Victoria's draft Official Community Plan has raised alarm among many in this City. Of particular concern for those who are concerned about protection of the urban tree canopy, the proposed OCP allows the continuing destruction of trees and green space in order to maximize density, building footprints and developer profits. The City has refused to strengthen the Tree Protection Bylaw to better protect existing trees, require development alternatives and ensure that tree removal is a last resort.
The City and its trees are at stake and time is limited.
The public hearing for the City of Victoria Official Community Plan Update is scheduled for September 11, 2025 starting at 6:30 pm.
Please spread the word, come out to the public hearing and make submissions to oppose the Official Community Plan Update as proposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following information below is from a Coalition of James Bay Residents. Their information is applicable to the entire City of Victoria, not just James Bay.
They also have a petition about James Bay: https://www.change.org/p/urge-victoria-city-council-to-save-what-we-love-about-james-bay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Victoria’s
Official Community Plan (OCP) Update
Summary of Issues & Recommendations
Background for Public Hearing and Media Submissions
Prepared by a Coalition of James Bay Residents
August 2025
Massive Rezoning is Excessive and Unwarranted
Too much. Too fast. Too big. Too tall.
• Provincial legislation calls for “small-scale multi-family housing of 3 to 4 units” in residential areas.
• The OCP update will allow 4 storeys anywhere and up to 6 storeys in Priority Growth and Local and Community Village areas. Higher buildings of up to 12 storeys will be allowed in Community Villages if there is “public benefit”. High rises of up to 18 storeys will be allowed in areas designated as Town Centres. (See City’s website at engage.victoria.ca/ocp )
• Some neighbourhoods like James Bay are rezoned predominantly up to 6 storeys, irreversibly changing their community character.
• The City’s housing targets are unrealistic and significantly exceed projections from BC Stats as to population growth. The amount of housing being planned for in the OCP is way more than required now that population projections have been significantly lowered as a result of federal immigration changes.
• In cities like Vancouver and Toronto, housing supply has already outpaced population growth and new buildings are increasingly unoccupied. Indications for Victoria are that housing supply is also growing faster than population.
Recommended: Reduce housing targets to reflect current realistic population growth projections. Reduce height and density and the pace of development to achieve more gradual growth and a smoother transition.
Inequity for Neighbourhoods
We are one City with many unique neighbourhoods.
• The City’s “One City, One Plan” ignores the unique character and needs of individual neighbourhoods.
• The OCP update’s one-size fits all approach unfairly targets neighbourhoods that already have achieved more than their fair share of density.
• James Bay is a prime example. It is already denser than any other neighbourhood by 40%. Yet the OCP update rezones the majority of James Bay up to 6 storeys.
• On April 17, Councillor Gardiner introduced a motion to keep most of James Bay’s existing zoning. This would allow other communities to catch up to James Bay’s level of height and density before imposing further density. It was voted down after procedural blocks from Councillors Kim and Caradonna.
• Other neighbourhoods have similar concerns that the OCP update is not responsive to their unique needs and priorities. Gonzales, for example, has many unique neighbourhood features, including a precious and fragile Garry Oak ecosystem that is unprotected.
Recommended: Reduce rezoning in already dense neighbourhoods to distribute growth more equitably. Recognize Victoria’s diverse neighbourhoods in the OCP update to address unique character, needs and priorities.
Affordable Housing Remains Unaddressed
Market-pricing benefits investment. Affordability benefits need.
• The housing crisis is a crisis of affordability.
• Yet, Victoria has focused almost exclusively on building new market-priced housing whose rents and purchase prices are unaffordable for the average household. See Victoria needs to get serious about affordable housing
• While the City is overachieving on its overall housing targets, it has abysmally underachieved on its affordable and family housing targets.
• Experts have pointed out that increasing supply and density does not increase affordability. Vancouver is a key example. Despite being among the fastest growing cities in North America for decades, it is now the least affordable. See Memo to Prime Minister Carney on advancing housing affordability
• Existing older housing is the most affordable housing. Demolition further decreases our already limited stock of affordable housing. Research shows that Canada lost 10 affordable units for every new one built over a decade.
Recommended: Make affordable housing, especially non-market rentals, the City’s top priority. Require and incentivize the preservation of viable older affordable buildings to favour conversion, extension and expansion over demolition.
Heritage at Risk
Too much demolition. Not enough preservation.
• Existing older buildings are too often seen as obstacles to density that need to be removed. Developers generally favour demolition over preservation or conversion of existing buildings. This allows higher levels of density and corresponding profits.
• Demolition of older buildings includes heritage and historic properties.
• The OCP update fails to provide explicit and strong protections for heritage and historic properties. There is no protection for the heritage that visitors and locals most appreciate about the older neighbourhoods of Victoria.
• James Bay, for example, is the oldest residential neighbourhood on the West Coast north of San Francisco. With its unique heritage character, it is a significant tourist attraction.
• When heritage and historic buildings are demolished, replacement building designs all too often clash with adjacent buildings and streetscapes, further eroding the neighbourhood’s heritage character.
• Recommended: Strengthen the OCP update to ensure preservation of heritage and historic buildings and areas of the city. Ensure that new structures align with and complement a neighbourhood’s existing character.
Inadequate Protection for Displaced Tenants
Tenants are a casualty of the new OCP.
• Tenants face displacement and higher rents due to demovictions and renovictions to make way for newer, denser development. This results in untold disruption of people’s lives and the lives of their families.
• Compensation required by the City’s proposed bylaw is inadequate, especially for longer-term tenants, many of whom are seniors in communities like James Bay.
• Offers of a 20% discount on market-priced rent in a new development is still unaffordable for most tenants.
