Legislation that would end the lawsuit against the Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan got new life this week.
That doesn’t mean the proposal meant to protect comp plans that calls for increased housing density in cities and suburbs won’t die during the last 10 days of the 2024 legislative session.
The so-called “Comp Plan Clarity” bill, now contained in a massive state and local government omnibus bill, is just one of many remaining issues caught up in the turmoil in the state Senate triggered by the April 22 arrest of Sen. Nicole Mitchell and the subsequent first-degree burglary charge.
In order to move the issue forward, backers need the Senate to act on its version of the state and local government bill. That would push the spending and policy bill into a conference committee. No omnibus bill, however, no Comp Plan Clarity. Sen. Lindsey Port, the Burnsville DFLer who is chair of the Senate Housing Committee, said that bill “is still up in the air over here.”
The session adjourns May 20.
The House did what supporters of the issue needed done on Monday night. They succeeded in amending the bill to exempt the already adopted Minneapolis and St. Paul comprehensive plans from the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA). That’s the state’s fundamental environmental protection law that was used by opponents of the Minneapolis plan to challenge the plan — so-far successfully — and keep it from being implemented.
The amendment also exempts all future comprehensive plans from environmental review under another law, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act.
The immediate effect would be to end the lawsuit brought by a group called Smart Growth Minneapolis. It would also prevent similar MERA-based lawsuits against future plans but still require comp plans to meet environmental policy law. Backers of the bills, both city organizations and environmental groups, say while the plans themselves wouldn’t require environmental review, any construction projects allowed by the plans would need to show what harms they would produce and how they might be mitigated.
Comp plans are required in the Twin Cities region every 10 years to show how cities will accommodate the population growth that the Met Council estimates will occur. They are planning documents that drive planning and zoning decisions. While the Minneapolis and St. Paul plans call for increased housing density, housing and environmental advocates say many cities use the plans to discourage growth. The bill language not only protects the two cities’ plans, it would relieve some uncertainty about litigation risks for cities in the midst of their comp plan process, backers say.
Minneapolis received nationwide attention for the way its plan pushed for increased density as a way of concentrating population growth in areas already served by infrastructure, including transit. Single-family neighborhoods should accommodate “missing middle” housing such as duplexes, the plan stated. And multifamily housing would be directed to corridors close to transit lines. Parking minimums were cut, and zoning changes were made in many areas to allow more development.
The suit, filed by a group called Smart Growth Minneapolis, argued that under state environmental law the city was required to conduct an environmental review. Because the plan was designed to accommodate more than 100,000 new residents over the 10-year planning period, the city should study the impacts on the environment of such growth. Smart Growth’s suit asserted population growth could degrade the environment by increasing the amount of paved surfaces that could increase the impact of stormwater runoff, by increasing the number of people straining wastewater systems, by reducing tree canopy and by increasing air pollution.
Courts, including the state Supreme Court, agreed that MERA did not exempt comp plans from the need for environmental review and the rights of citizens to file suit demanding such a review. Sponsors of the original bill said they felt the Supreme Court invited them clarify legislative intent on comp plans and MERA. In his ruling in Smart Growth v. Minneapolis, Justice Gordon Moore noted two other laws that exempt certain actions from MERA — one in the Waste Management Act and again regarding the Minnesota Agriculture and Economic Development Board.
“… the Legislature has shown on at least two occasions that it knows how to expressly exempt statutes from the scope of MERA when it desires to do so,” Moore wrote.
Environmental groups, as well as social justice organizations supporting increased housing opportunities, opposed the use of the state’s fundamental environmental protection law against a comp plan they say protects the environment. That is, a plan that increases housing density in urban areas combats suburban and rural sprawl and makes transit use more feasible.
A relatively brief exchange during the lengthy debate on the state and local government omnibus bill displayed the political differences over the proposal.
Rep. Mike Howard, DFL-Richfield, supported the changes.
“With this language and the underlying language we’ve worked very closely with our environmental groups, and they support this language,” Howard said. The amendments passed on a voice vote.
But Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, moved to jettison the entire section of the now-amended bill, arguing that it was an attempt by the city to do what the courts wouldn’t — dismiss the Smart Growth challenge.
“We’re going to go around the court decision, we’re going to go around what our constitution wants and we’re going to change the law ourselves,” Scott said. “But we don’t exist to go around the court for special interests. It’s not why we’re here.”
Scott portrayed the lawsuit as the residents of the city rising up against the government.
Howard pushed back.
“There are a few loud folks who did bring a lawsuit,” he said and urged lawmakers to contact their mayors and city councils about the bill language adopted Monday.
“Comp plans are an idea, a vision for what they want their city to look like,” Howard said. “When a project is proposed, that’s when full environmental review is appropriate.”
Scott’s amendment failed on a voice vote. The comp plan clarity language is all that remains of a trio of bills meant to promote more density in urban and suburban cities. The motivation is to direct more housing growth to already developed areas to combat sprawl and to reduce the cost and increase the availability of housing. But two other measures are considered dead for 2024 — a bill requiring so-called missing middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single-family zones and a proposal to require cities to permit multifamily buildings in commercial zones.
Peter Callaghan
Peter Callaghan covers state government for MinnPost. Follow him on Twitter @CallaghanPeter or email him at pcallaghan@minnpost.com.
