lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 152485 STE 14 SA

1050 Eastern Ave; 1060 Eastern Ave; 1555 Queen St E; 1575 Queen St E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
10 May 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
5
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1050 Eastern Ave; 1060 Eastern Ave; 1555 Queen St E; 1575 Queen St E
Ward
Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
Submitted
10 May 2021
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
632 units; 46,034 m² gross floor area
Related file
19 255597 STE 14 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval for a mixed-use building consisting of a 17-storey condominium tower, and a 16-storey rental building atop an 8-storey shared podium. The building will have a non-residential gross floor area of 1,544 square metres and a residential gross floor area of 46,034 square metres. A total of 632 residential dwelling units are proposed, comprised of 367 condominium units, 183 market rental units, 32 City-owned affordable rental units, and 50 developer-owned affordable rental units.

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 · 5 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Mayor John Tory5
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Mayor John ToryCouncillor staff5020 January 2022

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 14

17 lobbied · 35 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 14: 17 lobbied and 35 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied35Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.