lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 10 147097 STE 28 SA

9 Queens Quay E; 15 Queens Quay E; 25 Queens Quay E; 29 Queens Quay E; 39 Queens Quay E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
7 April 2010
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
15
10 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
9 Queens Quay E; 15 Queens Quay E; 25 Queens Quay E; 29 Queens Quay E; 39 Queens Quay E
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
7 April 2010
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
63,234 m² gross floor area
Related file
10 147083 STE 28 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

Site Plan Approval Application for Pier 27 Phase 2: proposal for 3 new mixed use building containing retail at grade and 607 residentail units in 3 buildings comprising two 13-storey buildings and one 35-storey building. Gross Floor Area is 63,234 sq. m including 2,100 sq. m of retail space and a 532 sq. m child care facility. 773 parking spaces on four levels of below grade parking including 262 spaces for a commercial parking facility and three carshare spaces.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 15 communications · 10 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Pam McConnell6
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale5
  • Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 283
  • Mayor's Office1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Pam McConnellCouncillor staff646 January 2012
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council5415 June 2011
Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 28Councillor staff3112 April 2011
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff114 April 2011

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)3%3%0.04

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.