lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 212841 STE 10 SA

1071 King St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
29 October 2020
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
6
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
82
7 meetings · 8 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1071 King St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
29 October 2020
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
298 units; 20,456 m² gross floor area
Related file
11 251394 STE 19 OZ

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

Description

Proposal for a 17-storey (56.6 metre) mixed-use building containing 298 dwelling units. The proposed residential gross floor area is 20,456 square metres, and the proposed non-residential gross floor area is 520 square metres.

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

6 linked registrations · 82 communications · 7 meetings · 8 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 9 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Transportation ServicesCity staff51027 February 2023
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff14431 July 2023
Councillor Joe MihevcCouncillor staff9120 July 2022
Ward 10 Spadina-Fort YorkMember of council3227 June 2022
Ausma MalikMember of council101 December 2022
Brad BradfordMember of council101 December 2022
Chris MoiseCouncillor staff1010 February 2023
Dianne SaxeMember of council1010 February 2023
Mike ColleCouncillor staff105 October 2023

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

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,881

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 · 1,237 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 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, unlobbied1651,881100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.