Wolfe Road Housing
In Design
10333 N. Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA 95014
Project Overview
• Project Type: Affordable & Workforce Housing
• Owner/Developer: Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing / Eden Housing
• Presented to Cupertino for All and our members: September 2025
Catalyze SV evaluates project sustainability, equity, and vibrancy. Learn about our project review process.
Wolfe Road Housing Project Scorecard
Wolfe Road Housing is a proposal from the affordable housing developer Eden Housing on County-owned land in Cupertino. Wolfe It proposes 250 rental homes across 7 buildings over roughly 5 acres that will be built in two phases. Some of the rentals will be set aside as housing for school employees. The project would feature 5 buildings of 3 stories and 2 buildings of 7 stories. The project would accommodate 240 car parking spaces and 279 bike parking spaces, with no space in the project for commercial uses.
Wolfe Road Housing scored an overall 4.14 out of 5 from our Project Advocacy Committee members and a 4.67 out 5 from Cupertino for All Members.
Community Score: 5/5
This was unequivocally the highest-scoring category from both organizations. We want to commend the County of Santa Clara and FORA for their commitment to deep community engagement. Particularly noteworthy is FORA’s commitment to transparency, which is evident in sharing how it incorporated community feedback into its design. It also did extensive engagement with educators, for whom many of the housing units will be built. This is textbook good community engagement: talk to the populations for which you are building. We also appreciate that the project engaged with Cupertino for All in May 2024. While some members of both organizations praised the extensive engagement of neighbors near the project, others noted that it should be balanced more with other stakeholders, such as those who will be eligible for the proposed affordable homes.
Catalyze SV Vibrancy Score: 4/5
Cupertino for All Vibrancy Score: 5/5
This particular site makes vibrancy a bit more difficult than many other places where Catalyze SV has scored projects. Overall, Cupertino’s context is more suburban. Moreover, the back of this site’s location abuts Highway 280 and an off-ramp from it, as well as the parcel being an unusually curved shape. In addition, Cupertino for All members noted the site is close to one of Cupertino’s more vibrant mixed-use places, known as Main Street, as well as the very dynamic The Rise development that is forthcoming. As such, it’s harder to justify any sort of neighborhood-serving commercial space. Nevertheless, Catalyze SV members in particular cited a desire for some more active ground-floor space, noting that the community spaces proposed are only open to the residents and not local nonprofits or the larger neighborhood. This is one of the main reasons Catalyze SV members scored this category lower than Cupertino for All members. Also noted was zero activation of rooftop spaces. Both groups appreciate how the design seeks to interface with the planned Tamien Innu Trail on its edge. We also like the project’s inclusion of a resident-serving playground and the addition of a dog park.
Transportation Score: 4/5
For new development to blend into a neighborhood and succeed, it needs to integrate with existing neighborhoods, rather than creating walls, fences, or gates that separate people. Both organizations are concerned about the emergency vehicle plan because it will discourage the permeability and walkability of this development through the Portal neighborhood. This was a major reason Cupertino for All wanted to score this project and might be considered one of its more important pieces of feedback for the development team and the County. Conversely, we were pleased to see the higher number of bike parking spaces included, especially with the site being adjacent to a trail. Again, context matters in Cupertino and on this site, too, where transit service isn’t always an easy option for Cupertino commuters, including educators. Moreover, this area currently has cars that speed by and interrupted sidewalks that are not as safe for pedestrians. That being said, the transportation plan for this project is incomplete. VTA bus service, including the Rapid 523, is 0.5 miles from the site and thus a real option for residents. One member asked if there is a way to coordinate with VTA to improve headways on bus line 56, and another noted how the area will improve for walking and biking after the Wolfe Road-280 overpass improvements are completed. More crosswalks and more bike infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes, would enhance the safety in the neighborhood and encourage alternative forms of transportation. As of now, the project isn’t proposing transit passes for residents, which can be a boost in encouraging transit ridership.
Intensity/Zoning Score: 4/5
Members from both organizations were glad to see a density for the entire project of 50 homes per acre, including multi-story buildings as part of this proposal. Nevertheless, there was strong consensus among both membership bases that the project can’t score a 5 out of 5 if the proposal includes a density that is the site’s minimum density and well below the maximum allowed on the site -- 65 units per acre. Townhomes in particular are not well-suited to creating denser developments. A housing shortage like Silicon Valley’s gets solved by building as much housing on as many sites as quickly as possible. This site fails to take advantage of that possibility and that need. One of our people even asked if the project’s close proximity to the 523 rapid bus line would qualify the site to use state housing laws to increase the housing density / building heights. If the project had included (or were to include) greater density, we would have scored (or would score) it higher.
Catalyze SV Sustainability Score: 4/5
Cupertino for All Sustainability Score: 5/5
Cupertino for All members had less feedback on this category; they cited that the sustainability plan was thoughtful and a strong point for this proposal. Meanwhile, Catalyze SV cited that they’d be happy to score this project higher if the developer committed to a gold or platinum rating on a sustainability certification. One member appreciates that the developer is using windows, glass, and siding that have greater sound attenuation due to the proximity of I-280. Others are grateful that the developer is proposing native plantings. With 7 total buildings, we suggest the developer find a way to include solar panels on at least one of them to reduce the project’s carbon footprint and costs in the long run.
Catalyze SV Affordability Score: 4/5
Cupertino for All Affordability Score: 5/5
Before rounding, the actual scores of our respective organizations were actually relatively close, indicating a closer consensus on this category than separate scores would indicate. Overall, both organizations like the project’s focus on affordable housing. However, members from both were caught off guard and anxious that the developer was suggesting that some of the homes could be 140% of the area median income (AMI). First off, 140% of the AMI does not constitute affordable housing, which means the project would not legally constitute “100% affordable housing” as we assumed. Second, 140% of the AMI in a county as wealthy as Santa Clara County means these homes would actually not be all that affordable in reality, as 140% AMI for a single person would be an income of approximately $185,000 per year (and 120% AMI is $164k). We note that most school employees don’t make salaries that high, and certainly not the entry-level educators that the project team told us they’d like to target with these homes. We would like to see lower levels of affordability, well below 120% AMI, so that this project truly serves school employees most in need.
Catalyze SV Legacy Score: 4/5
Cupertino for All Legacy Score: 5/5
This is a category our members frequently refrain from scoring because our modern society hasn’t retained much knowledge of the history of many Silicon Valley sites. Cupertino for All members largely followed this model, with the majority choosing to mark this category as “not applicable.” Conversely, most Catalyze SV members did weigh in with scores for whatever reason, though we have little in the way of qualitative feedback. The main theme was our members noting that we appreciate the project’s desire to retain as many trees as possible.