Tollway for South O.C. Wins Court’s Approval : Transportation: But judge acknowledges from bench that the San Joaquin Hills project ‘saddens me.’

In what supporters of the San Joaquin Hills tollway called a triumph, an Orange County Superior Court judge Wednesday gave the green light for the $778-million highway.

Making a remarkable personal admission from the bench, Judge James P. Gray said he has private reservations about the 15-mile tollway but argued that the law is on the side of the road’s boosters.

“I cannot resist saying that, as a citizen, this whole project saddens me,” Gray remarked before a packed courtroom. “But that is not why I am here. . . . I have not been elected king.”

The judge’s words did little to dampen the glee of tollway boosters.

“This is a major, major victory,” said Robert Thornton, chief counsel for the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies, the coalition of city and county lawmakers planning the road, along with two other southern and eastern county tollways.

Tollway opponents say the ruling is only the first skirmish in what promises to be a prolonged battle over the highway, which would slice through scenic coastal terrain between San Juan Capistrano and Newport Beach. Foes are already appealing an earlier legal setback handed down by Gray and promised Wednesday to challenge the judge’s latest ruling.

“We’ll do whatever is necessary,” said Norm Grossman, a spokesman for Laguna Greenbelt Inc., one of the environmental groups battling the tollway. “This project is too important for us to disappear. We’ll do everything we can to stop it. We want people to realize the fight is just beginning.”

Grossman and other tollway foes brought suit against the road after the tollway agency approved an environmental impact report for the San Joaquin Hills tollway in March, 1991.

Although the road’s boosters say it will speed traffic in Orange County and improve air quality, foes have steadfastly questioned the smog data and argued that the highway would encourage more growth in South County, alter sensitive wetlands and uproot rare plants and wildlife.

The opponents scored a victory in October when Gray ordered the tollway agency’s 11-member board to go back to the hearing room and consider air quality and wetlands studies, which had not been completed by the March approval of the environmental review.

Bowing to the judge’s order, promoters of the pay-to-use highway held a second hearing in December, voting to reaffirm their support for the road. That set the stage for Wednesday’s session in Gray’s courtroom.

Mark Weinberger, a San Francisco attorney representing tollway opponents, focused on the road’s effects on air quality, suggesting that the agency’s March decision was based on smog data that has been “blown apart” by subsequent studies.

Those new reports yielded “numerous locations” near the route where carbon monoxide emissions would probably exceed state or federal standards, Weinberger said. The environmental impact report approved in March was “simply incorrect,” he argued.

“There are going to be some intersections where the concentrations will be hazardous to public health,” suggested Michael Fitts, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense League, an environmental group opposed to the tollways. “Ask the people who live in that area, ask the people who jog in that area if those aren’t going to be significant impacts.”

But attorneys for the tollway agency countered that opponents had misinterpreted state smog laws, which call for a project to be considered based on its overall impact on the region’s air quality, not on specific spots along the road.

“What they’ve done is misapply the state Clean Air Act,” said John Flynn, an attorney for the tollway agency.

Although he acknowledged his personal troubles over the tollway, Gray concluded that any group conducting an environmental review faces a daunting task, and he commended the tollway agency.

The environmental document approved by the agency “is not perfect and probably has some inaccuracies,” but cannot be “second-guessed,” Gray said. “They can always do more, and they can always do a better job. . . . It is an imperfect world.”

After the hearing, road opponents applauded Gray’s personal honesty but predicted that they would fare far better at the 4th District Court of Appeal, which is already reviewing a portion of the case against the tollway.

In addition, opponents say they will sue in federal court to block the road if the National Highway Administration, as expected, gives its approval to the San Joaquin Hills tollway at a hearing early next month.

Thornton, meanwhile, said the tollway agency will be ready for all challenges.

“They may think they have a chance, but case law is on our side and we’re going to prevail at the court of appeals,” he said.

FOES PLAN PROTEST: Tollway opponents hope for big turnout at a rally Saturday. B1