How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Mauricio Curbelo's mark for it on the right; the key underneath says what each mark means. Open a row for the questions behind that mark, what they answered, and why each answer scored as it did. The control above the list opens all of them at once. At the foot of the page you can print this scorecard or share it as an image.
General
What Mauricio Curbelo said
- Not graded GEN-01
If you could change one policy, bylaw, feature, or municipal asset (i.e, facility or infrastructure) in your municipality, what would it be and why?
I would refocus Saanich on generating results rather than endless plan-writing. I would like to see us achieve progressive goals rather than win awards for how progressive our plans sound.
This starts with refocusing Council's own Strategic Plan on direct actions to be done by existing staff, as was common before 2015. Since that time, the Strategic Plan has devolved into a wish-list to investigate frameworks and concepts, hire endless consultants, and produce overly ambitious plans that ignore budgets and operational reality and that cannot be realistically implemented while keeping taxes reasonable.
Saanich acts like a family that can barely afford to paint a room but keeps paying architects to design a mansion. This has left opponents of its plans angry about changes that won’t likely happen, and supporters disappointed about promises that won’t be kept.
For example:
We have an award-winning Climate Plan, Urban Forest Strategy, and Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. Yet we also have a $700K Urban Forest Reserve Fund that keeps growing, because we are better at collecting money than planting trees.
We have a People, Parks and Pets Strategy that hasn't built any off-leash dog parks - we're on the fifth year of temporary "pop-up dog parks."
We have a Road Safety Action Plan that dedicates 80% of its actions to studies rather than infrastructure.
We have an Active Transportation Plan that pushes most infrastructure upgrades out decades into the future. Kids walking to school today might be retired by the time we have a comprehensive sidewalk network.
We have an award-winning Housing Strategy, and didn't meet our housing targets.
And these are just the most recent plans. We also have a graveyard of plans we never fully implemented, such as the Heritage Action Plan, the Tillicum Burnside Streetscape Plan, and more.
I would much rather see improving scores on our Resident Satisfaction Surveys than win an award for a plan. This will be my overarching focus. - Not graded GEN-02
Your municipality has received $10 million in new annual funding and must spend all of it. How would you allocate it across the following areas? Your answers must total $10 million.
Mauricio Curbelo's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $1,000,000 Transit $500,000 Walking Infrastructure $1,000,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $500,000 Roadway Infrastructure $3,500,000 Policing $500,000 Fire & Emergency Services $1,000,000 Parks & Recreation $1,000,000 Arts & Culture $0 Climate Action & Environment $1,000,000 Unhoused Resident Services $0 Community-Based Clinics $0 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
I would assign almost the entire amount to our $50.9M annual infrastructure funding shortfall, though I did include an amount for Housing, which I'd use to support below-market/affordable housing.
If we really did receive a permanent annual windfall like this, the responsible use would be to spend it on core municipal services with documented, ongoing need, rather than rain down money on individual councillors' priorities.
Unfortunately the survey lacks categories for core municipal assets such as underground utilities and facilities. I have made an attempt to map the actual deficit to the survey's categories, and I've attempted to do so proportionally based on Saanich's 2025 State of Assets Report. Since the categories are different between Saanich's report and this survey, here's how I did it:
Roadways: I assigned Saanich water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure deficits to roadway infrastructure since these utilities are mostly under roadways.
Transportation: I split Saanich's transportation infrastructure deficit between roadways, walking, cycling, and transit. I assigned a bit more to walking to account for the high cost of sidewalk construction.
Climate action: I assigned some funds here since some of our infrastructure costs will include adapting to extreme weather and planting shade trees.
Services and facilities: Some of our infrastructure deficit is in facilities, IT, and vehicles, and I assigned this to police and fire since there was no generic category for all municipal services (though obviously there are services and facilities that aren't under police + fire).
Park & Recreation: I assigned our parks and trails infrastructure deficit here.
To be clear, ALL of these priorities are important, but if we really got a no-strings-attached windfall, it should primarily be spent on our infrastructure deficit, and we can have a proper discussion with the rest of council and the public about how we pay for all our other priorities with the rest of the money we get through taxes.
Healthcare access
What Mauricio Curbelo said
- Not graded HLT-01
What role should your municipality play in establishing new primary care clinics?
Why we ask this
Ungraded. Mainly curious about how you'd approach expanding healthcare access in your region.
Chose 1 of 4 options - Not graded HLT-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to healthcare in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I would prefer to have a model where Saanich is not directly involved in running a clinic, but can instead incentivize or support the creation of one that could be operated by another group.
