Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business owner Brian McMillan alleges Lake Forest misapplied code enforcement to punish landlord
Summary
At the June 2 council meeting business owner Brian McMillan told the council he believes city staff and legal counsel misapplied city and state law to punish a landlord, saying two citations were later reversed by the California Administrative Appeals Court and asserting the city still enforces unlawful landlord liability policies.
Brian McMillan, identifying himself as a Lake Forest business owner and property owner, used his public comments at the June 2 city council meeting to accuse city officials of misapplying the city’s code-enforcement authority and state and federal law to penalize a landlord.
"The city manager authorized and encouraged a novel approach to eliminating businesses that she and the city council found unpleasant or inconvenient," McMillan said, alleging the city told "one of the landlords [to be] personally responsible for business license code violations of his tenants." He added that the city then "intentionally misinterpreted and misapplied the city's own laws as well as longstanding state and federal laws to punish a landlord."
McMillan said the State of California Administrative Appeals Court reversed two of the citations and "fully explain[ed] the court's decision," and he framed that ruling as setting limits on enforcement powers when applied to landlords. "This predatory code enforcement had dire consequences for this poor landlord," McMillan said, calling the outcome ruinous to the owner’s livelihood.
In a second public-comment period McMillan repeated his criticism of the city attorney, saying the attorney "authored proposals that intentionally mis...applied...their own laws" and that an emergency moratorium was proposed that would treat personal-services businesses as immediate threats to residents. "There is no case law ... None in the country," he said, arguing the council had nonetheless "voted it through," which McMillan warned exposed officials to liability.
City staff and elected officials did not provide a substantive response to those allegations during the public-comment time recorded in the transcript. The city attorney did report earlier in the meeting that there was "no reportable action" from closed session.
Why it matters: McMillan framed his remarks as alleging legal error and potential liability for the city and council. The transcript records his claims and the court reversal he references but does not show a staff rebuttal or additional details about the underlying enforcement action or the court rulings cited.
What’s next: The transcript does not record any immediate staff response or follow-up motion. Council members did not debate or vote on enforcement-policy changes during the meeting.
