City Council Meeting Date: June 16, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
City Administrator
From: Mikayla Schmidt, AICP, City Planner
Scott Wopata, Community Development Director
Dave Bennett, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Title
Consider a Citizen Petition for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to be Completed for the Proposed Harvest Hills Second Addition Development.
Body
Action Requested:
Staff recommend a motion to approve the Resolution to deny the citizen Petition for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Harvest Hills Second Addition development.
Summary Report:
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process related to this agenda item before the Council is a quasi-judicial decision, rather than the legislative matters the Council typically considers. In this role, Councilmembers must base their decision on the record, applicable ordinance standards, and evidence presented through the public process. Councilmembers are encouraged to avoid ex parte communications-direct discussions with the applicant or interested parties outside of the public meeting-as outlined in the City’s Ex Parte Communications Policy (see attachment). If such communications do occur, they should be disclosed on the record at the meeting. Maintaining this approach helps ensure fairness, transparency, and the legal defensibility of the Council’s decision.
By letter provided via email, from Sarah Lerohl, Environmental Review Program Administrator with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”), the City of Northfield (“City”) received a petition for an environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”), dated May 29, 2026 (the “Petition”), for the proposed Harvest Hills Second Addition development. The Petition has been signed by over 100 individuals and has been submitted pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1100.
MN Rules include categories of projects and thresholds that trigger a mandatory EAW. An EAW must be prepared for a residential development adding 100-150 units of housing (depending on whether they are attached or unattached). Harvest Hills Second Addition is proposing 71 units. The proposed development does not meet criteria for a required EAW. Staff reviewed if an EAW was mandatory at the pre-application phase of the preliminary plat discussions held with the developer and determined the proposed development did not meet the criteria requiring an EAW. A copy of the mandatory categories is attached for reference. Additionally, City Council reviewed the thresholds for a traffic related study in response to public comments when reviewing the preliminary plat on May 5, 2026. Council determined that a traffic study was not necessary and approved the preliminary plat. Staff continue to evaluate pedestrian and traffic activity in the neighborhood to inform future mitigation strategies.
The MN Rules also include a petition process, whereby a petition is first submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) who determines the “responsible government unit” (RGU), forwards the petition to the RGU and the RGU then must make a determination as to whether to order the preparation of an EAW or not by applying the standard set forth in the Rules. The City of Northfield was determined to be the RGU in this case, and the determination on the need for an EAW must now be made by the City Council. The Petition submitted to the EQB, and subsequently the City, is provided as an attachment.
The EQB provides “A Citizen’s Guide: An Introduction to Environmental Review” (linked in the attachments) and explains:
The EAW document is designed to provide a brief analysis and overview of the potential environmental impacts for a specific project and to help the RGU determine whether an EIS is necessary. Of the three environmental review documents, EAWs are usually the shortest at 15-50 pages in length. The EAW consists of a standard list of 31 questions and is meant to set out the basic facts of the project’s environmental impacts. It usually takes about 2-3 months for a project to complete the entire EAW process. The EAW is not meant to approve or disapprove a project, but is simply a source of information to guide other approvals and permitting decisions. (p. 4)
Attorney Hood has also provided a memo with basic EAW legal guidance to the Council, which is attached for reference.
Procedural Considerations:
The City Council may choose to grant the Petition and thereby order the developer to prepare an EAW on the Project. The Council may also deny the Petition and not require the preparation of an EAW. Staff recommend the Council approve the resolution to deny the Petition and not require the preparation of an EAW.
In making this decision, the City Council must order the preparation of an EAW if the material evidence presented by the Petitioners demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The City Council must deny the Petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. In considering the evidence, the Council must take into account the factors listed in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, subp. 7, which provides as follows:
Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered:
A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
B. cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;
C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and
D. 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.
The City Council must make specific findings of fact of its decision based upon the above criteria on the need for an EAW. The decision must be made within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the Petition (May 29, 2026) making the decision due by June 19, 2026. There is an option to extend making a decision another 15 working days as well. The timeline of dates is listed below.
The EQB and Petitioner’s representative then has to be notified of the decision within 5 working days of the decision.
City Plans & Policies Relevance:
Council Policy 1.10 Ex Parte Communication - See attachment hyperlink to the policy.
As noted in the first paragraph of the background memo, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process related to this agenda item before the Council is a quasi-judicial decision, rather than the legislative matters the Council typically considers. In this role, Councilmembers must base their decision on the record, applicable ordinance standards, and evidence presented through the public process. Councilmembers are encouraged to avoid ex parte communications-direct discussions with the applicant or interested parties outside of the public meeting-as outlined in the City’s Ex Parte Communications Policy. If such communications do occur, they should be disclosed on the record at the meeting. Maintaining this approach helps ensure fairness, transparency, and the legal defensibility of the Council’s decision.
Alternative Options:
The City Council could adopt the resolution as written, or could adopt with modifications to the findings if they are specified by Council in their action.
If the City Council determines an EAW will be required for the project, it is recommended that the developer hire a consultant to complete the EAW and submit it to the City, and that the City hire a separate consultant to act as an extension of staff to review and process the EAW.
Financial Impacts:
If the City Council grants the Petition and orders the preparation of an EAW, staff would direct the developer to contract with a consultant to complete an EAW to submit to the City. The estimated cost for preparing an EAW for the project is not known but would be the responsibility of the developer.
Staff would contract with a separate consultant to serve as an extension of staff to review and finalize the document, distribute, and prepare responses to agency and public comments as well as a record of decision for the EAW. The estimated cost for a consultant the City would hire is between $8,000-15,000. The City’s fee schedule includes an application fee and escrow up to $5,000 for EAW’s. Any cost for the review of the EAW review above $5,000 would likely be cost the City would incur. Therefore, we estimate a potential $3,000 to $7,000 cost to the City for review of this EAW, if ordered.
Tentative Timelines:
May 29, 2026: Citizen Petition received
June 16, 2026: City Council reviews and makes decision on the Petition
June 19, 2026: The City Council must make a decision on the Petition to either grant or deny/dismiss the same with findings supporting the decision (for the first 15 working days)
July 7, 2026: Harvest Hills Second Addition final plat (must happen after decision on
EAW petition)
July 10, 2026: Final EAW decision date if extended an additional 15 working days
The EAW process can take at least 90-120 days after an EAW document is completed and submitted to the City by the developer. The EAW process would result in delaying the final plat until the EAW is completed.