Case of 8 Missing Words Delayed : Referendum: City officials stand by their claim of errors in petition form and procedure. But citizens group says the city is quibbling and nit-picking to avoid a vote on the General Plan.

Eight words.

Members of a Diamond Bar citizens group think the city is quibbling when it says that, among other issues, a portion of their petition for a local referendum on the General Plan should read “under penalty of perjury under the laws in the state of California ,” not just “under penalty of perjury.”

City officials say the petition to put the plan for growth and development before voters does not follow the form specified by law.

A suit on the issue, filed by the citizens group, will be decided by Judge Donald E. Smallwood in Orange County Superior Court. The suit originally was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, but it was moved because the assigned judge had an investment in Diamond Bar property, which created a conflict of interest.

The citizens group decided to go to court after the city pointed out the alleged error in wording and also ruled that the petition fell 597 names short of the minimum 2,481 valid signatures required. Organizers said they submitted 4,371 signatures.

Organizers said the city clerk told them some signatures were disqualified because of errors in the procedure for circulating a petition. Also, city officials disqualified signatures from people who had registered to vote just before signing the petition. City officials said there was not enough evidence that the people had not signed the petition before registering.

Both sides are angry that the matter is going to court. The legal battle could cost the city as much as $25,000, officials say. The citizens group, Diamond Bar Citizens to Protect Country Living, is trying to raise money to help pay its lawyer.

Referring to the issue of the phrasing on the petition, group Chairman William J. Gross said: “To sit and quibble over those kinds of words is ridiculous. This is a perfect microcosm to understand the City Council and their interests. They’d rather nit-pick and play games and go to court.”

City Manager Terrence L. Belanger said the city simply is requiring the group to follow the law.

“There were several points (involving the petition) that the city clerk cites that they were not in conformity,” he said. “It all relates back to compliance.”

Besides the left-out words, the city is arguing that the petition contained a line referring signers to a copy of the General Plan at City Hall, although the law specifies that the entire document must be attached, according to City Atty. Andrew V. Arczynski.

The General Plan is a development guideline for the city, which incorporated in 1989. Referendum proponents say the plan is insensitive to the environment and does not protect areas such as Tonner Canyon, one of Los Angeles County’s last large undeveloped areas. The plan calls for open space, recreational and agricultural uses in the canyon, but opponents want more protections.

Belanger said the City Council adopted the General Plan in July after “substantial public input” and a $500,000, three-year effort to come up with a fair document.