Elect Jim Waschura to Los Altos Hills City Council 2026
Thoughtful Leadership. Clear Communication. Empowering Residents.
About Jim
Husband, Father, Grandfather
6-Years Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioner
Jim moved to Los Altos Hills 28 years ago. He has deep roots in the community and understands the importance of preserving what makes Los Altos Hills special for families across generations. As a husband, father, and grandfather, he brings a long-term perspective to decisions about neighborhoods, safety, open space, and quality of life. He believes Town government should protect the character of the community while planning responsibly for the future.
6-Years Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioner
6-Years Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioner
Jim’s Planning Commission experience gives him direct knowledge of how Town policies affect residents, property owners, and neighborhoods. He has worked through complex land-use issues, including Housing Element development standards, multifamily housing requirements, pathways, slope, creek and ridgeline protection. This background helps him ask insightful questions and focus quickly on fair, workable solutions.
Corporate Boardroom Experience
Experienced with Town Government
Jim brings professional experience in business, engineering, and decision-making to public service. He understands budgets, tradeoffs, accountability, and the importance of clear communication. His background helps him evaluate issues carefully and work toward decisions that are both principled and practical.
Experienced with Town Government
Experienced with Town Government
Jim has spent years learning how Los Altos Hills operates, from planning and building to public works, finance, legal matters, ordinances, Town code requirements, and public meetings. He understands that good local government depends on transparency, responsiveness, and follow-through.
Frequently Asked Questions
Please reach us at jim.waschura@gmail.com if you cannot find an answer to your question.
Public safety, police, fire, emergency services. safe evacuation routes, wildfire prevention, efficient capable Town administration. Housing Element Plan programs required to prevent Builder's Remedy projects, expand solutions for meeting RHNA housing quotas using ADU, SB 9, Duplex/Triplex and affordable multifamily projects that contribute to protecting the town's semi-rural character.
Large lot sizes. Deep setbacks. Open spaces. Pathways. Peace and quiet. Creeks. Horse-riding facilities. Landscape screening around development. Current construction setbacks from property lines (40 FT front and 30 FT side and rear), provides 60 FT home-to-home spacing. New state mandates reduce ministerial project approval setbacks to as little as 4 FT from a property line.
Protecting the ideas represented in the founding "Green Sheets" document by a voter ballot initiative may sound appealing, but it is not well matched to the actual threats facing the Town. A ballot initiative could express strong resident support for semi-rural features such as large lots, deep setbacks, pathways, open space, limits on commercial activity, and the keeping of horses and other animals. But many of the pressures residents are most concerned about come from state-mandated housing laws that local voters cannot simply override. If state law requires reduced setbacks, increased density, ministerial approvals, or objective standards, a local referendum may not provide the protection residents will expect.
Codifying broad Green Sheets principles too rigidly will have unintended consequences. Rules such as never giving back a pathway easement without voter approval, or freezing present policy language forever, limit the Town’s future ability to correct mistakes, adjust easements, resolve conflicts, respond to changed conditions, or comply with higher law. What begins as protection of Town character becomes an obstacle to practical governance.
The question is not whether the Green Sheets values matter. They do. The question is whether a ballot initiative is the right mechanism to protect them with. The values may be better protected through carefully drafted ordinances, objective development standards, public process requirements, and clear policy direction, rather than by locking broad aspirational language into a voter-protected framework that may be both under-protective and over-restrictive.
Yes, and I'd like to see it built in a way that actually serves the people it's meant for. It would be a real benefit if local firefighters, police officers, teachers, and town staff could live in the town they serve rather than commuting long distances. The problem is the mechanism the state relies on to produce those units. Under Density Bonus law, a developer earns extra density by including as little as 5% affordable housing, which means a typical project delivers roughly 4 to 8 affordable homes for every 100 built while everything else sells at market rate. If Los Altos Hills obtains the affordable units it needs that way, they would come bundled with over 900 market-rate homes in a town that has only about 3,200 homes today. That is why I favor working directly with nonprofit affordable-housing developers, who finance projects through state tax credits and county housing funds rather than market-rate cross-subsidy, so the town can obtain the affordable units without the flood of dense market-rate construction.
This is the most consequential question in town, and I've spent six years on the Planning Commission working through the Housing Element and the state mandates behind it.
The starting point is that we cannot prevent higher-density housing outright, because state law requires us to plan for at least 20 units per acre somewhere in town, and our Housing Element has to stay certified or we lose the protection that has kept Builder's Remedy projects out of Los Altos Hills so far. Saratoga has over 20 of them. What we can prevent is the volume of market-rate housing that arrives wrapped around those affordable units when we let developers choose the method, and that, not the affordable units themselves, is what threatens our semi-rural character the most.
The way the state gets affordable units built is through Density Bonus law, which opens development to for-profit builders and overrides our local zoning to allow extra density, so that the profit on market-rate homes pays for the affordable ones. If a project's base zoning allows 20 units and the developer commits just one of them to very-low-income affordability, state law grants four bonus units, and the result is one affordable home and twenty-three at market rate.
