LAST MINUTE AGENDA INFORMATION
PACKET NO. 2
08-19-2026 Regular City Council Meeting
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the Agenda Packet for the August 19, 2026, meeting.) ITEM
NO. SUBJECT TITLE DESCRIPTION
15.a
CONSIDERATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA FOR FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
RELATED TO THE TIJUANA RIVER
VALLEY CROSS-BORDER POLLUTION
CRISIS. (0150-40 & 0210-26)
Correspondence from Sandra Brillhart –
pg 1-3
15.b
RESOLUTION 2026-081 APPROVAL OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND THE CITY OF IMPERIAL
BEACH FOR THE PROVISION OF BRIDGE
SHELTER AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES
FOR HOMELESSNESS. (0240-10 & 0660-00)
Correspondence from Sandra Brillhart –
pg 4-6
15.c
DISCUSSION OF REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRIC BICYCLES IN THE CITY
OF IMPERIAL BEACH. (0240-95)
Correspondence from Sandra Brillhart –
pg 7
*DUE TO TECHNICAL ISSUES PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE DELAYED
From: Sandra Brillhart
To: Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Submitted
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 3:01:06 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I support securing federal funding for the Tijuana River sewage crisis, but this proposal is unacceptable and should be rejected. Imperial Beach is the city most severely impacted by this crisis. Our health, businesses, and quality of life are directly affected. We have unique, urgent needs that differ significantly from Chula Vista’s. Before committing taxpayer dollars, this Council needs to have a serious discussion on whether spending this money at this time for a lobbying effort led by another city is prudent, considering the serious staffing and infrastructure needs already constraining our budget.
Also, given that an election for 3 Council seats, including the Mayor is approaching, the timing of this rushed proposal raises questions about the motive behind it and public transparency. For the past year, this council, under the current appointed Mayor, has done nothing of consequence to address the sewage issue. Suddenly committing our city to a vague, lopsided financial agreement less than 3 months before voters choose the future direction of Council deserves careful scrutiny, especially when the proposal itself is so flawed.
My primary concern with the proposal is its total lack of specificity regarding what Imperial Beach actually gets out of the deal. The materials presented lack details about Chula Vista’s existing contract with Thorn Run Partners. What is the total cost? How much are they paying? What is included? There is a reference to Scope B, but Scope B was not included in the meeting materials. How much of the consultants' efforts will focus on Imperial Beach? Why was our staff present for the interviews? Was our involvement already a done deal? The MOU focuses on our financial obligations but says nothing about guaranteed deliverables.
Furthermore, the County has already hired a federal lobbying firm, making this proposal appear duplicative and possibly even counterproductive. Was there any discussion about that? Basically, the MOU as presented raises more questions than it answers. 1)It allows the City Manager to extend payments for up to five years, potentially costing Imperial Beach over $65,100, excluding unknown travel expenses. There needs to be an established limit on the amount of direct expenses, including travel, that we are required to pay;
2) It gives the City Manager the authority to execute annual extensions but is silent on whether Council approval is required (I think it should be), and what criteria will be used to measure success; 3). The MOU lacks a termination clause giving Imperial Beach the right to opt out if we are unsatisfied. This crisis is too critical for Imperial Beach to settle for a vague, hasty arrangement controlled by others. If we spend taxpayer money on federal advocacy, we must have a clear understanding of what we are getting and how value is measured.
I urge you to reject this agreement unless it is amended to include these conditions and the final version of the MOU is presented to the public. Thank you for your consideration. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: eSCRIBE.Admin <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 12:22 PM
Subject: Public Comment Submitted
To:
Hi Sandy Brillhart,
Thank you for submitting a comment for CONSIDERATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE 1 Last Minute Agenda Information
Item 15.a - August 19, 2026
ADVOCACY SERVICES RELATED TO THE TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY CROSS-BORDER POLLUTION CRISIS. (0150-40 & 0210-26) in City Council Regular Meeting, 8/19/2026 6:00:00 PM.
