It really cracks me up that people are attracted to Woodside because of its rural quality and beauty, but then feel that they have a right to destroy the beautiful rural community with not only an oversized house (who cares that it is only one story - it will probably have an underground level) but 4 additional buildings plus a spa and pool. They don't care that their extravagance means chopping down trees and destroying the rural quality of the area. If everyone had endless money to build whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted in Woodside, it would soon resemble Sunnyvale. Will the "I have lots of money so I'm entitled to build whatever I want" attitude ever change? I'm really sick of it.

Gertrude --

You're missing the forest for the trees. There is enough money in Woodside to turn it into Sunnyvale many times over. And yet it hasn't happened. Do you suppose that has something to do with 6-figure fines for cutting down trees and a two-stage-minimum design review? Are you aware of what a homeowner has to do to cut down a tree legally? Have you looked at the design for 205 Mountainwood Lane? Or is your outrage just based on some numbers?

Next time you're in Woodside, drive the length of Mountain Home Road and count the number of houses you can even see a part of from the road. This isn't Menlo Park; the lot in question is over three acres and only one side of it adjoins any public access.

Name a place in residential Woodside where the rural quality of the area has been "destroyed".

David Boyce shows obvious bias by misusing the phrase "residential complex" to label a new house with some outbuildings.

The Almanac really needs to improve the quality and professionalism of its coverage of Woodside. David should stick to Menlo Park.

Also, here's a challenge for David: next time you write about Woodside, see if you can start with a sentence that does not use the phrase "rural character."

Just curious, how is "6,000 square feet, two guest houses, a music/fitness building, a mechanical building, a pool and a spa" not a residential complex? I think that is a perfectly fitting term for this house and at least 4 additional buildings.

Brian, how is it useful to try to discredit someone's residence plans by stretching the definition of a common phrases? Isn't that just playing with words? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually find some negative effect the design itself has on the public? Oh, can't find one?

Google the phrase "residential complex" and you will "discover" in common usgae it refers to large apartment structures. But of course you, Brian, and Dave Boyce both know this.

By the way, why are Menlo Park residents so opinionated about what goes on in Woodside?

Only in Woodside can a 6000 sq ft main residence be described as low profile. I love Woodside, but really...?

And the term residential complex usually describes apartments, while a large main residence and guest houses are usually described as a luxury compound or estate.