Now apply that to our remaining obligation. Our quota for this 8-year cycle is 489 units, and the part that drives construction isn't that headline number, it's the 197 units in the lower-income tiers of the quota that need to be satisfied, because those are the ones our market will never produce on its own. After ADUs and other construction, if we end the cycle needing roughly 80 more affordable homes and we get them through Density Bonus projects, the arithmetic delivers close to a thousand new homes to produce them. We only have about 3,200 homes in town today!
This is what I think we should prioritize. The new Housing Element implementation committee should develop criteria for where higher density belongs, which will also give the committee time to communicate with and engage residents, so that everyone understands what the state requires of us and what's at stake before we address specific locations. In my view it belongs near transportation corridors, close to shopping and transit, and where water and infrastructure already exist. Wherever it goes, the criteria have to take traffic and congestion seriously, require real screening and setbacks, hold the design to a standard that suits the town rather than whatever is cheapest to build, and protect the trees, creeks and open space around the site. Just as important is where it doesn't belong, which is up in the hills, where infrastructure is expensive to extend, the roads are narrow, and added traffic puts everyone's emergency evacuation at risk. Concentrating density near the corridors uses infrastructure we already have, and it leaves the most of the town as it is. Good planning and environmental design with significant margins and structural improvements can help reduce impacts on nearby neighbors.
With the Housing Element in place, the town is in a position to go from responding to what developers bring us to proposing what we want. There are alternatives to letting a developer decide how much density we end up with. We can work with nonprofit affordable-housing developers, the organizations that build affordable communities using state tax credits, county housing funds and grants rather than market-rate profit, so the affordable homes don't have to be paid for by wrapping them in market-rate ones. We may be able to bring town-owned land to the table. We can help those partners qualify for the funding, and sign development agreements that take the uncertainty out of their projects. In exchange we negotiate the scale, the siting, the screening and the affordability, instead of accepting whatever the state's override permits. The alternative is market-driven development with massive amounts of increased density, or worse, Builder's Remedy projects that completely bypass town standards.
In the near term we'll keep making progress with what's already working. Our residents have been overproducing on ADUs, which has carried a large share of the load. That is very helpful, but it's not likely to be sufficient, and won't be for the next cycle, which begins in about five years. We need to think of housing pressure as the new normal. The town is also working on allowing some homes to convert to duplexes and triplexes, which I think is promising, because it counts toward our quotas, it unlocks asset value for residents who want it, and at those densities it behaves much like the ADUs and SB 9 units we already accommodate, at a scale that fits our semi-rural character. Foothill College has expressed interest in housing for its teachers, staff and students. Even with all of that, I expect a gap we'll have to close deliberately.
What I don't support is sprinkling 20-unit-per-acre developments on single family lots all around town. Projects that small have no economy of scale, so they come back asking for concessions and waivers, which typically means smaller setbacks, less parking and taller buildings than our standards allow, and that makes them more noticeable and harder to screen. It would take a lot of them to meet the low income quotas one unit at a time, and scattering them still means pushing infrastructure up into the hills and putting more traffic on narrow streets that are also our evacuation routes.
We do want the people who work here to be able to live here, our town staff, firefighters, deputies, teachers and caregivers, rather than commuting an hour each way. More than 200 housing bills have passed in Sacramento in recent years, and the work ahead is teasing out of all of that the approach that gets us there while protecting the open spaces and semi-rural character that brought us all here and continue to attract new residents.
Jim's Endorsements
"Jim Waschura is eminently qualified to serve on the City Council. He is smart, thoughtful, creative and dedicated. As a longstanding member of the Planning Commission, he has deep experience on housing and land use issues. I am honored to support him."
Rajiv Bhateja — Mayor, Los Altos Hills
~ ~ ~
"As I complete my term on the City Council, I care deeply about who carries this work forward. I've watched Jim Waschura's work on the Planning Commission for six years — he studies the issues thoroughly, explains them clearly, and treats residents and applicants alike with fairness and respect. He understands the pressures facing Los Altos Hills, especially on housing, better than anyone I know. Jim has my full confidence and my vote."
George Tyson — Los Altos Hills City Council member and former Mayor; Los Altos Hills County Fire District Commissioner; Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board member
~ ~ ~
"Having made the move from Planning Commission to City Council myself, I know how well that experience prepares you. Jim's six years on the Commission have given him the right preparation, and I wholeheartedly support him for City Council."
Kavita Tankha — Los Altos Hills City Council member and former Mayor; Los Altos Hills County Fire District Commissioner
~ ~ ~
"I've had the pleasure of knowing Jim and his family since our (now grown) children attended elementary school together. Jim is thoughtful, diligent and fair. He researches issues thoroughly to find an equitable and workable solution. He has helped steer the Planning Commission through the complexities of the changing state regulations. I wholeheartedly endorse him for City Council. He will keep the best interests of the whole town in mind."
