lobbyTO

Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)

Development application 21 230120 STE 09 CD

20 Caledonia Rd; 32 Caledonia Rd; 34 Caledonia Rd; 36 Caledonia Rd; 1500 St Clair Ave W; 1520 St Clair Ave W; 1536 St Clair Ave W

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
25 October 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Addresses
20 Caledonia Rd; 32 Caledonia Rd; 34 Caledonia Rd; 36 Caledonia Rd; 1500 St Clair Ave W; 1520 St Clair Ave W; 1536 St Clair Ave W
Ward
Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted
25 October 2021
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
753 units
Related file
21 175097 STE 09 OZ

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

Description

*** Draft Plan of Condominium for 753 dwelling 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

2 linked registrations · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Bailao, Ward 92
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Bailao, Ward 9Councillor staff2030 March 2021

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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 9

2 lobbied · 4 matched

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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 9: 2 lobbied and 4 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—100% (n=6)0%0%0.03

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.