] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>]

Where are you located, Patricia - just curious. I find that if the City
Inspectors are in an area where they have not spent much time going through
ICBO training, they are more apt to miss this or believe that it is
acceptable practice. This is true for the majority of conventional framing
standards that are not code standards but related to historic methods of
construction that are simply incorrect and have never been questioned. One
example is the placement of continuous blocking which should be above the
double top plate. Many contractors place them outside the face of wall and
assume they are used for a stucco mole to secure the eave.

This is one of the problems that conventional framing standards has created.
The majority of framers assume these standards, but never have read the
code. Nor do the licensing authority for contractors test them in this
knowledge. Assuming convention also means that many inspectors assume the
contractor to be competent by the nature of how long he has worked in the
trade, how well known he is in the city and how many projects he is
associated with - all the wrong reasons.
I should note, that this type of problem is generally caught in large
metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and areas under control of the county.
Out here in Riverside County, the likelihood of this occuring is greatly
improved.
Dennis