lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 17 162972 WET 17 SA

908 St Clair Ave W; 910 St Clair Ave W; 912 St Clair Ave W; 916 St Clair Ave W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
19 May 2017
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
908 St Clair Ave W; 910 St Clair Ave W; 912 St Clair Ave W; 916 St Clair Ave W
Ward
Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted
19 May 2017
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
173 units; 12,481 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Site Plan application for proposed 12-storey mixed use building containing 173 residential condominium units with retail on the ground floor and underground parking. The proposed development would have a total residential gross floor area of 12,481 square metres and 660 square metres of retail space. A total of 99 vehicle parking spaces (92 spaces within two levels of underground parking and 7 surface parking spaces) and 137 bicycle parking spaces would be provided.

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 · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 17 Davenport2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 17 DavenportMember of council2225 January 2017

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.

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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

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

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • 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 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=4)0%0%0.10
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.