How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Sacha Christensen'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 Sacha Christensen 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?
Restoring the rail corridor between Langford and Vic West in conjunction with other municipalities, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, and the province. This would both return a form of rail to the island and provide a transit option that would relieve the enormous weight of commuter traffic on View Royal. - 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.
Sacha Christensen's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,200,000 Transit $2,200,000 Walking Infrastructure $700,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $900,000 Roadway Infrastructure $100,000 Policing $0 Fire & Emergency Services $200,000 Parks & Recreation $400,000 Arts & Culture $400,000 Climate Action & Environment $500,000 Unhoused Resident Services $200,000 Community-Based Clinics $2,200,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
View Royal is the bridge between the Westshore and the rest of Greater Victoria, and many of the issues we face are regional ones that require a regional approach. We need a council that's able to find collaborative solutions to these shared problems, building a stronger community for both today and tomorrow.
Healthcare access
What Sacha Christensen 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 believe that the Colwood Clinic offers an exciting model to guarantee family doctors for View Royal residents, and I will support any efforts to attract more doctors to our municipality.
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: Every fare measure on the list was checked: 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. Nothing was left off.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 A
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: Supports taking general street parking out of frequent transit corridors corridor wide, not only at busy hours, and handing that space to buses, loading and active travel. This is the fullest version of the change the question asks about.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 A
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 yes to moving fast on transit priority even where it costs parking or a general purpose lane. The support is unconditional.
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.
Sacha Christensen 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: Yes to a regional transportation authority, stated plainly and without 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.
Sacha Christensen 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: Supports new bus and bike connections through parks, golf courses and public land when they would substantially shorten trips. Nothing was attached to the yes.
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.
Sacha Christensen 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.
Transit in our region doesn't have a silver bullet solution. It requires government to invest in a variety of transportation options, for the variety of transit needs our community has. What works for seniors and parents might not work for working professionals, and vice versa. We need comprehensive transit solutions to support the density communities across the South Island so desperately need.
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
Sacha Christensen chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 7 / 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 7 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 4 / 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 6 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 2 / 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.
Sacha Christensen 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 1 / 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 4 / 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 6 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 6 / 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 3 / 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.
Sacha Christensen's answer- Make it easier for co-op housing to be built & supported, helping support affordability and density while creating a shared sense of community.
- Unlike other municipalities in the CRD, every main road in View Royal reaches traffic flow failure on a daily basis. We need a housing plan that supports both density and alternative means of transportation.
- Increased livable housing stock in View Royal that maintains access to community amenities for residents old and new.
- Housing that supports neighbourhood-level community, in both design and placement.
Climate
A- 8% of this topic CLI-01 A
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: Both forms of promotion go, and the candidate would carry it to the commission that oversees the buses. Nothing is reserved.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 A
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: Treats climate as the governing priority for the term. Other items in the plan are subordinate to it by design.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 A
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Commits to the pledge in full. Fossil fuel producers lose a route into this office for the whole term.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 A
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: A plain yes to the legal action. The candidate takes on the risk rather than asking for it to be bounded first.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 A
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: Yes, stated plainly. The candidate is prepared to use zoning to stop new fossil fuel retail rather than to slow it.
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.
Sacha Christensen 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: Backs the complete set of protections. The answer accepts the operating cost of guaranteed clean air hours along with the rest.
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.
Sacha Christensen 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: Agrees to the phase out. Existing bylaws elsewhere in the country make the route straightforward.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 A
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: A blanket opposition. The answer does not depend on conditions being written well or monitored afterwards.
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.
