April 3, 2018 Dear Dee: ‘The City’s response scemed inapposite to the substance and spirit of our discussions on March 21, 2018, so I suspect that it was drafted by its legal team, who appear to be mote interested in driving wedges between us rather than resolving the quandary presented by Duranguito. I thought we were close to an understanding, but the City’s response has now raised issues of considerable concern to us; notwithstanding the negative elements in the City’s response, we will proceed to highlight the differences in our approaches to preserving Duranguito and provide what we think are reasonable compromises. Please bear in mind that our overriding concer has been and remains the preservation of one of the most significant historic areas in El Paso, a completely unique city in Texas and the desert Southwest. We firmly believe that the Duranguito controversy provides the City Council with an unrivalled opportunity to make a resounding, empathetic and profitable statement about the importance of historic preservation for the future of El Paso. Preserving those parts of Duranguito discussed on March 21, 2018 will receive unanimous approval from the preservation community and overwhelming interest from the heritage tourism industry, one of the fastest growing economic drivers in Texas. The City Couneil will be perceived as buying into the contemporary approach of developing historic areas in a city in such a way that the old coexists with the new, which is always wiser than extinguishing the past forever. Our reply to the City’s response will follow your format of stating the bullet points in our letter followed by our comments to the City’s response. + The photo map with MPC and MPC Plaza, including the road from Santa Fe St. to Chihuahua St. that you gave me is an acceptable depiction of the area on which the City will build the Multi-Purpose Center and the Multipurpose Plaza. The map in the City’s response is not the same as the one presented at our meeting. It expands the area to be used by the City to include 325 S. Santa Fe St., 215 W. Paisano Dr., and a portion of the block bounded by W. San Antonio Ave., Chihuahua St., W. Overland Ave., and Leon St. We believe that the expansion of the footprint reflects the City’s legal team’s intent to substantially expand the City’s negotiating position, rather than work within the parameters of the plan presented at the meeting Nevertheless, if the City agrees to the conditions set forth in this letter we could agree to the inclusion of 325 S, Santa Fe St. because it is now a parking lot. Bear in mind that this Property likely includes significant archaeological remains below ground that would needto be thoroughly excavated. However, we cannot agree to including 215 W. Paisano Dr. It is an historical building most of which is more than a century old and can be renovated using tax credits if the City imposes an H-overlay and has the arca designated as a National Register District. Even though the property at the northwest comer of the new map is not significant historically, it abuts two important historic properties that will soon be tax- credit eligible: 311 and 315 W. Overland Ave. No. 315 is eligible to be individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places and no. 311, which is in excellent condition and is occupied by dozens of tenants, is eligible to be a contributing property within the County's planned National Register District. We could agree to the City’s inclusion of the property at the northwest corner, if the 311 and 315 W. Overland are protected by an H-overlay, as was indicated in our initial reply to you. * The properties in Duranguito that will be preserved from demolition are: 306 W. Overland Avenue (The Mansion); 305, 309, 311,315,321, 323, 325, 327 Chihuahua Street; 215 and 301 W. Paisano Drive; and 325 S. Santa Fe Street; and the Trost fire house at the northwest comer of S. Santa Fe Street and W. Paisano Drive. All these properties are shown on the photo map. The City will terminate all demolition permits for these properties. As stated above, we are not willing to agree to the demolition of 215 W. Paisano Dr. but we are most pleased that the City will nominate the Trost Fire House for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. However, our view of the Trost Fire House is that it should be preserved as an example of a 1930s fire house, perhaps with equipment from that period on display. We would not feel comfortable with the Trost Fire House being used only as a ticket booth and entrance to the MPC Plaza. The building’s historical integrity needs to be preserved in keeping with proper preservation practice. The City’s response has identified 305, 309, 315and 323 Chihuahua St. as properties under contract of sale and states that these properties cannot be acquired due to a lack of public purpose. The City’s legal tcam also states that we can step into the Cit contract shoes, buy these buildings and then preserve them. This is a very clear \dication of the problem with the City’s approach to these negotiations. The implication is that these buildings will not be preserved unless we buy them. Let us state with emphasis that we would not be interested in this option. The City certainly has the right to terminate its contracts with the owners of these properties. However, the most