lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 113000 STE 13 SA

3 Gerrard St E; 363 Yonge St; 365 Yonge St; 367 Yonge St; 369 Yonge St; 371 Yonge St; 373 Yonge St; 375 Yonge St; 377 Yonge St; 379 Yonge St; 381 Yonge St; 385 Yonge St; 387 Yonge St; 391 Yonge St

Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
7 February 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
0 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
3 Gerrard St E; 363 Yonge St; 365 Yonge St; 367 Yonge St; 369 Yonge St; 371 Yonge St; 373 Yonge St; 375 Yonge St; 377 Yonge St; 379 Yonge St; 381 Yonge St; 385 Yonge St; 387 Yonge St; 391 Yonge St
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
7 February 2019
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
1,415 units; 96,532 m² gross floor area
Related file
15 146478 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application to permit the construction of a 85-storey mixed-use development. The proposal entails 96,532 m2 of residential GFA and 7,440 m2 non-residential GFA. A total of 1,415 residential units are proposed.

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 · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Councillor Wong-Tam1
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor Wong-TamCouncillor staff1017 May 2016
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council1017 May 2016

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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—100% (n=7)0%2%0.01
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)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.