Ojai council holds workshop on proposed single‑family "FlexPath" energy‑efficiency ordinance; first reading set for Aug. 12

The Ojai City Council on Tuesday held a public workshop on a proposed single‑family ‘‘FlexPath’’ energy‑efficiency ordinance designed to require energy upgrades for many remodeling projects and to preserve a state exemption by adopting the ordinance before the state moratorium deadline. Maura Macaluso, principal planner for the City of Ojai, presented the proposal with consultants Walker Wells of Ramey and Associates and Myra Vega of TRC Companies; staff scheduled a first reading of a draft ordinance for Aug. 12.

The measure matters because it would add local requirements tied to the statewide cost‑effectiveness framework used by California energy agencies and because state legislation and recent court developments limit how local governments can regulate appliances and gas service. Macaluso told the council, “This workshop is not meant to provide a decision on this proposed process this evening. It's to gather your questions and respond to them this evening and also perhaps on the landing page at another time or following the meeting.”

How the FlexPath would work

Under the proposal, the ordinance would apply to alterations of existing single‑family residences that meet a square‑foot trigger: projects of 300 square feet or more would have a target score of eight points; projects of 1,000 square feet or more would have a target score of 19 points. The point system converts projected annual energy savings into compliance credits: Macaluso said, “1 point equals 1,000,000 BTUs saved per year.”

The draft includes a menu of cost‑effective measures drawn from the state cost‑effectiveness studies for Climate Zone 9 (the climate zone covering most of Ojai). Cost‑effective measures on the menu range from air sealing, duct sealing, and additional attic insulation (R‑19) to wall insulation (R‑13), upgraded windows, new ducts, heat‑pump water heaters, heat‑pump space heating and cooling, and solar photovoltaic systems. Electrotechnical readiness items are also mandatory as they apply: when work touches the utility room, kitchen, or laundry, the proposal would require prewiring for future electric appliances, leaving space in the electrical panel for a 240‑volt circuit and for an electric‑vehicle circuit. Consultants explained that the prewiring typically requires pulling Romex to a junction box and reserving physical space in the panel; it would not activate a new circuit or automatically require a panel replacement.

State and federal limits

Presenters emphasized that the local ordinance must align with federal and state limits. The consultants said the ordinance responds to the Berkeley court ruling on gas bans and to the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which restricts local regulation of some covered appliances. The draft therefore includes a cost‑effective compliance pathway that does not require homeowners to electrify appliances but retains electrification as a high‑credit compliance option.

Exemptions, exceptions and credits

The draft includes several administrative provisions: accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and most manufactured homes would be exempt; small repairs and projects where the required efficiency work would exceed a 20% cap of the overall project valuation could qualify for exceptions; and owners could receive credit for qualifying efficiency measures installed before the ordinance takes effect. Staff said the 300‑square‑foot trigger was chosen after reviewing local permit data showing many modest projects cluster around that size, with consultants estimating roughly one such project monthly and only a handful of projects at or above 1,000 square feet annually in Ojai.

Costs and examples

Consultants showed example compliance pathways and estimated percentage increases in construction cost for sample projects (for example, a small remodel hitting the eight‑point target showed an example compliance cost near 4–4.5 percent in one scenario; larger projects could reach the 19‑point target through a mix of envelope improvements or by installing heat‑pump systems). They noted the state cost‑effectiveness test evaluates incremental costs and lifespans of each measure (for example, a heat‑pump water heater’s life vs. a gas tank water heater) to determine whether a measure is considered cost effective in the climate zone.

Public comment and council questions

Public commentators offered both support and concerns. Larry Steingold, who identified himself as a resident, told the council the rollout “is going to take decades” and urged alternative triggers, saying, “If you're going to do this and we're going to make people fire harden their homes ... make it upon sale, make it upon renewal of a lease so that this gets done in an appropriate time manner.”

Council member Mark Whitman, speaking in part from his experience as an architect, said he supported the approach: “I wholeheartedly support this approach to energy efficiency and carbon reduction,” and described the FlexPath as a middle ground between measures that are too prescriptive and doing nothing.

Resident Erica Helson described a recent renovation that included many of the listed measures and urged the council to connect residents to existing incentive programs and local planning help: “There are a lot of resources out there that I think could help the staff with the compliance,” she said, and suggested a code‑coach or checklist to aid plans examiners and owners.

Council and staff clarifications

Council members and staff pressed for technical clarifications during the workshop. Council members asked whether the required measures must be implemented building‑wide or may be limited to the renovated area; presenters said the state methodology treats many envelope measures as whole‑house upgrades (for example, wall insulation and window upgrades are assumed to affect whole‑house performance unless otherwise specified), which is why the FlexPath emphasizes multiple compliance options so owners can choose feasible pathways. Staff also acknowledged a known typographical error in the staff report about the ordinance effective date and said the ordinance would be written to take effect for applications submitted on or after Jan. 31, 2026 (staff noted the staff report incorrectly listed 2025 and would be corrected).

Next steps

Staff and consultants said the city will post detailed materials, FAQs and the Q&A that emerged from the meeting on a landing page and on social media. The council scheduled a first reading of a draft ordinance for Aug. 12; staff suggested the council could complete a second reading and adopt the ordinance before the state moratorium deadline of Sept. 30 so Ojai could retain the local amendment. If adopted, staff said the local ordinance could be implemented with the state’s triennial code update cycle and folded into local code amendments with an effective application date of Jan. 31, 2026, to give contractors time to adapt. No vote or adoption occurred at the Aug. 5 workshop.

The consultants and staff committed to return with the draft ordinance, corrected dates and an implementation checklist for plan reviewers and contractors. Macaluso said the city would continue outreach and “make it as easy to find as we possibly can” by linking materials from the city website and publishing fact sheets and checklists for homeowners and contractors.