Martirosian touched on the restaurant owner’s testimony from Friday in which he told jurors of multiple meetings with city officials detailing his establishment’s development plans.
“He stated on the stand that he was aware of the 30% requirement,” she said. “When he was asked why he didn’t research city codes before expansion, he indicated it was because he was in the restaurant business for 19 years and he was aware of the city codes.”
That code was enacted in 2002 after neighbors complained that private parties at some restaurants were too severe for their community, Martirosian said.
Defense attorney Michael Levin argued throughout the trial that the 2831 Honolulu Ave. restaurant was operating before the 2002 ordinance was introduced. Thus, he said, his clients should be exempt from the 30% threshold and that its expansion does not represent a “major change” since it had been legally running as a 5,000-square-foot facility before they expanded more than 1,200 square feet in 2005.
Levin relayed testimony Monday from Zoning Administrator Edith Fuentes who told jurors that the 2005 expansion of the Montrose Collection “does not constitute a major change.”
“Restaurants are retail, banquet halls are retail, they are all the same,” Levin added. “It’s not a major change. It would be a major change if you built a factory.”
Levin further tried to discredit Fuentes for supposedly failing to report what were evidently repeated banquet hall offenses by the Montrose Collection when she dined at the restaurant.
