Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Electrification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading of energy-performance REACH code, encouraging electrification for new buildings
Summary
On first reading the council introduced an energy-performance reach code that raises energy-efficiency requirements for new construction, allows flexibility for mixed-fuel designs, and includes electric readiness provisions; ADUs and small units are largely exempt.
The Goleta City Council conducted the first reading of an energy-performance REACH code amendment that sets higher energy-performance requirements for new construction, includes electric readiness provisions and is intended to encourage building electrification while allowing mixed-fuel designs.
Planning staff described the code as a locally adopted modification to the California energy code that would raise the energy-design-rating (EDR) or source-energy compliance margins above the state baseline for specified building types. Staff said the proposal applies only to new construction, allows flexibility for designers to meet the required scores through a combination of measures (higher-efficiency envelopes, rooftop solar, batteries, heat-pump systems) and does not prohibit gas appliances. The ordinance exempts accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and applies reduced margins for small single-family homes because state law (SB 1211 and related constraints) and technical modeling make strict ADU limits legally and practically sensitive.
Staff noted the approach follows practice used by other California cities and relies on state cost-effectiveness studies for the local climate zone. The ordinance would require certain electric-readiness measures — for example, dedicated panel space and conduit for future electric heat pump equipment — when mixed-fuel designs are proposed. Staff said after council approval the measure must be submitted to the California Energy Commission for review of cost-effectiveness and that state approval would be required before the local amendment becomes effective.
Public comment included support from environmental organizations urging a stronger approach for ADUs and smaller units; the Sierra Club’s local director said the decision to exclude ADUs was a missed opportunity to protect future residents from indoor pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions. Council members praised staff-led regional collaboration and recommended moving forward. The council then introduced the ordinance and conducted the first reading by title only; the vote to introduce was unanimous.
