Outlook
Cannabis issues Perez Rd. neighbors. Please give to the task force, planning, and city council.
FromJohn Murphy <[email protected]>
Date Sun 8/10/2025 7:21 AM
To Andrew Firestine <[email protected]>; Talen Weinman <[email protected]> Thank you all for listening to us down here by Perez Rd. And Date Palm. After buying this mobile home in Date Palm Country Club 1.5 years ago, we have suffered continuously with cannabis smells coming INTO the house from underneath through the vents and AC/furnace. It is difficult to be woken up every night with the 'skunk-like' smell. I feel like at times, my retirement has been ruined. Plus, with oxygen dependency due to emphysema, it only makes things worse if one is sensitive like myself. We explored every avenue with the existing AC and furnace to try and mitigate the smell but to no avail. It was being pulled in. We wound up spending $22K dollars for mini-spits which do not pull outside air in. Why should we be financially punished for something we did not create? Most of the cannabis owners know the rules yet seem to not care at all or are not capable of putting in enough machinery to achieve smell mitigation. Mr. Firestine has done an amazing job of setting up some guidelines and expectations of the cannabis growers. I would hope the city passes this and begins demanding action RE the smells.
Everyone down here along the corridor of Perez is being made to suffer. Remember there are many folks employed in the area (car dealers, bars, restaurants, city hall etc.) who have no escape when they go to work. Please do the right thing and make the cannabis growers/producers accountable. They appear to be, by the looks of the remodels, capable of spending the necessary funds to make our area livable. If they can't, shut them down. It's actually pretty simple. Thank you.
John Murphy
137 Via Estrada
CC
760-218-1836
8/11/25, 5:04 PM Cannabis issues Perez Rd. neighbors. Please give to the task force, planning, and city council. - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 1/1
Outlook
Cannabis odor regulation
FromKathy Fuller <[email protected]>
Date Tue 7/22/2025 12:28 PM
To Talen Weinman <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I read the draft ordinance for the cannabis odor control. I appreciate the City trying to do something about this problem as I am very sensitive to odors and cannabis smell makes me nauseous. Several areas of the city have made me ill with the smell, notably, around the senior citizen center area and Perez. My question is what are the limits or standards of the olfactometer reading? I did not see it in the ordinance. The setbacks are a good idea, but what if one can still smell the odor outside the building? I see that there are fines, but what determines if the odor is too strong? Kathryn Fuller, Cathedral City resident
8/11/25, 5:05 PM Cannabis odor regulation - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 1/1
Outlook
Draft Cannabis Ordinance Feedback
FromJeff & Erin Fitzpatrick-Bjorn <[email protected]> Date Sat 7/26/2025 1:21 PM
To Talen Weinman <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CCO Weinman,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback about the proposed ordinance regarding the production, sale, and consumption of cannabis in Cathedral City.
As property owners at Outdoor Resort Palm Springs, we have experienced the cannabis odors released by the cannabis production facility adjacent to the resort along Ramon Road. Despite continued assurances from that business, those bothersome odors have persisted for years.
It seems that this ordinance provides businesses like that one with a clear path to continue operation and the City with a clear path to issue citations and, if needed, revoke licenses in the event of failure to comply.
While we are glad that the City is considering implementation of this ordinance, we remain a bit disappointed that it has taken this long and has the potential to take much longer: this neighboring business could continue to fail to comply for yet another season before losing their license.
Here’s hoping that the City takes prompt action on the ordinance and, if needed, future enforcement — and that businesses such as the one on Ramon Road promptly and consistently comply.
Sincerely,
Jeff & Erin Fitzpatrick-Bjorn
69411 Ramon Road #1198
Cathedral City
8/11/25, 5:07 PM Draft Cannabis Ordinance Feedback - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 1/1
Outlook
Re: Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review FromRick Watts <[email protected]>
Date Sat 7/19/2025 3:56 PM
To Ernesto Gutierrez <[email protected]>; Mark Carnevale <[email protected]>; Nancy Ross <[email protected]>; Raymond Gregory <[email protected]>; Rita Lamb <[email protected]>; Ryan Hunt <[email protected]>; Talen Weinman <[email protected]>; Andrew Firestine <[email protected]> 1 attachment (54 KB)
Friday July 18, 2025 9-39 AM VOC 535.jpg;
I received the documents sent by Mr. Hunt. The following are my ongoing issues:
1) The glacial speed of which the city is moving on the Cannabis Ordinance update. It will be way over a year since the citizen uprising began. Instead of fast tracking the resolution, the city council continues to drag their feet. Enforce the ordinances already in place. Why isn't that happening? 2) Cathedral City is the only valley city with shockingly absurd low fines for ordinance violations.
