From: Tom McDaniel
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request for Continuance - Huntington Club Project Date: Thursday, April 16, 2026 8:26:01 AM
Attachments: Exhibit A-THC Rules & Regulations 2026.pdf Exhibit B-THC Sectlon 1,3(b) Detalling membership rights,pdf Exhibit C- THC Updates to the Rules & Regulations 2026.odf Exhlbit D- THC emall dated Feb. 7, 2026-Camaraderie Clubs to Members.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected] Learn why this is important Dear Mayor McKeon,
I presented at the March 17 hearing on the Huntington Club project in support of the appellants. As a long time resident of Huntington Beach and member of the Huntington Club, I want to share these further observations on the project for your consideration now because I will be out of the State for the April 21 continuance hearing on the project.
I truly appreciated your questions at the March 17 hearing regarding how and who the lodging component would be operated by and integrated with the club's existing facilities and operations.
The attached letter expands on those concerns and highlights areas where the operational framework and relationship between the land owner and the operating manager remains unclear.
In short, the letter requests a further continuance so that key gaps in the record-particularly around construction phasing, operational planning, and financial analysis of the bungalow/loft component of the project-can be addressed before a final decision.
Please find attached my letter regarding The Huntington Club project, along with supporting materials referenced in the letter.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Tom McDaniel
April 2, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I attended and provided testimony at the March 17 public hearing regarding the proposed project by Golf Realty Fund to demolish and replace the existing tennis, fitness, and swimming facilities, and to construct member/guest bungalows, an access road, and loft units atop the new tennis clubhouse.
In my testimony, I raised concerns regarding health and safety risks and the significant negative impact on member experience and retention during a prolonged construction project within an active operating tennis/pickleball and fitness operation./ also shared my direct experience from another private club where similar guest bungalow facilities proved to be both a financial and operational failure. Member utilization was low, occupancy rates were insufficient to cover operating costs, and the units were ultimately sold.
I am writing to expand upon those concerns and to respectfully urge the City Council to broaden the record in three key areas before making a final decision on this project.
Membership involvement in the planning process. On March 16 Huntington Club members received an email from Club Management requiring approval of updated 2026 Rules and Regulations by April 30, 2026-effective March 16, the day before the March 17 City Council hearing. These communications state that approval is needed by April 30 to maintain active membership status and club privileges (Exhibit A).
Importantly, the updated Rules and Regulations, Section 1.3b (Exhibit B), explicitly states that, as a non-equity and non- participatory club, members have no rights or standing with regard to Club operations or capital project decisions. This section cites that " The Owner and Club Management have the right to make any and all the facilities unavailable for use for some period of time, due to construction of improvements, health and safety concerns, repairs, government order or other reasons in their sole discretion, and Members shall not receive any abatement of dues during such periods of unavailability".
A March 16 communication to members, (Exhibit C) lists the specific changes to the Rules & Regulations; but, makes no disclosure whatsoever about the proposed project or the significant impact on membership health and safety, facility availability and reduced amenities over a long and complicated infill construction project.
When viewed in context of the proposed project, these provisions take on far greater significance and raise serious concerns regarding transparency and member awareness.
Bungalow/Loft Management- Questions raised at the March 17 hearing regarding the operational responsibility for the proposed bungalow and loft components of the project remain unresolved. A February 7, 2026 communication (Exhibit D), from Club Management to members makes clear that:
• Club Management does not endorse the land owner's assertions regarding the economic viability of the bungalow/access road and loft components of the project. • Club Management has no financial interest in, nor obligation to operate, the bungalow/loft components of the project.
• Club Management states their primary focus has been to compel the property owner to fulfill a long-standing contractual obligation to rebuild the pool and upgrade fitness facilities, obligations that do not include bungalows and lofts.
During a long and disruptive period of construction, Club Management will bear the burden of operating the tennis/pickleball and fitness facilities. A situation presenting members with construction safety risk, periods of extended facility closure and significantly reduced Club amenities. Membership attrition would be the likely response with a commensurate negative impact on operating margins. Thus, the lack of any formal input from the Club Operator in this process, particularly the bungalow/loft elements, is concerning and warrants further review.