Transit
A- 20% of this topic TRN-01 A
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Ticked all four fare measures: free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors, cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance, and a lower cost regional monthly pass. Every group of riders the question named is covered, so nothing is missing from the ask.
How this question is graded
A count of ticks, because no option here is cheaper than the others in the way CLI-06's are. Four or more = A. Three = B. Two = C. One = C-. None = F. The rows graded before this rubric was written are not perfectly consistent with it at three and two ticks; they were left as typed and the majority letter was taken. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 B
Do you support removing general on-street parking (excluding accessible parking spaces) from frequent transit corridors and main arterial streets in your municipality, and reallocating that space to bus lanes, loading zones, and walking and cycling infrastructure?
Why this grade: Would pull general street parking off frequent transit corridors only where a specific project demands it, leaving the rest of the corridor untouched and each removal to be won on its own. The direction is right but the reach is narrow, so it sits under a full yes.
How this question is graded
Yes, across the whole corridor = A. Yes, only during peak hours = B. Kind of, only when a specific project requires it = C. No = F. Peak hours only is a real, testable limit on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Only when a specific project requires it names no project and commits to nothing in advance, which is the case-by-case answer CLI-08 puts at C. A No is F because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. Eight of the earlier rows put the case-by-case option at B and nineteen put it at C; the nineteen were followed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 —
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: Answered unsure on rapid transit priority, so no position is stated either way about moving quickly where parking or a general traffic lane is at stake. An absent position cannot be credited as support.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, but not at the cost of a general-purpose travel lane = C-. No = F. The question asks specifically about giving up a traffic lane, so a yes that rules the lane out withholds the one thing being asked for and cannot take the conditional-yes B. C- rather than F because the rest of the toolkit is still on the table. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Supports creating a regional transportation authority. The yes carries no conditions.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. A No is C- rather than F because this asks who should decide, not what should be built or funded, which puts it on the governance side of the CLI-03 split. Three earlier rows typed F and two typed C-; the governance rule was followed over the count. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 A
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Said yes to new bus and bike links through parks, golf courses and other public land where they would substantially shorten trips. Nothing was attached to the answer.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if no mature trees are lost during construction = B. No = F. Losing no mature trees is a named and checkable condition, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is F because the question is about building a connection, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded TRN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to transit in your region, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I would support lower-cost fares and free passes for youth, seniors, and low-income folks given how challenging cost of living is for people at the moment - and I would prioritize discounts based on income over those based on age.
We also have to keep in mind that the key obstacle to more people using transit is commute time and service frequency, not cost. If money becomes available to improve transit, we have to carefully weigh whether it should be used to reduce fares or improve service.
I support implementing transit priority, but reductions of travel lanes are too big of a decision to provide a black-and-white answer in advance for all roads. Though generally I do believe that in a growing region we need to provide safe, convenient, and reliable non-car transportation options so that we can minimize the congestion that would result from population growth if everyone drove.
Housing
B- HFL-01 7 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
Mauricio Curbelo chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 8 / 8
Which of the following items do you support to minimize tenant displacement and maintain/grow the supply of affordable housing? Select up all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per strategy to max of 8. To tackle tenant displacement local governments must take an all of the above approach to reduce the impacts associated with renovictions and evictions.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 8 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 6 / 6
Do you think your municipality should have target approval times for multifamily housing?
How this question is graded
6 points for 30/180 days, prorated for longer timelines. Housing delayed is housing denied. Long delays drive us costs for housing, increase the chance that they will be cancelled, and indicate a lack of clear published guidelines. A time limit on decisions prioritizes housing action and reforms.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 5 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 5 of 8 options - HFL-05 3 / 3
Do you believe that the municipality should pre-zone to the uses, heights and densities outlined in the Official Community Plan, so that OCP-compliant projects can be built without rezoning or public hearing?
How this question is graded
3 points for yes, 0 for no. An OCP sets out the direction and vision for a municipality with broad input from the community and council. Matching zoning to long term consensus-based plans reduces scarcity and allows incentivizes OCP compliant housing to be built quickly.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 0 / 6
Beyond the three to four units Bill 44 already requires, what is the most housing you think should be legal to build by-right (i.e. without rezoning) in traditional single-family areas of your municipality?
