Firm Accused of Tearing Up Bird Habitat : Environment: Armed with only a weed permit, the Mission Viejo Co. denudes brushy hills where it plans a business park. Key bird habitat is destroyed, naturalists say.

Environmentalists Wednesday accused the Mission Viejo Co. of destroying a sensitive wildlife habitat by clearing brush from a disputed area off El Toro Road, prompting city officials to call a special meeting for today to consider the matter.

Just after dawn Wednesday, company workers armed with a city weed abatement permit drove tractors back and forth along brushy hills near the city’s northern boundary between El Toro Road and Upper Oso Reservoir. The tractors towed equipment that sliced into the earth, uprooting brush and other plants. Other workers toiled with machetes to whack at the brushlands.

The Mission Viejo Co. plans to build a 210-acre business park on the property, but the local chapter of the Audubon Society has filed suit to stop the development.

Environmentalists said company workers are violating requirements of the weed abatement permit by permanently tearing out the natural grasslands that are home to varied rare species, including the California gnatcatcher. The tiny songbird, which thrives in sensitive coastal sage scrub, is being considered for the endangered species list by federal and state officials. The state Fish and Game Commission has scheduled an Aug. 1 hearing in Newport Beach to consider listing the gnatcatcher.

The complaints of environmentalists brought out City Councilman William S. Craycraft and Planning Commissioner Sherri Butterfield, who said the extent of the clearing and the type of equipment used did not appear to be in line with the weed abatement permit.

“Had I known that . . . they would be doing this, I would not have made the motion to grant them that permit,” an angry Butterfield told a city engineer as residents surrounded them.

“I would not have voted for it,” she said, “and I personally feel like I’ve been deceived and I’ve been made a fool of in front of all these people. I guess I just have to learn that people lie.”

Despite Butterfield’s reaction, the plowing continued into the day Wednesday.

The permit, issued Tuesday, stated that in the weed abatement process “root structure shall not be disturbed, and vegetation should be trimmed to 3 inches above ground level. No blading is allowed.”

The Planning Commission called a special meeting for 5 p.m. today to discuss the matter.

Mission Viejo Co. spokeswoman Wendy Wetzel said the company is complying with permit requirements.

“This was fully permitted by the city staff,” Wetzel said. “The city hired an independent biologist who inspected for sensitive habitat, and he came back and said it was not a sensitive habitat.”

The company requested permission for the weed abatement to reduce the area’s fire hazard, but critics of the developer said there may be another reason.

“We know there are gnatcatchers out there, and they’re trying to get rid of all the wildlife habitat,” said Pete DeSimone, manager of the Audubon Society’s Starr Ranch preserve. “It’s so blatantly wrong. There is no reason to do this.”

The early morning drama drew several city officials to the scene after calls from angry residents and environmentalists. At one point, Loren Anderson, the city’s assistant public works director, told company workers to stop what they were doing, but their supervisors told them to continue.

Later, UCI biologist Fred Roberts led Anderson and company representatives through brushy areas and pointed out a cactus wren nest in a clump of cacti. Immediately, a company worker spoke into a remote radio and directed someone to cordon off the nest so the tractors could work around it.

The only Planning Commission member who voted against the permit, Joe Lowe, a captain with the Orange County Fire Department, said the department generally clears weeds only on either side of a road running through vacant land to prevent fires from cigarettes thrown from cars.

Clearing weeds from an entire parcel of land, especially uprooting any growth, is not necessary, he said.

“As far as I am concerned, there was no reason to do it,” Lowe said. “The interior areas were not a fire hazard.

“The reason to have it done right now is simple,” he said. “If the gnatcatcher goes on the endangered species list Aug. 1, they might have missed the window of opportunity to build there. Now, with that environment removed, they’ve ensured that they can build.”

Wetzel dismissed this idea and said the city-hired biologist “found no gnatcatchers out there.”

The property is the subject of a lawsuit filed June 28 by Sea and Sage, a local chapter of the Audubon Society. The group seeks to set aside a zoning ordinance and development agreement for the project and to halt work at the site.