Cathedral City Council moves to require odor-control plans, add sensors and raise fines; residents press for relief as Cat City Cannabis Company (C4) workers plead to keep jobs
The city council of Cathedral City recently took a major step toward tightening cannabis regulations, advancing a package that requires every cannabis business to maintain an approved odor-control plan, establishes a clearer enforcement path, and paves the way for higher fines when odors cross property lines. The goal, city officials said, is to solve the odor problem without shutting down compliant operators.
Under the ordinance, cultivation, manufacturing and consumption-lounge sites must add meteorological sensors to help pinpoint sources of odor. If staff directly detect cannabis odor or receive a cluster of verified complaints, a business with an approved plan has 10 days to fix the issue and document the corrective steps. Persisting violations can trigger administrative citations. The city is also consolidating fine provisions so the Council can set higher penalties by resolution.
A companion fine schedule headed to a future vote would allow fines of up to $1,000 per day for businesses that have an approved odor-control plan but violate it, and up to $5,000 per month for companies that are required to have a plan but don’t obtain or maintain one. City staff emphasized that this schedule is tied to the ordinance’s second reading.
Council and staff input
During a detailed walkthrough, Andrew Finestine, the city’s director of community and economic development, explained that enforcement begins with a warning and a chance to correct course, followed by a re-inspection. Only if the odor is still detected at the property line will the city issue a citation. “Let’s identify what went wrong… The business is given an opportunity to take corrective action,” Finestine said, noting the first citation in that scenario would be $1,000. For operators that fail to obtain or maintain an odor-control plan when required, citations would be $5,000 and three citations within 12 months could constitute “good cause” for license revocation action.
Council members stressed the intent is compliance, not closures. “We’re not going to put anyone out of business,” said councilmember Mark Carnevale. “This whole effort has been about the city… to try to find a solution, not to shut down Cat City Cannibas Company,” added councilmember Rita Lamb. Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez called the hearing “very emotional,” citing numerous employee statements about job security, pride in their work, paying for college and seniors finding employment.
Staff also outlined the costs and process: SCS Engineers would review odor-control plans for the highest-emitting uses (cultivation, manufacturing, and lounges) at $3,500 per plan, with approximately four hours of city time, resulting in a total review cost of $4,264. Lower emission uses, such as retail, distribution, and testing, would be reviewed by city staff for $764.
The draft also updates zoning. Cultivation would no longer be a conditional use in the PCC zone, and a 300-foot separation from the Resort Residential zone would be added – changes staff say better address land-use conflicts. It would render several existing cultivation sites legally non-conforming, including Cat City Cannabis Company/”C4” which operates a 325,000-square-foot indoor facility on Ramon Road, west of DaVall Drive, which is the largest indoor cannabis farm in the state, according to the company’s website. The company claims they can produce 111,000 pounds per year of dry cannabis at capacity, with an additional 22,000 pounds per year of associated trim. The Planning Commission backed the ordinance 4–1 and recommended, separately, a 22,000-square-foot canopy cap on future cultivation permits.
A show of force from C4’s workforce
Many Cat City Cannabis Co. employees attended and spoke in favor of the company, describing the good treatment, benefits, and advancement opportunities, and urging the Council not to shut down the facility. The company’s HR representative stated that the workforce has grown to 277 employees, with approximately 90 additional seasonal trimmers, and outlined the health insurance, retirement, and training opportunities available. Supervisors said they take pride in running a “clean and compliant” operation and in the jobs the company provides.
Residents press for faster, tougher enforcement
John Murphy, who lives near Perez Road, submitted a comment by email telling the city he spent $22,000 on mini-split systems after cannabis odors repeatedly seeped into his home through vents and the HVAC system. “It is difficult to be woken up every night with the ‘skunk-like’ smell,” he wrote, noting he relies on oxygen due to emphysema. “Please do the right thing and make the cannabis growers/producers accountable… If they can’t, shut them down.”
Jeff and Erin Fitzpatrick-Bjorn, owners at Outdoor Resort Palm Springs, said odors from a nearby facility have “persisted for years” despite assurances that the situation would improve. They support the ordinance for giving businesses “a clear path to continue operation” and the city a clear path to escalate enforcement but urged “prompt action” so violations don’t linger through another season.
Rick Watts, who lives south of the C4 complex, criticized what he called “shockingly absurd low fines” under existing rules and questioned why enforcement had lagged, arguing fines should deter violations. He also raised concerns about volatile organic compounds and asked the city to match penalties used by neighboring jurisdictions and others in California.
What changes next
If adopted on second reading, the ordinance would require an approved odor-control plan for license renewals beginning in January 2026. The city has also deleted references to a specific “field olfactometer” method and can require an odor assessment using a technique it deems acceptable. City outreach materials note that the draft reflects months of research and peer-jurisdiction scanning.
Today, basic odor citations cap out at $500 under city code; by consolidating fines into a single section and adopting an updated schedule by resolution, the Council would be able to impose stronger penalties tied to odor plan compliance. The Cannabis Task Force recommended approval 5–1; the Planning Commission voted 4–1.
City staff framed the approach as performance-based and fix-first: require plans and equipment, verify maintenance, give operators a defined window to correct problems, and reserve the steepest consequences for repeat or willful non-compliance. As one official put it, the ordinance clarifies that while “good cause” for license action exists after multiple citations, “we’re not trying to get there.”
