This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-1514

               Record of Decision for the Hamline Midway Library EAW.

                                   Filed June 17, 2024
                                        Affirmed
                                      Kirk, Judge *

           City of St. Paul, Department of Planning & Economic Development

David C. Archer, Lee B. Bennin, Brandon Mickelsen, Lathrop GPM, LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota; and

Cicely R. Miltich, St. Paul, Minnesota (for relator Renovate 1558 Association)

Lyndsey Olson, St. Paul City Attorney, Daniel J. Stahley, Assistant City Attorney, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent City of St. Paul)

       Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

KIRK, Judge

       In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges respondent-city’s determination that an

environmental-impact statement (EIS) was not necessary to proceed with the proposed

demolition of a library. Relator argues that the city’s decision is arbitrary and capricious

and lacks the support of substantial evidence because the city failed to (1) consider

mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; (2) consider greenhouse-gas (GHG)



* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
emissions associated with demolition; and (3) make a reasoned decision based on its

judgment, not its will. We affirm.

                                          FACTS

       This case concerns the pending demolition of the Hamline Midway Library (the

library) in St. Paul. In May 2022, respondent City of St. Paul, through its St. Paul Public

Library department (SPPL), announced plans to demolish the library and build a new

library on the site (the project). 1 That same month, the library was nominated for inclusion

on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and was later listed on the NRHP in

January 2023.

       On February 2023, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) notified the

city that it had received a citizen petition requesting completion of an EAW for the project

and that the city was the appropriate responsible government unit (RGU) to determine

whether completion of an EAW was necessary.           The city determined that 

.4300, subp. 31 (2021), mandated that it complete an EAW for the project because the

library was listed on the NRHP. The city completed the EAW and published notice of the

EAW’s availability on June 20, 2023.

       During the following 30-day comment period, the city received comments from the

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the state department of transportation, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, the Metropolitan Council, and many comments from the public,


1 Although the city’s architect presented the city with two options, one option to renovate

the existing building and another to demolish and rebuild the library, SPPL decided to
move forward with the demolition option and the EAW at issue accordingly only addressed
that option.

                                             2
including relator Renovate 1558 Association. Relevant to this appeal, SHPO commented

that through “continued consultation with the [c]ity and SPPL,” it was “currently in the

process of formalizing an agreement with [them] on proposed mitigation” of any adverse

effects that the project might have on the historic property. Relator submitted a letter on

behalf of over 70 individuals, raising concerns, in part, that the EAW was inaccurate and

incomplete, misrepresented the library’s condition, and failed to consider GHG emissions

that would occur as a result of the project. Other public comments ranged from those in

support of the project to those in favor of renovation only, and included concerns about

GHG emissions and historic preservation efforts in St. Paul.

       On August 31, 2023, the city issued its record of decision and determined that the

project did “not have the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be

controlled or mitigated” and that “an EIS is not required for the project.” The record

includes the city’s summary of comments it received during the public-comment period,

as well as its responses to those summarized comments. The city issued its notice of

negative declaration on the need for an EIS five days later.

       Relator petitioned for certiorari review.

                                         DECISION

       Relator seeks reversal and remand for a new EIS determination, arguing that the

city’s decision that an EIS is not required is arbitrary and capricious and lacking the support

of substantial evidence because the city failed to (1) consider the extent to which

environmental effects were subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority;

(2) take a “hard look” and genuinely engage in reasoned decision-making because it did


                                              3
not consider the GHG emissions associated with demolishing the existing library building;

and (3) make a reasoned decision based on its judgment, not its will.

       To assist in framing the issues, a brief review of the Minnesota Environmental

Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 116D.01-.11 (2022 & Supp. 2023), is helpful.

       The legislature enacted MEPA in 1973 to encourage harmony between humans and

the environment, promote efforts to prevent or eliminate danger to the environment and

stimulate human health and welfare, and increase understanding of the state’s environment

and important natural resources. Minn. Stat. § 116D.01. MEPA’s requirements facilitate

informed decision making and environmental review of the impact of governmental actions

on the environment. See Minn. Stat. §§ 116D.03-.04. In part, MEPA requires the state

government to “use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of

state policy, to improve and coordinate state plans, functions, programs and resources” to

facilitate preservation of “important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national

heritage” and maintenance of “an environment that supports diversity[] and variety of

individual choice.” Minn. Stat. § 116D.02, subd. 2(4).

