Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public works panel approves curb diversion at East Hawthorne/Linwood to reduce flooding at adjacent home
Summary
The Public Works Committee on June 16 approved installing a raised diversion at the East Hawthorne/Linwood roundabout to keep stormwater in the street and route it to a downstream inlet, aiming to prevent water entering a nearby garage.
The Public Works Committee on June 16 approved installing a stormwater diversion device at the roundabout at East Hawthorne and East Linwood Grove intended to keep runoff in the street and route it to a downstream inlet rather than into a particular homeowner’s driveway and garage.
Planning and public‑works staff explained that during heavy rains the inlet at the roundabout does not have enough pipe capacity to carry all the stormwater, which causes water to run into a nearby garage and driveway. Staff described the proposed fix as a raised curved diversion—described in discussion as a curved, raised berm or speed‑bump‑style device in the roadway—that would hold water in the street and route flows to a larger downstream storm system. A public‑works engineer told committee members the upstream pipes are undersized and that, based on flow estimates, the diversion should carry roughly two‑thirds of the water coming from the north.
Committee members raised several implementation questions, including whether nearby property owners had been notified, possible effects downstream, whether vehicles could safely navigate the device, and whether the diversion would be a temporary “band‑aid” until larger infrastructure work occurs. Staff said the device is intended as an affordable, near‑term measure and that the city could remove the diversion if it proved ineffective; they also said a more comprehensive road regrade or pipe replacement would be part of future capital work when the street is repaved.
Motion and vote: the committee moved and seconded approval to install the diversion device and to proceed with design/installation; the motion carried (committee discussion recorded; transcript contains an unclear numeric readout of vote which staff said would be clarified at council). Committee members asked staff to consult adjacent property owners before advancing the final construction plan to the full council.
Why it matters: the diversion targets recurrent flooding affecting a private residence and represents a low‑cost operational response while longer‑term infrastructure upgrades are planned; committee members stressed the importance of homeowner outreach and post‑installation evaluation.