In summary, because club members have no formal standing in decisions regarding Club operations or capital investment, we must look to the City Council to ensure that all relevant impacts are fully evaluated. These include:
• Health and safety risks associated with extended construction in an active recreational setting
• The financial viability and member benefit of the proposed bungalow and loft components of the project
• The absence of a clearly defined operational plan during a multi-year " infill " construction project
For these reasons, I believe the record underpinning a decision on this project needs to be expanded and the City Council should direct the Owner and Club Manager to develop plans and analysis covering the following areas.
1. Construction Phasing and Safety Plan
A detailed plan outlining construction sequencing, safety protocols, and measures to protect members, guests, and surrounding residents. This should include clear timelines for facility closures and the extent of reduced access to club amenities.
2. Bungalow/Loft Member Demand and Financial Viability Analysis An independent assessment of member demand for guest bungalows/lofts, supported by a formal economic assessment of their financial viability taking into consideration occupancy expectations (member survey), operating costs and projected economic benefit to the City.
3. Operational Continuity Plan
A comprehensive plan developed jointly by ownership and Club Management detailing how tennis, pickleball, and fitness operations will be maintained during construction. This should include mitigation strategies for reduced amenities, anticipated membership attrition, and potential financial impacts, including dues increases.
This is a significant project with long-term implications for the Huntington Beach community.
Granting a continuance of at least 60 days to allow for the construct of a more complete record will better position the City Council to make a fully informed decision on this project that best serves the interests of all stakeholders.
Respectfully,
Tom McDaniel
Member of the Huntington Club & Huntington Beach Resident
EXHIBIT A
CAMARADERIE
4-25
The Huntington Club (Camaraderie Clubs) has sent you the file "THC Rules & Regulations 2026* for your review and signature.
REVIEW & COMPLETE
Dear The Huntington Club Member, We have updated the Rules & Regulations and Membership Guidelines at The Huntington Club to reflect our most current policies and offerings. These updates are desighed to provide greater clarity, improve the member experence, and ensure our policies align with the evolving needs of our community.
Please review and sign the uposted 2026 Rules & Requiations and Club Guidelines using the secure Sertifi link above. Your signature is required by April 30, 2026 to maintain your active membership and club privileges. We appreciate your attention to these updates and your continued commitment to our club community. Thank you for your prompt altention to this matter
Alternatively to review and sign you may copy and paste the following URL in your browser: https://www.serlifi.com/CamaraderieClubs/r.ashx?su=X1DyIXig6nlezpm7 If you have any questions related to documents or wish to contact The Huntington Club, please email at: [email protected]
LAIDIID
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATION
1.1 THE CLUB; THE OWNER; THE LANDLORD
The "Club" refers to the facilities provided at The Huntington Club located at 6501 Palm Ave., Huntington Beach, Callfornia 92648. The "Owner" refers to The Huntington Club; LLO. The "Landlord" refers to the owner of the real estate at the Club.
1.2 CLUB MANAGEMENT: MANAGER
"Club Management" refers to The Camaraderie Clubs Management, LLC, which manages the Club and its successors In interest, "Manager" refers to the General Manager of the Club, Club Management has authority over the affairs of the Club:
1.3 MEMBERSHIP
(a) A "Membership" is the contractual privilege by which designated persons enter onto the Club for the exclusive purpose of using and enjoying the available facilities at the times and in the manner set forth in these Rules and Regulations. A "Member" is the person obligated for the payment of all fees, dues, fines and charges.
Members agree to be bound by these Rules and Regulatlons as presently enacted or hereafter amended: Amendments to the Rules and Regulations shall be made available by Club Management upon request.