Lisa Schmidt — former Los Altos Hills Vice Mayor and Council member
~ ~ ~
"I have known and worked with Jim for over 15 years. He is thoughtful, careful, well prepared and ready to serve our Town. At no point in the history of Los Altos Hills has having a deep understanding of our building codes, requirements and State mandates been more important. Jim is truly among the best prepared residents in Town to represent us, with his previous experience on the Planning Commission. Jim has my full support and endorsement."
Courtenay Corrigan — former Los Altos Hills Mayor and City Council member, former Pathways committee member
~ ~ ~
"I can think of no one more capable of addressing our Town's biggest problem — the state's housing mandates — than Jim Waschura. Jim's many years as a Planning Commissioner mean he understands both the state laws and our Town's needs as well as anyone, while he has consistently shown a calm, collaborative, reasoned, and kind approach towards every case. The first time I met him, he had the same friendly demeanor, but did not shy away from asking me — a Council member at the time — hard, direct questions to get to the root of the issue. That is exactly the capability we need — communicating with residents, understanding the issues, and tackling them pragmatically. I look forward to seeing Jim serve us on our Town Council."
Roger Spreen — Chair, Los Altos Hills County Fire District; former Los Altos Hills Mayor and Council member
~ ~ ~
"I have been involved in the Town's operation and governance for around 50 years, and I am pleased to endorse Jim Waschura for election to the Los Altos Hills Town Council. It has become apparent to me how important it is to have at least one Council member who carries the scars of experience from the Planning Commission — never more so than today, with ever-increasing legislative pressures from Sacramento — and in this election we are losing our one member with that distinction. I myself served around 12 years on the Planning Commission, about half of them alongside Jim, so I have seen him in action: clarity of reasoning, fairness in judgment, and a partner in debate when we differed or worked toward an optimal solution. I have no hesitation in strongly recommending Jim Waschura for Town Council."
Jitze Couperus — former Planning Commissioner (12 years); involved in Town operation and governance for 50 years
~ ~ ~
"Jim — wishing you the very best in your campaign for Los Altos Hills City Council. You have my full support for the following reasons: You've demonstrated your commitment to Los Altos Hills by already serving with outstanding dedication on the Planning Commission. The City Council will benefit from that knowledge and expertise. It is essential that council members understand what it takes to be proficient in land use, planning and development. Fortunately, you are already greatly prepared to take on the job! The Town will benefit from your expertise. You have my full support."
Duffy Price — former Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioner (nearly 12 years); former Los Altos Hills County Fire District Commissioner (8 years)
~ ~ ~
"I enthusiastically support Jim Waschura for Los Altos Hills City Council in the November election. Jim has proven himself as a thoughtful and thorough contributor to the success of our Town. His years on the planning commission have prepared him for the challenges and opportunities we face as a community. His years as a resident ground him in the values our Town relies on for our quality of life. Please join me in voting for Jim Waschura."
Kit Gordon — Resident of Los Altos Hills for 30 years; Town volunteer for 20 years; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bond Oversight Chair; Peninsula Open Space Trust Skyline Committee; former Chair, Open Space Committee
~ ~ ~
"Having seen Jim's work on the Planning Commission and collaborated with him on a subcommittee project, I believe he would be an exceptional addition to City Council. He brings a deep appreciation for what makes our Town unique and a strong working knowledge of our development codes. He approaches issues with a balanced perspective, supporting thoughtful growth while protecting the qualities that define our community — its semi-rural character, scenic views, natural spaces and wildlife, and the peace and quiet residents value. With an engineering background, Jim is tech-savvy, methodical, and resourceful, consistently applying a logical, deliberate approach to problem-solving. He is also candid, gracious, and genuinely enjoyable to work with, listening openly and respecting differing viewpoints. Jim has my enthusiastic support for City Council."
Elizabeth Loinaz — Chair, Environmental Design and Protection Committee
~ ~ ~
"Hello fellow residents — please seriously consider Jim Waschura for City Council. If you are looking for our new council members to be thoughtful, intelligent, hardworking, and approachable, Jim Waschura checks all the boxes. Jim has spent the last six years on the Planning Commission, so he has valuable knowledge and experience with town housing, land use issues, and the inner workings of town staff. This knowledge will allow Jim to be a significant contributor and problem solver immediately if elected to the City Council. While I was on the Pathways Committee, I found Jim always willing to have meaningful dialogues, and our conversations were both insightful and thoughtful. Jim will put in the hard work of research, listening, and taking action. I support Jim for City Council and I hope you will too."
Bob Elson — former Chair, Pathways Committee
~ ~ ~
"I am heartily in favor of having Jim Waschura on the Los Altos Hills City Council. He has dedicated his substantial talents to public service in our town over the course of many years. Having a member of the City Council with this much Planning Commission experience will be crucial in the upcoming years, in dealing with housing build-out, town character preservation, and avoiding environmental despoliation. I have personally worked with Jim and seen his ability to delve deeply into an issue, to smartly use technical prowess and to simply persevere."
Grace Tsang — former Chair, Environmental Design and Protection Committee
~ ~ ~
Send Jim an Email
Protecting semi-rural character in Los Altos Hills
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.