PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLN: 12-12
May 8, 2012
File Code #: R02
MEMO TO:
Martha Rogers, Director of Education
FROM:
Jennifer Passy, Manager of Planning
Janice Wright, Superintendent of Finance
RE:
LEE STREET (STOCKFORD SITE) BOUNDARY REVIEW
Report #3
Report Classification: DECISION
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2012, Trustees approved Lee Street (Stockford) Boundary Review Report #1, which
initiated the boundary review process for the new Lee Street elementary school.
Trustees received Report #2 on March 20, 2012. The Board hosted a Public Information Session on
March 22, 2012. Additional feedback has been received via the Board’s website.
ISSUE
In accordance with the School Boundary Review Procedures Manual (320-A), Report #3 is to provide:
a) A summary of information contained in the First and Second Boundary Review Reports;
b) A summary of input received from the public;
c) Final staff recommendation(s) and justification for the recommended Boundary Change(s);
d) A critical path resolution of the identified accommodation issue; and
e) A communication plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the report attached to memo PLN: 12-12 “Lee Street (Stockford Site) Boundary Review –
Report #3”, dated May 8, 2012 be received.
2. That the Board approve:
a) Scenario C as described in Section 4.1 and Map 3 of the report attached to memo PLN:
12-12 “Lee Street (Stockford Site) Boundary Review – Report #3” together with the
boundaries of the new Lee Street school and Ken Danby PS as presented on Maps 4 and
5, respectively, contained in Appendix II effective September 2013;
b) The revised attendance areas of Ottawa Cresc PS and Laurine Ave. PS as presented on
Page 1
Maps 6 and 7 contained in Appendix II effective September 2012;
c) The revised Development Area assignment of the Starwood West DA in accordance with
Map 8 effective September 2013.
d) The Implementation Plan as articulated in Section 6.0 of report attached to memo PLN:
12-12 “Lee Street (Stockford Site) Boundary Review – Report #3” for the 2013/2014
school year.
RATIONALE
See the attached report “Lee Street (Stockford Site) Boundary Review – Report #3”
LEE STREET (STOCKFORD SITE)
BOUNDARY REVIEW
REPORT #3
Presented to the Business Operations Committee
Upper Grand District School Board
May 8, 2012
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
On January 24, 2012, Trustees approved Lee Street (Stockford) Boundary Review Report #1, which initiated the
boundary review process for the new Lee Street elementary school.
Trustees received Report #2 on March 20, 2012. A Public Information Session was held on March 22, 2012.
Additional feedback was received via the Board’s website.
Table 1 - Goals, Objectives and Constraints
GOALS
OBJECTIVES
1. To create a sustainable
program at the new Lee Street
school.
1. To create a balanced
enrolment between Ken Danby
P.S. and the Lee Street school.
2. To maintain a sustainable JK-8
RT program at Ken Danby P.S.
2. Develop an attendance area
boundary that will create a
sustainable program at the
new Lee Street school.
3. To maximize the number of
students within a safe walking
distance to school.
CONSTRAINTS
1. The Ken Danby P.S. building
size is not adequate to
accommodate the projected
number of students in the
future.
2. The attendance area boundary
needs to be established to
allow time to communicate the
boundary changes to families
prior to kindergarten
registration and to allow for
staffing for the 2014/2015
school year.
3. Consideration to be given to an
interim accommodation plan
for some students at King
George during construction of
Lee Street and limiting
disruption/moves for this
group.
4. To minimize the impact on
students where transitions are
proposed.
1.2
Purpose of this Report
In accordance with the School Boundary Review Procedures Manual (320-A), Report #3 is to provide:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
A summary of information contained in the First and Second Boundary Review Reports;
A summary of input received from the public;
Final staff recommendation(s) and justification for the recommended Boundary Change(s);
A critical path resolution of the identified accommodation issue; and
A communication plan
~1~
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
2.0
ENROLMENT BACKGROUND
The current capacity of Ken Danby PS is 506 pupil places. The capital plan capacity is 576 pupil places, which
recognizes interior renovations and a two (2)-classroom addition to accommodate Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) in
2013. Currently there are five (5) portables on site and there is space for a 6th portable.
Figure 1, shows the historic and projected enrolment of Ken Danby PS if the status quo boundary were
maintained.
Figure 1 – Ken Danby PS Status Quo Enrolment (Nominal) Forecast
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2008
2009
Historic Enrolment
3.0
2010
2011
2012
Projected Enrolment
2013
2014
Capacity
2017
2021
Portable Capacity
INPUT RECEIVED
The Board’s website received submissions from interested parents between January 2012 and April 27, 2012.
These comments were considered in the formulation of the final recommendation, together with those
comments and concerns mentioned at the Public Information. A summary of the discussion that occurred at the
Public Information Session and comments received via the Board’s website are attached as Appendix I.
Comments have focused on concerns with Scenarios A and B as they affect individual families, the possibility of
extending the walk to school and crossing of busy streets in the area. At the Public Information Session there
was also concern expressed about the need to accommodate students in the King George PS holding school
during the 2013/2014 school year.
4.0
LEE STREET JK-8 BOUNDARY SCENARIOS
Report #2 presented Scenarios A and B which were developed by the Staff Boundary Review Committee (Maps 1
and 2, Appendix II). Scenario A was identified as Staff’s preferred alternative. At the Public Information Session,
both Scenarios were presented to the public for information and input.
~2~
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
Families affected by Scenario A who reside in the area south of Grange Road on O’Connor Lane, Ralston Drive,
Lee Street and Law Drive, expressed concern about moving students with such immediate access to Ken Danby
PS. Staff acknowledges that households on O’Connor Lane, Ralston Drive, Lee Street and Law Drive have a
proximal relationship to Ken Danby PS different from others in Scenario A.
Those families residing east of Starwood Drive (Summit Ridge) affected by Scenario B shared concerns about an
increased walk to school if directed to Lee Street. Based on-Dufferin Student Transportation Services routes, the
Summit Ridge students affected by Scenario B have a walking distance to Ken Danby PS or the new Lee Street
school within or slightly exceeding 1.6km. These students use trails to shorten their walk to Ken Danby PS.
The Staff Boundary Review Committee re-evaluated alternatives in order to address concerns brought forward
by parents of both groups, and have responded by developing Scenario C.
4.1
Scenario C
Scenario C (Map 3) has refined the proposed boundary of the Lee Street school to include those homes located
on Fleming Road, Pettit Drive and Frasson Drive, as well as homes with addresses on both sides of Starwood
Drive both north and south of Grange Road. These areas are included in the proposed boundary addition to the
other residential communities west of Starwood Drive previously identified by Scenarios A and B.
The Lee Street school is projected to open with approximately 346 students in a 501-pupil place school.
Enrolment is expected to grow quickly because of proposed residential subdivision development located
immediately south of the school.
Staff acknowledges that Scenario C will not entirely relieve the enrolment pressure of Ken Danby PS. The
reduced enrolment will ensure that the school is more in keeping with its capacity between 2013 and 2017.
Staff will continue to monitor enrolment growth in East Guelph.
Consistent with Scenarios A and B, Scenario C continues to direct the Creekside subdivision (located on the
north side of Grange Road immediately east of Auden Road) to Ottawa Crescent PS for JK-6 and Laurine Ave PS
for 7/8.
In Scenario C, the Goals and Objectives established at the outset of this boundary view process are
accomplished. In particular the scenario:
1. Develops an attendance area boundary that will create a sustainable program at the new Lee Street school.
•
Staff feels that Scenario C has responded to the concerns expressed by the parents affected by Scenarios
A and B, while ensuring that enough enrolment is directed to the new school to adequately relieve Ken
Danby PS in the near term and create a sustainable attendance area for the new school.
2. Maximizes the number of students within a safe walking distance to school.
•
The majority of students within both attendance areas are within walking distance of the schools.
3. Minimizes the impact on students where transitions are proposed.
•
Students from the new Lee Street school boundary will be accommodated as a group at King George PS
~3~
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
for the 2013/2014 school year and that same cohort of students will form the new school when it opens
in 2014.
The following chart reflects the projected enrolment of the four affected schools during the 2014, 2017 and
2021 forecast years.
Table 2 - Scenario C Forecasted Enrolment
5.0
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Report #2 presented information on Development Areas (DA) and the Board’s practice of assigning students
from these areas to temporary accommodation at holding schools. On April 24, 2012 Trustees approved
Planning’s 2012/2013 Development Area School Assignments (PLN:12-06).
The DA report created the Starwood East DA and Starwood West DA from the singular Starwood DA, together
with minor modifications to the boundaries to reflect the actual delineation of development limits.
5.1
Starwood East and Starwood West DAs
The DA report assigned the Starwood West and East DAs in East Guelph schools to Priory Park PS (JK-6) and Jean
Little PS (7/8) and Centennial CVI or John F. Ross SS.
This report recommends the assignment of the Starwood West DA to the new Lee Street school (Map 8). This
DA would not form part of the attendance area at this time, but students will be accommodated at the new
school upon opening. When more information becomes available about all development within the Starwood
West DA, a subsequent report will address the possible dissolution or reassignment of the DA.
With respect to the Starwood East DA, it remains appropriate that this area be housed at Priory Park PS (JK-6)
and Jean Little PS (7/8) and Centennial CVI or John F. Ross SS.
~4~
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
6.0
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In order to implement Scenario C, there are a series of steps that the Board must take to ensure students are
accommodated in the next two years.
