Suit Seeks to Halt Wilderness Area Plan : Environment: The Audubon Society wants to overturn county approval of the Las Flores project in a lush area of woods and grasslands.

The local chapter of the National Audubon Society filed suit in Superior Court on Thursday to overturn the county’s approval of a new Santa Margarita Co. community in a prime wilderness area of southeastern Orange County.

The civil suit alleges that county officials violated state law when they approved the Las Flores development by inadequately addressing environmental issues, from wildlife conservation and water quality to traffic and air pollution,

The suit, filed by the Sea and Sage Audubon Society and Trabuco Canyon activist Ray Chandos, names the Board of Supervisors, the county and the Santa Margarita Co.

Local conservationists said the legal action is warranted because development has long been rubber-stamped in Orange County, overburdening its resources and services and causing most of its natural lands and animals to disappear.

“Las Flores is a good example of the process gone awry,” said Pete DeSimone, conservation director of Sea and Sage Audubon, the 2,700-member Orange County chapter of the National Audubon Society. “The planning is really shortsighted in Orange County, so we will try to use the law to get things back on track.”

Ernie Schneider, Orange County’s chief administrative officer, said Thursday that he is not surprised by the suit, calling it a “delay tactic.”

Schneider said anti-development forces frequently sue on grounds of a flawed environmental report, but county officials usually win, and if they don’t, the court-ordered changes are minor. He complained that the EIR process has become a vehicle for environmentalists to mire development projects in time-consuming red tape.

The 2,500-home Las Flores development, to be built in a lush area of woods, grasslands and creek beds between Mission Viejo and Coto de Caza, was approved by the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 5.

The opposition to the 1,005-acre development--which climaxed during an emotion-packed, three-hour public hearing--was the most vocal and vehement that some county officials can recall in recent years.

The lawsuit names eight causes of action, with six alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, which requires environmental impact reports for developments. Two other causes of action allege that the county violated its own planning procedures.

The Audubon group and Chandos are seeking a reversal of the project’s approval, new environmental reports, more public hearings and suspension of any construction until the issues are resolved.

“We want them to go back and do it like it is supposed to be done, and not just rubber-stamp projects like they always have,” said DeSimone, who manages the Starr Ranch, a large Audubon Society wildlife sanctuary near the proposed Las Flores development. “If we brought all the projects in the works so that they comply with CEQA, then we will have a better quality of life here.”

Michael Ruane, director of the county’s Environmental Management Agency, said he cannot think of an example when an Orange County development has been overturned by a lawsuit. At most, he said, some minor changes in the EIR are ordered.

“It’s a losing battle,” County Administrator Schneider said. “No one ever wins, and all it is is a delay that takes everyone more time and more money.”

Chandos, however, said lawsuits that he and other environmentalists have filed against county officials “make them realize they have to be more conscientious in the future.” He said the county’s handling of development “has improved recently and that’s because of our struggles with them.”

None of the supervisors, including Gaddi H. Vasquez, in whose district the development would be located, were available for comment.

Santa Margarita’s Diane Gaynor said the lawsuit surprised company executives, adding:

“We did not anticipate anything like this, especially after we spent two years on the . . . mitigation efforts for the Las Flores Planned Community. . . . We feel the plan is environmentally sound and it reflects the company’s policy of being strong stewards of the land.”

Gaynor said the company’s executives made several concessions to preserve wildlife in the area--increasing buffers for wildlife areas and removing an entire 25-acre housing project that would have cut off a major migration route for animals.

The area to be developed includes one of Orange County’s last remaining stands of oak and sycamore woodlands, a rich habitat that provides food and shelter to a wide variety of animals, from hawks and owls to deer and mountain lions.

About 100 acres of native grassland will be lost, as well as several hundred acres of coastal sage scrub, a rapidly disappearing mix of brush that is critical to survival of the California gnatcatcher. The rare bird is expected to soon be added to the federal endangered species list.

Raptors will disappear from the area, and populations of deer, coyote and other native species will decline, said Paul Beier, a wildlife biologist who is conducting a state-funded cougar study in South Orange County.

Chandos contended that county supervisors refused to ask for many concessions from the developer that would protect the environment. For example, he said, supervisors would not require the company to compensate for the 250 acres of lost coastal sage scrub by re-creating it elsewhere.

Supervisors said that when they approved the project they were trying to balance the county’s need for affordable housing with the concerns over environmental issues. In an agreement between the developer and county officials, at least 60% of the homes must cost under $250,000.

In addition to homes, the company’s development plan includes a commercial center providing about 800 jobs, a school and two community parks.

In the past decade, the local Audubon chapter has filed two other lawsuits to block Orange County developments, including a housing community in Anaheim Hills and a large biomedical complex, the Nichols Institute, on privately owned land in the middle of Caspers Regional Park. The environmental group lost both cases, DeSimone said.