SIERRA MADRE : Foes of Planning Commission Reduction Go to Court Today : Dispute has grown since the city clerk refused to count signatures on a petition to force an election on the issue.

Opponents of a five-person planning commission here take their fight to court today even though the City Council tentatively approved placing their issue on the ballot.

The issue has grown to encompass more than the council’s earlier decision to cut the council from seven members to five, the opponents said; they are incensed by City Clerk Sue Schollenberger’s refusal to count the signatures on a petition that sought to force an election on the planning commission issue. And they are even angrier about some of her reasons, which they describe as petty.

The reasons Schollenberger cited for rejecting the petition Aug. 9 included: lack of boldface type; too-small print; the petition title on a wrong page; incorrect margin space; use of the word “saw” rather than “witnessed”; and lack of notice that signature collectors might be paid. In addition, she said, the petitions failed to identify the city attorney as the author of the summary of the measure, and the affidavit attached to the petition left out the words “under penalty of perjury.”

Schollenberger said she was only following the law as put forth by the state elections code.

After the petitioners sued, the council agreed last week to put the issue on the ballot in 1996 as an advisory measure, but stay with a five-member commission until then. But residents who collected the 1,200 signatures for the petition said they would continue their legal challenge in Los Angeles Superior Court to force the clerk to count the signatures.

“I guess this gives us no choice but to go to court Sept. 8. Under this we’re stuck with a five-member commission for 18 months and even then it’s only an advisory referendum the council doesn’t have to follow,” said Linda Thorton, who along with her husband, Steven Broiles, both attorneys, filed the challenge.

Councilman Gary B. Adams said at last week’s council meeting that he would go along with the outcome of the advisory vote. But he refused, along with the majority of the council, to go back to seven commissioners before the vote. “We fulfilled the intention of the petition with the advisory referendum and I don’t see the need to change the commission now,” he said.

Supporters of a smaller planning commission say it is more effective, while opponents counter that it decreases public participation in the city of 10,000 residents.