(b) The Club is not an equity club. Membership is non-equity and non- participatory. Membership does not Imply any right or privilege to participate in or to administer the Club business policies and does not create any vested or proprietary right of any kind in land, the Club, Club Management or the assets of Club Management or the Club. Membership does not create any presumption that the facilities or services that are now or hereafter available will continue to be available, The Owner and Club Management have the right to make any or all facilities unavallable for use for some period of time, due to construction of Improvements, health and safety concerns; repairs, governmental order or other reasons in their sole discretion, and Members shall not receive any abatement of dues during such periods of full or partial unavailability.
Membership privileges should not be viewed as an investment and no person obtaining membership privileges should expect to derive any economic benefits from membership in the Club: These Rules and Regulations, Application for Membership, Club Guidelines and other membership documents have not been revlewed nor endorsed by any federal or state authority.
2 From: shari engel
To: [email protected]
Subject: FORMAL FILING: Supplemental Communlcation for Items 26-324 and 27 (Meeting Date: Aprit 21, 2026) Date: Thursday, April 16, 2026 10:57:02 AM
Attachments:
IW1.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager,
I am writing to formally place on the public record for the April 21, 2026, City Council meeting my objection to the ongoing procurement process involving Wolffhaus (File 26-324 / RFP #140902).
The administrative record for this project contains a pattern of "last-minute" justifications that suggest a coordinated effort to bypass city and federal guardrails to ensure a predetermined outcome for a specific vendor.
1. Misuse of Federal Office and Illegal Endorsement (Item 26-324) The city's "technical justification" for this vendor relies on a letter from Kristin Walker, who explicitly identifies himself as the Reliability Technology Branch Chief at the Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. By utilizing his Department of Defense (DoD) title and 25 years of federal experience to endorse a private enterprise, Mr. Walker has committed a prima facie violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. The city cannot legally accept a bid predicated on a violation of federal ethics laws.
2. Coordinated Administrative Irregularities and Cleanup Public record disclosures indicate a frantic effort to bypass city business requirements. The Wolffhaus business license application was received on April 6, 2026—the same afternoon the Walker letter arrived-yet was backdated to February 1st. Furthermore, the use of an automotive tire shop address (17011 Beach Blvd) as the headquarters for a $720,000 media audit should have triggered an immediate due diligence stop. Instead, it appears the city is willing to do whatever it takes to justify hiring a shell entity.
3. Objection to Political Interference via Ad-hoc Committee (Item 27) I formally object to the proposal in Item 27 to create a City Council Ad-hoc Committee to review RFP proposals. Given the documented federal ethics violations and licensing irregularities, the vetting process must remain with non-partisan, professional City Staff. Allowing a political committee to "hand-pick" a vendor whose entry into this process is already ethically compromised would constitute a gross failure of the city's procurement integrity.
Formal Demand: I demand that the Kristin Walker letter be struck from the record and that any vendor utilizing illegal federal endorsements or irregular licensing be disqualified. If the city persists in utilizing these compromised documents to justify a $720,000 expenditure, I will proceed with a formal referral to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Command Counsel at Redstone Arsenal.
Respectfully,
Shari Engel, Resident, Huntington Beach
From: Carol D.
To: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL, CMO STAFF) Subject: Strong NO for Agenda #27, #26-373
Date: Friday, April 17, 2026 6:47:16 AM
Dear Mayor McKeon and City Council Members,
I am strongly opposed to Agenda #27, 26-373, which would create a 3-member ad hoc committee to review and recommend the bids for the $720,000 project initially proposed by Wolffhaus (one of the bidders!) to provide PR, branding, media, merchandising for the city.
This reeks of cronyism. First, you accept an audit for $30,000 from an acquaintance of one of the city council members who clearly does not have the background needed for such a multi- faceted undertaking. Then to ensure that this contract is awarded to Wolffhaus (or possibly another friend?), you are now recommending a 3-member committee to decide which firm to use for this large expenditure! Let me guess, will this committee consist of Casey, Pat and Don, who all appear ready to give Wolffhaus the contract? I urge you to consult with ALL members of the council regarding this decision on how to use our taxpayer money. Be transparent with the public and issue the contract to the best firm with the expertise to accomplish the objectives.