6.1
Reassignment of Creekside Subdivision
Students are expected from the Creekside subdivision in 2012/2013. The move of the Creekside subdivision to
Ottawa Cresc PS (JK-6) and Laurine Ave. PS (7/8) should occur for 2012/2013 to avoid a later move for future
students.
6.2
Interim Accommodation of Lee Street Students
The Lee Street school is planned to open in September 2014. Based on current projections, Ken Danby PS can
accommodate the 2012/2013 enrolment.
FDK will be offered at Ken Danby PS starting in 2013/2014. In 2013/2014 JK-6 students from the Lee Street
school attendance area will need to be accommodated at the King George PS holding school.
The temporary accommodation of some of the Lee Street school students was originally contemplated by the
report entitled East Guelph Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) – Staff’s Proposed Transition Plan (Road Map) (PLN:1126). Recognizing the enrolment pressure in East Guelph at Edward Johnson PS and Ken Danby PS, King George
PS becomes a holding school effective September 2012.
In 2013, a portion of the Ken Danby PS JK-8 student body was identified as holding at King George PS, together
with a portion of the Edward Johnson JK-6 FI enrolment (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - FDK Transition Plan
~5~
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
Based on current projections, approximately 300 pupil places of capacity at King George PS will be available in
2013/2014 to accommodate students from the new Lee Street school boundary.
The Board has offered grandparenting of Grade 7 students in their home school for their Grade 8 year where a
new school assignment would otherwise move them. Given the circumstances of the interim accommodation at
King George PS, it is suggested that Grades JK-6 students would be held at King George PS in 2013/2014.
Students in Grades 7 and 8 in 2013/2014 would remain at Ken Danby PS.
In September 2014, students in the new Lee Street school boundary will move as a group into the new school
building forming a new school with enrolment in Grades JK-7.
6.3
Student Transportation
6.3.1 Lee Street School
The majority of students within the proposed Lee Street school boundary are within the 1.6km (JK-1) walking
distance of the school. It is expected that students who reside south of the CN Rail line who currently receive
bussing would remain eligible for transportation.
It is the understanding of Board staff that intersections along Starwood Drive do not meet warrants for
additional signalization. As development occurs in the area City staff will be monitoring whether further
crossing assistance may be necessary to benefit students attending either Ken Danby PS or the new Lee Street
school.
6.3.2 King George PS – Holding School
While holding at King George PS in 2013/2014, Lee Street school students eligible for transportation according
to Policy 2 of Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services will receive bussing.
The majority of students residing in the proposed Lee Street school boundary are outside of the 2.4km walking
distance from King George PS for students in Grades 2 -6. Students who reside on a few streets south of Grange
Road west of Bradson Drive are within the 2.4km walking distance to King George PS.
Courtesy bussing may be available, however, it is at the parents’ discretion to request this consideration in
accordance with Courtesy Transportation - Policy 17 of the Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services.
The delineation of the Lee Street school boundary does not affect the walking distances or transportation
eligibility of other students who will remain within the Ken Danby PS attendance area.
7.0
COMMUNICATION PLAN
Ken Danby PS parents and guardians received a letter about the ongoing Boundary Review and posted on the
board’s website on April 24, 2012.
Written comments received by the Staff Boundary Review Committee up to and including April 27, 2012 (the
cut‐off date) are on the Board’s web page.
Community members will remain able to subscribe to and receive email alerts for updates to the boundary
review web pages.
~6~
Lee Street Boundary Review – Report #3
Further action:
•
Updated information on the final delegation opportunities (May 8, 2012 Business Operations Committee
and May 22, 2012 Board Meeting) will be provided on the Lee Street Boundary Review web page.
•
A letter to parents and guardians of the Ken Danby PS community will provide information on Report #3, the
final delegation opportunity and the date for the final Board decision (both on May 22, 2012).
•
A media release regarding Report #3 will be prepared and sent to local newspapers and radio and TV
outlets.
•
Board Planning staff will present report #3 to trustees, media and the public gallery at the May 8, 2012
meeting of the Business Operations Committee.
•
The Board's final decision will be posted on the Board’s web pages and included in the monthly Board
Highlights, and a news release. A letter for the Ken Danby PS parents and guardians will explain the decision,
with approved boundary maps.
8.0
NEXT STEPS
Board Meeting
May 22, 2012
Board Decision related to Final Boundary Review
Report
Opportunity for Delegations
~7~
Appendix I
Public Input
LEE STREET (STOCKFORD SITE) BOUNDARY REVIEW
PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION AGENDA:
7:00 – 7:15pm
SIGN IN, OPEN HOUSE
7:15 – 7:45pm
STAFF PRESENTATION
7:45 - 8:15pm
QUESTION AND ANSWERS
8:15 - 9:00pm
OPEN HOUSE
Opportunity to review displays and ask questions of
Staff Committee members
PLEASE LEAVE COMPLETED BLUE COMMENT SHEETS AT SIGN IN TABLE
AT SIGN IN TABLE:

LEE STREET (STOCKFORD SITE) BOUNDARY REVIEW – REPORT #2 (Blue Comment Form)
Completed Comment Forms can be left at Sign In Table
OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE:
o
STAFF’S PROPOSED TRANSITION PLAN FOR EAST GUELPH
o
DESCRIPTION OF DELEGATION PROCEDURE
o
BOUNDARY REVIEW POLICY 320
Question and Answer Session:
Q: Scenario A and B, why pick one over the other? There is only a 41 student difference. Why is Scenario B not
an option?
A: They both have very similar numbers. The greater number of students are forecasted out the ‘pie’ in
Scenario B, heading to Lee Street. The split could not occur down Starwood, there are not enough students on
the east side to go to Lee Street. In Scenario B the pressure is higher for the new school, and it would leave Ken
Danby with some space. The safe walking routes are not as good for the ‘pie’ to the new school.
C: I think that the school board should have perhaps been looking for sites before now. I have a concern with
children crossing Starwood.
Q: I have a concern about the children holding at King George PS. They will be sent to 3 schools in 3 years.
A: We appreciate what you are describing and we will take into consideration what grade levels are better able
to deal with these transitions.
C: The boundary doesn’t make sense because it is not safe walking from Grange, Starwood or the rail line – 3
barriers.
A: Crossing the rail line is not a route identified for students to walk to school, it is not being considered a safe
walking route and students may be eligible for transportation.
C: It would make more sense to have older kids hold at King George rather than the younger students.
A: We will take your suggestions into consideration.
C: Some of the 7/8’s would have been at 4 different schools – a number of students at Ken Danby came from
Edward Johnson PS.
C: I live on Law – which is a 4 minute walk across the park and we can see the school from our house. My kids
could be split. What am I supposed to do for daycare?
C: Adding another school at the corner of Grange and Starwood will be madness. We purposely have not
bought another house so our children could stay at Ken Danby and walk without crossing Watson or Starwood.
What is the exact number of families in this Scenario A area? The Catholic Board is doing a better job of letting
people know about their boundary review. This will affect the resale value of our home.
C: I am another former Edward Johnson parent that lives on Law Street. My concern is about kids being
shuffled around because the school is too small. Kids need stability, it’s not fair.
C: Who decided the 6 streets in Scenario A? The numbers can’t be very many and these streets back right on
to the school site.
C: I have a list of 35 families on Lee and Law Streets who prefer Scenario B.
Q: I live on Chesterson and Grange. What are the criteria of who will move to King George?
A: Grade 7 & 8’s wont be moved to King George, any other criteria of who will/wont’ go to the holding school
has not been decided. No decisions have been made, but historically we have grandparented grade 7 and 8
students.
C: I feel you are picking and choosing who would go to the holding school. Ask parents who they would like to
go.
C: There are social development concerns with moving kids around. There is no good age to do this.
C: I am a Starwood resident. My child moved from Brant Ave to Ken Danby and it was very disruptive. I’m not
going to have him disrupted again. There is no way he can walk to school, I’ll pull him out of school and home
school him then. You need to rethink this.
Q: Where in the process are you going to do a feedback loop and report back to parents?
A: Feedback will be taken into consideration in Report #3, and all feedback received will be summarized in the
report and brought to Trustees.
C: We would like to have another meeting.
A: There are 4 Trustees in the audience hearing your concerns, and this will be on their minds when they
receive the report from staff.
C: Lee Street is not a good site – is there another place to build? The other side of Watson would be better. It
was a struggle for the community to get a stoplight at Watson and Grange. We would need to get the
paperwork started now to get a light at Starwood and Lee. Can’t the school board go back to the drawing
board and get another site?
A: The Board’s view is that the Lee Street School is needed immediately to accommodate Full Day Kindergarten
(FDK). We recognize there are some topographical challenges, but it is central to serving the long term needs
of the community.
Q: Why are we talking about this after only 4 years of Ken Danby opening? Why did Starwood not make the
boundary?
A: Staff looked at a number of scenarios to use Starwood, but there was not enough relief or enough
enrolment to feed the new Lee Street School.
C: FDK is one issue, but the school was already maxed out.
C: If FDK was delayed, would that change the need for a holding school? Grade 7 and 8’s should stay at Ken
Danby to graduate.
C: I’m for Scenario B - the Board has to take into consideration the group that is here tonight who are very
upset about not liking Scenario A. Please Trustees listen to the parents.
Q: The Guelph Innovation District (GID) – why would they develop homes in that area?
A: The City of Guelph is looking at GID and there is a component of residential on the current turf grass area.
We have to set it aside until we know more information on if/when residential will be developed.
Q: Lee Street is to open in 2014 – how long does it take to build a school?
