly from one community member, who sent an email opposing any moratorium. Miller said it seemed to be “much to do about nothing.”

The drive-thru item was for discussion only and to provide general direction to staff, so no action was taken by the Council.