Larkspur council hears detailed briefing on 2025 California energy and green building codes; staff to study flexible compliance for remodels
March 30, 2026 | Larkspur City, Marin County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
At a March 30 special meeting, the Larkspur City Council received an in-depth staff presentation on the 2025 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and the 2025 Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part 11), both effective Jan. 1, 2026.
The presentation by Matthew Avala, the city’s new chief building official, summarized key statewide changes that affect new residential, multifamily and commercial construction, including mandatory “electric-ready” panels and circuits, a baseline shift toward electric heat pumps for space and water heating, expanded requirements for assigned EV-capable/EV-ready parking in multifamily projects and stronger solar and battery-ready design elements.
“These 2025 updates are a major step forward,” Avala said. “New residential and multifamily buildings must include pre-wiring and sufficient electrical capacity for heat pumps, water heaters, space heating and EV charging so future electrification can occur without major upgrades.”
Why it matters: the codes set the statewide baseline for building permits. Council members questioned how the state rules interact with recent court decisions and new state legislation, and how the codes apply to large, mid-rise projects and to substantial remodels of existing buildings.
On the legal point, staff said the 2025 code as adopted through the state’s building-code process survives recent federal litigation that targeted local ordinances, and that Assembly Bill 130 constrains how far a city may independently exceed the state baseline without following specific amendment pathways. “The baseline will be the 2025 code plus any allowed local amendments,” a staff member summarized in response to council questions.
Public commenter David Mhler urged the council to adopt the state’s promoted flexible-compliance pathway (the “flex path”) for major remodels, arguing that new-construction rules push electrification but large remodels can slip through without electrification requirements. “I would urge that the council direct staff to really dig into the flex compliance path,” Mhler said, noting that several neighboring jurisdictions are pursuing similar approaches.
Staff response and next steps: city staff said they are pursuing two parallel workstreams: (1) a legal analysis by the city attorney to establish defensible links between proposed reach-code goals and the city’s general plan, and (2) implementation analysis from community development on how to administer a flex-path system if council wishes to pursue it. Staff estimated the work could be ready for council consideration in mid‑2026.
Council members asked for details about thresholds (for example, whether a remodel trigger should be 50 percent of structure value or a 500-square-foot threshold) and about administrative costs; staff said those policy choices will be brought back with cost estimates and recommended ordinance language.
The council did not take formal action on the codes at the meeting; staff framed the briefing as informational and committed to returning with legal and operational recommendations.
The next procedural step: staff will return with a legal memo and implementation proposal tied to the general-plan analysis, with a tentative timeline of mid‑year for council consideration.
The presentation by Matthew Avala, the city’s new chief building official, summarized key statewide changes that affect new residential, multifamily and commercial construction, including mandatory “electric-ready” panels and circuits, a baseline shift toward electric heat pumps for space and water heating, expanded requirements for assigned EV-capable/EV-ready parking in multifamily projects and stronger solar and battery-ready design elements.
“These 2025 updates are a major step forward,” Avala said. “New residential and multifamily buildings must include pre-wiring and sufficient electrical capacity for heat pumps, water heaters, space heating and EV charging so future electrification can occur without major upgrades.”
Why it matters: the codes set the statewide baseline for building permits. Council members questioned how the state rules interact with recent court decisions and new state legislation, and how the codes apply to large, mid-rise projects and to substantial remodels of existing buildings.
On the legal point, staff said the 2025 code as adopted through the state’s building-code process survives recent federal litigation that targeted local ordinances, and that Assembly Bill 130 constrains how far a city may independently exceed the state baseline without following specific amendment pathways. “The baseline will be the 2025 code plus any allowed local amendments,” a staff member summarized in response to council questions.
Public commenter David Mhler urged the council to adopt the state’s promoted flexible-compliance pathway (the “flex path”) for major remodels, arguing that new-construction rules push electrification but large remodels can slip through without electrification requirements. “I would urge that the council direct staff to really dig into the flex compliance path,” Mhler said, noting that several neighboring jurisdictions are pursuing similar approaches.
Staff response and next steps: city staff said they are pursuing two parallel workstreams: (1) a legal analysis by the city attorney to establish defensible links between proposed reach-code goals and the city’s general plan, and (2) implementation analysis from community development on how to administer a flex-path system if council wishes to pursue it. Staff estimated the work could be ready for council consideration in mid‑2026.
Council members asked for details about thresholds (for example, whether a remodel trigger should be 50 percent of structure value or a 500-square-foot threshold) and about administrative costs; staff said those policy choices will be brought back with cost estimates and recommended ordinance language.
The council did not take formal action on the codes at the meeting; staff framed the briefing as informational and committed to returning with legal and operational recommendations.
The next procedural step: staff will return with a legal memo and implementation proposal tied to the general-plan analysis, with a tentative timeline of mid‑year for council consideration.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
