City of San Bruno

A city address is usually permitted by the city, not the county — but not always, and some authorities keep building and hand electrical to someone else. Getting this wrong costs the whole submittal, because every requirement below belongs to whoever actually holds jurisdiction. Check the overlays in the same pass: an HOA, a historic district, a windstorm certification or a system-size cap can reshape the design, and all of them are cheaper to find now than after the array is laid out.

• Is this authority the AHJ for residential solar at this address? Yes 95% · authority's own page
• What does this authority permit itself, and what does it delegate? Both 90% · ordinance
• Is a permit required for a residential rooftop PV system? Yes 95% · ordinance
• Is there a separate electrical permit, or is it combined? Combined 85% · fee schedule
• Is a HOA or architectural approval required first? Generally No for conforming rooftop residential PV; architectural review is required only if the system would not conform to the applicable zoning district's structure regulations (e.g., a nonconforming ground-mount), in which case an architectural review permit is required and must be approved unless it poses a safety threat 80% · ordinance
• Is there a historic-district review? Not addressed specifically for solar in the zoning or building chapters reviewed; general architectural review under 12.84.110 could apply if a historic-district design guideline creates a conformance conflict, but no dedicated historic-district solar review provision was found 55% · ordinance
• Is a wind or windstorm certification required? No 65% · ordinance / authority's own document
• Is a Specific Use Permit or Council approval ever required? Yes, conditionally - a use permit can be required if the building official finds a solar installation could have a 'specific, adverse impact' on public health/safety; denial or approval decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission 90% · ordinance
• Is there a system-size cap on residential generation? No hard cap on residential system size; the codified ordinance (2015) defines 'small residential rooftop solar energy system' as <=10kW AC / 30kW thermal for streamlined-review purposes, but the city's current administrative practice (SolarAPP+) raises the expedited-review threshold to 38kW AC (PV, and PV+ESS); systems above 38kW AC, PV+EV combos, multi-family and commercial are simply routed to standard (non-expedited) review rather than being capped outright 80% · ordinance + authority's current page (conflict noted)

Several authorities require the electrical permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician, or require the contractor to be registered with them BEFORE applying. Registration is not same-day. This is second on the list rather than fourth because it is the step most likely to stop the job before the drawings matter.

• Who is allowed to pull the electrical permit? Either 70% · authority's own document
• Must the contractor be registered with this authority before applying? No 55% · authority's own page
• Is a homeowner permitted to self-install and self-permit? Yes 80% · authority's own document

Almost everywhere wants a site plan, a one-line or three-line electrical diagram, equipment cut sheets with listings, and a structural attachment detail. Build it against the published checklist rather than the last jurisdiction you worked in — the checklist is what the reviewer marks against.

• What documents make up a complete submittal? SolarAPP+ approval documents + approval number, plus the City's Expedited Solar / SolarAPP+ Permit application, submitted through MGO Connect; for non-SolarAPP+-eligible projects (>38kW AC, PV+EV combos, multi-family/commercial), standard building permit submittal applies per Building Permit Submittal Requirements 80% · authority's own page
• How many copies, and in what format? Electronic/digital only via MGO Connect (PDF, Adobe Acrobat 9.0-compatible); no paper copies accepted as of 1 Jul 2024 85% · authority's own document
• Is a site plan required, and what must it show? Yes - a plot plan is required and must show property lines, lot dimensions, all existing/proposed structures with dimensions to property lines, location of all mechanical/electrical/gas/water meters and equipment, driveways/paved areas, north arrow, and site hazard zones (flood/FHSZ/liquefaction/earthquake); aerial images (Google Maps etc.) are explicitly NOT acceptable 90% · published checklist
• Is a one-line / three-line diagram required? Yes 60% · inference from platform used
• Are string and conductor calculations required? Yes 60% · inference from platform used
• Is a structural PE stamp required, and at what threshold? Not specifically published for PV; general threshold is CBC/CRC Section 2308 - any design outside 'Conventional Light-Frame Construction' (trusses, roofs on posts extending >6 ft, non-conventional bracing, etc.) requires a CA-licensed architect/engineer stamp with 2 sets of stamped calculations 60% · authority's own document
• Is an electrical PE stamp required, and at what threshold? Not specifically published; no local ordinance sets an electrical-PE-stamp threshold for residential PV. SolarAPP+ performs an automated NEC code-compliance check without requiring a PE stamp for eligible (<=38kW AC) residential systems; a stamp would only be expected if a project is kicked out of SolarAPP+ to standard plan review, which is not separately documented for electrical (as opposed to structural) design. 50% · ordinance (absence) + platform inference

Most authorities now take the whole application through a portal, and several states cap or constrain what a residential solar permit may cost. Check whether plan check is billed separately before you quote the job.

