This = opinion will=20 be unpublished and

may = not be cited=20 except as provided by

Minn. Stat. =A7=20 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

STATE OF=20 MINNESOTA

IN = COURT OF=20 APPEALS

A05-1770

Friends = of Twin=20 Lakes,

Appellant,

vs.

City of = Roseville,

Respondent,

Rottlund Homes, et=20 al.,

Respondents.

Filed August 10,=20 2006

Affirmed in part and = reversed=20 in part

Willis, = Judge

Ramsey = County=20 District Court

File = No. C3-05-44

Alexandra B. Klass, = 229=20 19^th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (for appellant)

Paul D. Reuvers, = Jason J.=20 Kuboushek, Iverson Reuvers, 9321 Ensign Avenue South, Bloomington, = MN =20 55438 (for respondent City of Roseville)

Robert R. Weinstine, = Matthew D.=20 Spohn, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., 225 South Sixth Street, Suite = 3500,=20 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondents Rottlund Homes, et al.)

&nbs= p;=20 Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Randall, Judge; and = Willis,=20 Judge.

U N P U B L I = S H E=20 D O P I N I O N

WILLIS, Judge

In = this=20 appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that respondent city=92s = approvals=20 for a development project in the Twin Lakes area, including amending the = Twin=20 Lakes Business Park Master Plan (master plan) to incorporate the = development=20 project without also amending the city=92s comprehensive plan, were = arbitrary and=20 capricious and requests that those approvals be set aside under Minn. = Stat.=20 =A7 462.361 (2004). Appellant also argues that under the = Minnesota=20 Environmental Policy Act and its implementing rules, respondent city is = required=20 to either revise its 2001 alternative-urban-areawide review (AUAR) or = prepare an=20 environmental-impact statement (EIS) before beginning the development = project in=20 the Twin Lakes area. Because we conclude that the incorporation of = the=20 challenged development project in the city=92s master plan, which is a = part of the=20 city=92s comprehensive plan, requires that the city amend its = comprehensive plan=20 and that this particular development-project amendment would allow an = increase=20 in development over the development levels assumed in the 2001 AUAR, = thereby=20 triggering the requirement that the 2001 AUAR be revised, we reverse in=20 part. Because we conclude that the city=92s other approvals of the = development project are reasonable, we affirm in part.

FACTS

&nbs= p;=20 In June 2001, respondent city of Roseville (the city) adopted the Twin = Lakes=20 Business Park Master Plan (master plan) and made the master plan an = amendment to=20 its comprehensive plan. The master plan describes the = redevelopment of=20 approximately 170 acres in the city (Twin Lakes area). The = redevelopment=20 is to =93replace existing trucking, outdoor storage and industrial uses = with new=20 multi-level office, medical, high tech, showroom, multi-family and = supporting=20 commercial uses.=94 The city prepared an = alternative-urban-areawide review=20 (AUAR) of the Twin Lakes area. The AUAR separated the 170 acres to = be=20 developed under the master plan into 12 separate =93redevelopment = blocks=94 and=20 proposed =93two scenarios for each block: Future Land Use Scenario 1 = (hi-tech flex=20 option) and Future Land Use Scenario 1a (retail option).=94 The = AUAR=20 reflected =93the =91worst case scenario=92 in reporting the = environmental impacts =96 in=20 other words, the most intensive development scenario that would = occur.=94 =20

&nbs= p;=20 Two and a half years later, in December 2003, the city designated = respondent=20 Rottlund Company, Inc. (Rottlund) as the =93Master Developer=94 for the=20 redevelopment of the Twin Lakes area. In September 2004, Rottlund=20 submitted two =93concept plans=94 for the redevelopment area, along with = applications for a planned-unit development (PUD) and a preliminary = subdivision=20 plat. Although Rottlund looked at a =93redevelopment plan for the = larger=20 Twin Lakes area,=94 because of financial considerations, it focused its = attention=20 on a =93first phase=94 of redevelopment for a smaller portion of the = Twin Lakes=20 area. Consequently, Rottlund submitted a =93generalized land use = scheme for=20 the broader redevelopment area=94 and a =93phase I redevelopment plan=94 = that=20 =93identifies in greater specificity the mix of residential, office and = retail=20 commercial land uses=94 for the smaller area consisting of blocks 1, 2, = 3, 4, 5,=20 and 8, identified in the AUAR and totaling 80 acres.