How this question is graded
a) 0 points b) 1 points c) 2 points d) 5 points e) 6 points. With little room for new single family developments, housing abundance relies on density. People unable to afford a single family house should not be relegated to living only on busy arterials where high density is legal, but should have a diversity of housing options in every neighbourhood.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-07 0 / 3
A housing proposal has been reviewed by staff and they recommend approval. It requires rezoning because the existing zoning has not been updated. If it faces substantial neighbourhood opposition, how would you generally vote?
How this question is graded
3 points for a), 0 otherwise. Housing approval rules must be predictable and clear for those building housing, or it will lead to scarcity. If municipal planning staff have adequately considered objections to a project and still recommend approval it should be approved. If unanticipated issues are raised, policies should be clarified to ensure staff can work with applicants on future projects.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 2 / 2
Do you support eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments or suites?
How this question is graded
1 point for yes, 2 points for yes with transportation demand management measures, 0 points for no. A single additional parking space can add tens of thousands to the cost of a home. However, a development without parking and without offsetting remedies can impact livability for the eventual occupants of a home.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 5 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 5 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 1 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 6 / 6
Municipal asset-management plans have identified substantial gaps between current funding and the amount needed to maintain and replace roads, water and sewer systems, public buildings, and other infrastructure. In Victoria, the 2024 Corporate Asset Management Strategy identified $570 million worth of infrastructure in poor or very poor condition. Which approaches would you prioritize to address this infrastructure problem? Select up to two.
How this question is graded
5 points for selecting more housing and commercial development, 1 for seeking additional provincial or federal funding, 0 points for increasing taxes or reducing infrastructure projects, and -2 points for increasing development charges, amenity contributions, and other fees imposed on new houses.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 2 of 6 options - HFL-10 7 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerI grew up in a family that relied on rental apartments, and now I'm restoring a heritage house here in Saanich. I've lived the housing spectrum and I'm committed to ensuring others can plant roots here.
I'd like there to be more homes in our community and I would also like to have a better community consensus around growth. One way I'm proposing to do this is to develop a catalog of pre-approved housing options that get a permit in 10 days, like Kelowna did - and to develop such a catalog with public input.
Parking minimums; I am more supportive of eliminating these for small developments than large ones. We should consider the viability of walking, cycling, and transit based on the location.
Density; I think we should consult on plans and execute on permits. It's important to have community input and buy-in for the municipality's vision of change. Once we agree on the overall plan, those housing forms should be easy to get approved. I support pre-zoning to match the OCP if the OCP is a broadly-supported vision.
Affordable housing; Realistically, below-market housing requires free land or some kind of subsidy. It is tragic that the province ended the Community Housing Fund and I'm glad that council wrote to them advocating to reinstate it. I support using public land for below-market housing. We also must recognize that even within market-rate housing, the most affordable units are those which are old - and we will not get more of these in the future unless we build new housing at some point. The balance is making sure that new housing projects aren't entirely on a collision course with our oldest, most affordable existing housing stock.
Housing targets; While the current target represents 75% of estimated housing need, we've also seen changes in demand (e.g. immigration) and the market. I wouldn't pick a fight over the target, but rather, would focus on making it easier to build homes.
Climate
B- 8% of this topic CLI-01 —
Would you support ending fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship on property, media and events controlled by your municipality, to the extent the law allows? And would you advocate for the same at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission for BC Transit vehicles and shelters?
Why this grade: Has not decided whether to end fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship. An unsure states no position, so the row is left out of the grade.
How this question is graded
Two commitments in one question, so the menu answer alone cannot reach the top. The menu sets a base and a Yes on the follow-up about advocating at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission raises it one step. Yes, both advertising and sponsorship = B, and A with the follow-up. Yes, advertising only or Yes, sponsorship only = C, and B with the follow-up. No = F, because ending the advertising is something the municipality controls outright. A follow-up written as free text rather than ticked is a judgement about the candidate and is graded by hand. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 6 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 C-
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: One of many priorities, with affordability as the gate. Nothing is committed in advance, which is why this sits low.
How this question is graded
The overriding priority, other decisions should be tested against it = A. One of the top three priorities, with a dedicated budget = B. One priority among many, addressed where affordable = C-. Not a municipal priority = F. The ladder skips C on purpose: a dedicated budget is the line between a priority and a sentiment, so addressing climate only where affordable drops two steps rather than one. Handing the file to another order of government is F. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 —
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Declined this question, and set out in the written climate comments an approach built around outcomes a municipality can actually reach, naming data centres and leaf blowers directly. Left ungraded because the position is explained rather than withheld.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. The No is C- rather than F because of the split the grading settled on: a plain No is C- where the question is about governance or conduct and F where it is about infrastructure, land use or funding. This one asks a candidate to give up a channel of access to themselves, which is conduct. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 B
Climate-related damage and adaptation costs increasingly fall on municipal budgets. Would you vote to have your municipality join other BC local governments in legal action to recover a share of those costs from major fossil fuel producers?