Sacha Christensen 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: Identifies relevant climate risks but doesn't provide many specifics about how to mitigate these risks within the context of View Royal.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerClimate adaptation risks are a critical issue for View Royal. Because of our substantial exposed shoreline bordering homes, municipal parks, and community amenities, we need to be prepared for the reality of extreme storm events and erosion. This means integrating biological protections along our shoreline to prevent erosion, while maintaining the natural environment we know and love. - 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: They make a good point in their answer, but they slightly miss the mark in terms of outlining the importance of ecosystem connectivity and specific actions that can be taken to maintain and improve it in View Royal.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerView Royal is already home to one of the region's more precious salmon-spawning stream in Portage Inlet and the Gorge Waterway. We need to ensure it stays that way for generations to come, and that means preventing construction runoff into the streams, garbage cleanup for streambeds within municipal parks, and integrating protections into bylaw to support regularized enforcement. - 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: Provides two concrete strategies.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerDevelopment both can and should be an opportunity to invest in resilience to climate-related events. Whether it's as big as shoreline protection and restoration as part of a DCC, or something as small as requiring landscaping to use drought-resistant plants, there are boundless opportunities for municipalities to strengthen resilience to climate-related events. - 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 3 options
Arts
A- 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 positions View Royal as a hub for arts and culture and points to concrete municipal event/showcase activity as a local economic/community role.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The municipality should be a hub for arts and culture within our district. Whether it's Esquimalt's Sculpture Splash, Victoria's Moss Street Paint-In, or the Sooke Fine Arts Show, we already have models from across our region showing how municipalities can support our arts community. We should be following in those footsteps, showcasing the incredible work of our local artists through local events and showcases. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 2 / 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: Commits to a first-ever arts showcase in year one and growth over four years, but ‘regular’ is not sufficiently measurable or verifiable to receive full outcome credit.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen's answerWithin the first year, I would like to see View Royal create its first-ever art showcase event, and have it grow to be a regular part of our community over the next four years. These events strengthen our sense of community, support our local artists, and provide a venue for everyone to enjoy local art. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 3 / 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: Combines priority-space identification, nonprofit partnerships for permanent assets and measurable implementation targets/timelines.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen 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, consequential package covering service standards, criteria, permitting review, simplified events, coordination, zoning and disproportionate-cost review.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen 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 municipal infrastructure funding, regional funding, development/amenity contributions, nonprofit acquisition and long-term leases.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen 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
Sacha Christensen 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 preserving existing cultural space where feasible, rather than requiring replacement/equivalent benefit.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen 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 several mechanisms including development requirements/incentives and both high-impact property-tax mechanisms, plus fee reductions.
How this question is graded
Sacha Christensen chose 4 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
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: Prioritises improving access to the E&N trail, treating it as the spine that lets people commute daily well clear of traffic while taking pressure off roads that are already overwhelmed. The link is identified through the corridor it serves rather than by street name.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Biking and roll routes are essential transit corridors for View Royal, principally facilitated through the E&N trail. I believe we should enhance access to this bike-and-roll highway, letting folks safely commute each day well away from dangerous traffic, and reduce pressure on our already overwhelmed roadways. - 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 C
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: Marks the question not applicable rather than committing to oppose removal, narrowing or downgrading of protected cycling infrastructure. The commitment is about how a council would vote and could have been given regardless of what is built today.
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.
Sacha Christensen 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: Names improving access and safety along the Galloping Goose and E&N trail, and explains it is one of the few alternatives open to the commuters who overwhelm the municipality's roads each rush hour on their way to downtown, the naval base and the shipyards. A corridor identified together with the demand it carries.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerImproving access & safety along the Galloping Goose/E&N trail is one of the best ways we can improve not just active transportation, but transit as a whole. Every day at rush hour, View Royal's roads are overwhelmed by folks commuting from the Westshore to the rest of Greater Victoria. The Galloping Goose/E&N Trail is one of the very few alternative means folks have for commuting to their jobs in downtown Victoria, CFB Esquimalt, and the Seaspan shipyards. We should be working to improve and incentivize use of this active transportation corridor across our region. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 A
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: Seven years of work on moving people between the Westshore and the rest of Greater Victoria, including support for Colwood ferry feasibility funding, expanded Westshore bus routes and efforts to restore island rail service. The question counts transit, and this is sustained effort on the regional connections that carry the heaviest commuter demand.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerThe issue of transportation between the Westshore and the rest of Greater Victoria is something I have worked on for the last 7 years, supporting the work of local elected officials at all levels of government. This has included supporting feasibility study funding for the Colwood ferry, expanding bus routes in the Westshore, and efforts to restore rail service to the island. I intend to bring this experience to the council table and continue the important work to improve transit across our region.
