State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis

State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. City of Minneapolis, Appellant.

No. A22-0852

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

December 27, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-18-19587

Jack Y. Perry, Maren Forde, Brayanna J. Bergstrom, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Timothy J. Keane, Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Nekima V. Levy-Pounds, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents)

Kristyn Anderson, Minneapolis City Attorney, Ivan Ludmer, Kristin R. Sarff, Assistant City Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Ann K. Bloodhart, David Theisen, George N. Henry, Metropolitan Council Office of General Council, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Metropolitan Council)

Michelle Weinberg, Sam Ketchum, Kennedy & Graven, Chtd., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Sierra Club)

David J. Zoll, R. David Hahn, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Neighbors for More Neighbors and Sustain St. Paul)

Jay Eidsness, Kevin S. Reuther, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy) Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.

LARKIN, Judge

In this post-remand appeal, appellant-city challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment and injunctive relief to respondents on their claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.01-.13 (2022). We affirm the grant of summary judgment to respondents. But we reverse and remand the order for injunctive relief because the district court did not make adequate findings to enable appellate review.

FACTS

This is the second appeal in this MERA action brought by respondents Smart Growth Minneapolis, Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis, and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds to challenge the Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan as adopted by respondent City of Minneapolis. The facts underlying the action are recited in a previous supreme court decision, and we do not fully restate them here. See State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 954 N.W.2d 584, 587-89 (Minn. 2021) (Smart Growth).

Respondents' MERA claim is based on a presumption that there will be a "full build-out"^[1] of the 2040 Plan that will cause significant environmental effects. Respondents asserted this theory in their complaint and attached an expert report by Kristen Pauly (the Pauly Report) that "calculates a number of projections under the Plan, including increased residential density, traffic trips per day, volume of water runoff, and contaminant loads on the storm sewer system," based on the full build-out assumption. Smart Growth, 954 N.W.2d at 588. As relief, respondents sought to enjoin implementation of the 2040 Plan "unless and until City satisfies its MERA-required burden, presumably through a voluntary environmental review (i.e., [environmental-impact statement] or [alternative urban areawide review])."

The district court granted the city's motion to dismiss respondents' MERA claim, reasoning that, because comprehensive plans are exempt from environmental-review requirements under an administrative rule implementing the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, see Minn. R. 4410.4600, subp. 26 (2021), respondents could not state a claim under MERA seeking environmental review as relief. The district court also concluded that respondents could not demonstrate causation under MERA because they had not challenged a discrete, identifiable project. Respondents appealed, and this court affirmed. See State by Smart Growth v. City of Minneapolis, 941 N.W.2d 741 (Minn.App. 2020), rev'd, 954 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2021). Respondents petitioned for further review, which the supreme court granted. Smart Growth, 954 N.W.2d at 589.

In Smart Growth, the supreme court held "[1] that adoption of a comprehensive plan can be the subject of a MERA claim and [2] that [respondents'] allegations [were] sufficient to state a claim for which relief can be granted under MERA." Id. at 587. In concluding that respondents' allegations were sufficient, the supreme court explained that respondents' complaint alleged that the 2040 Plan was likely to materially adversely affect the environment and that a full build-out of the plan would cause "dramatic" effects. Id. at 596. The supreme court acknowledged that "the projections supporting [respondents'] allegations are based on a full build-out" but reasoned: "that build-out is what the actual land-use criteria contained in the Plan allows for; [respondents are] not speculating about the type of actions that will result from other future comprehensive plans that would follow the 2040 Plan." Id. The supreme court concluded that respondents' allegations were sufficient to support a MERA claim and thus reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to reinstate respondents' complaint. Id. at 596-97.

On remand following discovery, respondents and the city each moved for summary judgment. Respondents argued that they had established a prima facie case under MERA, and that the city had not rebutted that prima facie case or established an affirmative defense. The city argued that respondents failed to present evidence sufficient to meet their prima facie burden, and that, even if they could meet that burden, there existed genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the city could rebut the prima facie burden or prove an affirmative defense.

The record before the district court on summary judgment consisted of two expert reports, attorney affidavits attaching various documents, and substantive affidavits from city officials. Respondents continued to rely on the Pauly Report filed with their complaint, the analysis of which is based on the presumption of a full build-out. The city submitted an expert report and affidavits disputing the factual basis for the presumption of a full build- out, but the city did not dispute Pauly's opinion that a full build-out would cause material adverse environmental effects.

At the hearing on the summary-judgment motions, the district court requested submissions from the parties regarding appropriate relief should respondents prevail on their claims. Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a proposed order for judgment. Respondents requested that the court enjoin the 2040 Plan and require the city to restore the status quo ante under the city's previous comprehensive plan (the 2030 Plan). The city responded that it was surprised that respondents had submitted proposed injunction language and asserted that the proposed language was not specific enough under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.04 or tailored to be necessary to protect the environment under MERA.

The district court denied the city's motion for summary judgment, granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, and ordered injunctive relief. In addressing whether respondents had established a prima facie case, the district court reasoned that the threshold issue was "whether a presumption of an immediate full build-out is a proper basis on which to base a MERA challenge to a comprehensive plan." The district court then identified a subsidiary question: "When can a [c]omprehensive [p]lan, such as the 2040 Plan, be challenged under MERA?" The district court concluded that MERA allows a challenge to a comprehensive plan "when it is still just that-a plan" and that use of a full build-out presumption was appropriate. Having concluded that the presumption was appropriate, the district court relied on the Pauly Report to determine that respondents had made a prima facie showing under MERA.

The district court next addressed whether the city had submitted sufficient evidence to rebut respondents' prima facie showing or to support an affirmative defense and determined that it had not. The district court discussed the opinion of the city's retained expert and determined that it did not discuss or rebut the Pauly Report.^[2] Accordingly, the district court concluded that respondents were entitled to summary judgment on their MERA claim.

The district court's order immediately enjoined the city from "any ongoing implementation of the 2040 Plan" and required it to "immediately cease all present action in furtherance of the 2040 Plan, unless and until the City satisfies the MERA requirements of rebutting [respondents'] prima facie showing, or prevails in establishing an affirmative defense, as required by MERA." The order also required the city, within 60 days, to

restore the status quo ante relationship between the parties, as it existed on December 4, 2018 by refraining from its enforcement of, and any prospective enforcement of, any aspect of the 2040 Plan, including amendments to land use ordinances directed by the 2040 Plan, that authorize the scope and degree of residential development that this court has determined is likely to create adverse environmental impacts to the Minneapolis area;

and

reinstating for its prospective enforcement both the residential development portions of the City's Comprehensive 2030 Plan, and the pre-December 4, 2018 land use ordinances which implement the same residential development portions of the 2030 Plan.

The city filed a notice of appeal and a motion in district court to stay the district court's order pending appeal. The district court granted a stay of the order pending the outcome of this appeal.

DECISION

I.

"This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, evaluating whether genuine issues of material...