Why this grade: Yes, conditional on a cost cap. That is genuine backing held one step short of full commitment.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if municipal costs are capped = B, because a conditional yes is B wherever one appears and a cap on municipal exposure lands there. No = F, because the question is about spending to recover costs, which is the funding side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 —
Will you support a zoning bylaw amendment that prohibits the approval of any new or expanded commercial gas stations within municipal boundaries?
Why this grade: Declined this question, having used the written climate comments to explain a preference for weighing each industrial proposal on its own impacts. Left ungraded because the reasoning behind the decline is stated rather than absent.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A land use question, so a No is F rather than C-. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 A
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: Supports all five measures. The funded ones are in, so the commitment is not limited to bylaws and messaging.
How this question is graded
Up to five measures may be ticked. Four or more ticks including at least two of the three the municipality has to pay for (subsidized home assessments, grants or financing for retrofits, designated centres with guaranteed opening hours) = A. Three or more ticks = B. Two = C. One = C-. None of the above = F. The funding floor is there because a straight count of ticks would let a candidate reach the top on the two cheapest options, a vegetation bylaw and an information campaign, while committing no money to anyone actually living in an overheating home. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 5 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 A
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: Backs the phase out with no conditions. That is the strongest response available here.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A regulatory phase-out, graded on the same footing as CLI-05. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 C
Large data centres can add substantial electricity and water demand. Under what conditions, if any, would you support a new data centre in your municipality?
Why this grade: Leaves the conditions to be decided one application at a time. That is a willingness to consider rather than a position on the demand itself.
How this question is graded
Oppose all new data centres = A. Support only with waste-heat recovery and no net increase in potable water use = B. Support only under conditions set case by case = C. Support without special conditions = F. The two conditional options are separated by whether the condition binds. Waste-heat recovery and no net potable water increase is a testable commitment, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Conditions set case by case name nothing and commit to nothing, so it takes the C that a depends-case-by-case answer gets everywhere else. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 B
What are the primary climate risk(s) facing your community, and what actions would you take to support adaptation and resilience in your community?
Why this grade: Clearly identifies current climate risks and provides a general answer that is within the scope of local government jurisdiction. Doesn't provide specific examples of what actions they will support to address these risks.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names a climate risk specific to the municipality and specific actions against it, usually tied to data or a programme already running. B = one half only, a risk with no action or actions with no risk named, or backing an existing plan without either. C = general support with nothing local in it, a list of risks and nothing else, or the work handed to the region. C- = a risk gestured at and nothing more. F = an answer that is not about climate.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerExtreme weather, heat events, and fire. We need to close our infrastructure deficit, allowing us to gradually replace our infrastructure with alternatives that meet modern engineering standards. We need to create more shade at the street level, especially in growing areas. We also need to consider what infrastructure or resources Saanich might create to deal with ongoing severe heat events, especially to serve vulnerable folks and seniors.
There is also risk that we continue to focus on symbolic actions, declarations, and report-writing over achieving real climate outcomes at the muncipal level. For example, Saanich has an award-winning climate plan but has struggled to turn the Urban Forest Reserve Fund into actual trees.