Cathedral City has the lowest level of penalties for all cities in the Coachella Valley with cannabis permits. Why is that? Fines and penalties are used as deterrents. It's even mentioned in the attached report by the consulting firm. How many fines have been levied against the C4 complex for ANY violations? I'm guessing the answer is ZERO. Cathedral City should have the same level of fines and penalties as the other cities. Not less. Then again, the monthly revenue tax collected by the city lessens the desire to enforce the existing ordinances. 3) Finally........ the consultant mentioned Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) . The odorless, colorless gas that continues to be released into the air by the C4 complex. Attached is a screen shot of a recent VOC reading taken by a monitoring system at my residence on Friday June 18, 2025 at 9:39 AM. It measures an incredible 535. According to Mr. Firestein in an earlier email to me, VOC's are "harmless." Since Mr. Firestein is an expert, perhaps he will explain what chemicals compose the VOC's being released by the C4 complex. All of the residents who live around the C4 complex would be interested in knowing what is contained in the VOC's other than the stink of cannabis. I have seen the VOC level as high as 750.
4) What has happened to the Code Compliance drive by inspections I used to see in the Desert Sands Community? The last time I saw a Code Compliance vehicle was several weeks ago. I frequently see CCPD vehicles passing my residence, mostly in the very early morning hours. At least they have stopped turning on their "Alley Lights" and shining into the windows in my residence. The smell of cannabis has been less because the HVAC systems are running due to the summer heat.
Of course, the "stink number" has diminished as a result. This distorts your calculations contained in the reports. Cannabis reports appears less than it actually is. But I am sure the city council has figured that out.
8/11/25, 5:07 PM Re: Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 1/4
5) What happened to the landscaping trees which were included in the original plans at the C4 complex? Trees were supposed to line the masonry walls between the Desert Sands Community and the Outdoor Resort of Palm Springs. The trees were to shield the C4 building from the other communities. All I see is a huge metallic building facing my residence. The city approved plans called for landscaping to block the ugly building. What do we have? Nothing. Any idea(s) how the C4 ownership manages to evade non-compliance to the original approved plans? All of the "fix" work by a consulting firm should be paid for by the ownership of the C4 complex. Not by the Cathedral City taxpayers. How much are the taxpayers being asked to pay for the consultant and equipment? How much is the C4 ownership being asked to pay for these expenditures? I suspect the answer is ZERO. By the time the city finishes messing around with the E-Z to fix problem, the Canadian's (well most of them) will be back in the valley to find out nothing has changed since they left in April/May.
Here is my prediction: I will be writing emails to the city council on this same topic well into 2026. The talk will continue but little else will be accomplished. I welcome any communication from anyone at city government.
Regards,
Rick Watts
1322 Via Poco (400 yards directly south of the C4 complex) Desert Sands Community
Cathedral City, Ca. 92234
[email protected]
760-408-3578
From: Ryan Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Ryan Hunt <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review Dear Valued Community Member,
Here is your latest update on the City's cannabis enforcement activities and a major milestone in our regulatory improvement process:
Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review
The City has prepared a comprehensive draft ordinance to update our cannabis regulations and has made it available for public review and comment before formal consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. This represents our commitment to transparency and community engagement throughout the regulatory development process.
The draft ordinance incorporates months of research, consultant analysis, and data collection to address cannabis odor concerns through:
8/11/25, 5:07 PM Re: Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 2/4
Mandatory odor control plans for all cannabis businesses with performance-based standards Enhanced enforcement provisions that provide clear corrective action processes Updated zoning requirements including new setback requirements from the Resort Residential zone
Public Comment Opportunity
The draft ordinance and supporting materials are also available for review at:
https://www.cathedralcity.gov/Home/Components/News/News/2378/ Community members are encouraged to review these documents and submit comments electronically to Code Compliance Officer Talen Weinman at [email protected].
