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 contacted Trevor Keith, Director of Planning and Building. Mr. Keith writes the following:

"Staff has reviewed the information you have submitted. The installation instructions clearly identify only two acceptable foundation options: 1. A concrete pier system (see page 6) 2. A grade beam option (see page 8) SnapNRack provides detailed specifications for ground mount systems up to 6 feet in height. This includes a design tool requiring inputs such as tilt angle, wind and snow loads, system type, solar module dimensions, and whether the structure is braced. Their documentation includes downloadable tables that specify typical 12" diameter piers, with depths ranging from at least 30" on the short side to 30"–84" on the tall side. For the grade beam option, a conversion chart is included in the instructions. As the installation manual only covers these two foundation types, any deviation would fall outside the scope of the manufacturer’s guidance and would therefore require a stamped engineered analysis."

Mr. Keith is obviously listening only to staff, which we have now proven are absolutely wrong about all of this, as proven by the information from SnapNRAck here and here. I offered evidence on multiple occasions that they were misinterpreting the instructions based on the literature, my knowledge and my experience. If the building department wanted me to use a pre-engineered system they should have said so in their published checklist and in Varvel's email.

It is possible what the department meant to say is something like: If the applicant uses a pre-engineered support system, site specific engineering is only required for an array over 6 feet in height. However they screwed up by not being specific and now they want to reframe the criteria after we submitted our application. That is not fair.

11. After I pointed out the fact that while this project is being delayed he and his staff are collecting their salaries and my income is stalled, Mr. Keith wrote this:

"I’m not ok with your tone or comments toward our department and staff. You have currently submitted plans where there is a discrepancy between the manufacturer’s listing and instructions and the alternative foundation you have proposed. SnapNRack technical information only allows the use of an alternative foundation with ground screws or cast-in place foundations. The foundation design you have provided does not use ground screws or cast-in place footings. It uses a non-engineered and unspecified type of pile driven foundation. Since there is a conflict with the manufacturer’s requirements, the proposed foundation will need an engineering analysis. Staff is trying to work with you on this to get your plans compliant to the California building code, so this kind of interaction is counterproductive to getting a resolution for approved plans."

Again Keith is basing his reply solely on what the staff is telling him. His facts are wrong and his rhetoric is unprofessional. At every point my tone been entirely factual and professional.

12. I contacted Benjamin Dore, San Luis Obispo County Counsels office and he writes:

From what I’ve read in email correspondence and in my discussions with Building Department staff, the six-foot engineering exception is based on the wide availability of prepackaged, pre-engineered ground mounted solar arrays that are less than six feet in height. The exception applies when the ground mounted system is installed in accordance with the manufactures requirements because the manufacturer has already performed the necessary engineering for its systems. This is reasonable to me, and I do not see a basis to insert myself and second guess Building Department staff’s instructions.

Mr. Dore read the staff's position but did apparently did not bother to read the evidence I provided that proved them wrong. Furthermore, Mr. Dore apparently was not concerned that the checklist and Varvel said nothing about any conditions on a structure under 6 feet in height. Nowhere did it say in the checklist or in Varvel's e-mail that engineering would be waived only if I used on of the optional pre-engineered systems. Apparently the words the building department write and publish mean nothing to these puboic employees.

13. 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.

14. 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.

19.01.050 - Building appeals board.