A: Approximately 1 year.
Q: Why not build sooner?
A: We still have to get the funding from the Ministry, and then will have to go through a series of approvals with
the City.
C: Concern about crossing Starwood and Grange. Why can’t we keep both areas east of Starwood at Ken
Danby?
C: Summit Ridge resident – looks like the walk to school will triple and there will be a major street crossing.
C: A lot of people may move to avoid kids moving 3 times. Suggestion – why can’t students who are currently
enrolled at Ken Danby stay, and new residents send the children to the holding school?
C: There has not been enough parental notice given, there needs to be more parent input.
C: Why weren’t advertisements sent door to door?
A: A lot of information was sent out, by the school, in the newspaper, on the school website and board’s
website.
Q: The pocket of 6 streets in Scenario A – how many students are there?
A: The 2017 projection is around 90 JK-8 students.
C: There are 29 houses and only 6 families. Would like to know the actual number. Make an amendment to
Scenario A not to include that group.
C: There is concern about the holding school – multiple moves for the children. Has anyone considered
transportation/bussing to King George? There was no transportation from King George to Waverley. It’s not
fair to make parents deal with this.
A: Availability of transportation will be a consideration in Report #3.
C: If you are going to move kids out of the neighbourhood, you need to give consideration to transportation.
C: There are concerns about the holding school and the possibility of splitting siblings. There should be an
open forum once the holding school plan is set.
Q: What further ability does the school board have to build Ken Danby bigger?
A: The current expansion if for FDK to bring Ken Danby to 576 pupil places. It’s not typical for the Board to
build bigger schools.
C: Other boards have schools much bigger.
A: Can’t speak to making the school larger – no one from Capital is at the meeting.
Q: Can we avoid the holding school?
A: No. The school is projected to be 200+ pupil places over capacity with the addition and 6 portables.
Q: Can the board delay FDK?
A: The Board doesn’t have the ability to delay FDK; the rollout was defined by the Ministry. The Ministry would
require us to trade for another school.
C: The school is already at capacity now – you can’t blame the Premier.
Q: How much have you actually looked into the numbers? Have you already made decisions? Especially about
the holding school and who will go to it?
A: The only decisions made by staff are what scenarios to bring forward. Regarding the holding school, we
need to hear your concerns so we can best address these needs and bring them to the Trustees.
Q: The issue about the holding school – when are we going to know who will go?
A: The final report will be available on May 4th for review. This will include the new boundary, and the
implementation plan.
Q: Can we get out of area permission?
A: There is an out of area process to follow, but there also might be grandparenting provisions.
C: A lot of people are making arguments – I recommend they show up to the board meetings as delegations.
C: If you look at the Ministry of Education website, a lot of schools are getting FDK in 2013.
A: It sounds like a good idea to push FDK at Ken Danby off, but in 2013 there are 13 schools becoming FDK.
The last few years of FDK implementation construction has to happen, and this schedule is set with the Ministry.
The Ministry has already been asked about delaying some schools, but the answer was no. The board is tied to
the current schedule at this point.
Q: Why can’t Ken Danby be added to? There is quite a lot of property. Why can’t you build a school on the
other side of Watson?
A: There are pressures in both directions, with a large subdivision abutting the new school site. The Lee Street
site gives us the opportunity to accommodate the growing pressures.
C: You need to find a way to minimize damage from the transition. Find a way to minimize disruptions.
C: The kids are victims in all this. For fairness there should be parents that sit on the boundary committee to
balance things out.
January 31 to February 13, 2012
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
Lee Street Boundary Review and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all recorded
communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent or message has not been
changed.
January 31, 2012
Hi,
As a Rockwood Centennial parent, I am just wondering if you could consider, when setting
the Lee St boundaries, extending the boundary from Jones Baseline to include Eden Mills?
The area from Jones Baseline to Eden Mills is a low development area so would provide a
fairly stable population base and this would have the added benefit of offering immediate
help to the overcrowding issue at Rockwood Centennial - an issue which will become worse
in the next year with the Harris Street subdivision adding another 300 homes in Rockwood. I
realize wem as Eden Mills parents, will sad to leave Rockwood to which we have close ties
and which is a fabulous school, but the students are all bussed currently and bussing times to
Lee St would be comparable, or within 5-10 minutes at most I would assume. Eden Mills
parents would definitely be happy to have their children on a track to stay in Guelph for
highschool and have access to a newly constructed school with the benefits that brings. Eden
Mills parents also have very close ties to the City of Guelph as demonstrated during the
recent Edward Johnson FI boundary review.
Thanks for your time.
February 4, 2012
The need for a new school in the east end is obvious and I have no issue with my children
being transferred once it opens. My concern is with the idea of sending the kids to a "holding
school" for a year. For kids who haven't left this neighbourhood I find it ridiculous that they
may ultimately have to go to 4 different public schools over the course of K-8 (Edward
Johnson, Ken Danby, King George then finally Lee Street) simply due to boundry changes.
Changing schools is hard enough so I find it unreasonable that they may have to do it twice
over 2 years. As a parent I would much prefer a less disruptive transition between Ken Danby
and the new school. Transportation to King George is also a concern. Would the school
board provide busing or would the kids be expected to find their own way to school?
1
February 13th to March 28, 2012
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
Lee Street Boundary Review and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all recorded
communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent or message has not been
changed.
March 16, 2012
I find it rather concerning that as a family living on Lee Street east of Starwood, the staff is
recommending sending our children to Lee Street school. I can currently see Ken Danby school out
my window, but under the recommendations my children will need to cross Starwood, a busy street, to
get to school. They will have to travel down to Grange to cross at the light and as a result will have
approximately a 10-15 minute walk to Lee Street School instead of 2 minutes to Ken Danby. This
makes absolutely no sense to me, especially when one of the mandates of the boundary review is to
ensure the safety of students. The current proposal makes my daughter's walk to school less safe. It is
my hope that the committee will rethink their recommendations to ensure that they actually do work to
ensure the safety of the children east of Starwood Drive.
March 21, 2012
As a parent of two that presently attend Ken Danby PS I disagree with scenerio A. We live on
O'Connor Lane and to be so close to a school and not be included in the boundary lines is nonsense.
I also feel that scenerio B would be better suited seeing as the numbers in the schools would be more
equal than scenerio A.
March 22, 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
I moved onto Lee Street in 1999 when this development was first built. We were filled with wonderful
stories of how our children would be able to grow up in a new community filled with wonderful parks,
schools, libraries, grocery stores, etc.
One of the reasons we bought a house on Lee Street was so that our future children would be close
enough to come home for lunch, having to cross only one quiet street to get home.
It took a few years before we received the park at the end of our street, at least 6 years before we
even received a convenience store, and almost 9 years before we received a library.
The plans for our surrounding community have been altered and rezoned so many times the residents
of this area keep losing track , but that didn’t matter my dream was finally coming true – Ken Danby
was built in time for my children to begin their education.
1
February 13th to March 28, 2012
In September 2010, my little girl finally walked to her brand new school right at the end of our street.
It was one of the most wonderful days of my life as I walked the measly 470 steps from my daughter’s
classroom door back to my front door. I counted each and every one on the long walk home that
day. My 3 year old son is slated to begin at Ken Danby this September and having spent the last two
years walking with my daughter, is excited.
Now we find out that someone has made a proposal with absolutely no regard for our children’s
safety, forcing them to cross an extremely busy, divided road with greenery so large a driver c
an barely see around it to make a left until almost in the line of oncoming traffic. Adding the
possibility of bussing our kids for the next two years to another school while yet another school is
being built more than a kilometer away from home, is in my opinion rather ridiculous and is
something that shouldn’t concern us as it’s so far away.
I work for a company that contracts Driver Examination Testing in Ontario on behalf of the MTO. I
have tested applicants in both Guelph and Kitchener over the past two years and the proportion of
poor drivers is drastically increasing as our population increases. I have seen some crazy stunts while
testing applicants, and all because the driver just “tuned out” for a moment, or was distracted by their
nervousness of being tested. But that doesn't even include those texting, or talking on cells,
exhaustion, poor visibility, and a whole host of other distractions that only take a heartbeart to snuff a
life.
Here are some stories from the Children’s Safety Villages, which my company so lovingly dedicates
endless hours of volunteer work to assist in such an honourable cause as protecting our young from
the hazards of the road:
•
In November 2010, a young eleven year old Cambridge girl was on her way to school. As
she stood alone that morning at her bus stop a car, driven by a man, stopped and yelled at her to
“get in the car”.
•
An eight year old boy managed to shout a warning to his younger sister just in time to prevent
her from being hit by a street sweeper on a residential street. Although her bike was damaged, she
escaped unharmed.
•
And let us not forget the heart-wrenching, horrible story of young Tori Stafford, walking home
from school by herself for the first time. Or the “Creepy Lady” as my daughter calls her, that was
trolling our parks for a few summers grabbing at random children on swings; her picture remained on
the O’Connor Park sign for nearly 2 years, while police knocked on our doors asking if any of us had
seen her or had any information.
Why someone would willingly force little children to increase their school commute is beyond me, and
is frankly a gross disregard for our children’s safety and concern.
If haphazard planning and rezoning have suddenly increased the number of residents that are to
attend a school, why are the residents that have “bought into” these plans being punished? For 13
years I too have “bought into” the various plans, knowing I was close to the school and my children
would be safe in their daily commute. Not this time.
Now some bureaucrat has decided to put my children’s lives at risk each and every day because
his/her department has changed their minds so many times and the consequences are finally catching
up!