important point is that, under our settlement proposal, even though these buildings will remain in private ownership, they will be protected from being demolished once the City Council imposes an H-overlay on this area. In the interim, we would expect the City to terminate all demolition permits for these buildings and agree to not issue new ones. The City’s response also identifies 306 W. Overland Ave., 311, 321, 325 Chihuahua St and 301 W. Paisano Dr. as being owned by the City and conditions a settlement on our agreement to purchase these buildings. Basically, the City’s legal team wants us to take the City off the bond money hook. The City used bond money to purchase these properties at a time when it was (and still is) uncertain whether the City could ever build an “arena” in Duranguito. We are not interested in buying these properties from the City. The solution for the City is to impose an H-overlay and help the Countycreate a National Register District so that these properties will be eligible for tax credits, This action will make these properties saleable. The City can then reimburse the bond fund from sales proceeds. Under our settlement proposal, these buildings will be protected from being demolished once the City Council imposes an H- overlay on this area. In the interim, we would expect the City to agree not to demolish these buildings, in part or in whole. We are not concerned about the property owner at 327 Chihuahua St. The owner has lived at her 119-year-old property for more than four decades and has a strong interest in preserving it * Chihuahua Street will remain a public street to provide access to the properties on the west and east sides that are being preserved. The City’s new response is not acceptable because the entire width of Chihuahua St. ‘must be retained between W. Paisano Dr. and W. Overland Ave., as indicated on both the original map and the second map presented to me at the March 21 meeting. The owners of the properties on the west side of Chihuahua St. need to have a full-width street for their properties to be usable and saleable, and in order to enjoy an acceptable level of privacy during MPC events. + Half the width of W. Overland Ave. will be retained in front of 306 W. Overland Ave. and 305 Chihuahua St. so that there is access to these two buildings from the street. Once again, the City’s response is not acceptable because it does not provide for reasonable pedestrian and vehicular access to these properties at all times - even during MPC events. The City owns 306 W. Overland Ave. 305 Chihuahua St. is owned by a private party. To be usable and saleable, these properties must have adequate access at all times, The City will take steps to cause the owners of the properties at 305, 309 and 315 Chihuahua St, and 215 W. Paisano Dr. to repair the structural damage that ‘was caused by the partial demolition on September 12, 2017. These buildings are being preserved from demolition and need to be repaired and sealed so that, they are not permanently damaged by the elements. The owners also need to be induced to recover the debris that is next to these buildings, and store it within the damaged buildings, so that it may be employed in future restorations. We understand that the City cannot spend public funds to improve private property. However, under the various codes, the City can require owners of property that constitute health and safety risks to make repairs. This is the route that the City should take, especially since the owners of these buildings purposely damaged them in clear violation of the court’s injunction. + Inorder to permanently protect the buildings being preserved, the City will adopt an ordinance establishing a local H-overlay district that will include allthe property described in the citizens’ petition that was presented to Ci Couneil and twice certified by the City Clerk The obvious exception being the property on which the MPC and MPC Plaza will be constructed. The City should also join with the County in recommending that the area covered by the local H-overlay district also be designated as a National Register District in order to make tax credits available to owners of property in this area, and the City will ensure that there are no legal impediments in the municipal code that would obstruct this effort. This is a critical feature since tax eredits will make these properties more attractive to investors. ‘The City’s response that it will join El Paso County to nominate this area as a National Register District is good news. This will enable federal and state financial incentives, among the most generous in the United States, to become available to property owners. However, we do not need to buy the properties for that to happen, as stated above, the City Council can enact an ordinance imposing an H-Overlay on the area identified as the citizens’ petition. ‘This is all the City has to do in order to protect the historic buildings in this area. We appreciate that the H-Overlay does not mean that a building can never be demolished. However, the process is arduous, and an owner would have to demonstrate some very serious reason before the City’ s Historic Landmark Commission or the City Council would authorize demolition. + We need to discuss moving the Chinese laundry building to another site. The City owns several