San Antonio appeals board denies nightclub’s request to avoid sprinkler requirement

The Building-Related Fire Codes Appeals Advisory Board on Feb. 10 denied an appeal by the owner of the I-10 Ice House (Mai Tai) seeking to reduce the calculated occupant load so the bar would not be required to install a fire-sprinkler system.

Luis Viamil, development services engineer and board liaison, told the board staff reviewed two tables submitted by the applicant and concluded the owner’s calculations excluded square footage the city treats as occupiable circulation. "We believe it amounts to a waiver of the code and is therefore denied," Viamil said, summarizing staff’s recommendation that the board reject the requested modification because nothing in code allows treating the highlighted yellow areas as zero occupancy.

The property owner and operator argued the way the space is used—for gaming, dart areas and projection screens—means many areas are not effectively occupiable. "We understand how the IBC asks us to calculate occupancy… we completely understand that by square footage it doesn’t meet. We’re talking about 460-plus occupancy load. In this case, the way these establishments operate, it does not go over the 300 occupancy load," applicant Octavio Veramontes said, describing operational patterns and proposing additional exits and other measures as alternatives to sprinklers.

Tim Edson, identified as president of Sanlanta Inc., which operates the Mai Tai, said he has run the business for 18 years and that his counts have shown he does not exceed the proposed 299 limit on typical nights. He also disclosed retrofit estimates: "My sprinkler system is gonna run $220,000," Edson said, adding roughly $74,000 of that was to bring water service from the sidewalk to the building.

Board members pressed both sides on technical details. William Burris and others questioned the applicant’s deduction of walking areas and noted that short standing areas adjacent to a bar can reasonably be treated as standing-room occupancy. Board members and staff repeatedly said the only options to avoid the sprinkler requirement are to (1) redesign the space (for example, install a code-compliant fire barrier to create separate fire areas) or (2) install a sprinkler system. Brian Smith, who moved to deny the appeal, said the current design and submittal did not meet the code’s intent; after discussion the board voted in favor and the motion carried.

Amin Thomas, director of Development Services, and other staff explained the city granted a five-year compliance period when the 2018 code changes were adopted; that period has ended for several locations and this property was one of the remaining noncompliant sites the city has been working with. Staff told the board that, if the appeal is denied, the city will assist the owner in obtaining a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) for the 299 occupant threshold and provide up to six months for a sprinkler installation to be completed; if the system is not installed and operational within that period, the owner would be required to shut down until compliance is achieved.

The board also received a brief director’s report noting that, effective April 1, 2026, boards and commissions will discontinue accepting phone and voicemail testimony. The meeting adjourned at about 10:02 a.m.

The denial means the owner must either redesign the space to meet the code intent or proceed with the sprinkler retrofit and related infrastructure work; staff and the city attorney’s office said they will help eligible owners pursue the temporary occupancy pathway for completion of required upgrades.