• Municipalities like Burnaby have done far more: Protections include full compensation to bridge the gap between current rent and market rents. Tenants have the right to return to the redeveloped building at the same rent in a unit with the same number of bedrooms.
• On May 1, Councillor Hammond proposed increasing demoviction compensation from up to 6 months to up to 18 months. Councillors Caradonna, Dell, Kim, Loughton and Thompson voted against.
Recommended: Strengthen protections for displaced tenants to match Burnaby’s. Implement vacancy controls to limit rent increases when tenants vacate.
Urban Forest at Risk
Development overrides tree protection & threatens canopy growth.
• The OCP update allows the continuing destruction of trees and green space to maximize density, building footprints and developer profits.
• New urban design concepts like minimized setbacks and “perimeter blocks” compete with existing trees and will result in their removal. “Blue/Green networks”, “linear parkways” and private courtyards with newly planted trees cannot compensate for the loss of existing mature trees.
• The City has refused to strengthen the Tree Protection Bylaw to better protect existing trees, require development alternatives and ensure that tree removal is a last resort.
• The City has finally incorporated targets for tree canopy coverage into the OCP. However, the proposed targets do not appear to be based on achievable urban forestry best practices. Targets are also inequitable with 50% targets reduced to 25% in denser residential areas. Neighbourhoods have no input into the tree canopy targets in their area.
Recommended: Strengthen and enforce the Tree Protection Bylaw to better protect existing trees on both private and public land and to require development alternatives to tree removal. Develop achievable tree canopy targets based on
urban forestry best practices and equity amongst neighbourhoods.
Inadequate Infrastructure
Where is the costing, investment and planning?
• Rapid development and increased height and density strain neighbourhood and city infrastructure.
• The City’s underground water and sewer infrastructure is amongst the oldest in Canada (large portions built before 1919).
• Traffic congestion is already increasing throughout the city. In some communities, like James Bay, access and egress is already severely limited, posing risks to health and safety such as evacuation during emergencies.
• The OCP update is vague on what overall infrastructure demands will be created with such massive rezoning and increases in density. The OCP update also does not identify what investments will be made and by whom to ensure such demands are adequately addressed.
Recommended: Identify all infrastructure needs and costs associated with increased density and confirm investments before the OCP update is finalized. Ensure that developers adequately compensate the city for infrastructure costs associated with their developments.
Public Engagement Minimized and Ignored
The Public has the right to be heard.
• The City cannot legitimately present the direction and content of the OCP update as responding to “What We Heard”.
• The City’s engagement process was inadequate and flawed:
• The OCP survey was biased. Only two options were presented. Questions favoured predetermined outcomes. Many residents refused to complete it.
• Only 1457 residents completed the survey, representing 1.5% of Victoria’s population. While no breakdown has been provided, not all of these respondents were in favour of the options provided. In contrast, a citizen-generated on-line petition against the OCP update has garnered 1886 signatures in less time, with additional numbers of in-person signatures. change.org/JamesBayOCP
• OCP consultations of 2 years were condensed to just 6 months.
• Community associations were excluded.
• Previous OCPs allowed each neighbourhood to have its own Local Area Plan (LAP). Existing LAPs have been condensed into a one-size fits all approach. Neighbourhoods whose LAPs were deemed outdated, were given a 2 hour workshop to identify their priorities.
• Many residents, who attended open houses, workshops and showcases, reported that the City did not appear to be seeking input. Rather, the sessions were more about City staff sharing their vision for the OCP update.
• The City has provided no engagement with city residents on the draft OCP update documents.
Recommended: City Council must listen to the public. Make improvements to the OCP update that reflect the full scope of what they hear on these and other issues, without bias. Do not use the Province’s deadline of December 2025 as an excuse. Insist on the Province delaying the deadline to allow improvements and, if necessary, do not comply.
Making a Video for City Council’s Public Hearing
September 11, 2025 is the date for the Public Hearing on the City's
proposed "ONE CITY ONE PLAN"; Official Community Plan Update.
engage.victoria.ca/ocp
If you wish to make your voice heard on this subject, you have options. You
can attend and speak in person, send a written statement, book a time for a
live phone call, or send a pre-recorded video.
Anyone with a selfie camera/device can do a video. A video presentation
can be a very efficient medium. Councillors must view all videos that have
been received.
This medium has two main advantages: avoiding a long wait to speak and
opportunity for a do over if the mic gets dropped or lines get flubbed. Also,
there is the potential for many, many submissions. Get your friends and
neighbours on board.
Video submissions must include:.
You must state this is a Public Hearing item.
You must state your first and last name.
You must give your home address.
You must make a clear statement of support or opposition to the OCP
update.
You have a maximum of 5 minutes to make your point, if you wish to
elaborate, e.g. it doesn't protect existing housing or tenants, puts old trees
in peril, etc.
Pro tip: write a short script, practice reading aloud, looking at the camera
before pressing record. Remember the do over button.
For further instruction, email publichearings@victoria.ca or phone
250.361.0571
E-mail your video submission to publichearings@victoria.ca .
To ensure your submission is reviewed and played during the Public
Hearing, please submit your video by 2 p.m. the Tuesday before the
meeting, i.e. by 2 p.m. September 9. There is no guarantee of inclusion in
the Agenda if it is received after this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also the investigative article: “We need to take the approach of all areas potentially supporting up to six storeys to ensure we have a pivotal opportunity to arrive at where we will inevitably need to get by 2050” – Quote from Sept 19, 2024 UDI Workshop on City of Victoria Official Community Plan (OCP) update. – CRD Watch Homepage
For more information, please contact treesmatternetwork@gmail.com