• Which permit portal does this authority use? MGO Connect (MyGovernmentOnline), with SolarAPP+ (NREL) used as the front-end code-compliance/eligibility check that feeds an approval package into MGO Connect 90% · portal landing page
• Can the whole application be completed online? Yes 85% · portal landing page
• What does a residential solar permit cost? $441 (PV only, up to 38kW AC, SFR/duplex); $641 (PV+ESS up to 38kW); $690 (PV+ESS+EV charger); $543 (ESS only); non-SolarAPP+/multi-family/commercial PV or ESS billed hourly ($392-$645/hr, 2-2.25 hr minimum) 95% · published fee schedule
• How is the fee calculated? Tiered 90% · published fee schedule
• Is there a separate plan-check fee? No for SolarAPP+-eligible residential PV (plan review bundled into the flat Sec 225A-E fee); Yes for anything routed outside SolarAPP+, where 'Plan review will be hourly with a 2 hour minimum up front' per the fee schedule note 85% · published fee schedule

Interconnection is a separate process from the permit and usually the longer pole. Where the utility does not depend on the permit being issued, running both at once is the single biggest saving available on a residential job.

• What is the stated plan-review turnaround? Same day (instant permit) for SolarAPP+-eligible over-the-counter applications, or 1-3 business days for electronic applications, per the codified expedited-review ordinance; no separate published turnaround for standard (non-expedited) plan review was found 80% · ordinance
• How long is an issued permit valid before it expires? 6 months for permits valued not over $50,000 (nearly all residential PV/ESS jobs fall in this tier); 12 months for $50,001-$500,000; 18/24/36 months at higher valuation tiers; extensions of 6 months available for good cause 90% · authority's own document
• Which utility handles interconnection here? PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) 85% · city source + CCA's own board page
• Where does the utility sit in the sequence? Parallel/after permit - PG&E requires evidence of the AHJ's final electrical inspection clearance before granting Permission to Operate (interconnection approval is not a prerequisite to pulling the city permit, but PTO is gated on the city's final sign-off) 75% · utility tariff

The NEC edition a jurisdiction enforces is often a cycle behind the newest one published, and local amendments sit on top of it. Rapid shutdown, conductor sizing and labelling all change between editions, so the edition in force is the first thing to establish, not the last.

• Which NEC edition is in force? 2023 90% · adopting ordinance + state adoption cycle
• Which building code edition is in force? 2025 California Building Code, Volumes 1 & 2, plus the 2025 California Historical Code and 1997 Uniform Housing Code 90% · adopting ordinance
• Which fire code edition is in force? 2025 California Fire Code (with Appendices B and D), based on the 2024 International Fire Code 90% · adopting ordinance
• Are there local amendments to any of the above? Yes 90% · ordinance
• What is the installation judged against? The 2025 California Electrical Code as locally amended (amendments concern appeals/enforcement authority only, not technical solar requirements), plus SBMC 11.36.040.C requiring conformance to CEC, IEEE, and accredited testing lab (e.g., UL) standards 85% · ordinance

Ridge setbacks and roof access pathways are fire-service requirements and they constrain the array layout. They are the most common cause of a redesign after the fire department comments on a plan set.

• What ridge setback and access pathways are required? Not locally amended; searched the codified San Bruno Fire Code chapter (11.24) for ridge setback/access pathway language and found none specific to rooftop PV (only an unrelated PV-canopy sprinkler exception at Sec 903.2.8). Ridge setbacks/pathways therefore default to the unamended 2025 California Fire Code (based on 2024 IFC) Chapter 12 solar photovoltaic provisions, which are not reproduced in the municipal code 65% · ordinance (absence) + base CFC by reference

Which rapid-shutdown rule applies follows directly from the NEC edition in force, and the initiation device has to be at a location the fire service can reach and identify. This is inspected, and it is labelled.

