Large and Native Trees to Get Protection : Landscaping: New law would require permits for removing “heritage” specimens and 16 indigenous varieties from neighborhoods.

Beverly Hills will soon be a little safer for trees.

The city, with for its lush landscaping and tree-lined streets, approved a law last week that regulates the removal of certain trees on private property in residential areas.

The law, passed on first reading by the City Council on Tuesday, prohibits the removal of a “heritage tree”--defined as any tree with a trunk circumference of more than 48 inches--without a permit. A permit would also be requiredfor the removal of smaller trees of 16 species native to the area if the trees are in the front yard of a property. Large groves of trees anywhere on the property of a single-family home are similarly protected.

The ordinance does not apply to the Hillside District, a section north of Sunset Boulevard that is regulated separately, or to commercial and multifamily developments, which are regulated by formal city commission reviews.

The new law replaces a temporary ordinance enacted in 1991 in response to a property owner’s effort to cut down a grove of more than 100 pines. The ordinance goes before the council for a final vote June 1.

In addition to heritage trees, the law protects trees with a 24-inch circumference that are on the city’s official list of 16 species native to the city and surrounding area. They are: the big-leaf maple, California alder, flowering ash, Arizona ash, California walnut, California juniper, California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, black cottonwood, coast live oak, valley oak, blue oak, Engelmann oak, red willow, Mexican elderberry and the California bay laurel.

Under the law, permits for tree removal, costing $32.40, will be granted if a protected tree is dead or diseased according to an arborist, is damaging a building, interfering with utilities or poses a threat to safety or property. Protected trees not causing any such problems may, with a permit, be relocated elsewhere on the property, and native trees may be removed if they are replaced by a native tree.

The ordinance requires that a permit be posted at a residence for two weeks after a tree has been removed. It allows for permits to be issued after the fact if the tree has been toppled, struck by lightning or otherwise damaged in a way that poses an immediate health or safety threat.

The permanent ordinance strives to “balance private property rights and the community’s interest in preserving the city’s street-scape,” said Ruth Nadel, director of planning and community development.

Some residents at Tuesday’s hearing criticized the ordinance, either for going too far or not far enough.

Councilman Allan L. Alexander, who cast the sole vote against the ordinance, said the new law intrudes unnecessarily on the rights of private property owners.

Judging by the plethora of trees in the city, “residents make fine decisions on the preservation of trees,” he said.

Resident Ellen Stern Harris protested the public notice requirement of the law, saying that posting a notice on the property after a tree is removed doesn’t allow neighbors a chance to participate in the decision.

Nadel said the posting was intended to provide an explanation for the removal and to save the public and city staff time in answering questions about specific trees that have been removed.

Councilman Robert K. Tanenbaum added that the ordinance represents the community’s interest as a whole in protecting certain trees, but tries to limit the city’s intrusion into private property rights.

“We don’t want to get into protracted hearings with neighbors over a tree,” he said.