PERSPECTIVES ON REBUILDING : Quick Recovery Is Paramount : This is not the time to remake the city; enforce building and safety codes but drop the planning restrictions.

City councils and planning departments throughout the Los Angeles region are wrestling with a number of thorny planning issues resulting from the earthquake--issues that cry out for a rational response.

Can nonconforming buildings that were damaged be rebuilt as they were?

Which codes should they meet? Just building and safety, or parking, density restrictions, setbacks and other codes passed after the buildings were originally built?

Should desirable uses such as bookstores that are nonconforming with respect to current zoning and parking restrictions be allowed to rebuild? What about controversial uses such as liquor and gun stores.

The answer is clear. The guiding rule should be to help those who have suffered losses from the earthquake recover as much and as quickly as possible. This means that owners who suffered property losses should be allowed to rebuild what they had as a matter of right. In other words, they should be allowed to rebuild what they had before without having to go through a lengthy approval process.

Many older buildings, which conform to the planning rules in effect at the time they were built, are “nonconforming” with respect to current regulations. In some cases, the zoning has been changed, leaving commercial buildings in residential zones and vice versa. In other cases, parking requirements have been increased, setbacks have been changed, signage and other restrictions have been passed.

Even though a building was nonconforming or deficient, the earthquake should not be used as an excuse to correct these deficiencies. Reducing the pain and hardship of those who have suffered should take precedence.

Buildings that are rebuilt should of course be subject to current building and safety codes. Relaxing planning restrictions is different from relaxing fire and earthquake safety standards. All rebuilt buildings should be as safe as possible from future earthquakes. Nevertheless, buildings with substandard parking should be allowed to be rebuilt without having to add more parking spaces. Nonconforming uses should be allowed to be rebuilt. To do otherwise would be to hit earthquake victims with a double whammy--the cost and time of rebuilding, plus the loss in value from reductions in allowable building area, loss of tenants or limitations on previously existing uses.

The 1992 Los Angeles riots offer a useful precedent. Red tape was minimized. Building owners were allowed to rebuild what they had before. Only nonconforming uses--liquor stores, gun shops, pawn shops and certain auto-repair operations--were required to go through a public hearing. The procedure worked well and was an important factor in the progress that has been made, with 61% of lost and damaged structures rebuilt.

The city of Los Angeles, under Councilman Hal Bernson’s guidance, is considering an ordinance, that would improve on the one passed after the riots. The ordinance would allow owners to rebuild what they had before as long as it was legal at the time it was built. Even nonconforming uses such as manufacturing plants in residential areas would be allowed to rebuild. Owners would be able to receive planning approval within a week.

The city of Santa Monica, by contrast, has yet to decide how to treat buildings that were more than 50% destroyed. Owners will likely have to go through a long approval process. The situation is complicated by Santa Monica’s rent-control laws.

Some will view the earthquake as a “heaven-sent” opportunity to correct old planning deficiencies. There is a precedent that many may find appealing. When Santa Barbara was severely damaged by an earthquake in 1925, rebuilding had to be in conformity with new design restrictions. The result is the Spanish Revival appearance that we see today.

Perhaps there will be areas that were so damaged by the earthquake that a rebuilding opportunity similar to Santa Barbara’s presents itself. However, in most cases, what is most important is for government to help Los Angeles’ residents get back on their feet as quickly as possible. The proposed emergency ordinance sets the right example. Cutting red tape, smoothing access to financing and getting out of the way should be the top priorities.