&nbs= p;=20 In October 2004, appellant Friends of Twin Lakes (appellant), a = nonprofit=20 corporation consisting of Roseville residents, filed with the Minnesota=20 Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) a citizens=92 petition for an=20 environmental-assessment worksheet (EAW), requesting =93an environmental = review of=20 the entire [Rottlund] project as presently proposed=94 and asserting = that the 2001=20 AUAR was no longer valid because the Rottlund proposal involved = =93significant=20 changes=94 to the development studied under the AUAR and that = =93important=20 contamination findings=94 had been made since the 2001 AUAR.

The = MEQB=20 designated the city as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for the=20 petition. In November 2004, the city council held a public hearing = on the=20 merits of the EAW petition. In December 2004, the city council = voted to=20 dismiss the EAW petition on the ground that the 2001 AUAR remained valid = and=20 therefore exempted the proposed project area from further environmental=20 review. In January 2005, the city council (1) amended the = master plan=20 to incorporate the Rottlund project; (2) approved Rottlund=92s = preliminary plat=20 and subdivision; (3) rezoned the area for the Rottlund project to = =93Planned Unit=20 Development with an underlying zoning of B-6, Mixed Use Business Park = District=94;=20 and (4) approved the PUD for the Rottlund project.

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant subsequently sued the city, Rottlund, and respondent Rottlund=20 Homes. The complaint contains four counts: Count I requests = (1) =93a=20 declaratory judgment that the City failed to comply with the = requirements of=20 [the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)], Minn. Stat. = =A7=A7 116D.01,=20 et seq., and its implementing rules, Minn. Rules ch. 4410, and = that the=20 City must either revise the AUAR or prepare an EAW and/or an=20 [environmental-impact statement (EIS)] under the requirements of MEPA=94 = and (2)=20 =93an injunction requiring the City to revise the AUAR or prepare an EAW = and/or an=20 EIS for the [Rottlund project], invalidating any and all governmental = approvals=20 of the [Rottlund project] . . . and enjoining any future City approvals = of the=20 [Rottlund project].=94 Count II alleges that the city=92s = =93approvals for the=20 [Rottlund project were] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion = and/or=20 without legal authority=94 and requests that its approvals =93be set = aside pursuant=20 to . . . Minn. Stat. =A7 462.361.=94 Counts III and = IV allege=20 that the Rottlund project and the city=92s =93associated proposed public = facilities=20 . . . will result or is likely to result in material adverse = effects=20 on protectible natural resources=94 and request =93declaratory and = equitable relief=94=20 under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), Minn. Stat.=20 =A7=A7 116B.01, et seq.

In = May 2005,=20 appellant and the city both moved for summary judgment on counts I and = II, and=20 all respondents moved for summary judgment on counts III and IV. = In June=20 2005, the district court held a hearing on the motions, and in August = 2005, the=20 district court issued an order granting the city summary judgment on = counts I=20 and II and denying respondents summary judgment on counts III and = IV. With=20 regard to count I, the district court concluded that the proposed = development=20 fits within the general outlines of the AUAR assumptions and that as a = matter of=20 law, the city =93could consider the impacts of the changes in deciding = whether a=20 revised AUAR or EWS was required.=94 With regard to count II, the = district=20 court concluded that appellant lacks standing to raise its claims under = Minn.=20 Stat. =A7 462.361 (2004), but that regardless, =93the overall = planning guidance=20 contained in the comprehensive plan is not violated by the = Development.=94 =20 This appeal from the district court=92s grant of summary judgment to the = city on=20 counts I and II follows.

D E C=20 I S I O N

=20 Appellant challenges several of the city=92s zoning decisions involving = the=20 Rottlund project. In Minnesota, =93[a]ny person aggrieved by an = ordinance,=20 rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of = adjustments=20 and appeals acting pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364 may have such = ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order, reviewed by an = appropriate=20 remedy in the district court.=94 Minn. Stat. =A7 462.361, = subd. 1=20 (2004). Here, the district court concluded that appellant is not a = =93person=20 aggrieved=94 and therefore lacked standing to seek review of the = city=92s zoning=20 decisions regarding the Rottlund project and that even if appellant had=20 standing, the city=92s zoning decisions were not arbitrary or = capricious. =20

