lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 26 185667 STE 12 SA

1 Heath St E; 22 St Clair Ave E; 25 Heath St E; 27 Heath St E; 29 Heath St E; 30 Alvin Ave; 36 Alvin Ave; 1485 Yonge St; 1497 Yonge St; 1501 Yonge St; 1521 Yonge St; 1525 Yonge St

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
16 June 2026
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
0
0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1 Heath St E; 22 St Clair Ave E; 25 Heath St E; 27 Heath St E; 29 Heath St E; 30 Alvin Ave; 36 Alvin Ave; 1485 Yonge St; 1497 Yonge St; 1501 Yonge St; 1521 Yonge St; 1525 Yonge St
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
16 June 2026
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
661 units
Related file
19 134851 STE 12 OZ

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

Description

Mixed use development consisting of three towers organized around a central publicly accessible open space (POPS), along with a new 1,560 m² public park at the northwest corner of the site. The development would include 661 residential units, approximately 15,627 m² of retail, restaurant, wellness and other non-residential uses, and a network of mid-block pedestrian connections, including a direct connection to St. Clair Subway Station. The proposal also incorporates a shared podium for Towers 1 and 2, a standalone Tower 3 connected by an enclosed bridge, and below-grade vehicular, loading and servicing facilities to support a pedestrian-focused public realm.

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 · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

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 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied511

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied32—100% (n=4)0%3%0.00
Matched, unlobbied72511100% (n=7)0%0%0.05
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)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.