lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 140160 STE 09 SA

90 Croatia St; 1141 Bloor St W

Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
29 April 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
18
8 meetings · 8 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
90 Croatia St; 1141 Bloor St W
Ward
Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted
29 April 2022
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
264 units; 24,500 m² gross floor area
Related file
17 237256 STE 18 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval for a 22-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 981.5 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 24,500.30 square metres. 264 rental dwelling units are proposed.

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 · 18 communications · 8 meetings · 8 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Corporate Real Estate Management5
  • Mayor John Tory4
  • Councillor Ana Bailão3
  • Ward 9 Davenport2
  • City Planning1
  • Mayors Office1
  • Office of Ana Bailao1
  • John Tory1
Data table· 8 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Corporate Real Estate ManagementCity staff5029 October 2024
Mayor John ToryCouncillor staff417 November 2022
Councillor Ana BailãoCouncillor staff3220 January 2022
Ward 9 DavenportMember of council2220 January 2022
City PlanningCity staff1120 January 2022
Mayors OfficeCouncillor staff1110 March 2023
Office of Ana BailaoCouncillor staff1031 March 2022
John ToryCouncillor staff1120 December 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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=5

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

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 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied20—100% (n=4)0%0%0.05
Matched, unlobbied21—100% (n=5)0%0%0.10
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.