lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 250474 ESC 21 SA

1900 Eglinton Ave E

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
21 December 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
0
0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1900 Eglinton Ave E
Ward
Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted
21 December 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
975 units; 71,738 m² gross floor area
Related file
21 111522 ESC 21 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan application for Phase 1 of the proposed development for the lands at 1900 Eglinton Ave E to permit two (2) mixed-use buildings on the southwest portion of the lands and 1,750 sq. m. of parkland (triangular park on the east side of Hakimi Ave). The proposed 45-storey (east) and 48-storey (west) buildings would consist of a total gross floor area (GFA) of 71,738 sq. m. (69.777 sq. m for residential uses and 1,961 sq. m for retail uses), 975 residential units and a floor space index (FSI) of approximately 8.77 times the application lands. A total of 343 vehicle parking spaces and 732 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. This application is related to Official Plan Amendment Application No. 19 208733 ESC 21 OZ and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 21 111522 ESC 20 OZ.

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 · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

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 21

10 lobbied · 44 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 21: 10 lobbied and 44 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied10Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied44Hidden: 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.