Laguna Beach City Council
August 12, 2025

July 2021 Final Report, Rev. 2 KLD TR – 1209
City of Laguna Beach
Wildfire Egress Study
Work performed for the City of Laguna Beach Police Department, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.
1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340
Islandia, NY 11749
e‐mail: [email protected]
City of Laguna Beach   i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1‐1

1.1 Overview of the ETE Process......................................................................................................1‐1

1.2 Location of the Study Area.........................................................................................................1‐3

1.3 Preliminary Activities .................................................................................................................1‐4 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................2‐1

2.1 Data Estimates...........................................................................................................................2‐1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions ..........................................................................................2‐2

2.3 Study Assumptions.....................................................................................................................2‐3 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION.......................................................................................................................3‐1

3.1 Permanent Residents.................................................................................................................3‐2

3.1.1 Special Facilities .................................................................................................................3‐4

3.1.2 College Students ................................................................................................................3‐4

3.2 Shadow Population ....................................................................................................................3‐5

3.3 Tourist and Seasonal Worker Population ..................................................................................3‐6

3.4 Year‐round Employees...............................................................................................................3‐7

3.5 Medical Facilities........................................................................................................................3‐8

3.6 Transit Dependent Population...................................................................................................3‐8

3.7 School Population Demand......................................................................................................3‐11

3.8 External Traffic .........................................................................................................................3‐11

3.9 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................3‐12

3.10 Summary of Demand ...............................................................................................................3‐12 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................4‐1

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections ..............................................................4‐2

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................4‐4

4.3 Application to the City of Laguna Beach Study Area .................................................................4‐6

4.3.1 Two‐Lane Roads.................................................................................................................4‐6

4.3.2 Multi‐Lane Highway ...........................................................................................................4‐6

4.3.3 Freeways............................................................................................................................4‐7

4.3.4 Intersections ......................................................................................................................4‐8

4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation ..........................................................................................4‐8

4.5 Boundary Conditions..................................................................................................................4‐9 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME..........................................................................................5‐1

5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................5‐1

5.2 Fundamental Considerations.....................................................................................................5‐2

5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5...................................................5‐3

5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution......................................................................5‐4

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers..............................................................................................................5‐5 6 EVACUATION CASES...........................................................................................................................6‐1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)..........................................................7‐1

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation .........................................................................7‐1

7.2 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation .....................................................................7‐2

7.3 Evacuation Rates........................................................................................................................7‐4

7.4 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results....................................................................................7‐4 City of Laguna Beach   ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

7.5 Guidance on Using ETE Tables...................................................................................................7‐6 8 ACCESS IMPAIRED NEIGHBORHOODS................................................................................................8‐1

8.1 Preliminary Analysis...................................................................................................................8‐1

8.2 Field Survey and Refined Analysis..............................................................................................8‐1

8.3 ETE Results, Safe Refuge Areas, and Evacuation Signage ..........................................................8‐3

8.3.1 Canyon Acres Drive ............................................................................................................8‐3

8.3.2 Bluebird Canyon.................................................................................................................8‐3

8.3.3 Diamond Street and Crestview Drive.................................................................................8‐4 9 TRANSIT‐DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES .................................9‐1

9.1 ETEs for Transit Dependent People ...........................................................................................9‐2 10 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.............................................................................................10‐1

10.1 Assumptions.............................................................................................................................10‐2

10.2 Additional Considerations........................................................................................................10‐3 11 EVACUATION ROUTES, CONGREGATION POINTS, AND EVACUATION SIGNAGE.........................11‐1

11.1 Evacuation Routes....................................................................................................................11‐1

11.2 Congregation Points.................................................................................................................11‐2

11.3 Evacuation Signage ..................................................................................................................11‐3 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A‐1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL .........................................................B‐1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ...............................................................................................C‐1 C.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................................C‐2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram.................................................................................................C‐2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model........................................................................................................C‐2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment................................................................................................................C‐6 C.2 Implementation .........................................................................................................................C‐6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure..................................................................................................C‐6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) .....................................................C‐7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D‐1 E. FACILITY DATA....................................................................................................................................E‐1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY..................................................................................................................... F‐1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F‐1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan....................................................................................... F‐1 F.3 Survey Results............................................................................................................................ F‐2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results....................................................................................... F‐2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ......................................................................................................... F‐3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results................................................................................................... F‐5 F.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................................F‐5 G EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... G‐1 H. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK................................................................................................. H‐1 J. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ................................................................................................... J‐1 J.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times .............................................................................. J‐1 J.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate................... J‐1 City of Laguna Beach   iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
J.3 Effect of Reducing the Evacuation Demand – One Vehicle per Household............................... J‐2 J.4 Effect of Direction of Wildfire Approach ................................................................................... J‐2 J.4.1 Closure of SR‐133............................................................................................................... J‐3 J.4.2 Closure of SR‐133 and SR‐73.............................................................................................. J‐3 J.4.3 Closure of SR‐133 and SR‐1 Northbound........................................................................... J‐4 J.4.4 Closure of SR‐133 and SR‐1 Southbound........................................................................... J‐4 J.4.5 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Closures ................................................................. J‐5 J.5 Effect of Using Contraflow......................................................................................................... J‐6 J.6 Effect of Additional Housing Units Along SR‐1........................................................................... J‐7 Note:  Appendix I intentionally skipped
City of Laguna Beach   iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
List of Figures
Figure 1‐1.  Study Area Location................................................................................................................1‐8 Figure 1‐2.  Study Area Link‐Node Analysis Network ................................................................................1‐9 Figure 3‐1.  EMZ Boundaries....................................................................................................................3‐26 Figure 3‐2. Census Boundaries within the Study Area.............................................................................3‐27 Figure 4‐1. Fundamental Diagrams..........................................................................................................4‐10 Figure 5‐1.  Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip............................................................5‐12 Figure 5‐2.  Evacuation Mobilization Activities........................................................................................5‐13 Figure 5‐3.  Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution..................................................5‐14 Figure 5‐4.  Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions.......................................................................5‐15 Figure 6‐1.  EMZ Boundaries......................................................................................................................6‐9 Figure 6‐2.  EMZ Groupings......................................................................................................................6‐10 Figure 7‐1.  Study Area Shadow Region...................................................................................................7‐10 Figure 7‐2.  Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................................7‐11 Figure 7‐3.  Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate............................................7‐12 Figure 7‐4.  Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................7‐13 Figure 7‐5.  Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................7‐14 Figure 7‐6.  Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................7‐15 Figure 7‐7.  Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................7‐16 Figure 7‐8.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 1 for Region R28 ......................................................7‐17 Figure 7‐9.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 2 for Region R28 ......................................................7‐17 Figure 7‐10.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 3 for Region R28 ....................................................7‐18 Figure 7‐11.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 4 for Region R28 ....................................................7‐18 Figure 7‐12.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 5 for Region R28 ....................................................7‐19 Figure 7‐13.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 6 for Region R28 ....................................................7‐19 Figure 7‐14.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 7 for Region R28 ....................................................7‐20 Figure 8‐1.  Access Impaired Neighborhoods – Preliminary Analysis........................................................8‐5 Figure 8‐2.  Access Impaired Neighborhoods – Refined Analysis..............................................................8‐6 Figure 8‐3.  Access Impaired Neighborhoods – Final Analysis...................................................................8‐7 Figure 9‐1.  Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations......................................................................9‐13 Figure 11‐1.  Evacuation Route Map........................................................................................................11‐7 Figure 11‐2. Transit‐Dependent Routes and Congregation Points Servicing the EMZ ............................11‐8 Figure 11‐3. Transit‐Dependent Routes Servicing Schools......................................................................11‐9 Figure 11‐4. Transit‐Dependent Routes Servicing Medical Facilities.....................................................11‐10 Figure 11‐5.  Evacuation Route Sign Example........................................................................................11‐11 Figure B‐1.  Flow Diagram of Simulation‐DTRAD Interface........................................................................B‐4 Figure C‐1.  Representative Analysis Network.........................................................................................C‐12 Figure C‐2.  Fundamental Diagrams.........................................................................................................C‐13 Figure C‐3.  A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0............................................................................C‐13 Figure C‐4.  Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary:  Table C‐3) ....................................................C‐14 Figure D‐1.  Flow Diagram of Activities..................................................................................................... D‐5 Figure E‐1.  Schools and Preschools within the EMZ .................................................................................E‐7 Figure E‐2.  Medical Facilities within the EMZ ...........................................................................................E‐8 Figure E‐3.  Major Employers within the EMZ ...........................................................................................E‐9 Figure E‐4.  Recreation Centers and Parks within the Study Area...........................................................E‐10 Figure E‐5.  Main Beach Parking Lots within the EMZ .............................................................................E‐11 City of Laguna Beach   v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐6.  Museums and Theaters within the EMZ ...............................................................................E‐12 Figure E‐7.  Lodging Facilities within the EMZ .........................................................................................E‐13 Figure F‐1.  Household Size in the Study Area ........................................................................................... F‐6 Figure F‐2.  Vehicle Availability .................................................................................................................. F‐6 Figure F‐3.  Vehicle Availability ‐ 1 to 4 Person Households...................................................................... F‐7 Figure F‐4.  Vehicle Availability – 5 to 7+ Person Households................................................................... F‐7 Figure F‐5.  Electric Vehicle Ownership ..................................................................................................... F‐8 Figure F‐6.  Commuters in Households in the Study Area ......................................................................... F‐8 Figure F‐7.  Modes of Travel in the Study Area.......................................................................................... F‐9 Figure F‐8.  Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F‐9 Figure F‐9.  Types of Pets/Animals........................................................................................................... F‐10 Figure F‐10.  Pets/Animals Evacuation Response .................................................................................... F‐10 Figure F‐11.  Study Area Shelter Locations.............................................................................................. F‐11 Figure F‐12.  Method to Notify a Friend/Neighbor.................................................................................. F‐11 Figure F‐13.  Cell Phone Coverage ........................................................................................................... F‐12 Figure F‐14.  Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs........................................................................... F‐12 Figure F‐15.  Emergency Alert Opt‐in Method by System ....................................................................... F‐13 Figure F‐16.  Time to Notify ..................................................................................................................... F‐13 Figure F‐17.  Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College ............................................................. F‐14 Figure F‐18.  Time to Travel Home from Work/College........................................................................... F‐14 Figure F‐19.  Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F‐15 Figure G‐1.  Region R01............................................................................................................................. G‐4 Figure G‐2.  Region R02............................................................................................................................. G‐5 Figure G‐3.  Region R03............................................................................................................................. G‐6 Figure G‐4.  Region R04............................................................................................................................. G‐7 Figure G‐5.  Region R05............................................................................................................................. G‐8 Figure G‐6.  Region R06............................................................................................................................. G‐9 Figure G‐7.  Region R07........................................................................................................................... G‐10 Figure G‐8.  Region R08........................................................................................................................... G‐11 Figure G‐9.  Region R09........................................................................................................................... G‐12 Figure G‐10.  Region R10......................................................................................................................... G‐13 Figure G‐11.  Region R11......................................................................................................................... G‐14 Figure G‐12.  Region R12......................................................................................................................... G‐15 Figure G‐13.  Region R13......................................................................................................................... G‐16 Figure G‐14.  Region R14......................................................................................................................... G‐17 Figure G‐15.  Region R15......................................................................................................................... G‐18 Figure G‐16.  Region R16......................................................................................................................... G‐19 Figure G‐17.  Region R17......................................................................................................................... G‐20 Figure G‐18.  Region R18......................................................................................................................... G‐21 Figure G‐19.  Region R19......................................................................................................................... G‐22 Figure G‐20.  Region R20......................................................................................................................... G‐23 Figure G‐21.  Region R21......................................................................................................................... G‐24 Figure G‐22.  Region R22......................................................................................................................... G‐25 Figure G‐23.  Region R23......................................................................................................................... G‐26 Figure G‐24.  Region R24......................................................................................................................... G‐27 Figure G‐25.  Region R25......................................................................................................................... G‐28 Figure G‐26.  Region R26......................................................................................................................... G‐29 City of Laguna Beach   vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure G‐27.  Region R27......................................................................................................................... G‐30 Figure G‐28.  Region R28......................................................................................................................... G‐31 Figure G‐29.  Shadow Region along the Ridge Line ................................................................................ G‐32 Figure H‐1. Wildfire Egress Study Link‐Node Analysis Network ............................................................. H‐91 Figure H‐2. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 1................................................................................... H‐92 Figure H‐3. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 2................................................................................... H‐93 Figure H‐4. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 3................................................................................... H‐94 Figure H‐5. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 4................................................................................... H‐95 Figure H‐6. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 5................................................................................... H‐96 Figure H‐7. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 6................................................................................... H‐97 Figure H‐8. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 7................................................................................... H‐98 Figure H‐9. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 8................................................................................... H‐99 Figure H‐10. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 9............................................................................... H‐100 Figure H‐11. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 10............................................................................. H‐101 Figure H‐12. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 11............................................................................. H‐102 Figure H‐13. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 12............................................................................. H‐103 Figure H‐14. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 13............................................................................. H‐104 Figure H‐15. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 14............................................................................. H‐105 Figure H‐16. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 15............................................................................. H‐106 Figure H‐17. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 16............................................................................. H‐107 Figure H‐18. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 17............................................................................. H‐108 Figure H‐19. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 18............................................................................. H‐109 Figure H‐20. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 19............................................................................. H‐110 Figure H‐21. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 20............................................................................. H‐111 Figure H‐22. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 21............................................................................. H‐112 Figure H‐23. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 22............................................................................. H‐113 Figure H‐24. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 23............................................................................. H‐114 Figure H‐25. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 24............................................................................. H‐115 Figure H‐26. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 25............................................................................. H‐116 Figure H‐27. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 26............................................................................. H‐117 Figure H‐28. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 27............................................................................. H‐118 Figure H‐29. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 28............................................................................. H‐119 Figure H‐30. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 29............................................................................. H‐120 Figure H‐31. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 30............................................................................. H‐121 Figure H‐32. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 31............................................................................. H‐122 Figure H‐33. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 32............................................................................. H‐123 Figure H‐34. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 33............................................................................. H‐124 Figure H‐35. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 34............................................................................. H‐125 Figure H‐36. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 35............................................................................. H‐126 Figure H‐37. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 36............................................................................. H‐127 Figure H‐38. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 37............................................................................. H‐128 Figure H‐39. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 38............................................................................. H‐129 Figure H‐40. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 39............................................................................. H‐130 Figure H‐41. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 40............................................................................. H‐131 Figure H‐42. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 41............................................................................. H‐132 Figure H‐43. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 42............................................................................. H‐133 Figure H‐44. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 43............................................................................. H‐134 City of Laguna Beach   vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐45. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 44............................................................................. H‐135 Figure H‐46. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 45............................................................................. H‐136 Figure H‐47. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 46............................................................................. H‐137 Figure H‐48. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 47............................................................................. H‐138 Figure H‐49. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 48............................................................................. H‐139 Figure H‐50. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 49............................................................................. H‐140 Figure H‐51. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 50............................................................................. H‐141 Figure H‐52. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 51............................................................................. H‐142 Figure H‐53. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 52............................................................................. H‐143 Figure H‐54. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 53............................................................................. H‐144 Figure H‐55. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 54............................................................................. H‐145 Figure H‐56. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 55............................................................................. H‐146 Figure H‐57. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 56............................................................................. H‐147 Figure H‐58. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 57............................................................................. H‐148 Figure H‐59. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 58............................................................................. H‐149 Figure J‐1. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................... J‐15 Figure J‐2. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... J‐16 Figure J‐3. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... J‐17 Figure J‐4. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... J‐18 Figure J‐5. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... J‐19 Figure J‐6. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 6 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... J‐20 Figure J‐7. Road Closure Congestion Patterns at 7 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... J‐21

City of Laguna Beach   viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
List of Tables
Table 1‐1.  Stakeholder Interaction ...........................................................................................................1‐7 Table 1‐2.  Highway Characteristics...........................................................................................................1‐7 Table 2‐1.  Evacuation Scenario Definitions...............................................................................................2‐6 Table 2‐2.  Cumulative Percent Notified....................................................................................................2‐6 Table 3‐1.  County Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 .....3‐14 Table 3‐2.  Municipality Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019.....................................................................................................................3‐14 Table 3‐3.  EMZ Permanent Resident Population....................................................................................3‐15 Table 3‐4.  Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by EMZ..........................................................3‐16 Table 3‐5.  Summary of Tourists and Tourist Vehicles.............................................................................3‐17 Table 3‐6.  Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EMZ..........................3‐18 Table 3‐7.  Medical Facilities Transit Demand Estimates.........................................................................3‐19 Table 3‐8.  Transit‐Dependent Population Estimates..............................................................................3‐20 Table 3‐9.  School Population Demand Estimates...................................................................................3‐21 Table 3‐10.  Study Area External Traffic During First 30 Minutes............................................................3‐22 Table 3‐11.  External Traffic Diversion Percentages Over Time...............................................................3‐22 Table 3‐12.  Study Area External Traffic...................................................................................................3‐23 Table 3‐13.  Summary of Population Demand.........................................................................................3‐24 Table 3‐14.  Summary of Vehicle Demand...............................................................................................3‐25 Table 5‐1.  Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities................................................................................5‐8 Table 5‐2.  Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ...............................................................................5‐8 Table 5‐3.  Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work/College......................................5‐9 Table 5‐4.  Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ..................................................................5‐9 Table 5‐5.  Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate .....................................................5‐10 Table 5‐6.  Mapping Distributions to Events............................................................................................5‐10 Table 5‐7.  Description of the Distributions.............................................................................................5‐11 Table 5‐8.  Trip Generation Histograms for the EMZ Population ............................................................5‐11 Table 6‐1.  Description of Evacuation Regions...........................................................................................6‐4 Table 6‐2.  Evacuation Scenario Definitions...............................................................................................6‐6 Table 6‐3.  Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios............................................6‐7 Table 6‐4.  Vehicle Estimates by Scenario..................................................................................................6‐8 Table 7‐1.  Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population...........................7‐8 Table 7‐2.  Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population.........................7‐9 Table 9‐1.  Summary of Transportation Needs and Resources .................................................................9‐6 Table 9‐2.  School Evacuation Time Estimates – Normal Conditions.........................................................9‐7 Table 9‐3.  School Evacuation Time Estimates – Reduced Roadway Capacity ..........................................9‐8 Table 9‐4.  Transit‐Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Normal Conditions......................................9‐9 Table 9‐5.  Transit‐Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates – Reduced Roadway Capacity.....................9‐10 Table 9‐6.  Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Normal Conditions...........................................9‐11 Table 9‐7.  Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates – Reduced Roadway Capacity............................9‐12 Table 11‐1. Summary of Transit‐Dependent Routes ...............................................................................11‐4 Table 11‐2. Bus Route Description...........................................................................................................11‐5 Table A‐1.  Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms.................................................................................... A‐1 Table C‐1.  Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................C‐8 Table C‐2.  Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model...........................................................................C‐9 City of Laguna Beach   ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table C‐3.  Glossary..................................................................................................................................C‐10 Table E‐1.  Schools and Preschools within the EMZ...................................................................................E‐2 Table E‐2.  Medical Facilities within the EMZ ............................................................................................E‐3 Table E‐3.  Major Employers within the EMZ.............................................................................................E‐4 Table E‐4.  Recreation Centers and Parks within the Study Area ..............................................................E‐5 Table E‐5.  Museums and Theaters within the EMZ ..................................................................................E‐5 Table E‐6.  Lodging Facilities within the EMZ.............................................................................................E‐6 Table G‐1.  Percent of EMZ Population Evacuating for Each Region ........................................................ G‐2 Table H‐1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics........................................................................ H‐2 Table H‐2. Nodes in the Link‐Node Analysis Network which are Controlled.......................................... H‐77 Table J‐1.  Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study............................................ J‐8 Table J‐2.  Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ........................................................ J‐8 Table J‐3.  Evacuation Time Estimates for Reduction in Demand.............................................................. J‐8 Table J‐4.  90th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 Closure ........................................................................................ J‐9 Table J‐5.  100th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 Closure ...................................................................................... J‐9 Table J‐6.  90th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 and SR‐73 Closure..................................................................... J‐10 Table J‐7.  100th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 and SR‐73 Closure................................................................... J‐10 Table J‐8.  90th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 and SR‐1 Northbound ............................................................... J‐11 Table J‐9.  100th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 and SR‐1 Northbound ............................................................. J‐11 Table J‐10.  90th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 and SR‐1 Southbound ............................................................. J‐12 Table J‐11.  100th Percentile ETE – SR‐133 and SR‐1 Southbound ........................................................... J‐12 Table J‐12.  Evacuation Time Estimates for Scenario 1 – Contraflow Sensitivity Study .......................... J‐13 Table J‐13.  90th Percentile ETE – Additional Housing Units................................................................... J‐14 Table J‐14.  100th Percentile ETE – Additional Housing Units .................................................................. J‐14

City of Laguna Beach ES‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Laguna Beach is a well‐known beach community that has a very unique topography which consists of canyons, hills and eight miles of coastline. Due to its topography, the City has limited ingress/egress routes and over 88% of the city is within the Very High Fire Sensitivity Zone designated by CAL FIRE. Due to climate and land use changes, wildfires are occurring more frequently in the State of California. The Camp Fire in November 2018 was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history to date. The devastation caused by this wildfire highlights the need for an effective evacuation plan to move people away from impacted areas as expeditiously as possible given the roadway system.

As part of this study, three field visits were made:  one to gather all of the roadway data, one to examine the access impaired neighborhoods, and one to conduct a demographic survey of the residents of the City (409 completed survey forms were obtained, yielding results with a sampling error of approximately ±4.81 at the 95% confidence level – see Appendix F).   This study analyzed traffic conditions and evacuation times for a variety of evacuation scenarios of the City of Laguna Beach.   Alternative emergency management strategies that could be used in response to an evacuation of the City were also examined.

This study, and the results contained within this report, will further inform the City’s emergency planning and protective action decision making.

A traffic/evacuation simulation model (Dynamic Evacuation Simulation Model, or DYNEV‐II) is used to compute evacuation time estimates (ETE) using the procedures described in Appendix D. The supply (see Appendix H) and demand (see Section 3 and Appendix E) are input to DYNEV‐II.  The two main outputs of the DYNEV‐II model are ETE for general population (evacuees with personal vehicles) and route‐specific evacuation speeds, which are used to compute the ETE for special facilities (schools and medical facilities) and the transit‐dependent population. These times are critical for developing an effective plan to protect the health and safety of the public.

City officials have divided the City of Laguna Beach into Emergency Management Zones(EMZs), see Figure 6‐1. The boundaries of the EMZs follow political or geographical boundaries, which helps the City communicate evacuation orders to the public. Given the large wilderness areas surrounding the City of Laguna Beach – Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park and Laguna Coast Wilderness Park – it is highly unlikely that a wildfire would only impact Laguna Beach. Rather, neighboring communities which are also along the ridgelines of these wildnerness areas are likely to evacuate at the same time as Laguna Beach.

The vehicles evacuating from these neighboring communities could delay egress from Laguna Beach; this phenomenon is referred to as a “shadow evacuation.” Figure G‐29 shows the EMZs that comprise the City of Laguna Beach, as well as the shadow evacuation region along the ridgeline surrounding the City.

The general population ETE are presented in Tables 7‐1 and 7‐2.  These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions (individual EMZs or groupings of EMZs) of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. For definitions of scenarios (demand changes due to temporal variations) and regions (area to be evacuated varies by wildfire situation), see Section 6 and Appendix G, respectively.

Critical findings of the study include:
 The 100th percentile ETE for the evacuation of individual EMZs are entirely dictated by the time needed to mobilize rather than by traffic congestion. As such, it is recommended that the 90th City of Laguna Beach ES‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2
percentile is used when making protective action decisions for evacuation of individual EMZs.  See Section 7.4).  It is highly unlikely that an individual EMZ would be evacuated for a wildfire. Thus, the ETE for individual EMZs presented in this study can be used for smaller hazards such as a gas leak or a HAZMAT spill.
 People evacuating from areas that are not at risk could prolong the evacuation time of those people most at risk.  Congestion dictates ETE for cases wherein groupings of EMZs are evacuated in conjunction with a Shadow evacuation along the ridge line.  These Shadow evacuees consume much of the available roadway capacity along the major evacuation routes for the City of Laguna Beach and significantly increase the ETE. See Tables 7‐1 and 7‐2. It is imperative to educate the public to only evacuate if they are advised to do so.
 Emergency plans should include plans to address common events that reduce roadway capacity, such as disabled vehicles or traffic accidents. Events that reduce roadway capacity, such as thick smoke causing limited sight distance, traffic accidents, or vehicles blocking roads because they have run out of gas, can significantly impact the evacuation of the city. See Scenario 5 in Tables 7‐ 1 and 7‐2.
 Three accessimpaired neighborhoods have been identified:  Canyon Acres Drive, Bluebird Canyon, and Diamond St & Crestview Drive. These neighborhoods would require early notification during an approaching wildfire as they may be unable to evacuate if a fire were present.  See Figure 8‐2.  Available transportation resources were provided by city emergency management representatives. Table 9‐1 summarizes the information received. These numbers indicate there are not sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave.  See Section 9.  No additional traffic control points (TCPs) have been recommended as a result of the findings of this study.  The existing City emergency plan has several traffic control points (TCPs) identified wherein a police officer would control traffic at an intersection during an emergency. These TCPs were modeled explicitly in the ETE simulations. See Section 10.  The entire City takes 4 hours and 20 minutes, on average under normal roadway conditions (no roadways hazards like stalled vehicles, trees/debris and/or power lines blocking the road, thick smoke limiting sight distance, etc.), to evacuate with no roadway closures. o If a wildfire renders SR‐133 (Laguna Canyon Rd) unavailable, the time to evacuate 100% of the entire City increases by as much as 40 minutes.  See Section J.4.1 and Table ES‐1. o If a wildfire renders SR‐133 and SR‐73 unavailable, the time to evacuate 100% of the entire City increases by as much as 1 hour and 20 minutes.  See Section J.4.2 and Table ES‐1. o If a wildfire renders SR‐1 (Pacific Coast Highway) northbound and SR‐133 unavailable, the time to evacuate 100% of the entire City increases by as much as 4 hours.  See Section J.4.3 and Table ES‐1.
o If a wildfire renders SR‐1 southbound and SR‐133 unavailable, the time to evacuate 100% of the entire City increases by as much as 3 hours and 45 minutes.  See Section J.4.4 and Table ES‐1.

City of Laguna Beach ES‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2
 The ETE benefit gained by implementing contraflow (20 minutes or less) does not outweigh the danger and effort required to implement it.  See Section J.5. Implementing contraflow is dangerous – potential for head‐on collisions – and resource intensive – requires extensive equipment and personnel to block all roadways that could potentially turn into oncoming traffic.  A sensitivity study was performed to determine the impact of an additional 400 housing units being built along SR‐1 in the City of Laguna Beach.  The increased number of evacuating vehicles from these additional housing units increases congestion and delays along SR‐1 thereby increasing the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by 25 minutes and 40 minutes, respectively.  See Section J.6.

The City of Laguna Beach should consider revising their emergency plans to incorporate the lessons learned from this study.  Once revised, the new procedures developed should be practiced through exercises and drills.  Lessons learned from these exercises and drills should then be used to improve the emergency plans further. Emergency planning is an iterative process! City residents and visitors should be informed, through public outreach, of the emergency plan contents, including how they will be notified, which evacuation routesto use, what to do if they need transportation assistance, how long it might take to evacuate, and what would happen if critical evacuation routes are unavailable.   Citizen participation in evacuation drills is recommended. Education is key in protecting public health and safety!
City of Laguna Beach ES‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 6‐1. EMZ Boundaries
City of Laguna Beach ES‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2
Table 7‐1.  Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

Summer Summer Fall Fall
Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend
Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Region
Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening
Normal Normal Normal Normal
Reduced
Roadway
Capacity1
Normal Normal
R01 ‐ Arch Beach Heights 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 R02 ‐ Balboa/Nyes 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:30 1:30
R03 ‐ Big Bend 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:15 1:10 1:10
R04 ‐ Bluebird Canyon 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 R05 ‐ Boat Canyon 1:50 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:20 1:10
R06 ‐ Canyon Acres 1:00 0:55 1:00 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05
R07 ‐ Ceanothus 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R08 ‐ Club Laguna 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45
R09 ‐ North Coast 1:50 1:45 1:35 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:40
R10 ‐ Central Coast 1:45 1:40 1:30 1:45 1:55 1:45 1:35
R11 ‐ South Coast 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:35
R12 ‐ Downtown 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:40
R13 ‐ El Toro 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:50 2:00 1:50 1:55
R14 ‐ Emerald Bay 1:50 1:45 1:25 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:25
R15 ‐ Irvine Cove 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:30
R16 ‐ Mar Vista 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R17 ‐ Old Top of the World 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 R18 ‐ Park Avenue 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R19 ‐ Sunset 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R20 ‐ Temple Hills 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30
R21 ‐ Top of the World 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 R22 ‐ Wesley 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R23 ‐ North Laguna 2:00 2:00 1:40 1:55 2:00 1:50 1:40
R24 ‐ Central Laguna 2:15 2:10 1:45 2:15 2:25 2:10 1:40 R25 ‐ South Laguna 2:15 2:10 1:40 1:55 2:10 2:05 1:35
R26 ‐ North and Central Laguna 2:50 2:35 2:05 2:35 2:50 2:20 2:00 R27 ‐ South and Central Laguna 3:15 3:00 2:35 3:05 3:30 2:50 2:25 R28 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line 3:45 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:45 3:15 2:40
R29 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the North Only 3:30 3:20 3:00 3:15 3:40 2:55 2:40 R30 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the South Only 3:35 3:30 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:00 2:35 1 Events that reduce roadway capacity, like thick smoke causing decreased sight distance, can significantly impact the evacuation of the City of Laguna Beach.

City of Laguna Beach ES‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2
Table 7‐2.  Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

Summer Summer Fall Fall
Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend
Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Region
Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening
Normal Normal Normal Normal
Reduced
Roadway
Capacity1
Normal Normal
R01 ‐ Arch Beach Heights 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R02 ‐ Balboa/Nyes 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R03 ‐ Big Bend 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R04 ‐ Bluebird Canyon 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R05 ‐ Boat Canyon 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R06 ‐ Canyon Acres 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R07 ‐ Ceanothus 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R08 ‐ Club Laguna 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R09 ‐ North Coast 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R10 ‐ Central Coast 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R11 ‐ South Coast 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R12 ‐ Downtown 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R13 ‐ El Toro 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R14 ‐ Emerald Bay 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R15 ‐ Irvine Cove 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R16 ‐ Mar Vista 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R17 ‐ Old Top of the World 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R18 ‐ Park Avenue 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R19 ‐ Sunset 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R20 ‐ Temple Hills 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R21 ‐ Top of the World 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R22 ‐ Wesley 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R23 ‐ North Laguna 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35
R24 ‐ Central Laguna 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R25 ‐ South Laguna 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35
R26 ‐ North and Central Laguna 3:50 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R27 ‐ South and Central Laguna 4:30 4:15 3:35 4:20 5:00 4:10 3:35 R28 – All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line 4:50 4:50 3:40 4:45 5:20 4:10 3:35
R29 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the North Only 4:20 4:35 3:40 4:40 5:05 3:45 3:35 R30 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the South Only 4:50 4:20 3:35 4:40 5:10 4:10 3:35 City of Laguna Beach ES‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2
Table ES‐1.  Summary of Roadway Closure Scenarios
Closed Roadway(s) Max Increase in Evacuation Time
SR‐133 40 minutes
SR‐133 AND SR‐73
(between SR‐133 and I‐405) 1 hour and 20 minutes
SR‐1 NB and SR‐133 4 hours
SR‐1 SB and SR‐133 3 hours and 45 minutes
City of Laguna Beach 1‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an introduction of the study and an overview of the process used to compute the evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the City of Laguna Beach, including preliminary activities of the project.

This report describes the analyses undertaken to examine anticipated traffic conditions and evacuation times associated with various rates of evacuation responses and alternative management strategies that could be used in response to them for the Emergency Management Zones (EMZs) within the City of Laguna Beach, California.   This study, and the results contained within this report, will further inform and enhance the City of Laguna Beach’s emergency planning procedures.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal and State Governmental agencies. The nuclear industry is highly regulated and offers a number of resources for developing evacuation studies.   Very few such documents exist for wildfire hazards.   While the hazard is different, much of the concepts of evacuation (warning time, smaller/isolated communities, lower density roadway networks, etc.) are appliable.  As such, most of the references used in this study have been published by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  Most important of these are:
• Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 (10CFR50), Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, NRC, 2011. • Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR‐7002, November 2011.
• Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.
• Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 1‐1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

1.1 Overview of the ETE Process
The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:
a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from the City of Laguna Beach.
b. Attended meetings with local stakeholders to define methodology.

City of Laguna Beach 1‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the EMZs and Shadow Region.
d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 Census. Projected the 2010 Census data to the year 2020 (see Section 3.1).
e. Estimated the number of non‐EMZ year‐round employees using data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool (see Section 3.4).
f. Conducted a random sample demographic survey of EMZ residents. This survey was conducted at local gathering points and social media via an online platform. g. Obtained data (to the extent available) to update the database of schools, colleges, medical facilities, tourist attractions, seasonal workers, recreational facilities, and transportation resources available. Majority of this data was provided by the City and supplemented with internet searches where no data was received.

2. Estimated distribution of trip generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and tourists) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip and updated where necessary. These estimates were based upon the demographic survey results and notification time calculation (see Section 5 and Appendix F).

3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios.  These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and roadway conditions.  The scenarios selected were bound by the normal wildfire season.

4. Created Evacuation Regions.  “Regions” are individual or groups of EMZs for which ETE are calculated.  The configurations of these Regions reflect evacuation of each EMZ and a combination of EMZs (see Appendix G).

5. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at special facilities and for transit‐ dependent persons.

6. Identified and mapped access impaired neighborhoods throughout the City of Laguna Beach wherein there are clusters of houses, limited ingress/egress routes, and could not be passable during a wildfire (surrounded by a lot of fuel).  These neighborhoods were surveyed and safe refuge area options were recommended in neighborhoods identified as having access impaired challenges.

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system which computes ETE (see Appendices B and C).
a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, from data provided by local agencies, and from the demographic survey.

City of Laguna Beach 1‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
b. Created the link‐node representation of the evacuation network, which was used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE. c. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.
d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario. e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each “origin” (location of each “source” where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the wildfire.

8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETE for all residents, tourists/seasonal workers and employees (“general population”) with access to private vehicles. Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.

9. Identified Traffic Control Points (TCP) and Access Control Points (ACP) within the study area. See Section 10.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools and medical facilities) and for the transit‐dependent population.

11. Documented ETE results.

12. Evacuation signage was evaluated within the City and access impaired neighborhoods.

13. Four roadway closure scenarios (wildfire events) were considered.   The first wildfire event forced all evacuees to evacuate towards Newport Beach (North) by closing SR‐1 southbound and SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound2. The second event forced all evacuees towards Dana Point (South) by closing SR‐1 northbound and SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound2. The third event forced all evacuees towards either Newport Beach (North) or Dana Point (South) by closing SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound2.

The fourth wildfire event involved a closure of both SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound and of SR‐73 in both directions between I‐405 and SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd2.

14. Tested what‐if scenarios to evaluate alternative management strategies that could be used in response to wildfire situations.

1.2 Location of the Study Area
The EMZs are in the City of Laguna Beach in Orange County, California. The City of Laguna Beach is located approximately 65 miles north of San Diego, CA and 45 miles south of Los 1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2016. 2Due to the unique geometry of EMZ 8, some evacuees from this zone will be permitted to evacuate via El Toro Rd and SR-73.

City of Laguna Beach 1‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Angeles, CA. Figure 1‐1 displays the area surrounding the EMZs.  This map identifies the local communities in the area and the major roadways.

1.3 Preliminary Activities
These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network
KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EMZs and the Shadow Region3. The Shadow Region is defined as the area beyond the EMZs, shown in Figure 1‐1, including municipalities of Irvine, Newport Beach, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano. The Shadow Region is bounded by I‐405 and I‐5 to the North, Jamboree Road to the West, and I‐5 and Pacific Coast Highway to the East. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded.  These characteristics are shown in Table 1‐2.

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 15‐7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the “base” value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph – not a material difference – for two‐lane highways. Exhibit 15‐46 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two‐lane highways.

The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographic information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As documented on page 15‐6 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a two‐lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction.  For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 12‐37 of the HCM 2016.  The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics (steep hills and tight curves with no shoulders) on two‐lane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15‐46.  These links may be identified by reviewing Appendix H.  Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE.   Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Traffic signals are either pre‐timed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches) or are actuated (signal timings vary over time 3 An evacuation in the shadow region occurs when residents voluntarily evacuate from areas beyond the area officially given the evacuation order. This phenomenon can cause unwanted congestion and increase clearance times for people in the areas of actual risk.

City of Laguna Beach 1‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. Traffic Control Points at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.

If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pre‐timed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE.

Figure 1‐2 presents the link‐node analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EMZs and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 1‐2 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix H depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided.  The observations made during the field survey along with aerial imagery were used to calibrate the analysis network.

Demographic Survey
A demographic survey was performed to gather information needed for the evacuation study.

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

This data was utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.

This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit‐dependent people.

Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates
The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data was obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report.  These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate “source” links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

Analytical Tools
The DYNEV II System4 that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 4 The models of the IDYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment. (Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.)
City of Laguna Beach 1‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
DYNEV II consists of four sub‐models:
 A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C).  A Trip Distribution (TD) model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each “origin” (O) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are “generated” over time.  This establishes a set of O‐D tables.  A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the O‐D tables, over time.  The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B.
 A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.

Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNIfied Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographic information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D.  Appendix A is a glossary of terms.

For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, I‐DYNEV, the following references are suggested:
 NUREG/CR‐4873 – Benchmark Study of the I‐DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code.
 NUREG/CR‐4874 – The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I‐DYNEV Computer Code.

The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:
 Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the evacuation region.  Restrict movement toward the wildfire to the extent practicable and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.  Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound relative to the location of the wildfire.

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that City of Laguna Beach 1‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.   The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

Table 1‐1.  Stakeholder Interaction
Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction
City of Laguna Beach Emergency Management
Attended meetings to define methodology and
data requirements.   Assisted in data collection.

Assisted in surveying access impaired
neighborhoods.  Reviewed and discussed all study
assumptions and list of special facilities.

City of Laguna Beach Police Department
Attended meetings to define methodology and
data requirements.   Assisted in surveying access
impaired neighborhoods.  Reviewed and discussed
all study assumptions and list of special facilities.

City of Laguna Beach Community Development
Attended meetings to define methodology and
data requirements.   Reviewed and discussed all
study assumptions and list of special facilities.

Orange County Transit Authority
Attended meetings to define methodology and
data requirements.   Informed KLD of general
practices and procedures during wildfires and of
any planned roadway construction projects in the
study area.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Table 1‐2.  Highway Characteristics
 Number of lanes  Posted speed
 Lane width  Actual free speed
 Shoulder type & width  Abutting land use
 Interchange geometries  Control devices
 Lane channelization & queuing
capacity (including turn bays/lanes)
 Intersection configuration (including
roundabouts where applicable)
 Geometrics:  curves, grades (>4%)  Traffic signal type  Unusual characteristics:  Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

City of Laguna Beach 1‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 1‐1. Study Area Location
City of Laguna Beach 1‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 1‐2.  Study Area Link‐Node Analysis Network
City of Laguna Beach 2‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section discusses the data estimates and project assumptions utilized in this study. These assumptions were discussed with representatives from the City of Laguna Beach Police Department, California Department of Transportation and county transit managers.   An assumptions memorandum documenting all the project assumptions was reviewed and approved by the City of Laguna Beach Department of Emergency Management and Police Department prior to their use in this study.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. The estimate of permanent resident population was based upon the 2010 U.S. Census population data from the Census Bureau website1 extrapolated to July 2020 using annual growth rates that were computed from the 2019 Census population estimates (see Section 3.1).

2. Estimates of year‐round employees who reside outside the EMZ and commute to work within the EMZ were based upon data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 .

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities were based on the data received from the City of Laguna Beach Police Department and internet searches (see Sections

3.1.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.7).

4. Evacuee mobilization times were based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample demographic survey of the EMZ residents conducted in late 2019 (see Section 5 and Appendix F).

5. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was extracted from the 2019 demographic survey (see Appendix F). Average values of 2.39 persons per household (Figure F‐1) and 1.64 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F‐8) were used for permanent resident population. The relationship between persons and vehicles for other population groups in the EMZs is as follows:
a. Employees: 1.04 employees per vehicle (demographic survey results) for all major employers. See Section 3.4 and Section F.3.1.
b. Tourists Population Data (Vehicle Occupancy Average is 2.85 tourists per vehicle; see Section 3.3 and Appendix E for additional information):
i. Lodging Facilities: Operate at maximum capacity and have an average vehicle occupancy of 3.32 persons per vehicle.
ii. Other tourist facilities: Vehicle occupancy varies between 1.97 and 3.00 persons per vehicle.
iii. It was assumed that parking lots are full at peak hours and if no data was provided, it was assumed that the vehicle occupancy rate is equal to the average household size, 2.39 persons per vehicle.
1 www.census.gov
2 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
City of Laguna Beach 2‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

6. Roadway capacity estimates were based on field surveys performed in November 2019 and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2016.

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. A total of 7 “Scenarios” representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and conditions were considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2‐1.

2. Five different wildfire events were considered. The first wildfire evacuation scenario allows evacuees to travel in any direction.  The second wildfire event forces all evacuees to evacuate towards Newport Beach (North) by closing SR‐1 southbound and SR‐ 133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound3. The third event forces all evacuees towards Dana Point (South) by closing SR‐1 northbound and SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound3.

The fourth event forces all evacuees towards either Newport Beach (North) or Dana Point (South) by closing SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound3. The fifth wildfire event involves a closure of both SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd northbound and of SR‐73 in both directions between I‐405 and SR‐133/Laguna Canyon Rd3.

3. Several sensitivity studies were conducted to determine the elasticity of the evacuation time estimates based on the notification time distribution. One such study included a compressed notification time distribution that would result from a robust siren system that was not present at the time of the 2019 demographic survey but is expected to be installed in the near future. See Appendix J.

4. The notification time distribution (the time required for evacuees to receive notification of an evacuation) used in the study will be based on the results of the 2019 demographic survey. Table 2‐2 displays the notification distribution that was used in the study.

5. The Shadow Region was defined as the area beyond the EMZ including municipalities of Irvine, Newport Beach, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano. The Shadow Region was bounded by I‐405 and I‐5 to the North, Jamboree Road to the West, and I‐5 and SR‐1 to the East.

6. Approximately fourteen percent (14%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within the EMZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate based on the results of the demographic survey performed within the EMZ4.

7. The DYNEV II System was used to compute ETE in this study.

8. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the wildfire to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes were used in the analysis, except for those wildfire events wherein certain major evacuation routes are closed (see number 2).
3Due to the unique geometry of EMZ 8, some evacuees from this zone will be permitted to evacuate via El Toro Rd and SR-73. 4 For some cases, a 100% shadow evacuation was considered for Shadow Region that borders the ridge line. See Figure G-29.

City of Laguna Beach 2‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

2.3 Study Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating hazard that requires immediate evacuation, and includes the following:
a. Advisory to evacuate is announced coincident with local emergency alerts (NIXLE Alert Orange County, Outdoor Warning System, social media, local news and similar communication systems).
b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after the emergency alerts.
c. ETE are measured relative to the advisory to evacuate.

2. One hundred percent (100%) of the EMZ population can be notified within 30 minutes of the advisory to evacuate.

3. One hundred percent (100%) of the people told to evacuate, will do so.

4. Evacuees will drive safely, travel away from the wildfire to the extent practicable given the highway network, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.

5. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:
a. Schools and childcare facilities5
i. It was assumed that parents will pick up children at childcare facilities prior to evacuation.
ii. It was assumed that most parents will pick up school children prior to the arrival of buses6.
iii. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.
b. Medical Facilities
i. Buses, wheelchair transport vehicles and ambulance will be used to evacuate patients at medical facilities.
c. Transit dependent general population are evacuated by bus or trolley. d. Access and functional needs population are included in the transit dependent population and will be evacuated by bus or trolley.
e. Households with 3 or more vehicles were assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.

6. Transit vehicle capacities and maximum speed limits:
a. School buses – the study assumed 80 students per bus for elementary school students and 55 students per bus for middle school and high school students. b. Ambulatory transit‐dependent persons and medical facility patients = 30 people per bus/trolley.
c. Basic Life Support (BLS) (ambulances) = 2 persons.
d. Wheelchair transport vehicles – the study assumed 15 persons per wheelchair bus and 2 persons per trolley.
5 Elementary, Middle, and High schools were considered Schools.  Anything pre‐elementary level was considered a childcare facility. 6 School bus demand was computed for all schools based on enrollment for emergency planning purposes regardless of whether or not parents will pick up school children prior to evacuating.

City of Laguna Beach 2‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
e. The maximum bus speed assumed is 55 miles per hour, based on California Vehicle Code, Section 224067
.

7. Transit vehicles mobilization times:
a. School and transit buses will arrive at schools and facilities to be evacuated within 60 minutes of the advisory to evacuate.
b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized within 150 minutes of the advisory to evacuate.
c. Vehicles will arrive at hospitals, medical facilities, and senior living facilities to be evacuated within 25 minutes of the advisory to evacuate.

8. Transit Vehicle loading times:
a. School buses will be loaded in 15 minutes.
b. Transit Dependent buses and trolleys will require 1 minute of loading time per passenger.
c. Buses for medical facilities will require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.
d. Wheelchair transport vehicles for medical facilities will require 5 minutes of loading time per passenger.
e. Ambulances for medical facilities will require 30 minutes per bedridden passenger.

9. The percent breakdown of ambulatory (50%), wheelchair bound (40%) and bedridden patients (10%) was applied to total populations provided at Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach and Vista Aliso, accounting for rounding errors. The remaining medical facilities were assumed to have only ambulatory patients.

10. It was assumed that drivers for all transit vehicles identified in Table 9‐1 are available.

11. Approximately seventy six percent (76%) of transit‐dependent population will rideshare with a neighbor or friend, based on the 2019 demographic survey results.

12. Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (external‐external trips) at the start of a wildfire. After the advisory to evacuate is announced, these pass‐through travelers will also evacuate. External traffic vehicles will utilize Coast Highway (SR‐1), Santa Ana Freeway (I‐5), San Diego Freeway (I‐405), and SR‐73 to pass through the area. Dynamic and variable message signs will be strategically positioned outside of the hazard area at logical diversion points to attempt to divert traffic away from these routes. As such, it was assumed this pass‐through (external) traffic will diminish over time with all external traffic flow stopping at 2 hours after the advisory to evacuate. See Section 3.8.

13. Access control will be implemented on SR‐1 and on the SR‐73 exit ramps to SR‐133 during an emergency in Laguna Beach. The access control will be implemented over the course of 2 hours to allow police to mobilize personnel and equipment to block the roadways and to allow time for commuters to return home and unite with family (see Section 3.8).

14. Traffic Control Points (TCP), as defined in the City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan (dated April 2018), were considered in this analysis.  TCPs are placed at locations that 7 http://www.californiacarlaws.com/speed-limit/
City of Laguna Beach 2‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
benefit the evacuation during the analysis period. Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCPs are:
a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location. b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the wildfire. c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.
d. Act as local surveillance and communications center. e. Provide information to the county and other emergency workers as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by evacuees.

15. External Traffic was estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios (Scenario 3 and 7).

16. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period. Rather, there is a 30‐minute initialization period (often referred to as “fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period were loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated. See Section 3.9.

17. Reduced roadway capacity was considered for a fall, midweek, midday scenario (Scenario 5). The capacity and free flow speeds were reduced by 10 percent for this scenario. Fall means that school is in session. Summer means that school is not in session.

18. Trip generation time (also known as mobilization time, or the time to prepare for and begin the evacuation) will be based upon the results of the 2019 demographic survey.

19. Based on the results of the 2019 demographic survey, 56 percent of the households in the EMZ have at least 1 commuter; 18 percent of those households will await the return of household members before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the demographic survey results. Therefore, 10 percent (56% x 18% = 10%) of households will await the return of household members, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

20. Public parking lots within the EMZ are filled to capacity during peak times for tourists and seasonal workers.

21. It was assumed that anyone evacuating by foot will have a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second8. It was also assumed that those evacuating by foot will not use hiking trails to evacuate as they could be dangerous during a wildfire.

8 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Revision 4 – Section 4N.02 Page 990 City of Laguna Beach 2‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 2‐1.  Evacuation Scenario Definitions
Scenarios Season9 Day of Week Time of Day Conditions
1 Summer Midweek Midday Normal
2 Summer/Spring Weekend Midday Normal
3 Summer/Spring Midweek, Weekend Evening Normal
4 Fall Midweek Midday Normal
5 Fall Midweek Midday
Reduced
Roadway
Capacity
6 Fall Weekend Midday Normal
7 Fall Midweek, Weekend Evening Normal
Table 2‐2. Cumulative Percent Notified
Elapsed Time
(Minutes)
Cumulative
Percent
Notified
0 0%
5 69.8%
10 89.8%
15 95.6%
20 97.5%
25 98.1%
30 100%
9 Fall means that school is in session at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and winter). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).

City of Laguna Beach 3‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
3 DEMAND ESTIMATION
This section discusses the estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, which constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. This section also documents these sources of data, as well as the methodology used to extract relevant data from these sources.   These estimates consist of three components:

1. An estimate of population within the Emergency Management Zones (EMZ), stratified into groups (e.g., resident, employee, tourists, special facilities, etc.).

2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.

3. An estimate of potential double‐counting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some tourists.

Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EMZ. These non‐residents may dwell within the EMZ for a short period (e.g., a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

The potential for double‐counting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:
 A resident who works and shops within the EMZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper.
 A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.

Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of tourists and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

Analysis of the population characteristics of the study area indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:
 Permanent residents ‐ people who are year‐round residents of the EMZ.  Tourists and seasonal residents ‐ people who reside outside of the EMZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation, seasonal employment) and then leave the area.
 Employees  ‐ people who reside outside of the EMZ and commute to work within the EMZ on a daily basis year round.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each EMZ. The EMZ boundaries are shown in Figure 3‐1.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

3.1 Permanent Residents
The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The U.S.

Census Bureau conducts a physical census of the permanent resident population in the U.S. every ten years. The last census began on April 1, 2010 with data from the census being published on April 1, 2011. In the years between the decennial censuses, the Census Bureau works with state and local agencies to provide annual population estimates at the state and local levels. These estimates are done using data on deaths, births and migration. This annual data gathering process and analysis is extensive. As such, population estimates are a year behind – 2019 data are released in 20201.

This study is based on 2010 Census population data from the Census Bureau website2 extrapolated to 2020 using annual growth rates computed from the 2019 Census population estimates as outlined in the methodology below.

The Census Bureau QuickFacts3 website provides annual population estimates for each state, county, and municipality4 in the United States. As discussed above, Census population estimates are a year behind. Thus, the most recent population estimates available for the counties and municipalities are for the time period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019. The population change and annual growth rate for each county and municipality in the study area (the EMZ plus Shadow Region) are provided in Table 3‐1 and Table 3‐2, respectively. Figure 3‐2 shows the county and municipality boundaries identified by the Census Bureau.

The permanent resident population, as per the 2010 Census, for the EMZ and the Shadow Region was projected to 2020 using the compound growth formula (Equation 1). In the compound growth formula, g is the annual growth rate and X is the number of years projected forward from Year 2010. The compound growth formula can be solved for g as shown in Equation 2.

Equation 1
ሺ𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑋 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠ሻ: 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 201𝑋 ൌ 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2010 ሺ1 ൅ 𝑔ሻ ௫ Equation 2
ሺ𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒ሻ: 𝑔ൌ ሺ𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 201𝑋 ൊ 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2010ሻଵ/௫ – 1 The 2010 and 2019 population data provided in Table 3‐1 and Table 3‐2 were used in Equation 2 to compute the annual growth rate for each county and municipality in the study area using X = 9.25 (9 years and 3 months from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019). The computed annual growth rate for each county and municipality is summarized in the final column of Table 3‐1 and Table 3‐2, respectively.
1 The schedule for release of Census data is provided on the Census website: https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/popest/about/schedule.html 2 www.census.gov
3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218 4 https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html City of Laguna Beach 3‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
The most detailed data should always be used when forecasting population. In terms of detailed data, municipal data is the finest level of detail, then county data, and state data. The municipality growth rate was used first and if that was not available or applicable within the study area, then the county growth rate was used. County growth rates are available for the entire study area and were used (in the absence of municipal data) as they are the finest level of detail available for the entire study area. Thus, state data was not used.

