Woodside’s Rural Ideal Meets the Housing Mandate

Woodside is the Peninsula’s great exception. A short drive from Stanford, it is a town of redwoods, open hillsides, private stables and riding trails, where residential buildings are typically limited to about 30 feet and the municipal code specifies the minimum size of a horse’s shelter. Its residents have worked for generations to keep it that way.

The state of California now asks Woodside, like every other city and town, to plan for its share of the region’s housing. Woodside’s share is 328 homes by 2031. How the town meets that obligation, and how it resists the parts it believes are unworkable, has become the defining civic story of a place that prizes quiet.

A Tower on Jefferson Avenue

The most startling proposal came to light only this summer. Documents obtained by The Almanac through a public records request showed that in 2024 a developer called Woodside Community Housing submitted paperwork for a 16-story, 105-unit apartment building on a vacant 0.36-acre lot at 4224 Jefferson Avenue, near Cañada Road and Interstate 280.

The application invokes the so-called builder’s remedy, a provision of state law that allows developers to bypass local zoning if they apply while a jurisdiction lacks a state-certified housing plan. Woodside’s plan was not certified until January 2025; the preliminary application predated it. The company is owned by Ben Eilenberg, a Fullerton-based former attorney turned affordable housing developer. Twenty percent of the units would be reserved for lower-income households, triggering the state’s density bonus.

The project has not advanced. The town has repeatedly deemed the application incomplete, in July, November and December of 2025 and again in April, according to Acting Town Manager Melissa Cardinale. Eilenberg has accused the town of “imposing things into the process that both make no sense practically and are unsupported legally” and warned of legal costs. Town staff have identified the lack of available sewer service as a central concern and have met with the applicant about it and about the project’s size. Woodside Community Housing told The Almanac it was discussing potential modifications with the town.

Four Homes on Still Creek Road

If the Jefferson proposal shows the blunt edge of state law, the story of 10 Still Creek Road shows how hard even modest, locally initiated housing can be. Property owners Christin New and David Mittelman spent six years seeking approval for a multigenerational home with three additional units, including affordable rentals for local workers. The Planning Commission denied the project in November 2025; the couple appealed.

On May 26, the Town Council approved it 4-1, The Almanac reported, after neighbors brought wildfire and geophysical experts to argue against it. Fifty-four neighbors opposed the project, citing concerns including slope stability and emergency access. Councilmember Hassan Aburish, who cast the dissenting vote, urged the parties to mediate. The couple said they hope to break ground in 2027. “This process showed some of the challenges Woodside faces with its zoning code and planning process,” they said.

Two Horses, Half an Acre

Even Woodside’s equestrian identity is subject to negotiation. The town’s code requires at least one acre for a private stable and permits a maximum of two horses per acre. This summer, the town considered an appeal of a stable permit exception that would allow two horses on a property of about 19,794 square feet on Glencrag Way, less than half the acre normally required. The town’s Livestock and Equestrian Heritage Committee had recommended approval; a neighbor appealed.

It is a small matter, measured in square feet. But it captures the essential Woodside tension: a town that wants to preserve a way of life must decide how strictly to enforce the rules that define it, and for whom.

A Turbulent Year at Town Hall

The housing debates have played out amid unusual strain inside town government. In February, then-Town Manager Jason Ledbetter released a 14-page whistleblower report alleging, among other things, that council members had delayed housing projects and created a hostile work environment. He was placed on paid leave and fired on April 30, after the town’s independent investigation found that the majority of his allegations were not substantiated, The Almanac reported.

Woodside’s November ballot, by contrast, is quiet. Both council candidates, Lyle Weaver in District 2 and Dan Druker in District 3, are running unopposed. Druker, who serves on the committee drafting a 25-year vision for Town Center, told The Almanac he is confident the town can meet its housing target “in character with the town’s rural feel and our equine heritage,” possibly by working with employers such as Woodside Elementary, the Woodside Fire Protection District and Menlo Country Club.

The Question Beneath the Questions

Woodside has made real progress. Its approved housing plan relies on accessory dwelling units, single-family homes and multifamily projects on town-owned sites, and on projects like Still Creek Road. Its residents can fairly argue that a 16-story tower on a sloping half-acre without sewer service is not a serious answer to the region’s housing needs.

But the town’s experience illustrates a broader truth that the Stanford community, which depends on the region’s housing supply, should understand. The state’s housing laws were written precisely because local control, exercised town by town, produced too little housing for too long. Woodside’s challenge is to show that a rural town can meet its obligations on its own terms. If it can, it will strengthen the case for local discretion. If it cannot, Sacramento is unlikely to be patient.

Photo: Lodewijk / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0