lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 261101 STE 11 SA

22 Elm St; 33 Gerrard St W

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
13 December 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
24
7 meetings · 6 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
22 Elm St; 33 Gerrard St W
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
13 December 2019
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
1,709 units
Related file
15 230523 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

INACTIVE Proposal to construct 3 towers (85-storeys, 51-storeys, and 32-storeys) and one 5-storey building comprised of residential, commercial, and community uses including a POPS. A total of 1709 dwelling units and 39,099 m² of non-residential floor area are proposed along with 473 below grade parking spaces. As part of the application, Walton Street would be re-connected as a privately owned publicly accessible right-of-way.

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

2 linked registrations · 24 communications · 7 meetings · 6 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Mayor John Tory9
  • Councillor Mike Layton6
  • Councillor James Pasternak5
  • Ward 11 University-Rosedale2
  • City Manager's Office1
  • Ward 6 York Centre1
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Mayor John ToryCouncillor staff908 September 2021
Councillor Mike LaytonCouncillor staff6210 December 2020
Councillor James PasternakCouncillor staff516 November 2020
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council2210 December 2020
City Manager's OfficeCity staff116 November 2020
Ward 6 York CentreMember of council116 November 2020

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • 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 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=3)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied113—100% (n=11)0%2%0.02
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.