The Census Bureau does not provide population data specific to the boundaries of the study area. As such, the county or municipality population was used to compute the annual growth rate. Then, the appropriate municipality or county growth rate was applied only to those Census blocks located within the study area. All other blocks outside of the study area were not considered as part of the EMZ or Shadow Region population, even if they are located within one of the municipalities or counties that intersect the study area.

The appropriate annual growth rate was applied to each Census block in the study area depending on which county or municipality the block is located within. The population was extrapolated to July 1, 2020 using Equation 1 with X = 10.25 (10 years and 3 months from the April 1, 2010 Census date to July 1, 2020), as the base year for this study.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the EMZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EMZ. This methodology (referred to as the “area ratio method”) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3‐3 provides the permanent resident population within the EMZ for 2010 (based on the most recent U.S. Census) and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EMZ has increased by approximately 0.78% since the 2010 Census.

The 2020 extrapolated permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household to estimate number of vehicles. The average household size (2.39 persons/household) was estimated using the demographic survey results (see Appendix F, sub‐section F.3.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.64 vehicles/household – See Appendix F, sub‐section F.3.2) was also adapted from the demographic survey results. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3‐4.

It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere. A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:
 Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two‐week period over the summer.  Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each two‐week interval.  Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off‐season. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.

3.1.1 Special Facilities
Fourteen medical facilities are located within the EMZ (see Table E‐2). These facilities have permanent residents that are included in the Census; however, these facilities are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are addressed below in Section 3.5. As such, these residents are included in the resident population, but no personal evacuating vehicles are considered. The vehicles in Table 3‐4 have been adjusted accordingly.

3.1.2 College Students
Laguna College of Art and Design is the only college in the EMZ. This college has four campuses within the EMZ: Big Bend Campus, Main Campus, MFA Campus and South Campus. Upon examination for Census blocks in the vicinity of these campuses, it does not appear the resident students were captured in the Census.   As such, no modifications to residents or resident vehicles were made to account for this college.

Based on the data provided by the City of Laguna Beach, some students will evacuate in private vehicles which are accounted for in the “Colleges” columns in Table 3‐13 and Table 3‐14. Other students either rideshare with a fellow classmate or evacuate by buses. The campuses are broken down as follows.

Big Bend Campus:
 Total enrollment of 250 students, 75% of which live on campus and 25% live off campus.  According to the city, 75% of the students own private vehicles, and the remaining students (25%) take public transportation or rideshare. Therefore, 188 (250 x 75%) students have personal vehicles, and the remaining 62 (250 ‐ 188) students will be evacuated via ridesharing or buses.
 Based on the demographic survey results, 76% of transit‐dependent people will rideshare with a neighbor or friend (see Section 2.3, Assumption 11). Apply this ratio to the number of students without personal vehicles, 47 (62 x 76%) students will rideshare to evacuate, and the remaining 15 (62 – 47) students are considered as transit dependent and need a bus to evacuate.
 Using the capacity of 30 people per bus (see Section 2.3, Assumption 6), Big Bend Campus needs 1 (15 ÷ 30 = 1, rounded up) transit‐dependent bus or 2 passenger car equivalent (pce’s) vehicles (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).  In summary, 235 (188 + 47) commuter/ridesharing students will be evacuated in 188 private vehicles, and 15 transit‐dependent students will be evacuated in 1 bus (2 pce’s).

Main Campus:
 Total enrollment of 500 students, 75% of which live on campus and 25% live off campus.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
 According to the city, the percentage of students that own private vehicles is 75%. Using the same estimation approach as described above, the number of commuter students is 375 (500 x 75%), the number of ridesharing students is 95 ((500 – 375) x 76%), and the number of transit‐dependent students is 30 (500 – 375 – 95).  In summary, 470 (375 + 95) commuter/ridesharing students will be evacuated in 375 private vehicles, and 30 transit‐dependent students will be evacuated in 1 (30 ÷ 30) bus or 2 pce’s.

MFA Campus:
 The total enrollment is 15. The data provided by the city reveals that there is no on‐ campus housing, therefore, all the students are considered as commuter students. No buses are needed for this campus.  Since this is a commuter college, a vehicle occupancy of 1.04 students per vehicle, obtained from the demographic survey (See Appendix F, sub‐section F.3.1, “Commuter Travel Modes”), was used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles for this facility.  As such, a total of 14 vehicles was assigned to this facility.

South Campus:
 Total enrollment of 60 students, 75% of which live on campus and 25% live off campus.  According to the city, the percentage of students that own private vehicles is 75%. Using the same estimation approach as described for Big Bend Campus, the number of commuter students is 45 (60 x 75%), the number of ridesharing students is 11 ((60 – 45) x 76%), and the number of transit‐dependent students is 4 (60 – 45 – 11).  In summary, 56 (45 + 11) commuter/ridesharing students will be evacuated in 45 private vehicles, and 30 transit‐dependent students will be evacuated in 1 (4 ÷ 30, rounded up) bus or 2 pce’s.

3.2 Shadow Population
A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area includes the municipalities of Dana Point, Irvine, Newport Beach, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano. These areas may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based on the demographic survey, it is assumed that 14 percent5 of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that of the permanent resident population.

There are 332,331 permanent residents and 228,040 vehicles in the Shadow Region.

5 For some cases, a 100% shadow evacuation was considered for Shadow Region that borders the ridge line. See Figure G-29.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

3.3 Tourist and Seasonal Worker Population
Tourist population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EMZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).

Tourists may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. Seasonal workers are defined as those people who commute into the EMZ for temporary employment during peak times.  Data was provided by the City of Laguna Beach for the majority of these facilities. For facilities wherein no data was provided or data was not available at that time, parking lot spaces were used to estimate facility capacities, see Section

2.1, Assumption 5b. Vehicle occupancy rates vary by facility from 1.97 persons per vehicle to

3.00 persons per vehicle. The EMZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract tourists, including:
 Recreation Centers
 Lodging Facilities
 Museums
 Parks
 Theaters
There is one recreation center and seven parks within the study area. Surveys of these facilities were conducted to determine the average daily attendance of the non‐EMZ visitors during the peak season. Average vehicle occupancy and parking capacity were also studied for these facilities. These data were used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for tourists and seasonal workers at each of these facilities. A total of 7,486 tourists and 2,943 vehicles (an average of 2.54 persons per vehicle) is assigned to the recreation center and parks in the EMZ.

This estimate includes seasonal workers at restaurants, bars, gift shops, ice cream shops, etc.

Surveys of museums and theaters within the EMZ were conducted to determine the average daily peak attendance of the non‐EMZ visitors, average vehicle occupancy, and parking capacity. These data were used to estimate the number of tourists and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of tourists 3,365 and 1,103 vehicles (an average of 3.05 persons per vehicle) are assigned to museums and theaters in the EMZ. Note, the vehicles for the museums are adjusted to 0 to avoid double counting population as the non‐EMZ tourists are likely to visit other tourist attractions in the EMZ.

Surveys of lodging facilities within the EMZ were conducted to determine the number of guest rooms, average vehicle occupancy, and parking capacity for each facility. It is conservatively assumed that all the guest rooms are occupied. These data were used to estimate the number of tourists and evacuating vehicles at each of these lodging facilities. A total of 4,738 tourists in 1,426 vehicles (an average of 3.32 persons per vehicle) are assigned to lodging facilities in the EMZ.

Appendix E summarizes the tourist data that was estimated for the study area. Table E‐4 presents the number of tourists visiting recreational facilities (recreation centers, parks and other recreational facilities) within the study area. Table E‐5 presents the number of tourists City of Laguna Beach 3‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
visiting museums and theaters within the study area. Table E‐6 presents the number of tourists visiting lodging facilities within the study area.

In total, there are 15,589 tourists evacuating in 5,472 vehicles (an average of 2.85 tourists per vehicle) in the study area. Table 3‐5 presents tourist population and vehicle estimates in the study area.

3.4 Year‐round Employees
Employees who work year‐round within the EMZ fall into two categories:
 Those who live and work in the EMZ
 Those who live outside of the EMZ and commute to jobs within the EMZ Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EMZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.

Data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool6 were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EMZ. The latest Workplace Area Characteristic data available (2017), was also obtained from this website and was used to determine the number of employees by Census Block within the EMZ.

Since not all employees are working at facilities within the EMZ at one time, a maximum shift reduction was applied. The Work Area Profile Report, also output by the OnTheMap Application, breaks down jobs within the EMZ by industry sector. Assuming maximum shift employment occurs Monday through Friday between 9 AM and 5 PM, the following jobs take place outside the typical 9‐5 workday:
 Manufacturing – 2.6% of jobs; takes place in shifts over 24 hours  Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation – 2.9% of jobs; takes place in evenings and on weekends
 Accommodations and Food Services – 41.4% of jobs; peaks in the evenings The maximum shift in the EMZ is about 53.1% (100% ‐ 2.6% ‐ 2.9% ‐ 41.4% = 53.1%). This value was applied to the total employment in 2017 to represent the maximum number of employees present in the EMZ at any one time. The Inflow/Outflow Report was then used to calculate the percent of employees that work within the EMZ but live outside. This value, 90.7%, was applied to the maximum shift employee values to compute the number of people commuting into the EMZ to work at peak times. Table E‐3 in Appendix E summarizes the number of employees commuting into the EMZ during the peak shift.

In Table 3‐6, a vehicle occupancy of 1.04 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (See Appendix F, sub‐section F.3.1, “Commuter Travel Modes”) was used to determine 6 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
City of Laguna Beach 3‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers. Table 3‐6 presents employee and vehicle estimates by EMZ7.

3.5 Medical Facilities
The data for the fourteen medical facilities was provided by the City of Laguna Beach. Table E‐2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Table 3‐7 presents the current census and transportation requirement of medical facilities in the EMZ. As shown in these tables, 254 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities.  Since the average number of patients at large medical facilities fluctuates daily, a percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients was used to estimate the number of each type of patient (see Section 2.3, Assumption 9) at Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach and Vista Aliso. The estimated breakdown for both facilities consists of about 50% ambulatory, 40% wheelchair bound, and 10% bedridden patients, accounting for rounding errors. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair bus runs assumes 15 and 4 wheelchairs per trip, respectively, and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip (see Section 2.3, Assumption 6).

3.6 Transit Dependent Population
The demographic survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:
• Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available. • Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.

In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.

Table 3‐8 presents estimates of transit‐dependent people.  Note:
• Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren.   For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren. The actual need for transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates.   However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session. • It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transit‐dependent persons will evacuate by ride‐sharing with neighbors, friends or family.  For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario8 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends.  Other documents report that 7 This estimate represents the number of employee and employee vehicles that commute into the EMZ all year long. This number does not include seasonal workers.
8 1979 Mississauga Train Derailment
City of Laguna Beach 3‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. The results from the demographic survey indicate approximately 76 percent is appropriate for this area.  As such, 76 percent ride‐sharing was utilized to estimate the transit dependent population within the EMZ.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transit‐dependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus/trolley occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus/trolley run.   Transit vehicle seating capacities for buses typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of “adult seats” taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27.

On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent.  Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 3‐8 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity. ൤20 ൅ ൬
2 3
ൈ 10൰൨ൊ 40 ൈ 1.5 ൌ 1.00
Table 3‐8 indicates that transportation must be provided for 197 people. Therefore, a total of 9 bus or trolley runs (even though only 7 buses or trolleys are needed from a capacity standpoint) are required to transport this population outside of the EMZ.

To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or ride‐share, and the number of buses, B, required for the EMZ:

𝑃 ൌ 𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝐻 ൈ෍ሼሺ% 𝐻𝐻 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑖 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠ሻ ൈ ሾሺ𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐻𝐻 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒ሻ െ𝑖ሿሽ ௡
௜ୀ଴
ൈ𝐴௜𝐶௜
Where,
A = Percent of households with commuters
C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 𝑃ൌ 10,710 ൈ ሾ1.00 ൈ 0.0025 ൅ 0.2210 ൈ ሺ1.37 െ 1ሻ ൈ 0.5564 ൈ 0.8216 ൅ 0.4960 ൈ ሺ2.35 െ 2ሻ ൈ ሺ0.5564 ൈ 0.8216ሻଶሿ ൌ 816
𝐵ൌሺሺ1 െ 0.7612ሻൈ𝑃ሻ ൊ 30 ൌ 7
These calculations are explained as follows:
• Number of households is computed by dividing the EMZ population (25,598) by the average household size (2.39) and equates to 10,710.
• All members (1.00 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (0.25%) will evacuate by public transit or ride‐share.   The term 10,710 (number of households) x 0.0025 x City of Laguna Beach 3‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

1.00, accounts for these people.
• The members of HH with 1 vehicle (22.10%) away, who are at home, equal (1.37‐1).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (10,710 x

0.2210 x 0.37 x 0.5564 x 0.8216), as 55.64% of EMZ households have a commuter,

82.16% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency.  The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or ride‐share is equal to the product of these two terms.
• The members of HH with 2 vehicles (49.60%) that are away, who are at home, equal (2.35 – 2).  The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 10,710 x 0.4960 x 0.35 x (0.5564 x 0.8216)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or ride‐share is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).
• Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.
• The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home and households with no vehicles.

It is assumed that transients and those with access and functional needs who may also need assistance and do not reside in medical facilities are included in these calculations. Data was not provided on transients or those with access and functional needs.

KLD designed routes to service the transit dependent population in each EMZ. These routes are shown in Figure 11‐2 and described in Table 11‐1.   These routes were designed by grouping EMZs into clusters to minimize the number of buses needed.  For example, using a weighted distribution, there are 20 people in Central Coast and 9 people in Temple Hills that would need transportation assistance to evacuate.  Since these EMZs border one another, a single bus or trolley could be used to traverse the roadways in these EMZs and gather those who need transportation assistance.  Assuming a bus or trolley capacity of 30 people, as discussed above, only one bus/trolley is needed to evacuate these two EMZs, rather than using two buses/trolleys to evacuate these EMZs individually.   This grouping of EMZs should be considered when looking at the summary of vehicle demand by EMZ in Table 3‐14.

paratransit vehicles will be used to evacuate people with disabilities and those with access and/or functional needs.  Page 17 of the plan states that Laguna Beach Transit will be the first option for evacuation transportation.  The City owns 19 trolleys and 6 buses.  A majority of the drivers are part‐time and depending on the time of day and year, they may need to be called from home.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

3.7 School Population Demand
Table 3‐9 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EMZ. This information was provided by the City of Laguna Beach supplemented by internet searches for schools in which no data was provided. The column in Table 3‐9 entitled “Buses Required” specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:
• No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. • The estimate of buses required for school evacuation does not consider the use of private vehicles by students.
• Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, was assumed to be 55 for High School and Middle School buses, and 80 for Elementary School buses. • Students at pre‐schools/day cares will be picked up by parents. These pre‐ schools/days cares are listed in Table 3‐9 and show zero buses required. • Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.
• No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.

The City of Laguna Beach may consider procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated.  In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities). Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ride‐sharing.

3.8 External Traffic
Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (external‐external trips) at the time of an event. After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through‐travelers will also evacuate.

These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the study area – Interstate 5, Interstate 405, California 1 (SR‐1), and California 55 (SR‐55). Dynamic and variable message signs will be strategically positioned outside of the study area at logical diversion points to attempt to divert traffic away from the area at risk. As such, it is assumed this external traffic will diminish over 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Caltrans9 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K‐Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the Design Hour Volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by 9 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/ City of Laguna Beach 3‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
the D‐Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split).

The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 3‐10, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 30‐minutes (dynamic messaging signs are assumed to be activated within the 30 minutes of the ATE; no vehicles have diverted during this time) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated in Table 3‐10, there are 20,504 vehicles entering the study area as external‐external trips prior to any diversion of traffic. Table 3‐11 shows the assumed percentage of diverted vehicles throughout the evacuation.  Utilizing the procedure as discussed above and the diversion percentages shown in Table 3‐11, 20,504 pass‐through vehicles enter the study area between 0 and 30 minutes after the advisory to evacuate.

Another 15,380 pass‐through vehicles enter the study area between 30 minutes and 1 hour into the evacuation, and 10,251 pass‐through vehicles enter the study area between 1 and 1.5 hours into the evacuation. Finally, another 5,129 pass‐through vehicles enter the study area between

1.5 and 2 hours into the evacuation. At this time, it is assumed that all vehicles will divert from entering the study area for the remainder of the evacuation.

As shown in Table 3‐12, throughout the 2‐hours first two hours of the evacuation, the total external traffic that will enter the study area is 51,264 vehicles. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 3 and 7) as discussed in Section 6.

3.9 Background Traffic
Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the study area to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 5‐8, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the study area. All traffic is loaded within these 14 time periods. Note, there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.

In traffic simulations, the network is initially empty.  Thus, for this study, the network needs to be filled (to represent a routine travel conditions just prior to an evacuation order) so that system performance can be assessed under a more realistic set of conditions. As such, there is a 30‐minute initialization time period (often referred to as “fill time” in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area.

The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 14,749 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of all the EMZ (Region R28) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, normal) conditions.

3.10 Summary of Demand
A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3‐13 and Table 3‐14, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of City of Laguna Beach 3‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
381,404 people and 305,814 vehicles (254,550 evacuating vehicles and 51,264 external vehicles) are considered in this study.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐1. County Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 County 2010 Population 2019 Population Percent Change Annual Growth Rate Orange 3,008,989 3,175,692 5.54% 0.58%
Table 3‐2. Municipality Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 Municipality 2010 Population 2019 Population Percent Change Annual Growth Rate Orange County, CA
EMZ
Aliso Viejo 47,674 50,887 6.74% 0.71%
Laguna Beach 22,733 22,827 0.41% 0.04%
Laguna Woods 15,991 15,850 ‐0.88% ‐0.10%
Shadow Region
Dana Point 33,290 33,577 0.86% 0.09%
Irvine 212,107 287,401 35.50% 3.34%
Laguna Hills 30,673 31,207 1.74% 0.19%
Laguna Niguel 62,989 66,385 5.39% 0.57%
Mission Viejo 93,103 94,381 1.37% 0.15%
Newport Beach 85,211 84,534 ‐0.79% ‐0.09%
San Juan Capistrano 34,426 35,911 4.31% 0.46%
City of Laguna Beach 3‐15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐3.  EMZ Permanent Resident Population
EMZ ID EMZ 2010 Population 2020 Extrapolated
Population
1 Arch Beach Heights 1,616 1,619
2 Balboa/Nyes 862 863
3 Big Bend 259 261
4 Bluebird Canyon 1,012 1,016
5 Boat Canyon 1,195 1,196
6 Canyon Acres 300 301
7 Ceanothus 1,057 1,060
8 Club Laguna 3,391 3,480
9a North Coast 2,915 2,934
9b Central Coast 2,643 2,645
9c South Coast 2,641 2,646
10 Downtown 628 630
11 El Toro 176 181
12 Emerald Bay 701 743
13 Irvine Cove 135 138
14 Mar Vista 835 835
15 Old Top of The World 175 175
16 Park Avenue 1,166 1,169
17 Sunset 706 709
18 Temple Hills 1,205 1,209
19 Top of the World 1,351 1,355
20 Wesley 432 433
TOTAL 25,401 25,598
Population Growth (2010‐2020): 0.78%
Shadow 299,304 332,331
STUDY AREA TOTAL 324,705 357,929
City of Laguna Beach 3‐16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐4.  Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by EMZ

EMZ ID EMZ
2020 Extrapolated
Population
2020
Resident Vehicles
1 Arch Beach Heights 1,619 1,110
2 Balboa/Nyes 863 592
3 Big Bend 261 179
4 Bluebird Canyon 1,016 698
5 Boat Canyon 1,196 821
6 Canyon Acres 301 207
7 Ceanothus 1,060 728
8 Club Laguna 3,480 2,386
9a North Coast 2,934 2,017
9b Central Coast 2,645 1,818
9c South Coast 2,646 1,813
10 Downtown 630 433
11 El Toro 181 124
12 Emerald Bay 743 511
13 Irvine Cove 138 95
14 Mar Vista 835 570
15 Old Top of The World 175 120
16 Park Avenue 1,169 802
17 Sunset 709 489
18 Temple Hills 1,209 829
19 Top of the World 1,355 932
20 Wesley 433 297
TOTAL 25,598 17,571
Shadow 332,331 228,040
STUDY AREA TOTAL 357,929 245,611
City of Laguna Beach 3‐17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐5.  Summary of Tourists and Tourist Vehicles
EMZ ID EMZ Tourists Tourist Vehicles
1 Arch Beach Heights 0 0
2 Balboa/Nyes 0 0
3 Big Bend 0 0
4 Bluebird Canyon 0 0
5 Boat Canyon 2,790 1103
6 Canyon Acres 575 40510
7 Ceanothus 567 162
8 Club Laguna 135 45
9a North Coast 438 27210
9b Central Coast 1,906 1,10010
9c South Coast 2,968 63511
10 Downtown 5,470 1,25310
11 El Toro 0 0
12 Emerald Bay 0 0
13 Irvine Cove 0 0
14 Mar Vista 0 0
15 Old Top of The World 0 0
16 Park Avenue 0 25710
17 Sunset 0 0
18 Temple Hills 0 0
19 Top of the World 0 0
20 Wesley 140 40
TOTAL 14,989 5,272
Shadow 600 200
STUDY AREA TOTAL 15,589 5,472
10 The vehicles for tourists visiting Main Beach Park in EMZ Downtown (EMZ ID – 10) are parked at multiple places in EMZs Canyon Acres, Central Coast, North Coast and Park Avenue (EMZ ID – 6, 9a, 9b and 16). See Appendix E for additional information. 11 The average daily peak attendance of the non-EMZ tourists visiting Aliso Beach County Park in EMZ South Coast (EMZ ID – 9c) exceeds the limit of parking capacity at this park. It is assumed that some vehicles are parked in the parking lots nearby. See Appendix E for additional information.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐6.  Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EMZ EMZ ID EMZ Employees Employee Vehicles
1 Arch Beach Heights 0 0
2 Balboa/Nyes 0 0
3 Big Bend 0 0
4 Bluebird Canyon 0 0
5 Boat Canyon 160 154
6 Canyon Acres 140 135
7 Ceanothus 89 86
8 Club Laguna 0 0
9a North Coast 325 312
9b Central Coast 802 773
9c South Coast 392 377
10 Downtown 722 695
11 El Toro 29 28
12 Emerald Bay 0 0
13 Irvine Cove 0 0
14 Mar Vista 52 50
15 Old Top of The World 0 0
16 Park Avenue 126 121
17 Sunset 31 30
18 Temple Hills 0 0
19 Top of the World 0 0
20 Wesley 0 0
TOTAL 2,868 2,761
City of Laguna Beach 3‐19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐7. Medical Facilities Transit Demand Estimates
EMZ
ID EMZ Facility Name Capacity
TypicalCensus Ambulatory
Wheel‐
chair
Bound
Bed‐
ridden
Bus
Runs
Wheel‐
chair
Bus
Runs
Ambulance
Runs
2 Balboa/Nyes Oceanfront Recovery at Laguna Beach, LLC 6 6 6 0 0 1 0 07 Ceanothus Laguna View Center, LLC12 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 9a North Coast Miramar Health, INC.13 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0
9b Central Coast Coast to Coast Referral Center, INC. 6 6 6 0 0 1 0 09b Central Coast Spencer Recovery Centers, INC.14 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 09b Central Coast Spencer Recovery Centers, INC. 28 28 28 0 0 1 0 0 9c South Coast Sunshine Behavioral Health LLC12 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 10 Downtown Pillars Recovery, LLC 10 10 10 0 0 1 0 014 Mar Vista Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach 178 75 37 30 8 2 2 415 Old Top of The World Pillars Recovery, LLC14 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 017 Sunset Complete Resurgency, LLC12 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 019 Top of The World Oceanfront Recovery at Laguna Beach, LLC14 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 019 Top of The World Oceanfront Recovery at Laguna Beach, LLC14 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 020 Wesley Vista Aliso 75 75 37 30 8 2 2 4 TOTAL: 357 254 178 60 16 8 4 8
12 Assumed to evacuate with Oceanfront Recovery at Laguna Beach, LLC in EMZ 2 – Balboa/Nyes13 Assumed to evacuate with Pillars Recovery, LLC in EMZ 10 ‐ Downtown14 Assumed to evacuate with Coast to Coast Referral Center, INC. in EMZ 9b – Central Coast City of Laguna Beach 3‐20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐8. Transit‐Dependent Population Estimates
Projected
2020 EMZ
Population
Survey Average HH Size
with Indicated No. of
Vehicles
Estimated
No. of
Households
Survey Percent HH
with Indicated No. of
Vehicles
Survey
Percent HH
with
Commuters
Survey
Percent HH
with Non‐
Returning
Commuters
Total
People
Requiring
Transport
Estimated
Ridesharing
Percentage
People
Requiring
Public
Transit
Percent
Population
Requiring
Public
0 1 2 0 1 2 Transit
25,598 1.00 1.37 2.35 10,710 0.25% 22.10% 49.60% 55.64% 82.16% 816 76.12% 195 0.76% City of Laguna Beach 3‐21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐9. School Population Demand Estimates
EMZ ID EMZ School Name Enrollment
Buses
Required
3 Big Bend Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Main Campus 500 13 Big Bend Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Big Bend Campus 250 16 Canyon Acres Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ South Campus 60 1 13 Irvine Cove El Morro Elementary School 524 715 Old Top of The World Top of the World Elementary School 669 916 Park Avenue Thurston Middle School 762 1417 Sunset Heidi's Pre‐School 25 1 9b Central Coast Laguna Beach High School 1116 21
TOTAL: 3,906 55
3 Big Bend Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ MFA Campus 15 0 10 Downtown Laguna Presbyterian Pre‐School 50 0
11 El Toro Anneliese's Schools ‐ Willowbrook 250 016 Park Avenue Anneliese's Schools ‐ Manzanita 50 0 20 Wesley Anneliese's Schools ‐ Aliso 50 020 Wesley St. Catherine of Siena Parish School 173 0 9b Central Coast Montessori School‐Laguna Beach 75 0
TOTAL (USE PERSONAL VEHICLES OR PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION TO EVACUATE): 663 ‐ City of Laguna Beach 3‐22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐10. Study Area External Traffic During First 30 Minutes Road Name Direction
Caltrans
AADT15 K‐Factor16 D‐Factor16 Hourly Volume External Traffic I‐5 NB 280,000 0.067 0.5 9,380 4,690I‐5 SB 280,000 0.067 0.5 9,380 4,690 I‐405 SB 250,400 0.067 0.5 8,388 4,194
SR‐1 SB 40,000 0.107 0.5 2,140 1,070SR‐1 NB 40,000 0.107 0.5 2,140 1,070 SR‐55 NB 116,800 0.082 0.5 4,789 2,395SR‐55 SB 116,800 0.082 0.5 4,789 2,395 TOTAL: 20,504
Table 3‐11. External Traffic Diversion Percentages Over Time Time Period Percentage of External Traffic Diverted External Traffic within the Study Area 0 ‐ 30 0% 20,504
30 ‐ 60 25% 15,38060 ‐ 90 50% 10,251
90 ‐ 120 75% 5,129
120 ‐ ∞  100% 0
TOTAL: 51,264
15 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/16 HCM 2016 City of Laguna Beach 3‐23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐12. Study Area External Traffic
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node Road Name Direction
Caltrans
AADT15 K‐Factor16 D‐Factor16
Hourly
Volume
External
Traffic17
8000 178 I‐5 NB 280,000 0.067 0.5 9,380 11,7268010 230 I‐5 SB 280,000 0.067 0.5 9,380 11,7268012 1241 I‐405 SB 250,400 0.067 0.5 8,388 10,4868013 974 SR‐1 SB 40,000 0.107 0.5 2,140 2,6761271 1272 SR‐1 NB 40,000 0.107 0.5 2,140 2,6768017 1712 SR‐55 NB 116,800 0.082 0.5 4,789 5,9878018 1721 SR‐55 SB 116,800 0.082 0.5 4,789 5,987 TOTAL: 51,264
17 External Traffic displayed includes calculations as discussed in Section 3.8, which also includes a diversion percentage after the first 30 minutes.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐13. Summary of Population Demand
EMZ
ID EMZ Residents
Transit‐
Dependent Tourists Employees
Medical
Facilities Schools Colleges
External
Traffic Total
1 Arch Beach Heights 1,619 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,6312 Balboa/Nyes 863 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 8763 Big Bend 261 2 0 0 0 0 765 0 1,0284 Bluebird Canyon 1,016 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,0245 Boat Canyon 1,196 9 2,790 160 0 0 0 0 4,1556 Canyon Acres 301 2 575 140 0 0 60 0 1,0787 Ceanothus 1,060 8 567 89 6 0 0 0 1,7308 Club Laguna 3,480 28 135 0 0 0 0 0 3,643 9a North Coast 2,934 23 438 325 6 0 0 0 3,726
9b Central Coast 2,645 20 1,906 802 40 1,191 0 0 6,604
9c South Coast 2,646 20 2,968 392 6 0 0 0 6,032
10 Downtown 630 5 5,470 722 10 50 0 0 6,88711 El Toro 181 1 0 29 0 250 0 0 46112 Emerald Bay 743 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 74913 Irvine Cove 138 1 0 0 0 524 0 0 66314 Mar Vista 835 6 0 52 75 0 0 0 96815 Old Top of The World 175 1 0 0 6 669 0 0 85116 Park Avenue 1,169 9 0 126 0 812 0 0 2,11617 Sunset 709 5 0 31 12 25 0 0 78218 Temple Hills 1,209 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,21819 Top of the World 1,355 10 0 0 12 0 0 0 1,37720 Wesley 433 3 140 0 75 223 0 0 874 Shadow 332,33118 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 332,931
Total 357,929 195 15,589 2,868 254 3,744 825 0 381,404
18 Only 14% of these people are assumed to evacuate unless located along a ridge line for some evacuation cases.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 3‐14. Summary of Vehicle Demand
EMZ ID EMZ Residents
Transit‐
Dependent19 Tourists Employees
Medical
Facilities19 Schools19 Colleges19
External
Traffic Total
1 Arch Beach Heights 1,110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1102 Balboa/Nyes 592 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5933 Big Bend 179 0 0 0 0 0 579 0 7584 Bluebird Canyon 698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6985 Boat Canyon 821 0 1,103 154 0 0 0 0 2,0786 Canyon Acres 207 0 405 135 0 0 46 0 7937 Ceanothus 728 0 162 86 1 0 0 0 9778 Club Laguna 2,386 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 2,432 9a North Coast 2,017 1 272 312 1 0 0 0 2,603
9b Central Coast 1,818 1 1,100 773 2 21 0 0 3,715
9c South Coast 1,813 1 635 377 0 0 0 0 2,826
10 Downtown 433 0 1,253 695 0 0 0 0 2,38111 El Toro 124 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 15312 Emerald Bay 511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51113 Irvine Cove 95 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 10314 Mar Vista 570 1 0 50 8 0 0 0 62915 Old Top of The World 120 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 12916 Park Avenue 802 0 257 121 0 14 0 0 1,19417 Sunset 489 0 0 30 0 1 0 0 52018 Temple Hills 829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82919 Top of the World 932 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93220 Wesley 297 1 40 0 8 0 0 0 346 Shadow 228,04018 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 279,504
Total 245,611 9 5,472 2,761 20 52 625 51,264 305,814
19 One bus is equivalent to 2 pce’s. As such, buses/trolleys for transit dependent persons, ambulatory and wheelchair bound medical facility patients, schools and colleges are doubled in the simulation.

City of Laguna Beach 3‐26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 3‐1. EMZ Boundaries
City of Laguna Beach 3‐27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 3‐2. Census Boundaries within the Study Area
City of Laguna Beach   4‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY
The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed.   The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016). This section discusses how the capacity of the roadway network was estimated.

In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics. These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes free‐flow and high‐speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition. LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is “Service Volume” (SV). Service volume is defined as “The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service.” This definition is similar to that for capacity. The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.

Thus, in simple terms, a service volume is the maximum traffic that can travel on a road and still maintain a certain perceived level of quality to a driver based on the A, B, C, rating system (LOS).  Any additional vehicles above the service volume would drop the rating to a lower letter grade.

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 12‐37 of the HCM 2016. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.

Other factors also influence capacity. These include, but are not limited to:
 Lane width
 Shoulder width
 Pavement condition
 Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)  Percent truck traffic
 Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)
 Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice) These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 15‐7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2016 Page 15-15).

City of Laguna Beach   4‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity.  The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle’s speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions.  Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the 2016 HCM.  For example, HCM Exhibit 7‐1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

The amount of traffic that can flow on a roadway is effectively governed by vehicle speed and spacing.  The faster that vehicles can travel when closely spaced, the higher the amount of flow.

As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions. Adverse conditions like inclement weather, construction, and other incidents tend to slow traffic down and, often, also increase vehicle‐to‐vehicle separation, thus decreasing the amount of traffic flow. Based on limited empirical data, conditions such as rain or thick smoke reduce the values of free‐flow speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates.  As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent for rain.

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care.  Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.

Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by “uninterrupted” flow; and (2) approaches to at‐ grade intersections where flow can be “interrupted” by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At‐grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control.   During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices.

The per‐lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:

𝑄௖௔௣,௠ ൌ ൬
3600
ℎ௠
൰ ൈ ൬
𝐺െ𝐿
𝐶 ൰
௠
ൌ ൬
3600
ℎ௠
൰ ൈ𝑃௠
City of Laguna Beach   4‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of   traffic on an approach, which executes movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph) hm = Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle
G = Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds
L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds
Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane.  This value is specified as part of the control treatment. m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, left‐turn, right‐turn, and diagonal.

The turn‐movement‐specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others.  A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.

Formally, we can write,
ℎ௠ ൌ𝑓௠ሺℎ௦௔௧, 𝐹ଵ, 𝐹ଶ,… ሻ
where:
hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm
fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, …
The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:
ℎ௠ ൒ℎ௦௔௧
That is, the turn‐movement‐specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to 2 Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. & Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., “Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning”, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012.

City of Laguna Beach   4‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.   These headways (or its inverse equivalent, “saturation flow rate”), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2016.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 19, 20 and 21 in the HCM 2016 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2, ..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (19‐8) of the HCM 2016.

The traffic signals within the EMZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection. Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances. The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of all‐red time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pre‐timed, the yellow and all‐red times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway
The capacity of highway sections ‐‐ as distinct from approaches to intersections ‐‐ is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 4‐1 illustrates this relationship.

As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side).  In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximum value, which is the capacity of the highway section. As traffic demand and the resulting highway density increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. the service volume) can actually decline below capacity (“capacity drop”).  Therefore, in order to realistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demand exceeds capacity), it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.

The value of VF can be expressed as:

𝑉ி ൌ 𝑅 ൈ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity
City of Laguna Beach   4‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a fall‐off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at “bottlenecks” or “choke points” on a freeway system.  Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer‐based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7‐week period.   When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown.  These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances.  The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl).  This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix H for freeway links.  The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a “realistic” estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified.  This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.

Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as “uninterrupted flow” facilities.  (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as “interrupted flow” facilities.)  As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates.  As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.

Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics.  Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free‐flow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 15‐46 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates.  The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free‐flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2016 HCM.  The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "section‐specific" service volume, VE, or by the intersection‐specific capacity.  For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, “Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks,” Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.

City of Laguna Beach   4‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

4.3 Application to the City of Laguna Beach Study Area
As part of the development of the link‐node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:
2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
Washington, D.C.

The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:
 Two‐Lane roads: Local, State
 Multi‐Lane Highways (at‐grade)
 Freeways
Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two‐Lane Roads
Ref: HCM Chapter 15
Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the study area. The per‐lane capacity of a two‐lane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h).  This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two‐way capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate LOS and Average Travel Speed.   The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time‐varying demand: capacity relations.

Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:
 Most sections of two‐lane roads within the study area are classified as “Class I”, with "level terrain"; some are “rolling terrain”.
 “Class II” highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.

4.3.2 Multi‐Lane Highway
Ref: HCM Chapter 12
Exhibit 12‐8 of the HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a per‐lane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 pc/h, for free‐speeds of 45 to 70 mph, respectively.  Based on observation, the multi‐lane highways outside of urban areas within the study area service traffic with free‐speeds in this range.   The actual time‐varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at City of Laguna Beach   4‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
intersections.  A conservative estimate of per‐lane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi‐lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix H.

4.3.3 Freeways
Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14
Chapter 10 of the HCM 2016 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 12, 13 and 14, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components.  Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for “Basic Freeway Segments".  Exhibit 12‐37 of the HCM 2016 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+
Per‐Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2,250 2,300 2,350 2,400
The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free‐speeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual time‐varying speeds based on demand:
capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of per‐lane capacity of 2,250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix H.

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections.  The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio.   The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 13 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas.  There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp‐ freeway junction:   The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on‐ramp or immediately upstream of an off‐ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area.   In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor.  Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 14‐10 of the HCM 2016 and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed.   Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 14‐12 and is a function of the ramp’s FFS.   The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016.   If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

City of Laguna Beach   4‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

4.3.4 Intersections
Ref: HCM Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22
Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 19 (signalized intersections), Chapters 20, 21 (un‐signalized intersections) and Chapter 22 (roundabouts).  The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters.  The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2‐way and all‐way) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non‐ evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time‐varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left‐ turns, contra‐flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix H.

4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation
Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, “HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools.” The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks.  Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is:
“The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions involving several HCM chapters. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system.”
This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing a study area operating under evacuation conditions.  The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM – they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location.  The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2016 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

City of Laguna Beach   4‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) FFS; and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix H, for each network link.

It is important to note that simulation represents a mathematical representation of an assumed set of conditions using the best available knowledge and understanding of traffic flow and available inputs.   Simulation should not be assumed to be a prediction of what will happen under any event because a real evacuation can be impacted by an infinite number of things – many of which will differ from these test cases – and many others cannot be taken into account with the tools available.

4.5 Boundary Conditions
As illustrated in Figure 1‐2 and in Appendix H, the link‐node analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the EMZ in order to model intersections with other major population areas and evacuation routes beyond the study area. However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these “boundary conditions,” this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on two‐lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multi‐lane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.

City of Laguna Beach   4‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 4‐1. Fundamental Diagrams
Capacity Drop
Qs
f s
Volume, vph
Qmax
Speed, mph
R vc
k kopt kj
Flow Regimes Density, vpm
Density, vpm
R Qmax
k
vf
Free Forced
City of Laguna Beach 5‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME
It is general practice for planners to estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public. The quantification of these activity‐based distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.   This section documents how the trip generation time distributions were estimated.

5.1 Background
In general, during a wildfire emergency, priorities are given to life safety, preservation of property and resource conservation. To ensure life safety, depending on the severity, wind speed and direction of the wildfire, emergency officials may issue warnings that include evacuation.

As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, a rapidly escalating wildfire situation, wherein evacuation is required, ordered promptly and no early protective actions have been implemented when calculating the Trip Generation Time. In these analyses, we have assumed:

1. The advisory to evacuate will be announced coincident with local emergency alerts (e.g. emergency alert systems (EAS) broadcasts, sirens, social media, local news, door‐to‐ door and with alike communication systems).

2. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after emergency alerts.

3. ETE are measured relative to the advisory to evacuate.

We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:

1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution

2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert and notification systems mentioned above.

2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.

The population within the Emergency Management Zone (EMZ) is dispersed over an area of approximately 9.7 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an event.

The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EMZ at the time the City of Laguna Beach 5‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EMZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR‐6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EMZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different day‐of‐week and time‐of‐day scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

For example, people at home or at work within the EMZ might be notified by siren, television and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EMZ might be notified by word‐of‐mouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EMZ population will differ with time of day  ‐ families will be united in the evenings but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR‐7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of residents.  Such a survey was conducted for this study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling results, survey instrument, and raw survey results. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

5.2 Fundamental Considerations
The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities. Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.

Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are:

Event Number Event Description
1 Notification
2 Awareness of Situation
3 Depart Work
4 Arrive Home
5 Depart on Evacuation Trip
Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined in Table 5‐1.

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5‐1.  An Event is a ‘state’ that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home) City of Laguna Beach 5‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
 An Activity is a ‘process’ that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)
As such, a completed Activity changes the ‘state’ of an individual (e.g. the activity, ‘travel home’ changes the state from ‘depart work’ to ‘arrive home’). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an ‘Event Sequence’; the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.

An employee who lives outside of the EMZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5‐1. A household within the EMZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5‐1(a). A household within the EMZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 5‐1(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night‐time will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 5‐1(b). Tourists will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 5‐1(b). Some tourists away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.

It is seen from Figure 5‐1, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions – not scalar numbers).

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1      2 A demographic survey of Laguna Beach residents was conducted to study evacuation behavior of the population within the EMZ. The survey results were used to create the notification time distribution. The survey asked specific questions about notifying neighbors and friends during an emergency using various methods like phone calls, text messages, social media, and in person conversation. Since the survey was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, it can be assumed that the population within the EMZ will behave similarly to the survey respondents.

City of Laguna Beach 5‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
The City of Laguna Beach uses emergency alert systems such as NIXLE and Alert Orange County to push notifications to the population opted‐in to the service. Furthermore, the City of Laguna Beach plans to strategically set up warning sirens within the EMZ. The presence of sirens will improve the notification process and notify the City residents and travelers much more efficiently.

Given the presence of the existing emergency alert systems, the alert systems that will be established in the near future and the results of the demographic survey, it was assumed that 70% of the EMZ population can be notified within 5 minutes of an emergency, 96% of the EMZ population can be notified within 15 minutes, and 100% of the EMZ population can be notified within 30 minutes. The distribution of Activity 1 → 2 shown in Table 5‐2 reflects data obtained by the demographic survey and the above assumptions.

Given the uncertainty in some critical assumptions, several sensitivity studies were conducted as part of this work effort to determine the elasticity of the evacuation time estimates to those assumptions, see Appendix J.

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2    3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EMZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly.   Commuters, who work outside the EMZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EMZ would remain open and other personnel would remain.   Essential workers (medical personnel, teachers) responsible for patients or students would require additional time to secure their facility.  The distribution of Activity 2 → 3 shown in Table 5‐3 reflects data obtained by the demographic survey.   This distribution is also applicable for residents to leave stores, restaurants, parks and other locations within the EMZ.

This distribution is plotted in Figure 5‐2.

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home:  Activity 3    4
These data are provided directly by households that responded to the demographic survey.  This distribution is plotted in Figure 5‐2 and listed in Table 5‐4.

Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home:   Activity 2, 4   5 These data are provided directly by households that responded to the demographic survey.  This distribution is plotted in Figure 5‐2 and listed in Table 5‐5.

5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution
The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions.  As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur.  For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the work‐to‐home trip (Activity 3  4) must precede Activity 4  5.

City of Laguna Beach 5‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to “sum” the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution.  As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign “letter” designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 5‐6 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5‐7 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers
As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer “Decline to State” to some questions or choose to not respond to a question.  The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results.  An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say “four hours” and 4 say “six or more hours”.

These “outliers” must be considered:  are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?
In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:
1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;
2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);
3)  Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.

The issue is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered “outliers” for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non‐ parametric methods to avoid that assumption.   The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used:
1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;
City of Laguna Beach 5‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
2) The individual mobilization activities (receive notification, prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5‐1, Table 5‐6, Table 5‐7); 3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g. special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;
4) To eliminate outliers,
a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses,
b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted,
c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and
d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 3.8 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps “a” to “d” are repeated. 5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution.  A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 5‐3.
6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times:
 Most of the real data is to the left of the “normal” curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80‐85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;
 The last 10‐15% of the real data “tails off” slower than the comparable “normal” curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a “normal” curve fit to the data.  One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;
7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1‐6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning in each).  In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5‐4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, and D.  These distributions are presented on the same time scale.  (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential – preparation for departure follows the return of the City of Laguna Beach 5‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
commuter. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent – for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)
The mobilization distributions that result is used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, and D, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5‐8 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long.  This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period.  Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.

City of Laguna Beach 5‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 5‐1.  Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities
Event Sequence Activity Distribution
1 → 2 Receive Notification 1
2 → 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2
2,3 → 4 Travel Home 3
2,4 → 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4
Table 5‐2.  Time Distribution for Notifying the Public
Elapsed Time
(Minutes)
Percent of
Population Notified
0 0%
5 70%
10 90%
15 96%
20 98%
25 98%
30 100%
City of Laguna Beach 5‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 5‐3.  Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work/College NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question.   The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the “Don’t know” responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Table 5‐4.  Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Elapsed Time
(Minutes)
Cumulative
Percent
Returning Home
Elapsed Time
(Minutes)
Cumulative
Percent
Returning Home
0 0% 50 89%
5 9% 60 94%
10 20% 70 95%
15 30% 80 97%
20 40% 90 99%
25 49% 100 99%
30 69% 105 100%
40 82%
NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response

Elapsed Time
(Minutes)
Cumulative
Percent
Employees
Leaving Work
0 0%
5 46%
10 68%
15 79%
20 87%
25 89%
30 94%
35 96%
40 98%
45 100%
City of Laguna Beach 5‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 5‐5.  Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Elapsed Time
(Minutes)
Cumulative
Percent Ready to
Evacuate
0 0%
15 22%
30 52%
45 66%
60 82%
75 91%
90 94%
105 96%
120 97%
135 99%
150 100%
NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Table 5‐6.  Mapping Distributions to Events
Apply  “Summing” Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3
Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4
Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5
Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5
City of Laguna Beach 5‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 5‐7.  Description of the Distributions
Distribution Description
A
Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies to employees (year‐round and seasonal) who work within the EMZ who live outside, and to tourists within the EMZ.

B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).

C Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

D Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Table 5‐8.  Trip Generation Histograms for the EMZ Population Time
Period
Duration
(Min)
Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Employees
(Year‐round and
Seasonal)
(Distribution A)
Tourists
(Distribution B)
Residents with
Commuters
(Distribution C)
Residents
Without
Commuters
(Distribution D)
1 15 57% 57% 0% 12%
2 15 29% 29% 2% 25%
3 15 11% 11% 8% 21%
4 15 3% 3% 15% 16%
5 15 0% 0% 18% 12%
6 15 0% 0% 17% 6%
7 15 0% 0% 14% 3%
8 15 0% 0% 9% 1%
9 15 0% 0% 6% 3%
10 15 0% 0% 4% 1%
11 15 0% 0% 3% 0%
12 15 0% 0% 2% 0%
13 15 0% 0% 1% 0%
14 15 0% 0% 1% 0%
15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%
NOTE:
 Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1‐2) using Distributions C.

City of Laguna Beach 5‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 5‐1.  Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip households who do not
Tourists evacuate directly
Households wait
for Commuters1 Residents
1 2 3 4 5
EVENTS

1. Notification

2. Aware of situation

3. Depart work

4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip
(a) Ignitionoccurs during midweek, at midday; year round Households without
Commuters and
wait for Commuters
Residents
1 2 5
Residents,
Tourists at
Residence
1 2 5
(b) Ignition occurs during weekend or during the evening2 (c) Employees who live outside of the EMZ
Residents,
Tourists
away from
Residence
1 2 4 5
1 2 3, 5
Return to residence,
then evacuate
Residents at home;
1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work. 2 Applies throughout the year for tourists. #

ACTIVITIES
1 2 Receive Notification
2 3 Prepare to Leave Work
2, 3 4 Travel Home
2, 4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate

Activities Consume Time
City of Laguna Beach 5‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 5‐2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities
0%
20%40%60%80%
100%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity
Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)
Mobilization Activities
NotificationPrepare to Leave WorkTravel HomePrepare Home City of Laguna Beach 5‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 5‐3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

0.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%

2.5 7.5

12.5 17.5

22.5 27.5

32.5 37.5

42.5 47.5

52.5 57.5

67.5 82.5

97.5 112.5
Cumulative Percentage (%)
Center of Interval (minutes)
Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal
City of Laguna Beach 5‐15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 5‐4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions 0 20406080
100
0 60 120 180 240
Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip
Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
Trip Generation Distributions
Employees/Tourists Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters City of Laguna Beach 6‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
6 EVACUATION CASES
This section discusses the spatial and temporal variations in evacuation situations. The regions outlined in the study were created based on various geometric areas that would be evacuated in response to a wildfire emergency. The scenarios outlined in the study were created based on the various temporal changes that affect the number of vehicles evacuating during a wildfire emergency. This section provides an overview of all the possible evacuation cases that were studied. An evacuation “case” defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario. For this specific study, the definitions of “Region” and “Scenario” are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating EMZ that must be evacuated in response to a wildfire emergency.

Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather/roadway conditions.   Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.

A total of 28 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of EMZ considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 6‐1 by showing which EMZ evacuates for each Region.  EMZs marked with a red “X” evacuate for that given Region.  The EMZ boundaries are identified in Figure 6‐1. The EMZ boundaries are based on the City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan for April 2018.

Regions R01 through R22 represent evacuations of each individual EMZ by itself. Regions R23 through R27 are evacuations of combinations of EMZ based on the origin of a potential wildfire and prevailing winds, as well as the existing egress routes to be utilized. The entirety of the EMZ is broken down into three region groups:  North, Central, and South. These groupings of EMZ are shown in Figure 6‐2. Regions R23, R24, and R25 represent the North, Central, and South groups, respectively.   Region R26 involves the evacuation of the North and Central group; Region R27 involves the evacuation of the South and Central group. Lastly, Region R28 is the evacuation of all EMZ evacuating at once.

A total of 7 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 196 (28 x 7 = 196) evacuation cases.  Table 6‐2 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated.  The population group and the vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and in Appendix E are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using Scenario and Region‐specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 6‐3, while the Region percentages are provided in Table G‐1.

Table 6‐4 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R28 – all the EMZ.  Based on the scenario percentages in Table 6‐3. The percentages presented in Table 6‐3 City of Laguna Beach 6‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 56% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 18% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating) – 10.08 percent (rounded to 10% in Table 6‐3). See assumption 19 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

Employment is assumed to be at its peak during the fall, midweek, midday scenarios.

Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. This is based on the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EMZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. It is further estimated that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.

Tourist activity (including seasonal employment) is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during summer/spring, weekend, midday and less (45%) during the fall weekend, middays. Peak season for the majority of seasonal employment, parks and recreation centers in the area range from the months of April to October. This range includes all of the summer and roughly half of the fall season. Thus, tourist activity is estimated to be higher for summer compared to fall.  As shown in Appendix E, approximately 46% of the tourist population inside the EMZ are from parks and recreation centers which are open during the day and closed at night; and seasonal employment can be higher at night during the summer.   Thus, tourist activity on midweek/weekends evenings is estimated to be 50% and 80% for fall and summer/spring, respectively. Tourist activity is estimated to be 75% for summer and 40% for fall during midday midweek hours based on the days of the week that these facilities are operational.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 6‐3, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 14% (see assumption 6 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario‐ specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 6‐4 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:
14% ൈ ൬1 ൅
2,651
1,740 ൅ 15,831൰ ൌ 16%
As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the fall season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. Since on campus students live at the school, 100% of these students are assumed to be present in the fall and spring.  It is estimated that summer school/college enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances and no City of Laguna Beach 6‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
off campus students are present during those scenarios.

Transit vehicles for the transit‐dependent population and medical patients are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transit‐dependent population and medical patients are present in the EMZ for all scenarios.

External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.