• Is rapid shutdown required, and to which NEC edition? Not locally addressed; searched Title 11 (Building, Electrical, Fire, Residential chapters) for 'rapid shutdown' and '690.12' with zero hits against working positive ('electrical'/'disconnect') and fabricated ('zzqqx') controls, so rapid shutdown is governed by the unamended 2025 CEC (based on 2023 NEC) Sec. 690.12, not a local amendment 75% · ordinance (absence) + NEC by reference

The NEC sets a baseline for permanent markings at the service equipment and the disconnecting means. On top of that, an authority may specify its own wording, and the utility may specify more again. Where any of them writes its own text, a generic off-the-shelf label set will not pass — this is the detail most often fixed on a return visit.

• Which placards does this authority require at the service equipment? None specified locally beyond the standard NEC/CFC-required placards (e.g., NEC 690.56 rapid-shutdown label, 705.12 point-of-connection marking, main service disconnect labeling per CEC 110.21(B) referenced in the city's own Service Upgrades handout); no dedicated San Bruno PV placard requirement was found in Title 11 65% · ordinance (absence)
• Does the authority specify placard wording of its own? No 70% · ordinance (absence)
• Does it specify letter height, colour or material? Not specified 70% · ordinance (absence)
• Is a site plan / facility map placard required, and what must it show? Not locally specified beyond NEC Sec. 705.10 (which requires a permanent plaque/directory at each service disconnecting means location identifying all power sources); no San Bruno facility-map or site-plan placard requirement beyond the standard plot plan (showing meter/equipment locations, required at permit submittal) was found 60% · checklist (absence for field placard)
• Does the UTILITY specify placards beyond the AHJ's? Not confirmed from a San Bruno- or PG&E-specific document beyond the general Rule 21 requirement that interconnection equipment be lockable/accessible for utility disconnection; PG&E's detailed DG placard/AC-disconnect specification document (the 'Greenbook,' TD-7001M, which defers distributed-generation detail to the access-gated TD-2306M) could not be retrieved to confirm placard specifics 45% · utility tariff (partial)
• Where must the labels be placed? Not specified by the city; standard NEC labeling locations apply (at each service disconnect, at the PV disconnecting means, and at points of interconnection per NEC Art. 690/705), since no SBMC provision addresses label placement 55% · ordinance (absence) + NEC default

Where the AC disconnect must sit relative to the meter is usually the utility's rule, not the building department's. Battery storage frequently carries its own permit, its own inspection and its own fire conditions.

• Must equipment be on a specific approved list? Yes, in substance 75% · ordinance
• Are batteries permitted, and under what conditions? Yes - batteries/ESS are permitted and are explicitly covered by the city's SolarAPP+ expedited program for residential PV+ESS combinations up to 38kW AC; ESS-only permits are also available 90% · authority's own page + fee schedule
• Is there a separate ESS permit or inspection? Yes - ESS can be permitted standalone (Sec 225D, 'Residential ESS ONLY') or combined with solar (Sec 225B/C), and ESS installs require an additional Fire Department inspection beyond the standard building inspections 90% · published fee schedule
• Is a ground mount treated as a structure? Yes 75% · ordinance
• Is there a local rule on service upgrades or busbar sizing? No solar-specific local rule; general service-upgrade requirements (rigid service mast, 2 points of support, minimum mast height, surge protection, lug barriers, isolated main disconnects, listed/labeled service equipment, grounding electrode bonding) are published in the city's own Residential Electrical Service Upgrades and Grounding Electrode Systems handouts, based on the 2025 CEC 80% · authority's own document
• Is a specific mounting system or attachment spacing required? Not published specifically; searched Building Code (11.04) and Residential Code (11.10) chapters for a mounting-system or attachment-spacing amendment and found none - installations are judged against the unamended 2025 CBC/CRC and manufacturer engineering 55% · ordinance (absence)

Booking is a portal, a phone call or an email depending on the authority, and the notice required is rarely zero. Book before the work is finished rather than after — the lead time, not the work, is usually what sets the date.