       As authorized by MEPA, Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (2021) are

promulgated by the EQB and apply to all governmental actions. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04,

subd. 5a; 

.0300, subps. 1 and 2.           The rules provide procedures for

determining which governmental unit is responsible for the preparation and review of

environmental-review documents, 

.0500, .0200, subp. 75; when preparation

of an EAW is required, 

.4300; as well as the factors that must be considered

when determining whether an EIS must be prepared, 

.1700, subps. 1, 7.


                                             4
       Preparation of an EAW is mandatory for some proposed actions, including “[f]or

the destruction . . . of a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.”

.4300, subp. 31. An EAW is “a brief document which is designed to set out

the basic facts necessary to determine whether an [EIS] is required for a proposed action.”

Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 1a(c). If “there is the potential for significant environmental

effects resulting from any major governmental action, the action must be preceded by a

detailed [EIS] prepared by the [RGU].” Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(a). An RGU must

“base its decision regarding the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the

EAW process and the comments received on the EAW,” 

.1700, subp. 3, and

must “maintain a record . . . supporting its decision” which must include “specific

responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW,” 

 subp. 4.

       When an RGU determines whether a proposed project has the potential for

significant environmental effects, the RGU shall consider: (1) the “type, extent, and

reversibility of environmental effects”; (2) the “cumulative potential effects” of the project;

(3) “the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing

public regulatory authority”; and (4) “the extent to which environmental effects can be

anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken

by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.” 

 subp. 7. The RGU

must balance these factors when deciding whether to require an EIS. See Citizens

Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 

(Minn. 2006) (CARD).




                                               5
         “A person aggrieved by a final decision on the need for . . . an [EIS] . . . is entitled

to judicial review of the decision under sections 14.63 to 14.68.” Minn. Stat. § 116D.04,

subd. 10. Appellate courts may affirm or remand, or may reverse or modify the agency’s

decision “if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the

administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: . . . (e) unsupported by

substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) arbitrary or

capricious.” 

 (e)-(f) (2022); see also In re City of Cohasset’s Decision

on the Need for an Env’t Impact Statement for the Proposed Frontier Project, 

, 377 (Minn. App. 2023) (noting that this court applies 

 to review

negative EIS declarations). Appellate courts accord substantial deference to an RGU’s

decision on the need for an EIS and must analyze whether the agency “has taken a hard

look at the problems involved, and whether it has genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-

making.” CARD, 

 (quotations omitted).

         An RGU’s decision is arbitrary or capricious if the RGU (1) “relied on factors the

legislature never intended it to consider”; (2) “entirely failed to consider an important

aspect of the problem”; (3) “offered an explanation for the decision that runs counter to the

evidence”; or (4) “rendered a decision so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a

difference in view or the result of agency expertise.” Watab Twp. Citizen All. v. Benton

Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 

 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. May 15,

2007).     The substantial-evidence standard requires “1) such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2) more than a scintilla

of evidence; 3) more than some evidence; 4) more than any evidence; and 5) evidence


                                                6
considered in its entirety.” CARD, 

 (quotations omitted). A party

challenging an RGU’s decision bears “the burden of proving that its findings are

unsupported by the evidence as a whole.” Friends of Twin Lakes v. City of Roseville, 

 (Minn. App. 2009).

I.     The city did not fail to consider the extent to which the project’s environmental
       effects were subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

       Relator first contends that, because SHPO is not an “ongoing public regulatory

authority,” the city should not have considered SHPO’s recommended mitigation measures

to determine whether environmental effects were subject to mitigation. Relator challenges

only the city’s utilization of SHPO’s recommended mitigation measures to the anticipated

environmental impact on “historic resources” stemming from the project.

       When determining “whether a project has the potential for significant environmental

effects,” an “RGU may rely only on mitigation measures [by ongoing public regulatory

authority] that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the

identified environmental impacts of the project.” 