Thank you,
Carol Daus
30-year Huntington Beach resident
From: Pat Goodman
To: McKeon, Casey: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Dear Mayor McKeon and City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to address three specific items at Tuesday's meeting.
Item #18 - Approve and Adopt Minutes (April 7, 2026)
Please pull Item #18 from the consent calendar and correct the record before approving the April 7, 2026 minutes. The minutes attribute a statement to Mayor McKeon that the Wolffhaus contract was not subject to a Request for Proposals. That statement is incorrect, and the minutes should reflect the following corrections:
1. "City Charter Section 13" does not exist. This citation must be deleted or corrected. I could not find such section that governs professional services procurement.
2. Budget status does not eliminate the RFP requirement. Under HBMC §3.03.060, competitive proposals from at least three qualified firms are required regardless of whether funds are available.
3. No specific FY 2025-26 budget line item was identified in any supporting document or discussion to fund this contract. The public is entitled to know precisely where this money is budgeted.
Council members are free to speak their minds, but when statements entered into the public record are factually incorrect, the minutes must reflect the accurate legal and factual record. I ask that these corrections be annotated in the April 7 minutes.
Item #27 - Ad Hoc Committee for Branding and Marketing RFP If the Council moves forward with a branding and marketing contract, I urge you to revise the proposed structure and make up of the review committee. A self-appointed ad hoc committee should not be reviewing and selecting proposals. Instead, please direct the City Manager to:
• Convene a staff-led RFP review committee
• Evaluate all proposals against objective, published criteria • Present the top three recommendations to the City Council and the public prior to any contract award
All proposals and staff analysis should be made publicly available before the award meeting. No council member should serve on the review committee.
Any council member who has a personal or business relationship with a firm among the top three recommended finalists — or who has publicly expressed support for a specific vendor — should recuse themselves from the contract award vote. These steps will go a long way toward restoring public trust.
Item #28 - 26-379
Please vote yes on Item #28. Councilmember Williams' proposal goes to the heart of the problem exposed by the Wolffhaus contract. Clearly establishing and communicating the City's procurement procedures will be educational for the Council, staff, and public alike — and will help prevent this situation from recurring.
A Final Word on Governance
We often hear that the City should be run like a business. The Wolffhaus contract is an example of what goes wrong when that analogy is taken too far.
A private business exists to create value for its owners and can move quickly, informally, and without public process. A city government exists to serve all residents equally, and is accountable to the public (voters and taxpayers) through law, transparency, and democratic elections. The rules governing how a city spends money and awards contracts are fundamentally different from those in the private sector — and shortcuts that may be acceptable in business are often illegal in government.
The Council majority has now had more than three years in office. The public expects — and the law requires — that its elected officials understand and follow proper procurement procedures. These rules exist not only to protect vorism, on tics of interest, dolt miss the of selves from appearances of I would also encourage the Council to adopt cost-benefit analysis by independent financial professionals as a standard tool when evaluating revenue-generating projects. Objective data leads to better decisions.
Huntington Beach is a remarkable city — with world-class beaches, excellent parks and libraries, strong public safety, and neighborhoods people actively seek out. Residents, visitors, homeowners, and businesses all benefit from what makes this city exceptional. Governing it with the transparency, accountability, and rigor it deserves is how we protect that value for everyone.
Pat Goodman
From: Tim Holland
To: [email protected]
Subject: Wolffhous payout
Date: Sunday, Aprll 19, 2026 7:01:53 PM
You dont often get email from tim [email protected]. Learn why this is important No! What the heck are you stealing our tax payer dollars for? This guy seems to be a whack job getting $ 750,000 because he's related to the mayor. Dear Mayor—- this is on you! Follow the rules and the law. I see you need a bail out for the negative publicity you and yours have laid on our city. I see your effort to turn the tide. But why would you not seek a solid, established, professional firm instead of a phone-sex guy from Montana????? Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Russell Neal
To: [email protected]
Cc: Russell Neal
Subject: Item 27, and 26-379
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 1:47:41 PM
There are two underlying issues with respect to the proposed Creative Strategy RFP. The first s the urgency of getting something done in time to take advantage of the upcoming 4th of July pportunities. The second is meeting concerns about openness and fairness of the bidding and awards process for this contract.
