lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 24 133782 ESC 21 SA

1980 Eglinton Ave E

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
8 April 2024
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
39
25 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1980 Eglinton Ave E
Ward
Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted
8 April 2024
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
491 units
Related file
24 210682 ESC 21 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application for Phase 1 of the development at 1980 Eglinton Ave. E. (RioCan lands) to permit two mixed-use buildings: a 47-storey (154-metre) western building with 491 residential units and a 44-storey (145-metre) eastern building with 467 residential (rental) units, including 34 affordable rental units. The application is related to Official Plan Amendment Application No. 15 258686 ESC 37 OZ (SASP 816(OLT)) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 21 195478 ESC 21 OZ (OLT approved). The application is also related to Draft Plan of Subdivision Application No. 21 195467 ESC 21 SB (under review).

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 · 39 communications · 25 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Development Review36
  • Parks and Recreation3
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Development ReviewCity staff36221 December 2025
Parks and RecreationCity staff335 March 2025

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

None.

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.