In order to complete the submission, please click the link below to verify your email address. https://pub-imperialbeach.escribemeetings.com/landing.aspx?v=e77a689f-deb8-4651-a322- 8bccd00bebf1&commentId=11&m=e5281705-6266-446e-8bc2-222c7d82b62a Here is your comment: I support securing federal funding for the Tijuana River sewage crisis, but this proposal is unacceptable and should be rejected. Imperial Beach is the city most severely impacted by this crisis. Our health, businesses, and quality of life are directly affected. We have unique, urgent needs that differ significantly from Chula Vista’s. Before committing taxpayer dollars, this Council needs to have a serious discussion on whether spending this money at this time for a lobbying effort led by another city is prudent, considering the serious staffing and infrastructure needs already constraining our budget. Also, given that an election for 3 Council seats, including the Mayor is approaching, the timing of this rushed proposal raises questions about the motive behind it and public transparency. For the past year, this council, under the current appointed Mayor, has done nothing of consequence to address the sewage issue. Suddenly committing our city to a vague, lopsided financial agreement less than 3 months before voters choose the future direction of Council deserves careful scrutiny, especially when the proposal itself is so flawed. My primary concern with the proposal is its total lack of specificity regarding what Imperial Beach actually gets out of the deal. The materials presented lack details about Chula Vista’s existing contract with Thorn Run Partners. What is the total cost? How much are they paying? What is included? There is a reference to Scope B, but Scope B was not included in the meeting materials. How much of the consultants' efforts will focus on Imperial Beach? Why was our staff present for the interviews? Was our involvement already a done deal? The MOU focuses on our financial obligations but says nothing about guaranteed deliverables.
Furthermore, the County has already hired a federal lobbying firm, making this proposal appear duplicative and possibly even counterproductive. Was there any discussion about that? Basically, the MOU as presented raises more questions than it answers. 1)It allows the City Manager to extend payments for up to five years, potentially costing Imperial Beach over $65,100, excluding unknown travel expenses. There needs to be an established limit on the amount of direct expenses, including travel, that we are required to pay; 2) It gives the City Manager the authority to execute annual extensions but is silent on whether Council approval is required (I think it should be), and what criteria will be used to measure success; 3). The MOU lacks a termination clause giving Imperial Beach the right to opt out if we are unsatisfied. This crisis is too critical for Imperial Beach to settle for a vague, hasty arrangement controlled by others. If we spend taxpayer money on federal advocacy, we must have a clear understanding of what we are getting and how value is measured. I urge you to reject this agreement unless it is amended to include these conditions and the final version of the MOU is presented to the public. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
City of Imperial Beach
________________________________________________________________________________________ Hola Sandy Brillhart,
Gracias por enviar un comentario para CONSIDERATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCARY SERVICES RELATED TO THE TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY CROSS-BORDER POLLUTION CRISIS. (0150-40 & 0210-26) en City Council Meeting, 8/19/2026 6:00:00 PM.
Para completar la publicación, por favor haga clic en el enlace de abajo para verificar su dirección de correo electrónico.
https://pub-imperialbeach.escribemeetings.com/landing.aspx?v=e77a689f-deb8-4651-a322- 8bccd00bebf1&commentId=11&m=e5281705-6266-446e-8bc2-222c7d82b62a Aquí está tu comentario: I support securing federal funding for the Tijuana River sewage crisis, but this proposal is unacceptable and should be rejected. Imperial Beach is the city most severely impacted by this 2 Last Minute Agenda Information
Item 15.a - August 19, 2026
crisis. Our health, businesses, and quality of life are directly affected. We have unique, urgent needs that differ significantly from Chula Vista’s. Before committing taxpayer dollars, this Council needs to have a serious discussion on whether spending this money at this time for a lobbying effort led by another city is prudent, considering the serious staffing and infrastructure needs already constraining our budget. Also, given that an election for 3 Council seats, including the Mayor is approaching, the timing of this rushed proposal raises questions about the motive behind it and public transparency. For the past year, this council, under the current appointed Mayor, has done nothing of consequence to address the sewage issue. Suddenly committing our city to a vague, lopsided financial agreement less than 3 months before voters choose the future direction of Council deserves careful scrutiny, especially when the proposal itself is so flawed. My primary concern with the proposal is its total lack of specificity regarding what Imperial Beach actually gets out of the deal. The materials presented lack details about Chula Vista’s existing contract with Thorn Run Partners. What is the total cost? How much are they paying? What is included? There is a reference to Scope B, but Scope B was not included in the meeting materials. How much of the consultants' efforts will focus on Imperial Beach? Why was our staff present for the interviews? Was our involvement already a done deal? The MOU focuses on our financial obligations but says nothing about guaranteed deliverables.
