(Oct. 5, 2007) -- New information is emerging on an issue affecting ELB neighborhoods to the east, north and west of CSULB...a day after 3rd district Councilman Gary DeLong and CSULB President King Alexander appeared at an on-campus noontime rally that criticized a September City Council budget vote to spend roughly $133,000 in city tax dollars on LB Parks & Rec programs instead of new street lights on thoroughfares adjacent to the campus,

Although not discussed publicly in the Sept. Council budget proceedings, some 4th district neighbors in the CSULB area appear to have voiced concerns about possible light impacts on their property from the new street lights. Councilwoman Schipske [who represents the 5th Council district] mentioned this in an Oct. 4 internet blog dispatch...and CSULB President Alexander provided LBReport.com with further details on this and the funding issue.

His statement isn't inconsistent with Councilwoman Schipske's blog (details below).

Meanwhile, Councilman Patrick O'Donnell -- whose represents the area immediately to the north and east of the campus and also owns a home in the area -- said lighting impacts are among several issues on which he sought answers months ago...and says he didn't receive responses in writing.

"How will the lights impact the neighborhood? Will they be so large that they'll flood front yards with light? We need answers on this," Councilman O'Donnell told LBReport.com...adding, "this doesn't mean the lights aren't a good thing. I need some analysis on what the results will be and what we'll get in spending every dollar. I think the public deserves that and it's reasonable."

Councilman O'Donnell added that as a CSULB alum, he's supportive of making the university safer...and notes that CSULB has installed lights along Atherton St. on CSULB property (basically covers the sidewalk).

"I am committed to public safety, but our commitment as Councilmembers [to taxpayers] is also to analyze fiscal matters, especially if it has neighborhood impacts," Councilman O'Donnell said.

Councilman O'Donnell added that he spoke with CSULB President Alexander last night (Oct. 4). "We discussed how we culd work together to deal with this issue," Councilman O'Donnell said.

Councilman O'Donnell told LBReport.com that the lack of written information, detail and written commitment were significant to him in deciding to make the Sept. 11 budget motion [in which 8 of 9 Councilmembers joined] to nix using city tax dollars for the CSULB-adjacent street lighting project (in which the L.A. County would have also provided funding).

On Oct. 4, Councilwoman Schipske wrote in part on her independent (non-taxpayer paid) ineternet blog:

Schipske blog: A couple of nights [after the Council budget vote] I was at the CCEJ dinner in Seal Beach and had the opportunity to talk with CSULB President King Alexander who came over to where I was seating to talk...President Alexander reassured me that he understood that it is difficult for a City Council to vote against programs for children — the recreational programs restored by the shifting in funding. He repeated that he knew if was difficult for Council to doing anything else and that I shouldn’t worry because CSULB would find funds to complete the lighting project. He also stated that he understood my colleague’s (Mr. O’Donnell) concern that adding lighting would impact the residences and that he thought it all could be worked out.

So…I have received several emails from voters concerned about the Council taking the action we did and wanting the lighting restored. I have replied –based upon my personal conversation with President Alexander — that CSULB would get it done.

Asked about this by LBReport.com, President Alexander emailed:

President Alexander: ...Our conversation [with Councilwoman Schipske] actually went as follows which is consistent with what I have told other City Council members.

First that I appreciate the fact that the city was working to get this done with the University.

2. That I had spoken with a number of city officials and they were looking at a series of different options to try and still fund the project which includes reducing the cost by lighting two of the three surrounding streets (the worst ones). I told Gerrie and others that if we were able to work this out then we might be able to handle the third street since we already spent 200,000 dollars in that area this past summer. However, we are in no position to pay for the lighting of all these streets. Additionally, it was not the actual cost that was the real issue for a couple of people. It was the actual lights.

Third, I informed many City Council members that I did understand their dilemma about whether or not to vote for children's programs. However, this issue should have never arisen forcing the members to pick one or another in this case. I still understand why many could not vote against children's programs.

Finally, this is exactly why I have not "blasted" the City Council and I stated at the speech yesterday that I appreciate their support and look forward to resolving this issue in near future.

I also stated that I was confident that the City will work with us to get this accomplished. This is where I feel that your article distorts the facts at the rally. The students hosted the rally.

I was there to inform them of all the things that we have done to improve campus safety. Also, to let them know that this issue was not dead.

In a Sept. 28 release, the Associated Students/CSULB described its Oct. 4 "Light Up Our Nights" rally in pertinent part as follows: