Judge Orders New Study of UCI Land in Disputed Sale : Courts: The scope of the environmental report, however, is limited to 1.7 acres sold for the San Joaquin Hills tollway that is part of an ecological reserve.

Fashioning a compromise on the sale of UC Irvine land for the San Joaquin Hills tollway, a judge Wednesday ordered additional environmental study but restricted its scope to only 1.7 acres now part of a campus ecological reserve.

Orange County Superior Court Judge James L. Smith rejected a bid by tollway opponents to have the study look at the road’s impact on the future of UC Irvine, including acreage to be sold for tollway use that is now vacant but outside the ecological reserve.

A draft of the new study may be available in two to four months, commencing a 45-day public comment period before the university system’s Board of Regents may approve or reject the document. If approved, the document can be filed with the court on or before Aug. 1.

While not as broad as she had proposed, the order pleased Susan L. Durbin, attorney for the environmentalists who oppose the project, because “we’ve gotten the regents to do” an environmental impact report.

“They’re finally being held accountable for what they’re doing with that land, in an open, public process,” she said. “And whatever they do is going to have to be biologically justified.”

Tollway lawyer Robert Thornton said the new study can be done without a lot of new field work. He had hoped for a June 1 court deadline because the regents meet in May, but not June. The judge rejected that argument.

Thornton said later that “each day is a big issue” both in construction costs and workers who are idle pending the outcome of the dispute.

A previous court order prohibits construction in the area of the disputed land sale, along Newport Coast Drive south of campus structures. But work continues on other portions of the project, which will connect the Corona del Mar Freeway near John Wayne Airport with Interstate 5 near San Juan Capistrano.

Last month, Smith ruled in favor of faculty, students and environmental groups who contended that the regents had failed to prepare an environmental impact report on the proposed land sale. But he had declined to spell out what kind of new analysis he wanted.

Then, at a hearing last week, he pleaded with both sides to compromise and agree on what a new analysis should include, and how to go about it.

But there was no agreement. Each side presented to the judge its own proposed court order for him to sign. “I’d hoped to cut it down to one, (but) I can’t say I’m surprised,” Smith said Wednesday.