Climate also cuts across other issues: progress on housing, transportation, and infrastructure replacement are important climate levers we can pull at the municipal level, and we should aim for real outcomes in these areas. Unfortunately municipalities will be saddled with most of the costs of climate adaptation, and this is something we have to prepare for. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 C
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Open to learning about and supporting ecosystem connectivity, but does not offer specifics about any current or future projects.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = says what connectivity is and why it matters, with local examples, usually tied to data, a programme already running or the official community plan. B = practical examples with no local detail, or no link back to connectivity. C = general support with no project named, or an answer broad enough to fit any question. C- = agrees with the idea and offers nothing to do about it, or answers about something tangential. F is not used.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerAdmittedly this isn't my area of expertise but I would be glad to hear from the groups who wrote this survey on what exactly is meant here. Saanich already has a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy that is being integrated into neighbourhood plans and individual projects and I support continuing this work. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 B
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Shows a general support for reslience-focused development and understands how DCCs can support broader climate resilience efforts. Does not provide details on sustainable building strategies and mitigating the direct impact of new development on the environment.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = yes, with how and why, naming strategies or a local policy that ties development to resilience. B = yes with relevant examples but no account of how they build resilience or how they get built. C = general support and nothing past what the building code already requires. C- = a bare yes, or support that doubts it is possible. F = does not accept that development can make a community more resilient.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerYes, in two ways: new developments themselves are built to modern building codes, and new developments often assist in paying for new infrastructure, both directly through DCCs and through growing the tax base. - 8% of this topic CLI-12 A
The UBCM passed several resolutions saying municipalities should be able to have climate action lens and climate considerations in development and housing mandates. Do you support blue-green infrastructure upgrades as a requirement of developments for climate readiness?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. Graded by RUSH from 2026-09-01; the mapping is recorded so the remaining rows match the ones already typed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded CLI-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to climate concerns with respect to your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I am particularly interested in achieving climate OUTCOMES that are realistic at the municipal level, especially around housing, infrastructure, transportation, and other municipal core services. Unfortunately municipalities bear the brunt of climate adaptation while having little to no influence on the extent of climate change we end up enduring.
Data centres: I would treat these as any other industrial business. We should consider impact to neighbours, pollution, noise, resource usage, and then decide.
Leaf blowers: I am open to banning gas leaf blowers depending on what we hear from commercial operators and folks in rural Saanich.
Arts
B- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 2 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Clearly supports municipal arts and culture and connects it to local development/community objectives, though the strategic detail is not as extensive as the strongest responses.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Offer space and funding where possible. Listen to and engage with arts-related businesses. Encourage and support community-led arts initiatives such as murals. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 1 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Identifies murals/public art as an action, but does not provide a measurable four-year outcome.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo's answerI would start small and reduce barriers to community art projects such as murals. We have done a couple of these in our neighbourhood over the past few years and the process with Saanich has been excruciating. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 2 / 3
Cultural strategies are often adopted and then not implemented. Would you support a cultural space implementation framework with defined tools, timelines and public reporting? Select up to three components you would prioritize. Select your top three options.
Why this score: Supports long-term affordability/stability tools, nonprofit partnerships and measurable implementation targets/timelines.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 3 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 3 / 3
Arts organizations and event producers identify permitting, zoning and regulatory requirements as barriers to cultural activity. What would you commit to? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports a broad set of consequential permitting, event, coordination, zoning and disproportionate-cost reforms.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 8 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 3 / 3
If preserving and securing long-term cultural space requires additional municipal support, which approaches would you support? Select up to five.
Why this score: Supports regional funding, development/amenity contributions, nonprofit acquisition, patient capital and long-term municipal leases.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 5 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports arts and culture maintaining or growing alongside other core services.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 3 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Supports replacement cultural space or equivalent community benefit in redevelopment.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 3 / 3
Would you support municipal incentives to encourage private property owners and developers to provide affordable community & cultural space for nonprofits? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports multiple high-impact mechanisms, including development requirements/incentives and property-tax tools for affordable cultural space.
How this question is graded
Mauricio Curbelo chose 3 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ART-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the arts in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
While recognizing that Victoria will continue to be the hub for arts and culture in our region, I think Saanich has a role as well, although it might look different.
My experience is that even small amounts of funding make a huge impact out in the community, which is why we have to protect those funding buckets and grants.
Our neighbourhood association is the most active of all in terms of arts and culture: we run the Gorge Canada Day Picnic (the largest annual event in Saanich), a number of smaller events throughout the year, and we're painting our third neighbourhood mural since 2021. I would love to see more community-led work like this happening throughout all of Saanich.
Rolling & cycling
A- 15% of this topic ROL-01 A
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Commits to Gorge Road between Harriet and Tillicum. A named gap given plainly, with no conditions on it.
