City Council/Public Financing Authority
April 21, 2026

April 20, 2026 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: April 21, 2026 Hearing – Appeal of CUP No. 22-011 / CDP No. 22-009 The Huntington Club Improvements Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of the Huntington Club Improvements. The Planning Commission already held the public hearing on January 27, 2026, and approved the project unanimously, 7-0. Under the City’s own code, that approval would have become effective absent an appeal. This matter is before you only because three members, Douglas Scott Warren, Susan Ridgeway, and Cheryl Gates, chose to appeal it. I write specifically in response to the April 10, 2026 letter submitted by Jesse K. Bolling. That letter is not a neutral safety analysis. By his own admission, Mr. Bolling writes in two capacities: as pro bono counsel for the appellants and as a current Club member with a direct personal interest in the Club’s facilities. He also expressly states that many of the assertions in his letter are provided only on an informational basis and not as established facts. The Council should therefore treat the April 10th letter for what it is: advocacy by an interested participant, not independent evidence. The April 10th letter is also internally inconsistent and legally weak. City staff summarized the actual appeal as raising zoning consistency, CEQA, unsupported economic claims, and alleged lack of substantial evidence. The April 10th submission then pivots into a new, safety-heavy brief and seeks more delay. That kind of shifting rationale underscores the weakness of the appeal. The Council is not being asked to review a newly discovered defect in an unapproved project. It is being asked to decide whether three appellants have shown any valid basis to overturn a project the Planning Commission already unanimously approved after hearing. A central deficiency in the April 10th letter is that it substitutes lawyer argument and worst-case speculation for substantial evidence. City staff concluded that the bungalows and lofts are incidental and accessory to the site’s primary use as a private tennis and golf club. Staff also determined that the Class 32 exemption analysis provides substantial evidence that the project