From: Amy Lindgren

Sent: Wed Oct 28 13:59:19 2020

To: Mac Corthell; Dan Huff; Gerald Fisher; Frank Schoenfeld; Chaunee Seifried

Cc: Spencer Parsons (spencer@gov-law.com)

Subject: Re: CHTC Update - Confidential Litigation

Importance: Normal

Just to add to Mac's email.

Anzie St. Claire from DEQ is also strongly considering seeking their own preliminary injunction. She wants a copy of ours from Spencer.

Regarding the criminal aspect, its not that it is contingent on the ALJ finding. My understanding is that they would potentially be litigating the same issue (whether they need to have a permit), and you don't want to have a negative result in one which would would affect the other case. I am going to chat with Patrick Flanagan again about that issue. I recall Anzie saying that CHTC is basically finally conceding that they at least need a "simple permit." So if that is the case, I don't understand why they wouldn't want to do it.

We also discussed that if the PD wanted to investigate a violation or a crime, it would be best to file a potential violation in municipal court so that any penalty would go to Molalla and not the County.

From: Mac Corthell

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 9:39:42 AM

To: Dan Huff; Gerald Fisher; Frank Schoenfeld; Chaunee Seifried

Cc: Amy Lindgren; Spencer Parsons (spencer@gov-law.com)

Subject: CHTC Update - Confidential Litigation

Hello All,

I wanted to provide you an update based on a meeting I had yesterday with all partners on the CHTC Inc (Columbia 410 LLC) issue.

1. 1. The City Attorney filed a complaint in Clackamas County Circuit Court yesterday. As soon as we get a case number we will file the motion for preliminary injunction to cease operations pending outcome of the nuisance and land use issues at play.
2. 2. DEQ has issued an order and civil penalty assessment that CHTC denied. DEQ has referred the issue to the Dept of Admin Hearings for an ALJ to hear the case. DEQ has also increased the fines due to CHTC’s continued operations.
3. 3. Criminally, the air pollution 1 case would be contingent on the ALJ’s findings, so it will not proceed unless and until a favorable ruling is received. At that point it will be a matter of evidence and prosecutor discretion.
   1. a. Air pollution 2 is being considered at this point. It is a mere violation instead of felony like air 1, but much easier to prove and carries a max fine of $25k per violation day.
4. 4. ODA has been more or less non-responsive regarding revocation of the Land Use Compatibility Statement. I was able to get the name of a contact in the director’s office yesterday from the DOJ attorney at the meeting. I intend to follow-up to determine what, if any, path exists to revoke an LUCS under changed circumstances and/or false information on the application.

For now, that’s all I have. Amy and/or Spencer please jump in if there is anything I’ve got wrong, or that you want to add. Thank you all.

-Mac

Macahan “Mac” Corthell, J.D. | Planning Director

City of Molalla

117 N Molalla Ave. | PO Box 248 |Molalla, OR 97038

Phone - 503.829.6855

Fax – 503.829.3676

Email – mcorthell@cityofmolalla.com

Website – http://www.cityofmolalla.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.