.1700, subp. 7(C). Neither

MEPA nor its rules define “ongoing public regulatory authority.”

       Although existing caselaw is unclear as to MEPA’s application to the demolition of

a NHRP-listed property, the parties do not appear to dispute that “significant environmental

effects” may include the demolition of the library as a historic resource. Even though

SHPO has ongoing responsibilities under 

 (2022 & Supp. 2023)

regarding historic properties generally, the extent of its statutory authority to influence

projects that will impact an NRHP-listed property is limited to its consultation and



                                             7
agreement with the state department or agency that is carrying out the project, before the

project commences.

             Before carrying out any undertaking that will affect [NRHP-
             ]listed properties . . . the state department or agency shall
             consult with [SHPO] . . . to determine appropriate treatments
             and to seek ways to avoid and mitigate any adverse effects on
             [those] properties. If the state department or agency and
             [SHPO] agree in writing on a suitable course of action, the
             project may proceed. If the parties cannot agree, any one of
             the parties may request that the governor appoint and convene
             a mediation task force . . . .

, subd. 2.

      

, subd. 2, required the city to consult with SHPO prior to

carrying out the library’s demolition.     SHPO, in addition to the state, bears the

responsibility to protect properties listed on the NRHP and is empowered to utilize its

“established procedures to determine appropriate treatments and to seek ways to avoid and

mitigate any adverse effects on designated or listed properties.” 

,

subd. 2 (emphasis added). For NRHP-listed properties, there appears to be no more closely

related state agency, and relator does not identify an ongoing public regulatory authority

as an alternative to SHPO. However, even assuming without deciding that SHPO itself is

not an “ongoing public regulatory authority,” the city is. See Friends of Twin Lakes, 

 (noting that city was properly considered as preexisting regulatory

oversight). The city stated within its response to public comments that it would “require

SPPL to meet [the] mitigation measures” recommended by SHPO. See CARD, 

 (“[A]n RGU may consider whether mitigation measures may be applied by a




                                            8
regulatory authority.”). Moreover, the city is not precluded from considering other factors

such as SHPO’s mitigation recommendations. See 

.1700, subp. 7(C).

       Relator also argues that the city failed to investigate and explain how mitigation

measures will protect the resource in question because SHPO’s mitigation measures (1) do

not meet the statutory definition of “mitigation” and (2) lack evidence regarding their

efficacy. Relator cites Cohasset, 985 N.W.2d at 385-86, in support of its argument.

       MEPA rules define “mitigation” to include “compensating for impacts by replacing

or providing substitute resources or environments.” 

.0200, subd. 51(E).

Here, SHPO’s recommended mitigation measures include:

              • Development and installation of a publicly accessible
                interpretive display in the new library to include
                information regarding the historic [library] and the
                neighborhood it served;
              • Level II Minnesota Historic Property Record of the
                [library] building to include representative 35mm
                photographs of the historic building for eventual inclusion
                in the Minnesota Historical Society’s Manuscripts
                Collection; and
              • Intensive level survey and evaluation of thirty-two (32)
                parcels within the “Paust’s Rearrangement Study Area” as
                identified in the 2018 report titled Hamline-Midway
                Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey, St. Paul,
                Ramsey County, Minnesota.

SHPO’s measures are specific and provide substitute resources to account for the

demolition of the historic library.

       Moreover, Cohasset is distinguishable. In Cohasset, this court concluded that the

city’s determination that there would be “no potential for significant environmental effects

from wetlands removal” was unsupported by substantial evidence. 985 N.W.2d at 385.



                                             9
This court noted that “[t]he city apparently did not investigate—and certainly does not

explain—how wetlands replacement and permit controls will protect the Blackwater wild-

rice bed and other resources downstream from potential impacts caused by wetlands

removal during construction of the facility,” after a state agency submitted a comment that

was contrary to the city’s determination. Id. at 386.

       Here, the city sought out an outside consultant to perform a cultural-resources

assessment as part of completing the EAW. Although both the outside consultant and

SHPO identified the library’s demolition as an “adverse effect,” the consultant

recommended that the city develop a plan to mitigate the adverse effect through

consultation with SHPO. The city and SPPL consulted with SHPO, which rejected the

initial mitigation measures proposed by the city. After further consultations, the city,

SPPL, and SHPO eventually agreed “on a suitable course of action to mitigate for the loss

of the historic property,” which included SHPO’s recommended mitigation measures.