City of Laguna Beach 6‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 6‐1. Description of Evacuation Regions
Region Emergency Management Zone (EMZ) Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9a 9b 9c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 R01 Arch Beach Heights XR02 Balboa/Nyes XR03 Big Bend XR04 Bluebird Canyon XR05 Boat Canyon XR06 Canyon Acres XR07 Ceanothus XR08 Club Laguna XR09 North Coast XR10 Central Coast XR11 South Coast XR12 Downtown XR13 El Toro XR14 Emerald Bay XR15 Irvine Cove XR16 Mar Vista XR17 Old Top of the World XR18 Park Avenue XR19 Sunset XR20 Temple Hills XR21 Top of the World XR22 Wesley XR23 North Laguna X X X X XR24 Central Laguna X X X X X X X X X X XR25 South Laguna X X X X X X X City of Laguna Beach 6‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Region Emergency Management Zone (EMZ) Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9a 9b 9c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 R26
North and
Central
Laguna

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
R27
South and
Central
Laguna

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
R28 All EMZs X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Zone(s) Shelter‐in‐Place Zone(s) Evacuate
City of Laguna Beach 6‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 6‐2.  Evacuation Scenario Definitions
Scenario   Season Day of Week Time of Day Conditions
1 Summer Midweek Midday Normal
2 Summer/Spring Weekend Midday Normal
3 Summer/Spring Midweek, Weekend Evening Normal
4 Fall Midweek Midday Normal
5 Fall Midweek Midday Reduced Roadway
Capacity
6 Fall Weekend Midday Normal
7 Fall Midweek, Weekend Evening Normal
City of Laguna Beach 6‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 6‐3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Scenario
Households
With
Returning
Commuters
Households
Without
Returning
Commuters Employees Tourists Shadow
Medical
Vehicles
On
Campus
Vehicles
Off
Campus
Vehicles
School/College
Buses
Transit
Buses
External
Through
Traffic
1 10% 90% 96% 75% 16% 100% 100% 10% 10% 100% 100%2 1% 99% 10% 100% 14% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%3 1% 99% 10% 80% 14% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40%4 10% 90% 100% 40% 16% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%5 10% 90% 100% 40% 16% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%6 1% 99% 10% 45% 14% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%7 1% 99% 10% 50% 14% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40% Resident Households with Commuters.......Households of EMZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.

Resident Households with No Commuters..Households of EMZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.

Employees.................................................Year‐round EMZ employees who live outside the EMZ.

Tourists .....................................................People who are in the EMZ at the time of an event for recreational or other purposes, including seasonal employment.

Shadow .....................................................Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EMZ and not along the ridge line) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 14% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. One hundred percent of shadow evacuees along the ridge line are assumed to voluntarily evacuate.

On Campus Vehicles................................... Students who reside on campus within the EMZ that will evacuate using a private vehicle.

Off Campus Vehicles.................................. Students who reside off campus within the EMZ that will evacuate using a private vehicle.

Medical, School and Transit Vehicles..........Vehicle‐equivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing medical facilities, schools and transit‐dependent people (1 bus/trolley is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic............................. Traffic on interstates and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 2 hours after the evacuation begins.

City of Laguna Beach 6‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 6‐4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario
Scenario
Households
With
Returning
Commuters
Households
Without
Returning
Commuters
Employees Tourists Shadow
Shadow
along
Ridge
Line
Medical
Vehicles
On
Campus
Vehicles
Off
Campus
Vehicles
+ Buses
School
Buses
Transit
Buses
External
Through
Traffic
Total
Scenario
Vehicles1
1 1,740 15,831 2,651 4,104 29,624 28,058 32 467 16 10 18 51,264 133,8162 174 17,401 276 5,472 28,167 28,058 32 467  ‐  ‐  18 51,264 131,3293 174 17,401 276 4,378 28,167 28,058 32 467  ‐  ‐  18 20,506 99,4774 1,740 15,831 2,761 2,189 29,692 28,058 32 467 161 104 18 51,264 132,3175 1,740 15,831 2,761 2,189 29,692 28,058 32 467 161 104 18 51,264 132,3176 174 17,401 276 2,462 28,167 28,058 32 467  ‐  ‐  18 51,264 128,3197 174 17,401 276 2,736 28,167 28,058 32 467  ‐  ‐  18 20,506 97,835 1 Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of all EMZs (Region R28) City of Laguna Beach 6‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 6‐1. EMZ Boundaries
City of Laguna Beach 6‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 6‐2. EMZ Groupings
City of Laguna Beach 7‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)
This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D.   These results cover 28 Evacuation Regions and the 7 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 7‐1 and Table 7‐2.  These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. Table 6‐1 and Table G‐1 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.

The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II System outputs which are generated at 5‐minute intervals.

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation
“Voluntary evacuees” are people within the EMZ for which an Advisory to Evacuate has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. “Shadow evacuation” is the voluntary outward movement of some people from the Shadow Region for whom no evacuation order has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.

Within the EMZ, 14 percent of permanent residentslocated outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 14 percent of those people in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area. For an evacuation of the full EMZ and groupings of EMZs, 100 percent of those people within the Shadow Region along the ridge line were assumed to voluntarily evacuate due to their proximity to possible wildfires.  Fourteen percent of those beyond the ridge line were assumed to evacuate in these cases.  See Figure G‐29.

Figure 7‐1 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends beyond the 22 EMZs to include areas west of Interstate 5, south of Interstate 405, and east of Jamboree Road.

The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EMZ (see Section 3.1).

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 332,331 people reside in the Shadow Region; 14 percent1 of them would evacuate.  See Table 6‐4 forthe number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region including external‐external traffic, traveling away from the wildfire, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region.  All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

1 One hundred percent along the ridge line for some cases.

City of Laguna Beach 7‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

7.2 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation
Figure 7‐2 through Figure 7‐7 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when all twenty‐two EMZs (Region R28) are advised to evacuate during a summer, midweek, midday period under normal conditions (Scenario 1).

Traffic congestion, asthe term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F.  LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2016, page 5‐5):

The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have reached a point that most users would consider unsatisfactory, as described by a specified service measure value (or combination of service measure values). However, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared.

Several measures are available for describing individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:
• Demand‐to‐capacity ratios describe the extent to which demand exceeds capacity during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%). • Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h).
• Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. They include measures such as the back of queue and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks.

Figure 7‐2 displays the congestion patterns in the study area at just 30 minutes after the advisory to evacuate.  Severe congestion has already developed on many of the local roadways and major evacuation routes within Laguna Beach.  Moderate congestion develops along I‐5 and I‐405 which service external‐external trips through the study area. Some of the larger communities along the ridge line in the Shadow Region – in Newport Beach, Aliso Viejo, and Laguna Niguel – are experiencing LOS F conditions since it was assumed that 100 percent of these people would evacuate as well.  At this time, approximately 41% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 13% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the area.

At one hour after the evacuation advisory, Laguna Beach experiences peak congestion with nearly all EMZs experiencing LOS F conditions, as shown in Figure 7‐3. SR‐133 exhibits LOS F conditions northbound from Downtown to El Toro Road where there is additional northbound capacity (provided by El Toro Rd) and access to SR‐73.  Since SR‐1 within the EMZs is completely congested, all roadwaysthat intersect SR‐1 also experience congestion asthey compete for green time atsignalize intersections and look for acceptable gaps atstop and yield signs.  In the Shadow Region to the north of the EMZs, parts of SR‐73, SR‐1 in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach experience LOS F conditions as evacuees from Laguna Beach meet with external traffic along City of Laguna Beach 7‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
these roadways and voluntary shadow evacuees.  The combination of these vehicles exceeds the capacity of these roadways causing congestion. To the east in the Shadow Region, congestion along I‐405 and I‐5 worsens for the same reason.  Congestion in the Shadow Region along the ridge line to the south has lessened a bit but has developed further south and east in Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano, as well as along Crown Valley Parkway.   Congestion along SR‐73 southbound has worsened.   At this time, approximately 73% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 27% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the area.

At two hours after the advisory to evacuate, as shown in Figure 7‐4, congestion has dissipated in Bluebird Canyon, Balboa/Nyes, Club Laguna, Top of the World and Old Top of the world but remains in the other EMZs.  SR‐1 and C‐133 remain severely congested as vehicles continue to mobilize and evacuate.  At this time, all external traffic is assumed to be diverted.  Congestion along I‐405 west of the interchange with I‐5, and along I‐5 north of the interchange with I‐405 has dissipated.  With the exception of SR‐1, all congestion in the Shadow Region north of Laguna Beach has dissipated. Slight congestion remains in Aliso Viejo along Oakgrove Dr and Westridge Dr.  Congestion along remains along Crown Valley Parkway, SR‐1 and I‐5 in the Shadow Region, as well as on Camino Del Avion and Del Obispo St in San Juan Capistrano. At this time, approximately 95% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 54% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated out of the EMZs.

Congestion within the EMZs has lessened significantly at three hours after the evacuation advisory, as shown in Figure 7‐5.  At this time, Park Avenue, Temple Hills, and Boat Canyon are clear of congestion.  Majority of the remaining congestion within the EMZs is on SR‐1 and C‐133.

Almost all of the congestion in the Shadow region has dissipated, with just a small stretch of I‐5 experiencing LOS F conditions in San Juan Capistrano. Slight congestion remains on Del Obispo St in San Juan Capistrano and at the interchange of SR‐55 and SR‐73 in Costa Mesa.  Congestion along SR‐1 remains in the Shadow Region to the north and south of Laguna Beach.  At this time, almost all vehicles (99.8%) have mobilized and begun their evacuation trip, and 75% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EMZs.

Over the next hour, at four hours after the advisory to evacuate, most of Laguna Beach clears of congestion, as seen in Figure 7‐6. Downtown, Arch Beach Heights, Canyon Acres, Big Bend, and Wesley have little to no congestion. With the exception of SR‐1, Irvine Cove, North Coast, Central Coast, South Coast, Ceanothus, Mar Vista, and Sunset are also clear of congestion. Congestion remains along SR‐133 in El Toro.  The only remnants of congestion in the Shadow Region are along SR‐1. At this time, approximately 94% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the area.

Figure 7‐7 shows the last bit of congestion in the EMZs along SR‐1 northbound and slight congestion along SR‐133 northbound at four hours and thirty minutes after the evacuation advisory.   All evacuees successfully evacuate the EMZs ten minutes later at four hours and forty minutes after the advisory to evacuate.  Congestion along SR‐1 northbound in the Shadow Region clears at 5 hours after the evacuation advisory.

City of Laguna Beach 7‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

7.3 Evacuation Rates
Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 7‐8 through Figure 7‐14. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of all EMZs (Region R28) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. The evacuation population mobilize over two hours and thirty minutes as discussed in Section 5. This disperses evacuees over a lengthy period of time, thus, as seen in  Figure 7‐8 through Figure 7‐ 14, the maximum travel time experienced is approximately 160 minutes.

As indicated in these figures, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to mobilization and not congestion.  Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EMZs.  Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all willservice traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time.  For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end – thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the study area.

7.4 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results
Table 7‐1 and Table 7‐2 present the ETE values for all 28 Evacuation Regions and all 7 Evacuation Scenarios.  Region R28 is an evacuation of all EMZs with 100% evacuation of the Shadow Region along both northern and southern ridge lines (on both sides of SR‐133) and 14% voluntary evacuation of the Shadow Region beyond the ridge line (see Figure G‐29).  Two additional Regions were considered for an evacuation of all EMZs.  Region R29 is an evacuation of all EMZs (similar Region R28 as shown in Table 6‐1) with 100% evacuation of the Shadow Region along both northern ridge line (north of SR‐133) and 14% voluntary evacuation of the Shadow Region everywhere else.  Region R30 is an evacuation of all EMZs (similar Region R28 as shown in Table 6‐1) with 100% evacuation of the Shadow Region along both southern ridge line (south of SR‐ 133) and 14% voluntary evacuation of the Shadow Region everywhere else.

City of Laguna Beach 7‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table Contents
7‐1
ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered.
7‐2
ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region.   All Scenarios are considered.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 7‐2 through Figure 7‐7.  Majority of the congestion is located on major evacuation routes, SR‐1, SR‐133, SR‐73, I‐405 and I‐5 that serve a majority of the evacuation population.

The 100th percentile ETE ranges between 3:30 (Hours:Minutes) and 5:20 (Hours:Minutes) for all regions and scenarios. Since the trip generation time is at most 3 hours and 30 minutes, an ETE of or close to 3:30 implies that traffic congestion clears within the EMZs prior to the completion of mobilization time. A factor that significantly effects mobilization times are how quickly the public can be notified of an evacuation. This study assumed notification time of thirty minutes (see Section 5). If the evacuating population can be notified more quickly, this will truncate mobilization times and could reduce the 100th percentile ETE. Similarly, if it takes longer to notify the evacuation population, the 100th percentile ETE will be longer and will likely be equal to the longer trip mobilization time. Appendix J discusses how sensitive the ETE are to changes in mobilization time.

For cases wherein the ETE exceeds 3:30, congestion dictates ETE.  That is the case for Regions R26 through R30.   For these regions, combinations of EMZs are evacuated with a shadow evacuation of 100% along the ridge line.  It is clear that when more vehiclesin the Shadow Region evacuate, they consume available capacity on the major evacuation routes leaving the EMZs.  As a result, there islimited capacity along these roadways available to evacuees.  Congestion results delaying evacuation and prolonging ETE.

Alternatively, the 90th percentile ETE ranges between 0:55 (Hours:Minutes) and 3:45 (Hours:Minutes) for all regions and scenarios.  When the EMZs evacuate alone, ETE range from 55 minutes to 2 hours.  Big Bend and Canyon Acres have the shortest 90th percentile ETE since the majority of the population within these EMZs are quickly mobilizing tourists, employees, and/or commuting college students.  Regions R28 through R30 have the longest 90th percentile ETE since they involve the evacuation of all the EMZs.

For most regions, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the reduced roadway closure scenario is the longest.    The ETE increases by as much as 15 minutes at the 90th percentile and 30 minutes at the 100th percentile for the reduced roadway capacity scenario.  Events that reduce roadway capacity, like thick smoke causing decreased sight distance, can significantly impact the evacuation of the City of Laguna Beach.

It is possible some people might elect to evacuate on foot or by bicycle or scooter.   For an evacuation wherein all routes are viable, the furthest distance a person would need to travel to City of Laguna Beach 7‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
reach the EMZ boundary is estimated to be about 5 miles, using GIS software.  The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends using a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second when designing pedestrian facilities.  It would take about 2 hours and 5 minutes to walk 5 miles at 3.5 feet per second.    Bikes and scooters are faster than walking, so the time to evacuate for these vehicles would be even shorter.

In addition, if some evacuees elected to evacuate on foot, or by bike or scooter, rather than in their cars, the number of vehicles evacuating would reduce.  A sensitivity study was conducted on a 40% reduction in evacuating vehicles (see Appendix J).  The results of the sensitivity study indicate that although ETE dropped, it would still take longer than 2 hours and 5 minutes for the vehicular traffic to clear the area.

As a result, the time to walk out of the EMZ is less than the time needed for vehicles to evacuate the area, even with a possible reduction in evacuating vehicles.  For thisreason, the vehicular ETE should be used when making emergency planning decisions.

7.5 Guidance on Using ETE Tables
The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (federal guidance for nuclear emergencies callsfor the 90th percentile).  The applicable value of ETE within the chosen table may then be identified using the following procedure:

1. Identify the applicable Scenario:
• Season
 Summer
 Fall
• Day of Week
 Midweek
 Weekend
• Time of Day
 Midday
 Evening
• Roadway Conditions
 Normal
 Reduced Roadway Capacity (i.e. thick smoke or adverse weather) While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:
• The seasons are defined as follows:
 Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.  Fall considers that public schools are in session.
• Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling to/from work.

2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region:
• Determine which EMZ or combination of EMZs need to evacuate from Table 6‐1:

City of Laguna Beach 7‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
 Individual EMZs (R01 through R22)
 Groupings/Combinations of EMZs (Region R23 through R27)  All EMZs with 100% Shadow Region evacuation along the ridge line (Region R28)  All EMZs with 100% Shadow Region evacuation along the ridge line to the north (Region R29)
 All EMZs with 100% Shadow Region evacuation along the ridge line to the south (Region R30)

3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected.  Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:
• The columns of Table 7‐1 are labeled with the Scenario numbers.  Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1. • Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2. • The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours:Minutes.

Example
It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:
• Wednesday, October 14th at 12:00 PM.
• It is sunny.
• The wildfire threatens all the EMZs and is located north of SR‐133. • The desired ETE isthat value needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population from within the impacted Region.

Table 7‐1 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired.  Proceed as follows:

1. Identify the Scenario asfall, midweek, midday and normal conditions.  Entering Table 7‐1, it is seen that this combination of circumstances describes Scenario 4.

2. In Table 6‐1, locate the Region that has all EMZs evacuating together and 100% of the Shadow Region along the ridge line to the north of SR‐133, Region R29.

3. In Table 7‐1, locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R29. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R29; it contains the ETE value of 3:15.

City of Laguna Beach 7‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 7‐1.  Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

Summer Summer Fall Fall
Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend
Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Region
Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening
Normal Normal Normal Normal
Reduced
Roadway
Capacity
Normal Normal
R01 ‐ Arch Beach Heights 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 R02 ‐ Balboa/Nyes 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:30 1:30
R03 ‐ Big Bend 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:15 1:10 1:10
R04 ‐ Bluebird Canyon 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 R05 ‐ Boat Canyon 1:50 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:20 1:10
R06 ‐ Canyon Acres 1:00 0:55 1:00 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05
R07 ‐ Ceanothus 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R08 ‐ Club Laguna 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45
R09 ‐ North Coast 1:50 1:45 1:35 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:40
R10 ‐ Central Coast 1:45 1:40 1:30 1:45 1:55 1:45 1:35
R11 ‐ South Coast 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:35
R12 ‐ Downtown 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:40
R13 ‐ El Toro 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:50 2:00 1:50 1:55
R14 ‐ Emerald Bay 1:50 1:45 1:25 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:25
R15 ‐ Irvine Cove 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:30
R16 ‐ Mar Vista 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R17 ‐ Old Top of the World 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 R18 ‐ Park Avenue 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R19 ‐ Sunset 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R20 ‐ Temple Hills 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30
R21 ‐ Top of the World 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 R22 ‐ Wesley 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25
R23 ‐ North Laguna 2:00 2:00 1:40 1:55 2:00 1:50 1:40
R24 ‐ Central Laguna 2:15 2:10 1:45 2:15 2:25 2:10 1:40 R25 ‐ South Laguna 2:15 2:10 1:40 1:55 2:10 2:05 1:35
R26 ‐ North and Central Laguna 2:50 2:35 2:05 2:35 2:50 2:20 2:00 R27 ‐ South and Central Laguna 3:15 3:00 2:35 3:05 3:30 2:50 2:25 R28 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line 3:45 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:45 3:15 2:40
R29 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the North Only 3:30 3:20 3:00 3:15 3:40 2:55 2:40 R30 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the South Only 3:35 3:30 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:00 2:35 City of Laguna Beach 7‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 7‐2.  Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

Summer Summer Fall Fall
Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend
Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Region
Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening
Normal Normal Normal Normal
Reduced
Roadway
Capacity
Normal Normal
R01 ‐ Arch Beach Heights 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R02 ‐ Balboa/Nyes 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R03 ‐ Big Bend 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R04 ‐ Bluebird Canyon 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R05 ‐ Boat Canyon 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R06 ‐ Canyon Acres 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R07 ‐ Ceanothus 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R08 ‐ Club Laguna 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R09 ‐ North Coast 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R10 ‐ Central Coast 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R11 ‐ South Coast 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R12 ‐ Downtown 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R13 ‐ El Toro 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R14 ‐ Emerald Bay 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R15 ‐ Irvine Cove 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R16 ‐ Mar Vista 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R17 ‐ Old Top of the World 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R18 ‐ Park Avenue 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R19 ‐ Sunset 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R20 ‐ Temple Hills 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R21 ‐ Top of the World 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 R22 ‐ Wesley 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30
R23 ‐ North Laguna 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35
R24 ‐ Central Laguna 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R25 ‐ South Laguna 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35
R26 ‐ North and Central Laguna 3:50 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R27 ‐ South and Central Laguna 4:30 4:15 3:35 4:20 5:00 4:10 3:35 R28 – All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line 4:50 4:50 3:40 4:45 5:20 4:10 3:35
R29 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the North Only 4:20 4:35 3:40 4:40 5:05 3:45 3:35 R30 ‐ All EMZs + 100% of Shadow Region
along Ridge Line to the South Only 4:50 4:20 3:35 4:40 5:10 4:10 3:35 City of Laguna Beach 7‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐1. Study Area Shadow Region
City of Laguna Beach 7‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐2.  Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate City of Laguna Beach 7‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐3.  Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate City of Laguna Beach 7‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐4.  Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate City of Laguna Beach 7‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐5.  Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate City of Laguna Beach 7‐15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐6.  Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate City of Laguna Beach 7‐16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐7.  Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate City of Laguna Beach 7‐17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐8.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 1 for Region R28 Figure 7‐9.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 2 for Region R28 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Normal Conditions
(Scenario 1)
Trip Generation ETE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Summer, Weekend, Midday, Normal Conditions
(Scenario 2)
Trip Generation ETE
City of Laguna Beach 7‐18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐10.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 3 for Region R28 Figure 7‐11.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 4 for Region R28 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Normal Conditions
(Scenario 3)
Trip Generation ETE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Fall, Midweek, Midday, Normal Conditions
(Scenario 4)
Trip Generation ETE
City of Laguna Beach 7‐19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐12.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 5 for Region R28 Figure 7‐13.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 6 for Region R28 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Fall, Midweek, Midday, Reduced Roadway Capacity
(Scenario 5)
Trip Generation ETE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Fall, Weekend, Midday, Normal Conditions
(Scenario 6)
Trip Generation ETE
City of Laguna Beach 7‐20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 7‐14.  Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Scenario 7 for Region R28 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Percent of Total Vehicles
Elapsed Time (h:mm)
ETE and Trip Generation
Fall, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Normal Conditions
(Scenario 7)
Trip Generation ETE
City of Laguna Beach 8‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
8 ACCESS IMPAIRED NEIGHBORHOODS
This section details the analyses of access impaired neighborhoods within the City of Laguna Beach.   Access impaired neighborhoods are areas within the city that could have difficulty evacuating during a wildfire emergency due to limited or narrow evacuation routes, traffic bottlenecks, extremely low traffic flow, etc. These neighborhoods are at a higher risk during an evacuation and should be given special consideration when planning for emergencies that require evacuation.

8.1 Preliminary Analysis
A preliminary analysis was conducted to first locate areas with clusters of households and limited ingress/egress.  Using GIS software, Census blocks were overlaid with the EMZ boundaries to locate areas that have a cluster of households within the city limits.  Those Census blocks with 350 households per square mile or more were selected.  Next, these Census blocks were overlaid with aerial imagery and evacuation routes within the study area.  Those Census blocks that had more than one route in/out were removed from the analysis.  These areas were considered “Tier 1” and are shown in yellow in Figure 8‐1.

Because a very large portion of the study area was identified as access impaired under the Tier 1 criteria, a second level of analysis was then conducted to consider the potential for the ingress/egress route to be blocked by fire.  Roadways that were surrounded by fuel or wooded area, were considered to be at risk of being blocked by fire.  Areas that fit this criteria were selected as “Tier 2” access impaired neighborhoods.  Figure 8‐1 displays “Tier 2” access impaired neighborhoods in pink.

This preliminary analysis and list of neighborhoods was discussed with members of the City of Laguna Beach during a project status meeting. Meeting attendees were able to further refine the list of access impaired neighborhoods based on their local knowledge of the area.   Those communities that would not require any special precautions during a wildfire emergency were removed from the analysis.

8.2 Field Survey and Refined Analysis
Accompanied with personnel from the City of Laguna Beach Police Department (Laguna PD), KLD surveyed eleven neighborhoods identified as being access impaired in July 2020. Figure 8‐2 displays the neighborhoods that were driven during the field survey. The areas that are shown with hatching were deemed access impaired after the survey.   Below is a summary of the neighborhoods that were surveyed and noteworthy observations from the field survey.

1. Sunset & Panorama – roadway follows a winding path and is steep. There is fuel, but it’s all landscaping on personal property. The fuel is not very tall. Fire would not block this road. There is a locked gate that connects to the Emerald Bay neighborhood (this neighborhood burned in the 1993 fire).

City of Laguna Beach 8‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

2. Dartmoor & Dunnegan – Dartmoor St is steeply uphill. The road is wide with street parking. All of the fuel is landscaping that is not overly tall. This road would be passable in a fire. Dunnegan Dr is very narrow and uphill with street parking on the left side of the road. The right side of the road is a park. There is fuel in the park, but it is rather sparse and it is not overly tall. Thisroad would be passable in a fire. Also drove Windsor Pl, which is a narrow road. The right side of the road is the park and the fuel here is thicker, though still not very tall. It is a short road with only 6 houses. Residents should be able to get out in a fire.

3. Canyon Acres Dr – most of this neighborhood burned in the 1993 fire. There is a lot of fuel. The trees are very tall and are not landscaping. The road is extremely narrow. This road would not be passable in a fire.

4. Mystic & Skyline – skyline was recently redone. It is a very good road. It is very steep but not too narrow. Most of the fuel is landscaping and is not overly tall. Neither of these roads would be blocked in a fire.

5. Temple Hills Dr – wide lanes with a 4 foot shoulder for parking towards the top of this road (top of the hill). The road does narrow as you get closer to the water and it follows an increasingly winding path. This road would be passable during a fire

6. Bluebird Canyon – a LOT of fuel on this road. Goats are brought in to eat some of the brush on this road. The road is pretty good as it is wide with some street parking towards the top of the mountain. The road follows a winding path. There was a landslide along this road recently that destroyed several homes. The road becomes much narrower and follows a winding path as you travel downhill towards the coast. This road would not be passable in a fire.

7. Summit Dr – follows a winding path and similarto Lombard St in San Francisco. Very steep.

Most of the fuel is landscaping. It is not overly narrow. This road would be passable in a fire.

8. Balboa Ave – good road. Fairly wide. This road would be passable in a fire.

9. Alta Vista – very narrow (street parking exacerbates the problem) and follows a winding path. Several hairpin turns along the road. It is not a good road but there is not much fuel along the road. This road would be passable in a fire.

10. West St – very narrow with a lot of street parking. Moderate amount of fuel. The road is not nearly as steep as some of the other roads we drove. This road would be passable in a fire.

11. Diamond St and Crestview Dr – extremely narrow and follows a winding path. Several hairpin turns. Big houses. Lots of landscaping. Lots of fuel (tall trees that have been there for probably hundreds of years). Laguna PD indicated that the fire department will not service this road as they cannot get their equipment up the hill given the roadway width.

This road would not be passable in a fire.

City of Laguna Beach 8‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Overall, Laguna PD indicated traffic volumes and tourist attendance was very light during the survey due to the COVID pandemic. Two additional comments were made:

1. Top of the World Elementary School – located at the end of Temple Hills Drive is a safe haven during fire. There is not a lot of fuel around the school. There is a lot of concrete and pavement around the school. The school has a sprinkler system in the building.

2. Fire road that connects Temple Hills Drive to Balboa Ave is a single paved lane in each direction. It has a secure gate on either end. It is not recommended to use this road as traffic along Balboa Ave would back up and people would be sitting in a queue on the fire road which is completely surrounded by fuel and would likely be covered in flames during a fire.

At the conclusion of the survey, three neighborhoods were deemed to be access impaired:

Canyon Acres Drive, Bluebird Canyon, and Diamond Street & Crestview Drive, as shown in Figure 8‐3.  These neighborhoods share several characteristics in common:  they are surrounded by wooded areas (fuel consisting of tall trees that can burn easily), ingress/egress routes are very narrow at sections (often only the width of a single car), and ingress/egress routes follow a winding path with hairpin turns in some sections. These neighborhoods would require early notification during a wildfire emergency as they would be unable to be evacuated if a fire were present.

8.3 ETE Results, Safe Refuge Areas, and Evacuation Signage

8.3.1 Canyon Acres Drive
Canyon Acres Drive clears at 2 hours and 45 minutes after the evacuation advisory during an evacuation of the entire city during a summer, midweek, midday, normal conditions scenario.

According to the census data, there are 275 people who live in this neighborhood, and they would evacuate in 190 vehicles.

No safe refuge areas could be identified for this neighborhood.  The furthest house is half a mile from SR‐133.  Assuming a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second (Section 2.3 Assumption 20), this would take approximately 13 minutes at most to walk to SR‐133.  In a dire situation, everyone could walk or run out of this neighborhood and flag down evacuees along SR‐133 to rideshare out of the area.

Evacuation Route signage should be considered along SR‐133 in the vicinity of this neighborhood to point evacuees in the right direction in an emergency.

8.3.2 Bluebird Canyon
Bluebird Canyon clears at 2 hours and 45 minutes after the evacuation advisory during an evacuation of the entire city during a summer, midweek, midday, normal conditions scenario.

According to the census data, there are about 1,015 people who live in this neighborhood who would evacuate in approximately 700 vehicles.

City of Laguna Beach 8‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
The tennis court along Bluebird Canyon Drive can be considered as a safe refuge area.   The location of the tennis court is shown in Figure 8‐3.  It is an open space with little flammable materials within the fenced in area.  The pedestrian gate is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Consideration should be given regarding placement of evacuation signage, in accordance with the MUTCD (see Section 11.3), along Bluebird Canyon Drive north of Cress St to guide evacuees out of this neighborhood.

8.3.3 Diamond Street and Crestview Drive
Diamond Street and Crestview Drive clears at 2 hours and 15 minutes after the evacuation advisory during an evacuation of the entire city during a summer, midweek, midday, normal conditions scenario According to the census data, there are about 140 people who live in this neighborhood who would evacuate in approximately 95 vehicles.

No safe refuge areas could be identified for this neighborhood.  Diamond St has an unpaved connection to the north near 789 Diamond St and 829 Diamond St.  This section of roadway is on private property and an agreement would be needed to open the gates during an emergency.

For this reason, it cannot be incorporated into the City’s emergency plans, but in reality, may likely be used by evacuees in dire situations.

Consideration should be given regarding placement of evacuation signage, in accordance with the MUTCD (see Section 11.3), along Diamond St to guide evacuees out of this neighborhood.

City of Laguna Beach 8‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 8‐1. Access Impaired Neighborhoods – Preliminary Analysis City of Laguna Beach 8‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 8‐2. Access Impaired Neighborhoods – Refined Analysis City of Laguna Beach 8‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 8‐3. Access Impaired Neighborhoods – Final Analysis City of Laguna Beach 9‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
9 TRANSIT‐DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimatesfor transit vehicles. The demand for transitservice reflectsthe needs of two population groups:
• residents with no vehicles available; and
• residents of special facilities such as schools and medical facilities.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of “passenger cars” (pc’s). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pc’s.

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.

Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.

Specifically:
• Bus/trolley drivers must be alerted
• They must travel to the depot
• They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility.

These activities consume time. Based on discussions with local stake holders, it is estimated that bus/trolley mobilization time will average approximately 60 minutes, 25 minutes, and 150 minutes extending from the advisory to evacuate to the time when buses first arrive schools, medical facilities, and transit dependent routes, respectively.  See assumption 7 in Section 2.3.

The City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan indicates a majority of the drivers for Laguna Beach Transit are part‐time employees and may need to be called from home.  It is assumed that these drivers could be contacted, travel to the depot, and briefed within the 150 minute mobilization time for transit dependent routes.

The location of bus/trolley depots impacts the time to travel from the depots to the facilities being evacuated. The City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan indicates buses and paratransit vehicles can be requested from Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA).  OCTA vehicles will likely be coming from the Sand Canyon yard in Irvine (approximately 10 miles from downtown Laguna Beach).  It is assumed the time to travel from these facilities is included in the mobilization time estimates provided by local stakeholders.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of transit vehicles, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this “bonding” process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating wildfire. However, local stakeholders have indicated that children will likely be picked up by parents or guardians at pre‐schools and day cares prior to an evacuation. As such, it is assumed that children at pre‐schools and day cares are City of Laguna Beach 9‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
picked up by parents or guardians prior to evacuation and that the time to perform this activity is included in the trip generation times discussed in Section 5. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children (in elementary, middle, and high schools) will be picked up by their parents, to present an upper bound estimate of buses required.

The procedure for computing transit dependent ETE is to:
• Estimate demand for transit service
• Estimate time to perform all transit functions
• Estimate route travel times out of the area at risk.

9.1 ETEs for Transit Dependent People
As discussed in Section 11, there are nine routes designed to service the transit dependent people residing in the EMZs. During an emergency, buses/trolleys that service these EMZs could be routed according to the routes designed by KLD. The buses or trolleys will start at a designated EMZ and then will be distributed to the congregation points identified in Section 11. If there is a shortfall of transportation resources, buses or trolleys should return to the EMZs after getting their initial passengers to safety. A “second wave” ETE was not considered for this study as no information was received as to where the transit dependent population will be taken in case of an emergency.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transit‐dependent population should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive along the bus transit route.

Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both normal and adverse weather/roadway conditions. Figure 9‐1 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 9‐1.

Activity:  Mobilize Drivers (A→B→C)
Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses/trolleys arrive at the facility to be evacuated. It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers would likely require 60, 25 and 150 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transit‐dependent facilities/route for schools, medical facilities, and transit dependent individuals, respectively.

Activity:  Board Passengers (C→D)
A loading time of 15 minutes (25 minutes for adverse weather conditions) for school buses is used.   Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 30 minutes per patient are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively.

For multiple stops along a pick‐up route (transit‐dependent routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pick‐up point. The time, t, required for a bus or trolley to decelerate at a rate, “a”, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, “v”, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed City of Laguna Beach 9‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

𝑇ൌ𝑡൅𝐵൅𝑡ൌ𝐵൅ 2𝑡ൌ𝐵൅ ଶ௩
௔ ,
Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, “s” in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activitiesis:s = v2/a. If the bus or trolley had notstopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

𝑃ൌ𝑇െ ௩
௔ ൌ𝐵൅ ௩௔
Assigning reasonable estimates:
• B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop
• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec
• a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate
Then, P ≈ 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pick‐up time per bus/trolley run implies 30 stops per run, for normal conditions. It is assumed that bus and trolley acceleration and speed are less in an adverse weather/reduced capacity scenario; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in adverse weather/reduced capacity conditions.

Activity:  Travel to EMZ Boundaries (D→E)
Transportation resources available was provided by the city emergency management personnel.

Table 9‐1 summarizes the information received.  Also included in the table are the number of transit vehicles needed to evacuate schools, medical facilities, and transit‐dependent population.

Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) was not included in the table based on discussions with emergency management personnel.  These numbers indicate there are not sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone (or even just schools) in a single wave.  There are two ways to handle this shortfall of transportation resources: (1) the same vehicles are used multiple times; passengers are picked up and dropped off outside of the area at risk. The vehicle then returns to the City to pick up additional passengers. (2) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) or Mutual Aid Agreements are established with neighboring cities or with the State to provide additional transportation resources to assist with evacuation.

School Evacuation
The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 75 minutes after the advisory to evacuate – 60 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time – in normal conditions. The UNITES software, discussed in Section 1.3, was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the evacuation boundary. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EMZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5‐minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 11‐2 (refer to the maps of the link‐ node analysis network in Appendix H for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the City of Laguna Beach 9‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 75 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for normal conditions) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 ൬
𝑚𝑖.
ℎ𝑟 ൰
ൌ
⎣
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎡
∑ 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖 ሺ𝑚𝑖ሻ ௡
௜ୀଵ
∑ ቐ𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦 𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖 ሺ𝑚𝑖𝑛. ሻ ൅ 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖 ሺ𝑚𝑖. ሻ
𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖 ቀ
𝑚𝑖.
ℎ𝑟.
ቁ
ൈ
60 𝑚𝑖𝑛.
1 ℎ𝑟. ቑ ௡
௜ୀଵ ⎦
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎤
ൈ
60 𝑚𝑖𝑛.
1 ℎ𝑟.

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the busesservicing each of the schools in the EMZs are shown in Table 9‐2 and Table 9‐3 forschool evacuations under normal conditions and reduced roadway capacity conditions, respectively, and in Table 9‐4 and Table 9‐5 for the transit vehicles evacuating transit‐dependent persons under normal conditions and reduced roadway capacity conditions, respectively, which are discussed later. The travel time to the boundary of the EMZ was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the boundary along the most likely route out. The maximum bus speed limit within the study area was assumed to be 55 mph.

Table 9‐2 (normal conditions) and Table 9‐3 (reduced roadway capacity) present the evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EMZs. The evacuation time out of the EMZs can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities A→B→C, C→D, and D→E (For example: 60 min. + 15 + 62 = 2:17 (2:20 round up to the nearest 5 minutes) for Laguna Beach High School under normal conditions).

Evacuation of Transit‐Dependent Population
The buses(or trolleys) dispatched from the depotsto service the transit‐dependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 5‐8 (Residents with no Commuters), nearly all evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses or trolleys will begin their routes at 150 minutes after the evacuation advisory. Mobilization time is 10 minutes longer in adverse weather/roadway conditions to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.

Those buses or trolleys servicing the transit‐dependent evacuees will first travel through the EMZs, then proceed out of the area at risk.   It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate along the roadways these routes traverse or at the congregation points described in Section 11.2, and that they can arrive at the stops within 150 minutes after the evacuation advisory (160 minutes in adverse weather/reduced capacity conditions).

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (normal conditions) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. A 40‐minute pickup time is estimated for the adverse weather/reduced roadway City of Laguna Beach 9‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
capacity scenario.

The travel distance along the respective pick‐up routes within the EMZs is estimated using the UNITES software. Transit vehicle travel times within the EMZs are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

Table 9‐4 and Table 9‐5 present the transit‐dependent population evacuation time estimates for each route calculated using the above procedures for normal conditions and reduced roadway capacity, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the transit vehicle on the route servicing Arch Beach Heights and Balboa Nyes is computed as 150 + 26 + 30 = 3:30 for normal conditions (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 26 minutes is the time to travel 5.5 miles at 12.9 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route at 150 minutes.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities
The transit vehicle operations for this group are similar to those for school evacuation except:
• Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients.
• Basic Life Support (BLS) (ambulances) can hold 2 patient per ambulance. • Wheelchair transport vehicles can accommodate 15 patients per wheelchair bus Table 3‐7 indicates that 8 bus runs, 4 wheelchair bus runs, and 8 ambulance runs are needed to service the fourteen medical facilities within the EMZs.

It is estimated that mobilization time averages 25 minutes. Specially trained medicalsupportstaff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients.

Table 9‐6 and Table 9‐7 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EMZs for normal and adverse conditions, respectively. The distance from each medical facility to the boundary of the EMZs was measured using GIS software and is provided in Table 9‐6 and Table 9‐7 (Dist. to EMZ Bdry). Average speeds output by the DYNEV model for Scenario 4 (Scenario 5 for adverse weather/reduced roadway capacity) Region R28, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for adverse weather/roadway conditions), are used to compute travel time out of the area at risk. The travel time out of the area at risk (Travel Time to Safety) is computed by dividing the travel distance by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time to safety. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances at capacity is assumed. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach’s ambulatory patients during normal conditions is:

ETE:  25 + 30 (1‐minute loading time per patient on multiple buses) + 10 = 65 min. or 1:05 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

City of Laguna Beach 9‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐1. Summary of Transportation Needs and Resources Transportation
Resource Buses Trolleys
Wheelchair
Buses Ambulances
Resources Available
Laguna Beach Transit 6 25‐171 0 0LBUSD 11 0 0 0Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach 1 0 1 2Vista Aliso 0 0 1 1Anneliese's Schools ‐ Willowbrook 1 0 0 0 TOTAL: 19 25‐17 2 3
Resources Needed
Medical Facilities (Table 3‐7): 8 0 4 8
Schools (Table 3‐10): 55 0 0 0
Transit‐Dependent Population (Table 11‐1): 9 0 0
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 72 4 8
Note: According to page 17 of the City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan, Buses and paratransit vehicles can be requested via OCTA Central Communications at (714) 530‐6060. Details on any special needs and how many individuals need transportation must be provided. Vehicles will most likely be coming from the Sand Canyon yard in Irvine. 1 In July and August, 25 trolleys are available. Seventeen trolleys are available September through June.

City of Laguna Beach 9‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐2. School Evacuation Time Estimates – Normal Conditions School
Driver
Mobilization
Time (min)
Loading
Time
(min)
Dist. To
Safety
(mi)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Travel
Time to
Safety
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
Laguna Beach, CA
Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Big Bend Campus 60 15 2.8 15.0 12 1:30 Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Main Campus 60 15 3.2 15.4 13 1:30 Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ South Campus 60 15 4.0 11.9 21 1:40 Laguna Beach High School 60 15 5.3 5.2 62 2:20
El Morro Elementary School 60 15 0.3 36.8 1 1:20
Top of the World Elementary School 60 15 6.9 6.0 70 2:25 Thurston Middle School 60 15 6.1 5.0 73 2:30
Heidi's Pre‐School 60 15 1.2 8.9 9 1:25
Maximum ETE: 2:30
Average ETE: 1:50
City of Laguna Beach 9‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐3. School Evacuation Time Estimates – Reduced Roadway Capacity School
Driver
Mobilization
Time (min)
Loading
Time
(min)
Dist. To
Safety
(mi)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Travel
Time to
Safety
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
Laguna Beach, CA
Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Big Bend
Campus
70 25 2.8 13.2 13 1:50
Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Main Campus 70 25 3.2 12.6 16 1:55 Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ South Campus 70 25 4.0 11.4 21 2:00 Laguna Beach High School 70 25 5.3 4.9 65 2:40
El Morro Elementary School 70 25 0.3 37.0 1 1:40
Top of the World Elementary School 70 25 6.9 6.2 68 2:45 Thurston Middle School 70 25 6.1 5.0 73 2:50
Heidi's Pre‐School 70 25 1.2 7.9 10 1:45
Maximum ETE: 2:50
Average ETE: 2:10
City of Laguna Beach 9‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐4. Transit‐Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Normal Conditions Route
Number Route
Number
of
Buses/Trolleys
Mobilization
(min)
Route
Length
(miles)
Speed
(mph)
Route
Travel
Time
(min)
Pickup
Time
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
1 Servicing Irvine Cove, Emerald Bay & Boat Canyon 1 150 3.6 15.5 12 30 3:152 Servicing El Toro, Canyon Acres & Big Bend 1 150 3.8 13.5 17 30 3:203 Servicing Club Laguna 1 150 0.8 27.8 2 30 3:054 Servicing Downtown & North Coast 1 150 3.4 16.4 13 30 3:155 Servicing Mar Vista & Ceanothus 1 150 1.9 5.8 20 30 3:206 Servicing Arch Beach Heights & Balboa Nyes 1 150 5.5 12.9 26 30 3:307 Servicing Bluebird Canyon & South Coast 1 150 5.4 13.0 26 30 3:308 Servicing Central Coast & Temple Hills 1 150 6.2 12.5 30 30 3:309 Servicing Wesley, Top of the World, Old Top of the World, Sunset & Park Avenue 1 150 7.2 13.0 34 30 3:35 Maximum ETE: 3:35
Average ETE: 3:25
City of Laguna Beach 9‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐5. Transit‐Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates – Reduced Roadway Capacity Route
Number Route
Number
of
Buses/Trolleys
Mobilization
(min)
Route
Length
(miles)
Speed
(mph)
Route
Travel
Time
(min)
Pickup
Time
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
1 Servicing Irvine Cove, Emerald Bay & Boat Canyon 1 160 3.6 11.0 17 40 3:402 Servicing El Toro, Canyon Acres & Big Bend 1 160 3.8 11.4 21 40 3:453 Servicing Club Laguna 1 160 0.8 10.6 5 40 3:254 Servicing Downtown & North Coast 1 160 3.4 11.9 17 40 3:405 Servicing Mar Vista & Ceanothus 1 160 1.9 10.9 11 40 3:356 Servicing Arch Beach Heights & Balboa Nyes 1 160 5.5 11.1 30 40 3:507 Servicing Bluebird Canyon & South Coast 1 160 5.4 10.8 31 40 3:558 Servicing Central Coast & Temple Hills 1 160 6.2 11.1 34 40 3:559 Servicing Wesley, Top of the World, Old Top of the World, Sunset & Park Avenue 1 160 7.2 11.1 40 40 4:00 Maximum ETE: 4:00
Average ETE: 3:45
City of Laguna Beach 9‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐6. Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates ‐ Normal Conditions Medical Facility Patient
Mobilization
(min)
Loading
Rate
(min per
person) People
Total
Loading
Time
(min)
Dist. To
EMZ Bdry
(mi)
Speed
(mph)
Travel
Time to
Safety
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach
Ambulatory 25 1 37 30 1.4 8.4 10 1:05WheelchairBound 25 5 30 75 1.4 10.8 8 1:50Bedridden 25 30 8 60 1.4 9.6 8 1:35 Vista Aliso
Ambulatory 25 1 37 30 2.7 6.9 23 1:20WheelchairBound 25 5 30 75 2.7 10.7 15 1:55Bedridden 25 30 8 60 2.7 9.4 17 1:45 Spencer Recovery Centers, Coast to Coast Referral
Center, Pillars Recover (28772 Top of the World Dr),
Oceanfront Recovery (2575 Temple Hills Dr) &
Oceanfront Recovery (2808 Zell Dr)
Ambulatory 25 1 30 30 4.3 5.0 52 1:50
Sunshine Behavioral Health, Laguna View Center,
Complete Resurgency & Oceanfront Recovery (431
Nyes Pl)
Ambulatory 25 1 30 30 3.5 5.4 39 1:35
Miramar Health & Pillars Recovery LLC (224 Cliff Dr) Ambulatory 25 1 16 16 3.1 9.4 20 1:05 Maximum ETE: 1:55
Average ETE: 1:35
City of Laguna Beach 9‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 9‐7. Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates – Reduced Roadway Capacity Medical Facility Patient
Mobilization
(min)
Loading
Rate
(min per
person) People
Total
Loading
Time
(min)
Dist. To
EMZ Bdry
(mi)
Speed
(mph)
Travel
Time to
Safety
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach
Ambulatory 35 1 37 30 1.4 8.7 9 1:15WheelchairBound 35 5 30 75 1.4 13.6 6 2:00Bedridden 35 30 8 60 1.4 9.0 9 1:45 Vista Aliso
Ambulatory 35 1 37 30 2.7 6.6 24 1:30WheelchairBound 35 5 30 75 2.7 10.0 16 2:10Bedridden 35 30 8 60 2.7 9.2 17 1:55 Spencer Recovery Centers, Coast to Coast Referral
Center, Pillars Recover (28772 Top of the World Dr),
Oceanfront Recovery (2575 Temple Hills Dr) &
Oceanfront Recovery (2808 Zell Dr)
Ambulatory 35 1 30 30 4.3 4.9 53 2:00
Sunshine Behavioral Health, Laguna View Center,
Complete Resurgency & Oceanfront Recovery (431
Nyes Pl)
Ambulatory 35 1 30 30 3.5 5.4 39 1:45
Miramar Health & Pillars Recovery LLC (224 Cliff Dr) Ambulatory 35 1 16 16 3.1 7.3 26 1:20 Maximum ETE: 2:10
Average ETE: 1:45
City of Laguna Beach 9‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Event
A Advisory to EvacuateB Bus/Trolley Dispatched from DepotC Bus/Trolley Arrives at Facility/Pick‐up RouteD Bus/Trolley Departs Facility/Pick‐up RouteE Bus/Trolley Exits Area at Risk Activity
AB Driver MobilizationBC Travel to Facility or to Pick‐up RouteCD Passengers Board the Bus/TrolleyDE Bus/Trolley Travels Toward At‐Risk Area Boundary Figure 9‐1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

A B C D E F G
Time
City of Laguna Beach 10‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
10 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
This section discusses the suggested Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic.   The resources required to implement this strategy include:
• Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers). • Guidance is provided by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available on‐ line: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version. • A written plan that defines all Traffic Control Point (TCP) and Access Control Point (ACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the area at risk.

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the area of risk, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function.   There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated.

For example:
• A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.
• An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees. • The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.

ACPs are established during the evacuation to stop the flow of external traffic through the study area. Doing so reserves the capacity on major through routes for evacuees rather than the traffic that is passing through the area.

The implementation of a TMP must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The TMP for this study is the outcome of the following process:

1. Review existing TMP and model TCPs and ACPs accordingly.

2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.2 and Figures 7‐2 through 7‐8).

3. These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that City of Laguna Beach 10‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
would benefit from traffic or access control are suggested as TCPs. No additional TCPs were identified which would benefit the evacuation.

4. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.
a. Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the wildfire could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to threat than those TCPs located far from the wildfire. These priorities should be assigned by city emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.

10.1 Assumptions
The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 9 assume that the TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all “external‐external” trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours  have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes that traverse the study area. Dynamic and variable message signs should be strategically positioned outside of the study area at logical diversion points to attempt to divert traffic away from the area of risk. As such, it is assumed pass‐ through traffic that traverses the study area will diminish over the 2‐hour period.

All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EMZs to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning TCPs and ACPs.

The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are recommended TCP locations as being controlled by actuated signals. In Appendix H, Table H‐2 identifies those intersections that were modeled as TCPs.

Study assumptions 12 through 14 in Section 2.3 discuss additional TCP and ACP operational assumptions.

City of Laguna Beach 10‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

10.2 Additional Considerations
The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EMZs to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, congregation point, and reception center information. DMS placed outside of the EMZs will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the wildfire. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Travel Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the onboard navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during evacuation trip.

There are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process.

Considerations should be given that ITS technologies can be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

City of Laguna Beach 11‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
11 EVACUATION ROUTES, CONGREGATION POINTS, AND EVACUATION SIGNAGE This section documents major evacuation routes within the study area, possible bus routes and suggested local gathering points to collect transit dependent individuals, and suggestions on evacuation signage based on current traffic engineering standards.

11.1 Evacuation Routes
Evacuation routes are responsible for transporting EMZ residents being evacuated and transit dependent evacuees(schools, medical facilities, and residents, employees or tourists who do not own or have access to a private vehicle) to the boundary of the evacuation region.

Evacuees will select routes within the EMZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the wildfire, to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so asto balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion. The major evacuation routes for the study area are presented in Figure 11‐1. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles and by the transit‐dependent population evacuating in buses or trolleys. Transit‐ dependent evacuees will be routed to safety, outside of the evacuation area. General population may evacuate to some alternate destination (e.g., lodging facilities, relative’s home, campgrounds) outside the EMZ.

The Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) has two bus routes that run through the EMZs:  Bus Route 1 and Bus Route 89. However, these routes were not used in the study based on discussions with OCTA and City of Laguna Beach emergency management personnel.

The 9 routes shown graphically in Figure 11‐2 and described in Table 11‐1 were designed by KLD to service the transit dependent population in each EMZ. This does not imply that these exact routes would be used in an emergency. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate along the existing evacuation routes to flag down a bus or trolley.  KLD also assessed the study area for logical points for the transit dependent population to congregate at to pick up a bus or trolley.  Section 11.2 discusses these points further.

The specified routesfor all the transit‐dependent population are documented in Table 11‐2 (refer to the maps of the link‐node analysis network in Appendix H for node locations). This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from the boundary of the evacuation region to reception centers or congregate care centers as no information was received on these facilities.

Schools and medical facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the boundary of the evacuation region and are shown in Figure 11‐3 and Figure 11‐4, respectively. A single route was used for facilities that would use a similar path for evacuation.

The City of Laguna Beach should consider identifying safe shelter locations within the EMZ in an event that an evacuation is not feasible (i.e. the fire is moving faster than an evacuation would City of Laguna Beach 11‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
take).  When a wildfire threat is perceived, emergency officials need to make a protective action decision to either evacuate or shelter (at a safe refuge location) the population in imminent danger. Safe refuge areas (i.e. hardened structures, safe open areas, water bodies) should be predetermined and locally known in the case of an emergency.

11.2 Congregation Points
It is important to have predefined and accessible local gathering points for transit dependent individualsto use as a pick‐up point during emergencies. In order to service the transit dependent populations within the EMZ, KLD recommends the following congregation points1 for the transit dependent population to use as pick‐up points during an evacuation (shown in Figure 11‐2):

1. El Morro Elementary School – Meet at the school parking lot.  This pick‐up location is located in Irvine Cove. Evacuees from Emerald Bay can also use this pick‐up point.

2. Boat Canyon Drive and Pacific Coast Hwy/SR‐1 – Meet at the intersection of Boat Canyon Drive and Pacific Coast Hwy. Congregate near The Pavilion. This pick‐up location is near the center of the EMZ North Coast. Evacuees from Emerald Bay can also use this pick‐up point.

3. Festival of Arts and Pageant of the Masters – Meet along SR‐133 outside of the main building.  This pick‐up location is located between EMZs Boat Canyon and Park Avenue.

Evacuees from Canyon Acres can also use this pick‐up point.

4. Forest Avenue and Beach Street – Meet at the intersection of Forest Avenue and Beach Street. Congregate near the entrance of the Laguna Beach Visitors Center. This pick‐up location is in the center of EMZ Downtown.

5. Laguna College of Art and Design – Big Bend Campus – Meet in parking lot or just outside lot along SR‐133 northbound.  This pick‐up point is located within EMZ Big Bend.

6. Intersection of El Toro Rd and SR‐133 ‐ Meet at the intersection of El Toro Rd and SR‐133.

Congregate along the southeast corner of the intersection.  This pick‐up point is located in EMZ El Toro.