The RFP currently on the table is a compromise which meets neither concern. It is too slow for the first and too fast for the second.
I propose splitting the procurement into two parts. The first would be a directed procurement to Wolffhaus for the limited scope of the 4th of July plan.
The second would be an RFP for the whole, long-term Creative Strategy Plan without the 4th of July time pressure. More time could be allowed for development, of this RFP, consideration of community input, and for bidder response.
If this approach is acceptable, we could perhaps move on to things more productive and less acrimonious.
I do not think the proposed open discussion session concerning related matters is compatible with the format of a Council session and do not believe any good can come from it. I suggest focusing on reaching a workable compromise such as I have suggested and moving on.
Thank you.
From: Jan Madnick
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL, CMO STAFF): [email protected] Subject: agenda item 26-379
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 3:54:06 PM
Thank you to Councilman Williams and Councilman Gruel for the addition of this item. The stated purpose is to give the public the opportunity to learn more about the inappropriate manner in which the proposal to hire Wolfhaus for $720,000 came about and how it would circumvent provisions in our City Chart and well-established My only concern with this agenda item is that you will also take into consideration voting to terminate or reconfigure how these particularly RFPs are considered. I suggest that unless you have a Staff report showing that our present approach DOES NOT work, you might want to wait for such a report before changing anything.
Looking forward to watching how this item is handled tomorrow night.
Thank you,
44 year resident
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Items 25, 26, 27, New (28)
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:38:36 PM
Item 25: Please vote to defeat this item. After reading the background information, it seems like quite the convoluted stretch to try to make a connection between Huntington Beach and President Theodore Roosevelt. Furthermore, Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive and a Conservationist. This Council has actively tried to restart oil drilling in HB and intended to allow a massive light show to disrupt the wildlife in Central Park. Nothing in Theodore Roosevelt's biography matches with the goals of this Council and this item is clearly an attempt to distract from what you have been and will be doing.
Item 26: Please vote to defeat this item. It is NOT the job of the Council to be reviewing the City's lease portfolio. If there is a desire to look at the leases, pass an item asking staff to compile the information and make recommendations to the Council so the Council can discuss all of the information at a public meeting, not behind closed doors in an ad-hoc session. Please return to basic good governance.
Item 27: Please vote to defeat this item. Again, this item is attempting to use a closed door, ad-hoc committee to do the work of City staff. It is the job of City Staff to write RFPs and to receive, and evaluate the subsequent proposals. After the professional staff has evaluated the proposals, they will present their findings to the Council for public discussion and guidance for the staff to proceed. In this case in particular, it seems the resulting contract will be in the neighborhood of $700,000 and moving forward on that requires public input and public discussion.
New Item (28?): I am very much in favor of this item. It is clear that Wolffhaus engaged with the City due to his personal relationship with at least one councilmember. Even after all these weeks, the Wolffhaus website is still not up. Is that the kind of prompt, responsive work we should expect if the contract is issued to his company? I am very interested in watching the discussion of this item to make sure the public has a full understanding of what has transpired so far with our money and what some councilmembers were ready to just give away without any competition or public discussion.
Thank you,
Diane James
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re 26-349
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 11:39:52 AM
You don't often get email from bbenton955@aol. com. Learn why this is important It has become increasingly obvious that this issue has been exposed for what it actually is.....that is a political PR program for members of the City Council looking for future higher office. It should be dropped immediately and a complete accounting of exacily what the already given $30,000 was used for. Invoices for those amounts to be torwarded directly to whomever received any perceived benefit.
Bonnie Benton