2
February 13th to March 28, 2012
I only arrived home from a work conference this morning and was unable to secure a baby-sitter for
your Boundary Review Meeting tonight and so was not able to attend in person. I am sending this
letter in the hopes that your decisions are not final and that you are sincerely willing to listen to the
concerned residents in this area.
If you require any further information or clarification, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
March 22, 2012
Scenario A (Map 3 March 2012) is good.
Provincial government must be told, full time kindergarten can't be implemented yet.
Class sizes must be increased.
Kids currently bused, should be bused to another school.
March 22, 2012
I am a parent of four children who currently attend Ken Danby we have just moved to this area for this
school in June 2011. As I said we have 4 children and 3 of then suffer from anxiety due to change
and one who has aspergers, the transition to ken danby has been hard on them at times and I fear
the worst for them as I have been told that they will have to be placed at a holding school (King
George) for the 2012-2013 school year then switch again the following year to the Lee Street. If this
is true please let me know what my options are here. Also what grades will this new school be JK-8?
as I would perfer all my kids to attend school together until they start high school.
March 22, 2012
As a parent of 2 children that attend Ken Danby I would prefer that Scenario B be seriously
considered. We are no more than 4 min walking distance (O’Conner Lane) from the school so to
have to relocate schools is absurd. Not enough info was put out there to inform the parents of this
plan. Parents input was not considered before this was all planned out.
March 22, 2012
Suggestion – to stay with plan B.
I am interested in my children to walk to Ken Danby which is a 4 min walk. Does not make sense for
Fleming rd. not to be included in the Ken Danby boundaries.
Please, please, please make Fleming part of Plan B or within the Ken Danby boundary!!!!
Our voices count!
3
February 13th to March 28, 2012
March 22, 2012
It makes no sense why you wouldn’t build a school on the other side of Watson Rd. where they are still
building TONS of houses. Children do well with stability. I do not want my child being shipped to a
“holding school” then to a new school. 3 schools in 3 years is unacceptable! Just the social aspect
of developing kids will be hard enough to deal with. As you can tell it’s this “holding’ school that is a
huge issue!
March 22, 2012
Will siblings be split to go to holding school. How will they get there?
March 22, 2012
2013/14 school year holding school – major contention.
It mentions on the website that there will be over-crowding for 2013/14 year and that some will need
to be bused to a holding school for that year. It indicates this decision will not be announced until Feb
2013. Can we have some sense of who may be bussed prior to that date?? Will it be 7 & 8 students
or just those affected by the boundary changes? Spring of 2013 will allow little time for families who
will be affected by loosing older siblings by being bussed elsewhere. I believe (based on my
discussions with other parents) that this 1 year upheaval is a major concern for most parents, more so
than the boundary issues.
It makes more sense for the students of the new school to be kept together for that year at the holding
school rather than send gr 7 & gr 8’s who will be split up anyway between the Lee St school and Ken
Danby.
Between scenarios A & B – Scenario B makes more sense with Starwood Dr. as dividing line.
March 22, 2012
We live on Holly Court just outside the existing KD boundary. KD is 1.1km from our home. Ottawa
Crescent is more than double that distance. Your plan is to build a school on Lee St, less than 1 km
from our home & we are not zoned to attend that school either. My concern/frustration is that there
are 2 schools within easy walking distance, yet my kids have to walk all the way along Auden,
Eastview, across Victoria Re. I do not believe the scenarios do allow maximum walking students.
March 22, 2012
We live on Sloan Ave which is South of the railroad tracks. It is a mature area with no potential of
development. There are 5 children only who go to Ken Danby why not include Sloan Ave as it is
4
February 13th to March 28, 2012
“mature” area include them in the Ken Danby Boundary?! They are already being bused to school.
My daughter has already had to move schools once when Edward Johnson went French immersion. I
do not want her to be shuffled around to holding school then Lee school. Can Ken Danby not
accommodate these 5 children?
PS of these 5 children mine included they have ‘social’ issues and have a hard time ‘fitting in’. One
child on Sloan also is autistic don’t make these kids suffer for the adults mistakes of making the school
too small. The better area for the new school would be East of Watson Road where they are
developing like crazy.
March 23, 2012
I am excited for the Lee Street School!!!! We live on Silurian Drive and I am looking forward to having
a school right around the corner. I am concerned how ever with the 'transition school' King George.
I have 2 children one will be in Grade 4 and the other in Kindergarden in 2013-2014. I am
concerned about transportation firstly: Will both children attend King George? Or will one be at one
school and one at the other? Will they be bused or will we face the fate that the Brant Ave parents
did: with a 30-45 min walk? I am concerned that if both my children are not at the same school:
how will I do the pick up and drop off?
I need you to think about the following impact of the transtion school on families in the
neigbourhood:
* care should be taken in placing all children from a family at the same school.
* please consider that a large number of parents in the area provide home based childcare. This is
a huge part of their households income. If we are required to pick up our children at King George
this will finacially impact these families in a devistating way. I can speak for myself and say that we
just downsized our home after my husband was out of work for a while. We are just getting back on
our feet. I provide childcare from my home. If I cannot continue dropping off and picking up children
at Ken Danby my lack of income would be detrimental to our family. On my street I can think of 8
homes that provide childcare. I really need to know if we would be provided with transportation.
* If you are going with Scenario A will there be lights and crossing guards (not students) povided at
the corner of Grange and Lee?
* Have another information night similar to the one on March 22nd to keep parents in the loop.
* I can say that the school board is not caring for the whole child. The impact this transition to the
holding school will have on the chilren's security and self esteem is unpredictable! Not to mention the
stress you will be putting their families under will be indescribable! Yes you can "educate a child" at
any facility but if you do not care for the child in their entirety your teaching goes to waste.
Please consider my points. I would appreciate a response to my questions as well. I need to know
about transportation to the new school and if my children will be kept together so I can begin
planning. I can confidently say that Home Schooling has crossed my mind. I have read the
acknowledgement below however I do suggest respecting families and putting in place a staff member
to respond to concerns from parents. I can tell you that parents in the neighbourhood do not feel
5
February 13th to March 28, 2012
listened to or respected. This is a sensitive issue and I can tell you that responding directly to parents
as individuals WILL go a long way. Also if you choose to publish my comments please do so in its
entirety (excluding personal info.).
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I am begging you to really consider my concerns.
March 23, 2012
Scenario A causes the least disruption for our family and would fulfill our family obligations now and
in future. Scenario B would cause major disruption to our children and family obligations. We strongly
encourage the board to identify Scenario A as the chosen option.
March 23, 2012
Please strongly consider plan "A" for the sake of parents
March 23, 2012
We would like to express our concern about the Lee Street boundary review and how it will effect our
family. We have 2 children that attend Ken Danby one will be in G6 and G7 in 2013. If the option
that the G6 student is sent to King George school which is considered the holding school, our 2
children will be split up. We have arranged daycare for before and after school, or maybe at that
time both our children will be able to walk to and from school together. If this is not applicable, we
have before and after daycare arranged very close to Ken Danby School. If they are split will there be
bus transportation, do they have to walk or is before and after school care being offered? If not I will
have to find -b/a school care in the King George School area. We (both parents) work out of the city
and cannot or have time to take each child in different directions for this 1 year holding period. We
live on Creighton Ave and would hope that they reconsider that our street is in the boundary to stay
attending Ken Danby School. One other note our son is ADHD-O and keeping him in the same
schedule and routine is very important to him and our family. We just recently moved to Guelph and
changed schools, we have had some issues with the changes and are just settling in quite nicely. We
believe that having him change to another school having to make new friends could be detrimental to
his educational needs.
Please feel free to contact us at any time.
March 25, 2012
Hello,
Although I was unable to attend the recent meeting regarding the boundary review, I appreciate the
opportunity to voice my concerns via email. I am currently residing in the Morning Crest Subdivision.
We have daycare within the immediate vicinity of Ken Danby School. Currently, we are slated to send
our son to Brant Avenue School, a situation we find incredibly concerning for a variety of reasons.
Principle among those reasons are that it would be unfeasible for him to ever walk to school - we do
not feel comfortable sending a 4-5 year old alone on a bus to school. Secondly, even if he were to
take a bus, the bus would not drop him off near his daycare.
6
February 13th to March 28, 2012
In all other community concerns, the Morning Crest Subdivision is considered part of East Guelph
community(community groups, etc). My son deserves an opportunity to be an active member of HIS
community and should be permitted to attend a school with other members of his community, within a
safe and reasonable distance from his home. Not including Morning Crest within the boundary of Ken
Danby is not going to help equalize school populations elsewhere, but will cause unrest within our
community as we all struggle to find the means to move our families within the proposed boundaries
for Ken Danby school. I believe, if asked, you will find the residents of Morning Crest find the idea of
sending their children to Brant Avenue school absolutely unacceptable and are determined to ensure
their children receive a quality education in a school that is within a safe and reasonable
distance from their home - even if this means moving to a new area.
Sincerely,
7
March 29 to April 5, 2012
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
Lee Street Boundary Review and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all recorded
communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent or message has not been
changed.
March 29, 2012
I would like to go with scenario A, Map # 3. We moved here about 7 months ago and i am still
having trouble getting my son to go to school, he cry's every morning at the door. He likes the school
and his teacher,and that's the only way i can get him to go in. We also just found out that he has a
medical issue that Ken Danby school has already had to deal with, they have been very patient and
helpful with him. So having to start at another school would probably cause even more trouble.