7. Intersection of El Toro Rd and The Club Dr/Bells Vireo Ln ‐ Meet at the intersection of El Toro Rd and The Club Dr/Bells Vireo Ln. This pick‐up point is located in EMZ Club Laguna.

8. Thurston Middle School – Meet just outside of school along the sidewalk along Park Avenue southbound.   This pick‐up point straddles EMZs Park Avenue and Top of the World.

9. Top of the World Elementary School – Meet near Top of the World Elementary School.

Congregate near the intersection of Treetop Ln and Alta Laguna Blvd.  This pick‐up point is located on the border of Top of the World and Old Top of the World.  Evacuees from Temple Hills can also use this pick‐up point.

10. Laguna Beach High School – Meet out front of Laguna Beach High School and congregate along Park Avenue.  This pick‐up point is located between EMZs Central Coast and Park Avenue.
1 A congregation point was selected based on its accessibility by large buses (i.e. available turn radius, paved roads) and its accessibility to the transit dependent population (i.e. within walking distance (< 1.5 mile), located on known roads or at known facilities).

City of Laguna Beach 11‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

11. Intersection of Oro St and Del Mar Ave – Meet at the intersection of Oro St and Del Mar Ave.  Congregate near the Free Trolley Stop sign.  This pick‐up location borders EMZs Balboa‐Nyes and Arch Beach Heights.

12. St. Catherine of Siena Parish School – Meet in front of St Catherine of Siena Parish School near Terry Rd and Pacific Coast Highway/SR‐1.  This pick‐up point is located on the border of EMZs Wesley and South Coast.

13. Aliso Beach County Park – Meet in parking lot of Alisa Beach County Park.  This pick‐up point is located in EMZ South Coast.

14. Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach – Meet in parking lot of Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach near the boundary of EMZs of Sunset and Mar Vista and South Coast.

15. Intersection of SR‐1 and Cress Street – Meet at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/SR‐1 and Cress Street.  This pick‐up point is located in EMZ Central Coast at the border of Ceanothus.  Evacuees from Blue Bird Canyon are at most 1.5 miles from this point (~30 minutes).  Evacuees from Temple Hills can also use this pick‐up point.

The City may want to consider placing “Evacuation Bus Stop” signage at these locations.

See Section 3.6 for more information on the transit dependent population and Section 9 for transit dependent ETE calculations.

11.3 Evacuation Signage
Locations of evacuation signsinstalled along the routesshown in Figure 11‐1 for “straight‐ahead” confirmation should be in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 2N, Section 2N.03 of the 2009 MUTCD2
.  These signs should display a blue circular symbol on a white square sign with a white directional arrow and a white legend “EVACUATION ROUTE” within the blue circular symbol, as shown in Figure 11‐5.  A straight, vertical arrow pointing upward to indicate that evacueesshould continue their travel along that route should be placed on SR‐1 and SR‐133.  These evacuation signs should be installed at one‐mile spacing along major evacuation routes.

Other signing may be placed on the approaches to major intersections to indicate the direction of evacuation travel through the intersection.  The MUTCD states that these signs should be installed 150 to 300 feet in advance of the intersection and should indicate the turn direction required to follow the evacuation route.  These signs should display a straight horizontal arrow pointing to the left or right, or a bent arrow pointing to the left or right, depending on the geometrics of the approach and of the intersection, to indicate the appropriate turn movement through the intersection needed to follow the recommended evacuation route.   A through movement will be shown as described in the previous paragraph. 2 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edition, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration City of Laguna Beach 11‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Such directional signing may also be placed at the exits of special facilities to guide evacuees toward or along recommended evacuation routes.   These facilities include schools, medical facilities, and major recreational areas, as specified in Appendix E.

Part 2, Chapter 2N of the 2009 MUTCD presents guidelines for implementing emergency management signs.  It states that “emergency management signs shall not permanently displace any of the standard signs that are normally applicable.”  While this report does not specify the precise locations of every recommended road sign, the installation of every evacuation route sign must comply with the guidance provided in the MUTCD.

Table 11‐1. Summary of Transit‐Dependent Routes
Route
No. of
Buses/Trolleys Route Description Length (mi.)
1 1 Servicing Irvine Cove, Emerald Bay & Boat
Canyon 3.6
2 1 Servicing El Toro, Canyon Acres & Big Bend   3.8
3 1 Servicing Club Laguna   0.8
4 1 Servicing Downtown & North Coast   3.4
5 1 Servicing Mar Vista & Ceanothus   1.9
6 1 Servicing Arch Beach Heights & Balboa Nyes   5.5
7 1 Servicing Bluebird Canyon & South Coast   5.4
8 1 Servicing Central Coast & Temple Hills   6.2
9 1 Servicing Wesley, Top of the World, Old Top
of the World, Sunset & Park Avenue   7.2
Total: 9
City of Laguna Beach 11‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table 11‐2. Bus Route Description
Route
Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to Evacuation Region Boundary 1 El Morro Elementary School 902, 897, 903, 9042 Thurston Middle School 1281, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1306, 1307, 1315, 1316, 1635, 46, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 183 Top of the World Elementary School 1405, 1404, 1421, 1285, 1279, 1282, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1414, 1294, 1295, 47, 1633, 1307, 1315, 1316, 1635, 46, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 18
4 Laguna Beach High School 1305, 43, 1334, 34, 33, 46, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 185 Heidi’s Pre‐School 1423, 1422, 20, 19, 186 Vista Aliso 57, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 187 Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach 62, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 188 Laguna College of Art and Design – Main Campus 1627, 1420, 362, 1628, 363, 1630, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 381, 382, 383, 7749 Laguna College of Art and Design – Big Bend Campus 1631, 1630, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 381, 382, 383, 774 10 Laguna College of Art and Design – South Campus 361, 1624, 356, 357, 1420, 362, 1628, 363, 1630, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 381, 382, 383, 77411 Downtown & North Coast – Transit Route 1444, 41, 40, 38, 39, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 898, 1371, 1407, 899, 900, 901, 897, 903, 90412 Irvine Cove, Emerald Bay & Boat Canyon – Transit Route 5, 12, 13 1612, 892, 1381, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 898, 1371, 1407, 899, 900, 901, 897, 903, 90413 El Toro, Canyon Acres & Big Bend – Transit Route 1624, 356, 357, 1420, 362, 1628, 363, 1630, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 381, 382, 383, 77414 Club Laguna – Transit Route 1373, 388, 1433, 389, 39015 Bluebird Canyon & South Coast – Transit Route 1399, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1313, 49, 1314, 1389, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 1816 Wesley, Top of the World, Old Top of the World, Sunset & Park Avenue – Transit Route 1405, 1404, 1421, 1285, 1279, 1278, 1277, 1276, 1281, 1297, 1298, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1304, 1305, 43, 1334, 34, 33, 46, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 1817 Central Coast & Temple Hills – Transit Route 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1414, 1294, 1295, 47, 1633, 1307, 1315, 1316, 1635, 46, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 1818 Arch Beach Heights & Balboa Nyes – Transit Route 1419, 1418, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1331, 1330, 1329, 51, 1332, 1333, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 1819 Mar Vista & Ceanothus – Transit Route 1354, 58, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 18 City of Laguna Beach 11‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Route
Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to Evacuation Region Boundary 20 Spencer Recovery Centers INC., Coast to Coast
Referral Center INC., Pillars Recover LLC &
Oceanfront Recovery at Laguna Beach LLC
1389, 32, 31, 52, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 18 21 Sunshine Behavioral Health LLC, Laguna View
Center LLC, Complete Resurgency LLC &
Oceanfront Recovery at Balboa/Nyes
1428, 1427, 1416, 1425, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 1422, 20, 19, 18 22 Miramar Health INC. & Pillars Recovery LLC 891, 1382, 39, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 898, 1371, 1407, 899, 900, 901, 897, 903, 904 City of Laguna Beach 11‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 11‐1. Evacuation Route Map
City of Laguna Beach 11‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 11‐2. Transit‐Dependent Routes and Congregation Points Servicing the EMZ City of Laguna Beach 11‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 11‐3. Transit‐Dependent Routes Servicing Schools City of Laguna Beach 11‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 11‐4. Transit‐Dependent Routes Servicing Medical Facilities City of Laguna Beach 11‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure 11‐5. Evacuation Route Sign Example

APPENDIX A
Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms
City of Laguna Beach A‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS
This appendix provides a glossary of traffic engineering terms that are used throughout this report.

Table A‐1.  Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms
Term Definition
Analysis Network   A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, one‐directional section of roadway.   A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, free‐flow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links.   A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EMZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph).  These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and
Traffic Conditions

Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g., composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate   Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vehicles per hour (vph).

Service Volume   Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).

Signal Cycle Length   The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

City of Laguna Beach A‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Term Definition
Signal Interval   A single combination of signal indications.  The interval duration is expressed in seconds.  A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

Signal Phase     A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection.  The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment

A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives.   In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost".   For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density   The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution

A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins.   The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origin‐destination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the real‐world operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph).  Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin‐
Destination Matrix
A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations.  These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.

City of Laguna Beach A‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Term Definition
Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

APPENDIX B
DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model City of Laguna Beach B‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL
This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios.  DTRAD employs logit‐based path‐choice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements path‐based Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent Origin‐Destination (OD) trips are “assigned” to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the time‐varying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the EMZ for selected origins.  DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel “cost”.

Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario.  That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the “best” routes.  The model is designed to identify these “best” routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of “candidate destination nodes” is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the wildfire and to access major highways.  The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logit‐based path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip “cost”, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of “sessions” wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD
The DYNEV II system reflects evacuation behavior wherein evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event.  An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (O‐D matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.  Another algorithm executes a “mapping” from the specified “geometric” network (link‐node analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a “path” network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements.  DTRAD computations are performed on the “path” network: DYNEV simulation model, on the “geometric” network.

City of Laguna Beach B‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
DTRAD Description
DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given O‐D demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., time‐varying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origin‐destination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the time‐dependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:
 It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes.  The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several “efficient” routes for each O‐D pair from which the drivers choose.  The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of “discrete choice modeling”. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of Path‐Size‐Logit model (PSL).  PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.
 DTRAD executes the Traffic Assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link‐ node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.  Travel “cost” plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as
𝑐௔ ൌ 𝛼𝑡௔ ൅ 𝛽𝑙௔ ൅ 𝛾𝑠௔,
Where 𝑐௔ is the generalized cost for link a and 𝛼, 𝛽, and, 𝛾 are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively.  Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model City of Laguna Beach B‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically re‐assigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B‐1.  Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.
 The supplemental cost is based on the “survival distribution” (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a “cost” term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the wildfire:
sa = ‐ β ln (p), 0 ≤ p ≤ l ; β ൐0
p = ௗ೙
ௗబ
dn = Distance of node, n, from the wildfire
d0 = Distance from the wildfire where there is zero risk β  = Scaling factor
A do was chosen such that the EMZs are within the area at risk. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the wildfire.

Network Equilibrium
In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual trip‐maker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the “User Equilibrium” definition, also called the “Selfish Driver Equilibrium”.  It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective “costs”.  It has been found that this “equilibrium” objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e., commuters).  Effectively, such drivers “learn” which routes are best for them over time.  Thus, the traffic environment “settles down” to a near‐equilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long‐ term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state.  Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to real‐time information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

City of Laguna Beach B‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure B‐1.  Flow Diagram of Simulation‐DTRAD Interface Start of next DTRAD Session
Set T0 ൌ Clock time.

Archive System State at T0
Define latest Link Turn
Percentages
Execute Simulation Model from
time, T0 to T1 (burn time)
Provide DTRAD with link MOE at
time, T1
Execute DTRAD iteration;
Get new Turn Percentages
Retrieve System State at T0 ;
Apply new Link Turn Percents
DTRAD iteration converges?
Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2
(DTA session duration)
Set Clock to T2
A
B
A
No Yes
B

APPENDIX C
DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model
City of Laguna Beach C‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL
This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model.   The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables:   vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step).  The model generates trips from “sources” and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty.  At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C‐1.

Model Features Include:
 Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.  Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the DTRAD model.  At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles.  The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified.  The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation.  There is no “vertical stacking” of queues on a link.  Any link can accommodate “source flow” from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented.  This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.
 The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement.   If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a “metering” rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.  A “path network” that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.  A two‐way interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.
 Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN
 Calculates ETE statistics
All traffic simulation models are data‐intensive.   Table C‐2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

City of Laguna Beach C‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network.   The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multi‐lane, urban streets or freeways.   The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C‐1 is an example of a small network representation.   The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23).  Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively.  An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network.  Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are grade‐separated.

C.1 Methodology
C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram
It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flow‐density and speed‐density relationships. Rather than “settling for” a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a “capacity drop”, (I‐R)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C‐2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k୤, and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k୤ ൑ k ൑ kୡ ൌ 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flow‐density plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, kୡ ൏𝑘൑ kୱ ൌ 95 vpm which roughly represents the “stop‐and‐go” condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Qୱ , corresponding to kୱ, is approximated at 0.7 RQ୫ୟ୶ . A linear relationship between kୱ and k୨ completes the diagram shown in Figure C‐2. Table C‐3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v୤ ; (2) Capacity, Q୫ୟ୶ ; (3) Critical density, kୡ ൌ 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k୨ . Then, vୡ ൌ ୕ౣ౗౮ ୩ౙ
,k୤ ൌ kୡ െ
ሺ୚౜ି୚ౙሻ ୩ౙ
మ
୕ౣ౗౮
. Setting kത ൌ k െ kୡ , then Q ൌ RQ୫ୟ୶ െ ୖ୕ౣ౗౮
଼ଷଷଷ
kതଶ for 0 ൑ kത ൑ kത ୱ ൌ 50 . It can be
shown that Q ൌ൫0.98 െ 0.0056 kത൯ RQ୫ୟ୶ for kത ୱ ൑ kത ൑ kത୨, where kത ୱ ൌ 50 and k఩ ഥ ൌ 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model
The simulation model solves a sequence of “unit problems”. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C‐3 is a representation of the unit problem in the time‐distance plane. Table C‐3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

City of Laguna Beach C‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Given ൌ Qୠ ,Mୠ , L , TI , E଴ , LN , G
Cൗ , h , L୴ ,R଴ ,Lୡ , E , M
Compute ൌ O , Qୣ ,Mୣ
Define O ൌ O୕ ൅ O୑ ൅ O୉ ; E ൌ Eଵ ൅ Eଶ

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k଴ , the R – factor, R଴ and entering traffic, E଴ , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s ൐ 1 , calculate E ൌ ∑ P୧୧ O୧ ൅ S where P୧ ,O୧ are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k ൌ k଴ , and E ൌ E଴ .

2. Calculate v ሺkሻ such that k ൑ 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Calculate Cap ൌ Q୫ୟ୶ሺTIሻ
3600 ൫G
Cൗ ൯ LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced
due to metering
Set R ൌ 1.0 if G
Cൗ ൏ 1 or if k ൑ kୡ ; Set R ൌ 0.9 only if GCൗ ൌ 1 and k ൐ kୡ Calculate queue length, Lୠ ൌ Qୠ
L୴
LN

3. Calculate tଵ ൌ TI െ ୐
୚
. If tଵ ≺ 0 , set tଵ ൌ Eଵ ൌ O୉ ൌ 0 ; Else, Eଵ ൌ E ୲భ
୘୍ .

4. Then Eଶ ൌ E െ Eଵ ; tଶ ൌ TI െ tଵ

5. If Qୠ ൒ Cap , then
O୕ ൌ Cap , O୑ ൌ O୉ ൌ 0
If tଵ ൐ 0 , then
Qୣ
ᇱ ൌ Qୠ ൅ Mୠ ൅ Eଵ െ Cap
Else
Qୣ
ᇱ ൌ Qୠ െ Cap
End if
Calculate Qୣ and Mୣ using Algorithm A ሺbelowሻ

6. Else ሺQୠ ≺ Capሻ
O୕ ൌ Qୠ , RCap ൌ Cap െ O୕

7.       If Mୠ ൑ RCap , then

8. If tଵ ൐ 0 , O୑ ൌ Mୠ ,O୉ ൌ min ൬RCap െ Mୠ,
tଵ Cap
TI ൰ ൒ 0
Qୣ
ᇱ ൌ Eଵ െ O୉
If Qୣ
ᇱ ൐ 0 , then
City of Laguna Beach C‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Calculate Qୣ ,Mୣ with Algorithm A
Else
Qୣ ൌ 0 , Mୣ ൌ Eଶ
End if
Else ሺtଵ ൌ 0ሻ
O୑ ൌቀ୴ሺ୘୍ሻି୐ౘ
୐ି୐ౘ
ቁ Mୠ and O୉ ൌ 0
Mୣ ൌ Mୠ െ O୑ ൅ E ; Qୣ ൌ 0
End if

9.     Else ሺMୠ ൐ 𝑅𝐶𝑎𝑝ሻ
O୉ ൌ 0
If tଵ ൐ 0 , then
O୑ ൌ RCap , Qୣ
ᇱ ൌ Mୠ െ O୑ ൅ Eଵ
Calculate Qୣ and Mୣ using Algorithm A

10.        Else ሺtଵ ൌ 0ሻ
Mୢ ൌ ቂቀ୴ሺ୘୍ሻି୐ౘ
୐ି୐ౘ
ቁ Mୠ ቃ
If Mୢ ൐ 𝑅𝐶𝑎𝑝 , 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛
O୑ ൌ RCap
Qୣ
ᇱ ൌ Mୢ െ O୑
Apply Algorithm A to calculate Qୣ and Mୣ
Else
O୑ ൌ Mୢ
Mୣ ൌ Mୠ െ O୑ ൅ E and Qୣ ൌ 0
End if
End if
End if
End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, kത୬ ൌ ଵ ସ ሾkୠ ൅ 2 k୫ ൅ kୣሿ ,
where kୠ = density at the beginning of the TI
kୣ = density at the end of the TI
k୫ = density at the mid‐point of the TI
All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If หkത୬ െ kത୬ିଵห൐ ∈ and n ൏ N
where N ൌ max number of iterations, and ϵ is a convergence criterion, then

12. set n ൌ n ൅ 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k ൌ kത୬ .

End if
Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

City of Laguna Beach C‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
T
t3
Q’
t1
L3
v
Qe
v
Q vQ b
Mb

13. If Qୣ ൅ Mୣ ൐ ሺ୐ି୛ሻ ୐୒
୐౬
, then
The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is:   SB ൌ Qୣ ൅ Mୣ െ ሺ୐ି୛ሻ ∙ ୐୒ ୐౬
,
where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB.  That is, set
M ൌ 1 െ SB
ሺE ൅ Sሻ ൒ 0 , where M is the metering factor ሺover all movementsሻ.

This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A
This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case
shown, Qୠ ൑ Cap, with tଵ ൐ 0 and a queue of
length, Qୣ
ᇱ , formed by that portion of Mୠ and E that
reaches the stop‐bar within the TI, but could not
discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Qୠ ൅
Mୠ ൅ Eଵ ൐ 𝐶𝑎𝑝. This queue length, Qୣ
ᇱ ൌ Qୠ ൅
Mୠ ൅ Eଵ െ Cap can be extended to Qୣ by traffic
entering the approach during the current TI, traveling
at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the queue within
the TI. A portion of the entering vehicles, Eଷ ൌ E ୲య
୘୍ ,
will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates
tଷ ,Qୣ and Mୣ for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L୴, LN, Qୣ ᇱ .

When tଵ ൐ 0 and Qୠ ൑ Cap:

Define: Lୣ
ᇱ ൌ Qୣᇱ L୴
LN . From the sketch, Lଷ ൌ vሺTI െ tଵ െ tଷሻ ൌ L െ ሺQୣ
ᇱ ൅ Eଷሻ
L୴
LN .

Substituting Eଷ ൌ ୲య
୘୍ E yields: െ vtଷ ൅ ୲య୘୍
E ୐౬
୐୒ ൌ L െ vሺTI െ tଵሻ െ Lୣ
ᇱ . Recognizing that
the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for tଷ to obtain:
tଷ ൌ Lୣ
ᇱ
ቂv െ E
TI
L୴
LNቃ
such that 0 ൑ tଷ ൑ TI െ tଵ
If the denominator, ቂv െ ୉
୘୍
୐౬
୐୒ቃ൑ 0, set tଷ ൌ TI െ tଵ .

Then, Qୣ ൌ Qୣ
ᇱ ൅ E
tଷ
TI , Mୣ ൌ E ൬1 െ tଵ ൅ tଷTI ൰
The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

City of Laguna Beach C‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
C.1.3 Lane Assignment
The “unit problem” is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN୶ , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain un‐channelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation
C.2.1 Computational Procedure
The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C‐4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of “sweeps” over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the “unit problem” for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the time‐varying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Qୣ and Mୣ . The procedure considers each movement separately (multi‐piping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the “no spillback” condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

City of Laguna Beach C‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S “settle down” for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely under‐saturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI).  At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Qୠ and Mୠ for the start of the next TI as being those values of Qୣ and Mୣ at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no space‐discretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) The DYNEV II system reflects evacuation behavior wherein evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (O‐D matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B‐1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD “sessions”; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, ሾT଴ ,Tଶሿ , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the network‐wide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B‐1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, Tଵ ൑ Tଶ , which lies within the session duration, ሾT଴ ,Tଶሿ . This “burn time”, Tଵ െ T଴ , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T଴ , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, Tଶ . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

City of Laguna Beach C‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table C‐1.  Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To
Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link
Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network
Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link
Level of Service LOS Link
Content Vehicles Network
Travel Time Vehicle‐hours Network
Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link
Trip Travel Time Vehicle‐minutes/trip Network
Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link
Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach
Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach
Route Statistics Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel
Time (min) Route
Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network

City of Laguna Beach C‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table C‐2.  Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model

HIGHWAY NETWORK
 Links defined by upstream  and downstream node numbers  Link lengths
 Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization
 Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)
 Destination (exit) nodes
 Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link  Node Coordinates (X,Y)
 Wildfire Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
 On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period

TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS
 Traffic signals:  link‐specific, turn movement specific  Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated
 Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)  Stop and Yield signs
 Right‐turn‐on‐red (RTOR)
 Route diversion specifications
 Turn restrictions
 Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movement‐specific)
DRIVER’S AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
 Driver’s (vehicle‐specific) response mechanisms: free‐flow speed, discharge headway  Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
 Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)  Duration of DTA sessions
 Duration of simulation “burn time”
 Desired number of destination nodes per origin

INCIDENTS
 Identify and Schedule of closed lanes
 Identify and Schedule of closed links
City of Laguna Beach C‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table C‐3.  Glossary
Cap The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge from a link within a time interval.

E The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stop‐bar within the TI.

G/C The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn movement on a link.
h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.
k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.
kത The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a link.

L The length of the link in feet.

Lୠ ,Lୣ
The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a time interval.

LN The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a particular movement on a link.

L୴ The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

Mୠ ,Mୣ
The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

O The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link over a time interval.

O୕ ,O୑ ,O୉
The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

P୶
The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that executes a particular turn movement, x.

City of Laguna Beach C‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Qୠ ,Qୣ
The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the [beginning, end] of the time interval.

Q୫ୟ୶
The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the “capacity drop” when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ୫ୟ୶ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S୶ Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph). tଵ Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first tଵ seconds of a time interval, can reach the stop‐bar (in the absence of a queue down‐ stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step. v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.
v୕ The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stop‐bar to stop‐bar and the block length.

City of Laguna Beach C‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure C‐1.  Representative Analysis Network
8001
8011
3 6
9 12
14 15
16 19
17 2
8107
8 8012
13 22
8009
8010
8005
8003 23
8104
5 10
11 8014
25 24
21 8008
8007
8006
8004
8024
20 8002
Entry, Exit Nodes are
numbered 8xxx
City of Laguna Beach C‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure C‐2.  Fundamental Diagrams
Figure C‐3.  A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0
Capacity Drop
Qs
f s
Volume, vph
Qmax
Speed, mph
R vc
k kj kc
Flow Regimes Density, vpm
Density, vpm
R Qmax
k
vf
Free Forced

L
E2
Me
Qe
Mb
Qb

OQ OM OE
E1
TI
Time
Distance
t1 t2
v
v
vQ
Down
Up
City of Laguna Beach C‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure C‐4.  Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary:  Table C‐3) Sequence Network Links
Next Time‐step, of duration, TI
Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all
Links
Next Link
Next Turn Movement, x
Get lanes, LNx
Service Rate, Sx;  ሺG/Cxሻ
Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Qb ,Mb , E
Solve Unit Problem: Qe ,Me ,O
Last Movement ?
Last Link ?
Last Sweep ?
Calc., store all Link MOE
Set up next TI :

Last Time – step ?
DONE
A
B
C
D
D
C
B
A
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

APPENDIX D
Detailed Description of Study Procedure
City of Laguna Beach D‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE
This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates.  The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D‐1.

Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1
The first activity was to obtain EMZ information and create a GIS base map. The base map extends beyond the EMZ into the Shadow Region which is bounded by I‐405 and I‐5 to the North, Jamboree Road to the West, and I‐5 and Pacific Coast Highway to the East. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EMZ boundaries.

Step 2
2010 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the resident population within the EMZ and the Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area.

Year‐round employee data were estimated using the U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer‐ Household Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1.  Tourist information, schools, medical and other types of special facilities data were provided by the City of Laguna Beach supplemented with internet searches.

Step 3
A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (city emergency managers, the California Department of Transportation and county transit managers).   The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the city. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4
Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pre‐timed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.
1 https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
City of Laguna Beach D‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Step 5
A demographic survey of households within the EMZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuation‐related demographic information of the EMZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform pre‐evacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6
A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a link‐node analysis network, was developed using the UNITES software developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4). Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other link‐specific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link‐node analysis network was imported into a GIS map. Census data was overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7
Regions (groupings of EMZ) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of time‐of‐day, day‐of‐week, seasonal and weather‐related conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather/roadway conditions.

Step 8
Access impaired neighborhoods were identified and classified based on specific evacuation criteria. Two classification tiers for neighborhoods were created. Neighborhoods falling into the first tier were classified as having limited ingress/egress routes and containing a cluster of houses. Neighborhoods falling into the second tier were classified as having limited ingress/egress routes, containing a cluster of houses, and having evacuation routes that could potentially be blocked by fires in wooded areas. These two tiers were then analyzed to create recommendations for safe refuge areas as well as evacuation signage for these neighborhoods.

Step 9
The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case – the evacuation of the entire EMZ for a representative scenario.

Step 10
After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data City of Laguna Beach D‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EMZ and Shadow Region, away from the hazard. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these model‐assigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network.  The model produces link and network‐wide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 11
The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software which operates on data produced by DYNEV II) and reviewing the statistics output by the model.  This is a labor‐intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion.  This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:
 The results are satisfactory; or
 The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones.   If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 14.  Otherwise, proceed to Step 12.

Step 12
There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems.   These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.  Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream.  All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

City of Laguna Beach D‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Step 13
As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 12.  At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 10 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Step 14
Evacuation of transit‐dependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates route‐specific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 15
The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario‐ specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized case‐specific data set.

Step 16
All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results were available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly.

Step 17
Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes were used to compute evacuation time estimates for transit‐dependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities.

Step 18
Several ETE sensitivity studies were conducted to consider the impact on ETE based on “what if” scenarios. These scenarios include changes to roadway closures, mobilization time, number of evacuating vehicles per household, number of vehicles evacuating from the shadow region, contraflow, reducing special facility transportation resources and potential implementation of traffic management plans by the City of Laguna Beach. These scenarios were then compared to the baseline ETE to test if certain tactics could be used to reduce evacuation time.

Step 19
The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed.  The results were then documented.

City of Laguna Beach D‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure D‐1.  Flow Diagram of Activities
Create GIS Base Map
Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for
Study Area
Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area
Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders
Create and Calibrate Link‐Node Analysis Network
Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios
Conduct Demographic Survey and Develop Trip
Generation Characteristics
Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case B
A
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and
DYNEV II Output
Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop
Traffic Control Treatments
A
B
Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype
Evacuation Case
Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation
Routes and Update DYNEV‐II Database
Generate DYNEV‐II Input Streams for All Evacuation
Cases
Use DYNEV‐II Average Speed Output to Compute
ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes
Use DYNEV‐II Results to Estimate Transit and Special
Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates
Conduct “what if” Scenarios
Results Satisfactory
Step 11
Step 12
Step 13
Step 14
Step 15
Step 16
Step 17
Step 18
Identify and Classify Access Impaired
Neighborhoods
Create and Debug DYNEV‐II Input Stream
Step 8
Step 9
Step 10
Documentation
Step 19

APPENDIX E
Facility Data
City of Laguna Beach   E‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study   Rev. 2
E. FACILITY DATA
This appendix lists population information, as of September 2020, for special facilities that are located within the study area that were used in this study. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools and medical facilities.  Tourist and seasonal worker population is included in the tables for recreation centers, parks, museums, theaters, and lodging facilities.  OnTheMap employment data (see Section 3, sub‐section 3.4) is summarized in the table for year‐round major employers.  Maps of each school, preschool, medical facility, major employer, recreation center, park, beach parking lot, museum, theater, and lodging facility are also provided.

City of Laguna Beach E‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table E‐1. Schools and Preschools within the EMZ
EMZ ID EMZ Facility Name
Facility
Type Street Address Municipality
Enroll‐
ment
3 Big Bend Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Big Bend Campus School 2825 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 2503 Big Bend Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ Main Campus School 2222 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 5003 Big Bend Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ MFA Campus School 2633 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 156 Canyon Acres Laguna College of Art and Design ‐ South Campus School 787 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 60 9b Central Coast Montessori School‐Laguna Beach Preschool 340 St Ann's Dr Laguna Beach 759b Central Coast Laguna Beach High School School 625 Park Ave Laguna Beach 1,116 10 Downtown Laguna Presbyterian Pre‐School Preschool 415 Forest Ave Laguna Beach 5011 El Toro Anneliese's Schools ‐ Willowbrook School 20062 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 25013 Irvine Cove El Morro Elementary School School 8681 N Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 52415 Old Top of The World Top of the World Elementary School School 21601 Treetop Ln Laguna Beach 66916 Park Avenue Anneliese's Schools ‐ Manzanita School 758 Manzanita Dr Laguna Beach 5016 Park Avenue Thurston Middle School School 2100 Park Ave Laguna Beach 76217 Sunset Heidi's Pre‐School Preschool 31866 8th Ave Laguna Beach 2520 Wesley Anneliese's Schools ‐ Aliso Preschool 21542 Wesley Dr Laguna Beach 5020 Wesley St. Catherine of Siena Parish School School 30516 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 173 TOTAL: 4,569
City of Laguna Beach E‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table E‐2. Medical Facilities within the EMZ
EMZ
ID EMZ Facility Name Street Address Municipality
Cap‐
acity
Current
Census
Ambul‐
atory
Patients
Wheel‐
chair
Patients
Bed‐
ridden
Patients
2 Balboa/Nyes
Oceanfront Recovery at
Laguna Beach, LLC 431 Nyes Pl Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
7 Ceanothus Laguna View Center, LLC
31305 Ceanothus
Dr Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
9a North Coast Miramar Health, INC. 339 Jasmine St Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0 9b Central Coast
Coast to Coast Referral
Center, INC. 1337 Gaviota Dr Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
9b Central Coast
Spencer Recovery Centers,
INC. 1316 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 28 28 28 0 0
9b Central Coast
Spencer Recovery Centers,
INC. 1337 Gaviota Dr Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
9c South Coast
Sunshine Behavioral Health
LLC 283 Upland Rd Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
10 Downtown Pillars Recovery, LLC 224 Cliff Dr Laguna Beach 10 10 10 0 014 Mar Vista Providence Mission Hospital
Laguna Beach 31872 Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 178 75 37 30 8 15 Old Top of The
World Pillars Recovery, LLC
28772 Top of the
World Dr Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
17 Sunset Complete Resurgency, LLC 31957 Virginia Way Laguna Beach 12 12 12 0 019 Top of The World Oceanfront Recovery at
Laguna Beach, LLC
2575 Temple Hills
Dr Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
19 Top of The World
Oceanfront Recovery at
Laguna Beach, LLC 2808 Zell Dr Laguna Beach 6 6 6 0 0
20 Wesley Vista Aliso 21544 Wesley Dr Laguna Beach 75 75 37 30 8 TOTAL: 357 254 178 60 357
City of Laguna Beach E‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table E‐3. Major Employers within the EMZ
EMZ ID EMZ Facility Name Street Address Municipality
Employees
(Max Shift)
Employees
Commuting
into the EMZ
Employee
Vehicles
Commuting into
the EMZ
5 Boat Canyon
Various locations throughout the EMZ
176 160 154
6 Canyon Acres 154 140 1357 Ceanothus 98 89 86
10 Downtown 797 722 69511 El Toro 32 29 2814 Mar Vista 57 52 5016 Park Avenue 139 126 12117 Sunset 34 31 30 9a North Coast 358 325 312
9b Central Coast 884 802 773
9c South Coast 432 392 377
TOTAL1: 3,161 2,868 2,761
1 The major employer locations identified by the Census Bureau are shown in Figure E-3. The locations are represented by circles which increase in size proportional to the number of non-EMZ employees present in each Census Block.

City of Laguna Beach E‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table E‐4. Recreation Centers and Parks within the Study Area EMZ ID EMZ Facility Name Facility Type Street Address Municipality Tourists Vehicles 6 Canyon Acres Boys & Girls Club of Laguna Beach Recreation Center 1085 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 225 908 Club Laguna Laguna Coast Wilderness Park Park 18751 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 135 45 10 Downtown Main Beach Park2 Park
Broadway St & Pacific
Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 5,000 755
9a North Coast Crescent Bay Point Park Park Crescent Bay Dr Laguna Beach 13 59a North Coast Heisler Park Park 375 Cliff Dr Laguna Beach 13 5 9c South Coast Aliso Beach County Park3 Park 31131 Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 1,500 196 N/A Shadow
Aliso and Wood Canyons
Wilderness Park Park 28373 Alicia Pkwy Aliso Viejo 300 100 N/A Shadow Crystal Cove State Park Park 8471 N Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 300 100 Various locations Main Beach Parking Lots2 Park  ‐  Laguna Beach 0 1,647 TOTAL: 7,486 2,943
Table E‐5. Museums and Theaters within the EMZ
EMZ ID EMZ Facility Name Facility Type Street Address Municipality Tourists Vehicles 5 Boat Canyon Festival of Arts and Pageant of the Masters Theater 650 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 2,340 8755 Boat Canyon The Laguna Playhouse Theater 606 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 450 2286 Canyon Acres 7 Degrees4 Museum 891 Laguna Canyon Rd Laguna Beach 350 0 10 Downtown Laguna Art Museum4 Museum 307 Cliff Dr Laguna Beach 225 0 TOTAL: 3,365 1,103
2 Main Beach Park attracts a large number of visitors and seasonal workers on a daily basis. Due to the high demand for visitation, the city provides various parking lots in the surrounding EMZs, as shown in Figure E-5. The number of additional parking spaces is estimated based on aerial imagery. 3 The average daily peak attendance of the non-EMZ visitors at Aliso Beach County Park is 1,500; however, parking at this park is limited. It is assumed that 25% of the vehicles are parked in the parking lots nearby and the rest are parked at nearby lodging facilities, see Table E-6. The vehicles at this facility were adjusted to avoid double counting. It should be noted that the population, however, is double counted.
4 The non-EMZ tourists visiting 7 Degrees and Laguna Art Museum are likely to visit other tourist attractions in the city. Therefore, the vehicles for those two museums are adjusted to 0 to avoid double counting. It should be noted that the population, however, is double counted.

City of Laguna Beach E‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table E‐6. Lodging Facilities within the EMZ
EMZ ID EMZ Facility Name Street Address Municipality Tourists Vehicles 9b Central Coast 14 West Boutique Hotel 690 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 40 169b Central Coast Capri Laguna 1441 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 113 459b Central Coast Holiday Inn Laguna Beach 696 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 189 549b Central Coast Hotel Seven4one 741 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 25 79b Central Coast La Casa Del Camino 1289 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 112 329b Central Coast Laguna Riviera Beach Resort 825 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 147 429b Central Coast Laguna Surf 611 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 66 339b Central Coast Pacific Edge Hotel 647 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 634 1819b Central Coast Surf and Sand Resort 1555 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 560 1609b Central Coast The Retreat In Laguna Beach 729 Gaviota Dr Laguna Beach 20 8 7 Ceanothus The Ranch at Laguna Beach 31106 Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 567 162 10 Downtown The Inn at Laguna Beach 211 N Pacific Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 245 70 9a North Coast Art Hotel Laguna Beach 1404 N Pacific Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 95 279a North Coast Crescent Bay Inn Laguna Beach 1435 N Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 70 289a North Coast Laguna Beach House 475 N Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 144 419a North Coast Laguna Shores 419 N Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 50 209a North Coast The Tides Laguna Beach 460 N Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 53 21 9c South Coast Casa Laguna Hotel & Spa 2510 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 35 149c South Coast Laguna Beach Inn 2020 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 65 269c South Coast Laguna Brisas Hotel 1600 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 245 709c South Coast Montage Laguna Beach 30801 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 1,050 3009c South Coast Seaside Laguna Inn & Suites 1661 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 73 29 20 Wesley Laguna Beach Lodge 30806 Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 140 40 TOTAL: 4,738 1,426
City of Laguna Beach E‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐1. Schools and Preschools within the EMZ
City of Laguna Beach E‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐2. Medical Facilities within the EMZ
City of Laguna Beach E‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐3. Major Employers within the EMZ
City of Laguna Beach E‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐4. Recreation Centers and Parks within the Study Area City of Laguna Beach E‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐5. Main Beach Parking Lots within the EMZ
City of Laguna Beach E‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐6. Museums and Theaters within the EMZ
City of Laguna Beach E‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure E‐7. Lodging Facilities within the EMZ

APPENDIX F
Demographic Survey
City of Laguna Beach   F‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
This appendix presents the results obtained from a Demographic Survey that was conducted in support of this study. Outlined below is the survey sampling plan, results obtained, and survey instrument (See Attachment A).

F.1 Introduction
The development of evacuation time estimates for the City of Laguna Beach Emergency Management Zones (EMZ) requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population.  Demographic information can be obtained from Census data, however, the use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompassthe range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area.

Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EMZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the study area population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form “What would you do if …?” and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (“How long does it take you to …?”).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan
Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. A sample size of 409 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of approximately ±4.81 at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the study population (see Section 3.1). A list ofzip codesin the study area was developed using geographic information system (GIS)software.

The demographic survey was conducted in front of local supermarkets and through an online form. Surveys completed in person were conducted outside ofstores where local residents could use a tablet or a printed‐out paper version to answer the survey questions. Out of town shoppers also completed surveys, however their responses are not included in the survey sample. The survey sample only includes respondents whose zip code is located inside the study area. The demographic survey was also posted electronically on the city’s website and social media accounts and as a press release from the Laguna Beach Police Department.

City of Laguna Beach   F‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
F.3 Survey Results
The results of the survey fall into three categories. The first category is household demographic results. Household demographic information includessuch factors as household size, automobile ownership, automobile availability, commuters, and certain technology uses in the household.

The second category ofsurvey resultsis about evacuation responses. Thissection containsresults regarding how residents in the study area would respond to an evacuation. The third category of results contains time distributions for performing certain pre‐evacuation activities. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a “Don’t Know” (DK) or “Decline to State” option for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a DK or “Decline to State” response for a few questions. To address the issue of occasional DK/declined responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the DK/declined responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results
Household Size
Figure F‐1 presents the distribution of household size within the EMZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. The average household contains 2.39 people.

Automobile Ownership
The average number of automobiles available per household in the study area is 2.21. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F‐2. It should be noted that less than 1% of people do not have access to a vehicle. Figure F‐3 and Figure F‐4 present the automobile availability by household size. As expected, all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle. Figure F‐5 shows the percent of households that own an electric vehicle.

Approximately 18 percent of households own at least one electric vehicle.

Ridesharing
An overwhelming proportion (76%) of the households surveyed responded that they could share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate.

Commuters
Figure F‐6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 0.87 commuters per household in the study area, and approximately 56% of households have at least one commuter.

City of Laguna Beach   F‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Commuter Travel Modes
Figure F‐7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work.  The data shows an average of 1.04 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle – on average – for carpools.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response
Several questions were asked to gauge the population’s response to an emergency. These are now discussed:
“How many vehicles would your household use during a wildfire evacuation?” The response is shown in Figure F‐8. On average, evacuating households would use 1.64 vehicles. “Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?” Of the survey participants who responded, approximately 18% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 82% indicated they would not await the return of other family members.
“What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have?” Based on the responses, approximately 57% of the households have pets and/or animals. Of the households that own pets and/or animals, 95% of them indicated that they own a domesticated animal (or household pet). This category includes dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, and fish. Approximately 4% of households own farm animalslike horses, chickens, goats, and pigs. Lessthan one percent of households indicated that they own other small pets/animals but did not specify. Figure F‐9 presents these percentages. “If you have a household pet and/or an animal, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?” Based on the responses to the survey 99% of households that own pets and/or animals would take them during an evacuation. Of the households with pets and/or animals, 99% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicles to evacuate with them.

Lessthan 1% would take their animals using a trailer. Approximately 1% of respondents who have pets and/or animals would leave them at home during an evacuation. Of the respondents who would elect to take their animals with them during an evacuation, 27.5% would take them to a shelter, and 71.5% would take them somewhere else. These percentages are displayed in Figure F‐10.
“Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency. Would you?” This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter‐in‐ place. The results indicate that 86% of households who are advised to shelter‐in‐place would do so; the remaining 14% would choose to evacuate the area. Therefore, 14% of the population within the shadow region and within the EMZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate. “Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you?” This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter‐in‐place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. The results indicate that 74% of households would follow instructions City of Laguna Beach   F‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while 26% of respondents would choose to begin evacuating immediately.
“Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to a wildfire. Where would you evacuate to?” Based on the responses, approximately 49% would evacuate to a friend/relative’s home.

Approximately 22% would evacuate to a hotel, motel, or campground. Approximately 4% of the study area households would evacuate to a second home. Three percent of respondents would evacuate to a beach. One percent would choose not to evacuate. See Figure F‐11 for complete results.
“Emergency officials advise you to evacuate. Would you notify a neighbor or friend to evacuate as well?” This question is designed to elicit information regarding notification between residents in the study area. Based on the respondents who elected to answer, approximately 94% said they would notify a neighbor or a friend.
“How would you notify a neighbor or friend to evacuate during an emergency?” This question is designed to see how respondentsin the study area would notify neighbors or friends during an evacuation. From the respondents who elected to notify a neighbor or friend during an evacuation, 46% would choose to notify them in person. From the remaining respondents, 27% would notify neighbors or friends using a text message, 24% would notify them over the phone, and 3% would notify them using some form of social media. Figure F‐12 displays these results. “How would you rate the cell phone coverage in your area?” Figure F‐13 presents how the respondents rated cell phone coverage in their area. The purpose of this question was to gain insight into how well a cell phone based alert and/or notification would be received.   This question was added for informational purposes only and was not used in this study. As shown in the figure, the data is normally distributed with 74% of respondents rating cell phone coverage as fair, good, or very good in their area. Nine percent of respondents rated their cell phone coverage as excellent, and 17% rated cell phone coverage as poor or very poor in their area. “Would members of your household require Functional or Transportation needs during an evacuation?” Of those who responded to the survey, 7.82% would need transportation assistance to evacuate.  Approximately 38% of people who require transportation assistance would require a bus, 9% would require a medical bus/van, and 6% would require a wheelchair accessible vehicle. The remaining 47% of people indicated that they would require some other form of transportation, as shown in Figure F‐14.
“Have you opted into your local Emergency Alert and Warning systems?” Figure F‐15 displays the percentages of respondents who have opted into their local emergency alert and warning systems by method. From the respondents, approximately 90 percent indicated that they are opted into their local emergency alert systems. Of the residents that are opted in, 45 percent indicated that they registered using their residential phone number, 90 percent using their cell phone number, 61 percent using their email address and/or 86 percent opted in by text message.

It should be noted some people are opted into multiple methods of notification. The majority of the study area residents who are registered are opted into both NIXLE and AlertOC (99 percent) while a few indicated they are opted into other emergency alert systems (one percent).

City of Laguna Beach   F‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
F.3.3 Time Distribution Results
The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre‐ evacuation activities. These activitiesinvolve actionstaken by residents during the course of their day‐to‐day lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responder’s experience.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization. “How long would it take you to notify a neighbor or friend to evacuate?” This question is designed to see how long it would take respondents to notify a neighbor or friend should they choose to do so. From the respondents who elected to notify a neighbor or friend during an evacuation, 70% responded they would notify them in 5 minutes or less. Twenty percent said it would take them between 6 and 10 minutes to notify a neighbor or friend, and 6% said it would take them between 11 and 15 minutes. The remaining said it would take them 20 minutes or more to notify a neighbor or friend during an evacuation. This distribution is displayed in Figure F‐16.
“How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work?” Figure F‐17 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by 45 minutes.

Approximately, 90% can leave in less than 25 minutes.
“How long would it take the commuter to travel home?”  Figure F‐18 presentsthe work to home travel time for the EMZ. Approximately 50% of commuters can arrive home within 25 minutes of leaving work; all within 105 minutes.
“How long would ittake the family to pack clothing,secure the house, and load the car?”  Figure F‐19 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a family’s preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

The distribution shown in Figure F‐19 has a long “tail.” Approximately 82% of households can be ready to leave home within 60 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 90 minutes.

F.4 Conclusions
The demographic survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the study area population. This data is used to quantify demographics specific to the study area and “mobilization time”, which can influence evacuation time estimates.

City of Laguna Beach   F‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐1.  Household Size in the Study Area
Figure F‐2.  Vehicle Availability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 2 3 4 5+
Percent of Households
People
Household Size
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Percent of Households
Vehicles
Vehicle Availability
City of Laguna Beach   F‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐3.  Vehicle Availability ‐ 1 to 4 Person Households Figure F‐4.  Vehicle Availability – 5 to 7+ Person Households 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4+
Percent of Households
Vehicles
Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size
1‐4 Person Households
1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4+
Percent of Households
Vehicles
Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size
5‐7+ Person Households
5 People 6 People 7+ People
City of Laguna Beach   F‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐5.  Electric Vehicle Ownership
Figure F‐6.  Commuters in Households in the Study Area
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ZERO (NONE) ONE TWO +
Percent of Households
Electric Vehicle Ownership
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4+
Percent of Households
Commuters
Commuters Per Household
City of Laguna Beach   F‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐7.  Modes of Travel in the Study Area
Figure F‐8.  Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)
Percent of Commuters
Mode of Travel
Travel Mode to Work
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4+
Percent of Households
Vehicles
Evacuating Vehicles Per Household
City of Laguna Beach   F‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐9.  Types of Pets/Animals
Figure F‐10.  Pets/Animals Evacuation Response
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Household Pets Farm Animals Other Small Pets/Animals
Percent of Households
Type of Pets/Animals
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere
Else
Leave Pet at Home
Percent of Households
Pets/Animals Evacuation Response
City of Laguna Beach   F‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐11.  Study Area Shelter Locations
Figure F‐12.  Method to Notify a Friend/Neighbor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of Households
Shelter Locations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Text Message Phone Call Social Media In Person
Percent of Households
Method to Notify a Friend/Neighbor
City of Laguna Beach   F‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

Figure F‐13.  Cell Phone Coverage
Figure F‐14.  Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs
0%
10%
20%
30%
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Percent of Households
Cell Phone Coverage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair
Accessible Vehicle
Ambulance Other
Percent of Households
Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs
City of Laguna Beach   F‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐15. Emergency Alert Opt‐in Method by System
Figure F‐16. Time to Notify
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Residential Phone Cellular Phone Email Text Message
Percent of Households
Emergency Alert Opt‐in Method by System

ONLY ALERTOC ONLY NIXLE BOTH ALERTOC AND NIXLE OTHER SYSTEMS 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent Notified
Notification Time (min)
Time to Notify
City of Laguna Beach   F‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐17. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Figure F‐18. Time to Travel Home from Work/College
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Commuters
Preparation Time (min)
Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percent of Commuters
Travel Time (min)
Time to Commute Home From Work/College
City of Laguna Beach   F‐15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure F‐19. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 60 120 180
Percent of Households
Preparation Time (min)
Time to Prepare to Leave Home
City of Laguna Beach   F‐16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

ATTACHMENT A
Demographic Survey Instrument
City of Laguna Beach   F‐17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
City of Laguna Beach Wildfire Egress Study
* Required
Instructions
Please fill out the following multiple-choice questions. For questions 6 and 7-1 through 8-4, only mark your answers depending on how many commuters you have marked for Question 5. For example, if you answered 3 commuters for Question 5, ignore questions that ask about commuter #4. For this specific example, Questions 7-4 and 8-4 should be left blank.

Purpose
The purpose of this survey is to identify local behavior during emergency situations. The information gathered in this survey will be shared with the City of Laguna Beach to enhance emergency response plans in your area for wildfires. Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness. Please do not provide your name or any personal information, and the survey will take less than 5 minutes to complete.

1. What is your gender?
Mark only one oval.

Male
Female
Decline to State
Other:

2. What is your home zip code? *
Mark only one oval.
92603
92607
92651
92652
92654
92656
Decline to State
Other:

City of Laguna Beach   F‐18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
3A. In total, how many running cars, or other vehicles are usually available to the household? Mark only one oval.

3B. Of these running cars, or other vehicles, how many of them are powered by electric? Mark only one oval.

3C. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the area with a neighbor or friend? Mark only one oval.

ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT

NINE OR MORE

ZERO (NONE)

DECLINE TO STATE
YES
NO

DECLINE TO STATE
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT

NINE OR MORE

ZERO (NONE)

DECLINE TO STATE
City of Laguna Beach   F‐19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

4. How many people usually live in this household?
Mark only one oval.

ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT
NINE
TEN
ELEVEN
TWELVE

THIRTEEN

FOURTEEN

FIFTEEN

SIXTEEN

SEVENTEEN

EIGHTEEN

NINETEEN OR MORE

DECLINE TO STATE

5. How many people in the household commute to a job, or to college on a daily basis? * Mark only one oval.

ZERO
ONE
TWO
THREE

FOUR OR MORE

DECLINE TO STATE
City of Laguna Beach   F‐20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

6. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college? THE NUMBER OF COMMUTERS MARKED MUST MATCH QUESTION 5 ABOVE. FILL IN THE

APPROPRIATE ROW FOR EACH NUMBERED COMMUTER
Mark only one oval per row.

Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool 2 or more people Don’t Know Commuter 1
Commuter 2
Commuter 3
Commuter 4
7-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE
City of Laguna Beach   F‐21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
7-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE
City of Laguna Beach   F‐22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
7-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE
City of Laguna Beach   F‐23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
7-4. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #4 to travel home from work or college? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
8-1. In a wildfire situation, approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
8-2. In a wildfire situation, approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
8-3. In a wildfire situation, approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
8-4. In a wildfire situation, approximately how much time would it take Commuter #4 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS
OVER 2 HOURS

DECLINE TO STATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate due to a wildfire, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area?
Mark only one oval.

LESS THAN 15 MINUTES
15-30 MINUTES
31-45 MINUTES
46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR
1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES
1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES
1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES
1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS
2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES
2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MIUNTES
2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES
2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS
3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS AND 15 MINUTES
3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES
3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES
3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS
4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES
4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES
4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES
4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS
5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES
5 HOURS AND 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS
OVER 6 HOURS

WILL NOT EVACUATE

DECLINE TO STATE
City of Laguna Beach   F‐29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

10. Please specify the number of people in your household who require Functional or Transportation needs in an evacuation:

Mark only one oval per row.
0 1 2 3 4 More than 4
Bus

Medical
Bus/Van
Wheelchair
Accessible
Vehicle
Ambulance
Other

11. Please choose one of the following:

If Don't Know, leave blank
Mark only one oval.

During a wildfire situation, I would await the return of household commuters to evacuate together.

During a wildfire situation, I would evacuate independently and meet other household members later.

City of Laguna Beach   F‐30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

12. How many vehicles would your household use during a wildfire evacuation? Mark only one oval.

ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT
NINE

NINE OR MORE

ZERO (NONE)

I WOULD EVACUATE BY BICYCLE
I WOULD EVACUATE BY BUS (Orange County Transit Authority)

DECLINE TO STATE
13A. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place in a wildfire emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you:

If Don't Know, leave blank
Mark only one oval.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE

EVACUATE
13B. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place now in a wildfire emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you:

If Don't Know, leave blank
Mark only one oval.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE

EVACUATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
13C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to a wildfire. Where would you evacuate to? Mark only one oval.

