HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 19,1971
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
FASHION PARK
.1- Jp:{ 7
(STRUB)
I_mo
CLOSED
19: 7768
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
JANU~Y 19, 1971
The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular
session on Tuesday,: January'19" 19}1 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber
of the Arcadia City Hall.
Rev. Drell Butler, Arcadia Community Church of God
Mayor Edward L. Butterworth
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Butterworth
None
On MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Arth and carried
unanimously the minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 1971 were
APPROVED.
Mayor Butterworth announced that matters pertaining to Fashion Park would
now be taken collectively; that first, however, Councilman Helms had
asked permission to propound some questions to'Mr. Strub.
In answer to Councilman Helms' question as to whether or' not Santa Anita
agrees that the subject property should be included in the General Plan
when final determination of that plan is made, Mr. Strub stated in part
that he really preferred not to speak to the matter at length in public
but if there is any change in the zoning of his property brought about by
a master plan or whatever, he would indeed be concerned, as it would
increase his taxes which in turn would drive Santa Anita out of the racing
business. He continued that his desire is to remain in racing and to use
a portion of the property for a shopping center for which an application
has been made - that any change in the zoning would make the property
subject to review by the County Assessor ... that he is concerned about
the property being included in the General Plan - as its very inclusion
might indicate a higher use for it and the Assessor could say it is not
being used for that higher use. He expressed his desire that the property
remain in R-l zone.
In answer to Councilman Helms' further question as to whether or not Santa
Anita has taken an option on property near the Foothill Freeway east of
Arcadia for a shopping center, Mr. Strub answered in part that he was
unfamiliar with the rumor; that there is no such option, no intention to
purchase nor has he looked at any such property.
It was then MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Hage and
carried unanimously that the public hearing on Fashion Park be and it is
hereby CLOSED.
Mayor Butterworth stated that each Councilman would now be given an
opportunity to make any observations he deemed appropriate.
1-19-71
- 1 -
19 :7768-A
FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE RECORDED STATEMENT OF
COUNCILMAN C. ROBERT ARTH
FASHION PARK
JANUARY 19, 1971
"First, I would like to express my thanks to the group for concise and intelligent
presentations that have been made on both sides. It has been a long 6 months for
everybody concerned going back to the first of July. I think that both the opponents
and the proponents have conducted themselves in a manner that the whole City of
Arcadia can be proud and would hope that eveI'ybody on all sides would fully reaLize
that everyone of the five councilmen is looking at this,. an.d however they may vote,
will be with the best interests of the City of Arcadia in their minds,as honest I
intelligent men can look at the same thing and see it in a different light. It is
on this basis I am sure that everyone of my four colleagues are making their decision.
I think the facts have all been presented over the period of these months - some of
them could change in the future but we have them all now. It is a complex proposal.
"There are some advantages and some disadvantages. I think everyone on either side
would concede that we are all burdened with excessive taxes and we feel this. We
also feel that we are being squeezed on all sides; that traffic is getting heavier
and the population squeeze is getting more and more intense. It is a question that
doesn't lend itself to an absolutely clear cut way to go.
"An appraisal of this would give us some $600,000 more taxes to the City according
to the figures that have been prepared, plus another $400,000 to the School District
in increased property tax because of the improvements. I do feel personally that
when we have gotten into these figures - the $600,000 and the $400,000 - the staff
and our consultant have strongly underestimated the cost of extra services that will
be incurred if the center does go in and we have another some 20,000 people a day
coming into the city. People make problems - I know that Chief Seares said this -
and this goes into public works and right down the line... more accidents and more
hydrants being hit and you just have a multitude of problems... it is unbelievable
to me that if you would get this amount of increased activity and not have in some
measure a commensurate increase in costs of public services... If we took some of
these other cities that we have had examples on - this is something that hasn't been
done - I think the fact will bear out that over the five year period after they had
gone in even by washing out the inflation factor we find that they do, in fact, have
larger police departments and probably larger fire departments and more public works;
in fact, their services are costing more so I don't think that it is a clear cut item
in any, way. Along this line the estimates were that there is to be conceivably a
25 percent drop in business for two, three or four years for those stores in the Hub
area and I assume the May Company in the El Rancho area would be included in this ---
Probably not more than 10 percent of the businesses could continue to exist for a twp
to three year period with a 25 percent drop just in revenues. I know my own company
couldn't without vast reorganization....I don't think Santa Anita could and I don't
think any business that has building overhead:and all could continue with this kind
of a drop. But I think that if it were faced realistically, if this goes in they will
either move out of town or move into the center or face, in many cases, a slow dwindling
of resources while they try to hang on or face the fact that they aren't able to move -
maybe there will be bankruptcies. And I think we should certainly be concerned about I
this.