I would love to vote for scenario"A". Thank you for your time.
March 29, 2012
Very upset that summit ridge area in an option for the Lee St School. When we decided to move we
wanted to make sure that they wouldn't have to switch schools. Next year we will have three of our
four children at that school. How do you think that all these children are going to adjust? My daughter
JUST started talking and she is in grade 1! We do not want to switch Let alone walk twice the
distance!
thankyou
April 4, 2012
I have had the opportunity to review the proposed boundary review for the new Lee Street/Ken Danby
Schools.
I am very disappointed that Ken Danby was already overpopulated in it's second year of operation
(2009) and within 4 years of operating is already looking at a boundry review.
My preference is for Scenario A.
In fairness to both areas affected by each Scenario presented (Summit Ridge Subdivision and Lee
Street East area), with Scenario A both areas have one main street to cross to get to each school, as
well as both have an equal amount of time and distance to travel to each school with Scenario A. I
am also concerned that the need for another near-future boundary review is required if Scenario B is
chosen, along with the need for children in the Summit Ridge subdivision to cross 2 main streets and
travel further to school.
On a personal level, I have two children at Ken Danby currently. The oldest child has just had an IEP
formalized and I have great concerns with a potential pending move to a holding school then to
another new school, with respect to academic success. Tremendous support has been given at Ken
Danby in taking all the required steps to identify his needs over 4 years. The youngest child has also
settled well into Ken Danby school. I have moved homes since the school opened, and purposefully
remained in the Ken Danby catchment area to enable both children to keep their school routine after
going through a divorce.
If Scenario B is chosen, I would seriously consider changing my support t
o the Catholic School Board and move my children to Holy Trinity Catholic School.
1
April 6th to April 17, 2012
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
Lee Street Boundary Review and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all recorded
communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent or message has not been
changed.
April 16, 2012
We live in an area that is waiting to see which scenario is decided on as to which school we will be
attending. I attended the meeting and despite the fact that we would love our children to stay at Ken
Danby, I truly feel that scenario B makes much more sense. This would mean we would go to the Lee
St school, and that's ok. It just doens't make sense to me to make people walk over to Lee St school
when they can see Ken Danby from their back yard. We are up by Eastview and it's quite a long walk
for us now, so it doesn't make much of a difference for us either way. I would really like you to
consider going with scneario B. thanks
1
April 18 to April 27, 2012
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
Lee Street Boundary Review and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all recorded
communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent or message has not been
changed.
April 22, 2012
My family lives in the Summit Ridge area and are quite upset at the tought of our kids having to go to
a holding school and then to a new school. Lee Street will be too far away for our kids to walk esp
since we can see Ken Danby from our back deck. Ken Danby was part of the reason we moved to this
"high tax" area. What bothers me more is that there should be no need to move anybody if all of the
kids living on the other side of Watson had schools of their own. Please do not move the Summit
Ridge kids as like I have said we can see Ken Danby from where we live and it's closer. Thank you
kindly.
April 24, 2012
Have the Ken Danby parents vote on Full Day Kindergarden (and increasing class sizes by 2 kids) vs
bussing kids to holding school. The results get sent to the newspaper, Liz Sandals, Laruel Broten,
Dalton McGuinty....
April 24, 2012
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a parent of 2 children who currently attend Ken Danby PS. We live on O'Connor Lane and I can
actually see my son during the recess periods from our backyard.
I love the fact that my children can walk to school without the need to cross any streets. We always
felt we wouldn't move from our current house as the school is ideally located and this is important to
us.
I reviwed the current question and answer section (which does not have all the questions answered by
the way) and I realize that I can probably not come up with any arguments you have not alraeady
heard. However, I wish you would stongly reconsider your boundary review and keep O'Connor Lane
residents at Ken Danby.
I really disagree with your illogical boundary recommendations to move O'Connor Lane residents to
the new Lee street school and will be extremely disappointed in the board if this passes.
Please feel free to contact me for futher comments.
Sincerely,
1
April 18 to April 27, 2012
April 24, 2012
I understand the necessity of moving some children to the holding school. But when deciding the age
of children that will be moved I worry that my daughter (who is currently in JK) will be one of them.
She struggled during her transition into JK and the thought of her having to experience 3 schools in
her first few years makes me very upset. The youngest children at Ken Danby have already had to deal
with so much change; please don't make them experience even more.
April 24, 2012
I am a parent of 3 small children living on Law dr. We are a 4min walk to the school and we are left
out of "A". Our children currently cross 1 quiet dead end street to attend school. If they have to go to
the new school they will have to cross 4 streets and a driveway for the plaza. We can see Ken Danby
school from our home!!! I don't think that anyone is thinking of the children when making these
decisions it's all about what looks good on paper and how the numbers add up. When you look at "B"
the numbers are much more balanced through to 2017! I also ask some of the school board staff to
go to the corner of starwood and grange at 8am and see how dangerous it is going to be for the
children living in our neighborhood.
April 25, 2012
Scenario A needs to be chosen as staff have recommended. The Summit Ridge area needs to stay at
Danby for all the reasons staff have already identified. We would have no choice but to move Boards
and go to Trinity should you make the poor choice of Scenario B.
We moved to this property for access to schools East of Starwood.
April 25, 2012
I am writing again as the comment section last time I wrote would not let me finish the letter entirely
for some reason. We never thought that it would ever be a possiblity that our children would have to
switch schools as we are a 4min walk from Ken Danby. If "A" is chosen not only will our children have
to switch to a new school they will be switched twice. We have stayed at our current residence so that
our children would never have to cross starwood or watson to go to school and now it looks like they
may have to cross starwood!!! If "B" is not chosen and/or "A" is not fixed to include the streets closest
to the school than I think you will have a lot of families opting to send their children to Holy Trinity
instead. At least they will only have to transfer schools once and not be bused somewhere else when
we can see 2 schools from our driveway. Before Ken danby was built we had decided that instead of
busing our children we would send them to catholic school if the public school was not built in time.
We thought we were very lucky that it was ready in time for our children to start school. Please
consider the children when making your final decision! Please leave our streets O'Conner, Lee, Law
etc inside the boundaries for Ken Danby. Our family loves going to Ken Danby and would like to
continue going there! I understand the need for a new school and if we lived on the otherside of
Starwood we would be very excited about not having to cross Starwood! Please listen to the families in
our neighborhood. There is a very large petition going around. A lot of parents were surprised to hear
that our streets were even being considered outside the boundaries, but why would we ever think that
2
April 18 to April 27, 2012
we would be unable to attend a school you can see from your house? Thankyou for taking the time to
read this.
April 25, 2012
l would like to keep Scenario A
April 25 2012
We Strongly support Scenario A for the following reasons:
1)In Scenario A, the students South of Grange and East of Starwood (eg. Law Dr., O'Connor Ln., etc.)
will have an increased walking distance of a couple hundred meters; this is far less than the 1Km (or
more) increased walking distances imposed on the Summit Ridge students by Scenario B.
(Measurements taken using Google Earth). While these distances may not be obvious when looking
at a street map, please be aware that students in the Summit Ridge area currently access Ken Danby
via a short walking path between Trimble Cr. and Buckthorn Cr.
2) While those students South of Grange, East of Starwood will now have to cross Starwood, a rather
busy street; the children from the Summit Ridge area would have to cross BOTH Starwood and
Grange (2 busy streets) in order to access the Lee St. School. It does not seem fair to go with Scenario
B, a plan that will both increase the walking distance and hazards of the Summit Ridge children by
factors much greater than those that would be imposed on the children already living closer to the Lee
Street School.
3)Due to the increased distance and hazards imposed by Scenario B, many parents in the Summit
Ridge area would feel the need to drive their children to the Lee St. school if Scenario B is selected.
This would increase traffic congestion in the area, not to mention air pollution generated by additional
vehicles now driving their children to school as opposed to allowing them to walk to Ken Danby.
Given the disproportionate increase to both walking distance and hazards to the Summit Ridge area
children if Scenario B were selected, and the imbalance of school populations (which could result in
yet ANOTHER boundary review?) We Firmly stand behind 'Scenario A' - The Staff's Preferred Scenario.
April 25, 2012
As a parent of three children that will be attending the same school next year. My support is in favour
of Scenario "A" for the Lee Street boundary review. Our house on Trimble Cres. is closer in proximity
and walking distance to Ken Danby Public School and is the sole reason for us selecting the location
for our house. In Fact we can literally see Ken Danby Public School from our house. It doesn't make
any sense for all three of our children to have to walk past Ken Danby School to get to Lee Street
Public School. Second, I will not support the decision to send our youngest daughter of four (who will
be entering JK next year) on a school bus to a holding school for a year.
Regards,
3
April 18 to April 27, 2012
April 26, 2012
I would like to support the children from the Summit Ridge Subdivision and agree that they should be
able to continue attending Ken Danby for the 2013/2014 school year.
Bussing children to a temporary school only disrupts their learning and puts them at a disadvantage. I
can say this from experience as my daughter was moved schools on a temporary basis when St.
Joseph’s was under construction and her grades deteriorated to the point where extensive tutoring was
needed.
April 26, 2012
Request the board adopts Scenario A
April 26, 2012
Request the board adopt Scenario A
April 26, 2012
We are in full support of the children on Trimble Crescent and Summit Ridge Subdivision continue to
attend Ken Danby effective the 2013/2014 school year.
We strongly Support Senario A.
