Scott,

Since you cited law in your question, we will provide more substance to that law.
As you wrote:
A project description must include reasonably foreseeable future expansion. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; CEQA Guidelines,
SS15126: An EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or
other action if 1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project;.
So, what is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project?
Generally, a future action or second activity is considered a consequence of the initial project or
first activity if it is an intended or necessary first step toward future development, or the
project legally compels or practically presumes completion of the future action. Banning
Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1223 (2012).
1.

First Step toward Future Action.

A project can be a first step requiring inclusion and analysis of reasonably foreseeable future
development actions when those actions are subsequent stages of or catalyzed by the reviewed
action. Id. For example, in Bozung, the agencys annexation of land was the first step toward
development of the land. 13 Cal. 3d at 279. The annexation was the first domino to fall in a
causally-related series of events to follow. Paulek, 231 Cal. App. 4th at 46.
Another example of a first step case is Laurel Heights. In that case, a project involving
university research facilities moving into part of a newly purchased building had to be reviewed
with plans to later occupy the remainder of the building, once existing leases expired. 47 Cal. 3d
at 396-97. The university had announced its intention to use the entire building, and thus, the
future expansion and general type of future use was reasonably foreseeable. Id. at 396. The
second activity was a future expansion of the first and would change the scope of the first
activitys impacts. Sierra Club, 128 Cal. App. 4th at 698.
2.

Legally Compels or Practically Presumes Completion of the Future Action.

When the project being reviewed legally compels or practically presumes completion of
another action, or when one activity is a necessary prerequisite to or part of another activity,
then the activities must be reviewed together. Banning Ranch, 211 Cal. App. 4th at 1223. For
example, an EIR for a reclamation plan should have included review of the mining operations
that created the need for the plan. Nelson v. County of Kern, 190 Cal. App. 4th 252, 272 (2010).
And an EIR for a residential development should have included the sewer expansion necessary

to serve the development. Tuolomne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of
Sonora, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1231 (2007).
As the Mayors Office stated to you:
The CSAGs suggested plan included ancillary development but the City/County plan does not,
and therefore it would not be appropriate for the EIR to study ancillary development. The
City/County plan does not rely on ancillary development for a stadium to be financed.
The CSAG report was a series of recommendations prepared by private individuals. The plan
the City/County team is developing is based on negotiations and discussions with the Chargers
and the NFL. Just because a recommendation is in the CSAG report does not make it part of the
City/County plan.
Heres our offices statement on that:
The nine people on CSAG did not speak for the City and had no legal connection to the City.
The City Attorney repeatedly made that clear; he even refused to meet privately with them
because he could not give them legal advice as they had no legal connection to the City. Their
ideas for ancillary development do not make ancillary development reasonably foreseeable.
Hope this helps.
Gerry