A RELATIVE’S OR FRIEND’S HOME

A RECEPTION CENTER

A HOTEL, MOTEL OR CAMPGROUND

A SECOND/SEASONAL HOME

WOULD NOT EVACUATE
DON’T KNOW
OTHER (Specify Below)

DELINE TO STATE
Fill in OTHER answer
14A. Do you have any pet(s) and/or animal(s)? *
Mark only one oval.

YES
NO

DECLINE TO STATE
14B. What type of animals do you have?
Check all that apply.

DOG
CAT
BIRD

REPTILE
HORSE
FISH

CHICKEN
GOAT
PIG
OTHER SMALL PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)
OTHER LARGE PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

DECLINE TO STATE
OTHER:

City of Laguna Beach   F‐32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
14C. What would you do with your animal(s) if you had to evacuate? Mark only one oval.

TAKE PET WITH ME TO A SHELTER

TAKE PET WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE

LEAVE PET AT HOME

DECLINE TO STATE
14D. If you have animal(s) and would evacuate with them, do you have sufficient room in your vehicle(s) to evacuate with your animal(s)?
Mark only one oval.

YES
NO

WILL USE A TRAILER

DECLINE TO STATE
OTHER:

15. How would you rate the cell phone coverage in your area? Mark only one oval.

EXCELLENT

VERY GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
POOR

VERY POOR
DON’T HAVE A CELL PHONE

DECLINE TO STATE

City of Laguna Beach   F‐33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

16. Have you opted into your local Emergency Alert and Warning Systems? Mark only one oval per row.
17A. If Emergency officials notified you to evacuate, would you notify a neighbor or friend to evacuate as well?
If Don't Know, leave blank
Mark only one oval.

YES
NO

DECLINE TO STATE
17B. How would you notify your neighbor or friend to evacuate? Check all that apply.

TEXT MESSAGE

PHONE CALL

SOCIAL MEDIA

IN PERSON

DECLINE TO STATE
OTHER:

OPTED IN

ALERTOC

OPTED IN
NIXLE
BOTH

ALERTOC

AND NIXLE
OTHER

SYSTEMS
With
Residential
Phone

With Cellular
Phone

With Email

With Text
Message

City of Laguna Beach   F‐34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
17C. If you were to notify a neighbor or friend to evacuate, how long would it take you to notify them?
Mark only one oval.
5 MINUTES OR LESS
6-10 MNIUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21-25 MINUTES
26-30 MINUTES
31-35 MINUTES
36-40 MINUTES
41-45 MINUTES
46-50 MINUTES
51-55 MINUTES
56 – 1 HOUR
OVER 1 HOUR

DECLINE TO STATE

APPENDIX G
Evacuation Regions
City of Laguna Beach G‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2

G EVACUATION REGIONS
This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table G‐1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions.

The evacuation regions were created based on the City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan dated April 2018. These regions are made up of Emergency Management Zones (EMZs). An ETE was computed for each of the twenty‐two EMZs as well as for groupings of multiple EMZs. These groupings were created based on the geography of the study area and major evacuation routes that would be used during an evacuation.  As shown on page 84, 93, and 99 of the City of Laguna Beach Evacuation Plan, the groupings of EMZs are defined as follows:
 Laguna Coast North (North Laguna) – Irvine Cove, Emerald Bay, Boat Canyon, North Coast, and Downtown
 Laguna Coast Central (Central Laguna) – Club Laguna, El Toro, Big Bend, Canyon Acres, Park Avenue, Downtown, Central Coast, Bluebird Canyon, Top of the World, and Old Top of the World
 Laguna Coast South (South Laguna) – Arch Beach Heights, Balboa/Nyes, Wesley, Ceanothus, Mar Vista, Sunset, and South Coast
ETEs were computed for each of these three groupings of EMZs, as well as for combinations of these groups based on possible wildfire locations.

The evacuation percentages presented in Table G‐1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 of Section 2.2 and the results of the demographic survey.  It should be noted that for Regions R26 through R28 it was assumed that 100 percent of residents within the shadow region closest to the ridge line would also voluntarily evacuate.    This area is shown in blue hatching in Figure G‐29. For Region R26, 100 percent of the northern portion only was considered, and for Region R27, 100 percent of the southern portion only was considered.   For Region 28, 100 percent of the whole area was considered.   Fourteen percent (14%) of the remainder of the shadow region (grey hatching) was assumed to voluntarily evacuate.

City of Laguna Beach G‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table G‐1. Percent of EMZ Population Evacuating for Each Region Region Emergency Management Zone (EMZ) Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9a 9b 9c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 R01 Arch Beach Heights 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R02 Balboa/Nyes 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R03 Big Bend 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R04 Bluebird Canyon 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R05 Boat Canyon 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R06 Canyon Acres 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R07 Ceanothus 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R08 Club Laguna 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R09 North Coast 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R10 Central Coast 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R11 South Coast 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R12 Downtown 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R13 El Toro 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R14 Emerald Bay 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R15 Irvine Cove 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R16 Mar Vista 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R17 Old Top of the World 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R18 Park Avenue 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14%R19 Sunset 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14%R20 Temple Hills 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14%R21 Top of the World 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14%R22 Wesley 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100%R23 North Laguna 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 100% 14% 100% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%R24 Central Laguna 14% 14% 100% 100% 14% 100% 14% 100% 14% 100% 14% 100% 100% 14% 14% 14% 100% 100% 14% 100% 100% 14%R25 South Laguna 100% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 100% 14% 14% 100% City of Laguna Beach G‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Region Emergency Management Zone (EMZ) Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9a 9b 9c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 R26
North and
Central
Laguna 14% 14%
100% 100% 100% 100%
14%
100% 100% 100%
14%
100% 100% 100% 100%
14%
100% 100%
14%
100% 100%
14%
R27
South and
Central
Laguna
100% 100% 100% 100%
14%
100% 100% 100%
14%
100% 100% 100% 100%
14% 14%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
R28 All EMZs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone(s) Shelter‐in‐Place Zone(s) Evacuate
City of Laguna Beach
G‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐1. Region R01
City of Laguna Beach
G‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐2. Region R02
City of Laguna Beach
G‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐3. Region R03
City of Laguna Beach
G‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐4. Region R04
City of Laguna Beach
G‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐5. Region R05
City of Laguna Beach
G‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐6. Region R06
City of Laguna Beach
G‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐7. Region R07
City of Laguna Beach
G‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐8. Region R08
City of Laguna Beach
G‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐9. Region R09
City of Laguna Beach
G‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐10. Region R10
City of Laguna Beach
G‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐11. Region R11
City of Laguna Beach
G‐15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐12. Region R12
City of Laguna Beach
G‐16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐13. Region R13
City of Laguna Beach
G‐17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐14. Region R14
City of Laguna Beach
G‐18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐15. Region R15
City of Laguna Beach
G‐19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐16. Region R16
City of Laguna Beach
G‐20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐17. Region R17
City of Laguna Beach
G‐21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐18. Region R18
City of Laguna Beach
G‐22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐19. Region R19
City of Laguna Beach
G‐23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐20. Region R20
City of Laguna Beach
G‐24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐21. Region R21
City of Laguna Beach
G‐25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐22. Region R22
City of Laguna Beach
G‐26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐23. Region R23
City of Laguna Beach
G‐27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐24. Region R24
City of Laguna Beach
G‐28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐25. Region R25
City of Laguna Beach
G‐29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐26. Region R26
City of Laguna Beach
G‐30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐27. Region R27
City of Laguna Beach
G‐31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure
G‐28. Region R28
City of Laguna Beach G‐32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure G‐29. Shadow Region along the Ridge Line

APPENDIX H
Evacuation Roadway Network
City of Laguna Beach H‐1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
H. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK
This appendix presents the evacuation roadway network used in the study. As discussed in Section 1.3, a link‐node analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure H‐1 provides an overview of the link‐node analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 58 more detailed figures (Figure H‐2 through Figure H‐59) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field survey conducted in November 2019.   Table H‐1 lists the characteristics of each roadway section modeled in the study area. Each link is identified by its road name and the upstream and downstream node numbers. The geographic location of each link can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided in  Table H‐1. The roadway type identified in  Table H‐1  is generally based on the following criteria:
 Freeway:   limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds
 Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway  Major arterial:  3 or more lanes in each direction
 Minor arterial:  2 or more lanes in each direction
 Collector:  single lane in each direction
 Local roadways:  single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, “No. of Lanes” in  Table H‐1 identifies the number of lanes that extend throughout the length of the link.   Many links have additional lanes on the immediate approach to an intersection (turn pockets); these have been recorded and entered into the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As discussed in Section 1.3, lane width and shoulder width were not physically measured during the road survey. Rather, estimates of these measures were based on visual observations and recorded images.

Table H‐2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre‐timed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node.

Uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table H‐2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided.