A. =20 Standing

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant argues that it has standing to challenge the city=92s zoning=20 decisions. Statutory construction is a question of law, which this = court=20 reviews de novo. See Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of=20 Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn. 1998). This court has=20 =93interpret[ed] the term =91person aggrieved=92 in Minn. Stat. = =A7 462.361 to=20 grant standing to a person when an action by the municipality adversely=20 =91operates on his rights of property or bears directly upon his = personal=20 interest.=92=94 Stansell v. City of Northfield, 618 N.W.2d = 814, 819=20 (Minn. App. 2000) (quoting In re Getsug, 290 Minn. 110, 114, 186 = N.W.2d=20 686, 689 (1971)), review denied (Minn. Jan. 26, 2001). In=20 Stansell, residents challenged the city=92s authority to adopt = zoning=20 ordinances that would allow large retail establishments in highway = commercial=20 districts. Id. at 817. But the court in = Stansell=20 concluded that these residents lacked standing because they did not = qualify as=20 =93persons aggrieved,=94 noting that in their complaint, the residents = failed to=20 allege that they have suffered =93any specific injuries as the result of = the city=20 council=92s actions. Instead, they seem to be litigating a matter = of public=20 interest. Indeed, both their complaint and their brief on appeal = claim=20 they are prosecuting this action =91on behalf of themselves and the = State of=20 Minnesota.=92=94 Id. at 818. =93[A] party must allege = =91particularized injuries=92 to his or her property rights or personal=20 interests.=94 Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth = Congregational=20 Church, 672 N.W.2d 13, 18 (Minn. App. 2003). In = Citizens, the=20 court concluded that the appellant organization, which challenged a = city=92s=20 zoning decision to allow a residential facility for disabled persons, = had=20 standing because it articulated particularized injuries to its members = when it=20 alleged that a high concentration of mentally ill or chemically = dependent=20 persons would erode neighborhood diversity, increase crime, and deter = new=20 business development and new families from moving into the area. =20 Id. at 18-19.

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant argues that this case is similar to Citizens and = different from=20 Stansell, stating that it alleged specific injuries to its = members in its=20 complaint, in which appellant claims that a majority of its members are = =93current=20 residents of the neighborhood, visit Langton Lake Park and Langton Lake = on=20 regular basis to enjoy the wildlife, solitude and recreational = opportunities=20 these public amenities provide, and will be directly and adversely = impacted by=20 the defendants=92 actions that are the subject of this lawsuit.=94 = Later in=20 its complaint, appellant states that the city=92s approvals for the = Rottlund=20 project (1) =93will have detrimental effects on the health, safety, = morals,=20 and general welfare of the community as a whole and persons living in = the=20 vicinity of the proposed project=94 and (2) =93adversely impacts = the property=20 rights and personal interests of the members of Friends of Twin = Lakes.=94 =20

Any = particularized injury, regardless if it is shared by the community as a = whole,=20 satisfies the standard set in Citizens for a party to qualify as = a=20 =93person aggrieved.=94 We conclude that because appellant = articulated=20 specific alleged injuries to its members, even though the alleged = injuries might=20 be shared by the general public, appellant is a =93person aggrieved=94 = and therefore=20 has standing under Minn. Stat. =A7 462.361.

B. =20 The City=92s Land-Use Decisions

=93When=20 reviewing municipal land use decisions,=94 this court utilizes =93a = rational basis=20 standard of review.=94 See Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota = Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 179 (Minn. 2006). This court will = =93uphold a=20 city=92s land use decision unless the party challenging that decision = establishes=20 that the decision is unsupported by any rational basis related to = promoting the=20 public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.=94 See = id. at 180=20 (quotations omitted). This court makes an independent examination = of the=20 local authority=92s record and decision, without deference to the = district court=92s=20 review of the same record. City of Barnum v. County of = Carlton, 394=20 N.W.2d 246, 248 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17,=20 1986). But =93even if the city council=92s decision is debatable, = so long as=20 there is a rational basis for what it does, the courts do not = interfere.=94 =20 Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn. = 1981). This=20 court reviews a city=92s interpretation of its own ordinance de = novo. See=20 Frank=92s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, = 608 (Minn.=20 1980).