"I feel that we would have three depressed areas in town - the Central area, the May
Company area which is the El Rancho Center and the small merchants there, and the
Hub. We have had differences of opinion but we seriously considered going into what
would be real redevelopment of the Central area - the old Downtown area of Arcadia.
This would constitute going in, condemning land, putting it in under a redevelopment
agency, improving it and attempting to re-sell it. This is dreadfully expensive,
questionable, and I think in most cases people of the city end up paying for a portion
of this on their tax bills and I think we should be very, very careful before we wouW
make any kind of a move that could cause the Hub area to go downhill to the point
that this is another real problem area for Arcadia instead of an area that we can all
be genuinely proud of and a fine shopping area that draws not only ourselves --- the
Economic Study that we had made indicated that this area draws from many neighboring
',C'. ROBERT, ARTH
1-19-71
-2-
I
I
'..
,/" ..
,
".... H
..19: 7768-B
communities and it is a good ,and 8: v~able shopping center.
"Looking at taxes. I think this is the next thing -- the idea that we need this to
lower our taxes. To begin with, the figures provided indicate that there are only
five cities that have lower city taxes than the City of Arcadia and this includes
not just our city taxes but the figures the City Manager worked up for me based on
1969 taxes -- and includes our water taxes and any other assessments that should be
made. There are only five cities out of some 28 that go from Claremont into Monterey
Park and South Pasadena that have lower taxes than we do - these are Rosemead,
El Monte, Irwindale, City of Industry and La Puente, and with the exception of
El Monte I would venture to say that there isn't a truly balanced city in that group.
Of the balanced cities, I think we really are a remarkably balanced city from the
standpoint of taxes. We have low comparative taxes. We all received a big increase
this last year with $1.18 a hundred dollars by the County. It woul'dn' t matter if we
had this new center or five centers like it, we still would have gotten this increase
from the County that would have affected more than our city taxes in total. Certainly
there are problems on taxes but I don't think that we are a city that, as ~as been
stated, is getting to the critical point of being one which doesn't have adequate
revenues, because cer~ainly as measured by other cities in this area, we have a low
tax rate. Also I received some figures from the ~ity Manager on sales taxes in various
cities and broke these down on the population basis. A~cadia, fo~ example, has
approximately $20 of sales tax that we receive from each resident, and 20 times some
45,000 people is $900,000. Covina is over double. It has $45 per person. Still
their city tax rate is $1.59 against' our combined $1.21. The total tax of the schools
and all are $12.64 against $11.53. El Monte has higher taxes than we do, and they
have $30. They have 50 percent per capita/~~~ethan we do. I have several more that
I won't try to run down but I do think that there are many other things.
"I do think that the five men we have sitting on the City Council have a tremendous
amount to do and probably have more to do than just taxes... because there
are always good projects and worthwhile projects that can be put forward and it is
only by having a City Council that is truly attentive to the responsibilities of the
people that you are going to keep your taxes low,
"I believe and I think the question has come up that in a free enterprise system we
should allow every man to develop his property as he sees fit and I would concur
within limits... I certainly don't think we should say that we have enough motels -
that we can't have another motel in town... that we have to protect Hinshaws...
that we can't have another department store. But I do say that it is a completely
different case when you talk about rezoning property that is now R-l to Commercial
to allow somebody else to compete - then you have a zoning problem that is completely
different... If you don't decide that any so called higher and best use on any
property has to be allowed then you have a multitude of properties here in the city
that could go.-and there would be a very strong case for them,-to heavy commercial.