April 26, 2012
I am writing in support of Scenario A regarding the residents of Summit Ridge Subdivision. I hope that
I am not too late. My children attend Ken and I have been very pleased with the school and its staff.
My wife usually walks the kids to school through greenspace trails everyday, moving them to Lee St.
and King George would require the kids to either be bussed or driven to school. With all of the
promoting the UGDSB has done of "living green" and being "Earth friendly" it would seem that
scenario B is a contradiction.
April 26, 2012
I live at Crieghton ave and wish to vote for scenario A. For the children of Summit Ridge subdivision
to continue attending Ken Danby school
April 26, 2012
I would like to see scenario A for the students of Ken Danby stay from Summit Ridge subdivision
4
April 18 to April 27, 2012
April 26, 2012
Our family lives on Trimble Crescent. Our oldest child, is in senior kindergarten at Ken Danby. In
September, our son will start junior kindergarten, and 2 years later, our youngest son will also attend
school at Ken Danby. Additionally, we have 2 nieces, who also live on Trimble Crescent, and attend
the same school.
We are writing in support of boundary A, whereby Trimble Crescent will be included in the boundary
that keeps our children at Ken Danby.
We are opposed to boundary B, for the following reasons:
- Safety: Currently, our children only have to cross at one major road (Grange Road). By moving to
the new Lee Street school, our children will have to cross 2 major, and very busy streets at Grange
and Starwood
- Distance: Currently, the walk to school for our children is a manageable distance, using the nature
paths that exist behind our residence. We choose this route, because it adds a valuable continued
education aspect to our children's day, however it is also a shorter distance than taking the city streets.
Our concern with the location of the Lee Street school is that the walking distance using city streets will
increase significantly, and our children may lose the daily opportunity to use these nature trails.
- Social: Our daughter will start grade 1 in September, and we are concerned that she may be in a
position of attending 3 schools in a very short period of time. The social implications of this are of
concern to us.
Thank you for considering our concerns,
April 26, 2012
Dear Trustee Members of the Upper Grand District School Board:
We wish to express our concerns and indicate the reasoning behind our opposition to Scenario A of
the Lee Street Boundary Review based on the following points:
Currently, we have two children attending Ken Danby P.S. and a third child entering school in 2014.
Our current residence on O’Connor Lane was purchased in 2000 based on the fact that the Upper
Grand District School Board was building a public school on the lands directly behind our home.
While one of our children had to be bussed to Edward Johnston P.S., we were advised by school staff
this was temporary and that she and our future children would be enrolled in Ken Danby once it was
completed. At this time, there was no indication that the Board would consider removing our
residence from the Ken Danby school boundary.
In the Lee Boundary report Board staff do not recommend Scenario B as it may cause future
displacement due to possible overcrowding, however the report does not take into consideration that
proceeding with Scenario A may displace children for a second time or may split siblings between
schools.
We note in the report, Board staff do not recommend Scenario B as it will create overcrowding and
will require a subsequent review of the school boundaries. In response although we recognize Board
5
April 18 to April 27, 2012
staff calculated future enrolment numbers based on their expertise, respectfully, these enrolment
numbers are based on assumptions and may be affected by various external factors. We woul
d like to draw the Board’s attention to the reference regarding enrolment numbers in a March 2009
report prepared for the Ontario Minister of Education. The report, Planning and Possibilities: The
Report of Declining Enrolment Working Group indicates that enrolment projections are based on
assumptions on future demographic trends and the report states further that other assumptions could
be made leading to different projections. The report then lists assumptions that are possible and
could affect predicted enrolment numbers.
Similar to other planning reports, it appears that the report provided by Board staff is number based
without any other factors such as quality of life or safety being addressed. When comparing
enrolment numbers between Scenario A and B, the difference for the Lee Street school in 2021 is 41
students. As indicated above, given this number may be affected by other external influences, it is
unfortunate that the report lacks information on the impacts to the community including quality of life
and safety. The current report process is very adversarial. In future; we recommend that community
engagement be conducted prior to the development of possible scenarios not after. By speaking to
the affected neighbourhoods and providing neighbourhood feedback before staff make a
recommendation may not only address public concerns but would assist the Board in making an
informed decision.
One of the points missing from the report is student safety. We note that the report speaks to safe
walking distances, but does not consider the requirements to implement a safe walking route
especially for those children north east of Starwood Road. While we are aware that School Boards
within the City have always expressed concerns regarding student safety; Scenario A to have children
cross Starwood, appears to be contrary to previous comments made by the Board of Trustees with
respect to students crossing roads.
It should be noted that prior to the installation of traffic signals, adult crossing guards were temporary
posted at the intersect
ion of Grange and Starwood and we realize that the use of adult crossing guards may be an option to
assist with the safe crossing. Further, according to past Trustee minutes (June 23, 2009, March 23,
2010) the Board of Trustees clearly supports adult crossing guards, as they have expressed concerns
with respect to the City of Guelph’s recommendation to remove crossing guards during the lunch hour
period.
During the March 23, 2010 minutes the Board encouraged school principals and Councils to voice
their concerns to the City of Guelph with respect to the recommendation to remove lunch hour
crossing guards, further the Board has expressed concerns with respect to the expected increased
number of JK/SK children who would be crossing roads.
While as stated previously we do realize that the use of adult crossing guards may alleviate concerns
with children crossing roads, crossing guards may not be available. We draw the Board’s attention to
a City of Guelph report dated September 12, 2011, in which City staff note challenges maintaining
existing crossing guard staff levels and according to this report, the Upper Grand School Board was
notified of this concern.
Given this information, we would enquire as to whether or not Board staff took the above points into
consideration when recommending Scenario A, as Scenario B reduces the need for adult crossing
6
April 18 to April 27, 2012
guards/additional traffic signals along Starwood and helps to address the Board of Trustees’ concern
with an increased number of JK and SK children required to cross roads.
From our personal viewpoints: we do not support Scenario A as this scenario would result in our
children who currently do not need to cross any roads, including the child scheduled to start JK in
2014 in having to cross Starwood in order to attend school, further it would require our child who has
already attended a holding school to do so again.
We thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
April 27, 2012
Change is difficult, and I think everyone would prefer to keep the status quo. Since that is not an
option, parents in the Summit Ridge area will naturally support Scenario A, while those in the
O’Connor/Lee/Law/Fleming area north of Starwood will lobby for Scenario B. Everyone’s arguments,
while self-serving, are valid and significant. The bottom line is that there is no single scenario that will
satisfy everybody. If the Board is recommending Scenario A, I think we should trust their expertise and
demand that they do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected children and families.
One thing is clear from this process—there are a lot of caring parents in this neighbourhood that are
willing to take a stand for their kids. My hat’s off to you all.
April 27, 2012
I would like to support Scenario A because we would have to walk past Ken Danby to go to Lee Street
which doesn't make the most sense. I would prefer to not have to drive which would no doubt happen
because we are often running late but can still walk the 5 minutes to KDPS. When we are late, the
walk to Lee Street would take that much longer & driving would be necessary & not a very
environmental option.