       We conclude that the city took “a hard look” at the adverse impact of demolishing

the library, appropriately considered and reasonably relied on SHPO’s recommended

mitigation measures, and “genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.” CARD, 

 (quotation omitted). The city’s decision on this issue therefore was not

arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

II.    The city considered the estimated GHG emissions associated with the project.

       Although relator concedes that the city addressed that the newly constructed library

will emit less greenhouse gases over a 50-year period as compared to renovation of the




                                            10
current library, it argues that the city failed to address GHG emissions associated with the

library demolition itself. We disagree.

       When considering the “cumulative potential effects” (CPE) of a project, an RGU

must consider “whether the [CPE are] significant; whether the [project’s contribution] is

significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the [CPE]; the degree to

which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to

address the [CPE]; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the [project’s

contributions.]” 

.1700, subp. 7(B). CPE includes the environmental impacts

resulting from “incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the

environmentally relevant area” that may be reasonably expected to affect the same

resources. 

.0200, subp. 11a.

       Before the city completed the EAW, SHPO wrote to SPPL that “the carbon released

to rehabilitate an existing building is almost always less than the carbon release of

demolition, (throwing away a reusable resource), the subsequent creation of new

construction materials, and the construction and transport of materials to make the new

building.” Public comments submitted during the EAW comment period also raised

concerns about carbon emissions during tear down and rebuild.

       Although the city did not include specific information in the EAW regarding GHG

emissions stemming from the library’s demolition, the city did consider GHG emissions

generally—it relied on EQB guidance, the Environmental Protection Agency Simplified

GHG Emissions Calculator, and other resources to estimate the project’s net GHG

emissions over its lifespan. The city’s GHG emissions exhibit to the EAW lists emissions


                                            11
from demolition and construction as “unknown,” acknowledging that they were

considered. The EAW outlined that the project would “work to implement any applicable

state or local GHG goals as required.” The city also acknowledged that it would recycle

and reuse parts of the original building materials; that it would follow the Saint Paul

Sustainable Building Ordinance, the Saint Paul Overlay requirements, and the state

sustainable building requirements; and noted in its record of decision that the

“environmental impacts for the project are consistent with those of a demolition project.”

When there is a “lack of evidence to the contrary,” Friends of Twin Lakes, 

, or “technical disputes and uncertainties,” reviewing courts “must assume that the

. . . RGU has exercised its discretion appropriately,” Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge

Action v. Iron Range Res., 

 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn.

July 28, 1995). Considering the entire record, the city did not “entirely fail[] to consider

an important aspect of the problem,” to be deemed arbitrary and capricious or unsupported

by substantial evidence. Watab, 

.

III.   The city’s conduct does not present a combination of “danger signals” to
       suggest that it exercised its will rather than its judgment.

       Relator finally argues that the city exercised its will and not its judgment because it

(1) failed to independently and impartially evaluate environmental considerations, (2) did

not meaningfully respond to all public comments (specifically, to comments that the library

is currently in better condition than the EAW represented, the effect demolition would have

on historic preservation efforts in St. Paul, and regarding cumulative GHG emissions from




                                             12
demolition), (3) issued an untimely decision on the need for an EIS, and (4) took “the path

of least resistance to demolish the library.” 2 We are not persuaded.

       Although a court has a “duty to intervene” when “there is a combination of danger

signals which suggest the agency has not taken a hard look at the salient problems and has

not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making,” when “the agency has properly

performed those functions, [a] court should exercise restraint and affirm, even if it might

have reached a different conclusion had it been the factfinder or policymaker.” Rsrv. Min.

Co. v. Herbst, 

 (Minn. 1977) (quotation omitted); see also In re

Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests, 

, 646-47 (Minn. 2023).