vacant lots on Chihuahua St. that could be suitable, The Chinese laundry is important to the El Paso Chinese community and should be preserved in some form. We understand that the City is attempting to complete its acquisition of the Chinese Laundry. After our meeting, we did some research because the City’s position appears to be that the Chinese Laundry building does not have great historical significance. The research confirmed that the historical significance of the Chinese Laundry has been verified by scholars with irrefutable documentary evidence. We strongly recommend that the City review the history of the Chinese presence in El Paso. For istorical background on the Chinese community of El Paso, once the largest in Texas, good reading is Anna Louise Fahy's book Chinese Borderland Community Development: A Caste Study of El Paso: 1881- 1909. Also, readers will find Edward Staski’s report Beneath the Border City: Urban Archaeology in Downtown El Paso of great interest. Also, the City's own] 998 archaeological survey, which focuses on the Chinese presence in Duranguito is most helpful in this regard. The Chinese Laundry was completed in 1900 and occupied by Quong Lung and Slim Gin for a period of years. City directories indicate a significant Chinese presence on W. Overland Ave. as far west as Leon St. starting in the 1880s. While there may be one or more Chinese- ‘owned structures surviving in Segundo Barrio that are historically important, the Chinese Laundry is by far the eatliest and the only one dating to the first generation of Chinese settlement in El Paso. The fact that its facade was subsequently modified (circa 1910) in no way diminishes the history and significance of the building, which like so many old structures has been repurposed multiple times. Its primordial function is, of course, what makes it so unique and important.Our fervent hope is that the City would become very interested in dismantling the building and moving it to a City-owned property on Chihuahua St. Similar projects have been successfully completed in other cities (for larger and more complex buildings) without major impediments. This would be a much-applauded reversal in the City’s long-standing lack of interest in integrating historic structures into new development. If the City wants private help to assist with the undertaking, it should mobilize the Chinese-American community in Fl Paso and elsewhere to consider contributing to this effort. We would welcome the opportunity to engage with the City to assure this happens This building is critically important for the history not only of EI Paso but also of Texas and its destruction would not be acceptable to the Chinese community of El Paso, or scholars and preservationists. There should be a lawful way for bond funds to be used by the City to create a Chinese-American cultural center out of the Chinese laundry. This could be an important tourist attraction in the City, and would nicely complement the Chinese section of Concordia Cemetery, which is unique in our state, as well as the Turtle House in Sunset Heights, which is a fascinating building that is also connected to El Paso’s rich Chinese history. The potential for these sites to contribute to the local economy is even greater when one considers the rising tide of Chinese tourism in Texas. ‘The City’s response asks us to present a plan for the preservation and use of the buildings that will remain preserved. The most important part of any plan is the enactment of an H-Overlay ordinance. This is within the City's control. No plan can exist without an H-Overlay but we will join with many concerned citizens of El Paso to encourage the undertaking of a preservation plan. + The City and Dr. Max Grossman will take steps to jointly dismiss all pending litigation in El Paso as well as the appellate cases pending in the 3rd Court of Appeals and the 2nd Court of Appeals. Each party will pay its attorneys’ fees and costs. We will release the attorneys to work on the issues described once we have a settlement agreement in place. The City and Dr. Grossman will issue a mutually agreed joint press release announcing the terms of the settlement. All parties will refiain from making any post-settlement statements to any media outlet or to any organization that contradict or question any statement made in the joint press release or cast aspersions on any person associated with the Duranguito litigation. We do not believe that it would be wise to make an interim statement to the media. This could create expectations that may not come to fruition. Once we arriv settlement agreement, we can work out an agreed joint press release. + The City and Dr. Grossman will prepare a formal settlement agreement as soon as possible that incorporates the above terms. The formal settlement agreement shall be presented to City Council for approval at the first regular City Council meeting in April 2018. Mayor Margo agrees to recommend to City Council that the formal settlement agreement be approved. In the interim neither the City nor Dr. Grossman will take any actions that are inconsistent with the foregoing terms.Suffice it to say that any settlement agreement should be formalized as soon as we have reached agreed terms. At that point, it can be presented to City Council. Tremain sincerely yours, hive ce: Woody Hunt