NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman will be part of a contingent of NFL staff conducting a public forum Oct. 28 at Spreckels Theater. (David Brooks)

The first of two possibly pivotal opportunities for San Diego officials to convince top NFL brass that the Chargers should stay in San Diego is scheduled for Tuesday.

A group of NFL officials is coming to San Diego so local stadium negotiators can outline progress they’ve made on environmental approvals, explain how city voters could approve a stadium by the NFL’s January deadline and answer questions about how financing would work.

A city spokesman said San Diego officials also plan to seek guidance on an Aug. 10 presentation regarding local stadium progress they are scheduled to make in Chicago to the NFL’s relocation committee — a group of six team owners overseeing possible franchise moves to Los Angeles.


The day after that presentation, all 32 NFL owners are scheduled to meet in Chicago to discuss how to handle relocations to the Los Angeles area, where the Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams are working on stadium projects.

The city spokesman, Matt Awbrey, said Tuesday’s meeting will also be an unusual chance for local officials to have a robust discussion with NFL leaders, including executive vice president Eric Grubman, who is overseeing the relocation process.

“We expect there to be a lot of listening,” Awbrey said. “It will be an opportunity to hear directly from the NFL.”

Mayor Kevin Faulconer, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and county Supervisor Ron Roberts didn’t attend a preliminary meeting with NFL officials in New York City on June 23. In that meeting, San Diego’s lead negotiator — New York attorney Chris Melvin — and city planning officials briefly outlined their environmental strategy.


Grubman, who attended the June 23 meeting, said NFL officials also plan to do a lot of listening this Tuesday. He characterized the meeting as a “progress report” on San Diego’s efforts similar to an update he received in St. Louis on July 16.

“Since it is just an outline, and since neither we or the Chargers will have seen anything in advance, there will be no negotiations,” Grubman said. “Perhaps just questions and answers so that we leave with a complete understanding of the outline and the timing.”

Many of those questions and answers will probably focus on an accelerated environmental impact report San Diego launched in mid-June so that a public vote on a stadium could occur in January, just before NFL officials are scheduled to make decisions on Los Angeles.

The Chargers walked away from negotiations at that time based on concerns that the city can’t possibly complete a thorough analysis of a stadium project by October, the deadline for calling a January special election on the stadium.


Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani has called the city’s approach reckless and fraught with potential legal problems.

City officials agree that such studies typically take 12 to 18 months, but say they’ve hired extra personnel to accelerate the process and that replacing a stadium with a similar structure on the same site is easier to analyze.

Since San Diego’s last meeting with the NFL five weeks ago, the City Council has approved $2.1 million for consultants and experts to make the ongoing, expedited analysis possible.

The city also held a required “scoping” meeting on July 15 and plans to release a draft of the document for public comment in mid-August, making City Council approval of a ballot measure possible by mid-October.


That scenario requires cooperation from the Chargers on negotiation of a stadium financing plan before that City Council vote, something that seems unlikely without prodding from the NFL after the August meeting in Chicago.

Grubman said no major decisions are expected in August.

“These things take time and we expect to be working on the L.A. proposals and home market proposals for the next several months,” he said. “We do not expect any votes in August or anytime soon.”

In addition to an environmental update, Grubman said he hopes to hear details on Tuesday about the financing plan San Diego has been crafting while waiting for the Chargers to resume negotiations.


“They also have been working on putting together an outline for the overall financing of a project,” he said. “Assuming that is correct, they would update us on the timeline and they would go through their thinking on a financial plan.”

Awbrey, the city spokesman, said San Diego negotiators would be prepared to answer any financial questions the NFL has, with help from the financial firm hired to craft the stadium financing plan.

“Citigroup will be there to answer financial questions, and we will reiterate that we are prepared to negotiate a fair financial agreement with the Chargers should they return to the table,” Awbrey said.

City officials say their financing plan, which hasn’t been publicly released, will include some — but not all — of the revenue sources suggested in May by a volunteer task force Mayor Faulconer appointed last winter.


That $1.4 billion proposal includes $200 million from the NFL, $300 million from the Chargers and $173 million in bonds secured by future rent from the Chargers.

The county and city would contribute $121 million each in bonds secured with future payments from each of their general funds, and $231 million would come from personal seat licenses and ticket and parking surcharges.

Another $43 million would come from stadium rent increases for the San Diego State Aztecs football team, the Holiday Bowl and the Poinsettia Bowl.

The final element of the task force proposal, $225 million from selling 75 acres of the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site to a developer, will definitely not be part of the city’s final plan, officials say.


Including that money would require the environmental analysis to consider additional development next to the stadium, lengthening the process and making a January public vote impossible.

Some environmental attorneys have said the city can’t eliminate ancillary development from the environmental analysis.

They include Cory Briggs, who has successfully sued the city several times, and Hermosa Beach firm Chatten-Brown & Carstens, which recently sent the city a 34-page letter contending ancillary development is a foreseeable consequence of building the new stadium.

City officials disagree and say they will have plenty of revenue without selling land to a developer, partly because the new stadium is projected to cost $1.1 billion, $300 million less than the revenue suggested by the task force.


And the city also has other potential revenue streams, such as $700 million in remaining capacity to sell lease-revenue bonds, where the city raises money by using city buildings as collateral for bond sales.

Awbrey said details about the time and place of Tuesday’s meeting hadn’t been worked out by Friday afternoon. Whenever the meeting takes place, Awbrey said San Diego officials plan to hold a media briefing afterward.