Some of these - the Eaton property - this could go back almost to 1937. It is still
R-l with a variance and it specifies the size of the buildings, the number of
buildings, the setback and all the factors so that it would be compatible with a
residential area and the fact that this is 33 years later doesn't invalidate this
because you have had people buy homes one year ago who would have come down to City
Hall as I did 20 years ago to see what the zoning was and what could happen to that
property and to be assured that it would have to stay in essence as it was... I
think many people have done this with the race track property. And along Foothill if
we had gone highest and best use 7 years ago we would have had industrial. We had a
formal application come into the city for an industrial plant on Foothill just south
of Dexter Road. This was opposed by the Upper Rancho Association and the Lower Rancho
Association and other individuals and it was turned dOWTI,but it wasn't turned down on
the basis that it wouldn't have given taxes to the people of the city. On that basis
'it would have gone in... As we go into zone changes whom do we listen to most? Who
receives notices? We give notices first to the people who are within 300' of the
property in question. In every city in California, I venture to say, there is such
a notification - maybe it is 200', or maybe it is 500'. There is a realization that
the people who live closest to a property have the greatest concern and should be
listened to the most.... .This is the real basic in zoning. If you went the other
way there would be no stopping new developments to come in which would not be
compatible with their close neighbors.
"Another thing that concerns me is the height limit on the buildings. When the May
Company came in,-I happened to be a private citizen at that time and opposed to this-
and found out what our rules were, they intended to go some 55' high, they actually.
C;, ROBERT ARTH
1-19-71
-3-
19: 7768-C
voluntarily came down and met the height regulations of 35'. They did this at
considerab~ expense by putting in a complete floor underground as opposed to putting
it on the surface. Hinshaw's remodeled and needed more space for enlargement and
could have gone higher but they stayed ,within our height limits and again it is
important that developers when they do come in attempt to live within our regulations
instead of saying, "This is fine for everybody but me." If we do allow this for this
particular site, I don't see how we can tell somebody else we have allowed this for
Santa Anita but we can't allow it for somebody else. I just think the May Company
property is a case in point. There were people in the village and those nearby who
were quite concerned that the rest of that particular area would go high rise also.
They were assured that it would stay the same with the buildings in front in the
basic context that they are in now. But it would certainly be most difficult to tell
the owner that he couldn't rebuild this to 40' or 50' or 80' high if we have allowed
this same thing for the May Company.
"Coming back to zoning and the affect on the Village and the Rancho, it is the most I
critical and it is the most critical because of traffic. There is no question that
everyone of us has conceded this would be a problem..At.~he same time, to all intents
and purposes, they didn't have a good answer. The one-way streets at both ends,
Mr. Lindscott said, would be so difficult to police it wouldn't be manageable and
it is not feasible to put a median down the center that will effectively block
traffic from coming in. The gatehouses I think are out of the question, utterly
ridiculous... You come down to a cul de sac in the middle as the only possibility
that would appear to have any feasibility and this could work a definite hardship on
people on other streets that will have traffic flow onto them as a result of this
diversion. So there really is no good answer. I think this would have to be done now -
not done after the properties are in. ..people who couldn't stand it at all on Hugo
Reid would have moved out so you would have new people who would have come in and
this tends to be the history of the downgrading of zoning, or of property values.
If one man moves out because he won't put up with a nuisance and somebody else comes
in that will but then he feels, well I can put a business into the back of my house
or something else, and slowly these properties go down hill.,There is no good answer
to this as I see it, It is not just the Rancho and the Village - it is the whole
community. There is nothing wrong with a City that decides they want to be a City
of Industry, for example, or a City that is a major shopping center, or a Century
City. I would venture to say that a great majority of the people who moved in,
liv.ed here and raised their children here didn't move here because they wanted to live
in the middle of a Century City or a major shopping town, but they wanted as much
of the rural - the urban - atmosphere that they could possibly get. We are coming
out with a new proposed emblem now with City of Fine Homes on it and I think this is
important as a part of this that we don't change our whole emphasis so that the sales
tax dollar becomes so dominant in our thinking that we destroy the very things that
we initially came here for.