City of Laguna Beach H‐2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table H‐1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1 1 3 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 954 2 12 4 1,750 40 562 1 88 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 1,293 2 12 4 1,750 45 563 1 89 SR‐1 Major Arterial 686 3 12 4 1,750 40 564 2 1178 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,322 4 12 4 1,750 55 45 3 1 SR‐1 Major Arterial 954 3 12 4 1,750 40 566 3 4 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,059 2 12 4 1,750 40 567 4 3 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,059 3 12 4 1,750 40 568 4 5 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,348 2 12 4 1,750 40 569 5 4 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,347 2 12 4 1,750 40 56 10 5 6 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 697 2 12 4 1,750 40 5611 5 84 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 643 2 12 4 1,750 45 5612 6 5 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 697 2 12 4 1,750 40 5613 6 7 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 632 2 12 4 1,750 40 5614 7 6 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 632 2 12 4 1,750 40 5615 7 10 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 480 2 12 4 1,900 40 5616 8 9 SR‐1 Major Arterial 338 2 12 4 1,750 40 5517 8 11 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 264 2 12 4 1,750 40 5518 9 8 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 338 2 12 4 1,750 40 5519 9 10 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 277 2 12 4 1,900 40 5520 10 7 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 480 2 12 4 1,750 40 5621 10 9 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 277 2 12 4 1,750 40 5522 11 8 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 264 2 12 4 1,750 40 5523 11 12 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 680 2 12 4 1,750 45 5524 12 11 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 683 2 12 4 1,750 45 5525 12 13 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 789 2 12 4 1,900 50 5526 13 12 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 789 2 12 4 1,750 50 5527 13 14 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,532 2 12 4 1,750 50 5528 14 13 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,532 2 12 4 1,900 50 5529 14 15 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 2,141 2 12 4 1,750 50 5530 15 14 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 2,141 2 12 4 1,750 50 55 City of Laguna Beach H‐3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
31 15 16 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 2,006 2 12 4 1,900 50 5232 15 71 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 597 2 12 4 1,750 40 5533 16 15 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 2,006 2 12 4 1,750 50 5234 16 1495 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,435 2 12 4 1,700 45 5235 17 18 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 877 2 12 4 1,750 45 5236 17 1495 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 858 2 12 4 1,750 45 5237 18 17 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 877 2 12 4 1,750 45 5238 18 19 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 3,211 2 12 4 1,750 45 5139 18 66 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 453 2 12 8 1,900 35 5240 19 18 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 3,210 2 12 4 1,750 45 5141 19 20 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,166 2 12 4 1,900 40 5142 20 19 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,169 2 12 4 1,750 40 5143 20 1422 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,409 2 12 4 1,750 40 5144 21 22 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,152 2 12 4 1,750 40 5145 21 1422 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 724 2 12 4 1,750 40 5146 22 21 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,152 2 12 4 1,750 40 5147 22 23 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,362 2 12 4 1,750 40 4648 23 22 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,361 2 12 4 1,750 40 4649 23 24 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,551 2 12 4 1,900 40 4650 24 23 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,551 2 12 4 1,750 40 4651 24 25 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 635 2 12 4 1,900 40 4652 25 24 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 638 2 12 4 1,900 40 4653 25 26 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 758 2 12 4 1,900 40 4654 26 25 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 759 2 12 4 1,900 40 4655 26 27 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,160 2 12 4 1,750 40 4656 27 26 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,161 2 12 4 1,900 40 4657 27 28 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,190 2 12 4 1,750 40 4658 28 27 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,190 2 12 4 1,750 40 4659 28 29 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 2,077 2 12 4 1,750 40 4560 29 28 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 2,077 2 12 4 1,750 40 4561 29 30 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 227 2 12 4 1,900 40 4562 30 29 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 227 2 12 4 1,750 40 45 City of Laguna Beach H‐4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
63 30 1425 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 651 2 12 4 1,750 40 4564 31 32 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,280 2 12 4 1,750 40 4065 31 52 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,313 2 12 4 1,750 40 4066 32 31 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,280 2 12 4 1,750 40 4067 32 46 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,530 2 12 4 1,750 40 4068 33 34 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 942 2 12 4 1,750 40 4069 33 46 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 720 2 12 4 1,750 40 4070 34 33 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 942 2 12 4 1,750 40 4071 34 35 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 769 2 12 4 1,750 40 4072 35 34 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 769 2 12 4 1,750 40 4073 35 36 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 264 2 12 4 1,900 40 4074 36 35 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 263 2 12 4 1,750 40 4075 36 37 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 255 2 12 4 1,750 40 3976 37 36 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 254 2 12 4 1,900 40 3977 37 38 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 412 2 12 4 1,750 40 3978 38 37 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 412 2 12 4 1,750 40 3979 38 39 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,008 2 12 4 1,750 40 3980 38 40 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 723 2 12 4 1,750 30 3981 39 38 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,008 2 12 4 1,750 40 3982 39 885 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,290 2 12 4 1,750 40 3983 40 38 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 722 2 12 4 1,750 30 3984 40 353 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 227 2 12 4 1,750 30 3985 41 37 Ocean Ave Local Roadway 738 1 12 4 1,750 25 3986 41 40 Beach St Local Roadway 284 1 12 4 1,750 30 3987 43 1334 Legion St Local Roadway 1,087 1 12 4 1,125 25 4088 43 1409 Park Ave Local Roadway 157 1 12 2 1,575 35 4089 44 33 Cleo St Local Roadway 369 1 12 4 1,750 25 4090 44 1334 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 955 2 12 4 1,900 30 4091 45 33 Cleo St Local Roadway 355 1 12 4 1,750 25 4092 46 32 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,530 2 12 4 1,750 40 4093 46 33 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 720 2 12 4 1,750 40 4094 47 1633 Thalia St Local Roadway 179 1 12 4 1,125 25 40 City of Laguna Beach H‐5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
95 48 46 Thalia St Local Roadway 308 1 12 4 1,750 25 4096 49 1314 Cress St Local Roadway 765 1 12 4 1,125 25 4097 50 32 Cress St Local Roadway 314 1 12 4 1,750 25 4098 51 1332 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 1,035 1 12 4 1,125 25 4099 52 31 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,312 2 12 4 1,750 40 40 100 52 1427 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,723 2 12 4 1,900 40 45101 53 1375 Diamond St Local Roadway 782 1 12 4 1,125 25 40102 54 29 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 518 1 12 4 1,750 25 45103 55 28 South Terrace Local Roadway 375 1 12 4 1,750 25 45104 56 28 Montage Resert Dr Local Roadway 370 1 12 4 1,750 25 45105 57 27 Wesley Dr Local Roadway 756 1 12 4 1,750 25 46106 58 23 West St Local Roadway 182 1 12 4 1,750 25 46107 59 58 West St Local Roadway 764 1 12 0 1,125 25 46108 60 22 Seacliff Dr Local Roadway 343 1 12 4 1,750 25 46109 61 22 3rd Ave Local Roadway 927 1 12 4 1,750 25 46110 62 21 7th Ave Local Roadway 661 1 12 4 1,750 25 51111 63 21 Circle Dr Local Roadway 360 1 12 4 1,750 25 51112 64 19 Vista Del Sol Local Roadway 1,064 1 12 4 1,750 25 51113 65 19 Vista Del Sol Local Roadway 566 1 12 4 1,750 25 51114 66 18 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 466 1 12 8 1,750 35 52115 66 67 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 996 2 12 8 1,900 35 52116 67 66 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 988 2 12 8 1,900 35 52117 67 142 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 668 2 12 8 1,750 45 52118 68 18 Monarch Bay Dr Collector 731 1 12 4 1,750 25 52119 69 17 Monarch Bay Plaza Collector 349 1 12 0 1,750 30 52120 70 71 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,012 2 12 4 1,750 40 52121 70 240 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 937 2 12 4 1,900 40 52122 71 15 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 597 1 12 4 1,750 40 55123 71 70 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,018 1 12 4 1,750 40 52124 72 15 Ritz Carlton Dr Collector 939 2 12 4 1,750 30 55125 73 14 Selva Rd Collector 945 1 12 2 1,750 35 55126 74 14 Selva Rd Collector 698 1 12 2 1,750 35 55 City of Laguna Beach H‐6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
127 75 12 Shoreline Dr Collector 951 1 12 0 1,750 30 55128 76 11 Street of the Blue Lantern Collector 939 1 12 2 1,750 30 55129 77 11 Street of the Blue Lantern Collector 633 1 12 2 1,750 30 55130 78 8 Pacific Coast Hwy Minor Arterial 362 1 12 4 1,750 30 55131 79 9 Street of the Ruby Lantern Collector 400 1 12 2 1,750 30 55132 80 7 Street of the Amber
Lantern Collector 673 1 12 4 1,750 30 56
133 81 6 Street of the Violet Lantern Collector 816 1 12 2 1,750 30 56134 81 84 La Cresta Dr Collector 698 1 12 4 1,750 25 56135 82 6 Street of the Violet Lantern Collector 861 1 12 2 1,750 30 56136 83 5 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 757 2 12 4 1,750 30 56137 84 5 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 643 1 12 4 1,750 45 56138 84 90 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,341 2 12 4 1,750 45 56139 85 4 Copper Lantern St Collector 618 1 12 4 1,750 30 56140 86 3 Crystal Lantern Collector 588 1 12 4 1,750 30 56141 87 1 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 910 2 12 4 1,750 40 56142 88 1 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 1,292 1 12 4 1,750 45 56143 88 733 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 1,047 2 12 4 1,900 45 56144 89 1 SR‐1 Major Arterial 686 2 12 4 1,750 40 56145 89 735 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,387 3 12 4 1,900 45 56146 90 84 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,341 2 12 4 1,750 45 56147 90 91 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 822 2 12 4 1,900 45 56148 91 90 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 822 2 12 4 1,750 45 56149 91 92 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 513 2 12 4 1,750 45 56150 92 91 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 513 2 12 4 1,900 45 56151 92 93 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 979 2 12 4 1,750 45 53152 92 117 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 1,887 2 12 8 1,750 45 56153 93 92 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 979 2 12 4 1,750 45 53154 93 1621 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 626 2 12 4 1,900 45 53155 94 1498 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 193 2 12 4 1,750 45 53156 94 1621 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,671 2 12 4 1,750 45 53157 95 96 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 599 2 12 4 1,750 45 53 City of Laguna Beach H‐7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
158 95 1499 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 554 2 12 4 1,900 45 53159 96 95 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 595 2 12 4 1,750 45 53160 96 97 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 819 3 12 4 1,750 50 53161 96 123 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 822 2 12 4 1,750 45 53162 97 96 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 820 2 12 4 1,750 50 53163 97 98 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 857 3 12 4 1,900 50 53164 98 97 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 857 3 12 4 1,750 50 53165 98 99 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,355 3 12 4 1,900 50 53166 99 98 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,347 3 12 4 1,900 50 53167 99 100 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 727 3 12 4 1,750 50 53168 100 99 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 727 3 12 4 1,900 50 53169 100 101 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,488 3 12 4 1,750 50 48170 101 100 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,501 3 12 4 1,750 50 48171 101 102 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,382 3 12 4 1,900 50 48172 102 101 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,386 3 12 4 1,750 50 48173 102 103 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,224 3 12 4 1,750 50 48174 103 102 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,218 3 12 4 1,900 50 48175 103 104 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,995 2 12 4 1,900 50 48176 104 103 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,989 2 12 4 1,750 50 48177 104 105 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,089 2 12 4 1,750 50 48178 105 104 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,085 2 12 4 1,900 50 48179 105 106 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,012 2 12 4 1,750 50 48180 106 105 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,011 2 12 4 1,750 50 48181 106 136 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 933 2 12 4 1,900 50 48182 107 108 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 878 3 12 4 1,750 50 48183 107 136 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 626 3 12 4 1,900 50 48184 108 107 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 878 3 12 4 1,750 50 48185 108 109 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,777 3 12 4 1,750 50 43186 109 108 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 1,777 3 12 4 1,750 50 43187 109 110 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 2,126 3 12 4 1,900 50 43188 110 109 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 2,126 3 12 4 1,750 50 43189 110 111 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 925 3 12 4 1,750 50 43 City of Laguna Beach H‐8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
190 111 110 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 921 3 12 4 1,900 50 43191 111 112 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 626 3 12 4 1,750 50 43192 111 139 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 1,260 2 12 4 1,750 45 43193 112 111 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 626 1 12 4 1,750 50 43194 112 113 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 2,075 2 12 4 1,750 50 43195 113 112 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 2,075 3 12 4 1,750 50 43196 113 159 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,430 3 12 4 1,750 45 43197 113 517 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,188 3 12 4 1,900 45 43198 114 90 Selva Rd Collector 1,170 1 12 2 1,750 35 56199 115 90 Selva Rd Collector 724 1 12 2 1,750 35 56200 116 84 La Cresta Dr Collector 519 1 12 4 1,750 25 56201 117 721 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 380 2 12 8 1,750 45 56202 118 92 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 1,307 2 12 4 1,750 40 56203 119 93 Acapulco Dr Collector 391 1 12 4 1,750 25 53204 120 93 Acapulco Dr Collector 1,089 1 12 4 1,750 25 53205 121 95 Terra Vista Collector 397 1 12 4 1,750 30 53206 121 124 Ocean Ranch Collector 627 1 12 4 1,750 30 53207 122 95 Terra Vista Collector 1,020 1 12 4 1,750 30 53208 123 669 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 2,330 2 12 4 1,900 45 53209 124 96 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 570 2 12 4 1,750 45 53210 125 97 Via Ladera Collector 430 1 12 4 1,750 30 53211 126 97 Via Ladera Collector 349 1 12 4 1,750 30 53212 127 100 Old Ranch Rd Collector 879 1 12 4 1,750 35 53213 128 100 Old Ranch Rd Collector 993 1 12 4 1,750 35 53214 129 101 Beacon Hill Way Collector 1,041 1 12 4 1,750 30 48215 130 103 St Christopher Collector 691 1 12 4 1,750 30 48216 131 103 St Christopher Collector 765 1 12 4 1,750 30 48217 132 105 St Christopher Collector 966 1 12 4 1,750 30 48218 133 106 Chapparosa Park Rd Collector 1,591 1 12 4 1,750 25 48219 134 107 Sweet Meadow Ln Collector 646 1 12 4 1,750 30 48220 135 107 Sweet Meadow Ln Collector 857 1 12 4 1,750 30 48221 136 106 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 935 2 12 4 1,750 50 48 City of Laguna Beach H‐9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
222 136 107 Golden Lantern Major Arterial 633 3 12 4 1,750 50 48223 137 108 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 714 2 12 4 1,750 45 48224 138 109 Hidden Hills Rd Collector 817 1 12 4 1,750 35 43225 138 137 Tessier St Collector 1,474 1 12 4 1,750 30 48226 139 532 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 1,444 2 12 4 1,900 45 43227 140 111 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 319 2 12 4 1,750 45 43228 141 112 Paseo Escuela Minor Arterial 638 2 12 4 1,750 30 43229 142 67 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 668 2 12 8 1,900 45 52230 142 143 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,407 2 12 8 1,900 45 52231 143 142 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,405 2 12 8 1,750 45 52232 143 144 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 895 3 12 8 1,750 45 52233 144 143 Crown Valley Pkwy Minor Arterial 892 2 12 8 1,900 45 52234 144 145 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,681 3 12 6 1,900 55 52235 144 162 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 1,005 2 12 0 1,750 45 52236 145 144 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,683 2 12 6 1,750 55 52237 145 1505 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,213 3 12 6 1,900 55 52238 146 147 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 947 3 12 6 1,900 55 47239 146 1505 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,069 3 12 6 1,900 55 47240 147 146 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 946 3 12 6 1,900 55 47241 147 148 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,488 3 12 6 1,750 55 47242 148 147 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,487 3 12 6 1,900 55 47243 148 149 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 2,055 3 12 6 1,900 55 47244 149 148 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 2,053 3 12 6 1,750 55 47245 149 150 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,114 3 12 6 1,900 55 47246 150 149 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,114 3 12 6 1,900 55 47247 150 151 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 893 3 12 6 1,750 55 47248 151 150 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 893 3 12 6 1,900 55 47249 151 152 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 490 3 12 6 1,750 55 47250 152 151 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 490 3 12 6 1,750 55 47251 152 153 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,458 3 12 4 1,750 45 47252 153 152 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,457 3 12 4 1,750 45 47253 153 155 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,417 3 12 4 1,750 45 42 City of Laguna Beach H‐10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
254 153 168 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 929 2 12 4 1,750 40 47255 154 155 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,042 3 12 4 1,750 45 42256 154 156 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,701 3 12 4 1,750 45 43257 155 153 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,416 3 12 4 1,750 45 42258 155 154 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,038 3 12 4 1,750 45 42259 156 154 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,698 3 12 4 1,750 45 43260 156 157 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,212 3 12 4 1,750 45 43261 157 156 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,212 3 12 4 1,750 45 43262 157 158 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 633 3 12 4 1,750 45 43263 158 157 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 633 3 12 4 1,750 45 43264 158 159 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,133 3 12 4 1,750 45 43265 159 113 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,429 3 12 4 1,750 45 43266 159 158 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,133 3 12 4 1,750 45 43267 160 142 Sea Island Dr Collector 806 1 12 4 1,750 30 52268 161 144 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 1,104 2 12 6 1,750 45 52269 162 144 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 1,013 2 12 0 1,750 45 52270 162 245 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 943 2 12 0 1,900 45 52271 163 148 Club House Dr Collector 800 1 12 4 1,750 30 47272 164 148 Club House Dr Collector 913 1 12 4 1,750 30 47273 165 151 Hillhurst Dr Collector 935 1 12 4 1,750 30 47274 166 152 Alicia Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,027 2 12 4 1,750 40 47275 167 153 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,042 2 12 4 1,750 40 42276 168 153 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 938 2 12 4 1,750 40 47277 168 269 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 982 2 12 4 1,750 40 47278 169 154 Parkside Dr E Collector 451 1 12 4 1,750 30 42279 170 154 Central Park Dr Collector 558 1 12 4 1,750 30 42280 171 155 Community Park Collector 632 1 12 4 1,750 30 42281 172 156 La Plata Dr Collector 816 1 12 4 1,750 25 43282 173 156 La Plata Dr Collector 888 1 12 4 1,750 25 43283 174 157 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,588 2 12 4 1,750 45 43284 175 158 Adelanto Dr Collector 926 1 12 4 1,750 30 43285 176 159 Nueva Vista Dr Collector 840 1 12 4 1,750 30 43 City of Laguna Beach H‐11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
286 177 159 Nueva Vista Dr Collector 630 1 12 4 1,750 30 43287 178 179 I‐5 Freeway 4,744 6 12 8 2,250 70 57288 179 178 I‐5 Freeway 4,761 6 12 8 2,250 70 57289 179 180 I‐5 Freeway 1,329 5 12 8 2,250 70 57290 179 1270 SR‐1 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 847 1 12 4 1,700 45 57291 180 179 I‐5 Freeway 1,329 6 12 8 2,250 70 57292 180 181 I‐5 Freeway 769 5 12 8 2,250 70 57293 181 180 I‐5 Freeway 769 6 12 8 2,250 70 57294 181 182 I‐5 Freeway 1,305 5 12 8 2,250 70 57295 182 181 I‐5 Freeway 1,305 5 12 8 2,250 70 57296 182 183 I‐5 Freeway 1,079 5 12 8 2,250 70 57297 183 182 I‐5 Freeway 1,076 5 12 8 2,250 70 57298 183 185 I‐5 Freeway 744 5 12 8 2,250 70 57299 184 185 I‐5 Freeway 1,228 5 12 8 2,250 70 57300 184 186 I‐5 Freeway 2,608 6 12 8 2,250 70 54301 185 183 I‐5 Freeway 744 5 12 8 2,250 70 57302 185 184 I‐5 Freeway 1,231 5 12 8 2,250 70 57303 186 184 I‐5 Freeway 2,608 5 12 8 2,250 70 54304 186 187 I‐5 Freeway 2,228 5 12 8 2,250 70 54305 187 186 I‐5 Freeway 2,228 5 12 8 2,250 70 54306 187 188 I‐5 Freeway 1,723 5 12 8 2,250 70 54307 188 187 I‐5 Freeway 1,723 5 12 8 2,250 70 54308 188 189 I‐5 Freeway 3,115 5 12 8 2,250 70 54309 189 188 I‐5 Freeway 3,118 5 12 8 2,250 70 54310 189 190 I‐5 Freeway 1,069 5 12 8 2,250 70 54311 190 189 I‐5 Freeway 1,069 5 12 8 2,250 70 54312 190 191 I‐5 Freeway 758 5 12 8 2,250 70 49313 191 190 I‐5 Freeway 758 5 12 8 2,250 70 49314 191 192 I‐5 Freeway 4,712 6 12 8 2,250 70 49315 192 191 I‐5 Freeway 4,712 6 12 8 2,250 70 49316 192 193 I‐5 Freeway 2,518 6 12 8 2,250 70 49317 193 192 I‐5 Freeway 2,518 6 12 8 2,250 70 49 City of Laguna Beach H‐12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
318 193 194 I‐5 Freeway 1,700 6 12 8 2,250 70 49319 194 193 I‐5 Freeway 1,706 6 12 8 2,250 70 49320 194 195 I‐5 Freeway 1,426 6 12 8 2,250 70 44321 195 194 I‐5 Freeway 1,426 6 12 8 2,250 70 44322 195 196 I‐5 Freeway 1,641 6 12 8 2,250 70 44323 196 195 I‐5 Freeway 1,641 6 12 8 2,250 70 44324 196 197 I‐5 Freeway 3,100 5 12 8 2,250 70 44325 196 781 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 2,373 2 12 4 1,900 45 44326 197 196 I‐5 Freeway 3,100 5 12 8 2,250 70 44327 197 198 I‐5 Freeway 909 5 12 8 2,250 70 44328 198 197 I‐5 Freeway 909 5 12 8 2,250 70 44329 198 199 I‐5 Freeway 1,879 5 12 8 2,250 70 44330 199 198 I‐5 Freeway 1,879 5 12 8 2,250 70 44331 199 200 I‐5 Freeway 2,065 5 12 8 2,250 70 38332 200 199 I‐5 Freeway 2,065 5 12 8 2,250 70 38333 200 201 I‐5 Freeway 1,178 5 12 8 2,250 70 38334 201 200 I‐5 Freeway 1,178 5 12 8 2,250 70 38335 201 202 I‐5 Freeway 1,028 5 12 8 2,250 70 38336 202 201 I‐5 Freeway 1,028 5 12 8 2,250 70 38337 202 203 I‐5 Freeway 1,321 5 12 8 2,250 70 38338 203 202 I‐5 Freeway 1,321 5 12 8 2,250 70 38339 203 204 I‐5 Freeway 2,274 5 12 8 2,250 70 38340 204 203 I‐5 Freeway 2,274 5 12 8 2,250 70 38341 204 205 I‐5 Freeway 1,826 5 12 8 2,250 70 38342 205 204 I‐5 Freeway 1,826 5 12 8 2,250 70 38343 205 207 I‐5 Freeway 1,218 5 12 8 2,250 70 30344 206 207 I‐5 Freeway 1,401 5 12 8 2,250 70 30345 206 208 I‐5 Freeway 2,326 5 12 8 2,250 70 30346 207 205 I‐5 Freeway 1,218 5 12 8 2,250 70 30347 207 206 I‐5 Freeway 1,401 5 12 8 2,250 70 30348 208 206 I‐5 Freeway 2,326 5 12 8 2,250 70 30349 208 209 I‐5 Freeway 2,252 5 12 8 2,250 70 30 City of Laguna Beach H‐13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
350 209 208 I‐5 Freeway 2,249 5 12 8 2,250 70 30351 209 210 I‐5 Freeway 1,232 5 12 8 2,250 70 30352 210 209 I‐5 Freeway 1,230 5 12 8 2,250 70 30353 210 211 I‐5 Freeway 988 5 12 4 2,250 70 30354 211 210 I‐5 Freeway 988 5 12 4 2,250 70 30355 211 212 I‐5 Freeway 2,293 5 12 4 2,250 70 22356 212 211 I‐5 Freeway 2,293 5 12 4 2,250 70 22357 212 213 I‐5 Freeway 1,481 6 12 8 2,250 70 22358 213 212 I‐5 Freeway 1,482 5 12 8 2,250 70 22359 213 214 I‐5 Freeway 2,840 6 12 8 2,250 70 22360 214 213 I‐5 Freeway 2,838 5 12 8 2,250 70 22361 214 215 I‐5 Freeway 2,525 6 12 8 2,250 70 22362 215 214 I‐5 Freeway 2,522 5 12 8 2,250 70 22363 215 216 I‐5 Freeway 982 6 12 8 2,250 70 21364 216 218 I‐5 Freeway 293 6 12 8 2,250 70 21365 216 1626 I‐5 Freeway 546 6 12 8 2,250 70 21366 217 218 I‐5 Freeway 543 6 12 8 2,250 70 21367 217 1651 I‐5 Freeway 1,749 6 12 4 2,250 70 21368 218 216 I‐5 Freeway 293 6 12 8 2,250 70 21369 218 217 I‐5 Freeway 543 6 12 8 2,250 70 21370 218 1644 I‐5 Freeway 183 2 12 4 2,250 70 21371 219 220 I‐5 Freeway 1,556 6 12 4 2,250 70 19372 219 1650 I‐5 Freeway 950 6 12 4 2,250 70 21373 220 219 I‐5 Freeway 1,556 6 12 4 2,250 70 19374 220 221 I‐5 Freeway 1,355 6 12 4 2,250 70 19375 221 220 I‐5 Freeway 1,355 6 12 4 2,250 70 19376 221 222 I‐5 Freeway 3,209 6 12 4 2,250 70 19377 221 1647 I‐5 Freeway 1,328 2 12 4 2,250 70 19378 222 221 I‐5 Freeway 3,211 6 12 4 2,250 70 19379 222 223 I‐5 Freeway 726 3 12 4 2,250 70 19380 222 864 I‐5 Freeway 1,591 3 12 4 2,250 70 19381 223 222 I‐5 Freeway 726 6 12 4 2,250 70 19 City of Laguna Beach H‐14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
382 223 224 I‐5 Freeway 3,203 4 12 4 2,250 70 18383 223 1397 I‐405 On Ramp HOV Freeway Ramp 1,340 1 12 4 1,700 40 18384 224 223 I‐5 Freeway 3,203 4 12 4 2,250 70 18385 224 225 I‐5 Freeway 3,394 5 12 4 2,250 70 11386 225 224 I‐5 Freeway 3,394 5 12 4 2,250 70 11387 225 226 I‐5 Freeway 3,409 5 12 4 2,250 70 11388 226 225 I‐5 Freeway 3,409 5 12 4 2,250 70 11389 226 227 I‐5 Freeway 1,193 5 12 4 2,250 70 11390 227 226 I‐5 Freeway 1,193 5 12 4 2,250 70 11391 227 228 I‐5 Freeway 2,353 5 12 4 2,250 70 11392 228 227 I‐5 Freeway 2,359 6 12 4 2,250 70 11393 228 229 I‐5 Freeway 1,727 6 12 4 2,250 70 11394 229 228 I‐5 Freeway 1,723 6 12 4 2,250 70 11395 229 230 I‐5 Freeway 2,406 6 12 8 2,250 70 11396 230 229 I‐5 Freeway 2,401 6 12 8 2,250 70 11397 232 114 Selva Rd Collector 1,142 1 12 2 1,575 35 56398 232 235 Selva Rd Collector 249 1 12 2 1,575 35 55399 233 232 Street of the Blue Lantern Collector 772 1 12 2 1,350 30 55400 234 118 Street of the Blue Lantern Collector 1,054 1 12 2 1,750 30 56401 234 232 Street of the Blue Lantern Collector 656 1 12 2 1,350 30 55402 235 74 Selva Rd Minor Arterial 1,571 2 12 2 1,900 35 55403 236 70 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,075 2 12 4 1,750 40 52404 237 238 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 943 3 12 4 1,750 40 52405 237 1493 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 792 2 12 4 1,750 40 52406 238 237 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 943 2 12 4 1,750 40 52407 238 243 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 2,731 2 12 4 1,750 45 52408 238 250 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,190 2 12 4 1,750 50 52409 239 71 Mariner Dr Collector 658 1 12 4 1,750 30 55410 240 70 Stonehill Dr Collector 936 1 12 4 1,750 40 52411 240 1691 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 562 2 12 4 1,900 40 52412 241 236 Tennis Club Collector 578 1 12 4 1,750 30 52413 242 237 Monarch Beach Dr Minor Arterial 1,020 2 12 4 1,750 30 52 City of Laguna Beach H‐15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
414 243 124 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 1,076 2 12 4 1,750 45 53415 244 238 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 938 2 12 0 1,750 45 52416 245 244 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 773 2 12 0 1,750 45 52417 246 162 South Peak Collector 1,041 1 12 4 1,750 30 52418 247 244 Camino Del Avion Collector 920 1 12 4 1,750 30 52419 248 244 Camino Del Avion Collector 1,115 1 12 4 1,750 30 52420 249 243 Bear Brand Rd Collector 1,174 1 12 4 1,750 30 53421 250 238 Niguel Rd Major Arterial 1,190 3 12 4 1,750 50 52422 250 251 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,402 2 12 4 1,750 50 52423 251 250 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,392 2 12 4 1,750 50 52424 251 252 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,369 2 12 4 1,900 50 52425 252 251 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,373 2 12 4 1,750 50 52426 252 253 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,911 2 12 4 1,750 50 52427 253 252 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,908 2 12 4 1,900 50 52428 253 254 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,690 2 12 4 1,750 50 47429 254 253 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,687 2 12 4 1,750 50 47430 254 255 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 2,866 2 12 4 1,750 50 47431 255 254 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 2,893 2 12 4 1,750 50 47432 255 256 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,202 2 12 4 1,750 50 47433 256 255 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,191 2 12 4 1,750 50 47434 256 269 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,505 2 12 4 1,750 40 47435 256 1577 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 840 2 12 4 1,900 45 48436 257 250 Charles Rd Collector 1,051 1 12 4 1,750 30 52437 258 251 Ridgeway Ave Collector 944 1 12 4 1,750 30 52438 259 253 Beacon Hill Way Collector 1,094 1 12 4 1,750 30 47439 260 254 Club House Dr Collector 1,366 1 12 4 1,750 30 47440 261 255 Augusta Dr Minor Arterial 812 2 12 4 1,750 30 47441 262 264 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 1,679 2 12 4 1,750 45 48442 262 1577 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 496 2 12 4 1,900 45 48443 263 137 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 1,395 2 12 4 1,750 45 48444 263 264 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 1,368 2 12 4 1,900 45 48445 264 262 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 1,677 2 12 4 1,750 45 48 City of Laguna Beach H‐16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
446 264 263 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 1,368 2 12 4 1,750 45 48447 265 262 Parc Vista Collector 937 1 12 4 1,750 30 48448 266 262 Valle Vista Dr Collector 969 1 12 4 1,750 30 48449 267 263 Parc Vista Collector 855 1 12 4 1,750 30 48450 268 263 Tropea Collector 704 1 12 4 1,750 30 48451 269 168 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 981 2 12 4 1,750 40 47452 269 256 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,505 2 12 4 1,750 30 47453 270 269 La Hermosa Ave Collector 1,708 1 12 4 1,750 30 47454 271 269 La Hermosa Ave Collector 1,314 1 12 4 1,750 30 47455 272 273 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 874 2 12 6 1,900 45 47456 272 279 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 797 2 12 6 1,900 45 47457 273 274 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 609 2 12 6 1,900 45 47458 274 275 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 863 2 12 6 1,900 45 47459 275 1507 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 863 2 12 6 1,900 45 47460 276 277 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 1,469 2 12 6 1,900 45 47461 277 278 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 1,477 2 12 6 1,900 45 52462 278 161 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 1,556 2 12 6 1,900 45 52463 279 280 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 1,012 2 12 6 1,900 45 47464 280 281 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 2,208 2 12 6 1,750 45 47465 281 166 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 1,050 1 12 6 1,750 45 47466 282 272 La Brise Collector 1,445 1 12 4 1,350 30 47467 283 281 Highlands Ave Collector 1,553 1 12 4 1,750 30 42468 284 166 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,214 3 12 4 1,750 50 42469 284 167 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 584 2 12 4 1,750 40 42470 285 284 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,039 3 12 4 1,750 50 42471 286 285 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,480 3 12 4 1,900 50 42472 287 286 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,229 3 12 4 1,750 50 42473 288 287 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,055 3 12 4 1,900 50 42474 288 289 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,844 3 12 4 1,750 50 42475 289 288 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,844 3 12 4 1,750 50 42476 289 290 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,593 3 12 4 1,900 50 42477 290 289 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,591 3 12 4 1,750 50 42 City of Laguna Beach H‐17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
478 290 291 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,812 3 12 4 1,750 50 36479 291 290 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,815 3 12 4 1,900 50 36480 291 326 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,997 3 12 4 1,750 50 36481 291 349 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,596 3 12 4 1,750 50 36482 292 167 Ivy Glenn Dr Collector 1,075 1 12 4 1,750 30 42483 293 284 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 967 2 12 4 1,750 40 42484 294 286 Kite Hill Dr S Collector 1,283 1 12 4 1,750 30 42485 295 288 Highlands Ave Minor Arterial 1,745 2 12 4 1,750 30 42486 296 289 Kite Hill Dr N Collector 894 1 12 4 1,750 30 42487 297 174 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,443 2 12 4 1,750 50 43488 298 297 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,498 2 12 4 1,900 50 43489 298 299 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,232 2 12 4 1,900 50 43490 299 298 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,232 2 12 4 1,900 50 43491 299 300 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,393 2 12 4 1,900 50 36492 300 299 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,386 2 12 4 1,900 50 36493 300 301 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,257 3 12 4 1,750 45 36494 301 300 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,258 2 12 4 1,900 45 36495 301 316 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,173 3 12 4 1,900 45 36496 301 350 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 532 3 12 4 1,900 50 36497 302 174 Kings Rd Collector 1,635 1 12 4 1,750 30 43498 303 298 Rancho Niguel Rd Collector 1,134 1 12 4 1,350 30 43499 304 113 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,741 3 12 4 1,750 50 43500 305 304 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,514 3 12 4 1,750 50 43501 305 1618 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,006 3 12 4 1,750 50 37502 306 309 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 2,378 3 12 4 1,750 50 37503 306 1618 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,535 3 12 4 1,750 50 37504 307 304 Nueva Vista Collector 451 1 12 4 1,750 30 43505 308 305 Rancho Niguel Rd Collector 1,633 1 12 4 1,750 40 43506 308 523 Rancho Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 2,208 2 12 4 1,750 40 37507 309 310 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,106 3 12 4 1,750 50 37508 310 311 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,118 3 12 4 1,750 50 37509 311 312 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 848 3 12 4 1,750 50 37 City of Laguna Beach H‐18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
510 312 505 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 937 3 12 4 1,750 50 37511 313 309 Avila Rd Collector 737 1 12 4 1,750 30 37512 314 310 Aliso Niguel Collector 736 1 12 4 1,750 30 37513 315 311 SR‐73 Off‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 680 1 12 4 1,750 45 37514 316 317 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,757 3 12 4 1,750 45 36515 317 318 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,325 3 12 4 1,750 45 36516 318 319 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 830 3 12 4 1,750 45 36517 319 320 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,139 3 12 4 1,750 45 36518 319 511 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 632 3 12 4 1,750 50 36519 320 321 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,216 3 12 4 1,750 45 36520 320 324 SR‐73 On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 505 2 12 4 1,900 30 36521 321 320 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 1,203 1 12 4 1,750 45 36522 321 503 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 896 3 12 4 1,750 45 37523 321 504 SR‐73 On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 547 2 12 4 1,900 30 37524 322 317 Avila Rd Collector 1,095 1 12 4 1,750 30 36525 322 327 Avila Rd Collector 1,309 1 12 4 1,750 30 36526 323 318 Avenida Breve Collector 443 1 12 4 1,750 30 36527 324 320 SR‐73 Off‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 509 2 12 4 1,750 45 36528 324 760 SR‐73 On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 721 1 12 4 1,350 30 36529 326 327 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 685 3 12 4 1,750 50 36530 327 328 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 948 3 12 4 1,750 50 36531 328 329 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 621 3 12 4 1,750 50 36532 329 330 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,572 3 12 4 1,750 50 36533 330 331 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,139 3 12 4 1,750 50 36534 330 509 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 1,020 3 12 4 1,750 50 36535 331 336 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,367 3 12 4 1,750 50 36536 332 326 Federal Loading Dock Collector 689 1 12 4 1,750 30 36537 333 328 Marketplace Dr S Collector 648 1 12 4 1,750 30 36538 334 329 Marketplace Dr N Minor Arterial 625 2 12 4 1,750 30 36539 335 331 Morning Ridge Collector 653 1 12 4 1,750 30 36540 336 488 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,381 3 12 4 1,750 50 28541 337 291 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 964 3 12 4 1,750 50 36 City of Laguna Beach H‐19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
542 338 337 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 972 3 12 4 1,750 50 36543 339 338 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 923 3 12 4 1,750 50 36544 340 339 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,742 3 12 4 1,750 50 36545 340 341 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,130 3 12 4 1,750 50 36546 341 340 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,130 3 12 4 1,750 50 36547 341 342 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,390 3 12 4 1,750 50 36548 342 419 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,068 3 12 4 1,750 45 36549 342 424 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 892 3 12 4 1,750 50 36550 343 337 Wood Canyon Dr Collector 1,976 1 12 4 1,750 30 36551 344 338 Pursuit Collector 852 1 12 4 1,750 30 36552 345 339 Liberty Collector 1,381 1 12 4 1,750 30 36553 346 340 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,230 2 12 4 1,750 40 36554 346 417 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Minor Arterial 937 2 12 4 1,900 40 36555 347 341 Journey Collector 1,115 1 12 4 1,750 30 36556 347 423 Journey Collector 703 1 12 4 1,750 30 36557 348 349 Dorine Rd Collector 448 1 12 4 1,750 30 36558 349 301 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 835 3 12 4 1,750 50 36559 350 351 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,023 2 12 4 1,750 50 36560 351 306 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,587 1 12 4 1,750 50 37561 352 351 Niguel Heights Blvd Collector 1,057 1 12 4 1,750 30 37562 353 40 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 226 2 12 4 1,750 30 39563 353 354 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 689 2 12 4 1,750 35 40564 354 353 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 682 2 12 4 1,750 35 40565 354 1391 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 229 2 12 4 1,750 35 40566 355 356 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,409 2 12 10 1,750 45 34567 355 1391 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 751 2 12 4 1,750 35 40568 356 355 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,409 2 12 10 1,750 45 34569 356 357 SR‐133 Collector 1,965 1 12 4 1,700 45 34570 357 356 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,954 2 12 4 1,750 45 34571 357 1420 SR‐133 Collector 1,231 1 12 4 1,700 45 34572 358 353 N Beach St Local Roadway 178 1 12 4 1,750 30 39573 359 1336 3rd St Local Roadway 915 1 12 4 1,750 30 40 City of Laguna Beach H‐20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
574 360 355 Festival of Arts Local Roadway 427 1 12 4 1,750 30 40575 361 1624 Canyon Acres Dr Local Roadway 1,165 1 12 4 1,750 30 34576 362 1420 SR‐133 Collector 452 1 12 4 1,700 45 34577 362 1628 SR‐133 Collector 596 1 12 4 1,700 45 34578 363 1628 SR‐133 Collector 539 1 12 4 1,700 45 34579 363 1630 SR‐133 Collector 687 1 12 4 1,700 45 34580 364 365 SR‐133 Collector 702 1 12 4 1,700 45 34581 364 1630 SR‐133 Collector 715 1 12 4 1,700 45 34582 365 364 SR‐133 Collector 702 1 12 4 1,700 45 34583 365 366 SR‐133 Collector 2,238 1 12 4 1,700 45 34584 366 367 SR‐133 Collector 1,065 1 12 4 1,700 45 34585 367 368 SR‐133 Collector 2,240 1 12 4 1,700 45 26586 368 369 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 651 2 12 4 1,750 45 26587 369 371 El Toro Rd Collector 556 1 12 4 1,700 45 26588 369 372 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 552 2 12 4 1,900 45 26589 370 365 Castle Rock Rd Collector 720 1 12 4 1,350 30 34590 371 369 El Toro Rd Collector 548 1 12 4 1,750 45 26591 371 381 El Toro Rd Collector 2,372 1 12 4 1,700 45 27592 372 375 SR‐133 Collector 458 1 12 4 1,700 45 26593 373 374 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 879 2 12 10 1,750 45 26594 374 379 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 387 1 12 4 1,700 45 26595 374 380 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 675 2 12 10 1,900 55 26596 375 373 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,052 2 12 4 1,750 55 26597 376 373 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 744 1 12 4 1,750 45 26598 377 769 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 914 1 12 8 1,700 45 26599 378 377 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 671 1 12 8 1,700 45 26600 379 374 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 387 2 12 8 1,750 45 26601 379 378 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 463 1 12 4 1,350 30 26602 380 784 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,817 2 12 10 1,900 65 26603 381 371 El Toro Rd Collector 2,373 1 12 4 1,700 45 27604 381 382 El Toro Rd Minor Arterial 917 2 12 4 1,750 45 27605 382 381 El Toro Rd Minor Arterial 935 2 12 4 1,900 45 27 City of Laguna Beach H‐21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
606 382 383 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,002 2 12 4 1,900 45 27607 382 387 El Toro Rd Minor Arterial 604 2 12 4 1,750 45 27608 383 774 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 2,096 2 12 4 1,900 45 27609 384 382 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,002 2 12 4 1,750 45 27610 385 387 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 842 2 12 4 1,750 45 27611 386 768 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 850 1 12 4 1,700 45 27612 387 382 El Toro Rd Minor Arterial 604 2 12 4 1,750 45 27613 387 386 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,127 2 12 4 1,900 45 27614 387 388 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 941 3 12 4 1,750 45 27615 388 387 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 941 2 12 4 1,750 45 27616 388 1433 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 782 3 12 4 1,750 45 27617 389 390 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,317 3 12 4 1,750 45 20618 389 1433 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,343 3 12 4 1,750 45 27619 390 389 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,317 3 12 4 1,750 45 20620 390 391 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 2,048 3 12 4 1,900 45 20621 391 390 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 2,042 3 12 4 1,750 45 20622 391 392 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,217 3 12 4 1,750 45 20623 392 391 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,219 3 12 4 1,900 45 20624 392 393 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,541 3 12 4 1,750 45 20625 393 392 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,550 3 12 4 1,750 45 20626 393 394 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 804 3 12 4 1,750 45 21627 394 395 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,482 3 12 4 1,750 45 21628 395 396 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,509 3 12 0 1,750 45 21629 395 408 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 805 3 12 4 1,750 50 21630 395 409 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 859 3 12 4 1,900 50 21631 396 397 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 820 3 12 0 1,750 45 21632 397 398 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,636 3 12 0 1,750 45 21633 398 399 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 783 3 12 4 1,750 45 21634 398 413 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 777 2 12 4 1,900 45 21635 399 400 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 644 3 12 4 1,750 45 21636 400 602 Avenida De La Carlota Minor Arterial 609 1 12 4 1,750 45 21637 400 607 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 191 3 12 4 1,900 45 21 City of Laguna Beach H‐22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
638 401 388 Bells Vireo Ln Collector 669 1 12 4 1,750 30 27639 402 1432 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 658 2 12 4 1,750 45 27640 403 390 Calle Corta Collector 1,088 1 12 4 1,750 30 20641 404 392 Canyon Wren Ln Collector 960 1 12 4 1,750 30 20642 405 393 Calle Sonora Minor Arterial 1,452 2 12 4 1,750 40 20643 406 393 Calle Sonora Minor Arterial 1,586 2 12 4 1,750 40 21644 407 394 Home Depot Collector 762 1 12 4 1,750 30 21645 408 395 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 805 3 12 4 1,750 50 21646 408 492 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 2,170 3 12 4 1,750 50 21647 409 395 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 853 3 12 4 1,750 50 21648 409 802 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,388 3 12 4 1,900 50 21649 410 396 Driveway Local Roadway 424 1 12 4 1,750 30 21650 411 397 Avenida Sevilla Collector 1,013 1 12 4 1,750 30 21651 412 397 Avenida Sevilla Collector 1,100 1 12 4 1,750 30 21652 413 602 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 535 1 12 4 1,750 45 21653 414 398 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 1,000 2 12 4 1,750 45 21654 415 399 Regional Center Collector 1,065 1 12 4 1,750 30 21655 416 346 Liberty Minor Arterial 897 2 12 4 1,750 30 36656 417 346 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Minor Arterial 940 2 12 4 1,750 40 36657 417 418 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 902 3 12 4 1,750 40 36658 418 423 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 1,265 3 12 4 1,750 45 36659 418 449 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 1,150 3 12 4 1,750 50 36660 418 454 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 1,378 3 12 4 1,750 50 35661 419 420 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 993 3 12 4 1,750 45 36662 420 421 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,139 3 12 4 1,750 45 28663 421 427 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 310 1 12 4 1,700 45 28664 421 431 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 519 4 12 4 1,900 45 28665 422 428 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 412 1 12 4 1,350 30 28666 422 429 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,010 3 12 4 1,750 45 28667 422 431 Aliso Creek Rd Collector 540 1 12 4 1,700 45 28668 423 342 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 918 3 12 4 1,750 45 36669 424 330 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 2,032 3 12 4 1,750 50 36 City of Laguna Beach H‐23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
670 425 419 Autumnglen Collector 868 1 12 4 1,750 30 36671 426 420 Summerfield Collector 1,020 1 12 4 1,750 30 28672 427 421 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 310 1 12 4 1,750 45 28673 427 772 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 587 2 12 4 1,900 30 28674 428 422 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 423 2 12 4 1,750 45 28675 428 771 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 589 2 12 4 1,900 30 28676 429 422 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 1,014 3 12 4 1,750 45 28677 429 430 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,042 2 12 4 1,750 45 28678 430 429 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,037 2 12 4 1,750 45 28679 430 435 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 688 3 12 4 1,750 50 28680 430 436 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,952 2 12 4 1,750 45 28681 431 422 Aliso Creek Rd Major Arterial 540 3 12 4 1,750 45 28682 431 427 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 711 1 12 4 1,700 45 28683 431 428 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 817 1 12 4 1,350 30 28684 432 429 Windsong Collector 624 1 12 4 1,750 30 28685 433 429 Windsong Collector 478 1 12 4 1,750 30 28686 434 430 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 1,587 3 12 4 1,750 50 28687 435 430 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 688 2 12 4 1,750 50 28688 435 484 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 1,501 3 12 4 1,900 50 28689 436 437 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,808 2 12 4 1,750 45 28690 437 438 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,046 2 12 4 1,750 45 28691 437 443 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 797 2 12 4 1,900 45 28692 437 444 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 1,040 2 12 4 1,750 45 28693 438 437 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,042 2 12 4 1,750 45 28694 438 440 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,091 2 12 4 1,900 45 27695 439 402 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,629 2 12 4 1,900 45 27696 440 439 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 1,088 2 12 4 1,750 45 27697 441 436 Argonaut Collector 775 1 12 4 1,750 30 28698 442 434 Argonaut Collector 860 1 12 4 1,750 30 28699 442 436 Argonaut Collector 681 1 12 4 1,750 30 28700 443 437 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 790 2 12 4 1,750 45 28701 443 469 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 811 2 12 4 1,750 45 28 City of Laguna Beach H‐24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
702 444 437 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 1,040 2 12 4 1,750 45 28703 444 478 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 991 2 12 4 1,750 45 28704 445 438 Eastwing Collector 1,050 1 12 4 1,750 30 27705 446 438 Eastwing Collector 598 1 12 4 1,750 30 28706 447 439 Westwing Collector 911 1 12 4 1,750 30 27707 448 439 Westwing Collector 1,263 1 12 4 1,750 30 27708 449 450 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 1,138 3 12 4 1,750 50 36709 450 451 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 1,024 3 12 4 1,750 50 28710 451 452 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 706 3 12 4 1,750 50 28711 452 453 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 512 3 12 4 1,750 50 28712 453 434 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 1,707 3 12 4 1,750 50 28713 454 418 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 1,398 3 12 4 1,750 50 35714 454 463 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 1,215 2 12 4 1,900 50 35715 455 449 Driveway Local Roadway 569 1 12 4 1,750 30 36716 456 450 Grand Collector 907 1 12 4 1,750 30 27717 457 450 Grand Collector 882 1 12 4 1,750 30 28718 458 451 Vantis Dr Collector 379 1 12 4 1,750 30 28719 459 452 Parker Pl Collector 593 1 12 4 1,750 30 28720 460 453 Enterprise Collector 1,082 1 12 4 1,750 30 28721 461 453 Enterprise Collector 872 1 12 4 1,750 30 28722 462 463 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 1,689 2 12 4 1,900 50 27723 462 464 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 1,363 2 12 4 1,750 45 27724 463 454 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 1,218 2 12 4 1,750 50 35725 463 462 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 1,685 2 12 4 1,750 50 27726 464 465 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 841 2 12 4 1,900 45 27727 465 466 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 1,190 2 12 4 1,750 45 27728 466 467 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 849 2 12 4 1,900 45 27729 467 468 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 435 2 12 4 1,750 45 27730 467 476 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 617 1 12 4 1,350 30 27731 468 469 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 728 2 12 4 1,750 45 27732 468 476 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 373 1 12 4 1,350 30 27733 469 443 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 811 2 12 4 1,900 45 28 City of Laguna Beach H‐25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
734 469 468 Pacific Park Dr Minor Arterial 728 1 12 12 1,750 45 27735 470 454 Wood Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,018 2 12 4 1,750 30 35736 471 454 Wood Canyon Dr Collector 1,401 1 12 4 1,750 30 35737 472 462 Peppertree Collector 736 1 12 4 1,750 30 27738 473 462 Peppertree Collector 619 1 12 4 1,750 30 27739 474 464 Canyon Vistas Collector 838 1 12 4 1,750 30 27740 475 466 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 967 1 12 4 1,750 45 27741 476 468 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 373 1 12 4 1,750 45 27742 476 773 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 591 2 12 4 1,900 30 28743 477 469 Brookline Minor Arterial 392 2 12 0 1,750 30 28744 478 444 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 991 2 12 4 1,750 45 28745 478 479 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 1,110 2 12 4 1,900 45 28746 479 480 Glenwood Dr Minor Arterial 853 2 12 4 1,750 45 28747 480 485 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,809 3 12 4 1,750 50 28748 480 494 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,409 3 12 4 1,750 50 28749 481 444 Argonaut Minor Arterial 1,112 2 12 4 1,750 30 28750 482 478 Cedarbrook Collector 1,080 1 12 4 1,750 30 28751 483 478 Cedarbrook Collector 786 1 12 4 1,750 30 28752 484 485 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Major Arterial 599 3 12 4 1,750 50 28753 485 499 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 2,678 3 12 4 1,750 50 28754 485 500 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,192 2 12 4 1,750 50 28755 486 435 Cedarbrook Collector 708 1 12 4 1,750 30 28756 487 435 Cedarbrook Collector 821 1 12 4 1,750 30 28757 488 489 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,178 3 12 4 1,750 50 28758 489 502 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,368 3 12 4 1,750 45 29759 489 1522 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,538 3 12 4 1,750 50 29760 490 336 Hollyoak Collector 1,147 1 12 4 1,750 30 28761 491 488 Ramona St Collector 543 1 12 4 1,750 30 28762 492 408 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 2,191 3 12 4 1,750 50 21763 492 493 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,217 3 12 4 1,750 50 21764 493 492 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,217 3 12 4 1,750 50 21765 493 494 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 507 3 12 4 1,750 50 28 City of Laguna Beach H‐26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
766 494 480 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,409 3 12 4 1,750 50 28767 494 493 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 507 3 12 4 1,750 50 28768 495 408 Via Campo Verde Collector 1,392 1 12 4 1,750 30 21769 496 492 Calle Cortez Minor Arterial 664 2 12 0 1,750 30 21770 497 493 Via Iglesia Collector 1,065 1 12 4 1,750 30 28771 498 494 Calle Aragon Minor Arterial 1,331 2 12 0 1,750 30 28772 499 489 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 766 3 12 4 1,750 50 28773 500 577 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,199 2 12 4 1,900 50 28774 501 499 Via Lomas Collector 1,340 1 12 4 1,750 30 28775 502 579 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,826 3 12 4 1,750 45 29776 503 321 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 896 3 12 4 1,750 45 37777 503 505 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,393 2 12 4 1,750 50 37778 503 506 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 979 3 12 4 1,900 45 29779 504 321 SR‐73 Off‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 521 2 12 4 1,750 45 37780 504 760 SR‐73 On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 590 2 12 4 1,900 30 36781 505 503 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,393 1 12 4 1,750 50 37782 505 516 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 2,204 3 12 4 1,900 50 37783 506 507 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,199 2 12 4 1,900 50 29784 507 583 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 2,650 2 12 4 1,900 50 29785 508 424 Deerhurst Collector 1,525 1 12 4 1,750 30 36786 509 319 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 1,209 3 12 4 1,750 50 36787 510 509 Heather Ridge Collector 1,186 1 12 4 1,750 30 36788 511 512 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 1,250 3 12 4 1,750 50 37789 512 505 Pacific Park Dr Major Arterial 571 3 12 4 1,750 50 37790 513 511 Aliso Niguel Collector 893 1 12 4 1,750 30 37791 514 512 Mareblu Collector 675 1 12 4 1,750 30 37792 515 312 Nellie Gail Rd Collector 1,197 1 12 4 1,750 30 37793 516 563 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 942 3 12 4 1,750 50 37794 517 518 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,830 3 12 4 1,900 45 43795 518 519 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,489 3 12 4 1,750 45 37796 519 520 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 2,346 3 12 4 1,750 45 37797 519 523 Greenfield Dr Minor Arterial 632 2 12 4 1,750 45 37 City of Laguna Beach H‐27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
798 520 519 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 2,374 1 12 4 1,750 45 37799 520 521 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 847 4 12 4 1,750 45 38800 520 549 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,331 2 12 4 1,900 45 38801 521 522 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 906 5 12 4 1,750 45 38802 522 554 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 652 2 12 4 1,900 45 38803 522 555 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 452 5 12 4 1,900 45 38804 523 519 Greenfield Dr Minor Arterial 639 2 12 4 1,750 45 37805 523 524 Greenfield Dr Minor Arterial 863 2 12 4 1,750 45 37806 524 526 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 621 1 12 4 1,700 45 37807 524 528 Greenfield Dr Collector 351 1 12 4 1,750 40 37808 525 308 Rancho De Linda Collector 1,199 1 12 4 1,350 30 43809 526 755 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 639 1 12 4 1,700 45 37810 527 524 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 469 1 12 4 1,750 45 37811 528 524 Greenfield Dr Collector 351 1 12 4 1,750 40 37812 528 531 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 561 2 12 4 1,900 45 37813 529 528 Greenfield Dr Collector 918 1 12 4 1,750 40 37814 530 528 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 416 1 12 4 1,750 45 37815 531 756 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 812 1 12 4 1,700 45 37816 532 533 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 2,085 2 12 4 1,750 45 43817 533 534 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 1,049 2 12 4 1,750 45 44818 533 538 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,657 2 12 4 1,900 40 44819 534 535 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 611 2 12 4 1,900 45 44820 535 539 Paseo de Colinas Minor Arterial 426 2 12 4 1,750 30 44821 536 139 Del Cerro Collector 762 1 12 4 1,750 30 43822 537 534 Star Dr Collector 922 1 12 4 1,750 30 44823 538 520 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,375 2 12 4 1,750 40 38824 538 533 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,657 1 12 4 1,750 40 44825 539 541 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 707 2 12 4 1,750 35 44826 540 539 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 1,091 2 12 4 1,750 35 44827 541 542 Avery Pkwy Minor Arterial 216 2 12 4 1,750 35 44828 541 548 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,561 1 12 4 1,700 45 44829 542 541 Avery Pkwy Minor Arterial 216 1 12 4 1,750 35 44 City of Laguna Beach H‐28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
830 542 543 Avery Pkwy Minor Arterial 333 1 12 4 1,750 35 44831 542 546 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 521 2 12 4 1,900 45 44832 543 544 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 710 2 12 4 1,900 45 44833 544 199 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 387 1 12 4 1,700 45 44834 545 542 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 729 2 12 4 1,750 45 44835 546 198 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 296 1 12 4 1,700 45 44836 547 543 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 559 1 12 4 1,750 45 44837 548 648 Camino Capistrano Collector 2,482 1 12 4 1,700 45 44838 549 520 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,337 2 12 4 1,750 45 38839 549 550 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,907 2 12 4 1,750 45 38840 550 549 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,900 2 12 4 1,900 45 38841 550 558 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 270 2 12 4 1,750 45 38842 551 521 Forbes Rd Collector 1,076 1 12 4 1,750 30 38843 552 521 Forbes Rd Collector 1,160 1 12 4 1,750 30 38844 553 522 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 577 1 12 4 1,750 45 38845 554 200 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 506 1 12 4 1,700 45 38846 555 556 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 605 2 12 4 1,900 30 38847 555 1732 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 4,809 4 12 4 1,425 45 38848 556 201 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 462 1 12 4 1,350 30 38849 557 559 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 2,864 2 12 4 1,750 45 38850 558 550 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 270 2 12 4 1,750 45 38851 558 557 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 2,371 2 12 4 1,750 45 38852 559 572 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 535 3 12 4 1,750 50 30853 559 644 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 903 2 12 4 1,750 30 30854 560 550 Cobot Park Parking Lot Local Roadway 472 1 12 4 1,750 25 38855 561 558 Rapid Falls Rd Collector 758 1 12 4 1,750 30 38856 562 557 Vista Viejo Rd Collector 1,452 1 12 4 1,750 30 38857 563 566 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 1,982 3 12 4 1,900 50 37858 564 563 Nellie Gail Rd Collector 1,198 1 12 4 1,750 30 37859 565 563 Nellie Gail Rd Collector 892 1 12 4 1,750 30 37860 566 567 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 1,269 3 12 4 1,750 50 29861 567 559 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 2,622 3 12 4 1,750 50 30 City of Laguna Beach H‐29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
862 568 567 Bridlewood Dr Collector 1,203 1 12 4 1,750 30 29863 569 567 Bridlewood Dr Collector 1,044 1 12 4 1,750 30 29864 571 570 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 7,360 3 12 4 1,425 50 30865 571 575 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 747 2 12 4 1,900 30 30866 572 571 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 862 3 12 4 1,750 50 30867 572 574 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 573 2 12 4 1,900 45 30868 573 572 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 756 2 12 4 1,750 45 30869 574 205 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 643 1 12 4 1,700 45 30870 575 207 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 727 1 12 4 1,350 30 30871 575 571 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 767 2 12 4 1,750 45 30872 576 500 Indian Hill Ln Collector 942 1 12 4 1,750 30 28873 577 578 Aliso Viejo Pkwy Minor Arterial 1,470 2 12 4 1,750 50 29874 578 582 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 1,545 2 12 4 1,750 45 29875 578 588 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 1,551 3 12 4 1,750 45 29876 579 582 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 712 3 12 4 1,750 45 29877 580 502 Aliso Hills Rd Collector 1,514 1 12 4 1,750 30 29878 581 579 Driveway Local Roadway 853 1 12 4 1,750 30 29879 582 611 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,733 3 12 4 1,750 45 29880 582 626 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 1,202 2 12 4 1,900 45 29881 583 584 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,532 2 12 4 1,750 50 29882 584 585 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,159 2 12 4 1,900 50 29883 585 586 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 836 2 12 4 1,750 50 29884 586 627 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 2,158 2 12 4 1,900 45 29885 586 628 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,941 2 12 4 1,750 45 29886 586 642 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 2,757 2 12 4 1,900 45 29887 587 584 Aliso Hills Dr Collector 1,512 1 12 4 1,750 30 29888 588 578 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 1,545 2 12 4 1,750 45 29889 588 589 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 588 3 12 4 1,750 45 29890 589 588 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 588 2 12 4 1,750 45 29891 589 590 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 1,236 3 12 4 1,750 45 22892 590 591 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 1,640 3 12 4 1,750 45 22893 590 596 Los Alisos Blvd Major Arterial 1,475 3 12 4 1,750 45 22 City of Laguna Beach H‐30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
