Verdemont Heights appeal

Representing the appellant, argued the environmental review is flawed — claiming significant harm to monarch butterflies, air quality, noise and public health, and asking the council not to adopt the mitigated negative declaration.

The developer's attorney argued there is no substantial evidence supporting the appeal, dismissed the monarch butterfly claims, and asked the council to deny the appeal.

A San Bernardino mother who spoke in favor of the project, saying she wants her daughter to grow up in a city with opportunities, services and restaurants close to home.

Spoke in support, saying new homes bring demand that supports stores, restaurants, childcare and professionals — and keeps residents shopping in their own city.

Focused on the housing shortage, saying working families and young adults need housing near their jobs and that the project is an opportunity for the next 15-20 years.

Supported the project, saying the community needs investment so residents can access businesses near home and current residents benefit alongside new ones.

Called the appeal a form of extortion by outside special-interest groups and accused environmental groups of hypocrisy, citing his own cleanup volunteering.

The appellant's representative argued the mitigated negative declaration fails CEQA and that disputes over monarch butterflies, air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise require a full EIR.

The developer's attorney disputed the appellant's expert claims and urged the council to deny the appeal and let the sound, professionally reviewed project proceed.