During the approval process for the 2013 street closure associated with the Dew Downtown Urban Ski and Snowboarding Event, Council conditioned approval upon investigation into two items—is there another location in town, and could someone other than the City perform this event?
 
To answer the first question, our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) group in IT was asked to research all City streets that had the following criteria:

• The slope of the street must a 5% or higher; and
• The street segment must be longer than 500 feet; and
• It cannot eliminate business or residential access.

 
This process revealed 18 possible sites in addition to the current location on North San Francisco.  An overview map and a map of each possible location are attached.  The following is a complete list of the possibilities:

1. Coconino Community College
2. Desilva Avenue
3. E. Butler Ave near Foxglenn Park
4. E. Butler Ave Near Sinagua Middle School
5. E. Forest Avenue Near NACET
6. E. Soliere off Fourth Street
7. East of Hospital Properties
8. Empire Avenue north of Mall
9. Forest Meadows near Harkins Theatre
10. Fourth Street near Mount Eldon Middle School
11. Fourth Street north of Butler
12. Huntington Drive near Wal-Mart
13. N. Creekside Drive near Fort Valley Road
14. North Leroux Street
15. North Switzer Canyon Drive
16. North Turquoise Drive
17. NORTH SAN FRANCISCO (current site)
18. South lone Tree between Pine Canyon and CCC Entrance
19. Lone Tree adjacent to I-40

 
After being presented with these sites, staff reviewed the locations for additional criteria including public parking, viewing, location for vendors, and access or traffic issues.  With these conditions, the following sites were eliminated:

A. Coconino Community College - The site has only 500 parking spaces, all of which are located in the parking lot.  The downtown site makes arrangements for 2,000 parking spaces. There is an alternative access point, but it would definitely create a choke point in traffic flow into and out of the campus. 
B. Desilva Avenue – Would block the only access to apartment complex. All parking is private lots with some operational conflicts (i.e., hospital and shopping center).
D. East Butler – Would require a full shutdown of Butler from Fourth Street east to Sinagua Heights. Good quantity of parking at FUSD Administration Office, Sinagua, Knoles and Foxglenn although public would have to navigate through Sinagua to get to parking on east side.  Butler is an east-west arterial.  Closing it would significantly impact traffic flow.  Most importantly, Fire Station 4 on Butler would have limited western access which is a critical part of its coverage area.
F. Soliere – no parking
G. East of Hospital –all private parking including the lot of the emergency room. Quick access to medical care if injuries though there would be difficult access to the course.  Road is shown as public but is actually gated by an unknown entity.
H . Empire – no parking and an intersection. Difficult for viewers to access as the entrance from Hwy. 89 would be shut off. Start of course adjacent to Hwy. 89 causing safety concerns.
I. Forest Meadows by Harkins – all private parking. Harkins parking is big, but also running a business that fills the lot. Some office complex parking possible with permission.
J. 4^th Street & MEMS. Parking at MEMS could not be accessed because blocked by course. Residents on east side of course could not access their driveways and alleys to east or residences not passable or accessible by houses. Good parking if we can get permission at Catholic Church, East Branch Library/CCC, Puente de Hozo, North Fourth Street churches.
K. 4^th Street North of Butler – Would require full closure of Fourth Street. FUSD Administration parking is limited. Sinagua Parking far. Traffic access has difficult detour through Sinagua.
M. N Creekside – No parking and a long detour for residents. Could have 180 backup issues similar to peak snow play days.
O. North Switzer Canyon – insufficient parking
P. N. Turquoise – insufficient parking
R. S. Lone Tree by Pine Canyon – insufficient parking
S. Lone tree & I-40 – possible parking at NAU and Kinsey, but complete shutdown of Lone Tree requires long detour and access issues.
 
This leaves five (5) sites, one of which is the current site.  A second site is the original proposed site (N. Leroux) in which adjacent property owners strongly objected to.  An analysis of the three remaining sites:
 
Site C - E. Butler Avenue near Foxglenn Park - Good parking at Foxglenn and Knoles a bit farther.  Complete closure of Butler would be problematic as it is the primarily east-west arterial.  However, could close southern (eastbound) lanes and make northern (westbound) lanes two-way.  Traffic and safety issues a concern.  All viewers need to be on South side of road. Vendor booths and festival in Foxglenn.

Site E – East Forest Avenue near NACET.  Decent parking at Buffalo Park and possibly at City property where materials are stored.  Booths likely located on the Buffalo Park side.  Would recommend complete shut-down of Forest to ensure safety.  This creates traffic flow issues in City as a primary east-west corridor with limited alternative access; however, could route through Caven development on south side of Forest.  Alternative is to shut down northern three lanes and reduce traffic to two lanes east and west on south side of the road. Sidewalk and land on north side provide viewing.
  
Site L – Huntington Near Wal-Mart. Parking is challenging but perhaps possible.  Parking at Aquaplex available.  Parking at Gore, Horizon Moving and Storage and at Wal-Mart all require permission.  Closure of Huntington would require significant detour but available. Viewing good and space at bottom of course for booths.
 
This provides an analysis of alternative sites.  While these are possible, the steering committee, which consists of staff, sponsors, and an event promoter, recommend staying on the San Francisco site.  The uniqueness of the event is the “urban” aspect of skiing between buildings, on pavement, with close proximity of shops.  The economic vitality aspect of the event is best achieved with close proximity of stores and restaurants to capture spectators’ expenditures.  The three alternative sites do not offer these features.
 

As to the second question, can a private group run this event, staff offers the following information.  Review of the expenses, operations and logistics of this event leads us to say yes, but not without City participation.  The ability to move snow in a timely manner and at the scale necessary is a sizable barrier to entry.  The cost for a private event sponsor to hire the size and number of pieces of equipment is not recoverable through sponsorships and entry fees.  That in-kind contribution would be critical to a private firm operating the event.  The amount of in-kind staff time associated with event coordination and promotion is significant.  Currently, this is absorbed by the Events program in Recreation and then Recreation, CVB, Parks, and Streets staff the week of the event.  Lastly, there are pros and cons associated with liability insurance.  A private non-profit may have trouble acquiring the insurance necessary for such an event.  The City pays no additional money for this event, but has a full risk management program in place to help reduce the cost and a significant premium that already covers events.  On the flip side, the propensity to make claims against the City with the perception of “big pockets” is probably higher than a small firm.  Lastly, the procurement issues might be somewhat tricky in transferring a City event to a single promoter.  These would still need to be worked out.
 
However, if the City was able to offer a partnership for these services, staff believes a private event sponsor might be capable and willing to present the event.  If Council is interested in offering the partnership, staff will further explore the logistics of a transfer.  However, it would likely not be possible in advance of the February 2014 event. 

Lastly, the event is contingent upon the street closure.  Everything originates from what to-date has been a very tenuous approval.  This lends to less stability in the event and more scrambled planning.  Staff will be requesting a street closure approval for the next three years.