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 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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 B
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: Describes a municipality split by a highway where rush hour pushes traffic onto side streets with no protection for people on foot, and names the gap near View Royal Elementary. Clear on the problem and on the need for sidewalks to schools and shops, but stops short of committing to a specific first term change.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerAs a municipality trisected by a highway, View Royal is both overloaded with commuter traffic every day, and divided into three distinct walkable communities.
For each of these areas, we should have clear sidewalks in walking corridors to schools and grocery stores. This is particularly important during rush hour, where gridlock pushes agitated cars onto side streets without pedestrian protections. This is especially pressing near View Royal Elementary, where traffic is often diverted, and there are no sidewalks for pedestrians. - 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 vote for more than double the current pedestrian infrastructure budget. The strongest option on offer, and a real commitment of money.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 F
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Answered not applicable on expanding pedestrian priority and car free streets. View Royal has village shopping areas along the Island Highway where the question could have been answered, so no position is on the record.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 A
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: School location is a big factor in designing for safety. Your plan to work with parents, school staff and district staff helps assure commitment on the part of those whose expertise is needed. A complete plan needs to include financial commitment and time lines for accomplishing safety upgrades. Parents understandably want to see plans made and enacted while their children are still in attendance at the school. Long term plans without time lines too often result in long term delays.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerWe need to work with parents and school staff to find safe and realistic ways that will facilitate how kids arrive and leave school. This is particularly important for Shoreline and View Royal Elementary, which exist along the major transit routes that get overloaded each and every day. While any View Royal parent can attest that the regularized gridlock creates well-below 30km school zone conditions, it also creates erratic drivers during those brief moments of movement. These are the incidents we need to protect against, and one of the key reasons we need expanded sidewalks in these areas. We should also be working with the School District(s) to make catchment zones follow transit routes, so students' daily commutes will be as safe and easy as possible. - 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: Development of a Master Sidewalk Plan is a good start. Meeting at locations on the street where older residents and people with disabilities feel at risk is important in the planning process. Their lived experiences will help planners view first-hand the barriers to safe pedestrian travel. As with all plans, time lines for achievement and sufficient funding to get the work done are essential.
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.
Sacha Christensen's answerFor many residential neighbourhoods in View Royal, the first step is simply having sidewalks in the first place. For many areas in our municipality, we have both steep inclines and an absence of suitable sidewalks. If we are going to be a municipality where people can age gracefully in place, we need pedestrian infrastructure that can support wheelchairs and walkers, particularly along routes to grocery stores and clinics. Over a 4-year term, I would like to see View Royal develop a master sidewalk plan, supporting our neighborhoods where wheelchair & walker access is impeded by inclines and uneven road conditions.
Governance
B- 17% of this topic GOV-01 A
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 A
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 taking on the design, construction and upkeep of local municipal infrastructure. A straightforward yes with nothing held back.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 B
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").
Sacha Christensen's answer1) Avoiding deferred maintenance on our critical municipal infrastructure.
2) A regional roadwork strategy, letting municipalities piggyback off each other for roadwork near municipal borders.
3) Contracting-in of services, building long-term institutional capacity for our local government rather than short-term contracting out. - 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 )
Sacha Christensen 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 ensuring local First Nations are represented in how transit is governed here. A clear yes.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 A
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Appears to support reconciliation and other FN partnerships.
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.
Sacha Christensen chose 1 of 7 optionsMeaningful consultation is essential, but this should be the beginning, not the end point. Where appropriate, municipalities should strive to work in partnership with First Nations. Here in View Royal, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations are more than just good neighbours, but governing partners we should be striving to deepen our working relationship with.
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).