894 591 592 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 1,130 3 12 4 1,750 45 21895 592 414 Paseo De Valencia Major Arterial 765 3 12 4 1,750 45 21896 593 588 Beckenham St Collector 1,494 1 12 4 1,750 30 29897 594 588 Beckenham St Minor Arterial 1,644 2 12 4 1,750 30 29898 595 589 Kennington Dr Collector 422 1 12 4 1,750 30 22899 596 590 Los Alisos Blvd Minor Arterial 1,484 1 12 4 1,750 45 22900 596 597 Los Alisos Blvd Minor Arterial 3,502 2 12 4 1,425 45 22901 598 596 Avenida De La Carlota Minor Arterial 981 2 12 4 1,750 30 22902 599 591 Via Estrada Collector 904 1 12 4 1,750 30 21903 600 592 Calle De La Magdalena Collector 651 1 12 4 1,750 30 21904 601 414 Calle De La Plata Collector 852 1 12 4 1,750 30 21905 602 400 Avenida De La Carlota Minor Arterial 609 2 12 4 1,750 45 21906 602 605 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 376 2 12 4 1,900 45 21907 603 602 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 594 2 12 4 1,750 45 21908 604 602 Avenida De La Carlota Minor Arterial 934 2 12 4 1,750 45 21909 605 218 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 261 1 12 4 1,700 45 21910 606 215 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 549 1 12 4 1,700 45 22911 607 606 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 496 2 12 4 1,900 45 21912 607 608 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 590 3 12 4 1,750 45 21913 608 609 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 524 3 12 4 1,425 45 21914 608 610 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 544 2 12 4 1,900 45 21915 609 1699 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 3,544 3 12 4 1,425 45 22916 610 216 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 571 1 12 4 1,350 30 21917 610 608 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 538 2 12 4 1,750 45 21918 611 612 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,653 3 12 4 1,750 45 29919 612 613 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 953 3 12 4 1,750 45 29920 613 614 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 217 4 12 4 1,900 45 22921 614 619 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 274 1 12 4 1,700 45 22922 614 620 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 282 4 12 4 1,750 45 22923 615 611 Wilkes Pl Collector 1,157 1 12 4 1,750 30 29924 616 612 Costeau St Collector 1,109 1 12 4 1,750 30 29925 617 613 Hon Ave Collector 989 1 12 4 1,750 30 22 City of Laguna Beach H‐31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
926 618 620 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 621 2 12 4 1,750 45 22927 619 783 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 498 2 12 4 1,900 45 22928 620 621 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 634 4 12 4 1,900 45 22929 621 622 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 326 3 12 4 1,750 45 22930 621 624 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 505 2 12 4 1,900 30 22931 622 625 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 3,561 3 12 4 1,425 45 22932 623 622 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 661 2 12 4 1,750 45 22933 624 213 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 728 1 12 4 1,350 30 22934 626 582 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 1,200 1 12 4 1,750 45 29935 626 627 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 1,474 2 12 4 1,900 45 29936 627 586 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 2,141 2 12 4 1,750 45 29937 627 626 Paseo De Valencia Minor Arterial 1,473 2 12 4 1,900 45 29938 628 629 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 849 2 12 4 1,750 45 30939 629 630 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 203 3 12 4 1,900 40 30940 630 631 La Paz Rd Major Arterial 389 3 12 4 1,900 40 30941 630 637 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 516 2 12 4 1,900 45 30942 631 632 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 401 2 12 4 1,750 40 30943 631 638 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 404 1 12 4 1,350 30 30944 632 633 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 4,073 2 12 4 1,425 40 30945 634 628 McIntyre St Collector 1,193 1 12 4 1,750 30 30946 635 629 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 501 1 12 4 1,750 45 30947 636 629 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 976 2 12 4 1,750 40 30948 637 209 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 426 1 12 4 1,700 45 30949 638 639 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 430 2 12 4 1,900 30 30950 639 210 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 503 1 12 4 1,350 30 30951 640 632 Muirlands Blvd Minor Arterial 1,017 2 12 4 1,750 40 30952 641 636 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,624 2 12 4 1,900 40 30953 641 645 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 328 2 12 4 1,900 40 30954 642 641 Paseo De Valencia Collector 321 1 12 4 1,750 45 30955 642 645 Paseo De Valencia Freeway Ramp 493 1 12 4 1,700 45 30956 643 644 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,801 2 12 4 1,750 40 30957 643 645 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 639 2 12 4 1,900 40 30 City of Laguna Beach H‐32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
958 644 559 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 903 1 12 4 1,750 30 30959 644 643 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 1,801 2 12 4 1,750 40 30960 645 641 Cabot Rd Minor Arterial 328 2 12 4 1,750 40 30961 645 643 Cabot Rd Major Arterial 639 3 12 4 1,750 40 30962 646 643 Nellie Gail Rd Collector 754 1 12 4 1,750 35 30963 647 644 El Paseo Minor Arterial 782 2 12 4 1,750 40 30964 648 649 Camino Capistrano Collector 2,636 1 12 4 1,700 45 44965 649 650 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,603 1 12 4 1,700 45 44966 650 651 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,317 1 12 4 1,700 45 49967 651 652 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,286 1 12 4 1,750 45 49968 652 653 Junipero Serra Rd Minor Arterial 508 2 12 4 1,750 35 49969 652 661 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,426 1 12 4 1,750 45 49970 653 652 Junipero Serra Rd Minor Arterial 508 1 12 4 1,750 35 49971 653 654 Junipero Serra Rd Minor Arterial 424 2 12 4 1,750 35 49972 654 655 Junipero Serra Rd Minor Arterial 514 1 12 4 1,750 35 49973 654 657 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 709 2 12 4 1,900 45 49974 655 659 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 643 2 12 4 1,900 45 49975 656 654 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 655 2 12 4 1,750 45 49976 657 192 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 675 1 12 4 1,700 45 49977 658 655 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 535 1 12 4 1,750 45 49978 659 193 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 541 1 12 4 1,700 45 49979 660 653 J. Serra High Collector 214 1 12 4 1,750 35 49980 661 652 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 1,418 1 12 4 1,750 45 49981 661 1571 Camino Capistrano Collector 2,719 1 12 4 1,750 45 49982 662 666 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,315 1 12 4 1,750 45 49983 662 1571 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 557 2 12 4 1,750 45 49984 663 661 Oso Rd Collector 664 1 12 4 1,750 35 49985 664 662 La Zanja St Collector 897 1 12 4 1,750 30 49986 665 662 La Zanja St Collector 640 1 12 4 1,750 30 49987 666 667 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,092 1 12 4 1,750 45 49988 667 689 Camino Capistrano Collector 162 1 12 4 1,750 40 54989 667 693 Ortega Hwy Minor Arterial 319 2 12 4 1,750 40 54 City of Laguna Beach H‐33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
990 668 666 Acjachema St Collector 447 1 12 4 1,750 30 49991 669 670 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 1,673 2 12 4 1,750 45 53992 670 672 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 2,244 2 12 4 1,750 45 53993 670 728 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 2,111 2 12 4 1,750 45 53994 671 123 Pacific Crest Collector 869 1 12 4 1,750 30 53995 672 673 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 1,088 2 12 4 1,900 45 54996 673 674 Del Obispo St Collector 958 1 12 4 1,750 40 54997 674 677 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 918 2 12 4 1,750 35 54998 675 672 Driveway Local Roadway 507 1 12 4 1,750 30 53999 676 674 Calle Aspero Collector 1,895 1 12 4 1,750 30 54 1000 677 678 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 1,176 2 12 4 1,750 35 541001 678 679 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 757 2 12 4 1,750 35 541002 679 680 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 390 2 12 4 1,750 35 541003 680 681 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 868 2 12 4 1,750 35 541004 681 699 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 359 2 12 4 1,750 35 541005 681 705 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 482 2 12 4 1,750 40 541006 682 677 Aguacate Rd Collector 786 1 12 4 1,750 30 541007 683 678 Via Belardes Collector 821 1 12 4 1,750 30 541008 684 678 Via Belardes Collector 629 1 12 4 1,750 30 541009 685 679 Alipaz St Collector 1,535 1 12 4 1,750 35 541010 686 679 Alipaz St Collector 1,053 1 12 4 1,750 35 541011 687 680 Paseo Adelanto Collector 943 1 12 4 1,750 35 541012 688 680 Paseo Adelanto Collector 1,712 1 12 4 1,750 35 541013 689 667 Camino Capistrano Collector 162 1 12 4 1,750 40 541014 689 681 Camino Capistrano Collector 1,184 1 12 4 1,750 40 541015 690 689 Verdugo St Collector 370 1 12 4 1,750 30 541016 691 693 El Camino Real Collector 401 1 12 4 1,750 30 541017 692 693 El Camino Real Collector 540 1 12 4 1,750 30 541018 693 667 Ortega Hwy Minor Arterial 319 1 12 4 1,750 40 541019 693 694 Ortega Hwy Minor Arterial 498 2 12 4 1,750 40 541020 694 695 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 236 3 12 4 1,900 45 541021 695 696 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 131 3 12 4 1,750 45 54 City of Laguna Beach H‐34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1022 695 702 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 481 2 12 4 1,900 45 541023 696 697 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 566 3 12 4 1,750 45 491024 697 698 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 433 3 12 4 1,900 45 491025 697 704 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 356 2 12 4 1,900 30 541026 698 1730 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 2,428 3 12 4 1,900 45 491027 699 700 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 718 2 12 4 1,900 35 541028 700 694 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 795 2 12 4 1,750 35 541029 701 699 Plaza Dr Collector 728 1 12 4 1,750 30 541030 702 189 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 397 1 12 4 1,700 45 541031 703 696 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 391 2 12 4 1,750 45 491032 704 190 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 640 1 12 4 1,350 30 541033 704 697 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 363 2 12 4 1,750 45 541034 705 706 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 1,262 2 12 4 1,750 40 541035 706 707 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 544 2 12 4 1,750 40 541036 707 708 San Juan Creek Rd Collector 458 1 12 4 1,750 40 541037 707 711 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 495 2 12 4 1,750 40 541038 708 707 San Juan Creek Rd Collector 458 1 12 4 1,750 30 541039 708 716 Valle Rd Collector 1,163 1 12 4 1,575 35 541040 709 705 Avenida Golondrina Collector 367 1 12 4 1,750 30 541041 710 706 Avenida Padre Collector 421 1 12 4 1,750 30 541042 711 713 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 579 2 12 4 1,900 30 541043 711 714 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 1,162 2 12 4 1,900 40 541044 712 711 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 432 1 12 4 1,750 30 541045 713 187 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 559 1 12 4 1,700 45 541046 714 718 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 2,870 2 12 4 1,750 45 541047 715 708 San Juan Creek Rd Minor Arterial 650 2 12 4 1,750 40 541048 716 708 Valle Rd Collector 1,160 1 12 4 1,750 35 541049 716 717 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 488 1 12 4 1,350 30 541050 717 188 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,320 1 12 4 1,700 45 541051 718 720 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 3,155 2 12 4 1,750 45 571052 719 718 Avenida Aeropuerto Collector 731 1 12 4 1,750 30 541053 720 731 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 614 2 12 4 1,900 45 57 City of Laguna Beach H‐35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1054 720 732 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 1,506 2 12 4 1,750 40 571055 721 722 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 1,027 2 12 8 1,750 45 561056 722 723 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 672 2 12 8 1,750 45 561057 723 720 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 3,004 2 12 8 1,750 45 561058 723 728 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 2,310 2 12 4 1,750 45 531059 723 1480 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 708 2 12 4 1,900 45 561060 724 117 Selva Rd Collector 1,074 1 12 4 1,750 30 561061 725 721 Ocean Hill Dr Collector 1,346 1 12 4 1,750 30 531062 726 722 Palo Alto St Collector 1,283 1 12 4 1,750 30 531063 727 722 Palo Alto St Collector 662 1 12 4 1,750 30 561064 728 670 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 2,111 2 12 4 1,750 45 531065 728 723 Del Obispo St Minor Arterial 2,308 2 12 4 1,750 45 531066 729 728 Blue Fin Dr Collector 984 1 12 4 1,750 30 531067 730 728 Blue Fin Dr Collector 439 1 12 4 1,750 30 531068 731 184 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 802 1 12 4 1,700 45 571069 732 741 Doheny Park Rd Minor Arterial 1,240 2 12 4 1,750 40 571070 733 88 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 1,043 2 12 4 1,750 45 561071 733 1480 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 1,093 2 12 4 1,750 45 561072 734 88 Village Rd Collector 690 1 12 4 1,750 30 561073 735 89 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,384 2 12 4 1,750 45 561074 735 736 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 523 2 12 4 1,900 50 561075 736 738 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,170 2 12 4 1,900 50 571076 737 746 SR‐1 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 448 1 12 8 1,350 30 561077 738 735 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,693 2 12 4 1,900 50 561078 738 1272 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 820 2 12 4 1,900 50 571079 739 747 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 318 2 12 4 1,750 50 571080 739 748 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 654 1 12 4 1,700 45 571081 740 89 Doheny Park Plaza Collector 271 1 12 4 1,750 30 561082 741 742 Doheny Park Rd Minor Arterial 709 2 12 4 1,750 40 561083 742 737 Doheny Park Rd Collector 457 1 12 4 1,700 40 561084 743 732 Driveway Local Roadway 532 1 12 4 1,750 30 571085 744 741 Victoria Blvd Collector 822 1 12 4 1,750 35 57 City of Laguna Beach H‐36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1086 745 742 SR‐1 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 574 1 12 4 1,750 45 561087 746 736 SR‐1 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 369 1 12 8 1,350 30 561088 747 752 SR‐1 Collector 575 1 12 4 1,700 55 571089 748 180 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 530 1 12 4 1,700 45 571090 749 750 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 663 1 12 4 1,350 30 571091 750 751 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 856 2 12 4 1,900 45 571092 751 182 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 635 1 12 4 1,700 45 571093 752 749 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 563 1 12 4 1,350 30 571094 753 747 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 561 2 12 4 1,750 45 571095 754 755 SR‐73 Freeway 2,368 3 12 4 2,250 70 381096 754 780 SR‐73 Freeway 2,633 3 12 4 2,250 70 441097 755 754 SR‐73 Freeway 2,350 3 12 4 2,250 70 381098 755 756 SR‐73 Freeway 2,600 3 12 8 2,250 70 371099 756 755 SR‐73 Freeway 2,598 3 12 8 2,250 70 371100 756 757 SR‐73 Freeway 1,799 3 12 8 2,250 70 371101 757 756 SR‐73 Freeway 1,805 3 12 8 2,250 70 371102 757 758 SR‐73 Freeway 1,733 3 12 8 2,250 70 371103 758 757 SR‐73 Freeway 1,733 3 12 8 2,250 70 371104 758 759 SR‐73 Freeway 3,175 3 12 8 2,250 70 371105 759 758 SR‐73 Freeway 3,175 3 12 8 2,250 70 371106 759 760 SR‐73 Freeway 779 3 12 8 2,250 70 361107 760 759 SR‐73 Freeway 779 3 12 8 2,250 70 361108 760 762 SR‐73 Freeway 823 4 12 8 2,250 70 361109 761 762 SR‐73 Freeway 3,602 3 12 8 2,250 70 281110 761 763 SR‐73 Freeway 922 4 12 8 2,250 70 281111 762 760 SR‐73 Freeway 823 3 12 8 2,250 70 361112 762 761 SR‐73 Freeway 3,595 4 12 8 2,250 70 281113 763 761 SR‐73 Freeway 922 3 12 8 2,250 70 281114 763 764 SR‐73 Freeway 1,139 4 12 8 2,250 70 281115 764 763 SR‐73 Freeway 1,139 3 12 8 2,250 70 281116 764 765 SR‐73 Freeway 3,293 4 12 8 2,250 70 281117 765 764 SR‐73 Freeway 3,287 3 12 8 2,250 70 28 City of Laguna Beach H‐37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1118 765 766 SR‐73 Freeway 1,660 4 12 10 2,250 70 271119 766 765 SR‐73 Freeway 1,660 4 12 10 2,250 70 271120 766 767 SR‐73 Freeway 1,900 4 12 10 2,250 70 271121 767 766 SR‐73 Freeway 1,902 3 12 10 2,250 70 271122 767 768 SR‐73 Freeway 3,832 4 12 10 2,250 70 271123 768 767 SR‐73 Freeway 3,832 3 12 10 2,250 70 271124 768 769 SR‐73 Freeway 2,109 4 12 10 2,250 70 261125 769 768 SR‐73 Freeway 2,112 3 12 10 2,250 70 261126 769 770 SR‐73 Freeway 2,806 4 12 10 2,250 70 261127 770 769 SR‐73 Freeway 2,799 3 12 10 2,250 70 261128 770 775 SR‐73 Freeway 2,574 3 12 10 2,250 70 261129 771 763 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 696 1 12 4 1,700 45 281130 772 761 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 883 1 12 4 1,700 45 281131 773 765 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 626 1 12 4 1,700 45 271132 774 766 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,078 2 12 4 1,900 45 271133 775 770 SR‐73 Freeway 2,575 3 12 10 2,250 70 261134 775 776 SR‐73 Freeway 2,655 3 12 10 2,250 70 171135 776 775 SR‐73 Freeway 2,641 3 12 10 2,250 70 171136 776 777 SR‐73 Freeway 3,939 3 12 10 2,250 70 171137 777 776 SR‐73 Freeway 3,940 3 12 10 2,250 70 171138 777 778 SR‐73 Freeway 4,093 3 12 10 2,250 70 171139 778 777 SR‐73 Freeway 4,079 3 12 10 2,250 70 171140 778 779 SR‐73 Freeway 3,110 4 12 10 2,250 70 161141 779 778 SR‐73 Freeway 3,154 4 12 10 2,250 70 161142 779 1247 SR‐73 Freeway 1,271 4 12 10 2,250 70 161143 780 754 SR‐73 Freeway 2,633 3 12 4 2,250 70 441144 780 782 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 2,834 3 12 4 1,900 45 441145 781 780 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,945 3 12 4 1,900 45 441146 782 196 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,423 2 12 4 1,900 45 441147 783 212 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 769 1 12 4 1,700 45 221148 784 785 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,920 2 12 10 1,900 65 171149 785 786 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,825 2 12 10 1,900 65 17 City of Laguna Beach H‐38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1150 786 787 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,060 2 12 10 1,900 65 171151 787 788 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,511 2 12 10 1,900 65 171152 788 789 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,337 2 12 10 1,900 65 201153 789 790 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,722 2 12 10 1,900 65 171154 790 791 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,230 2 12 8 1,900 65 171155 791 792 SR‐133 Major Arterial 1,163 3 12 6 1,750 65 171156 792 793 SR‐133 Major Arterial 1,825 3 12 4 1,750 65 171157 792 798 Lake Forest Dr Minor Arterial 1,424 2 12 4 1,750 50 181158 793 794 SR‐133 Major Arterial 847 3 12 4 1,900 65 171159 794 800 SR‐133 Major Arterial 607 4 12 4 1,900 65 171160 795 796 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 961 2 12 4 1,900 65 111161 796 797 SR‐133 Major Arterial 1,964 3 12 4 1,900 65 111162 797 1228 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 527 2 12 4 1,900 45 111163 797 1229 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 2,455 2 12 4 1,900 70 111164 798 792 Lake Forest Dr Minor Arterial 1,424 2 12 4 1,750 50 181165 798 813 Lake Forest Dr Minor Arterial 3,195 1 12 4 1,750 50 181166 799 793 Laguna Canyon Rd Minor Arterial 852 2 12 4 1,750 40 171167 800 795 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 3,790 2 12 4 1,900 65 111168 800 801 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,248 2 12 4 1,900 45 171169 801 869 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,267 1 12 4 1,700 45 111170 801 883 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 885 1 12 4 1,700 45 111171 802 409 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,425 3 12 4 1,900 50 211172 802 803 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,184 3 12 4 1,750 50 211173 803 802 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,184 3 12 4 1,900 50 211174 803 804 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,375 3 12 4 1,750 50 211175 804 803 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,377 3 12 4 1,750 50 211176 804 805 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,535 3 12 4 1,750 50 211177 805 806 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,567 3 12 4 1,750 50 191178 806 811 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 1,399 3 12 4 1,750 50 191179 806 822 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 1,461 3 12 4 1,750 50 191180 806 825 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 968 3 12 4 1,750 50 191181 807 803 Santa Maria Ave Minor Arterial 1,767 2 12 4 1,750 40 20 City of Laguna Beach H‐39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1182 808 804 Ridge Rte Dr Collector 2,166 1 12 4 1,750 40 211183 809 804 Ridge Rte Dr Collector 745 1 12 4 1,750 40 201184 809 814 Mill Creek Dr Collector 2,070 1 12 4 1,575 35 201185 810 805 El Pacifico Dr Collector 685 1 12 4 1,750 35 191186 811 806 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 1,399 3 12 4 1,750 50 191187 811 812 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 1,584 3 12 4 1,750 50 181188 812 811 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 1,584 3 12 4 1,750 50 181189 812 813 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 2,266 3 12 4 1,750 50 181190 813 798 Lake Forest Dr Minor Arterial 3,200 2 12 4 1,750 50 181191 813 818 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 1,244 3 12 4 1,900 45 181192 814 811 Mill Creek Dr Collector 1,236 1 12 4 1,750 35 181193 815 811 Mill Creek Dr Collector 773 1 12 4 1,750 35 181194 815 822 Mill Creek Dr Collector 590 1 12 4 1,750 35 181195 816 812 Santa Vittoria Dr Collector 1,100 1 12 4 1,750 35 181196 817 812 Tesla Collector 1,190 1 12 4 1,750 35 181197 817 823 Tesla Collector 851 1 12 4 1,750 35 181198 818 813 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 1,242 2 12 4 1,750 45 181199 818 819 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 1,171 3 12 4 1,750 45 181200 819 835 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 1,402 3 12 4 1,750 45 181201 819 844 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 1,216 3 12 4 1,750 50 181202 820 798 Romana Collector 685 1 12 4 1,750 25 181203 821 798 Hidden Canyon Collector 838 1 12 4 1,750 20 181204 822 823 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 1,137 3 12 4 1,750 50 181205 823 819 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 1,970 3 12 4 1,750 50 181206 824 822 Mill Creek Dr Collector 1,010 1 12 4 1,750 35 191207 825 826 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 928 3 12 4 1,750 45 191208 826 830 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 272 4 12 4 1,900 45 191209 827 825 Research Dr Collector 952 1 12 4 1,750 35 191210 828 825 Research Dr Collector 992 1 12 4 1,750 35 191211 829 826 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 976 2 12 4 1,750 45 191212 830 831 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 1,365 3 12 4 1,750 45 191213 830 833 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 486 1 12 4 1,700 45 19 City of Laguna Beach H‐40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1214 831 832 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 2,404 3 12 4 1,425 45 191215 833 857 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 500 1 12 4 1,700 45 191216 834 831 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 957 1 12 4 1,750 45 191217 835 836 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 902 3 12 4 1,750 45 181218 836 837 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 385 1 12 4 1,750 45 181219 836 838 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 1,478 3 12 4 1,900 45 191220 837 858 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 722 1 12 4 1,700 45 191221 838 839 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 311 3 12 4 1,750 45 191222 838 841 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 507 2 12 4 1,900 30 191223 839 840 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 4,952 3 12 4 1,425 45 191224 841 839 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 390 1 12 4 1,750 30 191225 841 860 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 724 1 12 4 1,350 30 191226 842 835 Research Dr Collector 1,086 1 12 4 1,750 40 181227 843 836 I‐5 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 835 1 12 4 1,750 45 181228 844 845 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 1,519 3 12 4 1,750 50 181229 845 846 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 784 3 12 4 1,900 50 181230 846 847 Irvine Center Dr Major Arterial 339 3 12 4 1,750 45 181231 846 854 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 711 1 12 4 1,350 30 181232 847 848 Irvine Center Dr Collector 639 1 12 4 1,700 45 181233 848 856 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 538 1 12 4 1,350 30 181234 851 844 Encanto Collector 814 1 12 4 1,750 35 181235 852 845 Research Dr Minor Arterial 1,371 1 12 4 1,750 40 181236 853 845 Antivo Collector 1,000 1 12 4 1,750 40 181237 854 867 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 486 1 12 4 1,700 45 181238 855 847 I‐405 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 510 1 12 4 1,750 45 181239 856 868 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 604 1 12 4 1,350 30 181240 857 219 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 813 1 12 4 1,700 45 191241 858 859 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 2,076 1 12 4 1,700 45 191242 859 221 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 792 1 12 4 1,700 45 191243 860 861 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 953 2 12 4 1,900 45 191244 861 862 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,329 3 12 4 1,900 45 191245 862 224 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 2,010 2 12 4 1,900 45 18 City of Laguna Beach H‐41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1246 862 863 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,100 2 12 4 1,900 45 181247 863 866 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,437 2 12 4 1,900 45 181248 864 865 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,483 3 12 4 1,900 45 181249 865 223 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 2,273 4 12 4 1,900 45 181250 865 1625 I‐405 Freeway 803 4 12 10 2,250 70 181251 866 865 I‐405 Freeway 1,281 4 12 10 2,250 70 181252 866 867 I‐405 Freeway 780 6 12 10 2,250 70 181253 867 866 I‐405 Freeway 780 5 12 10 2,250 70 181254 867 868 I‐405 Freeway 1,283 6 12 10 2,250 70 181255 868 867 I‐405 Freeway 1,283 6 12 10 2,250 70 181256 868 869 I‐405 Freeway 2,864 6 12 10 2,250 70 181257 869 868 I‐405 Freeway 2,864 5 12 10 2,250 70 181258 869 870 I‐405 Freeway 3,188 6 12 10 2,250 70 111259 870 869 I‐405 Freeway 3,188 5 12 10 2,250 70 111260 870 871 I‐405 Freeway 1,665 6 12 10 2,250 70 111261 871 870 I‐405 Freeway 1,664 5 12 10 2,250 70 111262 871 872 I‐405 Freeway 2,243 5 12 10 2,250 70 111263 872 871 I‐405 Freeway 2,243 5 12 10 2,250 70 111264 872 873 I‐405 Freeway 1,414 5 12 10 2,250 70 111265 873 872 I‐405 Freeway 1,414 5 12 10 2,250 70 111266 873 874 I‐405 Freeway 2,988 5 12 10 2,250 70 101267 874 873 I‐405 Freeway 2,977 5 12 10 2,250 70 101268 874 875 I‐405 Freeway 1,058 5 12 10 2,250 70 101269 875 874 I‐405 Freeway 1,058 5 12 10 2,250 70 101270 875 876 I‐405 Freeway 2,060 5 12 6 2,250 70 101271 876 875 I‐405 Freeway 2,060 5 12 6 2,250 70 101272 876 877 I‐405 Freeway 4,740 5 12 6 2,250 70 101273 877 876 I‐405 Freeway 4,744 5 12 6 2,250 70 101274 877 878 I‐405 Freeway 1,204 5 12 6 2,250 70 91275 878 877 I‐405 Freeway 1,204 5 12 6 2,250 70 91276 878 879 I‐405 Freeway 980 5 12 10 2,250 70 91277 879 878 I‐405 Freeway 980 5 12 10 2,250 70 9 City of Laguna Beach H‐42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1278 879 880 I‐405 Freeway 5,505 5 12 10 2,250 70 91279 880 879 I‐405 Freeway 5,505 5 12 10 2,250 70 91280 880 881 I‐405 Freeway 1,357 6 12 10 2,250 70 41281 881 880 I‐405 Freeway 1,357 6 12 10 2,250 70 41282 881 882 I‐405 Freeway 4,808 6 12 10 2,250 70 41283 882 881 I‐405 Freeway 4,808 6 12 10 2,250 70 41284 882 1246 I‐405 Freeway 2,888 6 12 10 2,250 70 41285 883 884 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 928 1 12 4 1,700 45 111286 884 870 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,423 1 12 4 1,700 45 111287 885 39 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,290 2 12 4 1,750 40 391288 885 886 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 733 2 12 4 1,750 40 391289 886 885 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 733 2 12 4 1,750 40 391290 886 887 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 547 2 12 4 1,750 40 391291 887 886 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 547 2 12 4 1,750 40 391292 887 888 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,533 2 12 4 1,750 40 391293 888 887 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,533 2 12 4 1,750 40 391294 888 889 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 185 2 12 4 1,750 35 391295 889 888 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 185 2 12 4 1,750 35 391296 889 890 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,488 2 12 4 1,900 45 391297 890 889 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,493 2 12 4 1,750 45 391298 890 898 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,765 2 12 4 1,900 45 331299 891 1382 Aster St Local Roadway 634 1 10 0 900 20 391300 892 1381 Myrtle St Local Roadway 640 1 10 0 900 20 391301 893 886 Boat Canyon Dr Local Roadway 422 1 10 0 1,750 20 391302 894 887 Beverly St Local Roadway 588 1 10 0 1,750 20 391303 895 888 Cliff Dr Local Roadway 650 1 12 4 1,750 25 391304 896 889 Viejo St Local Roadway 569 1 12 4 1,750 25 391305 897 901 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 691 2 12 4 1,900 50 321306 897 903 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 738 2 12 4 1,900 55 321307 898 890 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,761 2 12 4 1,900 45 331308 898 1371 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 675 2 12 4 1,900 45 321309 899 900 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,762 2 12 4 1,900 55 32 City of Laguna Beach H‐43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1310 899 1407 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,268 2 12 4 1,900 50 321311 900 899 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,761 2 12 4 1,900 55 321312 900 901 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,171 2 12 4 1,900 55 321313 901 897 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 691 2 12 4 1,750 50 321314 901 900 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,169 2 12 4 1,900 55 321315 902 897 School / State Park Minor Arterial 1,757 2 12 4 1,750 35 321316 903 897 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 738 2 12 4 1,750 55 321317 903 904 SR‐1 Major Arterial 856 3 12 4 1,750 55 321318 904 903 SR‐1 Major Arterial 856 3 12 4 1,900 55 321319 904 905 SR‐1 Major Arterial 2,367 3 12 4 1,750 55 321320 905 904 SR‐1 Major Arterial 2,369 3 12 4 1,750 55 321321 905 907 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,104 3 12 4 1,900 55 241322 906 908 SR‐1 Major Arterial 891 3 12 4 1,900 50 241323 906 918 SR‐1 Major Arterial 2,217 3 12 4 1,900 50 241324 907 905 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,104 3 12 4 1,750 55 241325 907 908 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,459 3 12 4 1,900 55 241326 908 906 SR‐1 Major Arterial 892 3 12 4 1,750 50 241327 908 907 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,460 3 12 4 1,900 55 241328 909 904 Reef Point Dr Collector 890 1 12 0 1,750 30 321329 910 905 Crystal Heights Collector 863 1 12 4 1,750 35 321330 911 912 Newport Coast Dr Minor Arterial 385 2 12 4 1,900 50 241331 911 918 SR‐1 Major Arterial 311 3 12 4 1,900 45 241332 911 920 SR‐1 Major Arterial 333 3 12 4 1,900 45 241333 912 911 Newport Coast Dr Minor Arterial 385 2 12 4 1,750 50 241334 912 919 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,476 3 12 4 1,750 60 241335 912 920 Newport Coast Dr Freeway Ramp 537 1 12 4 1,700 45 241336 913 914 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,424 2 12 4 1,750 40 241337 913 920 SR‐1 Major Arterial 2,009 3 12 4 1,900 50 241338 914 913 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,424 2 12 4 1,750 40 241339 914 915 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,331 2 12 4 1,750 40 241340 915 914 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,331 2 12 4 1,750 40 241341 915 916 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,626 2 12 4 1,750 40 24 City of Laguna Beach H‐44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1342 916 915 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,626 2 12 4 1,750 40 241343 916 926 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,527 2 12 4 1,750 40 241344 917 906 Los Trancos Collector 492 1 12 4 1,750 30 241345 918 906 SR‐1 Major Arterial 2,217 3 12 4 1,750 50 241346 918 911 SR‐1 Major Arterial 311 3 12 4 1,750 45 241347 918 912 SR‐1 Freeway Ramp 523 1 12 4 1,700 45 241348 919 912 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,465 1 12 4 1,900 60 241349 919 986 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,557 3 12 4 1,750 60 241350 920 911 SR‐1 Major Arterial 332 3 12 4 1,750 45 241351 920 913 SR‐1 Major Arterial 2,008 3 12 4 1,750 50 241352 921 913 Pelican Point Dr Collector 764 1 12 4 1,750 30 241353 922 914 Cameo Highlands Dr Collector 1,357 1 12 4 1,750 30 241354 923 914 Cameo Highlands Dr Collector 897 1 12 4 1,750 30 241355 924 915 Morning Canyon Rd Collector 620 1 12 4 1,750 30 241356 925 915 Morning Canyon Rd Collector 720 1 12 4 1,750 30 241357 926 916 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,529 2 12 4 1,750 40 241358 926 927 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 946 2 12 4 1,750 40 241359 926 935 Marguerite Ave Collector 452 1 12 4 1,350 30 241360 927 926 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 946 2 12 4 1,750 40 241361 927 928 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 786 2 12 4 1,750 40 121362 928 927 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 786 2 12 4 1,750 40 121363 928 929 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 105 2 12 4 1,750 40 121364 929 928 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 105 2 12 4 1,750 40 121365 929 930 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 844 2 12 4 1,900 40 121366 930 929 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 844 2 12 4 1,750 40 121367 930 931 SR‐1 Major Arterial 321 3 12 4 1,750 40 121368 930 939 SR‐1 Freeway Ramp 663 1 12 4 1,700 45 121369 931 930 SR‐1 Major Arterial 321 3 12 4 1,900 40 121370 931 932 SR‐1 Major Arterial 332 3 12 4 1,900 40 121371 931 939 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 420 2 12 4 1,900 45 121372 932 931 SR‐1 Major Arterial 332 3 12 4 1,750 40 121373 932 940 SR‐1 Major Arterial 485 3 12 4 1,750 40 12 City of Laguna Beach H‐45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1374 933 916 Poppy Ave Collector 1,032 1 12 4 1,750 30 241375 934 916 Poppy Ave Collector 883 1 12 4 1,750 30 241376 935 926 Marguerite Ave Collector 452 1 12 4 1,750 30 241377 935 1016 Marguerite Ave Collector 376 1 12 4 1,350 30 241378 936 927 Iris Ave Collector 780 1 12 4 1,750 30 241379 937 928 Goldenrod Ave Collector 506 1 12 4 1,750 30 121380 938 929 Goldenrod Ave Local Roadway 605 1 12 4 1,750 30 121381 939 931 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 420 2 12 4 1,750 45 121382 939 932 MacArthur Blvd Freeway Ramp 544 1 12 4 1,700 45 121383 939 1212 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,959 2 12 4 1,900 55 121384 940 932 SR‐1 Major Arterial 485 3 12 4 1,900 40 121385 940 941 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,170 3 12 4 1,750 45 121386 941 940 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,170 3 12 4 1,750 45 121387 941 942 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,127 3 12 4 1,750 45 121388 942 941 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,127 3 12 4 1,750 45 121389 942 943 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,777 3 12 4 1,900 45 121390 943 942 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,774 3 12 4 1,750 45 121391 943 944 SR‐1 Major Arterial 871 4 12 4 1,900 45 121392 944 943 SR‐1 Major Arterial 871 4 12 4 1,900 45 121393 944 945 SR‐1 Major Arterial 364 4 12 4 1,750 45 121394 944 952 SR‐1 Collector 393 1 12 4 1,700 45 121395 945 944 SR‐1 Major Arterial 364 4 12 4 1,900 45 121396 945 951 SR‐1 Major Arterial 369 4 12 4 1,900 45 121397 945 952 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 281 3 12 4 1,900 55 121398 946 940 Avocado Ave Minor Arterial 663 2 12 4 1,750 35 121399 947 940 Avocado Ave Collector 772 1 12 4 1,750 35 121400 948 941 Newport Center Dr Minor Arterial 1,204 2 12 4 1,750 40 121401 949 942 Clubhouse Dr Collector 685 1 12 4 1,750 30 121402 950 942 Clubhouse Dr Collector 642 1 12 4 1,750 30 121403 951 945 SR‐1 Major Arterial 369 4 12 4 1,750 45 121404 951 954 SR‐1 Major Arterial 634 4 12 4 1,750 50 121405 952 945 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 281 1 12 4 1,750 55 12 City of Laguna Beach H‐46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1406 952 951 Jamboree Rd Freeway Ramp 528 1 12 4 1,700 45 121407 952 953 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 742 3 12 4 1,750 55 121408 953 952 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 742 3 12 4 1,900 55 121409 953 1215 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 667 3 12 4 1,750 55 121410 954 951 SR‐1 Major Arterial 634 4 12 4 1,900 50 121411 954 955 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,508 4 12 4 1,900 50 121412 955 954 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,515 4 12 4 1,750 50 121413 955 1728 SR‐1 Major Arterial 343 4 12 4 1,235 50 121414 960 954 Promontory Dr Collector 417 1 12 4 1,750 30 121415 974 1728 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,085 3 12 4 1,235 50 121416 986 919 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,548 3 12 4 1,750 60 241417 986 987 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 2,096 3 12 4 1,900 60 251418 987 986 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 2,048 3 12 4 1,750 60 241419 987 988 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 2,752 3 12 4 1,750 60 251420 988 987 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 2,752 3 12 4 1,900 60 251421 988 989 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,736 3 12 4 1,900 60 251422 989 988 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,743 3 12 4 1,750 60 251423 989 990 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,629 3 12 4 1,750 60 161424 990 989 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,629 3 12 4 1,900 60 161425 990 991 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,097 3 12 4 1,750 60 161426 991 990 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,097 3 12 4 1,750 60 161427 991 992 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,153 3 12 4 1,750 60 161428 992 991 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 1,142 3 12 4 1,750 60 161429 992 1000 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 2,350 3 12 4 1,750 60 161430 993 919 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 877 1 12 4 1,750 30 241431 994 986 Provence Collector 240 1 12 4 1,750 30 241432 995 988 Pelican Hill Rd N Collector 1,788 1 12 4 1,750 35 241433 996 988 Pelican Hill Rd N Collector 747 1 12 4 1,750 35 251434 997 990 Vista Ridge Rd Collector 1,514 1 12 4 1,750 45 161435 998 991 Ridge Park Rd Collector 1,342 2 12 4 1,750 30 161436 999 991 Ridge Park Rd Collector 886 1 12 4 1,750 30 161437 1000 1001 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 710 3 12 4 1,750 60 16 City of Laguna Beach H‐47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1438 1001 1003 Newport Coast Dr Major Arterial 2,486 3 12 4 1,900 60 161439 1003 1004 Newport Coast Dr Minor Arterial 452 2 12 4 1,750 60 141440 1003 1008 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 613 2 12 4 1,900 30 141441 1004 1005 Newport Coast Dr Minor Arterial 1,669 2 12 4 1,750 65 141442 1005 1012 Newport Coast Dr Minor Arterial 1,446 2 12 4 1,750 65 141443 1006 1000 Driveway Local Roadway 498 1 12 4 1,750 30 161444 1007 1001 Sage Hill Collector 801 1 12 4 1,750 30 161445 1008 1010 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 460 2 12 4 1,900 30 141446 1009 1249 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,234 1 12 4 1,700 45 141447 1010 1009 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 506 2 12 4 1,900 45 141448 1011 1004 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 486 1 12 4 1,750 45 141449 1012 1013 Newport Coast Dr Minor Arterial 772 2 12 4 1,750 60 141450 1013 1063 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,395 3 12 8 1,750 45 131451 1013 1065 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 1,498 2 12 4 1,750 55 141452 1014 1065 Turtle Ridge Dr Minor Arterial 819 2 12 4 1,750 30 141453 1014 1587 Turtle Ridge Dr Collector 882 1 12 4 1,750 30 141454 1015 1012 Turtle Crest Dr Collector 558 1 12 4 1,750 30 141455 1016 935 Marguerite Ave Collector 376 1 12 4 1,350 30 241456 1016 1017 Marguerite Ave Collector 379 1 12 4 1,350 30 241457 1017 1016 Marguerite Ave Collector 379 1 12 4 1,350 30 241458 1017 1018 Marguerite Ave Collector 381 1 12 4 1,350 30 121459 1018 1017 Marguerite Ave Collector 381 1 12 4 1,350 30 121460 1018 1021 Marguerite Ave Collector 533 1 12 4 1,700 40 121461 1019 1016 3rd Ave Collector 653 1 12 4 1,350 30 241462 1020 1018 5th Ave Collector 598 1 12 4 1,350 30 121463 1021 1018 Marguerite Ave Collector 536 1 12 4 1,700 40 121464 1021 1022 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 1,593 2 12 4 1,900 40 121465 1022 1021 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 1,635 2 12 4 1,900 40 121466 1022 1023 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 766 2 12 4 1,900 40 151467 1023 1022 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 766 2 12 4 1,900 40 151468 1023 1448 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 516 2 12 4 1,750 40 151469 1024 1033 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 1,603 3 12 4 1,750 55 15 City of Laguna Beach H‐48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1470 1024 1035 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 917 2 12 4 1,900 55 151471 1024 1448 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 613 2 12 4 1,900 40 151472 1025 1022 Sausalito Dr Collector 596 1 12 4 1,350 30 151473 1026 1027 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 1,565 2 12 4 1,900 55 151474 1026 1030 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 1,101 1 12 4 1,700 40 151475 1026 1035 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 1,855 2 12 4 1,900 55 151476 1027 1026 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 1,569 2 12 4 1,750 55 151477 1027 1028 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 2,796 2 12 4 1,750 55 151478 1028 1027 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 2,789 2 12 4 1,900 55 151479 1028 1029 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 2,270 2 12 4 1,750 55 161480 1029 992 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 1,135 2 12 4 1,750 55 161481 1030 1026 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 1,105 1 12 4 1,750 40 151482 1030 1050 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 1,322 1 12 4 1,700 40 151483 1031 1028 Newport Ridge Dr W Collector 1,714 1 12 4 1,750 30 151484 1032 1029 Newport Ridge Dr E Collector 1,210 1 12 4 1,750 30 161485 1033 1034 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 915 3 12 4 1,750 55 121486 1034 1037 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 1,063 2 12 4 1,750 55 121487 1034 1208 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 651 2 12 4 1,750 50 121488 1034 1213 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 1,385 2 12 4 1,750 50 121489 1035 1024 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 917 3 12 4 1,750 55 151490 1035 1026 San Joaquin Hills Rd Minor Arterial 1,855 2 12 4 1,750 55 151491 1036 1033 Crown Dr N Collector 1,051 1 12 4 1,750 30 121492 1037 1038 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 1,589 3 12 4 1,750 55 121493 1037 1200 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 2,504 3 12 4 1,900 55 121494 1037 1213 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,446 3 12 4 1,750 55 121495 1038 1039 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 2,252 3 12 4 1,750 55 121496 1039 1040 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 781 3 12 4 1,900 55 121497 1040 1041 San Joaquin Hills Rd Major Arterial 773 2 12 4 1,750 55 121498 1040 1046 San Joaquin Hills Rd Freeway Ramp 1,048 1 12 4 1,700 45 121499 1041 1046 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 609 3 12 4 1,900 55 121500 1041 1216 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 977 3 12 4 1,750 55 121501 1042 1038 Santa Rosa Dr Collector 888 1 12 4 1,750 30 12 City of Laguna Beach H‐49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1502 1043 1039 Santa Cruz Dr Collector 1,403 1 12 4 1,750 30 121503 1044 1039 Santa Cruz Dr Collector 1,021 1 12 4 1,750 30 121504 1045 1038 Santa Rosa Dr Collector 884 1 12 4 1,750 30 121505 1046 1041 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 609 3 12 4 1,750 55 121506 1046 1217 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 1,961 3 12 4 1,750 55 121507 1047 1052 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 1,723 2 12 4 1,750 45 151508 1047 1209 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 2,589 2 12 4 1,750 50 151509 1048 1047 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 1,271 1 12 4 1,750 40 151510 1049 1048 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 1,112 1 12 4 1,700 40 151511 1049 1050 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 863 1 12 4 1,700 40 151512 1050 1030 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 1,308 1 12 4 1,700 40 151513 1050 1049 Spy Glass Hill Rd Collector 865 1 12 4 1,700 40 151514 1051 1049 Ridgeline Dr Collector 830 1 12 4 1,350 30 151515 1052 1053 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 302 2 12 4 1,900 40 131516 1053 1054 San Miguel Dr Collector 499 1 12 4 1,700 40 131517 1054 1055 Prairie Rd Minor Arterial 495 2 12 4 1,750 35 131518 1055 1059 Bonita Canyon Dr Major Arterial 1,408 3 12 4 1,750 45 131519 1055 1203 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,678 2 12 4 1,750 45 131520 1056 1054 Ford Rd Collector 356 1 12 4 1,575 35 131521 1057 1052 Port Ramsey Pl Collector 421 1 12 4 1,750 30 131522 1058 1056 Ford Rd Collector 654 1 12 4 1,575 35 131523 1059 1055 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,409 2 12 4 1,750 45 131524 1059 1060 Bonita Canyon Dr Major Arterial 678 2 12 4 1,750 45 131525 1060 1059 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 680 2 12 4 1,750 45 131526 1060 1063 Bonita Canyon Dr Major Arterial 1,156 2 12 4 1,750 45 131527 1061 1059 Chambord Collector 1,114 1 12 4 1,750 30 131528 1062 1060 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 557 1 12 4 1,750 30 131529 1063 1013 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,395 2 12 8 1,750 45 131530 1063 1060 Bonita Canyon Dr Major Arterial 1,175 2 12 4 1,750 45 131531 1063 1064 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 305 2 12 4 1,900 30 131532 1064 1063 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 305 1 12 4 1,750 30 131533 1064 1262 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 446 2 12 4 1,900 30 13 City of Laguna Beach H‐50 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1534 1065 1013 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 1,498 2 12 4 1,750 55 141535 1065 1066 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 1,170 2 12 4 1,750 55 141536 1066 1065 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 1,157 2 12 4 1,750 55 141537 1066 1067 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 1,152 2 12 4 1,900 55 141538 1067 1066 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 1,146 2 12 4 1,750 55 141539 1067 1068 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 2,210 2 12 4 1,750 55 141540 1068 1067 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 2,201 2 12 4 1,900 55 141541 1068 1069 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 2,933 2 12 4 1,750 55 141542 1069 1068 Culver Dr Minor Arterial 2,918 2 12 4 1,750 55 141543 1069 1088 Culver Dr Major Arterial 1,493 3 12 4 1,750 55 91544 1070 1066 Shady Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,251 2 12 4 1,750 30 141545 1071 1066 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 2,024 1 12 4 1,750 30 141546 1072 1068 Vista Del Campo Rd Collector 724 1 12 4 1,750 30 141547 1073 1069 Campus Dr Collector 1,988 1 12 2 1,750 45 91548 1074 1069 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 1,741 2 12 2 1,750 45 91549 1075 1074 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 708 2 12 2 1,750 45 91550 1076 1075 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 949 2 12 2 1,750 45 141551 1076 1077 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 804 2 12 2 1,750 45 141552 1077 1076 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 794 2 12 4 1,750 45 141553 1077 1078 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 1,608 2 12 2 1,750 45 81554 1078 1079 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 1,709 2 12 2 1,750 45 81555 1079 1108 University Dr Major Arterial 2,139 3 12 4 1,750 50 81556 1079 1109 University Dr Major Arterial 964 2 12 4 1,750 50 81557 1079 1117 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 938 2 12 4 1,900 50 81558 1080 1074 California Ave Collector 1,036 1 12 4 1,750 30 91559 1080 1088 Harvard Ave Collector 1,585 1 12 4 1,750 30 91560 1081 1074 California Ave Collector 741 1 12 4 1,750 30 141561 1082 1075 Cornell Collector 443 1 12 4 1,750 30 91562 1083 1076 Berkeley Ave Collector 1,279 1 12 4 1,750 35 91563 1084 1076 Berkeley Ave Collector 1,078 1 12 4 1,750 35 141564 1085 1077 Stanford Collector 826 1 12 4 1,750 30 81565 1086 1078 Bridge Rd Collector 669 1 12 4 1,750 30 8 City of Laguna Beach H‐51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1566 1087 1078 W Peltason Dr Collector 751 1 12 4 1,750 30 81567 1088 1089 Culver Dr Major Arterial 1,387 3 12 4 1,750 55 91568 1089 1090 Culver Dr Major Arterial 1,736 3 12 4 1,750 55 91569 1089 1093 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,069 2 12 4 1,900 50 91570 1089 1094 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,923 2 12 4 1,750 50 91571 1090 1091 Culver Dr Major Arterial 1,420 3 12 4 1,750 55 91572 1091 1092 Culver Dr Major Arterial 1,016 3 12 4 1,900 50 91573 1092 1236 Culver Dr Major Arterial 160 3 12 4 1,750 50 91574 1092 1240 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 667 1 12 4 1,700 45 91575 1093 1089 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,069 2 12 4 1,750 50 91576 1093 1108 University Dr Major Arterial 2,309 3 12 4 1,750 50 91577 1094 1096 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,138 2 12 4 1,900 50 91578 1095 1097 University Dr Minor Arterial 2,028 2 12 4 1,750 50 101579 1096 1095 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,242 2 12 4 1,750 50 91580 1097 1098 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,837 2 12 4 1,750 50 101581 1098 1099 University Dr Minor Arterial 1,654 2 12 4 1,900 50 101582 1099 1100 University Dr Major Arterial 376 3 12 4 1,750 50 101583 1099 1234 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 677 1 12 4 1,700 45 101584 1100 1231 University Dr Major Arterial 957 3 12 4 1,900 50 101585 1101 1090 Ethel Coplen Way Collector 904 1 12 4 1,750 30 91586 1102 1091 Michelson Dr Collector 703 1 12 4 1,750 30 91587 1103 1091 Michelson Dr Collector 1,616 1 12 4 1,750 30 91588 1104 1094 Goldenglow St Collector 718 1 12 4 1,750 30 91589 1105 1095 Yale Ave Collector 782 1 12 4 1,750 30 91590 1106 1097 Ridgeline Dr Collector 747 1 12 4 1,750 30 101591 1107 1098 Strawberry Farm Rd Collector 833 1 12 4 1,750 30 101592 1108 1079 University Dr Major Arterial 2,233 3 12 4 1,750 50 81593 1108 1093 University Dr Major Arterial 2,309 3 12 4 1,900 50 91594 1109 1079 University Dr Minor Arterial 964 2 12 4 1,750 50 81595 1109 1110 University Dr Major Arterial 2,195 2 12 4 1,750 50 81596 1110 1109 University Dr Minor Arterial 2,210 2 12 4 1,750 50 81597 1110 1111 University Dr Major Arterial 1,602 2 12 4 1,750 50 8 City of Laguna Beach H‐52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1598 1111 1110 University Dr Major Arterial 1,602 2 12 4 1,750 50 81599 1111 1112 University Dr Major Arterial 708 3 12 4 1,750 45 81600 1111 1124 MacArthur Blvd On Ramp Freeway Ramp 578 2 12 4 1,700 45 81601 1112 1113 University Dr Major Arterial 396 3 12 4 1,750 45 81602 1113 1114 University Dr Major Arterial 988 3 12 4 1,750 45 71603 1114 1116 University Dr Major Arterial 440 3 12 4 1,900 45 121604 1115 1161 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 2,130 3 12 4 1,750 55 71605 1115 1218 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 3,042 3 12 4 1,750 55 121606 1116 1115 University Dr Major Arterial 262 2 12 4 1,750 45 121607 1117 1118 Campus Dr Collector 1,763 1 12 4 1,700 50 81608 1118 1119 Campus Dr Collector 1,223 1 12 4 1,750 50 81609 1119 1457 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 606 2 12 4 1,750 45 81610 1120 1152 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 729 2 12 4 1,750 45 81611 1120 1456 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 851 3 12 4 1,750 55 81612 1121 1452 Carlson Ave Collector 553 1 12 4 1,350 30 81613 1122 1109 Mesa Rd Collector 919 1 12 4 1,750 30 81614 1123 1110 California Ave Collector 698 2 12 4 1,750 30 81615 1124 1111 MacArthur Blvd Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 578 2 12 4 1,750 45 81616 1124 1168 MacArthur Blvd On Ramp Freeway Ramp 563 1 12 4 1,350 30 81617 1125 1112 MacArthur Blvd Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 586 1 12 4 1,750 45 81618 1126 1113 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,071 1 12 4 1,750 45 81619 1127 1114 La Vida Collector 904 1 12 4 1,750 30 121620 1128 1129 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 1,718 3 12 4 1,750 55 81621 1129 1130 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 1,411 3 12 4 1,750 55 41622 1129 1140 Michelson Dr Major Arterial 689 3 12 4 1,750 40 41623 1130 1132 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 888 3 12 4 1,900 55 41624 1132 1267 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 184 3 12 4 1,750 55 41625 1132 1386 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 403 1 12 4 1,350 30 41626 1133 1120 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 811 3 12 4 1,750 55 81627 1134 1133 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 1,831 3 12 4 1,750 55 81628 1135 1134 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 530 3 12 4 1,750 55 81629 1136 1135 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 448 3 12 4 1,750 55 8 City of Laguna Beach H‐53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1630 1137 1136 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 345 3 12 4 1,900 55 81631 1137 1173 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,775 3 12 4 1,750 55 81632 1138 1128 Dupont Dr Collector 700 1 12 4 1,750 30 81633 1138 1140 Teller Ave Collector 1,736 1 12 4 1,750 30 81634 1139 1129 Michelson Dr Major Arterial 1,077 3 12 4 1,750 40 81635 1140 1143 Michelson Dr Minor Arterial 701 2 12 4 1,750 40 41636 1141 1130 I‐405 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 803 2 12 4 1,750 45 41637 1143 1144 Michelson Dr Minor Arterial 741 2 12 4 1,750 40 41638 1144 1145 Michelson Dr Minor Arterial 819 2 12 4 1,750 40 41639 1145 1146 Michelson Dr Minor Arterial 658 2 12 4 1,750 40 41640 1146 1147 Michelson Dr Minor Arterial 796 1 12 4 1,750 40 41641 1147 1179 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,069 4 12 4 1,750 45 41642 1148 1143 Obsidian St Collector 1,011 1 12 4 1,750 30 41643 1149 1144 Von Karman Ave Collector 904 1 12 4 1,750 30 41644 1150 1145 Bixby Collector 392 1 12 4 1,750 30 41645 1151 1146 Dupont Dr Collector 831 1 12 4 1,750 30 41646 1152 1153 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 1,277 2 12 4 1,750 45 81647 1153 1154 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 1,076 2 12 4 1,750 45 81648 1154 2 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 602 1 12 4 1,750 45 81649 1155 1152 Teller Ave Collector 867 1 12 4 1,750 30 81650 1156 1153 Von Karman Ave Collector 879 1 12 4 1,750 30 81651 1157 1154 Martin Collector 881 1 12 4 1,750 30 81652 1158 1133 Birch St Collector 447 1 12 4 1,750 30 81653 1159 1134 Fairchild Rd Collector 1,079 1 12 4 1,750 30 81654 1159 1170 Fairchild Rd Collector 1,766 1 12 4 1,750 30 81655 1160 1135 Koll Collector 526 1 12 4 1,750 30 81656 1161 1162 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 841 3 12 4 1,750 55 71657 1162 1163 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 493 3 12 4 1,900 55 71658 1163 1137 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 816 3 12 4 1,750 55 71659 1163 1385 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 407 2 12 4 1,900 30 71660 1165 1162 Bristol St S Collector 1,014 1 12 4 1,750 45 71661 1166 1161 Bayview Way Minor Arterial 749 2 12 4 1,750 35 7 City of Laguna Beach H‐54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1662 1167 1727 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 407 5 12 4 1,900 55 131663 1168 1169 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,379 4 12 4 1,900 55 81664 1169 1170 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 661 3 12 4 1,750 55 81665 1169 1172 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 372 2 12 4 1,900 45 81666 1170 1137 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,347 3 12 4 1,750 55 81667 1171 1263 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 327 1 12 4 1,700 45 71668 1172 1171 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 904 1 12 4 1,700 45 81669 1173 1174 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 2,449 3 12 4 1,750 55 71670 1174 2 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 928 4 12 4 1,750 55 71671 1175 1173 Von Karman Av Collector 1,050 1 12 2 1,750 30 81672 1176 1174 Birch St Collector 739 1 12 4 1,750 30 71673 1177 2 Campus Dr Major Arterial 593 1 12 4 1,750 45 71674 1178 1147 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,144 4 12 4 1,750 45 41675 1179 1180 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,541 2 12 4 1,900 45 41676 1180 1181 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 574 2 12 10 1,900 30 41677 1181 882 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 680 1 12 10 1,350 30 41678 1182 1178 Douglas Collector 675 1 12 4 1,750 30 41679 1183 1179 I‐405 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 528 1 12 4 1,750 45 41680 1184 1185 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 620 4 12 10 1,900 55 131681 1184 1189 Bison Ave Minor Arterial 788 2 12 4 1,750 45 131682 1184 1225 Bison Ave Major Arterial 831 3 12 4 1,750 55 121683 1185 1186 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 784 2 12 4 1,900 45 131684 1185 1188 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,785 3 12 4 1,900 55 131685 1186 1187 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 975 2 12 4 1,900 45 131686 1187 1255 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 864 2 12 4 1,900 45 131687 1188 1167 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 978 3 12 4 1,900 55 131688 1189 1184 Bison Ave Minor Arterial 788 3 12 4 1,750 45 131689 1189 1190 Bison Ave Minor Arterial 592 2 12 4 1,750 45 131690 1190 1189 Bison Ave Minor Arterial 591 2 12 4 1,750 45 131691 1190 1191 Bison Ave Minor Arterial 644 1 12 4 1,750 45 131692 1191 1190 Bison Ave Minor Arterial 644 2 12 4 1,750 45 131693 1191 1194 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 993 2 12 4 1,900 45 13 City of Laguna Beach H‐55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1694 1192 1191 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 616 1 12 4 1,750 45 131695 1193 1191 Bison Ave Collector 1,111 1 12 4 1,750 45 131696 1194 1254 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 832 1 12 4 1,700 45 131697 1195 1190 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 744 2 12 4 1,750 45 131698 1196 1189 Bayswater Collector 290 1 12 4 1,750 30 131699 1197 1184 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,369 4 12 4 1,750 55 131700 1198 1197 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,334 4 12 4 1,750 55 121701 1199 1198 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 306 4 12 4 1,900 55 121702 1199 1201 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,597 4 12 4 1,900 55 131703 1199 1729 Ford Rd Minor Arterial 1,304 2 12 4 1,900 50 121704 1200 1037 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 2,490 3 12 4 1,750 55 121705 1200 1201 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,982 3 12 4 1,900 55 151706 1201 1199 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,597 4 12 4 1,750 55 131707 1201 1200 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,972 3 12 4 1,900 55 151708 1202 1197 Vilaggio Collector 612 1 12 4 1,750 30 131709 1203 1055 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,677 2 12 4 1,750 45 131710 1203 1204 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 2,056 2 12 4 1,900 45 131711 1204 1198 Bonita Canyon Dr Collector 506 1 12 4 1,700 45 131712 1204 1199 Bonita Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 309 2 12 4 1,750 50 131713 1205 1203 Mesa View Dr Collector 1,295 1 12 4 1,750 30 131714 1206 1203 Mesa View Dr Minor Arterial 597 2 12 4 1,750 30 131715 1207 1055 Prairie Rd Minor Arterial 561 2 12 4 1,750 30 131716 1208 1034 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 650 2 12 4 1,750 50 121717 1208 1209 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 2,265 2 12 4 1,750 50 151718 1209 1047 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 2,598 2 12 4 1,750 50 151719 1209 1208 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 2,251 2 12 4 1,750 50 151720 1210 1209 Yacht Coquette Collector 878 1 12 4 1,750 30 151721 1211 1208 Pacific View Dr Collector 796 1 12 4 1,750 30 121722 1212 939 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,959 1 12 4 1,900 55 121723 1212 1213 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 530 3 12 4 1,750 55 121724 1213 1034 San Miguel Dr Minor Arterial 1,385 2 12 4 1,750 50 121725 1213 1037 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 1,440 3 12 4 1,750 55 12 City of Laguna Beach H‐56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1726 1213 1212 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 530 3 12 4 1,900 55 121727 1214 1213 San Miguel Dr Major Arterial 963 3 12 4 1,750 50 121728 1215 953 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 667 3 12 4 1,750 55 121729 1215 1216 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 3,067 3 12 4 1,750 55 121730 1216 1041 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 977 3 12 4 1,750 55 121731 1216 1215 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 3,067 3 12 4 1,750 55 121732 1217 1046 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 1,963 3 12 4 1,900 55 121733 1217 1218 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 3,274 3 12 4 1,750 55 121734 1218 1115 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 3,040 3 12 4 1,750 55 121735 1218 1217 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 3,273 3 12 4 1,750 55 121736 1218 1225 Bison Ave Major Arterial 1,641 3 12 4 1,750 55 121737 1219 953 Back Bay Dr Collector 1,244 1 12 4 1,750 30 121738 1220 1215 Hyatt Regency Minor Arterial 465 2 12 4 1,750 30 121739 1221 1216 Santa Barbara Dr Major Arterial 1,043 3 12 4 1,750 35 121740 1222 1217 Ford Rd Minor Arterial 1,016 2 12 4 1,750 50 121741 1223 1217 Eastbluff Dr Minor Arterial 1,294 2 12 4 1,750 50 121742 1224 1218 Bison Ave Collector 1,236 1 12 4 1,750 30 121743 1225 1184 Bison Ave Major Arterial 831 3 12 4 1,750 55 121744 1225 1218 Bison Ave Major Arterial 1,635 3 12 4 1,750 55 121745 1226 1225 Belcount Dr Collector 1,179 1 12 4 1,750 30 121746 1227 228 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,859 2 12 4 1,900 45 111747 1228 1227 I‐5 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 937 2 12 4 1,900 45 111748 1229 1230 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,589 2 12 4 1,900 70 111749 1231 1232 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 568 1 12 4 1,350 30 101750 1231 1701 University Dr Major Arterial 2,506 3 12 4 1,425 50 101751 1232 875 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 444 1 12 4 1,350 30 101752 1233 1100 I‐405 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 753 1 12 4 1,750 45 101753 1234 1235 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 684 1 12 4 1,700 45 101754 1235 874 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 754 1 12 4 1,700 45 101755 1236 1237 Culver Dr Major Arterial 730 3 12 4 1,900 50 91756 1237 1388 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 502 1 12 4 1,350 30 91757 1237 1700 Culver Dr Major Arterial 2,757 3 12 4 1,425 50 9 City of Laguna Beach H‐57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1758 1239 1236 I‐405 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 639 1 12 4 1,750 45 91759 1240 878 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 825 1 12 4 1,700 45 91760 1241 1242 I‐405 Freeway 1,817 6 12 10 2,250 70 21761 1242 1241 I‐405 Freeway 1,817 6 12 10 2,250 70 21762 1242 1243 I‐405 Freeway 2,195 6 12 10 2,250 70 21763 1242 1266 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,714 3 12 4 1,900 45 21764 1243 1242 I‐405 Freeway 2,195 6 12 10 2,250 70 21765 1243 1244 I‐405 Freeway 3,826 6 12 10 2,250 70 21766 1244 1243 I‐405 Freeway 3,826 6 12 10 2,250 70 21767 1244 1245 I‐405 Freeway 2,795 6 12 10 2,250 70 31768 1245 1244 I‐405 Freeway 2,795 6 12 10 2,250 70 31769 1245 1246 I‐405 Freeway 3,172 6 12 10 2,250 70 31770 1246 882 I‐405 Freeway 2,888 6 12 10 2,250 70 41771 1246 1245 I‐405 Freeway 3,177 4 12 10 2,250 70 31772 1246 1715 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway Ramp 486 2 12 4 1,700 45 31773 1247 779 SR‐73 Freeway 1,270 4 12 10 2,250 70 161774 1247 1248 SR‐73 Freeway 1,612 4 12 10 2,250 70 161775 1247 1722 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,248 1 12 4 1,700 45 161776 1248 1247 SR‐73 Freeway 1,598 4 12 10 2,250 70 161777 1248 1249 SR‐73 Freeway 2,785 4 12 10 2,250 70 161778 1249 1248 SR‐73 Freeway 2,811 4 12 10 2,250 70 161779 1249 1250 SR‐73 Freeway 2,452 5 12 10 2,250 70 141780 1250 1064 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 510 1 12 4 1,700 45 131781 1250 1249 SR‐73 Freeway 2,440 4 12 10 2,250 70 141782 1250 1251 SR‐73 Freeway 1,128 4 12 12 2,250 70 131783 1251 1250 SR‐73 Freeway 1,128 4 12 12 2,250 70 131784 1251 1252 SR‐73 Freeway 2,371 4 12 10 2,250 70 131785 1252 1251 SR‐73 Freeway 2,371 4 12 10 2,250 70 131786 1252 1253 SR‐73 Freeway 1,451 4 12 10 2,250 70 131787 1253 1252 SR‐73 Freeway 1,451 4 12 10 2,250 70 131788 1253 1724 SR‐73 Freeway 1,368 4 12 10 2,250 70 131789 1254 1255 SR‐73 Freeway 1,206 3 12 10 2,250 70 13 City of Laguna Beach H‐58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1790 