Installing Solar Since 1983
License Number 773985

Home

 Contact Resources Case_Studies Portfolio Practices Services

COUNTY OF SLO WILL NOT HONOR THEIR OWN CHECKLIST

ALSO THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR
This is a subsection of a web site cataloging the many problems we have had obtaining building permits in the County of San Luis Obispo. Here is the main page. This page was last updated 8/3/2025.

Case study: Engineering requirements for ground mounted solar panels.

1. The county issues a checklist for solar permit applications. In that checklist you will find the following text:

2. "Engineering is required for arrays exceeding six feet above adjacent grade."

3. I wanted to verify this requirement so I e-mailed Matt Varvel. Although Varvel got the value for height wrong, he verified the language of the checklist.

4. In April of 2025 I submitted a permit application for a solar-electric system that would include aground-mount solar panel assembly that will be under 6'-0" in height.

5. The Building Department replied that engineering (a "report") would be required.

6. I pointed out that the need for engineering for a ground-mount solar panel rack is required only if the height of the rack exceeds 6'-0". I argued my point over several emails to Trevor Keith, the director of planning and building. There was no give on the point.

7. The building department claims the framework we have proposed is not approved by the racking manufacturer. However the manufacturer's web site states:

"The system is fully compatible with various foundation types, including
ground screws, grade beams, and standard pier concrete foundations."

From our knowledge of the English language and research we understand that Include defines an incomplete listing

From one of the manufacturer's engineers:

"Installations utilizing alternative foundations not listed in the Series 200 stamped engineering, available for all 50 states, may require analysis by licensed engineering professional."

Note the manufacturer states "may require engineering," not shall or must require engineering.

If I am violating the manufacturer's installation instructions I should be denied under CEC section 110.3(B) "Installation and Use. Equipment that is listed, labeled, or both shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling."

8. None of this really matters because the checklist and the email gives only one criteria for if engineering is required: over 6 feet in height.

I would like to think we live in a society where our government will abide by their own rules and regulations. Apparently that does not apply in San Luis Obispo County.

9. What is odd is that I have applied for permits on other jobs that have this same scenario-- Driven pipe supporting SnapNRack 200 rail with an overall height less than 6' above grade-- and been issued a permit without engineering required. Here are just two projects I can think of:

PMT2016-04126
PMT2015-01097

10. I appealed the building department's ruling on this permit. I was denied an opportunity to have my case be heard by my peers.

Here is the letter denying that appeal.

The County Building department website says this about appeals:

"The Board of Construction Appeals is composed of members who represent the construction industry, the design professions, and the general public. If a person wishes to appeal a code interpretation or decision of the building official, this board would hear such an appeal."

It seems refusing to hear my appeal goes against what the County has published. Sadly this is a familiar pattern.

11. I contact Jennifer Kinnear in Supervisor Heather Moreno's office. Here is her reply.

The building department is mischaracterizing what we are proposing. We are not altering anything.

12. For referrence, below is the County Code that stipulates the appeals process.

19.01.050 - Building appeals board.

(a) In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the chief building official related to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals.

(b) Any person adversely affected by a determination made by the chief building official enforcing any provision of this title may file an appeal pursuant to Section 19.01.050, except administrative procedures, fees, or any appeal of an action performed pursuant to Chapters 19.40 and 19.80 of this title shall be filed and processed as set forth in the International Property Maintenance Code, adopted by reference as part of Chapter 19.01 of this title.

(c) The building appeals board as created by the California Building Code consists of five members who are qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to building construction. The building official shall be an ex officio member and shall act as secretary of the building appeals board. Building appeals board members shall be appointed by the board of supervisors and shall hold office for four-year terms. Members of the building appeals board shall be residents of the county. The building appeals board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its investigations. Each member shall serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors, and such appointments may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of supervisors.

(d) Such appeals shall be in writing, state the grounds for appeal, and be filed within fifteen days of the act by the chief building official. Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant shall be considered in the hearing of the appeals.

(e) An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply, or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The building appeals board shall have no authority over administrative provisions or to waive requirements of this code.

(f) The decision of the building appeals board shall be final and conclusive. The written decision shall be sent to the appellant and shall provide that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any action to review said decision shall be commenced in an appropriate court of law not later than the ninetieth day after the date that the decision becomes final.

(Ord. No. 3343, § 1, 12-6-16; Ord. No. 3400, § 1, 11-19-19)

7/31/25: I received this statement from Kevin Hooper of SnapNRack. It verifies everything I have been trying to tell the County for months but nonone believed me.