There are two items in the latest edition of the Chino Valley Champion, our local weekly that has been continuously published since 1887 and deserves the support of all the residents in this area, concerning Sleepy Hollow.
The first is that the City of Chino Hills is mulling options for what to do with the Community Center, which is considered surplus property and has not been used since the 100th anniversary of Sleepy Hollow was celebrated there in October 2023. It looks as if a sale is being pursued, but the question is what to do with a building not easily convertible to a residence, but may be hard to sell for commercial purposes.
It has been suggested that it be taken over by non-profits, but maintenance costs will be significant, including the fact that it lacks sewers and septic and has a holding tank instead. The drainage on both sides of the structure is also natural and there have, in heavy rains, been some issues with that. As for the 11-space unpaved parking area across from the building, the idea was to include that for disposition, as well, but it appears the sentiment is to keep it for public parking.
So far, the issue has been the subject of City staff study and reporting to the Council and there will next be a Planning Commission hearing at which it will be discussed. At a recent Council meeting, resident David Miller, who lives adjacent to the building and who was joined by other Sleepy Hollow residents, spoke about the issues with the building, as reported by Marianne Napoles.
Napoles also wrote about a recent undisclosed settlement between the City and an unnamed owner of property of vacant land adjacent to long-shuttered apartments at the east end of Sleepy Hollow and on the south side of Carbon Canyon Road. A couple of years ago, residents noted the wholesale removal of trees, including oaks protected by a City ordinance, and the destruction was halted, but not before a significant number of them were either removed or severely cut.
The City could not provide details to Napoles concerning the agreement reached with the owner, who , apparently, claimed ignorance of the ordinance, but it seems likely that at least part of the settlement was a requirement to replant trees on the lot, which has had a small concrete foundation, though whether a house or other structures are part of a plan for the use of the property is not known.
Happy New Year to our readers!
