[tomsaffell]

Seconded. Without a source to verify these claims, it seems that a huge amount of this discussion is based on hearsay.

I can tell you that the SF Electrical code (which I presume he is referring to) is available here:

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/sfbuil...

It's written as a series of amendments to the CA Electrical code, which is here:

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information...

See Section 210.52 for kitchen requirements. AFAICT, there is no requirement that outlets be 18" apart - more like 48".

Good luck finding the code sections that he's referring to though - there's a lot of text in there, and it's not easy to search..

[eldavido]

The exact dimensions are based on my memory of a conversation. I actually tried to look up the real thing, but like, you I failed.

Even so, just wanted to go on record as saying I'm not sure the exact dimensions I quoted were correct. But I don't think that's the point. It's just an interesting illustration of how emergent complexity can creep up without anyone intending it.

And I sure didn't mean to spark a huge discussion with dozens of comments, I'm pretty surprised by how far this thing has gone!!

[tomsaffell]

>I'm pretty surprised by how far this thing has gone!!

Haha - so do we now have two examples of emergent complexity?

FYI, it's not that the complexity / length of the code caused me to fail per se - I've actually used that section of the code to design a kitchen - it's not user friendly, but it does ultimately work in that I could use it to find and follow all the rules applicable to my design. But I did fail to find a reference to the '18 inch rule' that you stated, but that's because that would require me to read the entire code, for which I don't have time (you need the entire thing because it has a nasty habit of having the rules spread out over multiple sections, probably in the interest of abstraction / generalization. ADA may well be an example of that)

One other thought: since the SF rules are written directly in relation to the CA rules, it's not like they are two competing standards. One if just a layer on top of the other. Of course, that could still create a contradiction, but in the one case where I saw that, the DBI found a way around it.

[eldavido]

I've deliberately left some details of this off to protect the name of the firm and individuals involved.

There's a particular office, part of the SF city government, that's responsible for interpreting a fast-moving, complex body of code. As you can imagine, municipal building regulations can change pretty quickly (much more quickly than state and national regs) and somehow, the regulatory climate was such that the city refused to permit the design. More worryingly, the process was basically a from-scratch review where each time they asked the regulator to review the plans, they did a ground-up inspection of the entire drawing, and interpreted the regulations differently each time. Absent getting a court order, they're stuck fighting the SF office and trying to get them to issue the permit, or get some kind of variance/exemption that will allow their design.

My girlfriend often laughs because she got into architecture to design buildings, but after all this, she sometimes jokes that she's basically a low-end lawyer who also has to yell at contractors and only very occasionally, open up CAD. Sort of funny.

[tomsaffell]

Yes, having pulled a permit myself I can attest that it's 10% drawing, 90% badgering and debating the exact meaning of the code, in all its glorious ambiguity.