How this question is graded
Yes + Project surfaced = A; Yes + No specific project in mind, or vague project = B; Combination of No and/or a lack of project ideas = C-F, depending on severity.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Gorge Rd between Harriet and Tillicum - 15% of this topic ROL-02 B
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: This question asks about supporting a design standard to establish a level of safety. Infrastructure is not "physically impossible"; it is a question of cost and assessing alternatives. Qualifying an answer with "except where physically impossible" leaves an easy out because many obstacles initially appear impossible to overcome. Hard work is needed to identify viable solutions.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, except where physically impossible = B. No = F. Except where physically impossible is a condition that can be checked against a street, so it takes the conditional-yes B, and that is where the 19 rows graded before this rubric existed put it. A No is F because the question sets a construction standard, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 A
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Will oppose removal, narrowing or downgrading of protected bike lanes and other infrastructure built for all ages and abilities. A clear commitment.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Depends, case-by-case = C. No = F. Depends case by case names no test and commits to nothing, which is the C it gets on CLI-08 and TRN-02; 13 of the 14 rows graded before this rubric existed agree. A No is F because the question is about keeping built infrastructure in place. An answer of N/A is a claim that the question does not apply to that municipality, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand, like an excused decline. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 A
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Argues the most important project is the delivery strategy itself, pointing out that the road safety plan devotes most of its actions to further study while the active transportation plan slips at each update and gets built mainly when underground utilities are replaced. The fix proposed is a proper timeline that puts both plans back on schedule.
How this question is graded
A = Candidate is able to identify a project in their community and speak to its importance. B & C = Candidate has a general idea of something that can be improved but it isn't high on their priority list. F = Candidate does not think any improvements can/should be made.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerThe most important project isn't any particular street, it's changing the implementation strategy. We have a Road Safety Action Plan that identifies the top 20 crash zones, but dedicates 80% of its actions to future study instead of infrastructure. We have an Active Transportation Plan that gets more delayed each time it goes to council for an update, and whose buildout is primarily driven by underground utility replacement rather than road safety. Meanwhile when someone gets killed crossing the road we somehow are able to deploy infrastructure (and then we call this "emerging needs"). We need to get these plans back on track with a proper timeline. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 B
If you have previously served in local government, what did you do to advance walking, rolling, cycling or transit? If you have not, what in your record outside of council shows the same commitment?
Why this grade: Advocacy outside council is documented, including a campaign covered by CHEK News to restore frequent bus service to the Gorge neighbourhood and public calls for safer streets and crossings after a pedestrian death in Saanich. The record is real and public, though it sits mainly in transit service and road safety rather than sustained walking, rolling and cycling work.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person on what the record shows about advancing walking, rolling, cycling or transit. A = delivered work, meaning budgets moved, plans adopted, infrastructure built, or a sustained organisational role with results behind it. B = substantial relevant advocacy or a directly relevant role, with less account of what it produced. C = a record from a different office, or advocacy confined to one location or issue, or no previous term with nothing offered in its place. C- = personal experience or unrelated work with no advocacy behind it. F = nothing relevant offered, or a record that closed the question rather than advancing it. The bands come from the 79 rows graded before 2026-09-20. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerHere is a clip from CHEK news when I fought to get frequent bus service back in our neighbourhood: https://cheknews.ca/bc-transit-route-change-leaves-gorge-residents-disappointed-1172794/
Here is an article where I advocated for safer streets and crosswalks: https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/death-of-pedestrian-in-saanich-renews-calls-for-improved-road-safety-7495556
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ROL-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the rolling and cycling in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Whether you’re walking your kids to school, cycling to run errands, or driving a truck for work, everyone deserves to move through Saanich safely and efficiently. And to minimize the congestion resulting from Saanich's growth, we need to make walking, cycling, and transit safer and more convenient - and doing this means building infrastructure.
Regarding ROL-02, infrastructure on busy streets: If it is physically impossible to separate cars from bikes on busy streets, we should consider an alternate route. Paint alone on a busy street does not keep people safe.
Walking
B- 10% of this topic WLK-01 C-
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows a lack of knowledge and commitment to multimodal planning and transportation demand management.
How this question is graded
A = yes, even if it means removing driving lanes. C = yes, but not when it takes road space from drivers. F = no. Two steps between the two yeses because the adopted targets cannot be met without reallocating street space. Unsure and Decline to answer are both C- on this tab.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 C-
Which pedestrian safety problem in your municipality concerns you most, and what is the one change you would commit to in your first term to make walking safer and more attractive than driving for short trips?
Why this grade: Names missing crossings and sidewalks alongside roads built to invite speeds well above the posted limit, and commits to safe crossings near schools first. Adds that street rebuilds should deliver physical safety measures and shade rather than relying on posted limits alone.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person against the two things the question asks for: a named local problem, and one change committed to in a first term. A = both, with the change specific enough to be delivered and usually tied to funding, a named corridor or an existing plan. B = the problem is named and the response is concrete but soft, narrow, or a review rather than a change. C = a problem is named and nothing is committed to, or the framing of the question is declined. C- = no local problem is settled on, or the answer is a general gesture. F = nothing responsive is offered. The bands come from the 31 rows graded before 2026-09-20 and were applied to the remaining 51 on that date. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerThere are two big safety problems with walking in Saanich:
1. Lack of sufficient safe crosswalks and sidewalks
2. Roads where the "design speed"/actual traffic speed is much higher than the intended speed limit
The lowest-hanging fruit would be to improve or create safe crossings near key destinations such as schools.
