50 Government Street

Email Mayor and Councillors

This proposal makes a mockery of the OCP. If approved, it would signal the end of James Bay as we know it.

The latest plans are even more outlandish than the previous proposal which was rejected by Council in December, 2024. 


This proposal is for a 6 storey building, dwarfing neighbouring properties, which the OCP bylaws state requires a 36m street frontage (vs the 17.5m lot frontage). 
 

Other requested variance include:

  • Side setbacks:  9m required; 1.55m requested
  • Back setback: 8.6m required; 5.65m requested
  • Parking: 21 spaces required; 1 Visitor plus 1 carshare requested
The building is too big

This isn't what the new OCP intended - Have your say, Get Involved!

Write to Mayor and Council. Your emails both now and prior to the public hearing (if any?) will have an impact.

Sign up for email updates. The “50 Government St – Let’s Get it Right” group send out an occasional email keeping us up-to-date on this development. 

Send us your comments
Please let us know your thoughts on this proposal.

Our Comments: The following are core problems with the 50 Government St proposal:

  • The extreme variances requested by the developer make a mockery of the OCP. A core objective of the new OCP is to end spot zoning; however, this proposal continues past practices by requesting major variances in four key areas.

  • The city will consider this proposal as a 6-storey building (5-1/2 above ground) not the 5-storeys specified in the developer’s letter to Mayor and Council

  • The architects listing of how feedback has been incorporated is misleading see comments (starting on Page 4 of letter)

  • The November 2025 proposal for 50 Government St is the ninth version of plans publicized by the proponent OEZA Developments and the eighth submission to the City of Victoria.  Every version including the current submission remains out of compliance and continues to disregard clear City and Council guidance.

  • Repeated non-compliant submissions waste staff time, Council resources, and taxpayer dollars.


  • Community members have been disenfranchised by repeated, non-consultative submissions that prioritize developer profit over neighbourhood well-being.

  • The proposal misinterprets the Official Community Plan (OCP), violates zoning and design guidelines, and perpetuates spot zoning—contrary to OCP core objectives.

  • The current application challenges the City’s commitment to applying the OCP consistently and transparently.

  • The building’s scale, height, and placement significantly harm neighbour privacy and are incompatible with the surrounding heritage context.

  • Visual materials presented in the proposal are misleading and understate the impact on adjacent heritage homes.

  • Approving this proposal would set a damaging precedent, undermining OCP implementation, heritage values, and neighbourhood livability.


Click here for elaboration of the above core issues

Background Information

Elaboration of the Core Issues

  • The November 2025 plans for 50 Government St represent the eighth design proposal submitted to the City of Victoria that remains out of compliance, continuing to disregard previous guidance in multiple ways.
  • Repeated submissions have failed to incorporate prior feedback and have resulted in a significant waste of City staff time, Council resources, and taxpayer dollars.
  • The proposal misinterprets the Official Community Plan (OCP), violates multiple zoning standards and design guidelines, and undermines the OCP’s principle of eliminating spot zoning and ad-hoc variances.
  • A core objective of the new OCP is to end spot zoning; however, this proposal continues past practices by requesting major variances in four key areas.
  • This application tests the City’s commitment to treating the OCP as a firm boundary. It raises the question of whether the OCP will permit developments that rely on one-off discretionary decisions by planners and Council—without the transparency and community input provided under the previous process.
  • The proponents’ continued refusal to adjust their plans contradicts Council’s direction, as documented in the December 12, 2024 COTW meeting. This is yet another example of the developer’s intransigence, as highlighted by Councillor Caradonna.
  • At the December 12, 2024 COTW meeting, two important conditions were imposed on the developer:
      • Improve the massing transition to surrounding buildings; and
      • Reduce impacts on neighbouring properties.
        This proposal has worsened both issues compared to previous, already unacceptable, submissions.

  • We now have a proposed building that continues to ignore Council’s conditions.  It is 16.565 meters in height (versus 15 meters under the previous proposal), with an FSR of 2.13 (versus 1.9 previously). On the north side of the development the building will rise to a height of 54 feet just 1.5 m (5 ft) from the property line and extend to the west for much of the adjacent property’s backyard.

  • Submissions made without good-faith community consultation have created significant stress for adjacent residents and the broader neighbourhood.

  • Community members feel disenfranchised and fatigued after repeatedly opposing proposals that prioritize developer profit over City and community interests.

  • Approving this development would set a harmful precedent, enabling developers to consume staff and Council time while undermining heritage and tourism values and the spirit and intent of the OCP.

  • Endorsing such a non-compliant proposal would signal City indifference to the resulting loss of privacy and livability for existing property owners..

  • The submitted visuals are misleading, depicting the third storey as equivalent in height to the adjacent 1.5-storey heritage home on the north property line.

  • The proposed plans significantly compromise privacy along both the north and south property lines.

  • The proposal is incompatible in scale and character with the neighbourhood’s numerous heritage-designated and heritage-registered homes.

  • The design is substantially inconsistent with the City’s design guidelines.

  • The building is oversized for both the lot and the streetscape, which is under consideration for Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) status.

  • Council’s direction to planning staff to consider all of James Bay for HCA status should include pausing proposals that request variances, as well as pausing any applications within proposed HCAs until staff have reported back and Council has made decisions on HCA boundaries.

  • The building’s placement at the base of an existing HCA disrupts sight lines and diminishes the character of that area.

  • Presentations by Victoria’s Fire Chief to City Council have highlighted serious fire-safety issues in buildings with only one stairway. The developer has repeatedly attempted to use external stairways to increase density for profit; however, due to the small lot size and the negative impacts on privacy, light, and noise, Council has already vetoed external staircases. They should not be permitted.