7
Appendix II
Maps
~9~
DAVIS ST
E DR
DG
RI
PK
YO RK RD
Y
JONES BASELINE
DR
MARSHALL DR
N
WATSON RD N
N RY CT
HE
CITYVIEW
T
N
SO
HIGHWAY 7
L
IN DIAN TR
SO N
YS
PK
WATSON RD S
CITYVIEW DR N
BRADSON DR
Starwood
East DA
A
EN
RD
AU
D
HADATI RD
DR S
STEVENSON ST S
Starwood
West DA
PETTITT DR
W
VICTORIA RD N
STEVENSON ST N
WILLIAM ST
QUEEN ST
ST S
REGENT ST
HUR
A RT
Lee St
Site
FLEMING RD
W AT
Legend
Watson Rd
East DA
DR
GUELPHERAMOSA
TO N
OR
E DR
SUBURBAN AVE
W
LA
K SID
C R EE
CEDARVALE AVE
ST
LN
S C H RO
CR ES
N
FULLER DR
R
ST
ST N
ER
Ken Danby PS
O
EY
HUR
D
R N DR
SEVE
N
ON
OC
N
AR
T
AR
E
LE
GRANGE R D
GUELPH
ER
SK
RUN
LN
MO DR
DO
ELIZABETH ST
ST
ON
RT
KE
HEST E
C
GR A NGE ST
E
R
E
SHACKLETON DR
D
AN
EL
IR
PL
AV
IT
DD
LEACOC
K
SUM M
OO
ST AR W
PALMER ST
R
Laurine
Ave PS
WATT ST
DD
King
George PS
V IPO ND
RD
OR
A
EASTVIEW RD
EDWARDS ST
N TF
OS
MAUDE LN
EASTVIEW RD
U
MO
ER
AM
Morning
Crest DA
North
Eastview
DA
Ottawa
Cres PS
METCALFE ST
DELHI ST
Map 1 - Lee Street Boundary Review - Attendance Areas - Scenario A
COLLEGE AVE E
DA Boundaries
Guelph Innovation
District DA
Lee Street PS
Ottawa Cres PS
Municipal Boundary
Rail Line
STONE RD E
UGDSB Planning Dept., May 2012
VICTORIA RD S
Ken Danby PS
SHEEHY CT
School Location
STONE RD E
PUSLI NCH
0
0.2 5
0.5
1 km
Map 2 - Lee Street Boundary Review - Attendance Areas - Scenario B
Morning
Crest DA
DAVIS ST
E DR
DG
RI
CITYVIEW DR N
BRADSON DR
Starwood
East DA
A
T
PK
W
N RY CT
HE
CITYVIEW
Starwood
West DA
N
SO
YO RK RD
W AT
SO N
YS
PK
Legend
Y
JONES BASELINE
DR
N
WATSON RD N
EN
RD
AU
D
HADATI RD
DR S
STEVENSON ST S
FLEMING RD
PETTITT DR
CEDARVALE AVE
SUBURBAN AVE
Watson Rd
East DA
DR
HIGHWAY 7
L
IN DIAN TR
WATSON RD S
VICTORIA RD N
STEVENSON ST N
WILLIAM ST
QUEEN ST
ST S
REGENT ST
Lee St
Site
GUELPHERAMOSA
TO N
OR
E DR
HUR
W
LA
K SID
C R EE
A RT
ST
LN
S C H RO
CR ES
N
FULLER DR
R
ST
ST N
ER
Ken Danby PS
O
EY
HUR
D
R N DR
SEVE
N
ON
OC
N
AR
T
AR
E
LE
GRANGE R D
GUELPH
ER
SK
RUN
LN
MO DR
DO
ELIZABETH ST
ST
ON
RT
KE
HEST E
C
GR A NGE ST
E
R
E
SHACKLETON DR
D
AN
EL
IR
PL
AV
IT
DD
LEACOC
K
SUM M
OO
ST AR W
PALMER ST
R
Laurine
Ave PS
WATT ST
DD
King
George PS
V IPO ND
RD
OR
A
N TF
OS
EASTVIEW RD
EDWARDS ST
U
MO
ER
AM
MAUDE LN
EASTVIEW RD
MARSHALL DR
Ottawa
Cres PS
METCALFE ST
DELHI ST
North
Eastview
DA
COLLEGE AVE E
DA Boundaries
Guelph Innovation
District DA
Lee Street PS
Ottawa Cres PS
Municipal Boundary
Rail Line
STONE RD E
UGDSB Planning Dept., May 2012
VICTORIA RD S
Ken Danby PS
SHEEHY CT
School Location
STONE RD E
PUSLI NCH
0
0.2 5
0.5
1 km
DAVIS ST
E DR
DG
RI
Starwood
East DA
Y
PK
T
N
WA
N RY CT
HE
CITYVIEW
Starwood
West DA
O
S
YO RK RD
W AT
SO N
YS
PK
Legend
JONES BASELINE
DR
MARSHALL DR
CITYVIEW DR N
BRADSON DR
PETTITT DR
N
WATSON RD N
EN
RD
AU
D
HADATI RD
DR S
STEVENSON ST S
FLEMING RD
CEDARVALE AVE
SUBURBAN AVE
Watson Rd
East DA
DR
HIGHWAY 7
L
IN DIAN TR
WATSON RD S
VICTORIA RD N
STEVENSON ST N
WILLIAM ST
QUEEN ST
ST S
REGENT ST
Lee St
Site
GUELPHERAMOSA
TO N
OR
E DR
HUR
W
LA
K SID
C R EE
A RT
ST
LN
S C H RO
CR ES
N
FULLER DR
R
ST
ST N
ER
Ken Danby PS
O
EY
HUR
D
R N DR
SEVE
N
ON
OC
N
AR
T
AR
E
LE
GRANGE R D
GUELPH
ER
SK
RUN
LN
MO DR
DO
ELIZABETH ST
ST
ON
RT
KE
HEST E
C
GR A NGE ST
E
R
E
SHACKLETON DR
D
AN
EL
IR
PL
AV
IT
DD
LEACOC
K
SUM M
OO
ST AR W
PALMER ST
R
Laurine
Ave PS
WATT ST
DD
King
George PS
V IPO ND
RD
OR
A
EASTVIEW RD
EDWARDS ST
N TF
OS
MAUDE LN
EASTVIEW RD
U
MO
ER
AM
Morning
Crest DA
North
Eastview
DA
Ottawa
Cres PS
METCALFE ST
DELHI ST
Map 3 - Lee Street Boundary Review - Attendance Areas - Scenario C
COLLEGE AVE E
DA Boundaries
Guelph Innovation
District DA
Lee Street PS
Ottawa Cres PS
Municipal Boundary
Rail Line
STONE RD E
UGDSB Planning Dept., May 2012
VICTORIA RD S
Ken Danby PS
SHEEHY CT
School Location
STONE RD E
PUSLI NCH
0
0.2 5
0.5
1 km
CAL LANDER DR
Legend
EASTVIEW RD
SHA CK LETON DR
R
E D
N
SS O
DR
DAV
IS
BU
CK
N
A
FR
ON
DR
W
AT
SO
N
PKY
CITYVIEW DR N
OAKES CRES
HE NRY CT
Starwood
West DA
WA TS ON RD N
CITYVIEW DR S
WH
ITE
ST
YORK RD
RD S
BRA DS ON DR
S LOAN AVE
W ST
AR VIE
CLY THE CREEK DR
AU
DE
N
C LE
WE LLS ST
VICTORIA RD S
INDUS TRIAL AVE
ES
G
ST
AV E
AUDREY
AV E
MENZIE
KINGS MILL AVE
HAY ES AVE
CR
KEAT
IN
VICTORIA RD N
KEMP CRES
HARDY ST
ERIE ST
GARIB ALDI ST
WA LTE R ST
SMITH AV E
ON
T
SWIFT CRES
RD
WILLIAM ST
STE VENSON ST N
S TEVENS ON S T S
AV E
DODDS
DR
SUB URBA N AV E
BEA
UM
M ARS HA LL DR
DR
IDE
EK S
CR E
VA LLE YHAVEN LN
ST
T
ES C
DG
CEDARVA LE AVE
ET
H
FULLE R DR
PETTITT DR
DR
R CR ES
DR
FLE MING RD
AN
ST
EL
IZ
AB
RODE
Lee St
Site
N
RT O
NO
DR
RI
LU
SI
TRAILBROO K L N
N
KL
R EE
LN
ST
LEE S T
HAG AN A VE
OR
NN
Y
O
OC
N
A
CK
W
LA
SIMCOE ST
UGDSB Planning Dept., May 2012
TO
ST
MA
GRANGE RD
THORN T ON
GUELPH
RASPBE RRY LN
JOS EPH
AV E
S CH
BEVERLE Y S T
LS
EY
CT
DR
MARKS
ST
EMPIRE ST
RA
N
AR
KE
Y
LL
GRIN YE R
DO MO DR
Y
BR
LN
HO
GRANGE ST
ES
E
CH
DC
SAN
PL
UPTON CRES
FRANC HE TTO BLV D
CR
S AY CT
N
TO
ER
ST
N
EW
VI
D
AN
EL
IR
L EE C T
D
S T AR
DR
LIN
OD
E
O
KARA
AV
THOR
W
P A LERMO CRE S
ES
CR
AR
MO NTREAL RD
LE
AC
O
CK
ST
DEL MAR BLVD
ER RUN
SK
E
WATSO N
CT
THOM
R
ES
TR
IMB
LE C
HILL TR L
CONRAD
DR
PSON
NORMANDY D R
ST
WA RREN ST
ST
DG
MIT RI
SU M
CAS SINO AV E
P ALMER
SEVERN DR
D ST
CAL GARY AVE
N
VIP O
L L ST
RT
BE
HE
ES
DR
R
H C
Rail Line
WA TT ST
D
OR
D
HAD ATI R
Municipal Boundary
HENDERSO N DR
DR
F
UN T
MO
RA IT
ILW
MC
RN
BU
SH
WA
OTTA WA CRES
L
YEATS CT
EDMONTO N D R
AV E
POPHAM DR
PENFO LD DR
AVE
TP
VANCO UVER DR
DA Assigned to BRUNSWICK
Lee StA VESchool
RYA N
EDWA RDS ST
TROY CRES
Lee Street School Boundary
H T ON
CR EIG
SCOTT CT
D O UGA
School Location A WAL KWAY
EL I O
ME YER DR
Map 4 - Lee Street School - English JK-8 Attendance Area - Effective Sep 2013
BY
TO
ES L
W
P
ne
S
DA
0
0.1 25
0.2 5
0.5 km
Morning
Crest DA
Map 5 - Ken Danby PS - English JK-8 Attendance Area - Effective Sep 2013
MA UDE LN
WA RREN ST
SHA CK LETON DR
HILL
RUN
ESKE R
CKTH O
SWIFT CRE S
BU
DR
R
S T ON D
KEAT IN
AS
FR
WH
ITE
ST
SO N
DR
YORK RD
HIGHWAY 7
TAG GART CT
L
IN DIAN TR
Y
PK
ON
TS
WA
WA TS ON RD S
AIRPA RK PL
SKYWAY DR
DR S
AVE
CITYVIEW
DAVI
WA TS ON RD N
HE
CITY VIE W DR N
N RY CT
O AK ES CRES
RAS PBE
BRA DS ON DR
V IEW ST
SLOAN
CLE
AR
WE LLS ST
INDUS TRIAL AVE
LAWRENCE AV E
SO
N
RD
DE
N
AU
ES
PL
JO YCE
VICTORIA RD N
D
HARDY ST
FLE MING RD
PETTITT DR
DR
ERIE ST
ON
O RT
FULLE R DR
DE
E K SI
ME NZIE A VE
N
CRE
AUDREY AV E
GUELPHERAM OSA
EEK LN
DCR
RSH ALL DR
MA
ST
E DR
LE AW
L
ST
S AN
LN
G
L
R
DR
VEN LN
NO
ON
OC
RA
AN
SUB URBA N AV E
RI
LU
SI
EYH A
ST
L
ST
ST
S
GE
YD
BR
CT S
E
R
Y
NE
AR
AY
CEDARVA LE AVE
ET
H
VA L
SIMCOE ST
A VE
N
EL
IZ
AB
H AGA
S C HR O
GUELPH
MAC K
RN C
D
AN
EL
IR
PL
KE
GRANGE RD
KEMP CRES
MO DR
DO
ER C
RES
ES
CR
N
NL
TO
EST ER
CH
N
L
Y
RR
UPTON C R
D
EW
DR
VI
OD
E
O
AV
RW
P ALE RM O
K
S TA
LE ACOC
STA R
MAR BL VD
EL
CRE S
HADATI RD
O
SEVERN DR
U
L
TR
V AN C
CAS SINO AV E
PENFO LD DR
HENDERSO N DR
DR
E
G
EASTVIEW RD
JONES B ASELINE
WA TS ON PK Y N
DR
ST
D
T RI
N AVE
VIPOND
MI
SU M
R ES
GHT O
ST
DR
ST
RN
RT
BU
V E R DR
CR EI
EDWA RDS ST
BE
HE
W A SH
NTON
DR
C
WA TT ST
DR
H
A IT
AVE
ES
CR
D
OR
WR
BRUNSWICK
TROY
D O UGALL
CT
IL
MC
PL
A WAL KWAY
F
UN T
MO
CRES
EDMO
SCOTT
EL IOT
OTTAWA
DAV IS ST
EASTVIEW RD
VICTORIA RD S
Legend
School Location
N
DU
R
PD
LO
SHE EHY CT
S
CO LLEGE A VE E
Ken Danby PS Boundary
BO
AR
Municipal Boundary
T
RE
UM
RD
Rail Line
UGDSB Planning Dept., May 2012
STO NE RD E
STO NE RD E
PUSL INCH
0
0.2 5
0.5
1 km
NEWSTEA D ST
ST
LD
FI
E
EN
R
TOBEY AVE
O D PL
CARTER DR
CALLANDER DR
EASTVIEW RD
S
OTTAWA CRE S
CT
WILLIAM ST
DUNKIRK ST
R
0
LE E ST
CITYVIEW DR N
OAKES CRES
VICTORIA RD S
KEMP CRES
BRADSON DR
HARDY ST
ERIE ST
GARIBALDI ST
WALTER ST
STEVENSON ST S
WHEELER AVE
HAGAN AVE
NOTE: This map is for reference purposes only.