Upcoming Public Hearings:
Planning Commission: August 20, 2025 (tentative)
City Council: September 24, 2025 (tentative)
Interested parties are encouraged to monitor the City's website for published meeting agendas and information on how to participate in public hearings.
Timeline Commitment
The City remains on track with the timeline presented to City Council in April 2025. The draft ordinance represents the culmination of extensive research into best practices from other California jurisdictions, professional consultation with SCS Engineers, and ongoing monitoring data from our Code Compliance Division.
This transparent approach ensures that our community has ample opportunity to review and provide input on proposed regulations before they are formally considered for adoption.
Please continue to report any cannabis-related concerns through our online reporting system at https://www.cathedralcity.gov/i-want-to/contact/report-an-issue or the free MyCathedralCity mobile app.
Best regards,
Ryan Hunt, CPC
Communications & Events Manager
City of Cathedral City, California
[email protected]
Cell: 540.664.8556|Monday-Thursday 7 a.m. – 6 p.m.
8/11/25, 5:07 PM Re: Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 3/4
8/11/25, 5:07 PM Re: Draft Cannabis Ordinance Released for Public Review - Andrew Firestine - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 4/4
Scott McDonald
69411 Ramon Road
Cathedral city, CA
92234
2025 August 18
Mayor and City Council
City of Cathedral City
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Subject: Urgent Strengthening of Cannabis Odor & Emissions Ordinance Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, Commissioners, and Task Force Members:
I live directly adjacent to a cannabis cultivation facility. Since the opening of C4 Industries, my neighbors and I have endured intrusive odors and emissions that interfere with daily life, reduce property enjoyment, lower property values, and raise serious health concerns.
While I appreciate the City’s efforts to update the cannabis odor ordinance, the current draft contains major flaws that will delay relief, weaken enforcement, and fail to address key public health risks.
Key Concerns
● Compliance Delay – Existing operators have until December 31, 2026 to install odor control equipment, leaving residents exposed for two more years. ● Weak Enforcement – Verified violations result in warnings and grace periods instead of immediate citations. The city has not issued an odor violation since 2019. ● High Odor Threshold – The 7 DT standard still permits disruptive odors and is not protective of residents.
● Self-Certification – Annual operator self-certification is inadequate; independent third-party verification is essential.
● VOC & Chemical Risks – Emissions include VOCs (terpenes) and potentially hazardous pesticides, fertilizers, and odor-masking agents. Boilers and chillers may release additional chemicals. No monitoring or health risk assessment is required yet it is the release of these compounds that result in verified negative health consequences such as burning eyes, skin irritation, congestion, etc. ● Unjustified Buffer Zones – Distances appear based on zoning convenience, not peer-reviewed studies or air dispersion modeling.
● Lack of Transparency – Residents have no access to odor test results or meteorological sensor data.
Requested Fixes
● Require odor control plan approval within 90 days and equipment operational within 6 months .
● Impose immediate citations for verified violations. ● Adopt a lower, health-protective odor threshold .
● Mandate annual independent third-party verification . ● Require disclosure of all chemicals used in cultivation, processing, boilers, chillers, and odor systems.
● Conduct independent VOC monitoring and health risk assessments , with public reporting.
● Reevaluate buffer zones using independent science and modeling . ● Publish odor and air quality data for public access.
Accountability Questions
● Why delay compliance until 2026?
● Why use warnings instead of citations for verified violations? ● What scientific evidence supports a 7 DT standard as protective? ● Why rely on operator self-certification instead of independent verification? ● What safeguards protect schools, seniors, and vulnerable populations? ● What hazardous chemicals are used, and how are residents protected? ● Has the City conducted a health risk assessment of cannabis emissions? ● What data support current buffer zones?
● Will monitoring data be made publicly accessible in real time? ● Why is enforcement handled by the same department that promotes cannabis development, creating a conflict of interest?
● What protections exist for residents who report odors, so complaints are not dismissed?
● Will the City commit to contracting independent experts for monitoring and enforcement?
I urge the Council to strengthen this ordinance and require written responses to these questions in the public record. Residents deserve protection now, not years from now.
Sincerely,