If I could suggest additional changes: for me personally, the main reason I drive for short trips is feeling unsafe next to speeding traffic combined with lack of tree cover and shade (in my neighbourhood this is the case on Burnside, Tillicum, and Boleskine). When we are doing streetscape improvements, engineered safety (not just speed limit reductions) and tree cover must be prioritized. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 A
Sidewalk construction and maintenance is chronically underfunded across the region. Would you vote to increase the share of your municipality's transportation capital budget dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure?
Why this grade: Would back more than double the current spending on walking infrastructure out of the transportation capital budget. The answer matches the scale of the shortfall the question describes.
How this question is graded
Yes, a substantial increase, meaning more than double what is currently spent = A. Yes, a modest increase, meaning more but less than double = B, because that is a real commitment with a ceiling on it. No, the current amount is sufficient = F, because the question is about money for infrastructure, which is the funding side of the split. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 B
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Supports pedestrian priority and car free streets as pilots or seasonal closures. The willingness is there, but a trial leaves the change easy to undo.
How this question is graded
Yes, and I would pursue a permanent expansion or implementation = A. Yes, but only temporary, seasonal or pilot closures = B, because it is a yes with a stated limit on it. No = F, because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. An answer of N/A is not on this list: it is a claim that the municipality has no downtown, main street or village centre, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand. It has been left blank where that is true of the municipality and graded F everywhere the question plainly does apply. Unsure was typed C on two rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 B
How will you work with parent groups, school staff, and municipal staff to assure that children’s safety is prioritized over convenience and flow of motor traffic?
Why this grade: Vision Zero is a good, aspirational goal, but achieving safety results involves setting timelines and making financial commitments to actualize road safety improvements. A good way to approach road safety improvements for children walking to school is to have on-the-street meetings with parents and school staff, during the hours when children are arriving at and leaving school, to see the risks first hand.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names parents, school staff and municipal staff and attaches something concrete: an audit, measures, funding, timelines, or work delivered. B = one half only, consultation without measures or measures without consultation. C = points at an existing programme as enough. C- = vague, deflects, or denies the problem. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerWe are doing some good work here already that I support continuing - The Safe Routes to School initiative, the School Travel Plan process, and the CRD's Ready, Step, Roll program. Most importantly, the key way to ensure children's safety is prioritized is through a Vision Zero approach to our infrastructure, where we acknowledge that all road users might make mistakes, so we design our infrastructure to reduce or eliminate harm when those mistakes happen. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 A
What will you do, in a 4 year term, to identify, prioritize and set time-lines to assure that pedestrian infrastructure is improved to meet the needs of the older and disabled members of your community?
Why this grade: Implementing an Active Transportation Plan requires that the Plan include timelines. Long term planning without implementation becomes an "inaction" plan. It's also important to do quick builds when safety improvements are assessed to be necessary. Older adults and people with disabilities are not reassured by L-O-N-G term planning that won't yield results in their lifetime. On-the- street consultation with older and disabled pedestrians is the best way to learn about risks and can be a valuable component in planning and executing needed improvements.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names what to fix and the order it gets fixed in: an audit, named priorities, consultation with older and disabled residents, a timeline inside the term. B = real improvements with no process behind them, or continuing existing work. C = states the need and defers it, or one fix with no plan. C- = a problem with no action, or an answer about something else. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Mauricio Curbelo's answerI think we need a shift from long-term corridor visioning exercises to immediate, local execution. Some actions I support:
1. Completing a Sidewalk Condition Assessment (Active Transportation Plan Action 1A.4)
2. Holding Saanich to its Active Transportation Plan commitment to add new accessible curb ramps with tactile features at 30 locations annually (ATP action 2A.2)
3. Where an urgent safety improvement is needed, we should proceed with a quick-build. Often in Saanich we wait to do active transportation projects until we can bundle them with utility work. This is financially prudent in most cases, but some places can't wait.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded WLK-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to walking or pedestrian activity in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Regarding mode share targets: I think these are a good measurement tool but the public reacts negatively to being told they must change their habits based on a government target, and I think we have to be aware of this. Sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, etc are important to me from a safety and fairness perspective (we should all have access to different forms of transportation, all of which are safe and convenient), and not necessarily because we have to hit some arbitrary number.