Furthermore, the County has already hired a federal lobbying firm, making this proposal appear duplicative and possibly even counterproductive. Was there any discussion about that? Basically, the MOU as presented raises more questions than it answers. 1)It allows the City Manager to extend payments for up to five years, potentially costing Imperial Beach over $65,100, excluding unknown travel expenses. There needs to be an established limit on the amount of direct expenses, including travel, that we are required to pay; 2) It gives the City Manager the authority to execute annual extensions but is silent on whether Council approval is required (I think it should be), and what criteria will be used to measure success; 3). The MOU lacks a termination clause giving Imperial Beach the right to opt out if we are unsatisfied. This crisis is too critical for Imperial Beach to settle for a vague, hasty arrangement controlled by others. If we spend taxpayer money on federal advocacy, we must have a clear understanding of what we are getting and how value is measured. I urge you to reject this agreement unless it is amended to include these conditions and the final version of the MOU is presented to the public. Thank you for your consideration.
Gracias,
Ciudad de Imperial Beach
.
3 Last Minute Agenda Information
Item 15.a - August 19, 2026
4 Last Minute Agenda Information
Item 15.b - August 19, 2026
!"!#$"%&'((
)'
*' '+, - . /
*.
') '' 0. /
* ,( '
'.*
(
)
* 0+
' 0'
. '0) .*
,
12"!3"$&"4"##"$""5.
.
,
%6&76!"!##8""8""(,1
9
9
:
;
1
98669$9
1
16
19<=;>!??$@?@$3$7?##$ @#"@%4 >&!4>A!%&?"A$#!##$33#$%!$!!!?%!#!
8 99
:
.
)
9
9
;
99
;
1(
;
99
;
;
99
<9
:
:
B7"1#"9
$9
9
$
99
;
;
1:;
99
;
;
9
;.
9
;:
;
9
C
:
:
@
.
1-
;
=-
;
:
<9
8-
.
D<
<9
=
,
:
B7"1#"9
9
9
9
<
<9
1
B&"
9
:
;
&&":
1
9
7"=
;
9
C
1
9;
9 ;
.
)
;
99
;.
)
1 '
:
;9
9
=-
99
;
=
;
<9
E
1 9
;,
.
-
.
D0;
:
:
99
<9
:
1 -
9$
;:
.
)
9
;
9
; 9
='
:
B7"1#"
:
9
:
9
9
;
;1*
9
;
,
C
1 9
9
;&!"D
:
.
)
:
#"D
1-
:
=*
.
;9
;
:
9
=*
,
<
'
9
(
:
1.
:
:
1
1
.
9
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF GHIJHKLMNOIPQRSTUOQVWXYZ[\]]^_`aVW]Y``^Ub[cdXefcd`^gbhV`X\\i cW\V`OWXc_ijTY_U\TkUla^Z\_Ucdem^cUY_nQc_^I KHN 5 Last Minute Agenda Information Item 15.b - August 19, 2026
! "#!$%&''(&)& &*
+
,
-),
&(
&& .
,
-)
*'
&
&,)
'(
)
.
& .&,
&
.(
,)* /0! 1!#%!2!""!#!!33,
,
*
4$5%65 ! ""7!!7!!'*/ '
8
9
:
4
8;
:
9
9
/
7558#
8
/
8
4/5
4/<=> :?8?8#@?@#1#6?""# @"!8@88$2 >% 2>A $%?!A#" ""#11"#$8 # ?$ 8" &BCD
7
4
E
,
(
88
:
/'
4
:
<
4
E
E
4
F6!/"!