       As to relator’s argument that the city failed to evaluate environmental considerations

in an independent and impartial manner, relator specifically              targets the city’s

representations that the project “has undergone extensive public comment and reviews to

determine the community needs for library services.” Although it is clear from the record

that the library’s demolition has been a contentious issue, the record also supports the city’s

representation that it did engage the community in deciding to pursue the project. The

EAW and relator’s own submissions reflect that the SPPL held virtual and in-person open

houses and surveyed the community regarding the project. The city did not represent that

there was a public consensus favoring the library’s demolition.



2 Relator argues that two additional “danger signals” include the city’s improper
consideration of SHPO mitigation measures and failure to consider all GHG emissions,
mirroring its prior arguments. Because we have concluded that the city’s determination on
those issues was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor unsupported by substantial evidence,
we need not address them again here.

                                              13
       Relator’s argument that the city failed to meaningfully respond to all public

comments appears to focus on comments going to the city’s decision to demolish the

library, not to the contents of the EAW related to the environmental effects of the project

itself. Relator argues that the city’s failure to respond to relator’s claims that the city

inaccurately represented the current condition of the library when it decided to pursue

demolition undermines the city’s comparison in the EAW of the environmental impact of

the current library to a rebuilt one. But the city noted in its response to public comments

that its determination of the project’s long-term energy savings was based on “calculations

consider[ing] the energy use and materials of the existing and proposed buildings,” not the

condition of the current library’s building materials. In response to comments regarding

historic preservation efforts in St. Paul, the city referenced the mitigation measures

recommended by SHPO, noted that the new library’s design would incorporate building

materials and “character-defining features” of the historic library, and observed that its

comprehensive plan required balancing historical preservation with broader city priorities.

In response to comments about GHG release from demolition, the city referenced the

GHG-emissions analysis within the EAW and the new library’s ongoing sustainability

design, noted that it would recycle 75% of construction debris and would reuse other

materials, and observed that renovation of the existing library would also lead to some

GHG emissions.

       Further, relator’s citations to In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, 

 (Minn. App. 2019), rev. denied (Minn. July 3, 2019); and In re Mankato Motorsports

Park, No. A20-0952, 

, at *11 (Minn. App. Apr. 26, 2021) are


                                            14
unpersuasive. We decided Mankato Motorsports on its own specific facts, and it is not a

precedential case, Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), and in Enbridge, the issue

concerned the adequacy of an EIS when the agency did not directly address comments

regarding its failure to analyze potential impacts of an oil spill on Lake Superior and its

watershed, 

. Here, the city responded to public comments regarding

historic preservation and to comments regarding cumulative GHG emissions.

       As to relator’s contentions that the city did not timely issue its decision, relator

concedes that the city’s conduct alone does not warrant reversal, and we agree.

       MEPA’s rules required the city to issue its decision on the need for an EIS “no later

than 15 days after the close of the 30-day review period,” but the 15-day period may “be

extended by the EQB chair by no more than 15 additional days upon request of the RGU.”

.1700, subp. 2. When the timeframe allowed is 15 days or less, “intermediate

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the counting of days.” 

.0200, subp. 12. “The RGU’s decision shall be either a negative declaration or a

positive declaration.” 

.1700, subp. 3.

       The EAW public comment period closed on July 20, 2023. Relator did not respond

to the city’s representation in its brief that the EQB granted the city a 15-day extension

under 

.1700, subp. 2(B) to issue its decision regarding the need for an EIS.

Based on the city’s representation, the city issued its record of decision on the last day of

the 15-day extension, August 31, 2023, followed by its notice of its negative declaration

on the need for an EIS on September 5, 2023. Even assuming without deciding that the




                                             15
city’s decision was untimely, we do not think the city’s delay in issuing its negative

declaration warrants reversal.

       Finally, considering the record as a whole, we are not convinced that the city took

“the path of least resistance to demolish the library.” Instead, the record reflects that, as

required by MEPA, the city appropriately considered the factors outlined under 

.1700, subp. 7, to determine that the decided-upon project would not have the potential

for significant environmental effects. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a.

       We conclude that the city’s decision that an EIS is not required is not arbitrary and

capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the record does not present “a

combination of danger signals” to otherwise support our intervention. Rsrv. Min. Co., 

.

       Affirmed.




                                             16