Committee reviews Chapter 6 trails element, residents press to remove backyard trail mapping

The Woodland Hills Community Development Committee reviewed Chapter 6 of the draft general plan on Oct. 20, 2025, focusing on trail alignment along Woodland Hills Drive and how the city should reflect a separate trail study that is evaluating alignments and right-of-way needs.

The committee heard that the Nebo Beltway segment along 11200 is a county-owned road and part of regional plans led by MAG (Mountainland Association of Governments). Daniel, a staff member, said the county will own the right-of-way there and the city likely will not need to purchase land for trail alignment along that segment. Committee members and the city council liaison, Carrie Malkovich, emphasized that the general plan should remain high-level and point to the trail study for alignment specifics rather than prescribing cross-sections or exact locations.

Committee members flagged resident concerns about a previously published map that showed a potential trail route near Skylake Drive running adjacent to private backyards. Several residents contacted the city asking that the plan not show a trail easement through their yards; Carrie read those concerns into the record and the committee confirmed the current draft does not show a trail easement through the affected backyards. A committee member said residents had misinterpreted older maps and third-party apps (for example, "AllTrails") that displayed trail lines where no legal trail easement exists.

The committee discussed the Switchback Trail — the only public hiking trail in town — and its existing maintenance practices. Daniel and PTR (parks and trails) supporters said the trail tread has been built to about 50 inches with installed water bars and periodic maintenance; committee members noted maintenance responsibility falls under the parks and trails committee and public works. The committee debated whether the general plan language should state the city "should" periodically review maintenance needs or more narrowly encourage the relevant committee or public works to do so; members asked that the plan reference the committee (PTR) and public works rather than explicitly directing the city council to perform maintenance.

Members also reported early, informal conversations with the Three Bridges developer about potential trail connections that could link to city trails in the future. Several members cautioned such developer statements are preliminary, not in writing, and therefore should not be presented as commitments in the general plan; the committee added a general policy statement to "explore opportunities for trail connections through new growth areas" rather than naming specific private developments.

Where regional coordination is relevant, the committee directed that the plan mention support for MAG and county-led efforts but keep alignment specifics to the trail study. The committee asked staff to confirm which right-of-way segments are county-owned (11200) and which would require city easements.

The committee voted to move forward with further edits and asked staff to circulate an updated Chapter 6 and the full document for one more review before forwarding materials to the planning commission.