1254 1724 SR‐73 Freeway 1,517 3 12 10 2,250 70 131791 1255 1254 SR‐73 Freeway 1,210 3 12 10 2,250 70 131792 1255 1256 SR‐73 Freeway 1,566 4 12 10 2,250 70 131793 1256 1255 SR‐73 Freeway 1,566 3 12 10 2,250 70 131794 1256 1263 SR‐73 Freeway 2,294 3 12 10 2,250 70 81795 1257 1258 SR‐73 Freeway 5,751 4 12 10 2,250 70 71796 1257 1263 SR‐73 Freeway 289 3 12 10 2,250 70 71797 1258 1257 SR‐73 Freeway 5,751 3 12 10 2,250 70 71798 1258 1702 SR‐73 Freeway 1,217 5 12 10 2,250 70 71799 1259 1260 SR‐73 Freeway 2,508 3 12 4 2,250 70 31800 1259 1702 SR‐73 Freeway 917 3 12 10 2,250 70 71801 1259 1707 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 967 1 12 4 1,700 45 71802 1260 1259 SR‐73 Freeway 2,508 3 12 4 2,250 70 31803 1260 1264 SR‐73 Freeway 1,955 4 12 4 2,250 70 21804 1261 1264 SR‐73 Freeway 2,422 3 12 4 2,250 70 21805 1261 1265 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,293 3 12 4 1,900 45 21806 1262 1251 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 479 1 12 4 1,700 45 131807 1263 1256 SR‐73 Freeway 2,281 3 12 10 2,250 70 81808 1263 1257 SR‐73 Freeway 289 4 12 4 2,250 70 71809 1264 1260 SR‐73 Freeway 1,955 4 12 4 2,250 70 21810 1264 1261 SR‐73 Freeway 2,422 3 12 4 2,250 70 21811 1265 1242 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,571 3 12 4 1,900 45 21812 1266 1261 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,004 3 12 4 1,900 45 21813 1267 1269 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 537 3 12 4 1,900 55 41814 1268 1267 I‐405 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 581 1 12 4 1,750 45 41815 1270 1271 SR‐1 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,661 2 12 4 1,900 45 571816 1271 1272 SR‐1 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 908 1 12 4 1,700 45 571817 1272 738 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 812 2 12 4 1,900 50 571818 1272 739 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 780 2 12 4 1,900 55 571819 1273 1274 Alta Laguna Blvd Local Roadway 859 1 10 0 900 20 341820 1274 1276 Alta Laguna Blvd Local Roadway 472 1 10 0 900 20 341821 1275 1274 Ridge Dr Local Roadway 597 1 10 0 900 20 34 City of Laguna Beach H‐59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1822 1276 1277 Alta Laguna Blvd Minor Arterial 529 2 12 2 1,900 30 351823 1276 1281 Park Ave Local Roadway 624 1 12 4 1,575 35 341824 1277 1276 Alta Laguna Blvd Local Roadway 529 1 12 2 1,350 30 351825 1277 1278 Alta Laguna Blvd Minor Arterial 780 2 12 2 1,900 30 351826 1278 1277 Alta Laguna Blvd Minor Arterial 785 2 12 2 1,900 30 351827 1278 1279 Alta Laguna Blvd Local Roadway 682 1 12 2 1,350 30 411828 1278 1282 Cresta Way Local Roadway 857 1 12 2 1,125 25 411829 1279 1278 Alta Laguna Blvd Minor Arterial 682 2 12 2 1,900 30 411830 1279 1282 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 841 1 12 2 1,350 30 411831 1280 1277 Tyrol Dr Local Roadway 713 1 10 0 1,125 25 351832 1281 1297 Park Ave Local Roadway 1,168 1 12 4 1,575 35 401833 1282 1286 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 689 1 12 1 1,350 30 401834 1284 1279 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 373 1 12 2 1,350 30 411835 1285 1279 Alta Laguna Blvd Minor Arterial 680 2 12 2 1,900 30 411836 1286 1287 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 482 1 12 1 1,350 30 401837 1287 1288 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 1,002 1 12 1 1,350 30 401838 1288 1289 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 591 1 12 1 1,350 30 401839 1289 1290 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 1,615 1 12 1 1,350 30 401840 1290 1291 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 654 1 12 1 1,350 30 401841 1291 1292 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 493 1 12 1 1,350 30 401842 1292 1293 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 348 1 12 1 1,350 30 401843 1293 1414 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 223 1 12 1 1,350 30 401844 1294 1295 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 626 1 12 0 675 15 401845 1295 47 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 1,115 1 12 0 1,350 30 401846 1296 47 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 783 1 12 0 1,350 30 401847 1297 1298 Park Ave Local Roadway 740 1 12 4 1,575 35 401848 1298 1299 Park Ave Local Roadway 343 1 12 2 1,125 25 401849 1298 1317 Tahiti Ave Local Roadway 492 1 10 0 1,125 25 401850 1299 1300 Park Ave Local Roadway 295 1 12 2 1,125 25 401851 1300 1301 Park Ave Local Roadway 517 1 12 2 1,125 25 401852 1301 1302 Park Ave Local Roadway 1,090 1 12 2 1,575 35 401853 1302 1303 Park Ave Local Roadway 2,059 1 12 2 1,575 35 40 City of Laguna Beach H‐60 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1854 1303 1304 Park Ave Local Roadway 452 1 12 2 1,575 35 401855 1303 1306 Wendt Terrace Local Roadway 1,085 1 10 0 900 20 401856 1304 1305 Park Ave Local Roadway 591 1 12 2 1,575 35 401857 1305 43 Park Ave Local Roadway 798 1 12 2 1,575 35 401858 1306 1303 Wendt Terrace Local Roadway 1,087 1 10 0 900 20 401859 1306 1307 Wendt Terrace Local Roadway 609 1 10 0 900 20 401860 1307 1306 Wendt Terrace Local Roadway 610 1 10 0 900 20 401861 1307 1315 Thalia St Local Roadway 610 1 12 4 1,125 25 401862 1308 1309 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 556 1 12 0 1,350 30 401863 1309 1310 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 1,529 1 12 0 1,350 30 401864 1310 1311 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 1,060 1 12 2 1,125 25 401865 1311 1312 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 270 1 12 0 1,125 25 401866 1311 1313 Cress St Local Roadway 600 1 12 4 1,125 25 401867 1312 51 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 314 1 12 0 1,125 25 401868 1313 49 Cress St Local Roadway 310 1 12 4 1,125 25 401869 1314 1389 Cress St Local Roadway 288 1 12 4 1,750 25 401870 1315 1316 Thalia St Local Roadway 724 1 12 4 1,125 25 401871 1316 1431 Catalina St Local Roadway 1,122 1 12 0 1,350 30 401872 1316 1635 Thalia St Local Roadway 195 1 12 4 1,750 25 401873 1317 1318 Caribbean Way Local Roadway 523 1 10 0 1,125 25 401874 1318 1319 Atlantic Way Local Roadway 136 1 10 0 1,125 25 401875 1319 1320 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 911 1 10 0 1,125 25 401876 1320 1321 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 959 1 10 0 1,125 25 401877 1321 1322 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 500 1 10 0 1,125 25 401878 1322 1323 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 553 1 10 0 1,125 25 401879 1323 1324 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 500 1 10 0 1,125 25 401880 1324 1325 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 528 1 10 0 1,125 25 401881 1325 1326 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 462 1 10 0 900 20 401882 1326 1327 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 964 1 10 0 1,125 25 401883 1327 1328 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 478 1 10 0 1,125 25 401884 1328 1304 Skyline Dr Local Roadway 243 1 10 0 1,125 25 401885 1329 51 Summit Dr Local Roadway 698 1 12 0 1,125 25 40 City of Laguna Beach H‐61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1886 1330 1329 Summit Dr Local Roadway 711 1 12 0 1,125 25 401887 1331 1330 Summit Dr Local Roadway 358 1 12 0 900 20 401888 1332 1333 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 347 1 12 4 1,125 25 401889 1332 1429 Catalina St Local Roadway 974 1 12 0 1,350 30 401890 1333 31 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 347 1 12 4 1,750 25 401891 1333 1640 Glenneyre St Local Roadway 519 1 12 4 1,125 25 401892 1334 34 Legion St Local Roadway 289 1 12 4 1,750 25 401893 1334 1387 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 802 2 12 4 1,900 30 401894 1335 359 3rd St Local Roadway 223 1 12 4 1,350 30 401895 1335 1387 Laguna Ave Local Roadway 615 1 12 4 1,350 30 401896 1336 1390 Forest Ave Local Roadway 356 1 12 4 1,750 30 401897 1337 1344 Balboa Ave Local Roadway 384 1 12 0 1,125 25 411898 1337 1418 Del Mar Ave Local Roadway 456 1 12 0 1,125 25 411899 1338 1339 Del Mar Ave Local Roadway 453 1 12 0 1,125 25 401900 1338 1418 Del Mar Ave Local Roadway 1,173 1 12 0 1,125 25 401901 1339 1338 Del Mar Ave Local Roadway 453 1 12 0 1,125 25 401902 1339 1340 La Mirada St Local Roadway 440 1 12 0 1,125 25 401903 1340 1341 Summit Dr Local Roadway 647 1 12 0 1,125 25 401904 1341 1342 Summit Dr Local Roadway 626 1 12 0 1,125 25 401905 1342 1343 Summit Dr Local Roadway 346 1 12 0 900 20 401906 1343 1331 Summit Dr Local Roadway 339 1 12 0 900 20 401907 1344 1345 Balboa Ave Local Roadway 460 1 12 0 1,125 25 411908 1345 1346 Balboa Ave Local Roadway 798 1 12 0 1,125 25 411909 1346 1347 Balboa Ave Local Roadway 1,395 1 12 0 1,125 25 461910 1347 1348 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 364 1 12 0 900 20 461911 1348 1349 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 383 1 12 0 900 20 461912 1349 1350 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 392 1 12 0 900 20 461913 1350 1351 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 869 1 12 2 1,125 25 451914 1351 1352 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 618 1 12 2 1,125 25 451915 1352 1353 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 377 1 12 2 1,125 25 451916 1353 54 Nyes Pl Local Roadway 747 1 12 2 1,125 25 451917 1354 58 Monterey S Local Roadway 821 1 12 0 1,125 25 46 City of Laguna Beach H‐62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1918 1355 1356 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 336 1 10 0 900 20 451919 1356 1357 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 173 1 10 0 900 20 451920 1357 1358 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 251 1 10 0 900 20 451921 1358 1359 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 247 1 10 0 900 20 451922 1359 1360 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 188 1 10 0 900 20 451923 1360 1361 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 396 1 10 0 900 20 451924 1361 1362 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 225 1 10 0 900 20 451925 1362 1363 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 285 1 10 0 900 20 451926 1363 1366 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 270 1 10 0 900 20 451927 1364 1365 Solana Way Local Roadway 449 1 10 0 900 20 451928 1364 1417 Solana Way Local Roadway 544 1 10 0 1,350 30 451929 1365 30 Victoria Pl Local Roadway 124 1 12 0 1,125 25 451930 1366 1367 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 157 1 10 0 900 20 451931 1367 1368 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 280 1 10 0 900 20 451932 1368 1364 Alta Vista Way Local Roadway 187 1 10 0 900 20 451933 1369 890 Bay Crest Dr Local Roadway 485 1 12 0 1,125 25 331934 1370 890 Bay Crest Dr Local Roadway 624 1 12 0 1,125 25 331935 1371 898 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 675 2 12 4 1,900 45 321936 1371 1407 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 822 2 12 4 1,900 50 321937 1372 1371 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 733 1 12 0 1,125 25 321938 1373 388 Artisan Dr Collector 769 1 12 2 1,750 30 271939 1374 390 Calle Corta Collector 813 1 12 4 1,750 30 201940 1375 1376 Diamond St Local Roadway 323 1 12 4 1,125 25 401941 1376 52 Diamond St Local Roadway 376 1 12 4 1,750 25 401942 1376 1641 Glenneyre St Local Roadway 337 1 12 4 1,125 25 401943 1377 1378 Hillcrest Dr Local Roadway 469 1 10 0 900 20 391944 1378 894 Hillcrest Dr Local Roadway 415 1 10 0 900 20 391945 1379 1380 High Dr Local Roadway 671 1 10 0 900 20 391946 1380 892 Myrtle St Local Roadway 626 1 10 0 900 20 391947 1380 1377 High Dr Local Roadway 830 1 10 0 900 20 391948 1381 885 Myrtle St Local Roadway 289 1 10 0 1,750 20 391949 1382 39 Aster St Local Roadway 339 1 10 0 1,750 20 39 City of Laguna Beach H‐63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1950 1383 26 Country Club Dr Local Roadway 1,176 1 12 1 1,125 25 461951 1384 1383 Country Club Dr Local Roadway 880 1 12 1 1,125 25 461952 1385 1257 SR‐73 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 624 1 12 4 1,350 30 71953 1386 881 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 556 1 12 4 1,350 30 41954 1387 35 Laguna Ave Local Roadway 286 1 12 4 1,750 30 401955 1387 1634 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 404 2 12 4 1,900 30 401956 1388 879 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 637 1 12 4 1,350 30 91957 1389 32 Cress St Local Roadway 281 1 12 4 1,750 25 401958 1389 1638 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 350 2 12 4 1,900 30 401959 1390 354 Forest Ave Local Roadway 223 1 12 4 1,750 30 401960 1390 1391 Forest Ave Collector 431 1 12 4 1,350 30 401961 1391 354 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 229 2 12 4 1,750 35 401962 1391 355 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 751 2 12 4 1,750 35 401963 1396 1625 I‐405 On Ramp HOV Freeway Ramp 1,102 1 12 4 1,700 40 181964 1397 1396 I‐405 On Ramp HOV Freeway Ramp 780 1 12 4 1,700 40 181965 1398 52 Diamond St Local Roadway 262 1 12 4 1,750 25 401966 1399 1308 Morningside Dr Local Roadway 823 1 12 0 1,350 30 401967 1400 1309 Bluebird Canyon Dr Local Roadway 378 1 12 0 1,350 30 401968 1401 1310 Oriole Dr Local Roadway 247 1 12 0 1,350 30 401969 1402 367 Sun Valley Dr Collector 350 1 12 0 1,350 30 341970 1404 1421 Alta Laguna Blvd Local Roadway 244 1 12 0 1,350 30 411971 1405 1404 Anns Ln Local Roadway 204 1 12 0 1,350 30 411972 1406 1421 Chillon Way Local Roadway 348 1 12 0 1,350 30 411973 1407 899 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,266 2 12 4 1,900 50 321974 1407 1371 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 820 2 12 4 1,900 50 321975 1408 1407 Irvine Cove Way Local Roadway 197 1 12 0 1,350 30 321976 1409 1335 Park Ave Local Roadway 556 1 12 2 1,575 35 401977 1410 1409 Blumont St Local Roadway 221 1 12 0 1,350 30 401978 1411 1325 Anacapa Way Local Roadway 372 1 12 0 1,350 30 401979 1412 1320 Pacific Ave Local Roadway 439 1 12 0 1,350 30 401980 1413 1414 Canyon View Dr Local Roadway 420 1 12 0 1,350 30 401981 1414 1294 Temple Hills Dr Local Roadway 292 1 12 1 1,350 30 40 City of Laguna Beach H‐64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
1982 1415 1293 Cerritos Dr Local Roadway 369 1 12 0 1,350 30 401983 1416 1425 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 475 2 12 4 1,900 40 451984 1416 1427 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 261 2 12 4 1,750 40 451985 1417 1416 Solana Way Local Roadway 164 1 10 0 1,350 30 451986 1418 1337 Del Mar Ave Local Roadway 456 1 12 0 1,125 25 411987 1418 1338 Del Mar Ave Local Roadway 1,173 1 12 0 1,125 25 401988 1419 1418 Santa Ana St Local Roadway 401 1 12 0 1,350 30 411989 1420 357 SR‐133 Collector 1,231 1 12 4 1,700 45 341990 1420 362 SR‐133 Collector 452 1 12 4 1,700 45 341991 1421 1285 Alta Laguna Blvd Local Roadway 579 1 12 0 1,350 30 411992 1422 20 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,414 2 12 4 1,900 40 511993 1422 21 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 732 2 12 4 1,750 40 511994 1423 1422 9th Ave Local Roadway 235 1 12 0 1,750 30 511995 1424 24 Camel Point Dr Local Roadway 276 1 12 0 1,350 30 461996 1425 30 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 651 2 12 4 1,900 40 451997 1425 1416 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 475 2 12 4 1,750 40 451998 1426 1425 Sunset Terrace Local Roadway 365 1 12 0 1,350 30 451999 1427 52 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,722 2 12 4 1,750 40 452000 1427 1416 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 260 2 12 4 1,900 40 452001 1428 1368 Glenneyre St Collector 725 1 12 0 1,125 25 452002 1428 1427 Upland Rd Collector 319 1 12 0 1,350 30 452003 1429 1375 Catalina St Local Roadway 362 1 12 0 1,350 30 402004 1430 1333 Glenneyre St Local Roadway 230 1 12 0 1,350 30 402005 1431 1314 Catalina St Local Roadway 320 1 12 0 1,350 30 402006 1432 389 Aliso Creek Rd Minor Arterial 661 2 12 4 1,750 45 272007 1433 388 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 781 3 12 4 1,750 45 272008 1433 389 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,343 3 12 4 1,750 45 272009 1434 1433 Canyon Hill Dr Collector 399 1 12 0 1,350 30 272010 1435 1407 Irvine Cove Way Local Roadway 302 1 12 0 1,350 30 322011 1435 1437 Irvine Cove Dr Local Roadway 413 1 12 0 1,350 30 322012 1436 1435 Irvine Cove Dr Local Roadway 181 1 12 0 1,350 30 322013 1437 1408 Irvine Cove Cres Local Roadway 161 1 12 0 1,350 30 32 City of Laguna Beach H‐65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2014 1437 1435 Irvine Cove Dr Local Roadway 413 1 12 0 1,350 30 322015 1438 1437 Irvine Cove Cres Local Roadway 205 1 12 0 1,350 30 322016 1439 885 Myrtle St Local Roadway 336 1 12 0 1,750 30 392017 1440 896 Hillcrest Dr Local Roadway 140 1 12 0 1,350 30 332018 1441 1440 Hillcrest Dr Local Roadway 173 1 12 0 1,350 30 332019 1442 1440 Dartmoor St Local Roadway 348 1 12 0 1,350 30 332020 1443 894 Hillcrest Dr Local Roadway 272 1 12 0 1,350 30 392021 1444 41 Beach St Local Roadway 249 1 12 4 1,350 30 402022 1445 953 Back Bay Dr Collector 357 1 12 4 1,750 30 122023 1446 1209 Port Sutton Dr Collector 417 1 12 0 1,750 30 152024 1448 1023 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 516 2 12 4 1,900 40 152025 1448 1024 Marguerite Ave Minor Arterial 612 2 12 4 1,750 40 152026 1449 1448 Inlet Dr Collector 206 2 12 0 1,350 30 152027 1450 1114 Baypointe Dr Collector 246 1 12 0 1,750 30 72028 1451 1225 Camelback St Collector 729 2 12 0 1,750 30 122029 1452 1119 Carlson Ave Collector 1,014 1 12 4 1,750 30 82030 1453 1452 Buena Vista Collector 357 1 12 0 1,350 30 82031 1454 1128 Dupont Dr Collector 393 1 12 4 1,750 30 82032 1455 1456 Diploma Collector 293 1 12 0 1,350 30 82033 1456 1128 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 549 3 12 4 1,750 55 82034 1457 1120 Campus Dr Minor Arterial 606 2 12 4 1,750 45 82035 1458 1457 Graduate Collector 319 1 12 0 1,350 30 82036 1459 1139 Carlson Ave Collector 329 1 12 0 1,350 30 82037 1460 799 Laguna Canyon Rd Minor Arterial 1,677 2 12 4 1,900 40 172038 1461 1460 Quail Hill Parkway Minor Arterial 1,509 2 12 4 1,900 40 172039 1461 1463 Quail Hill Parkway Minor Arterial 1,784 2 12 4 1,750 40 112040 1462 1461 W Knollcrest Collector 474 1 12 4 1,750 30 172041 1463 1461 Quail Hill Parkway Minor Arterial 1,784 2 12 4 1,750 40 112042 1463 1470 Quail Hill Parkway Minor Arterial 1,308 2 12 4 1,900 40 112043 1464 1463 W Knollcrest Collector 490 1 12 4 1,750 30 112044 1465 1466 Spyglass Collector 1,717 1 12 4 1,350 30 172045 1466 1461 Knollcrest Collector 582 1 12 0 1,750 30 17 City of Laguna Beach H‐66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2046 1466 1469 Knollcrest Collector 602 1 12 0 1,350 30 172047 1468 1469 Pine Needles Collector 1,562 1 12 0 1,350 30 172048 1469 1466 Knollcrest Collector 602 1 12 0 1,350 30 172049 1469 1471 Knollcrest Collector 2,120 1 12 0 1,350 30 172050 1470 1476 Quail Hill Parkway Minor Arterial 571 2 12 4 1,900 40 112051 1471 1463 Knollcrest Collector 412 1 12 0 1,750 30 112052 1473 872 I‐405 On Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,248 1 12 0 1,350 30 112053 1474 1475 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 647 1 12 0 1,350 30 112054 1475 1476 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 160 1 12 0 1,350 30 112055 1476 1477 Sand Canyon Ave Minor Arterial 186 2 12 4 1,900 40 112056 1477 1478 Sand Canyon Ave Minor Arterial 1,498 2 12 0 1,900 40 112057 1478 1473 Sand Canyon Ave Collector 248 1 12 0 1,700 40 112058 1479 74 La Cresta Dr Collector 528 1 12 0 1,350 30 552059 1480 723 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 709 2 12 4 1,750 45 562060 1480 733 Dana Point Harbor Dr Minor Arterial 1,093 2 12 4 1,900 45 562061 1481 1480 Lighthouse Dr Collector 303 1 12 4 1,350 30 562062 1482 670 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 835 2 12 4 1,750 45 532063 1483 1482 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 1,227 2 12 4 1,700 45 542064 1484 1482 Avenida Descanso Collector 342 1 12 0 1,350 30 532065 1485 1483 Via Del Amo Collector 369 1 12 0 1,350 30 542066 1486 1483 Camino Del Avion Minor Arterial 452 2 12 4 1,700 45 542067 1487 685 Alipaz St Collector 971 1 12 4 1,575 35 542068 1488 1487 Alipaz St Collector 1,030 1 12 4 1,575 35 542069 1489 1488 Paseo Toscana Collector 279 1 12 0 1,350 30 542070 1490 1488 Alipaz St Collector 529 1 12 4 1,575 35 542071 1491 685 Avenida Leandro Collector 370 1 12 0 1,350 30 542072 1492 1493 Ritz Pointe Dr Collector 483 1 12 0 1,350 30 522073 1493 236 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 1,223 2 12 4 1,750 40 522074 1494 162 South Peak Collector 410 1 12 0 1,750 30 522075 1495 16 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 1,435 2 12 4 1,900 45 522076 1495 17 SR‐1 Minor Arterial 858 2 12 4 1,750 45 522077 1496 1495 Pointe Monarch Dr Collector 280 1 12 0 1,350 30 52 City of Laguna Beach H‐67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2078 1497 1498 Josiah Dr Collector 394 1 12 0 1,350 30 532079 1498 94 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 192 2 12 4 1,900 45 532080 1498 1501 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 393 2 12 4 1,750 45 532081 1499 95 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 553 2 12 4 1,750 45 532082 1499 1501 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 372 2 12 4 1,900 45 532083 1500 1499 Seabrook Dr Collector 314 1 12 0 1,350 30 532084 1501 1498 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 392 2 12 4 1,900 45 532085 1501 1499 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 372 2 12 4 1,750 45 532086 1502 1501 Gate Collector 242 1 12 0 1,350 30 532087 1503 94 Dana Woods Collector 565 1 12 0 1,350 30 532088 1504 1505 W Nine Dr Collector 240 1 12 0 1,350 30 472089 1505 145 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,213 3 12 6 1,900 55 522090 1505 146 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 1,069 3 12 6 1,900 55 472091 1506 145 National Park Dr Collector 359 1 12 0 1,350 30 522092 1507 276 Pacific Island Dr Minor Arterial 799 2 12 6 1,900 45 472093 1508 1507 Starview Ln Collector 617 1 12 0 1,350 30 472094 1509 273 Flying Cloud Dr Collector 615 1 12 0 1,350 30 472095 1510 276 Ocean Way Collector 615 1 12 0 1,350 30 462096 1511 1512 Ocean Way Collector 417 1 12 0 1,350 30 462097 1512 1510 Ocean Way Collector 237 1 12 0 1,350 30 462098 1513 1512 Isle Vista Collector 549 1 12 0 1,350 30 462099 1514 293 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 523 2 12 4 1,900 40 422100 1515 1514 Niguel Rd Minor Arterial 689 2 12 4 1,900 40 422101 1516 578 Stockport St Collector 500 1 12 0 1,750 30 292102 1517 498 Calle Aragon Collector 791 1 12 0 1,350 30 212103 1518 1517 Calle Aragon Collector 882 1 12 0 1,350 30 212104 1519 498 Avenida Sevilla Collector 865 1 12 0 1,350 30 212105 1520 498 Avenida Sevilla Collector 710 1 12 0 1,350 30 282106 1521 507 Alameda Ave Collector 415 1 12 0 1,350 30 292107 1522 503 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,623 3 12 4 1,750 50 292108 1523 499 Via Lomas Collector 408 1 12 0 1,750 30 282109 1524 432 Windsong Collector 404 1 12 4 1,350 30 28 City of Laguna Beach H‐68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2110 1525 1524 Cedarbrook Collector 331 1 12 0 1,350 30 282111 1526 434 Polaris Way Collector 337 1 12 0 1,750 30 282112 1527 445 Eastwing Collector 657 1 12 4 1,350 30 272113 1528 447 Westwing Collector 684 1 12 4 1,350 30 272114 1529 448 Westwing Collector 729 1 12 0 1,350 30 202115 1529 1531 Calle Corta Collector 306 1 12 0 1,350 30 202116 1530 404 Canyon Wren Ln Collector 705 1 12 0 1,350 30 202117 1531 403 Calle Corta Collector 309 1 12 0 1,350 30 202118 1532 474 Wood Vista Way Collector 306 1 12 0 1,350 30 272119 1534 474 Canyon Vistas Collector 1,539 1 12 4 1,350 30 272120 1536 1532 Wood Vista Way Collector 564 1 12 0 1,350 30 272121 1537 1532 Alder Dr Collector 281 1 12 0 1,350 30 272122 1538 456 Wood Canyon Dr Collector 1,045 1 12 4 1,350 30 272123 1539 473 Chase Collector 745 1 12 0 1,350 30 272124 1540 471 Sanborn Collector 974 1 12 0 1,350 30 352125 1541 470 Oak Grove Collector 626 1 12 0 1,750 30 352126 1542 1541 Oak Grove Collector 461 1 12 0 1,350 30 352127 1543 1541 Huntington Ln Collector 302 1 12 0 1,350 30 352128 1544 470 Westridge Dr Collector 867 1 12 0 1,750 30 352129 1545 1544 Oak View Dr Collector 627 1 12 0 1,350 30 352130 1546 470 Wood Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 656 2 12 4 1,750 30 352131 1547 1542 Boundary Oak Collector 1,406 1 12 0 1,350 30 352132 1548 1547 Weybridge Way Collector 309 1 12 0 1,350 30 352133 1549 1546 Wood Canyon Dr Minor Arterial 1,893 2 12 4 1,900 30 352134 1550 343 Wood Canyon Dr Collector 835 1 12 4 1,350 30 422135 1551 296 Kite Hill Dr N Collector 662 1 12 0 1,350 30 422136 1552 294 Kite Hill Dr S Collector 561 1 12 4 1,350 30 422137 1553 306 Aliso Creek Rd Collector 480 1 12 0 1,750 30 372138 1554 1553 Aliso Creek Rd Collector 843 1 12 0 1,350 30 372139 1555 1536 Wood Vista Way Collector 252 1 12 0 1,350 30 272140 1556 1102 Michelson Dr Collector 1,338 1 12 4 1,350 30 92141 1557 1556 Michelson Dr Collector 322 1 12 4 1,350 30 9 City of Laguna Beach H‐69 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2142 1558 1101 Ethel Coplen Way Collector 332 1 12 0 1,350 30 92143 1559 1105 Yale Ave Collector 1,536 1 12 4 1,350 30 102144 1560 1097 Rosa Drew Ln Collector 358 1 12 0 1,750 30 102145 1561 1098 Michelson Dr Collector 505 1 12 0 1,750 30 102146 1562 1106 Concordia Collector 600 1 12 0 1,350 30 102147 1563 1106 Ridgeline Dr Collector 1,965 1 12 4 1,350 30 102148 1564 1563 Ridgeline Dr Collector 1,508 1 12 4 1,350 30 102149 1565 809 Ridge Rte Dr Collector 2,350 1 12 4 1,350 40 202150 1566 807 San Remo Dr Collector 505 1 12 0 1,350 30 202151 1567 807 Santa Maria Ave Minor Arterial 913 2 12 4 1,900 40 202152 1568 406 Via Vista Collector 320 1 12 0 1,350 30 202153 1569 1567 Santa Maria Ave Minor Arterial 1,294 2 12 4 1,900 40 202154 1570 1569 Santa Maria Ave Minor Arterial 718 2 12 4 1,900 40 202155 1571 661 Camino Capistrano Minor Arterial 2,718 2 12 4 1,750 45 492156 1571 662 Camino Capistrano Collector 556 1 12 4 1,750 45 492157 1572 664 Avenida De La Vista Collector 511 1 12 4 1,350 30 492158 1573 1572 Avenida De La Vista Collector 333 1 12 4 1,350 30 492159 1574 686 Alipaz St Collector 1,347 1 12 4 1,575 35 542160 1575 265 Parc Vista Collector 930 1 12 4 1,350 30 482161 1576 267 Parc Vista Collector 1,184 1 12 4 1,350 30 482162 1577 256 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 837 2 12 4 1,750 45 482163 1577 262 Marina Hills Dr Minor Arterial 497 2 12 4 1,750 45 482164 1578 1577 Niguel Ranch Rd Collector 776 1 12 0 1,350 30 482165 1579 138 Hidden Hills Rd Collector 1,149 1 12 4 1,575 35 432166 1580 1073 Turtle Rock Dr Collector 1,555 1 12 0 1,750 45 92167 1581 1081 California Ave Collector 945 1 12 4 1,350 30 142168 1582 1071 California Ave Collector 1,794 1 12 4 1,750 30 142169 1583 1071 Anteater Dr Collector 1,181 1 12 4 1,750 30 142170 1584 1193 Bison Ave Collector 1,510 1 12 4 1,350 30 132171 1585 1584 Peltason Dr Collector 1,275 1 12 4 1,350 30 132172 1586 1585 Peltason Dr Collector 1,391 1 12 4 1,350 30 132173 1587 1005 Turtle Ridge Dr Collector 686 1 12 4 1,750 30 14 City of Laguna Beach H‐70 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2174 1587 1014 Turtle Ridge Dr Minor Arterial 882 2 12 4 1,900 30 142175 1588 1587 Summit Canyon Dr Collector 1,022 1 12 4 1,750 30 142176 1589 1588 Summit Park Dr Collector 899 1 12 4 1,350 30 142177 1590 1589 Summit Park Dr Collector 1,821 1 12 4 1,350 30 142178 1591 1590 Summit Park Dr Collector 1,516 1 12 0 1,350 30 142179 1592 1474 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,477 1 12 0 1,350 30 112180 1593 1592 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,233 1 12 0 1,350 30 172181 1594 1593 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,430 1 12 0 1,350 30 172182 1595 1594 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 878 1 12 0 1,350 30 172183 1596 1595 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,287 1 12 0 1,350 30 172184 1597 1596 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 812 1 12 0 1,350 30 172185 1598 1597 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 978 1 12 4 1,350 30 172186 1599 1598 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,270 1 12 4 1,350 30 172187 1600 1599 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 499 1 12 4 1,350 30 172188 1601 1600 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,209 1 12 4 1,350 30 172189 1601 1605 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,877 1 12 4 1,350 30 172190 1602 1600 Copper Creek Collector 751 1 12 4 1,350 30 172191 1603 1070 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,383 1 12 4 1,350 30 142192 1604 1603 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,486 1 12 4 1,350 30 142193 1605 1604 Shady Canyon Dr Collector 1,916 1 12 4 1,350 30 142194 1606 1601 Sunnyhill Collector 898 2 12 4 1,350 30 172195 1607 1606 Turtle Rock Dr Collector 723 1 12 4 1,350 30 172196 1608 1606 Turtle Rock Dr Collector 739 1 12 4 1,350 30 172197 1609 1073 Turtle Rock Dr Collector 678 1 12 0 1,750 30 92198 1610 1580 Turtle Rock Dr Collector 895 1 12 0 1,350 30 142199 1611 892 Monterey Dr Local Roadway 333 1 12 0 1,350 30 392200 1612 892 Monterey Dr Local Roadway 317 1 12 0 1,350 30 392201 1613 274 Talavera Dr Collector 307 1 12 0 1,350 30 472202 1614 674 Calle Aspero Collector 240 1 12 4 1,750 30 542203 1615 684 Via Belardes Collector 391 1 12 4 1,350 30 542204 1616 509 Heather Ridge Collector 469 1 12 4 1,750 30 362205 1617 1618 The Palms at Laguna Beach Collector 290 1 12 4 1,350 30 37 City of Laguna Beach H‐71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2206 1618 305 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,010 3 12 4 1,750 50 372207 1618 306 Moulton Pkwy Major Arterial 1,563 3 12 4 1,750 50 372208 1619 305 Rancho Niguel Rd Collector 540 1 12 4 1,750 40 432209 1620 150 Via Valle Collector 302 1 12 0 1,350 30 472210 1621 93 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 626 2 12 4 1,750 45 532211 1621 94 Golden Lantern Minor Arterial 1,672 2 12 4 1,900 45 532212 1622 1621 Priscilla Dr Collector 486 1 12 4 1,350 30 532213 1623 1208 Pacific View Dr Collector 256 1 12 4 1,750 30 122214 1624 356 Canyon Acres Dr Local Roadway 412 1 12 4 1,750 30 342215 1625 866 I‐405 Freeway 481 4 12 10 2,250 70 182216 1626 215 I‐5 Freeway 436 6 12 8 2,250 70 222217 1627 1420 Laguna College of Art and
Design Collector 183 1 12 0 1,350 30 34
2218 1628 362 SR‐133 Collector 599 1 12 4 1,700 45 342219 1628 363 SR‐133 Collector 539 1 12 4 1,700 45 342220 1629 1628 Laguna College of Art and
Design Collector 155 1 12 0 1,350 30 34
2221 1630 363 SR‐133 Collector 686 1 12 4 1,700 45 342222 1630 364 SR‐133 Collector 721 1 12 4 1,700 45 342223 1631 1630 Laguna College of Art and
Design Collector 162 1 12 0 1,350 30 34
2224 1632 1554 Aliso Creek Rd Collector 584 1 12 0 1,350 30 372225 1633 1307 Thalia St Local Roadway 255 1 12 4 1,125 25 402226 1633 1313 Temple Terrace Local Roadway 1,641 1 12 4 1,350 30 402227 1634 1444 Forest Ave Local Roadway 235 1 12 4 1,350 30 402228 1635 44 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 706 2 12 4 1,900 30 402229 1635 46 Thalia St Local Roadway 353 1 12 4 1,750 25 402230 1636 1635 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 443 2 12 4 1,900 30 402231 1637 1636 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 380 2 12 4 1,900 30 402232 1638 1637 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 336 2 12 4 1,900 30 402233 1639 1389 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 311 2 12 4 1,900 30 402234 1640 1639 Glenneyre St Minor Arterial 434 2 12 4 1,900 30 40 City of Laguna Beach H‐72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2235 1641 1642 Glenneyre St Local Roadway 379 1 12 4 1,125 25 402236 1642 1643 Glenneyre St Local Roadway 670 1 12 4 1,125 25 402237 1643 1428 Glenneyre St Collector 387 1 12 0 1,125 25 452238 1644 1652 I‐5 Freeway 1,129 2 12 4 2,250 70 212239 1645 1646 I‐5 Freeway 1,411 2 12 4 2,250 70 192240 1646 221 I‐5 Freeway 1,413 2 12 4 2,250 70 192241 1647 1648 I‐5 Freeway 1,606 2 12 4 2,250 70 192242 1648 1649 I‐5 Freeway 3,302 2 12 4 2,250 70 212243 1648 1650 I‐5 Freeway 970 1 12 4 2,250 70 212244 1649 217 I‐5 Freeway 1,061 2 12 4 2,250 70 212245 1650 219 I‐5 Freeway 951 6 12 4 2,250 70 212246 1650 1645 I‐5 Freeway 1,060 1 12 4 2,250 70 212247 1650 1651 I‐5 Freeway 1,645 6 12 4 2,250 70 212248 1651 217 I‐5 Freeway 1,750 6 12 4 2,250 70 212249 1651 1649 I‐5 Freeway 773 1 12 4 2,250 70 212250 1651 1650 I‐5 Freeway 1,645 6 12 4 2,250 70 212251 1652 1645 I‐5 Freeway 3,725 2 12 4 2,250 70 212252 1652 1651 I‐5 Freeway 1,035 1 12 4 2,250 70 212253 1653 909 Reef Point Dr Collector 701 1 12 0 1,350 30 322254 1654 1653 Reef Point Dr Collector 334 1 12 0 1,350 30 322255 1655 1654 Reef Point Dr Collector 1,765 1 12 0 1,350 30 322256 1656 1655 Reef Point Dr Collector 1,248 1 12 0 1,350 30 322257 1657 1656 Reef Point Dr Collector 630 1 12 0 1,350 30 252258 1658 1657 Reef Point Dr Collector 935 1 12 0 1,350 30 252259 1659 1658 Reef Point Dr Collector 1,005 1 12 0 1,350 30 252260 1660 1659 Reef Point Dr Collector 910 1 12 0 1,350 30 252261 1661 1660 Reef Point Dr Collector 688 1 12 0 1,350 30 252262 1662 1663 Archipelago Dr Collector 887 1 12 0 1,125 25 322263 1663 1664 Archipelago Dr Collector 872 1 12 0 1,125 25 322264 1664 910 Crystal Heights Collector 779 1 12 4 1,350 30 322265 1665 995 Pelican Hill Rd N Collector 952 1 12 2 1,350 30 242266 1666 1665 Pelican Hill Rd N Collector 1,179 1 12 2 1,350 30 15 City of Laguna Beach H‐73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2267 1666 1671 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 1,370 1 12 2 1,350 30 242268 1667 1666 Pelican Hill Cir Collector 894 1 12 2 1,125 25 152269 1668 1667 Pelican Hill Cir Collector 766 1 12 2 1,125 25 152270 1669 1670 Pelican Hill Cir Collector 1,013 1 12 2 1,125 25 242271 1670 1671 Pelican Hill Cir Collector 745 1 12 2 1,125 25 242272 1671 1666 Pelican Hill Rd N Collector 1,370 1 12 2 1,350 30 242273 1671 1672 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 994 1 12 2 1,350 30 242274 1672 1673 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 785 1 12 2 1,750 30 242275 1673 1674 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 908 1 12 2 1,350 30 242276 1674 1675 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 780 1 12 2 1,750 30 242277 1675 993 Pelican Hill Rd S Collector 1,262 1 12 2 1,350 30 242278 1676 1673 Pelican Hill Resort Entrance Collector 597 1 12 0 1,750 30 242279 1677 1675 The Resort at Pelican Hill
Entrance Collector 627 1 12 4 1,750 25 24
2280 1678 997 Vista Ridge Rd Collector 773 1 12 2 1,700 45 162281 1679 1678 Vista Ridge Rd Collector 1,064 1 12 2 1,700 45 252282 1680 1679 Vista Ridge Rd Collector 1,029 1 12 2 1,700 45 252283 1681 1680 Vista Ridge Rd Collector 1,427 1 12 2 1,700 45 162284 1682 1681 Vista Ridge Rd Collector 1,936 1 12 2 1,700 45 162285 1682 1684 Ridge Park Rd Collector 1,545 1 12 2 1,700 45 162286 1683 998 Ridge Park Rd Collector 479 1 12 2 1,700 45 162287 1684 1683 Ridge Park Rd Collector 1,218 1 12 2 1,700 45 162288 1685 1682 Ridge Park Rd Collector 1,319 1 12 2 1,700 45 162289 1686 1687 Cliff Dr Local Roadway 575 1 10 2 1,350 30 392290 1687 1688 Cliff Dr Local Roadway 485 1 10 2 1,350 30 392291 1688 887 Cliff Dr Local Roadway 208 1 12 0 1,750 30 392292 1689 1690 Cliff Dr Local Roadway 432 1 10 4 1,350 30 392293 1690 39 Cliff Dr Local Roadway 442 1 10 4 1,750 30 392294 1691 1692 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 1,088 2 12 4 1,900 40 552295 1692 118 Stonehill Dr Minor Arterial 1,321 2 12 4 1,750 40 552296 1693 1694 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 405 1 10 0 1,125 25 332297 1694 1695 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 231 1 10 0 1,125 25 33 City of Laguna Beach H‐74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2298 1695 1696 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 294 1 10 0 1,125 25 332299 1696 1697 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 500 1 10 0 1,125 25 332300 1697 1369 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 489 1 10 0 1,125 25 332301 1698 1372 Emerald Bay Local Roadway 622 1 10 0 1,125 25 322302 1702 1258 SR‐73 Freeway 1,219 3 12 10 2,250 70 72303 1702 1259 SR‐73 Freeway 917 4 12 10 2,250 70 72304 1702 1703 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 461 2 12 4 1,700 45 72305 1703 1704 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,040 2 12 4 1,700 45 72306 1704 1705 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 907 2 12 4 1,700 45 32307 1705 1706 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,595 2 12 4 1,700 45 32308 1706 1710 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 2,364 3 12 4 2,250 70 32309 1706 1714 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 736 5 12 4 2,250 70 32310 1707 1708 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 697 1 12 4 1,700 45 32311 1708 1709 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 481 1 12 4 1,350 30 32312 1709 1710 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 618 1 12 4 1,350 30 32313 1710 1706 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 2,364 3 12 4 2,250 70 32314 1710 1711 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 1,785 4 12 4 2,250 70 72315 1711 1710 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 1,785 3 12 4 2,250 70 72316 1711 1712 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 1,714 4 12 4 2,250 70 62317 1712 1711 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 1,714 4 12 4 2,250 70 62318 1713 1714 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 1,882 4 12 4 2,250 70 32319 1713 1717 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 3,961 4 12 4 2,250 70 32320 1714 1706 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 736 3 12 4 2,250 70 32321 1714 1713 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 1,882 4 12 4 2,250 70 32322 1715 1716 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway Ramp 1,033 2 12 4 1,700 45 32323 1715 1718 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 868 1 12 4 1,700 45 32324 1716 1717 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway Ramp 993 2 12 4 1,700 45 32325 1717 1713 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 3,961 3 12 4 2,250 70 32326 1717 1720 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 811 5 12 4 2,250 70 32327 1718 1719 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,674 1 12 4 1,700 45 32328 1719 1713 Costa Mesa On‐Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,162 1 12 4 1,700 45 32329 1720 1717 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 811 4 12 4 2,250 70 3 City of Laguna Beach H‐75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
2330 1720 1721 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 3,165 5 12 4 2,250 70 42331 1721 1720 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 3,165 4 12 4 2,250 70 42332 1722 1723 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 867 1 12 4 1,700 45 162333 1723 1011 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 775 1 12 4 1,700 45 142334 1724 1253 SR‐73 Freeway 1,379 3 12 10 2,250 70 132335 1724 1254 SR‐73 Freeway 1,516 3 12 10 2,250 70 132336 1724 1725 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 1,264 2 12 4 1,700 45 132337 1725 1726 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 947 3 12 4 1,700 45 132338 1726 1167 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 859 3 12 4 1,700 45 132339 1727 1124 SR‐73 Off Ramp Freeway Ramp 572 2 12 4 1,700 45 132340 1727 1168 MacArthur Blvd Major Arterial 478 3 12 4 1,900 55 82341 1728 955 SR‐1 Major Arterial 343 3 12 4 1,235 50 122342 1728 974 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,091 4 12 4 1,235 50 122343 1729 1222 Ford Rd Minor Arterial 1,525 2 12 4 1,900 50 122344 1730 1731 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 3,800 3 12 4 1,900 45 502345 1733 168 Driveway Local Roadway 555 1 12 4 1,750 25 472346 8000 178 I‐5 Freeway 2,182 5 12 8 2,250 70 582347 8010 230 I‐5 Freeway 1,063 6 12 8 2,250 70 112348 8012 1241 I‐405 Freeway 1,410 6 12 10 2,250 70 22349 8013 974 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,434 3 12 4 1,235 50 122350 8017 1712 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 2,723 5 12 4 2,250 70 62351 8018 1721 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 2,222 5 12 4 2,250 70 1 (exit
link) 178 8000 I‐5 Freeway 2,189 6 12 8 2,250 70 58
(exit
link) 230 8010 I‐5 Freeway 1,063 6 12 8 2,250 70 11
(exit
link) 570 8002 Oso Pkwy Major Arterial 645 3 12 4 1,425 50 31 (exit
link) 597 8005 Los Alisos Blvd Minor Arterial 873 2 12 4 1,425 45 22 (exit
link) 625 8004 Alicia Pkwy Major Arterial 1,470 3 12 4 1,425 45 22 City of Laguna Beach H‐76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Link
#
Up‐
Stream
Node
Down‐
Stream
Node Roadway Name Roadway Type
Length
(ft.)
No. of
Lanes
Lane
Width
(ft.)
Shoulder
Width
(ft.)
Saturation
Flow
Rate
(pcphpl)
Free
Flow
Speed
(mph)
Grid
Number
(exit
link) 633 8003 La Paz Rd Minor Arterial 1,164 2 12 4 1,425 40 30 (exit
link) 832 8007 Lake Forest Dr Major Arterial 890 3 12 4 1,425 45 19 (exit
link) 840 8008 Bake Pkwy Major Arterial 930 3 12 4 1,425 45 19 (exit
link) 974 8013 SR‐1 Major Arterial 1,443 4 12 4 1,235 50 12 (exit
link) 1230 8009 SR‐133 Minor Arterial 1,445 2 12 4 1,900 70 11 (exit
link) 1241 8012 I‐405 Freeway 1,410 6 12 10 2,250 70 2
(exit
link) 1269 8011 Jamboree Rd Major Arterial 798 3 12 4 1,900 55 4 (exit
link) 1699 8006 El Toro Rd Major Arterial 1,222 3 12 4 1,425 45 22 (exit
link) 1700 8014 Culver Dr Major Arterial 1,475 3 12 4 1,425 50 5 (exit
link) 1701 8016 University Dr Major Arterial 1,102 3 12 4 1,425 50 10 (exit
link) 1712 8017 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 2,722 4 12 4 2,250 70 6 (exit
link) 1721 8018 Costa Mesa Fwy Freeway 2,221 5 12 4 2,250 70 1 (exit
link) 1731 8001 Ortega Hwy Major Arterial 1,215 3 12 4 1,900 45 50 (exit
link) 1732 8019 Crown Valley Pkwy Major Arterial 793 4 12 4 1,425 45 38 City of Laguna Beach H‐77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Table H‐2. Nodes in the Link‐Node Analysis Network which are Controlled Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
1 6123291 2115865 Actuated 56
2 6070620 2191827 Actuated 7
3 6122377 2116142 Actuated 56
4 6121362 2116444 Actuated 56
5 6120065 2116710 Actuated 56
6 6119385 2116553 Actuated 56
7 6118769 2116407 Actuated 56
8 6117698 2116176 Actuated 55
9 6118026 2116258 Actuated 55
11 6117437 2116139 Actuated 55
12 6116765 2116153 Actuated 55
14 6115459 2118015 Actuated 55
15 6114441 2119900 Actuated 55
17 6111884 2123321 Actuated 52
18 6111298 2123974 Actuated 52
19 6108940 2126146 TCP ‐ Actuated 51
21 6106814 2128617 Actuated 51
22 6106180 2129579 Actuated 46
23 6105444 2130721 Actuated 46
24 6104398 2131867 Stop 46
26 6103597 2132994 Stop 46
27 6102864 2133889 Actuated 46
28 6102190 2134870 Actuated 45
29 6100966 2136548 TCP ‐ Actuated 45
30 6100782 2136681 Stop 45
31 6097667 2139823 TCP ‐ Actuated 40
32 6096767 2140733 TCP ‐ Actuated 40
33 6095594 2142655 Actuated 40
34 6095067 2143436 Actuated 40
35 6094626 2144067 Actuated 40
37 6094221 2144323 Actuated 39
38 6093874 2144546 TCP ‐ Actuated 39
39 6092955 2144961 Actuated 39
40 6094335 2145103 TCP ‐ Actuated 39
43 6096178 2144250 Stop 40
44 6095906 2142854 Stop 40
46 6095959 2142033 Actuated 40
47 6097944 2143232 Stop 40
51 6098892 2141045 Stop 40
52 6098576 2138875 Actuated 40
58 6105613 2130792 Stop 46
City of Laguna Beach H‐78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
70 6115337 2121142 Actuated 52
71 6114927 2120247 Actuated 55
74 6116118 2118246 Stop 55
84 6120103 2117352 Actuated 56
88 6124083 2116884 Actuated 56
89 6123936 2115631 Actuated 56
90 6120152 2118693 Actuated 56
92 6120227 2120027 Actuated 56
93 6120239 2121007 Actuated 53
94 6120177 2123304 Stop 53
95 6120196 2124817 Actuated 53
96 6120382 2125378 Actuated 53
97 6120810 2126072 Actuated 53
100 6121829 2128715 Actuated 53
101 6122430 2130016 Actuated 48
103 6124517 2131525 Actuated 48
105 6125220 2134403 Actuated 48
106 6124657 2135242 Actuated 48
107 6124084 2136670 Actuated 48
108 6124150 2137545 Actuated 48
109 6124342 2139313 Actuated 43
111 6124163 2142326 Actuated 43
112 6123782 2142823 Actuated 43
113 6122306 2144282 Actuated 43
114 6118982 2118715 Stop 56
117 6122114 2119980 Actuated 56
118 6118919 2120018 Actuated 56
123 6121118 2125012 Actuated 53
124 6119825 2125478 Actuated 53
137 6123439 2137608 Actuated 48
139 6124547 2143471 Actuated 43
142 6112979 2124667 Actuated 52
144 6113426 2126833 Actuated 52
145 6113396 2128509 Stop 52
148 6113802 2133193 Actuated 47
150 6114310 2136268 Stop 47
151 6114904 2136936 Actuated 47
152 6115245 2137288 Actuated 47
153 6116288 2138304 Actuated 47
154 6118123 2139877 Actuated 42
155 6117237 2139340 Actuated 42
156 6119435 2140950 Actuated 43
157 6120266 2141832 Actuated 43
City of Laguna Beach H‐79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
158 6120698 2142296 Actuated 43
159 6121421 2143168 Actuated 43
162 6114410 2126804 Actuated 52
166 6114733 2138153 Actuated 47
167 6115446 2138909 Actuated 42
168 6116958 2137684 Actuated 47
174 6119114 2142926 Actuated 43
232 6117839 2118719 Stop 55
235 6117590 2118738 Stop 55
236 6115194 2122208 Actuated 52
237 6115861 2124048 Actuated 52
238 6116204 2124927 Actuated 52
243 6118790 2125284 Actuated 53
244 6115416 2125438 Actuated 52
250 6116791 2125963 Actuated 52
251 6116426 2127265 Actuated 52
253 6117072 2130116 Actuated 47
254 6117255 2131788 Actuated 47
255 6117898 2134433 Actuated 47
256 6118215 2135539 Actuated 47
262 6119528 2135779 Actuated 48
263 6122179 2137089 Actuated 48
269 6117420 2136817 Actuated 47
272 6111479 2134751 Stop 47
273 6111236 2133923 Stop 47
274 6110771 2133529 Stop 47
281 6113726 2137975 Actuated 47
284 6115021 2139310 Actuated 42
286 6115553 2141669 Actuated 42
288 6115343 2143872 Actuated 42
289 6114913 2145664 Actuated 42
291 6114474 2148954 Actuated 36
298 6118896 2145712 Stop 43
301 6116905 2148889 Actuated 36
304 6121081 2145519 Actuated 43
305 6120741 2146975 Actuated 43
306 6119941 2149307 Actuated 37
308 6122157 2147747 Stop 37
309 6118857 2151270 Actuated 37
310 6119298 2152284 Actuated 37
311 6119701 2153328 Actuated 37
312 6120018 2154110 Actuated 37
317 6117515 2151729 Actuated 36
City of Laguna Beach H‐80 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
318 6117644 2153049 Actuated 36
319 6117687 2153878 Actuated 36
320 6117779 2155009 Actuated 36
321 6118520 2155947 Actuated 37
326 6115009 2150875 Actuated 36
327 6115199 2151534 Actuated 36
328 6115188 2152483 Actuated 36
329 6115378 2153074 Actuated 36
330 6115657 2154614 Actuated 36
331 6116193 2155620 Actuated 36
336 6116813 2156822 Actuated 28
337 6113522 2149111 Actuated 36
338 6112699 2149623 Actuated 36
339 6112200 2150395 Actuated 36
340 6112319 2152104 Actuated 36
341 6112807 2153124 Actuated 36
342 6112866 2154490 Actuated 36
346 6111324 2152808 Actuated 36
349 6116070 2148905 Actuated 36
351 6118460 2148850 Actuated 37
353 6094472 2145284 TCP ‐ Actuated 39
354 6094828 2145846 TCP ‐ Actuated 40
355 6095119 2146776 Actuated 40
356 6096824 2148479 TCP ‐ Actuated 34
359 6095398 2144467 Stop 40
365 6100499 2152976 Stop 34
369 6101380 2159077 TCP ‐ Actuated 26
373 6101985 2162034 Actuated 26
374 6101903 2162910 Actuated 26
382 6104081 2161701 Actuated 27
387 6104539 2162096 Actuated 27
388 6104995 2162920 Actuated 27
389 6105733 2164914 Actuated 27
390 6106667 2165843 Actuated 20
392 6108849 2168133 Actuated 20
393 6110330 2168439 Actuated 20
394 6111134 2168465 Actuated 21
395 6112559 2168837 Actuated 21
396 6113830 2169646 Actuated 21
397 6114649 2169707 Actuated 21
398 6116284 2169653 Actuated 21
399 6117060 2169698 Actuated 21
400 6117540 2170117 Actuated 21
City of Laguna Beach H‐81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
406 6109676 2169522 Stop 20
408 6112962 2168145 Actuated 21
414 6116309 2168653 Actuated 21
418 6110683 2154447 Actuated 36
419 6112877 2155558 Actuated 36
420 6112936 2156550 Actuated 28
421 6113339 2157591 Actuated 28
422 6113974 2158441 Actuated 28
423 6111948 2154444 Actuated 36
424 6113709 2154783 Actuated 36
429 6114146 2159433 Actuated 28
430 6113969 2160451 Actuated 28
434 6112424 2160110 Actuated 28
435 6114646 2160573 Actuated 28
436 6112412 2161536 Actuated 28
437 6111395 2162992 Actuated 28
438 6110546 2163583 Actuated 28
439 6108426 2163807 Actuated 27
444 6112388 2163303 Actuated 28
449 6110678 2155597 Actuated 36
450 6110678 2156736 Actuated 28
451 6110771 2157756 Actuated 28
452 6111043 2158394 Actuated 28
453 6111316 2158827 Actuated 28
454 6109368 2154818 Actuated 35
456 6109779 2156693 Stop 27
462 6107800 2157194 Actuated 27
464 6108161 2158469 Actuated 27
466 6109631 2159871 Actuated 27
468 6110200 2161020 Actuated 27
469 6110520 2161674 Actuated 28
470 6108950 2153903 Actuated 35
471 6109939 2156039 Stop 35
474 6107827 2159224 Stop 27
478 6113363 2163479 Actuated 28
480 6115308 2163568 Actuated 28
485 6116155 2161969 Actuated 28
488 6117438 2158054 Actuated 28
489 6118007 2159085 Actuated 28
492 6114293 2166449 Actuated 21
493 6115001 2165459 Actuated 21
494 6115113 2164964 Actuated 28
498 6116372 2165224 Stop 28
City of Laguna Beach H‐82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
499 6117482 2159643 Actuated 28
500 6117291 2162281 Actuated 28
502 6118852 2160144 Actuated 29
503 6119336 2156319 Actuated 29
505 6119851 2155024 Actuated 37
507 6121163 2157468 Stop 29
509 6116508 2154051 Actuated 36
511 6118263 2154139 Actuated 36
512 6119325 2154800 Actuated 37
519 6124423 2148109 Actuated 37
520 6126357 2149295 Actuated 38
521 6127117 2149628 Actuated 38
522 6127942 2149982 Actuated 38
523 6124126 2148658 Actuated 37
524 6124257 2149512 Actuated 37
528 6124356 2149850 Actuated 37
533 6126302 2146270 Actuated 44
534 6127296 2145932 Actuated 44
539 6127787 2146399 Actuated 44
541 6127750 2145693 Actuated 44
542 6127965 2145711 Actuated 44
543 6128299 2145706 Actuated 44
550 6127090 2152340 Actuated 38
557 6127827 2154848 Actuated 38
558 6127154 2152602 Actuated 38
559 6127868 2157713 Actuated 30
563 6122868 2155662 Actuated 37
567 6125359 2157552 Actuated 29
571 6129262 2157649 Actuated 30
572 6128399 2157649 Actuated 30
578 6119684 2163440 Actuated 29
579 6120028 2161529 Actuated 29
582 6120410 2162131 Actuated 29
584 6123545 2160779 Actuated 29
586 6124953 2162153 Actuated 29
588 6119557 2164977 Actuated 29
589 6119435 2165553 Actuated 22
590 6119039 2166721 Actuated 22
591 6117661 2167536 Actuated 21
592 6116685 2168011 Actuated 21
596 6120355 2167358 Actuated 22
602 6117104 2170542 Actuated 21
608 6118120 2170640 Actuated 21
City of Laguna Beach H‐83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
611 6121451 2163515 Actuated 29
612 6122558 2164743 Actuated 29
613 6122812 2165662 Actuated 22
620 6122925 2166148 Actuated 22
622 6123179 2167074 Actuated 22
628 6126287 2163469 Actuated 30
629 6127070 2163800 Actuated 30
632 6127555 2164659 Actuated 30
641 6127893 2161384 Actuated 30
643 6127935 2160416 Actuated 30
644 6127903 2158615 Actuated 30
645 6127911 2161055 Yield 30
652 6128986 2135743 Actuated 49
653 6129494 2135730 Actuated 49
654 6129899 2135855 Actuated 49
655 6130385 2136023 Actuated 49
661 6129007 2134410 Actuated 49
662 6130117 2131327 Actuated 49
664 6129255 2131115 Stop 49
666 6130558 2130088 Actuated 49
667 6131001 2129097 Actuated 54
670 6124882 2123879 Actuated 53
672 6126008 2125820 Actuated 53
674 6127287 2127359 Actuated 54
677 6127898 2128032 Actuated 54
678 6129032 2127727 Actuated 54
679 6129790 2127699 Actuated 54
680 6130179 2127735 Actuated 54
681 6131047 2127755 Actuated 54
684 6128868 2127126 Stop 54
685 6129035 2126366 Stop 54
689 6131023 2128937 Actuated 54
693 6131321 2129088 Actuated 54
694 6131819 2129089 Actuated 54
696 6132130 2129282 Actuated 54
697 6132669 2129458 Actuated 49
699 6131406 2127736 Actuated 54
705 6131031 2127272 Actuated 54
706 6130988 2126011 Actuated 54
707 6130878 2125487 Actuated 54
708 6131289 2125283 Actuated 54
711 6130635 2125055 Actuated 54
716 6130871 2124209 Yield 54
City of Laguna Beach H‐84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
718 6128472 2121674 Actuated 54
720 6127012 2118909 Actuated 57
721 6122494 2120010 Actuated 56
722 6123486 2119908 Actuated 56
723 6124099 2119630 Actuated 56
728 6124061 2121934 Actuated 53
732 6126867 2117413 Actuated 57
741 6126351 2116310 Actuated 57
742 6125934 2115736 Actuated 56
747 6128458 2116202 Actuated 57
792 6101973 2179108 Actuated 17
793 6101557 2180883 Actuated 17
798 6103333 2178696 Actuated 18
803 6110738 2171430 Actuated 21
804 6110640 2172801 Actuated 21
805 6110950 2174305 Actuated 19
806 6111140 2175860 Actuated 19
807 6109013 2171357 Stop 20
811 6109757 2176068 Actuated 18
812 6108197 2176348 Actuated 18
813 6106163 2177237 Actuated 18
819 6107961 2178837 Actuated 18
822 6110554 2177142 Actuated 19
823 6109581 2177732 Actuated 18
825 6112099 2175722 Actuated 19
826 6113014 2175565 Actuated 19
831 6114633 2175437 Actuated 19
835 6109219 2179424 Actuated 18
836 6110121 2179400 Actuated 18
839 6111905 2179261 Actuated 19
844 6107415 2179921 Actuated 18
845 6106779 2181301 Actuated 18
847 6106244 2182289 Actuated 18
885 6091786 2145508 Actuated 39
886 6091137 2145851 Actuated 39
887 6090664 2146125 Actuated 39
888 6089254 2146729 Actuated 39
889 6089080 2146791 Actuated 39
890 6087855 2147595 Stop 33
892 6092185 2146349 Stop 39
897 6081624 2152528 TCP ‐ Actuated 32
904 6080369 2153514 Actuated 32
905 6078604 2155081 Actuated 24
City of Laguna Beach H‐85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
906 6076634 2157863 Actuated 24
909 6080840 2154261 Stop 32
910 6079086 2155790 Stop 32
911 6074727 2159525 Actuated 24
913 6072935 2161032 Actuated 24
914 6071798 2161890 Actuated 24
915 6070663 2162586 Actuated 24
916 6069313 2163494 Actuated 24
919 6076368 2159943 Actuated 24
920 6074461 2159725 Yield 24
926 6068128 2164455 Actuated 24
927 6067817 2165346 Actuated 12
928 6067623 2166108 Actuated 12
929 6067601 2166211 Actuated 12
931 6067244 2167318 Actuated 12
932 6067005 2167549 Yield 12
935 6068433 2164788 Stop 24
939 6067466 2167676 Yield 12
940 6066645 2167875 Actuated 12
941 6065772 2168654 Actuated 12
942 6064909 2169381 Actuated 12
945 6062182 2170516 Actuated 12
951 6061825 2170610 Yield 12
952 6062329 2170757 Yield 12
953 6062745 2171372 Actuated 12
954 6061201 2170730 Actuated 12
986 6077877 2159698 Actuated 24
988 6078910 2164042 Actuated 25
990 6080708 2166822 Actuated 16
991 6081446 2167634 Actuated 16
992 6081897 2168680 Actuated 16
1000 6081917 2171030 Actuated 16
1001 6081904 2171740 Actuated 16
1004 6081054 2174522 Actuated 14
1005 6079876 2175702 Actuated 14
1012 6079189 2176955 Actuated 14
1013 6079022 2177709 Actuated 14
1016 6068684 2165068 Stop 24
1017 6068942 2165347 Stop 12
1018 6069162 2165658 Stop 12
1022 6070869 2166725 Stop 15
1024 6071589 2168425 Actuated 15
1026 6074358 2168377 Actuated 15
City of Laguna Beach H‐86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
1028 6078649 2168034 Actuated 15
1029 6080764 2168759 Actuated 16
1033 6070275 2169278 Actuated 12
1034 6069886 2170103 Actuated 12
1037 6069408 2171050 Actuated 12
1038 6068353 2172239 Actuated 12
1039 6066965 2174013 Actuated 12
1041 6065758 2174993 Actuated 12
1046 6066136 2175471 Yield 12
1047 6074039 2173286 Actuated 15
1049 6075009 2171325 Stop 15
1052 6074587 2174901 Actuated 13
1054 6074833 2175560 Yield 13
1055 6074769 2176052 Actuated 13
1056 6074499 2175433 Stop 13
1059 6076144 2176361 Actuated 13
1060 6076749 2176658 Actuated 13
1063 6077683 2177313 Actuated 13
1065 6080512 2177831 Actuated 14
1066 6081633 2178105 Actuated 14
1068 6083302 2180971 Actuated 14
1069 6082524 2183757 Actuated 9
1071 6080700 2179798 Actuated 14
1073 6084378 2183525 Actuated 9
1074 6080821 2183392 Actuated 9
1075 6080139 2183199 Actuated 14
1076 6079214 2182987 Actuated 14
1077 6078448 2183167 Actuated 13
1078 6077272 2184193 Actuated 8
1079 6076417 2185633 Actuated 8
1088 6081885 2185106 Actuated 9
1089 6081601 2186435 Actuated 9
1090 6081640 2188171 Actuated 9
1091 6082042 2189496 Actuated 9
1094 6083522 2186352 Actuated 9
1095 6085760 2186576 Actuated 9
1097 6087760 2186730 Actuated 10
1098 6089582 2186753 Stop 10
1100 6091192 2187960 Actuated 10
1106 6088133 2186124 Stop 10
1109 6075755 2184932 Actuated 8
1110 6073758 2184113 Actuated 8
1111 6072159 2184012 Actuated 8
City of Laguna Beach H‐87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
1112 6071455 2183936 Actuated 8
1113 6071099 2183760 Actuated 8
1114 6070297 2183182 Actuated 12
1115 6069668 2182880 Actuated 12
1119 6074488 2188928 Actuated 8
1120 6073572 2189724 Actuated 8
1128 6074472 2190799 Actuated 8
1129 6075590 2192103 Actuated 8
1130 6076527 2193160 Actuated 4
1133 6073037 2189114 Actuated 8
1134 6071842 2187727 Actuated 8
1135 6071507 2187315 Actuated 8
1137 6070988 2186719 Actuated 8
1139 6076449 2191485 Yield 8
1140 6075071 2192557 Actuated 4
1143 6074516 2192986 Actuated 4
1144 6073894 2193390 Actuated 4
1145 6073145 2193712 Actuated 4
1146 6072488 2193666 Actuated 4
1147 6071785 2193988 Actuated 4
1152 6073029 2190211 Actuated 8
1153 6072067 2191052 Actuated 8
1154 6071206 2191699 Actuated 8
1161 6069711 2185010 Actuated 7
1162 6070106 2185749 Actuated 7
1170 6071326 2185434 Actuated 8
1173 6070710 2188472 Actuated 7
1174 6070472 2190910 Actuated 7
1178 6071218 2192995 Actuated 4
1179 6072320 2194915 Actuated 4
1184 6071051 2179359 Actuated 13
1189 6071836 2179280 Actuated 13
1190 6072426 2179324 Actuated 13
1191 6073025 2179562 Actuated 13
1197 6070761 2178030 Actuated 12
1198 6070766 2176712 Yield 12
1199 6070830 2176413 Actuated 13
1203 6073137 2175996 Actuated 13
1208 6070506 2170301 Actuated 12
1209 6072510 2171201 Actuated 15
1213 6068511 2169935 Actuated 12
1215 6063133 2171915 Actuated 12
1216 6065112 2174259 Actuated 12
City of Laguna Beach H‐88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
1217 6067238 2177081 Actuated 12
1218 6068694 2180013 Actuated 12
1225 6070223 2179432 Actuated 12
1236 6082776 2190407 Actuated 9
1267 6077248 2193952 Actuated 4
1274 6102065 2148522 Stop 34
1276 6102318 2148122 Stop 34
1277 6102710 2147766 Stop 35
1279 6103118 2146400 Stop 41
1282 6102344 2146497 Stop 40
1293 6098613 2142796 Stop 40
1303 6097860 2144653 Stop 40
1304 6097445 2144473 Yield 40
1307 6097576 2143001 Stop 40
1309 6101204 2142200 Stop 40
1310 6099702 2141939 Stop 40
1311 6098725 2141527 Stop 40
1313 6098125 2141554 Stop 40
1314 6097206 2141095 Stop 40
1315 6097056 2142680 Stop 40
1317 6099761 2146731 Stop 40
1319 6099248 2146926 Stop 40
1320 6098377 2146674 Stop 40
1329 6099495 2140812 Stop 40
1332 6098146 2140326 Stop 40
1333 6097917 2140065 Stop 40
1334 6095307 2143599 Stop 40
1335 6095459 2144252 Stop 40
1336 6095081 2145326 Stop 40
1340 6101195 2140461 Stop 40
1344 6103307 2139574 Stop 41
1345 6103307 2139114 Stop 41
1346 6102868 2138446 Stop 41
1347 6103009 2137106 Stop 46
1365 6100851 2136785 Stop 45
1369 6088126 2147989 Stop 33
1371 6085931 2148863 Stop 32
1372 6086242 2149482 Stop 32
1375 6099079 2139368 Stop 40
1376 6098842 2139148 Stop 40
1377 6091671 2146613 Stop 39
1378 6091284 2146524 Stop 39
1381 6091899 2145775 Stop 39
City of Laguna Beach H‐89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
1382 6093089 2145273 Stop 39
1383 6104549 2133395 Stop 46
1387 6094843 2144253 Stop 40
1389 6096980 2140916 Stop 40
1391 6094849 2146075 Yield 40
1407 6085261 2149339 Stop 32
1409 6096020 2144249 Stop 40
1414 6098590 2142573 Stop 40
1416 6099984 2137477 Stop 45
1418 6102827 2139979 Stop 41
1420 6098106 2151336 Stop 34
1421 6103501 2145267 Stop 41
1422 6107394 2128182 Actuated 51
1425 6100317 2137137 Stop 45
1427 6099804 2137666 Stop 45
1429 6098832 2139633 Stop 40
1433 6105276 2163650 Stop 27
1435 6084968 2149265 Stop 32
1437 6085226 2149589 Stop 32
1440 6089232 2147396 Stop 33
1444 6094797 2144837 Stop 40
1448 6071467 2167824 Stop 15
1452 6075117 2189723 Stop 8
1456 6074148 2190352 Stop 8
1457 6074045 2189341 Stop 8
1461 6098644 2182872 Actuated 17
1463 6097463 2184211 Actuated 11
1466 6098282 2182416 Stop 17
1469 6097708 2182234 Stop 17
1476 6095866 2185167 Yield 11
1480 6124227 2118933 Stop 56
1482 6125716 2123845 Stop 53
1483 6126943 2123813 Stop 54
1488 6128043 2124701 Stop 54
1493 6115420 2123389 Stop 52
1495 6112470 2122693 Stop 52
1498 6120180 2123497 Stop 53
1499 6120194 2124262 Stop 53
1501 6120201 2123890 Stop 53
1505 6113445 2129721 Stop 47
1507 6110717 2131908 Stop 47
1512 6109875 2130779 Stop 46
1517 6116641 2165968 Stop 21
City of Laguna Beach H‐90 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Node
X
Coordinate
(ft)
Y
Coordinate
(ft)
Control
Type
Grid Map
Number
1524 6115011 2158953 Stop 28
1532 6108042 2159442 Stop 27
1536 6108286 2159951 Stop 27
1541 6109549 2153718 Stop 35
1542 6109968 2153525 Stop 35
1544 6108105 2153783 Stop 35
1547 6109884 2152167 Stop 35
1554 6121150 2149486 Stop 37
1577 6119033 2135734 Stop 48
1584 6074985 2181295 Stop 13
1587 6080350 2176148 Actuated 14
1595 6092582 2180629 Stop 17
1597 6092021 2178683 Stop 17
1600 6090164 2177107 Stop 17
1601 6088978 2177344 Stop 17
1606 6088721 2178205 Stop 17
1618 6120717 2147982 Stop 37
1621 6120214 2121633 Stop 53
1628 6098862 2152003 Stop 34
1630 6100048 2151780 Stop 34
1634 6094689 2144627 Stop 40
1635 6096251 2142237 Stop 40
1636 6096435 2141833 Stop 40
1637 6096624 2141503 Stop 40
1638 6096785 2141207 Stop 40
1639 6097199 2140694 Stop 40
1640 6097522 2140402 Stop 40
1641 6099086 2138916 Stop 40
1642 6099345 2138638 Stop 40
1643 6099800 2138145 Stop 45
1653 6081472 2154512 Stop 32
1664 6079663 2156315 Stop 25
1666 6075775 2165397 Stop 15
1671 6075043 2164238 Stop 24
1673 6075775 2162739 Actuated 24
1675 6076859 2161562 Actuated 24
1682 6085711 2167949 Stop 16
1688 6090593 2145929 Stop 39
1694 6088114 2148465 Stop 33 1
Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 California State Plane Zone 6 City of Laguna Beach H‐91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐1.  Wildfire Egress Study Link‐Node Analysis Network City of Laguna Beach H‐92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐2.  Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 1
City of Laguna Beach H‐93 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐3. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 2
City of Laguna Beach H‐94 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐4. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 3
City of Laguna Beach H‐95 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐5. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 4
City of Laguna Beach H‐96 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐6. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 5
City of Laguna Beach H‐97 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐7. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 6
City of Laguna Beach H‐98 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐8. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 7
City of Laguna Beach H‐99 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐9. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 8
City of Laguna Beach H‐100 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐10. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 9
City of Laguna Beach H‐101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐11. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 10
City of Laguna Beach H‐102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐12. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 11
City of Laguna Beach H‐103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐13. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 12
City of Laguna Beach H‐104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐14. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 13
City of Laguna Beach H‐105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐15. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 14
City of Laguna Beach H‐106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐16. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 15
City of Laguna Beach H‐107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐17. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 16
City of Laguna Beach H‐108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐18. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 17
City of Laguna Beach H‐109 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐19. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 18
City of Laguna Beach H‐110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐20. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 19
City of Laguna Beach H‐111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐21. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 20
City of Laguna Beach H‐112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐22. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 21
City of Laguna Beach H‐113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐23. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 22
City of Laguna Beach H‐114 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐24. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 23
City of Laguna Beach H‐115 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐25. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 24
City of Laguna Beach H‐116 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐26. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 25
City of Laguna Beach H‐117 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐27. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 26
City of Laguna Beach H‐118 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐28. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 27
City of Laguna Beach H‐119 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐29. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 28
City of Laguna Beach H‐120 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐30. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 29
City of Laguna Beach H‐121 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐31. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 30
City of Laguna Beach H‐122 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐32. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 31
City of Laguna Beach H‐123 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐33. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 32
City of Laguna Beach H‐124 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐34. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 33
City of Laguna Beach H‐125 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐35. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 34
City of Laguna Beach H‐126 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐36. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 35
City of Laguna Beach H‐127 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐37. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 36
City of Laguna Beach H‐128 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐38. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 37
City of Laguna Beach H‐129 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐39. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 38
City of Laguna Beach H‐130 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐40. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 39
City of Laguna Beach H‐131 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐41. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 40
City of Laguna Beach H‐132 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐42. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 41
City of Laguna Beach H‐133 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐43. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 42
City of Laguna Beach H‐134 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐44. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 43
City of Laguna Beach H‐135 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐45. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 44
City of Laguna Beach H‐136 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐46. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 45
City of Laguna Beach H‐137 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐47. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 46
City of Laguna Beach H‐138 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐48. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 47
City of Laguna Beach H‐139 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wildfire Egress Study Rev. 2
Figure H‐49. Link‐Node Analysis Network – Grid 48
City of Laguna Beach H‐140 KLD Engineering, P.C.