Cathedral City staff recommends up to 10½-month extension of cannabis moratorium amid widespread odor complaints

City staff recommended that the City Council extend a temporary moratorium on new cannabis licenses, conditional use permits and building permits for cannabis business build-outs for up to 10 months and 15 days so the city can study odor-control standards and enforcement options.

The recommendation followed a staff presentation from Andy Firestein, Cathedral City’s Community and Economic Development Director, that reviewed the city’s current cannabis regulations, a spike in odor complaints and proposed next steps including an odor-control plan requirement and changes to zoning where cultivation and manufacturing are allowed.

Staff said the city currently has 64 cannabis businesses with 105 licenses, 47 operating sites and 17 nonoperating businesses. Firestein told the council the city received 38 cannabis odor complaints in the first three months of 2024 and 904 complaints across the following nine months, including 220 in November and 501 in December, with many complaints concentrated near Deep Palm Drive and Ramon Road. He said the city has increased inspections, patrols, and coordination with other valley enforcement staff and with state and county agencies but that nuisance odors persist.

Firestein described the regulatory gap the city faces: licensing rules sit in Title 5 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code, while zoning (Title 9) and nuisance enforcement (Title 13) have not been updated since they were initially adopted as Ordinances 800, 801 and 802. He said Title 9 includes a standard condition of approval that requires exhaust filtration systems and a “no-odor” expectation, while Title 13 defines a public nuisance when cannabis odors are “offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity” and creates a presumption of nuisance after three complaints in one month. Firestein said the city lacks an odor-control permit, standardized engineering review of proposed mitigation systems, and enforceable maintenance requirements for filters and other mitigation.

Residents and property owners, many from Outdoor Resort Palm Springs and nearby mobile-home communities, urged the council to take immediate action. Speakers described persistent nighttime odors they said interfered with sleep and outdoor life, reported eye and respiratory irritation and asserted property values had fallen. Several speakers called for an immediate shutdown of the largest nearby cultivation facility (identified in public comment as Cat City Cannabis or “C4”) until odor controls succeed; others urged the city to use its existing nuisance code to enforce compliance now rather than wait for a code update.

David Bernard, identified as COO of C4, told the council the company had pursued mitigation steps including a fogging system that is now used intermittently and that C4 was committed to finding solutions. Bernard said the company wanted clear guidance from the city and that a 10-month moratorium could be a long time to wait for direction.

Firestein told the council staff’s draft approach would include: (1) requiring an odor-control plan submitted as part of conditional-use and licensing processes, prepared or certified by a California-licensed engineer; (2) updating Title 9 (zoning) to remove cultivation and manufacturing as conditional uses in the city’s most common PCC (planned community commercial) zone and to reevaluate separation requirements, including resort-residential protections; and (3) aligning Title 13 nuisance standards and enforcement remedies with practical, enforceable measures and objectively defined thresholds where possible. He recommended staff return with draft ordinance language to the cannabis task force and planning commission for public hearings.

The presentation also reported the city’s coordination with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the South Coast Air Quality Management District; Firestein said both agencies had inspected a large cultivation site and had not identified a public-health threat and that the emissions were properly categorized as nuisance odors under the municipal code.

Staff told the council extending the moratorium beyond the initial 45 days adopted Jan. 22 would require a four-fifths council vote; the ordinance title was read into the record later in the meeting. The transcript of this meeting records the public hearing, many public comments and councilmembers’ support for taking the time to update regulations, but does not record a final council vote on the moratorium extension in the supplied portion of the transcript.

Next steps outlined on the record included: continued proactive odor patrols and inspections, weekly updates by staff to residents who filed complaints, further research into best practices for odor mitigation (including technology and monitoring), and development of draft ordinance language to return to the planning commission and council before any longer-term regulatory changes take effect.

Votes at a glance for items recorded elsewhere on the agenda: the council approved unrelated consent items and awarded professional agreements later in the meeting; those votes are reported separately in the related articles.

Local residents and council members stressed urgency. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory said the council “inherited” the situation and supported the moratorium extension to prevent more facilities from opening while the city reworks its code. Multiple residents urged immediate shutdowns of noncompliant operations; some asked for tighter fines, real-time monitoring technology and stricter spacing from resort-residential zones.

Staff emphasized that the planning-phase work includes identifying objective odor thresholds and best practices from other jurisdictions with large indoor cultivation presences, and assessing technology such as continuous monitoring and carbon-scrubber or other filtration systems.

The City Council opened the public hearing and received dozens of comments from residents, property owners and an operator representative. The transcript supplied does not show a recorded final vote to adopt the extension ordinance; staff recommended the extension and described the draft ordinance language and process that would follow if council confirms the measure.