50 Government Street

Email Mayor and Councillors

!! Stop Press !!

 

At the 9th April Committee of the Whole Meeting the motion to decline the development permit for 50 Government Street passed with a vote of 5-2
 

Councillors Coleman, Gardiner, Hammond, Kim and Loughton voted FOR the motion to decline the development

Councillors Dell and Thompson voted AGAINST the motion

Councillor Caradonna recused himself for perception of bias

 

 watch the meeting video ….

Read:

The declined proposal made a mockery of the OCP. If approved, it would have signaled the end of James Bay as we know it.

The declined proposal  was even more outlandish than the earlier proposal rejected by Council in December, 2024.

This proposal was for a 5-1/2 (6 floors) storey building, dwarfing neighbouring properties, which the City bylaws state requires a 30m street frontage (vs the 17.5m lot available frontage). 

Other requested variances included:

  • Side setbacks:  9m required; 1.55m requested
  • Back setback: 8.6m required; 5.65m requested
  • Parking: 19 spaces required; 1 Visitor plus 1 carshare requested

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

Write to Mayor and Council
Your emails will have an impact.

Sign up for email updates. 

 

Send us your comments
Please let us know your thoughts.

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

  • The extreme variances requested by the developer made a mockery of the OCP. The proposal continued past practices by requesting major variances in four key areas.

  • The architect’s listing of how feedback was been incorporated was misleading see comments (starting on Page 4 of letter).

     

  • The January 2026 proposal for 50 Government St was the tenth version of plans publicized by the proponent OEZA Developments and the ninth submission to the City of Victoria.  Every version, including this submission, was out of compliance and continued to disregard clear City and Council guidance.

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

  • The developer ignored specific conditions set by Council, which resulted in a design that increased, rather than reduced, massing, height, and impacts on neighbouring properties.

     

  • The building’s scale, height, and placement would have significantly harmed neighbours’ privacy and were incompatible with the surrounding heritage context.

     

  • Visual materials presented in the proposal were misleading and understated the impact on adjacent heritage homes.

  • Approving this proposal would have 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 January 2026 plans for 50 Government St represented the ninth design proposal submitted to the City of Victoria and remained 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 misinterpreted the Official Community Plan (OCP), and violated multiple zoning standards and design guidelines.

  • This proposal continued past practices by requesting major variances in four key areas.

  • This application tested the City’s commitment to treating the OCP as a firm boundary. It raised the question of whether the OCP would permit developments that relied on one-off discretionary decisions by planners and Council—without the transparency and community input provided under the previous process.

  • The proponent’s continued refusal to adjust their plans contradicted 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.

  • The proposed building continued to ignore Council’s conditions.  It was 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 would have risen to a height of 54 feet just 1.5 m (5 ft) from the property line and extended 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 prioritized developer profit over City and community interests.

  • Approving this development would have 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 have signaled City indifference to the resulting loss of privacy and livability for existing property owners.

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

  • The rejected plans significantly compromised privacy along both the north and south property lines.

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

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

  • The building was 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 had already vetoed external staircases.