1. =20 Comprehensive-Plan Amendment

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant argues that Minnesota law requires the city to amend its = comprehensive=20 plan to incorporate the Rottlund project. Specifically, appellant = argues=20 that because =93the City incorporated the [master plan] into its = Comprehensive=20 Plan, it cannot amend the Master Plan without amending the Comprehensive = Plan.=94 The city does not address the facts that it made the = master plan an=20 amendment to its comprehensive plan and, thereafter it amended the = master plan=20 to incorporate the Rottlund project. Instead, the city argues that = the=20 Rottlund project is not inconsistent with the goals of the master plan = and the=20 comprehensive plan, both of which planned for the =93redevelop[ment] = [of] the Twin=20 Lakes area with a mixture of uses, including residential, office and=20 retail.=94

The = record=20 shows that in determining that it did not need to amend its = comprehensive plan=20 to incorporate the Rottlund project into the master plan, the city = relied on an=20 attorney=92s opinion that a master plan is =93nothing more than a = contract, or could=20 be looked at as a site specific =91official control=92 which governs = development in=20 the area . . . , [and] it is not part of a comprehensive plan.=94 = But this=20 ignores the fact that the city made the master plan a part of its = comprehensive=20 plan by amendment. We decline to address the nature of a master = plan that=20 has not been amended into a comprehensive plan because that is not the = issue=20 before us.

A=20 =93comprehensive plan=94 is defined by statute as =93the comprehensive = plan of each=20 local governmental unit described in sections 473.858 to 473.862, and = any=20 amendments to the plan.=94 Minn. Stat. =A7 473.852, subd. = 5 (2004)=20 (emphasis added). No one disputes that here the master plan is an=20 amendment to the city=92s comprehensive plan. Therefore, the = master plan is=20 within the statutory definition of a =93comprehensive plan.=94 Thus, we = conclude=20 that an amendment to the master plan is an amendment to the = comprehensive=20 plan. An amendment to a comprehensive plan requires a two-thirds = vote of=20 all of the members of the city council. Minn. Stat. =A7 462.355, subd. 3 = (2004). The=20 master plan was amended to include the Rottlund project by only a simple = three-to-two majority vote of the city council. The inclusion of = the=20 Rottlund project into the master plan, and therefore into the = comprehensive=20 plan, is ineffective until its inclusion is approved by a two-thirds = vote by the=20 city council.

2. =20 City Shoreland Ordinance

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant argues that the Rottlund project violates the city=92s = shoreland=20 ordinance, claiming that the heights of the proposed condominium = buildings in=20 the Rottlund project exceed the ordinance building-height limitations = and =93the=20 intensity of development will exceed the maximum floor area coverage = allowed by=20 the Ordinance.=94 Appellant argues that the ordinance=92s = provisions=20 regulating planned-unit developments (PUDs) apply to development within = 1,000=20 feet of Langton Lake; the city argues that these provisions apply only = to=20 development within 300 feet of Langton Lake.

The = city=92s=20 shoreland ordinance provides that structures in residential districts = =93shall not=20 exceed thirty feet . . . in height=94 except for =93steeples and = chimneys from=20 churches and institutional uses.=94 Roseville, Minn., City Code=20 =A7 1016.17(G) (1994). But because the Rottlund project area = is zoned=20 as a B-6 mixed-use business park, the building-height restriction, which = applies=20 only to structures in residential districts, does not apply to the = structures in=20 the Rottlund project.

The = city=92s=20 shoreland ordinance also provides that residential and commercial PUDs = are=20 allowed in =93shoreland areas=94 but that =93[t]he maximum floor area = coverage of the=20 site shall be thirty percent (30%) . . . within the overlay = district.=94 =20 Id. =A7 1016.24 (1994). =93Overlay district=94 is not = defined in the=20 city=92s code. The city code defines =93Shoreland District=94 as = =93[a]ll land=20 meeting the definition of shoreland adjacent to the public water = listed=20 in Section 1016.13 of this Chapter,=94 which includes Langton = Lake. =20 Id. =A7=A7 1016.12(A)(2) (1994) and 1016.13 (1994) (emphasis = added). =93Shoreland=94 means =93[l]and located within one = thousand feet . . .=20 from the ordinary high water level of the lakes classified in section = 1016.13 of=20 this chapter.=94 Id. =A7 1016.05 (1994). = =93Shoreland=20 management district=94 is defined as =93[l]and located within three = hundred feet=20 . . . from the ordinary high water level.=94 Id. = The=20 ordinance provides that =93[t]he =91shoreland area=92 for = . . . [Langton=20 Lake] shall be as defined in this Chapter and shown on the Official = Zoning=20 Map.=94 Id. =A7 1016.13. The city zoning map = indicates that the=20 overlay-district boundary is 300 feet for =93City Shoreland.=94 = City of=20 Roseville, Water Mgmt. Overlay Dists. (map) (Feb. 1999). This = zoning map=20 is part of the city=92s code. Id. =A7 1003.04 (1959). = The city=20 argues that the city has a =93long established practice of applying the = 300 foot=20 requirement=94 and that this practice is entitled to deference. A = city=92s=20 interpretation of its own ordinance is not determinative but =93is = entitled to=20 some weight.=94 Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass=92n v. City of = Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984).

