Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Sprinkler Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals board denies I10 Ice House owner’s request to avoid mandated fire sprinklers
Summary
The Building-Related Fire Codes Appeals Advisory Board on Feb. 10 denied an owner’s appeal to exclude circulation areas from occupant-load calculations that would have kept the I10 Ice House below the 300-person sprinkler threshold. Staff and the fire department said applicant-submitted calculations improperly omitted walkways; the board voted to deny the appeal and staff offered a six-month temporary compliance path while sprinklers are installed.
The Building-Related Fire Codes Appeals Advisory Board voted Feb. 10 to deny an appeal by the owner of the I10 Ice House seeking to avoid installing a fire sprinkler system required under the city’s adoption of the International Fire Code and related local amendments.
At the hearing, held at Development Services, board liaison Louis Veil told members staff had reviewed two occupancy calculations submitted by the applicant and concluded the proposal would amount to a waiver of the code. "The proposal to modify the calculated occupant load under section 1004.5 of the IBC amounts to a waiver of the code and is therefore denied," Veil told the board during his presentation of staff’s recommendation.
Why it matters: Under the current code amendments, bars and nightclubs that meet or exceed a 300-person calculated occupant load must install fire sprinklers; if the board approved the applicant’s calculation excluding circulation areas, the I10 Ice House would have remained below that threshold and avoided the retrofit requirement.
What staff said: Veil and other city staff explained that the applicant submitted two tables. Staff’s measurements and the city’s interpretation of occupiable area produced an occupancy figure well above the 300-person threshold; the applicant’s second table treated multiple yellow-highlighted circulation and standing areas as having zero occupancy, which staff said is inconsistent with the code. A fire department representative told the board that "those walkways, corridors cannot be sustained as clear, and therefore...it wouldn't be appropriate to remove them from the equation."
What the owner said: Applicant Octavio Veramontes argued the facility’s actual operations — gaming areas, video screens and pieces of built-out space not used by patrons — mean the nightclub never reaches the calculated load. "We have proof that it never goes over," Veramontes said, asking the board to consider life-safety measures other than sprinklers, such as additional exits and removing carpeting. Owner Tim Edson (president of Sandlanta Inc., operator of the Mai Tai/I10 Ice House) said he tracks door counts and believes he can operate under a 299-person cap.
Costs and options: The owner told the board he had received a low bid of about $219,000–$220,000 for a sprinkler system retrofit; roughly $74,000 of that estimate was for bringing water service from the sidewalk to the building. Board members and staff discussed alternatives including installing a fire barrier to create two fire areas or redesigning circulation; they cautioned that design changes would require architects and engineers and might change the building’s function or addresses.
Vote and next steps: Brian Smith moved to deny the appeal "as designed at the moment," John Martin seconded, and the motion carried on a voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally. Staff said the owner remains eligible for a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) that would allow operation at the 299-person level for up to six months while a sprinkler system is installed; staff offered to help the owner seek expedited review if he pursues that path. Veil also reminded the board that effective April 1, 2026, boards and commissions will no longer accept phone or voicemail testimony.
The board adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
