City Imposes Ban on Cutting Trees : Conservation: Merv Griffin sought to enhance the sales value of his property. But the council jumped at a chance to protect a key resource. : BEVERLY HILLS

Moving swiftly, Beverly Hills City Council introduced, drafted and unanimously passed an ordinance that prohibits Hollywood mogul and casino owner Merv Griffin--and everyone else in Beverly Hills--from cutting down or destroying any tree for 45 days.

The five-member council instructed the city attorney to use that time to draft an ordinance to protect the trees of Beverly Hills as an environmental resource.

The urgency ordinance was proposed after two hours of deliberation on an appeal, made by Griffin’s lawyers, of a Planning Commission decision that placed conditions on subdividing Griffin’s three-acre property on Doheny Road. The commission imposed the conditions prohibiting the removal of trees because the property contains 313 trees, 111 of which constitute what the Planning Commission called “Beverly Hills’ only pine forest ecological community.”

The appeal triggered a more global issue that led to the urgency ordinance.

Charles Aronberg, a former mayor who was passing out copies of a legal tract titled “Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” said, “People in South America living at subsistence level have been asked to spare trees. . . . People around the world look up to Beverly Hills. They will watch to see whether we, who seem to have everything, are able to save these trees.”

Support for the urgency ordinance snowballed after Councilman Max Salter hinted that he would support it. “What I’m suggesting for us as a community is that those trees don’t belong just to the property owner,” he said.

Griffin’s attorney, Murray D. Fischer, was surprised at the council’s call for the ordinance.

“At no time has Merv Griffin said he intends to destroy or cut down trees,” he said emphatically. He explained that the Griffin estate is for sale, and the owner wants to enhance its potential value by obtaining permission to divide his property into two lots, so that an additional house could be built.

Griffin, who was not at the meeting, wanted the Planning Commission to set a fixed number of trees that a future owner of the property could remove in order to build a house.

Commission Chairman Ronald D. Rosen said his group wanted to reserve the right to review the matter of tree removal in conjunction with a specific building plan, as it normally does.

Ultimately on Tuesday, a compromise was hammered out that satisfied both sides. Wording of the conditions was altered to make clear that the the commission could in the future allow removal of some trees.

Once those deliberations were completed, the council took up the urgency ordinance. Under the ordinance, the removal of each tree is considered a separate misdemeanor for which a fine of up to $1,000 may be levied.

Mayor Vicki Reynolds said later that there had been previous informal discussion about the issue.

“Several of us had been looking at how other cities, both locally and outside the region, protect their trees,” she said.