We = conclude=20 that the city=92s ordinance is ambiguous as to whether the regulated = shoreland=20 area is within 300 feet or 1,000 feet of the lake and that because the = rules of=20 construction require that the code be construed in favor of the owner of = the=20 land at issue, the 300-foot designation found on the city zoning map=20 prevails. See Frank=92s Nursery Sales, 295 N.W.2d at = 608=20 (providing that =93zoning ordinances should be construed strictly = against the city=20 and in favor of the property owner=94). It does not appear that = the=20 residential and commercial development in the Rottlund project is = located in the=20 area within 300 feet of Langton Lake. Therefore, the city=92s = conclusion=20 that the Rottlund project does not violate the city=92s shoreland = ordinance is=20 reasonable. See White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. = v. City=20 of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1982) (=93The setting = aside of=20 routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances = in which=20 the City=92s decision has no rational basis. Except in such cases, = it is the=20 duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate = deference to=20 civil authorities in the performance of their duties.=94).

3. =20 B-6 Zoning Designation

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant argues that the Rottlund project is inconsistent with a B-6 = zoning=20 designation. The city code describes a B-6 mixed-use business park = as =93a=20 geographically identifiable area containing a consistent architectural = mix of=20 office, office-laboratory, office-showroom-warehousing, biotechnical,=20 biomedical, high-tech software and hardware production uses with support = services such as limited retail, health, fitness, lodging and = multifamily=20 housing.=94 Roseville, Minn., City Code =A7 1005.07(A) = (1995). This=20 same code provision also lists permitted uses, including =93retail = sales=94 and=20 =93multi-family housing.=94 Id. =A7 1005.07(C). = The city code=20 does not specify any maximum or minimum land-use ratio for the different = types=20 of permitted uses within a designated B-6 zone. And although the = city=92s=20 comprehensive plan does not recommend big-box retail, the comprehensive = plan=20 does not prohibit such retail stores. Generally, this court = =93narrowly=20 construe[s] any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a = property=20 owner.=94 See Mendota Golf, 708 N.W.2d at 172. = Therefore, any=20 =93restrictions on land use must be clearly expressed.=94 = Id. =20 (quotation omitted). Because the B-6 zoning designation does not = prohibit=20 retail, including big-box retail, or multi-family housing, or provide = any=20 restriction on the amount of these land uses in proportion to other = allowed land=20 uses, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for the city to determine = that=20 the Rottlund project, which includes retail, multi-family, and office = land uses,=20 is consistent with the B-6 zoning designation.

II.

&nbs= p;=20 Appellant also argues that the city=92s dismissal of appellant=92s = petition for an=20 EAW should be reversed because (1) the 2001 AUAR is not a valid = substitute form=20 of environmental review of the Rottlund project for the Twin Lakes area; = (2) the=20 city =93deferred environmental review to future proceedings=94; and (3) = appellant=20 provided =93material evidence that there may be significant = environmental effects=20 associated with the [Rottlund] project.=94

When=20 reviewing actions by a governmental body, this court focuses on the = proceedings=20 before the decision-making body and not on the findings of the district=20 court. See Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of = Minneapolis, 502=20 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn. 1993). This rule applies when reviewing a = district=20 court=92s summary judgment affirming a governmental body=92s negative = declaration=20 regarding the need for an EIS. Iron Rangers for Responsible = Ridge=20 Action v. Iron Range Res., 531 N.W.2d 874, 879 (Minn. App. 1995), = review=20 denied (Minn. July 28, 1995). We review a =93governmental = body=92s=20 determination on the basis of whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or = capricious.=94 See Carl Bolander & Sons, 502 N.W.2d at = 207. =20 A decision is arbitrary and capricious if the governmental body:

(a) relied=20 on factors not intended by the legislature; (b) entirely failed to = consider=20 an important aspect of the problem; (c) offered an explanation that runs = counter=20 to the evidence; or (d) the decision is so implausible that it could not = be=20 explained as a difference in view or the result of the agency=92s = expertise.