EMPIRE ST
It is subject to change.
DR
TRAILBROO K LN
LN
EN
RD
UGDSB Planning Dept. May 2012
CRES
Assign ed to Ottawa C res PS
SCHRO DE R
ELIZABE TH ST
T
THORN TON S
Ottaw a C res PS
GRANGE RD
ST
GA
SE
ST
AVE
AY
EE
JOS E PH
School Boundary
MARKS
Only north side
Grange Rd addresses
(even House #'s to 290)
CK
MA
BR
School
GROVE ST
G RINYER DR
N
DOMO DR
ST
GRANGE ST
RA SPBERRY L N
Legend
IA
UR
CT
EY
RN
LY
A
KE
L
HO
LOUISA DR
D
N
NL
TO
L
SI
R
ST E
CH E
UPTON CRES
ES
CR
D
O
CT
NORMANDY D R
EW
O
I
STA R V
W
addresses up to
AC
OC
K House # 46
AV
L IN
E
DS
AY
FRANCHETTO BLVD
DR
AR
M O CRES
KARA LEE
ID GE
MIT R
ST
PAL E R
MONTREAL RD
Only Chesterton Lane
S UM
DR
PSO N
THOM
CONRAD CT
HAD A TI R D
LANE ST
E
CR
DR
SHIRLEY AVE
N
UR
H
PL
Only Watt St addresses
west of Auden Rd or
up to House # 91
LE
T
TS
ER
HB
A IT
BY
DR
TO
WATT ST
CASSINO AVE
DEL MAR BLVD
B
HE
S
WA
RD
ES
W
R
ILW
MC
N
LAURINE AVE
POPHA M DR
O
NT F
ST
JANE ST
L
N
SO
VANCOUVER D R
PALMER ST
MORRIS ST
EDWARDS ST
TROY CRES
U
MO
TP
N VE N
T E
S ST
CALGARY AVE
N
RYAN AVE
YEATS CT
BRUNSWICK AVE
EDMONTON DR
ROSEDALE AVE
LEMON ST
CLARA ST
SCOTT C T
AUD E N RD
SO
VICTORIA RD N
EN
V
NE TT AVE
B EN
North
Eastview DA
HASTINGS BLVD
GREENVIEW ST
FLETCH
ELGINFIELD DR
M
M
RU
D
CT
ER
EL I O
MEYER DR
TE
S
CADILLA C DR
WINSTON CRES
GLENBURNIE DR
WALNUT DR
PL
O
OD
W
AN
D
R
ERIN AVE
JACKSON ST
O
CARMINE PL
SHERIDAN ST
WAVERLEY DR
KNIGHTSWOOD BLVD
PINE DR
BLVD
TERRY
D
CT
RNE AVE
LA VE
SKOV CRES
ES
SA C R
N
O
ER A M
MINSTER AVE
ST
E
LI
OL
NC
S
EL
N
EA
RD
VE
CHE LTONW OOD A
W
PLEASANT RD
A
D
ES
CR
OS
ER
AM
ER
D
NA
DR
OR
T
HYLAND RD
D PL
ON
E
CR
CT
D
C
RT
C
OR
R
HA
IC
BE
HAWTHORNE PL
LINDEN PL
TE
MONTGOMERY ST
FO
WO OD
AC
K
EMMA ST
CO
SPEEDVALE AVE E
SH ER
TA M
AR
P
L
KW
TE A
ER
P
SP RUCE L
ME
CHESTNUT PL
PL
O
PR
N
BALSAM DR
DS
E
AV
A COR
PL
UP LAN
CT
T
GLADSTONE AVE
M
RA
A
ON
LAWARE AVE
DE
SUMAC PL
DAKOTA DR
AN
CATHCART ST
BR
LILAC PL
DU MBARTO N ST
Map 6 - Ottawa Crescent PS JK - 6 Attendance Area - Effective Sept 2012
250
500 m
Map 7 - Laurine Ave PS English 7 - 8 Attendance Area - Effective Sept 2012
CAMPBELL RD
SECOND LINE E
GUELPH-NICHOL TL
WELLINGTON RD 51
JONES BASELINE
WATSON RD N
RD 7
HARTF I
E
DR
MILL RD
MARDEN RD
WELLINGTON RD 29
AY
HW
SR 20
6
WELLINGTON RD 38
WE LLI NG TO N
G
HI
LD
WELLINGTON RD 30
S
SR 6
Important Note:
During the reconstruction of
Laurine Ave PS (the 2012/13
school year), students within this
GUELPH-ERAMOSA
area will attend King George PS.
CONSERVATION RD
TO
N
LPH
KE
G
U
LA E
4
NG
WEL L I 12
RD
IN
WELL
GTO N R D
124
SR 10
SPEEDVALE AVE E
North
Eastview DA
JONES BASELINE
GUELPH
EASTVIEW RD
Legend
School
Municipal Boundary
HIGHWAY 7
School Boundary
UGDSB Planning Dept. May 2012
L
NOTE: This map is for reference purposes only.
It is subject to change.
IND IAN
TR
Laurine Ave PS
DA Assigned to Laurine Ave PS
0
1
2 km
TH
SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS
O
DR
M P S ON
E
T
EL
IR
D
AN
LN
O
C
ON
NO
R
D
LE E S T
ST
PETTIT T DR
D
FR A
8+
77+
+
92
SSO
N
13
86+
+
OAKES CRES
CITYVIEW DR N
A
KE
NG
TI
R
RDEN
GA
BRADSON DR
FLEMING RD
LN
TRAILBROOK LN
RD
DR
93
RA SPBERRY LN
W
LA
SE
KEMP CRES
LN
DR
ST
RA
EE
A
E
NG
FULLER DR
R
AN
RI
EY
RN
ST
BR
GR
H AGAN AVE
A
KE
CT
LU
LY
M AC K
AY
N
TO
LS
WATSON PKY N
ON
SI
L
HO
T
CHESTE R
SWIFT CRES
PL
CLYTHE CREEK DR
N
GRANGE RD
SC
DE
GE
RUN
YD
STARVIEW
RN
HO
KT
C
U
ES
R
C
B
French Immersion
JK L-IN6 - King George PS
ES
CR
D
7/8C - SJohn
McCrae PS
AY
T
9-12 - John F. Ross CVI
AU
BR
RD
ER
SK
English
JK - 8 - Lee St School
9-12 - JF Ross CVI
LE
AC
A V OC
K
E
HILL TR L
Map 8 - Starwood West Development Area - Effective Sept 2013
ST
AR
CEDARVALE AVE
W
85+
OO
HE
N
RY
N LN
DR
CT
D
V A LL EYHAVE
ES
T
YORK RD
DA Boundary
UGDSB Planning Dept., April 2012
Note: This map is for reference purposes only.
It is subject to change.
WATSON RD S
Legend
WATSON PKY S
CITYVIEW DR S
WH
IT
S LOAN AV E
C L EA
R V IE W
ST
WATSON RD N
SUBURB A N
AVE
0
100
200
400 m