Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Lighting School topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms denial of Medford School District lighting plan at Jacksonville Elementary
Summary
After neighbors and staff raised concerns about light trespass and insufficient engineering data, the Jacksonville City Council affirmed a Hearings Officer denial of File No. 2026-036 for lighting at Jacksonville Elementary by a 6–1 vote; the district may submit a redesigned, code-compliant application.
Jacksonville City Council on July 7, 2026 affirmed the Hearings Officer's denial of File No. 2026-036, a Medford School District proposal to add stadium-style lighting at Jacksonville Elementary, by a 6–1 roll-call vote. Councilor Hellenthal moved to affirm the denial; Councilor Gregg seconded. Councilor Reed voted no.
Planning Director Ian Foster told the council the proposal included 15 fixtures — 11 placed along residential rear property lines — and that the city's review must focus on the Jacksonville Unified Development Code (JUDC) Section 18.16.070 (Exterior Lighting Standards). Foster said the Hearings Officer denied the application due to the cumulative impact of the number, placement, and height of fixtures.
Andy Chasteen, facilities manager for the Medford School District, said the district's intent was to improve safety, noting fixtures would be shielded on the back, programmed to dim, set to turn off at 8:00 p.m., and could be motion-activated. He told the council the district was willing to redesign the plan and consider fewer or lower fixtures.
Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition. Jason Triplett told the council the Hearings Officer had correctly denied the application and cited Police Department records that showed no reported crimes at the site in the past two years. Hattie Berg and Jeff Haug cited light trespass into bedrooms and potential sleep disruption from motion-activated lights. A written comment from student Norah Pearson, read into the record by staff, suggested a sidewalk with low-level path lighting as an alternative.
During deliberations Councilor Thompson called the proposal "overkill" and urged the council to give the district clear guidance on acceptable alternatives; Councilor Reed supported a continuance but staff advised that a statutorily required 120-day land-use deadline (July 29, 2026) prevented a continuance without a written time extension from the applicant. Councilor Hellenthal said the district needed to return with manufacturer light-casting maps and lower, downward-shining poles. Councilor Casaleggio argued the appeal failed to meet the specific light-trespass criteria and should be denied.
Because the council affirmed the denial, the file is closed and the school district may work with city staff on a new, code-compliant submittal that addresses neighbor concerns and provides the technical data the council requested.
