Wonderful community, safe cities, diverse population and excellent work/life balance make this area a great magnet for families. Love it here!

Sounds like this article should add pause for concern. If we're adding 740 more residences and our current schools are at capacity... Can you guess what's going to happen next?...

BTW - What is this state law that blocks California cities from considering if there's enough capacity in the school district? Seems like a logical step in consideration of adding more homes. Wasn't that also the point of Mello Roos taxes?!

This sounds a lot like another California law I've only recently been made aware of - flat rate sale of real estate in California is ILLEGAL. It's the LAW to take a percentage of every real estate sale... nice, huh?! Obviously funded by special interests (realtors and brokers). Just thought you should know... These politicians obviously put the community first as you can tell by their laws and impositions on citizens as they line their pockets with special interests funds.

Good luck, kiddos! Just remember, the government is here to help... You believe me, right?

Yes, Danville approved the SummerHill project for the Diablo/Blackhawk Road area without a care for the overcrowded schools in the project's attendance area: Green Valley Elementary, Los Cerros Middle, and Monte Vista. Kids here already are being diverted to Montair and other far-flung schools. Yes, developers win and the people (including the residents of the new houses) lose big-time. All in a days' work for Danville's Town Council, Mayor Newell Arnerich, Robert Storer, Karen Stepper, Mike Doyle, and Renee Morgan.

Next time, vote for better candidates.

@ voter

I agree, but I think Fort Ugly (or as we know it here, the KB Homes Gulag) will have an even higher total population than Summerhill's Diablo project. Or not?
Whether it does or doesn't, where the heck are they going to jam all those extra kids? Charlotte Wood is stuffed to the seams. Greenbrook Elementary and John Baldwin cannot absorb any more than a tiny handful each.

It is dreadful enough that prior planners and prior & current council members allowed this view-blocking nightmare. But what on earth did they think was going to happen with the schools? KB should have been forced to pay the costs of a new school, or at least some serious additions to the current three to the east.

@Derek: Gulag Elworthy has nearly 100 units (including about 12 low-income apartments), but Gulag SummerHill will have 69 units plus at least 7, but possibly 45-50 second residential units. So, if Dougherty Valley enrollment is a guide, either of these projects could easily make for 100 or more new students. I'd be willing to bet there will be more than that. Can anyone spell "d-i-v-e-r-s-I-o-n."

It's a fact also that when SummerHill was being proposed the district responded to residents' questions about overcrowding by saying that "there's plenty of room" for more kids in SRV schools. Now that the district is looking to impose another parcel tax, the officials are once again saying "we need more capacity".

Given the lack of transparency (i.e. outright lying), I will never vote for another bond or parcel tax in this district. Developers pay way too little every time, and then we taxpayers have to make up the shortfall.

The school district I lived in, when I lived in the Chicago area (up until about 15 years ago) was a very fast growing district, due to lots of new home construction. While I lived there, the district built a 2nd high school, set aside land for a third, and was building a new middle school every 2-3 years, and 1-2 grade schools per year.

The new schools were all top-quality construction, basically first-class facilities. Taxes were kept more or less flat (in terms of rates, etc.) by 1) using standard designs for the elementary and middle schools, with only minor variations due to site differences, and 2) requiring new housing development developers to both set aside land for anticipated schools ("donated" to the district), and also to pay a fee of a few/several thousand dollars per constructed house, to pay for school construction costs. (The per-house fee is certainly higher now, but I can't say what it is.)

Something similar to this seems to be done in some areas within our district, but I don't get the sense that fees and land set-asides are being fully utilized. I also don't know what local government bodies need to authorize or sanction this sort of practice, to make it consistent and uniform. But it's not rocket science....