Opinion: Flagstaff Road — a brief history


Because of my interest in the charter issues around the Pro Cycling Challenge bike race, I did some research into the history of the Flagstaff Summit Road, the half-mile spur from the main Flagstaff Road at Realization Point to the Amphitheater, which is the proposed finish for the race. I believe what follows is accurate, but I am not a professional historian. Information came from the City of Boulder’s Central Records, the Carnegie Library, former Parks and Open Space board members, Mary Reilly-McNellan’s “History of Boulder Mountain Parks,” and other sources.
The city first obtained land in the Flagstaff area from the federal government around 1898. The only road from Boulder went up Gregory Canyon on the north side of the creek, and came out about where the dirt road now descends from the Realization Point parking area. By 1906, the road had been abandoned. Per the 1906 newspaper article, “(County) Commissioner Hoover admitted that he would not dare to walk down the road at night, much less think of driving down.” I suspect it connected to the top of Flagstaff via a track up the ridge from Realization Point.
A citizens group pushed for building a new road up from Arapahoe, but in the end, it started at Baseline. Per an article from 1926, the county commissioners had committed $10,000 per year to re-do the upper part of this new road; the section from Baseline to the stone shelter (near the Flagstaff House) was still “useable.” The article stated, “All three commissioners felt that Boulder is entitled to some work on this road in consideration of the amount of taxes paid by the city.” The road dedication occurred in October 1926 at the summit flagpole, erected in 1918.
A newspaper story in 1947 entitled, “City’s Portion Of Flagstaff Road To Be Improved” stated, “(City crews]) will blade Chapman Drive from its lower end at Blanchard’s lodge (now the Red Lion Inn) in Boulder canon to the “saddle” or Kossler junction on Flagstaff (now called Realization Point) and then to the top of the mountain…The route from Boulder up to the east side of Flagstaff to the saddle is a county road.” Per an article from 1964, the county commissioners were participating with the city in doing more roadwork. “Commissioner Joe Smith explained that up to the junction, the Flagstaff Road, while it crosses a Boulder City mountain park, is a county road. The section above the saddle to the top of the mountain is strictly in the city’s domain.” Apparently the city has managed, maintained, and improved the Summit Road for over 60 years.
A detailed survey of the main Flagstaff road up to the saddle is included in the county’s “Road Book” ; the latest entry is from 1929. But the description of the Summit Road is inaccurate; their map shows it starting north, not northeast, and ending west, not east, of the true Flagstaff summit.
In 1998, the city started a process to integrate Boulder’s Mountain Parks, including Flagstaff, with Open Space. In 2000, the land was transferred to what was renamed Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. A critical part of this was the acceptance by the Open Space Board of Trustees of the 1999 Mountain Parks Resource Preservation and Visitor Master Plan, confirming that those uses permitted by Mountain Parks at that time, like weddings and group picnics, would not violate charter restrictions on the use of Open Space and so would continue.
Per Tuesday’s Camera, the Pro Cycling Challenge will be selling $500 VIP “hospitality” box seats at the finish at the top of Flagstaff, including alcohol, TV screens, private restrooms, shuttle service, etc. This seems like it would need an “exclusive license or permit,” requiring approval by the Open Space Board of Trustees under Charter Section 177, as could the race itself where it passes on Summit Road. And all this seems to conflict with Section 176’s restriction on the use of Open Space for “passive recreation.” According to what I’ve heard, the city administration’s position is still vague as to who owns the Summit Road, and they may suggest that no exclusive permits be issued. So the council’s long-overdue public hearing on June 5 should be very interesting!


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more