"Ecology is another key problem. I had a doctor in town tell me that two years from
now this wouldn't have a chance. Two years from now people will finally realize that
when we talk ecology we are really talking people. We are talking more people. The
smog that came i~ this morning is caused by automobiles but there was a person behind
the wheel of the automobile and if we are generally concerned and I think we are as
a City or we wouldn't have started converting our own cars/realizing this wouldn't
do the whole job but hopefully it can do an important part of it. We are committing
roughly $10,000 to a compressor and starting to convert our cars over to natural gas.
We are concerned. I don't see how we can balance this concern by ~inging another I
20,000 people with 10,000 cars coming in and leaving the city every day. This is
bound to, from the noise, fumes and the smog from an air pollution standpoint down-
grade the environment in Arcadia. I don't see any other alternative.
"There is no doubt in my mind also that if this is approved it will lead to the
development of the entire property. Mr. Contini has admitted in direct questioning
that in fact in these various sketches that they have made there was no intent in
any of them, no plan for single family in any part of them. So they thought more
than just putting drawings on paper -- they are thinking what type of buildings are
going GO them -- and Real Estate Research went so far in their report to us as to
suggest that one of the places that might be good for light'indusiry:wpuld be the
area at the far north end of the race track property which would abut the Colorado
Oaks property. This would be industrial right up against $50,000 - $60,000 homes
, C. ROBERT ARTH
1-19-71
-4-
/
I
I
',or \
19:7768-D
because this is the highest and best use,' I gather this is the thinking that either
this or even light industrial would be a good buffer from whatever is planned in
between which we don't have specifics on. But I do think that it is essential that
if we were going tnto approving anything of this type, that we should have a complete
plan for the whole property at one time.
"And it gets even more urgent now, I am sure that Mr, Strub is aware of the remarks
of the speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Moretti, that he is in favor of off-track race
track betting. Governor Reagan in tonight's Herald was quoted as stating that if
this were an improvement in an over all tax bill he could possibly approve it. I am
sure that Mr. Strub and all the people with the race track - and I have heard Mr. Ryan
talk on this - are diametrically opposed to off-track betting in California and I
would join them and I would hope that the vast majority of the people in California'
would also oppose this, mostly not for economic reasons but for other reaSOns also,
but I don't think that it would be a good thing... It certainly wouldn't be a good
thing for Santa Anita,.. If it did go in~this is the strongest and closest we have
ever come to it wtth the statements by the Governor and the strong speaker of the
Assembly, it certainly would speed the day, would cut attendance to the track, wouW
cut the take because most of the betting would be made by outside legalized bookies
and it would speed the day that it would be uneconomically justifiable for the track
to be in Arcadia. It is closer to us than say 25 years down the road. I think we
are talking five years or ten years. This is strictly judgment, but I think we
should look at the entire property at one time before we make a commitment on any
of it. The track is a profitable business. From the last figures I saw there was
more than $2 millton dollars which was one of their top years --- I think if they
can continue on this basis ---- They are certainly not doing this as a means to stay
in racing, They are doing this to get extra revenue which is completely under-
standable from their star.dpoint, but I thir.k from our standpoint we have to look at
the best interest. of all the citizens and in my best judgment this would not be in
the best interest of the citizens of Arcadia,"
C. ROBERT ARTH
1-19-71
- 5 -
19:7768-E
FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE RECORDED STATEMENT OF
COUNCILMAN JAMES R. HELMS, Jr.
FASHION PARK
JANUARY 19, 1971
"There are many things that can be said on the question here tonight and many ways
of saying them ... perhaps in a short period of time I can say some of t!>e things Which..
are in my mind pertaining to this problem.
"In considering the questions proposed by the application of Santa Anita, I would
have no trouble in expressing my own personal feeling towards the proposal. Personally
I am absolutely committed to the concept of Arcadia as a community of fine homes. This
is one of the reasons that motivated me and my wife to establish a home here and to I
establish our law practice here. We look to the future of Arcadia as a continual
upgrading of the residential amenities. A great deal is made out of the fact that
the proposed center will produce an additional source of revenue and provide relief
for the citizen taxpaper. On my own part I would be willing to pay the additional
cost of government to preserve the residential quality of Arcadia. As Councilmen
though, we are very seldom permitted the luxury of voting our own personal preferences,
and on the contrary, we find that many times the weight of reason appears on the side
opposite from our own personal beliefs.