White v.=20 Minn. Dep=92t of Natural Res., 567 N.W.2d 724, 730 (Minn. App. 1997) = (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997). = This=20 court will reverse a governmental body=92s decisions =93when they = reflect an error=20 of law, the findings are arbitrary and capricious, or the findings are=20 unsupported by substantial evidence.=94 Id. (quotation=20 omitted). If the governmental body =93engages in reasoned = decisionmaking,=94=20 this court may affirm, =93even though it may have reached a different = conclusion=20 had it been the factfinder.=94 Id. (quotation = omitted). But=20 this court may intervene =93where there is a combination of danger = signals which=20 suggest the [governmental body] has not taken a hard look at the salient = problems and the decision lacks articulated standards and reflective=20 findings.=94 Id. (quotations omitted).

&nbs= p;=20 An environmental-impact statement (EIS) must be completed for projects = that have=20 the =93potential for significant environmental effects.=94 Minn. = Stat.=20 =A7 116D.04, subd. 2a (2004); see also Minn. R. 4410.1700, = subp. 1=20 (2005). An environmental-assessment worksheet (EAW) is a =93brief = document=20 prepared in worksheet format which is designed to rapidly assess the=20 environmental effects which may be associated with a proposed project=94 = and is=20 intended to help determine if a proposed project will require an = EIS. =20 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 1 (2005). Minnesota statutes, however, = authorize=20 the MEQB to =93identify alternative forms of environmental review which = will=20 address the same issues and utilize similar procedures as an [EIS] in a = more=20 timely or more efficient manner to be utilized in lieu of an = [EIS].=94 Minn.=20 Stat. =A7 116D.04, subd. 4a (2004). The MEQB created by rule = the=20 alternative-urban-areawide review (AUAR), which may substitute for an = EIS. =20 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 1 (2005). An AUAR =93must provide for a = level of=20 analysis comparable to that of an EIS for impacts typical of urban = residential,=20 commercial, warehousing, and light industrial development and associated = infrastructure.=94 Id., subp. 4 (2005). For an AUAR = =93[t]o=20 remain valid as a substitute form of review . . . , [it] must be = revised=94=20 if any one of several circumstances applies, five of which appellant = argues=20 exist here:

B. =20 A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase = in=20 development over the levels assumed in the environmental analysis = document.

C.=20 Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels = assumed in the=20 environmental analysis document.

D.=20 Development within any subarea delineated in the environmental analysis = document=20 would exceed the maximum levels assumed for that subarea in the = document.

E.=20 A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to = service=20 development in the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on = the=20 environment.

.=20 . . .

G.=20 New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background = conditions=20 used in the analysis presented in the environmental analysis document = are=20 substantially in error and that environmental impacts have consequently = been=20 substantially underestimated.

Minn. R.=20 4410.3610, subp. 7 (2005). Appellant argues that, therefore, = =93the [2001]=20 AUAR cannot serve as a substitute form of environmental review for the = Rottlund=20 project and the City must either prepare an EAW or amend the = AUAR.=94 There=20 is no Minnesota caselaw interpreting or applying subpart 7.

=20 An AUAR must be revised if =93[a] comprehensive plan amendment is = proposed that=20 would allow an increase in development over the levels assumed in the=20 environmental analysis document.=94 Id., subp. 7.B. = Because we=20 have already concluded that the inclusion of the Rottlund project into = the=20 master plan, which is a part of the comprehensive plan, is essentially a = proposal to amend the comprehensive plan, subpart 7.B. requires the city = to=20 amend its 2001 AUAR if the Rottlund project would allow an increase in=20 development over the development levels assumed in the 2001 = AUAR.

