COMMENTARY : Laguna Canyon Will Be Hard to Save--but the Alternatives. . . : Open space in the county is enormously expensive, the time to act is short and the Irvine Co. is about the biggest organization around.

There was a time when Orange County was still Camelot--a time of sprawling hillsides, sleepy canyons, country roads, orange groves and open coastal bluffs.

And I took it all for granted. It never occurred to me it would be gone someday. The county was still new and there was so much room.

I don’t think that way anymore.

When I see an undeveloped parcel these days, it’s with a sense of foreboding. The reality is that many open spaces are doomed for development.

Without some kind of permanent open-space designation, that parcel is likely listed on a map or a blueprint somewhere as a housing tract, mini-mall or industrial park.

There are many days when I fear that the efforts of local environmental groups and concerned individuals to save Laguna Canyon won’t be enough.

The odds are mind-numbing. The land in this case is appallingly expensive, time is short, and we are dealing with the largest, most influential landowner in Orange County. Saving the canyon is no small undertaking.

But what are the alternatives?

I think about the shock of development on the rural canyon; the irreversible loss of natural wildlife habitat; the congestion from additional traffic; the increased odds of flooding; the threat of untreated storm drainage pouring onto Main Beach . . . and I worry.

There is a good reason to worry. The development entitlements for the Irvine Co.’s Laguna Laurel Planned Community include 3,200 dwelling units, two separate commercial areas and a private, 18-hole golf course. These would necessitate a traffic signal and feeder streets to service the development.

Even with the inclusion of open-space dedications by the developer, I fear the environmental problems from Laguna Laurel are still formidable. As a practical matter, open space must remain contiguous to sustain a viable natural habitat. That habitat exists in Laguna Canyon today because the canyon is undeveloped.

Start building out there, however, and the existing wildlife would obviously be fragmented, isolated and ultimately eliminated by this project as grading and building steadily encroached into their habitats.

Vehicle exhaust emissions would certainly increase from the estimated 36,000 more car trips per day that would be added by the development.

Urban runoff would also increase in the Laguna Canyon flood plain, bringing not only more water downstream, but with it lawn pesticides and harmful pollutants collected off the streets.

Just as Santa Monica Bay has been polluted from untreated urban flow, Main Beach and its marine sanctuaries would also run the risk of exposure to fouled runoff.

And Laguna Canyon isn’t the only rural canyon threatened. Time is also running out for other Orange County canyons, including Carbon, Soquel, Tonner, Weir, Gypsum, Coal, Blind, Trabuco, Fremont, Black Star and Silverado.

Each one of these scenic places is threatened by plans for increased density and full-scale development, or ambitious freeways and toll road projects, with no benefits to the wildlife or the native surroundings.

Before this happens in Laguna Canyon, residents and elected officials are taking destiny into their own hands. The Laguna Beach City Council took the first step toward purchasing the 2,150-acre Laguna Laurel parcel by voting to place a citywide, $20-million bond measure on the ballot for November.

A bond would involve an increase in property taxes, and if approved by two-thirds of Laguna Beach voters in November, it would create a major funding source for saving the canyon. The city of San Juan Capistrano overwhelmingly passed a similar bond to purchase 120 acres in April.

A recent poll in Laguna Beach revealed that 74% of those voters queried were agreeable to paying $150 a year for 20 years toward the purchase of Laguna Laurel. This is a good start.

Environmentalists have been meeting with the Irvine Co. for several months as part of a task force to save the canyon with the understanding that company Chairman Donald Bren is a willing seller.

The company has been extremely helpful, hosting meetings and paying the lion’s share for polling to test voters’ response to a bond measure to purchase Laguna Laurel.

But the company has made clear its intentions from the very start. Bren has given canyon supporters a November deadline to produce a complete ($75 million to $90 million) funding package for purchasing the land. This gives those of us committed to saving the canyon little time to organize a viable funding package.

It is also clear that a Laguna Beach bond alone will not raise a sum sufficient to purchase the entire Laguna Laurel parcel. It will be imperative then to solicit private contributions and lobby for federal, state and county assistance.

We are confident that people who love the canyon will support it with their donations. The Laguna Canyon Walk last Nov. 11, which drew about 8,000 participants, was vivid proof that residents and non-residents alike are anxious to see it preserved.

This could be our last chance. Twice, Laguna Canyon has been included in large parkland-acquisition proposals, only to fall through the cracks.

Between 1972 and 1980, the canyon’s three natural lakes were earmarked for acquisition as part of the county Master Plan for Regional Parks. The 210-acre conceptual park topped the county’s priority list, but after Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, the county dropped from the list all parks that would have required acquisition money.

In the late 1970s, portions of Laguna Canyon were proposed as part of an Orange Coast National Urban Park bill, but ultimately federal park funds were diverted to Northern California park acquisitions.

It is obvious that only through direct citizen participation will Laguna Canyon be preserved for future generations to enjoy. Only when people make the conscious decision that open spaces deserve a higher priority in their lives, and communicate that to their elected officials, will we see sufficient natural areas preserved. There is no other way.