Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery Debris topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Officials: 3,205 parcels cleared; city aligning recovery work with FEMA process

5054943 · June 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Emergency Management Department told the committee that 3,205 parcels are cleared and ready to rebuild, that federal reimbursement processes are guiding city recovery decisions, and that the city has included parks and some commercial parcels in debris removal eligibility.

The Los Angeles Ad Hoc Committee on Recovery received an update from the Emergency Management Department (EMD) and other city offices on debris removal, recovery metrics and alignment with federal reimbursement rules.

EMD presented progress numbers and described how the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) and FEMA review shape which cleanup costs the city can recover. Carol Park, general manager, Emergency Management Department, said the city is trying to “be in line with NDRF because FEMA supervises reimbursements,” and that alignment helps federal, state and local partners view recovery needs “through the same lenses.”

The committee was told EMD’s dashboard shows 3,205 parcels “clean and ready for rebuild.” Staff said about 80% of cleanup work was performed by the U.S. Army Corps and the rest by private contractors; the city identified parcels that would not normally have been eligible for federal removal and successfully included them, citing examples such as two commercial parking lots and certain state parks within the city limits. EMD said that including those parcels in the federal public debris removal process saved the city approximately $1,000,000.

Nut graf: The update framed the city’s next steps around documenting damage for FEMA review, completing environmental and health clearances, and accelerating inspections and permits so rebuilding can proceed while preserving the city’s ability to recover eligible costs through federal and state grants.

EMD and partner offices summarized three monitoring tools: weekly RSF (recovery support function) reports, a public-facing “recovery by the numbers” panel, and an internal action plan that EMD described as a living document that will be updated as projects move from immediate response to mid‑ and long‑term recovery. Staff said weekly RSF-team reporting provides actionable decisions and that the public panel allows residents to check parcel status and cleanup progress.

Officials gave data and outreach details: EMD said 4,500 parcels were initially assessed as part of the April inventory process, more than 3,000 property owners completed eligibility forms, and only a small number of parcels remained nonresponsive. EMD reported more than 3,000 parcels opted into the program and about 1,300 opted out; only about 16 parcels remained unresponsive at the time of reporting. Separately, the city reported 3205 parcels cleaned and ready for building, with roughly 50 others still nonresponsive in follow-up work.

The report included community survey results EMD used to shape recovery services: staff said more than 8,000 households were contacted and 1,180 responses were returned (about a 22% response rate). Of respondents, staff reported that 30% have children in the household and roughly 70% reported low or underinsurance; 371 respondents asked for emotional and mental-health support.

Officials also described direct assistance tools: a loan program offering $10,000 to $20,000 in forgivable funds for eligible homeowners; coordination with philanthropic partners to house older adults who lost housing; and work with the Department of Water & Power to address water supply and reservoir issues referenced later in the meeting.

City staff said the next 90 days will focus on continuing RSF coordination, expediting permits and inspections, capturing community needs for housing and infrastructure, and connecting residents with financing resources. EMD asked the committee to rely on the recovery action plan as a guide for sequencing inspections, permits and mitigation projects.

Ending: Committee members thanked staff for the detailed briefing and moved to receive and file the report; the committee asked EMD to continue publishing the dashboard and to coordinate weekly with partner agencies so that residents and departments share a consistent picture of progress.