#
#
4
84
4:
/E
8:
4
4
8
8
,
E
B
4E
8
4
E
@
,
8
4/+
4
8
:
4
4
=+
4
4
8
:E
4
:
<
:
7+
,
G<
:
<
4
=
*
E
:F6!/"!
4
4:
4:
8
8
<
<
/
:
4F%!H
::
E
:%%! E
4
:/
4
4
6! =
:
:
8
B
:
/
4
8
4
8
8 ,
(
8
8 ,
(
/ &
E4
4
:
:
8
:=+
:
=
4:
4:
8
:8<
;
:
/
4
4 8
*4
,
+
H
,
G
4.
E
HE
<
4
E
4
/ +
:
#4
E
,
(
8
4
8
::=&8
HE:
F6!/"!
:E
E
4:
/)
*
B/
% ! G
E
,
(
E
"! G
/+
E
4=)
:
,
:
:E
8
=)
*
:
<
8 &
4'E
4
/,
HE
E
/
H :
/
,
/
IJKLJMNOPQKRSTUVWQSXYZ[\]^__`abcXY_[bb`Wd]efZghefb`idjXbZ^^k eY^XbQYZeaklV[aW^VmWnc`\^aWefgo`eW[apSea`K PJP 6 Last Minute Agenda Information Item 15.b - August 19, 2026
From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: Jacqueline M. Kelly; Carly Dartez; [email protected]; Theresa Talya Subject: Public Comment Approval Request
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 2:48:43 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
User Sandy Brillhart has enter the following comment(s):
I support reasonable e-bike regulations, but am concerned that the process leading to tonight’s discussion and the information provided in the meeting materials are inadequate for the Council to make informed, data-driven decisions. It has been almost nine months since Council gave vague directions to staff to consider e-bike regulations. In all of that time, there has been no meaningful public outreach other than Councilmember Nakawatase’s unofficial survey, the results of which have not yet been made available to the public. The staff report still does not provide local data on e-bike accidents, injuries, complaints, enforcement, or other safety problems that could help justify the various options presented in the report. Nor does it identify specific local concerns that new regulations are intended to address. Now, after eight months of inaction, Council is considering a long list of potential changes to existing regulations that are rarely enforced and not widely known. While these issues may be worth considering, there is no way for Council to meaningfully evaluate them now without more information, public input, and data. Rather than asking the Council tonight to decide among this long list of proposed regulations with no data to inform their decision, I recommend that Council either: -Agrees to participate in the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program and use it to gather local data; or -Directs staff to conduct meaningful public outreach and return with a focused draft ordinance supported by public opinion and local crash, injury, complaint, and enforcement data. I am also concerned that the report does not directly address e-motos or other high-powered electric vehicles that are not legally classified as e-bikes. It provides no data about these vehicles, no discussion of the problems they may be causing in Imperial Beach, and no information about whether existing laws are effective or being enforced. Council should request this information as well. I also think that the sample public education materials provided with the report need improvement. The sample flyers are too wordy to expect people to read, understand, and remember all of the rules. A much more useful approach would be a simple, easy-to-read chart building on the Sheriff's flyer, with additional rows identifying where each class of bicycle is permitted, e.g., on sidewalks, in parks, in bike lanes, on roadways, and in other pedestrian areas, and other key requirements and restrictions as appropriate. After nearly nine months, it is time for the Council to actually do the work that should have been done before bringing this issue back to the public: gather the data, conduct meaningful outreach, identify the problems that need to be addressed, and develop regulations based on data rather than speculation and political expedience. Thank you for your consideration.
for DISCUSSION OF REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRIC BICYCLES IN THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH. (0240-95) in City Council Regular Meeting 8/19/2026 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s). 7 Last Minute Agenda Information
Item 15.c - August 19, 2026