Front Page  »  

Could SLO’s tiny home plan derail zero net energy goal?

October 22, 2018

John Ewan

OPINION by JOHN EWAN

Climate change is the result of decisions and actions we make on how much of, and how we use, the world’s natural resources.

San Luis Obispo’s proposed Tiny House on Wheels ordinance, created and passed at the direction of the City Council on Oct. 10, blows a hole in San Luis Obispo’s Climate Action Plan and stated goal of creating a “net zero” energy future.

The Planning Staff and Commission did not address this goal, leaving energy efficiency entirely at the discretion of the tiny house on wheels’ builder, without any guidelines or goals stated. This would be a giant step backward in our commitment to attaining a “net zero” community and our city’s adopted Climate Action Plan.

The State of California has actively promoted energy efficiency for the built environment since 1978 through Title 24, part 6. Title 24 has been updated over the years to set the stage for our “net zero” built environment, with the 2019 update to fully embracing and promoting net zero homes. California’s energy standards are crucial to reducing Green House Gas emissions of the electricity and natural gas sectors, and to lowering the costs of energy to consumers.

Before the city moves forward with the acceptance of tiny houses on wheels as full-time residences in our city, there needs to be appropriate requirements that the structures be built to efficiency guidelines that, at the very least, reflect our current T-24 standards for all residential buildings.

Not requiring energy conservation features for tiny houses on wheels would be a rebuke of our city and state goals to build a “net zero” community. Providing housing that is costly to heat, cool, light and ignoring our Climate Action Plan, would be inconsistent, environmentally damaging, discriminatory and lazy.

John Ewan is a former San Luis Obispo councilman, a Title 24 residential energy analyst and the owner of Pacific Energy Company in San Luis Obispo.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

One very blaring issue with Mr Ewans assessment is the fact that 50% of our greenhouse gas emissions in San Luis Obispo come from transportation. It is by far the largest sector of emissions to tackle. Energy efficiency of a small number of tiny home ADU’s is not going to derail our ability to be a net-zero City. In order to put a tiny home ADU on your property the home has to be owner occupied. That only makes up 35% of our housing stock. Of that 35% not all will want to out a tiny home on their property or already have an ADU. Claiming that this type of dwelling is going to derail net-zero is simply not true. The sheer size of the dwellings make them more efficient compared to larger homes. Two much larger issues: Upgrading older homes to be more energy efficient and our biggest issue is going to be tackling our car culture. 50% of greenhouse gases come from transportation in San Luis Obispo. By far the largest emissions sector. Almost double the national average. Energy efficiency of homes is important, but not nearly as important vehicle use in our City. Even as we transition to electric vehicles that is going to have a larger draw on the energy grid. Which is fine as long as we are using renewable energy, which California has a glut of during the day. But we are still in need of better electricity storage as that transition ramps up. I am optimistic that it will come along with various other carbon free technologies.

Hence I will politely disagree with Mr. Ewans assessment.


-1

“Energy efficiency of a small number of tiny home ADU’s ” The proposed tiny trailers are not ADU’s per se, they are trailers certified by the DMV and are not required to meet any energy standards unlike site built or manufactured homes that do have standards to meet.


” The sheer size of the dwellings make them more efficient compared to larger homes.” No, not true, a smaller space will take less energy to heat. This does not make it more efficient. What makes structures more efficient is insulation values, better windows and doors.


“Upgrading older homes to be more energy efficient” Already being done with remodels and new construction as that is the standard/building code. So lets make the home tight and efficient but put a electric space heater in the un-insulated trailer in the yard, that’s a step backwards.


So take someone disadvantaged, put them in a trailer and see the power bill they have to pay? Why when insulation is cheap.


Please stop trying to change the subject/distract attention to cars and transport, this is about housing and the quality of our housing stock.


Or perhaps you want people in tiny trailers to suffer more?


0

With due respect Aaron Gomez, you’re full of beans and seem clueless about what “net zero” means and how to get there. Your made up percentages and how you use them are amusing. On other hand, glad to see you read the only reliable place for information in town.


3

John has put his finger on a real problem — the hypocrisy of this council in calling for a net zero city then also calling for things that undercut that goal. They flail around because the mayor is clueless.


Unfortunately, however, John’s solution — the city’s requiring tiny houses on wheels to meet Title 24 — cannot happen. Wheeled “houses” are recreational vehicles, regulated by the state. Only if the state mandated RVs meet T 24 could this happen — and that seems very unlikely. Then there’s interstate commerce: can the guy from New Mexico who wants to move here be prohibited from bringing his out-of-state tiny house on wheels because it doesn’t comply with T24? Again, seems unlikely. So, Mayor Harmon, make a choice: net zero city, or continuing to vote for things that make that impossible?


13

I’m not against allowing people to put trailers on their property, but tiny houses are very much a “let them eat cake” solution to the housing problem. It’s a cynical solution by a corrupt government who doesn’t give a darn about the working class. I’d be much happier if they were honest and just said SLO isn’t for the working class man, than these paint a lipstick on a pig solutions.


7

And Heidi Harmon is Marie Antoinette.


4

Ahhhh, here we go, affordable housing just went up in smoke again, some thinker wants to propose a whole bunch of malarkey on a home builder, that I’m pretty sure has rules to work with already but thats not good enough for some they want more, and people whine about affordable housing, this is why.


8

Tiny houses on wheels are dubious affordable housing. They’re about 100 square feet. If you read the lit online, you’ll see they typically cost $20,000 or more to build if you do it yourself (i.e., mostly free labor). That’s $200+ a square foot, and for that you could build a real house. Get somebody to build one for you, and you’ll be paying more than for a real house. Anyway, tiny houses are made to be cute, so their main purpose will probably be as airbnbs, not housing.


2

Check this place out; https://www.theacademychorro.com/the-academy-chorro-san-luis-obispo-ca/ this is what they want for all of us! Super high density housing, walk or bike where ever you have to go, Hell on earth!


17

Here is another example of staff and/or ex staff attempting to control what the city does. They push their opinions, as in this case, to a whacko city council and you end up with another mess. Take these actions, and then what you have that might be affordable becomes unaffordable. Once again, thank you government for your support of affordable housing with layers and layers or rules and restrictions. As a tag line these “mini” homes are not homes but just trailers parked anywhere in the city that someone desires. There are no utilities so the Thunder Mugs will probably be poured outside the front door. Hmmmmm! Just another additive to the swamp/


17

As per usual, it’s not really about whether or not what the council does is actually good,

it’s all about whether it sounds good.


18

Exactly. Politics has become a kabuki theatre to convince the sheep that everything is fine, meanwhile the developers and apparently pot growers now are actually running the show.


7

The city council is crazy. As usual.


19

Man made climate change is a bigger hoax than affordable housing in SLO


18
1 2