Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces ordinance setting commercial landscape maintenance standards, amid public concern over private-property mandates
Summary
Ridgecrest trustees voted to introduce an ordinance that would set minimum landscape coverage standards for commercial properties, require drought‑tolerant plantings and allow exceptions; residents raised concerns about costs and unfunded mandates during public comment.
The Ridgecrest City Council on Aug. 6 voted 5-0 to introduce by title an ordinance amending the Ridgecrest Municipal Code to set standards for commercial landscape maintenance.
Planning staff explained the ordinance applies to commercial properties only and is intended to replace subjective enforcement with measurable standards for landscape coverage, plant types and maintenance. The ordinance adds a definition of “hardscape” (decomposed granite, rock and similar materials), sets minimum landscape coverage in commercial parking and establishes planting targets, including tree, shrub and ground-cover coverage at maturity. Staff said the ordinance references the Indian Wells Valley Water District approved plant list for water-efficient species.
“We wanted to come up with a standard that we thought would work, but still maintain water efficiency,” planning staff member Heather said during the presentation. She showed an example from a commercial site that removed dead trees and shrubs and then installed artificial turf and hardscape with water-efficient plants, while preserving a mature tree.
Council and staff emphasized the ordinance includes exception language for sites where standards are infeasible because of utilities, confined lots or other physical constraints. “If the site is already existing and doesn't really work, then we're still gonna work with them and they're not gonna get a tree in,” Heather said, describing how staff would work with property owners on phased compliance.
During public comment two residents raised objections. One caller said applying new landscaping requirements to long-established commercial properties could feel like an “unfunded mandate” if owners are asked to pay for retrofits. A second caller urged caution about imposing new private-property obligations and warned of possible legal challenges.
Council members said the ordinance is largely regulatory guidance for sites already in disrepair and noted staff intends to allow time for compliance and to phase improvements for larger properties. The council first waived full reading of the ordinance and then introduced it by title; staff said a second reading is scheduled in 30 days before final adoption.
The ordinance sets numeric targets discussed at the meeting: a 5% landscape requirement for certain commercial areas, a 25% tree coverage target at 10 years’ maturity, 5% shrub coverage at maturity and ground-cover requirements that can include approved hardscape. Staff and council said the intent is progressive implementation rather than immediate enforcement for large sites.
