[RE-wrenches] Permitting problem

[Lou Russo]

Unless the project is value engineered and straightforward, we always have
an architect/structural engineer draw up plans. It is unfortunate but
permitting goes smoother.

Aloha,
Lou Russo
Spree Solar Systems LLC
C-34322



On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 3:42 AM Christopher Warfel via RE-wrenches <
re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org> wrote:

> I have been down this road.  I have designed many structures in a
> hurricane prone area at the request of the local building official, using
> my PE stamp as required.  A new building official who travels to the town
> once a week decided I could not do that work anymore. No relief from
> kicking it up, just more threats actually.  So, I hire a structural
> engineer now, and have used that to show that when the renewable energy
> program engineer failed me for not using a certified system, that the
> structural compliance letter was sufficient. Eventually they agreed.
>
> Chris
> On 6/25/2025 6:59 PM, William Miller via RE-wrenches wrote:
>
> Friends:
>
>
>
> I am having a problem pulling a permit in our county jurisdiction. The
> project is a ground mount array with a low tilt angle resulting in an
> overall rack height less than 6’.  The county checklist for solar permits
> says: "Engineering is required for arrays exceeding six feet above adjacent
> grade."  I wanted to make sure this was the current criteria so I emailed a
> senior building official before I submitted my plans and received a reply
> stating the same criteria.
>
>
>
> I have done jobs in the county in the past with the same low height and
> not been required to provide engineering.  The system we use is pretty
> robust.  You can see a description here
> <https://millersolar.com/MillerSolar/practices/DrivenPipe/DrivenPipe.html>.
> The rail is SnapNRack 200 series.
>
>
>
> However for this project I am being denied a permit with this reason:  By
> not using one of SnapNRack’s suggested support structures I am “altering”
> the “racking kit.”  I am told if I provide a structural analysis a permit
> will be approved.
>
>
>
> The SnapNRack web site says this on the subject:  “The system is fully
> compatible with various foundation types, including
>
> ground screws, grade beams, and standard pier concrete foundations."  We
> all know that the word “including” does not preclude other possibilities.
> I even got one of the SnapNRack engineers to write an email saying
> alternative support structures are allowed.
>
>
>
> I have worked up the entire chain of command in San Luis Obispo County
> including the department director and the office of County Counsel with no
> change in status.  I filed an appeal but the county refused to hear the
> appeal.
>
>
>
> I called my county supervisor to intervene but the building department is
> giving them the same reason.  The logic is flawed but no one will believe
> me in spite of the documentation I have provided.
>
>
>
> Last time we had one of these taller than 6 feet the we had it engineered
> at a cost of $5,000.  My contract covers me for the extra expense so the
> cost would be to the client.  I don’t believe it is right for the customer
> to have to pay this extra expense.  They are decent people who deserve
> better.
>
>
>
> I put together a web page to describe the entire interaction.  It is here
> <https://millersolar.com/MillerSolar/case_studies/41_County_of_SLO/County_of_SLO.html>
> .
>
>
>
> I think this is wrong and my principals are not allowing me to give in.
> This is a pattern with this building department.  The last time this
> happened I fought for months and finally won.  I embarrassed them and I
> think the department is trying to punish me.
>
>
>
> I am looking for an attorney but so far all of them are too busy to take
> my case.
>
>
>
> Have anyone of you experienced anything like this? Anyone have any advice?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> William Miller
>
>
>
> Miller Solar
>
> 17395 Oak Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
>
> 805-438-5600
>
> www.millersolar.com
>
> CA Lic. 773985
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> Pay optional member dues here: http://re-wrenches.org
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> There are two list archives for searching. When one doesn't work, try the other:https://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out or update participant bios:http://www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
> --
> Christopher Warfel, PE
> ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
> PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
> (401) 447-5773
>
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> Pay optional member dues here: http://re-wrenches.org
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> There are two list archives for searching. When one doesn't work, try the
> other:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out or update participant bios:
> http://www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20250626/9a5de11f/attachment.htm>