Carmel-by-the-Sea board pauses decision on Mad Dogs and Englishmen appeal over restroom and sprinkler requirements

The Carmel-by-the-Sea Building Code Board of Appeals on Jan. 16 continued an appeal from Jennifer Blevins, owner of Mad Dogs and Englishmen, who is challenging a notice of violation requiring a customer restroom inside her specialty-restaurant tenant space and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the building.

City building staff told the board the record shows a change of occupancy and an increased occupant load that trigger minimum plumbing facilities under the 2022 California Plumbing Code (Table 422.1) and automatic sprinkler requirements under the 2022 California Fire Code as amended by Carmel Municipal Code section 15.55.100 (§24). Staff said permits for tenant work were issued Feb. 13, 2024, the upstairs area measures about 1,425 square feet (staff’s presentation), and the current occupant load rose to 47 from a prior count of 24; on that basis staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the building official’s requirements.

“My appeal challenges the notice of violation demanding sprinklers throughout the entire building and a customer restroom inside my tenant space,” appellant Jennifer Blevins said. She told the board she relied on earlier city guidance and approvals, including ancillary-use direction and a later conditional-use permit, and that the sprinkler and restroom requirements were raised only after she had invested in construction. “I’m not here to avoid safety or compliance,” she said, “but I believe the adopted code supports my position that the city’s demanded modifications are not legally required under the facts of this case.”

Neighbors and other tenants told the board that the city should apply rules consistently. “If another business is allowed to continue operating without meeting the same safety and health requirements, it creates an uneven playing field,” neighbor Lorena Sharani said. Building manager John Plastini said the building’s water line is a low-pressure system and “it wouldn’t support a sprinkler system at this time” without a new water source or major modifications. Appellant Blevins acknowledged she had not obtained formal water-pressure testing but said she had been told by others that pressure is low in several downtown buildings.

Justin Cooper, the Carmel-by-the-Sea fire marshal, told the board that after visiting the site he viewed the coffee operation as more than ancillary and as a change of use to an A2 (eating establishment) classification that would typically trigger sprinkler requirements. “To me, it’s a clear change of use,” Cooper said, and he emphasized that sprinklers are a life-safety measure for multi-tenant, closely spaced downtown buildings.

Board members said the case raises substantial technical questions and that the materials in the packet lacked architect-stamped plans, full occupant-load calculations and a clear code analysis documenting path-of-travel and separation between tenant spaces. One member moved to adopt the staff resolution denying the appeal, but other members raised concerns about the adequacy of the record and the limited time available to review late-submitted documents.

After discussion, the board voted to continue the hearing to a date uncertain to allow the appellant to provide additional documentary information and to work with staff on next steps. The roll call recorded Chair Jeselnik and Board member Brown voting yes; the motion passed.

The board did not make a final determination on the notice of violation. Staff noted that, if the appellant files revised building-permit materials addressing occupancy, path of travel and water supply for sprinklers, the building official would re-evaluate the required scope and the appellant would retain the right to return to the Board of Appeals on any adverse determination. The hearing was continued and the meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m.