• How is an inspection booked? Portal 85% · authority's own page
• How much notice is required? At least 24 hours (next business day cutoff is 3pm) 85% · authority's own page
• Are same-day or AM/PM windows offered? Yes - AM (8am-12pm) or PM (1pm-4pm) windows are offered; inspector calls in the morning to confirm the time 90% · authority's own page

Some authorities inspect their own solar work; some delegate it, and a few do not inspect the PV equipment itself at all. Who is coming determines what they will look at.

• Does this AHJ perform its own final solar inspection? Yes 85% · fee schedule + department page

A rough-in or mid-roof inspection, where one is required, has to happen before the work it covers is closed up. Missing a stage means opening something back up, and it is the most expensive kind of correction.

• Which inspections are required, and in what order? For SolarAPP+-eligible residential PV, only one consolidated building inspection is codified as required (SBMC 11.36.060.H); the current fee schedule prices 'two inspections' for PV-only (Sec 225A) and 'three building inspections plus one Fire inspection' for PV+ESS (Sec 225B/C), so the codified single-inspection rule has been superseded in practice by the more granular current fee-schedule sequence 75% · ordinance + fee schedule (conflict noted)
• Is a rough-in or mid-roof inspection required? Not specifically required for rooftop PV as a distinct 'mid-roof' inspection; the codified rule calls for a single consolidated inspection (SBMC 11.36.060.I), and the fee schedule's multi-inspection counts (2-3) likely correspond to rough/final or building+electrical splits rather than a named mid-roof stage - not itemized by name in any published document found 50% · ordinance + fee schedule (inference)

The approved plan set, the permit, and the equipment listings should be on site and reachable. Inspectors routinely verify that installed equipment matches what was approved, and that the labels are the ones the plan set promised.

• Is there a published inspection checklist? Yes, but general (not solar-specific) - the published Residential Construction Inspection Checklist covers foundation/framing/electrical/plumbing/mechanical/insulation items; no separate PV-specific inspection checklist was found published outside the MGO-Connect-gated SolarAPP+ eligibility checklist 65% · published checklist
• What must be on site at inspection? Not explicitly itemized for solar; general practice per the Building Permit Time Limits handout requires construction to match 'the approved set of plans' on file with the Building Division, implying the approved plan set/permit card must be available at inspection 55% · authority's own document (inference)
• Does the inspector verify labels and listings? Not explicitly stated for solar inspections specifically, but the city's own Residential Electrical Service Upgrades handout requires 'Equipment must be listed and labeled as suitable for use as service equipment,' and SBMC 11.36.040.C requires CEC/UL-listed solar equipment, both of which a field inspector would verify as standard practice 55% · authority's own document (inference)

Passing gives you a final or an equivalent sign-off. That is not the same as permission to operate: PTO comes from the utility, and who tells the utility the inspection passed varies. A system left switched off for weeks is usually waiting on this handover.

• What is issued on pass? Final (building final inspection sign-off); California single-family residential permits do not receive a certificate of occupancy - PG&E's Rule 21 process requires 'evidence of Applicant's final electric inspection clearance from the Governmental Authority having jurisdiction' before granting Permission to Operate 65% · utility tariff + standard CA practice
• Who notifies the utility for PTO? Installer (the interconnection applicant submits the NEM/Rule 21 Interconnection Request together with evidence of the AHJ's final inspection clearance directly to PG&E; PG&E does not independently pull inspection status from the city) 65% · utility tariff
• Is there a re-inspection fee? $0 for the 1st re-inspection (no charge); $195 for the 2nd and subsequent re-inspections (building trades, Sec 414A/B); for Fire Department re-inspections, 1st is free, 2nd is 'initial fee plus 25%', 3rd+ is 'initial fee plus 50%' (Fire fee schedule Sec I.D-F) 90% · published fee schedule
• How are corrections issued and cleared? For plan review: a written correction notice detailing deficiencies is sent to the applicant for resubmission (SBMC 11.36.060.G). For failed field inspections: cancellations must be made by 3pm the day before to avoid a re-inspection fee, and a subsequent inspection is scheduled via MGO Connect/phone and billed per Sec 414A/B if beyond the 1st re-inspection 75% · ordinance + department page