Case Studies
What goes wrong
in the field.
Three patterns — visible in public records, repeating across the market, and preventable.
Each case is an anonymized composite drawn from public Seattle permit records and street-level imagery. No individual is identified. The problems are systemic.
Eligibility Failure
The Ineligible Home
A contractor applies a prescriptive STFI retrofit plan to a hillside home. The home doesn't qualify. The permit is issued anyway. The work proceeds — and the structural risk remains unchanged.
- Prescriptive plans require flat-site geometry — hillside homes are categorically excluded
- STFI fast-track permitting has no engineering eligibility review
- Hardware installed; seismic vulnerability unaddressed
Load Path Failure
The Incomplete Load Path
A contractor installs foundation anchor bolts and cripple wall plywood — visible, photographable work. But there are no interior shear walls. No load path continuity. The retrofit terminates where the camera stops.
- Cripple wall anchored along a facade that is nearly floor-to-ceiling glass — no shear wall above to receive the load
- The retrofit completes the bottom of a load path whose top link does not exist
- Permit scope satisfied; structural vulnerability unchanged
Oversight Failure
The Invisible Engineer
A licensed engineer stamps the retrofit plans. The stamp is real. The permit record contains no notation of structural observation, no special inspection, no site visit documentation. The engineer's office is 220 miles from the project site.
- Permit records cannot confirm whether the engineer of record visited the property
- Geographic distance plus no observation notation is a pattern worth examining
- Homeowner sees a stamp and assumes independent review — the permit record does not close that gap
Disclosure
All case studies are anonymized composites based on publicly available SDCI permit records, King County parcel data, and street-level imagery. No individual homeowner, contractor, or engineer is identified. The City of Seattle's seismic retrofit incentive program is well-intentioned. These patterns reflect systemic gaps in permitting oversight, not failures of city policy.