Here, the=20 development proposed in the Rottlund project does not exceed the = development=20 levels assumed for the entire Twin Lakes area in the 2001 AUAR. = The record=20 shows that for the total 170 acres in the Twin Lakes area, the 2001 AUAR = contemplated a maximum of 919 residential units and 618,319 square feet = of=20 retail; the Rottlund project consists of 730 residential units and = 305,363=20 square feet of retail.

But the = development=20 proposed in the Rottlund project does exceed the development levels = assumed in=20 the 2001 AUAR for the 80 acres making up blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and = 8. The=20 record shows that for these 80 acres, (1) the AUAR studied a maximum of = 358=20 units of housing and the Rottlund project provides for 730 units of = housing; (2)=20 the AUAR studied 240,000 square feet of retail development and the = Rottlund=20 project provides for 305,363 square feet of retail development; and (3) = the AUAR=20 studied 1,341,626 square feet of office development and the Rottlund = project=20 provides for 221,150 square feet of office development. MEQB = explains in=20 its Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules that, when = defining=20 development scenarios for an AUAR, an =93RGU should keep in mind the = fundamental=20 principal that if actual development =96 in total or in any subarea =96 = exceeds the=20 =91maximum development=92 scenario, the AUAR is invalid as a substitute = for an EAW=20 and EIS; therefore, the RGU should include one that represents the = maximum=20 development expected or allowed.=94 Envtl. Quality Bd., Guide = to=20 Minnesota Environmental Review Rules 16 (1998). Because the = Rottlund=20 project, if incorporated by amendment into the comprehensive plan, would = allow=20 an increase in development over the development levels assumed in the = 2001 AUAR=20 for the 80 acres making up blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, we conclude that = the=20 city must revise the 2001 AUAR or, in the alternative, complete an EAW = to=20 determine if the project = will require=20 an EIS. See Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 1; Minn. R. = 4410.3610, subp.=20 7.B.

The city = does not=20 dispute that the Rottlund project contains higher levels of residential = and=20 retail development and a lower level of office development than the = levels for=20 these different types of development studied for this 80-acre area in = the 2001=20 AUAR. But the city argues, and the district court agreed, that a=20 difference in the levels of the development types alone does not trigger = the=20 need for further environmental review; rather the focus is whether the = proposed=20 development affects the environment differently from the development = studied=20 under the AUAR. And the city argues that the proposed development = in the=20 Rottlund project for the 80 acres poses =93a lesser environmental impact = than=20 contemplated in the AUAR=94 for the same 80 acres, supporting its = conclusion by=20 stating that the proposed development has =931) less square footage of = building=20 space; 2) less impervious surfaces; 3) more green space; 4) = inclusion of=20 infiltration and treatment ponds; and 5) less traffic and less = traffic-related=20 impact (noise, light, air pollution).=94 Appellant argues that the = decrease=20 in office development cannot be assumed to offset the environmental = impact=20 caused by the increase in retail and residential development but that = the=20 impacts of each type of development must be considered separately. =

To = support=20 their positions, both appellant and the city rely on statements made by = Gregg=20 Downing, an environmental-review coordinator for the MEQB, in two = e-mails. =20 But Downing=92s e-mails are not entitled to deference as a formal rule = or agency=20 adjudication. See Martin ex rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester, = 642=20 N.W.2d 1, 21-22 (Minn. 2002) (refusing to defer to agency letters and = directives=20 that include interpretation of statute); see also Christensen v. = Harris=20 County, 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S. Ct. 1655, 1662 (2000) (holding = that agency=20 opinion letter is not entitled to deference because it lacks force of=20 law). Therefore, we decline to defer to Downing=92s statements in = his=20 e-mails.

Because the=20 language of Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 7.B., providing that an AUAR must = be=20 revised if a comprehensive-plan amendment is proposed that would allow = =93an=20 increase in development over the levels assumed=94 in the AUAR, is = unambiguous and=20 because nothing in the rule=92s language suggests that =93levels=94 = refers to=20 environmental impacts, we decline to read that antecedent into the = rule. =20 See Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, = 274=20 (Minn. 1995) (stating that courts should not read into statute words or = meaning=20 that are not included in its language).

Because we=20 conclude that the 2001 AUAR must be revised under Minn. R. 4410.3610, = subp.=20 7.B., we do not need to address appellant=92s remaining arguments.

&nbs= p;=20 Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

&nbs= p;=20