310 Hang-Ups : Telephones: Beverly Hills and other Westside areas promise to fight plans to institute the 310 area code without regard for municipal boundaries.

City officials in Beverly Hills discovered this week that when it comes to a telephone company plan to add a new area code in Los Angeles, they’ve been disconnected.

Phone company officials confirmed to the City Council Tuesday that they planned to run the dividing line between the area codes through Beverly Hills, and that a six-block neighborhood would be separated from the rest of the prestigious community.

The Pacific Bell officials left one additional message: In this city noted for its “megadeals,” this one is not negotiable.

“At this juncture, we are going forward with the best plan for Los Angeles,” said Dominic Gomez, area vice president for Pac Bell, “and this is it.”

And the city responded by telling him that, as far as Beverly Hills is concerned, the phone company has the wrong number.

“Frankly, I’m amazed that the people affected by this haven’t had any input” into the plan, said city Police Chief Marvin Iannone. “Any way you cut it, this is arbitrary.”

Beverly Hills and eight other cities are grappling with ways to fight plans that would split the municipalities in two, giving some--but not all--of their residents a new area code in 1992.

City officials say the plan to add a new 310 area code would hurt business, clog emergency phone lines and sacrifice city unity for telephone company profits. In Culver City, for example, 12 addresses would be reached by dialing 213, while the rest of the city would be assigned to 310. West Hollywood would be split roughly in half. And in Bell Gardens, the dividing line would run down the middle of the business district.

When they unveiled their plan in January, representatives from Pacific Bell and GTE California said the companies had no choice but to create two area codes out of the old 213 zone because they were running out of phone numbers. They said that the splitting of cities “was unavoidable . . . because telephone exchanges and city limits are not related.”

Officials from South Gate to Inglewood to West Hollywood have fielded dozens of calls from residents and business about the phone companies’ failure to shape the new 310 area code to match city borders. The new plan will create a U-shaped sector of 2.4 million customers with the 310 area code, including some of the priciest areas--Beverly Hills, Malibu, Santa Monica and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

The phone company has insisted that matching area codes to city boundaries would be almost technically impossible and extremely costly if feasible.

On Tuesday, Gomez reiterated that message to Beverly Hills officials, who found the news about as welcome as rising gasoline prices.

Gomez said that the phone company would run out of numbers in Los Angeles by 2015 unless it came up with another proposal, and that splitting the area code was the plan with the “fewest downsides and most upsides.”

“We’ve tried to keep (customer) inconvenience to a minimum,” he said.

However, under questioning by the council, Gomez acknowledged that Beverly Hills could keep the same area code, but all the seven digit numbers would have to be changed, and that the expense of doing so would have to be passed on to users.

Beverly Hills Fire Chief Bill Daley said the split area code very likely would lead to delays of reported emergencies and paramedic, fire and police responses. He concluded that the change could result in the “unnecessary loss of life,” in the affluent city of 30,000 people.

“For a community our size, it seemes unthinkable,” he said. “A community like this should not be subjected to disenfranchisement.”

Council officials said they would fight the change at future Public Utilities Commission hearings and were particularly upset that the phone company has made its decision without any input from the affected cities. Gomez said, however, that coming up with an alternate plan “is not feasible” at this juncture.

“It is grossly improper for a public utility to make a mandate over what is best for its customers (without) their input,” said Councilman Robert Tanenbaum. “That’s what due process is all about. This is unconscionable.”