The only proposal to reach Council (rejected)
Although there have been 8 versions of the proposal submitted to the planning department only one, the 5th, has been presented to council.
The proposed design was firmly rejected by Council but an amended motion was was reluctantly approved (5-4) by Council, subject to significant changes being made to the building.
It appears that the developer has totally ignored ignored the advice given by Council and, in the latest proposal, has increased rather than decreased the key aspects of the design.
Key increases are: (Reviewed by Council / Latest Proposal)
- Number of storeys: was 5/ now 6
- Height: was 15.92m / now 16.57m
- Density: was 1.94 / now 2.13
In other key areas the requested variances greatly exceed the new OCP bylaws:
Variances Requested / minimum required by bylaw)
- Side setback: 1.55m requested / 9m required
- Rear setback: : 5.65m requested / 8.6m required
- Street frontage: 17.5 available / 36m required
- Parking: 1 visitor and 1 car share proposed/ 21 stalls required
The latest proposal will be reviewed by City Planning against the new OCP and, hence, the previous planning approval is no longer valid.
However, the total disregard by the developer to the strong concerns expressed by Council are very relevant.
These concerns were detailed in the Times Colonist on 15th December 2024 (see below)
“The need for new rental housing units trumped neighbourhood outrage as Victoria council reluctantly moved forward a 16-unit rental project in James Bay.
Council gave initial approval in a narrow 5-4 vote for a four-and-a-half storey project proposed for 50 Government St. by Oeza Developments, but emphasized the proponent needs to make significant changes to the design of the building.
Those changes include reducing the overall size and footprint of the project, providing more outdoor space, trees and landscaping, reducing the impact on neighbouring properties and changing external staircases so they don’t face adjacent properties.
Even councillors who voted in favour of advancing the project said they did so reluctantly.
“Without improvements to this project, it is very likely to be rejected,” said Coun. Dave Thompson.
Noting an earlier motion to decline the project outright had been defeated by one vote, Thompson warned the applicant: “If you do a lot of work to make this better, you might get support, and if you don’t, then it’s very likely to fail.”
Coun. Susan Kim, who voted in favour of the project along with Thompson, Mayor Marianne Alto, Coun. Matt Dell and Coun. Krista Loughton, insisted it return to committee of the whole for further consideration once the developer completes the changes.
Kim said council is listening to the concerns of the neighbourhood, while taking into account the need for more housing in the city.
Dell said the proposed building looks too big and out of character for the neighbourhood, calling it “actually a great development in the wrong spot.”
“This type of project is really innovative. It’s just unfortunately been proposed in a really beautiful, small, charming character heritage neighbourhood.”
Dell said sending Oeza back to the drawing board to make changes will result in a substantially different building.
Coun. Jeremy Caradonna, who voted against the project along with councillors Marg Gardiner, Stephen Hammond and
Chris Coleman, said it’s the first time he has voted against housing.
As the council liaison for James Bay, Caradonna said he has yet to find someone who supports the project.
“It takes a lot for me to vote no on housing. We finally found an application that surpasses that threshold.”
He said he had not seen a good-faith effort from the developer to work with city staff or the neighbours to make the project more palatable.
Gardiner said the city is sending the wrong message to developers by not declining the proposal outright.
She said developers are being told “hit this city with whatever you want, this council will not turn you down.
”
Hammond, echoing a slew of concerns from James Bay residents, said the project is too tall, too dense and too close to adjacent properties.
“I can’t believe this has come to our council,” he said. “This is so far out of line.”