Governance
B- 17% of this topic GOV-01 C
Do you support expanding shared or regional delivery of municipal services in the Capital Region?
How this question is graded
Yes/Partly = A, Unsure = C, No = F.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 B
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Supports a shared regional service for local infrastructure, but only where their own municipality is guaranteed to get back everything it puts in. Tying the support to that guarantee keeps it short of a full yes.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, only if full cost recovery is guaranteed for my municipality = B. No = C-. Full cost recovery is a named, checkable condition on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is C- rather than F because the question is about how services are organised and who runs them, which is the governance side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Unsure was typed C on three rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 A
If elected, what three steps would you take to put your region or municipality on a firmer financial footing?
How this question is graded
“Real financial resilience comes from increasing the productivity of land that's already served by infrastructure: letting neighborhoods incrementally thicken, encouraging redevelopment where roads and pipes already exist, building more value per acre instead of more acres that need public maintenance.” The Strong Towns approach thinks about revenue vs liabilities and the cost of replacing infrastructure as a key driver of municipal financial success. Next-increment intensification or better allows improved use of pipes, roads, and wires, increasing the economic base for the city while lowering vacancies (examples, strongtowns.org , archive.strongtowns.org ). No credit was given for/against for either a) sharing costs with neighbouring governments or b) asking for money from higher levels of government, both of which may have additional merit beyond the boundaries of the muncipality. A-level (excellent) answer: 1. a comment about density being linked to financial wellbeing (revenue side), 2. a comment about efficient use of that revenue (expenses side), 3. thinking about infrastructure liabilities and how to pay for them given the intergenerational problems. B-level (good) answer considers some of these principles, but likely doesn't consider both revenue and expenses. C-level (mixed) - may have other ideas about arbitrary efficiencies and doesn't provide a mechanism for doing the work they propose (e.g. "fill up the reserve fund" -- with what money?). F - working in the opposite direction of resilience (e.g. arbitrary property tax increase caps), or doesn't answer the question (e.g. "my municipality is on firm financial footing").
Mauricio Curbelo's answer1. Refocus Council's Strategic Plan on the delivery of core services rather than report-writing and scope creep
2. Grow the tax base through new residents and new jobs (taking into account the OCP and the places where the public generally supports this growth)
3. Ensure the infrastructure deficit is gradually closed before funding new projects or initiatives - 17% of this topic GOV-04 F
Do you commit to eliminating mandatory parking minimums for all land uses in your municipality by 2030?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No/Decline = F. Parking minimums are pseudoscience that should be eliminated from city codes everywhere, and have been eliminated in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Ottawa, and others across North America without any negative consequences (archive.strongtowns.org )
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-01 A
Do you support ensuring that local First Nations are represented in transit governance, such as on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission?
Why this grade: Supports seating local First Nations on the bodies that govern transit in this region. A plain yes with no conditions attached.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. No = C-, on the same reasoning as GOV-02 and TRN-04: the question is about who sits at the table, not about what gets built or funded. No candidate has answered No, so that letter is a rule rather than a record of how anyone was graded. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 C
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
Mauricio Curbelo chose 1 of 7 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded GOV-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to governance, shared services, and municipal infrastructure, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Shared services at the CRD level: In order to support or oppose "expanding shared or regional delivery of municipal services" I would have to know what those services are and how the level of service would change for Saanich residents. In the case of things like transit that are regional by their nature, I support greater regional cooperation, but in the case of services like police and fire, I would be more cautious.
Regional infrastructure delivery: As long as Saanich retains decision making authority on WHAT gets built in Saanich, I'm open to having a regional delivery model that harmonizes engineering standards, procurement, etc. if it leads to lower costs in the long term.
Parking minimums: As stated in the Housing section, I am more open to eliminating these for small projects than large ones. - Not graded REC-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to First Nation transit governance or consultation practices, feel free to share your thoughts below.
The District of Saanich has an ongoing relationship and Memorandum of Understanding with the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council - I support continuing this work.
Livable CRD is a registered local elections advertising sponsor with Elections BC. Election advertising on this site is authorized by Livable CRD, [email protected]. Elections BC explains what that means in its Guide for Local Elections Third Party Sponsors in B.C. (PDF).