This meeting, held on December 17, 2025, began as a lengthy session focused on public health, safety, and emergency response, evolving into a contentious debate over zoning and environmental regulation. The agenda primarily featured discussions on Ordinance G7464 regarding medical treatments in city parks and Ordinance G7467 (Item 76) concerning the North Gateway Village development near TSMC. Public testimony was dominated by health professionals and community advocates opposing restrictions on harm reduction services, while neighbors and business leaders debated the implications of semiconductor expansion on water usage, air quality, and local infrastructure.
On Ordinance G7467 (Medical Treatment in Parks):
On Ordinance G7467 (TSMC/North Gateway Village):
Ordinance G7467 (Safe Medical Treatment in Parks):
North Gateway Village (Items 74, 75, 76):
Next Steps:
Note: The roll call for the final vote on Item 76 (Rezone) was 8-0 (Councilwoman Hernandez absent or not voting). The vote on the medical ordinance (Item 46) was 8-1 (Councilwoman Hernandez opposed).
Correction: The transcript indicates the roll call for the medical ordinance (Item 46) result was 8-1 (Passes 8-1). The vote for Item 76 (Rezone) was 8-0.
Correction: The transcript indicates the roll call for the medical ordinance (Item 46) result was 8-1 (Passes 8-1). The vote for Item 76 (Rezone) was 8-0.
*Final Correction based on transcript text:
I have a very amazing mother. My father has struggled with substance use my entire life. And I almost ran away. I almost ran away into a park, just like a lot of my patients do. But luckily, I had a good parent figure. I had a good great siblings. And I just thank them for that. And now I'm trying to provide that same service to the same patients that I see every day. When I was practicing medicine in Oregon, my nephew had an accident. I had to go to the hospital immediately, and I forgot my insulin syringe. So I went to a pharmacy, and one of the pharmacists tell me. No, you don't have your diabetes box with you. I'm not giving you a syringe. My patients struggle with this every single day. Safe syringe programs allow them to get the access that they need to not go into the hospital. And a nurse against policy gave me a syringe when I was at the hospital with my nephew to get my blood sugar down. So we're gonna have more patients with more medical problems if things like this allow to go forward. So thank you so much. Clayton is next, followed by Dr. Fower. Hello, council members. Uh I my name is Clay Nizel. I'm an EMT. I work in Phoenix in the greater Phoenix area. Um I just want to talk about why I oppose this measure. Um, first of all, just sort of uh uh small note is that EMTs and paramedics really don't do any of this harm reduction stuff. We're not handing out needles, we're not handing out harm reduction kits. So when you take this stuff away and you tell us that there's an exception for us, it just doesn't do anything. You're just saying, you're just putting a stopgap that's not there, right? Um, emergency workers provide emergency medical care in emergency situations, and we are seeing more and more people that are just treating emergency care as their their like one solution for medical care. And we're seeing costs go up, and we're seeing worse health outcomes because people are not seeking care as soon. And the people who work in like needle uh needle replacement and and uh the and our uh sorry uh and harm reduction events are are the ones who are providing that care, which bridges that gap. Um we know that there are tons of of positive uh there are tons of positive uh there are a lot of positive outcomes that come from these programs, uh a reduction in the spread of bloodborne illnesses, decreased overdose deaths, and even in some cases, finding rehab and detox uh resources for the people that need them. So when we take these away, we're expecting to have more addicts out on the street. And finally, I know that kind of one of the big the big questions about this is talking about medical waste and talking about the debris that gets left behind, but it's important to realize that the debris that gets left behind is just a natural outcome of people needing medical care, and by making it illegal for people to go in and help these people and find ways to dispose of these things, you're not reducing that debris or that waste. You're just making it harder for the people who actually want to make a difference for that. Thank you. Dr. Fower is next, followed by Scott. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Robert Fower. I'm a physician and assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Arizona and Clayton Medical Schools. I've practiced medicine in Phoenix for over 40 years. I'm here to oppose the currently written proposal to ban medical care in city parks. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and coordinate with other city, county, and state public health partners to protect the most vulnerable residents. Please consider designated areas and parks where medical care may be administered. For many people experiencing homelessness, parks are the only places where medical assessment, hydration, and heat-related care can occur. Prohibiting medical care in these cities, settings increases preventable risk of harm and death, especially during extreme heat. Existing services are not yet able to address the immense needs of the unsheltered individuals, as demonstrated by Phoenix's heat data. Phoenix has the highest rate of heat-related deaths in the country.