"I believe that the people of Arcadia can be exceedingly proud of the manner in which
this council has approached the problem presented by this application. We have heard
extensively from the proponents and the opponents and from our own experts, and we
have inquired as deeply as we could into the various gray areas presented by these
applications. I know that I have given many hours of my personal time in reflection
and thought about these many problems and even on our recent trip to Greece, it was
constantly in my mind and I am sure it was in the minds of Mr. Arth and Mr. Butter-
worth. We even joked about consulting the Oracle of Delphi when we were there, but
unfortunately she was on vacation. We received many wonderful letters from citizens
expressing their opinions on this issue and I believe that this represents the demo-
cratic process at its best, and it points up the advantage of keeping as much of our
government as close to home as possible.
"I have practiced law in Arcadia for 18 years and I expect that I have a more detailed
and personal knowledge of the life style of the average Arcadia citizen than any other
member of this council. I know that the question of taxation is of paramount importance
to a large segment of our community, notwithstanding the reports that we have perhaps
the second highest family income of all cities in the state. I have examined the pros
and cons of this application with this thought in mind.
..
"On the positive side in favor of the application, we find many residents who feel
that it would be desirable to have a high fashion shopping center. I think the
answer to that of course is that the proposed center would be unique, but in the
final analysis, it would be just another shopping center. Another element in favor
of the proposal is that it would be good for Santa Anita. That, of course, is the
business judgment they have made and I would not want to dispute their experts,
however, I have my own reservations as to the effect that the center would have on
their racing income, and as to the effect that racing will have on the proposed
shopping center. The final and most persuasive element in favor of the shopping
center is that it will produce, after a period of years, some figure in excess of
$400,000 a year in tax income to the city government and a substantial revenue to
the school district. There is no escaping the fact that this is a desirable and
worthwhile objective. I do not subscribe to the cult that believes that anything
that produces a larger tax base is per se good for the city. There are those, how-
ever, who have been very outspoken in favor of this application and who subscribe
to that belief. The same thought process was involved in locating the May Company
where it is today. I believed, then, and I still believe that the location of the
May Company was a highly undesirable misfortune and if this particular shopping
center goes in I believe it will magnify the problems of the May Company location.
On "the economic' side, ,:there is one other factor which can be best described as a
double negative which has a positive effect; and that's the prediction that the
San Gabriel Valley can easily support such a shopping development and if it
doesn't go in Arcadia, it will go somewhere else, and if it does go somewhere else,
it will take out of Arcadia many of the shopping dollars and tax revenues which we
presently derive from our existing business. At this time it is pure speculation
as to the extent and effect such a center would have on our existing business
structure, but there is little doubt that it would have a marked effect.
I
- 6 -
JAMES R. HELMS, ,JR.
1-19-71
I
I
.'";., .....
19 :7768-F
"On the negative side, we encounter foremost the concept that Arcadia has always
thought of itself as a city of homes. Many of our residents have subscribed whole-
heartedly to this philosophy, and I believe that philosophy colors many of the
objections to the development. It is asserted that the proposed area is well
insulated f~om residential areas, but on the contrary, I believe that it is much
too close to a highly developed, high class'residential part of our city. We know
for a fact that it will have an adverse effect upon certain existing business,
principally those on Baldwin Avenue and the May Company Rancho Shopping Areas.
The experts can't agree and I would not believe them if they did agree as to the
nature and extent of that effect. We are assured by our own experts that eventually
the benefit to be derived from the increase in shoppers will offset the initial
loss which they will sustain. I have given serious thought to the question of
whether or not the existing businesses can withstand such a business loss. If
they cannot, the effect on the city may be to develop another difficult problem
area and we will be faced with a down grading of the types of businesses which
occupy the existing store buildings. The questions and problems presented by the
flow of traffic is indeed serious, both to the residents along Hugo Reid and to
the business establishments on Baldwin Avenue. If we are to believe our own traffic
consultants this problem will exist as the result of the Baldwin Avenue-Michillinda
on ramp to the Foothill Freeway, whether or not Santa Anita has a shopping center.
Who can say whether the effect of increased traffic from the existence of a shopping
center will be a noticeable problem or not? The problem of the ecological effects
has been emphasized, and I am troubled by the far reaching implications in this field.
Each of these factors is entitled to great and thorough consideration. I have search-
ed in vain to find an overriding factor to point conclusively to one decision or
another.
"We have as you all know, received petitions favoring the shopping center bearing
many thousaads of signatures and on the other hand, we received many well reasoned
and well thought out letters by concerned citizens in opposition to the center.
We have received an appeal from a taxpayers group bearing some of the most presti-
gious names in our community in favor of the application, and we have heard speakers
whose judgment and opinions I value most highly, argue both pro and con. As to the
petitions, 1 felt that Santa Anita had done an excellent job of promoting the concept
of "high fashion" which goes with the concept of Arcadia as a residential community
of fine homes. But, as I said earlier, 1 believe that when the last ton- of concrete
has been poured, we will just have another shopping center although unique in its
construction. As a result of this belief, I have consulted at length with many
citizens, who on ordinary issues I believe would have been unanimous in their
thought as to what was in the best interests of the City of Arcadia. But when we have
men of comparable judgment speaking as citizens before us on opposite sides of
this question, such approach becomes very difficult. As a consequence, I have"
made it a point to talk, to as many people who have been long time and substantial
citizens of our community, people who have contributed greatly of themselves to the
betterment of our community, and people who, I believe, have a great insight into
the future growth and pattern of our community. As you would expect, I found a
division of opinion. I even had wives tell me that their husbands with whom I had
talked, ,did not express the opinion of the wife - in one instance the wife was in
favor and the husband was opposed and in another instance the husband was in favor
and the wife was opposed, but my own statistical compilation shows that approxi-
mately two out of every three of the individuals that I contacted was in favor of
the application, although many of these expressed reservations as to the future
development of the race track property and it is to this point that I would address
myself at this time.
"I do not believe that there is any doubt that the present proposal of Santa Anita
is admirably designed to be doubled or tripled in size on a northeast axis starting
from Baldwi~ and Huntington. This axis, ladies and gentlemen, shoots like an arrow
straight into the heart of Arcadia. We cannot afford to ignore this potential
threat to the future of our city. I do not believe that we can zone either directly
or by the general plan an absolute insurance against such a future development. I
believe that the only reasonable protection that we can have to limit future devel-
opment in the remaining Santa Anita property to residential uses as proposed by
the general plan consultant, is to change the axis of the development so that it
runs parallel with Huntington Drive from the intersection of Huntington and Baldwin.
This then eliminates the apparent thrust for future development into the center of
the track property and has several desirable features, first, it removes the shopping
- 7 -
JAMES R .'.H!;:l-M$; JR. 1-19-71
/
19:7768-G
center from the fine residential areas to the west; it further removes it from that
property; secondly, it would preserve the existing practice track which the horsemen
feel is essential to maintaining the high standards of racing which we presently
enjoy, as well as maintaining the many stables which would have to be removed to
accommodate the other plan. I am sure that there would have to be compromises
made by Santa Anita to accommodate such a realignment; however, it appears to me
that they have made much more serious compromises in a very unnatural way to
position the shopping center on the Northeast axis. I cannot see that this would
be of any detriment to Santa Anita and would be fully in keeping with their an-
nounced proposal to continue racLng and to supplement their. income with income
from a shopping center.
"In conclusion, then, it is my belief that the majority of the residents desire
the development of this particular shopping center and I would support their
desire providing Santa Anita will revise their plans and develop the shopping
center in an east-west direction along Huntington Drive in such a way that it
cannot be further expanded into the track property, so there will no longer be
a threat to the rest of the property in its future development, and that the
citizens of Arcadia can have some assurance that the General Plan of the City as
finally developed will continue to contain residential uses for that property
and special uses of limited density.
I
"I think we should refer the matter back to Santa Anita and their consultants to
produce a design and plan in keeping with this concept and until that time no
further action should be taken. The mistakes of many thoughtful and dedicated
Councils of the past surround us here today and attest to the fact that election
to office does not give a man supernatural powers. I pray that our decision on
this matter will not become a monumental mistake of this council,"
I
- 8 -
JAMES R. HELMS, JR.
1-19-71