California Stewardship Alliance californiastewardship.org

Cities

Built Right Design Competition Template

A model framework for running the Built Right design competition in your jurisdiction — from open call through community vote and governing body selection.

This document is a model template for jurisdictions adopting the Built Right workforce homeownership framework. It provides the structure, language, and process for running a Built Right design competition — from issuing the open call through community display and governing body selection. Adapt all bracketed fields to your jurisdiction.

Purpose of the Competition

The Built Right design competition replaces the traditional feasibility study with a civic event. Rather than commissioning a consultant report, the jurisdiction formally asks a public question: What does beautiful, affordable, workforce homeownership look like on this parcel in our community?

Competing design teams — landscape architects, residential architects, and design firms working with precision-built construction systems — submit fully integrated proposals. Submissions are publicly displayed. The community votes. The governing body selects a winner. The result is community ownership of the outcome before a single unit is built.

Competition Overview

Jurisdiction: [City / County / Agency Name]

Program: Built Right Workforce Homeownership Pilot — Phase 1

Site: [Parcel address or APN], [City], California — approximately [X] acres

Target: [X] workforce homeownership units, 80–100% AMI, for-sale

Competition Manager: California Stewardship Alliance (technical partner) in coordination with [Department Name]

Governing Framework: The Built Right Open Framework, published by the California Stewardship Alliance

Eligibility

Submissions are open to any qualified design team meeting the following requirements:

  • At least one licensed architect or landscape architect on the team (California license required)
  • A named precision-built or modular housing manufacturer as a design partner
  • No conflict of interest with [Jurisdiction Name] or current city contracts
  • Submission of a completed Competitor Registration Form by the registration deadline

Teams may include architects, landscape architects, urban designers, housing consultants, and community engagement specialists. CSA’s certified manufacturer network is available to all registered teams at no charge.

Submission Requirements

Each submission must include all of the following components. Incomplete submissions will not be reviewed.

Site Plan

A fully integrated site plan at 1” = 20’ scale (or metric equivalent) showing:

  • Unit placement, footprints, and orientation
  • All setbacks, easements, and utility corridors
  • Pedestrian paths, vehicular access, and parking
  • Stormwater management and grading concept
  • Native plant and drought-resistant landscape design

Unit Design

For each proposed unit type:

  • Floor plan at 1/4” = 1’ scale
  • Exterior elevations (all four sides)
  • Manufacturer name, system specification, and unit dimensions
  • Estimated square footage and bedroom/bathroom count
  • Key material palette and finish specifications

Landscape Narrative

A written narrative (500 words maximum) describing:

  • Native and drought-resistant plant species proposed
  • Stormwater and bioswale approach
  • Community amenity elements (paths, gathering space, edible garden, solar pergola, etc.)
  • Maintenance philosophy

Program Compliance Statement

A statement confirming the proposal meets the following baseline requirements:

  • All units precision-built or modular construction
  • Native plant palette as primary landscape material
  • Solar-ready roofing on all units
  • Fire-resistant exterior materials
  • Universal design features on at least one ground-floor unit

Project Cost Estimate

An itemized construction cost estimate including:

  • Per-unit manufacturing and delivery cost
  • Site preparation and foundation
  • Utility connections and infrastructure
  • Landscape installation
  • Total project cost and estimated per-unit sale price at 80–100% AMI

Design Statement

A written design statement (750 words maximum) addressing:

  • Design concept and relationship to the site
  • How the proposal serves the 80–100% AMI workforce household
  • How the design responds to the surrounding neighborhood character
  • What makes this proposal worth building

Jury Structure

The competition jury is composed of seven members:

  1. Community Representative — appointed by the governing body, resident of [Jurisdiction]
  2. Community Representative — appointed by the governing body, resident of [Jurisdiction]
  3. Architecture / Design Professional — licensed architect or landscape architect, appointed by [Department]
  4. Housing Policy Professional — appointed by [Department], may be staff
  5. Workforce Representative — a teacher, nurse, municipal employee, or similar essential worker, appointed by the governing body
  6. CSA Technical Advisor — non-voting, provides technical guidance to jury
  7. Governing Body Liaison — a councilmember or board member, non-voting

A simple majority of voting jury members is required to advance a finalist. In the event of a tie, the Architecture / Design Professional serves as tiebreaker.

Evaluation Criteria

Jury scoring is based on 100 points distributed across five categories:

Design Excellence — 30 points

Does the proposal produce homes that are architecturally distinctive, well-sited, and worthy of the community? Would a neighbor be proud to live next to this?

Affordability & Program Fit — 25 points

Does the proposed per-unit cost land within a price range accessible to an 80–100% AMI household carrying a conventional mortgage in this market? Is the unit count and mix appropriate for the site?

Landscape & Site Quality — 20 points

Does the landscape design create a genuinely beautiful, ecologically responsible site? Is the native plant palette meaningful — not token? Does the public realm treatment benefit the neighborhood?

Construction Feasibility — 15 points

Is the precision-built system selected a credible, deliverable solution? Does the cost estimate reflect realistic current pricing? Is the proposed timeline achievable within 18–24 months?

Community Connection — 10 points

Does the design statement demonstrate understanding of this specific community? Does the proposal show evidence of place-based thinking rather than a generic system dropped on a site?

Timeline

[Month 1] — Open Call Issued RFP published on jurisdiction website, CSA network, AIA chapter, and local planning networks. Manufacturer network notified. Registration portal opens.

[Month 1 + 3 weeks] — Pre-Submission Conference Optional virtual Q&A session for registered teams. CSA technical advisor available. Written Q&A published to all registered teams within five business days.

[Month 2] — Registration Deadline All competing teams must be registered. Teams without a named manufacturer partner may request introductions through CSA network.

[Month 3] — Submission Deadline Complete submissions due by 5:00 PM. Late submissions not accepted. Digital delivery via [submission portal].

[Month 3 + 2 weeks] — Jury Review Jury convenes for initial scoring. Finalists (minimum two, maximum four) selected. Finalist notifications issued.

[Month 4] — Public Display Opens All finalist submissions displayed publicly at [location — city hall lobby, library, community center]. Community vote open for [X] weeks. Press event at opening. Community gathering scheduled.

[Month 4 + 3 weeks] — Community Vote Closes Tabulation completed by [staff/CSA]. Results presented to jury.

[Month 5] — Jury Final Deliberation Jury reviews community vote results and makes final recommendation. Community vote is advisory — jury recommendation is determinative, but significant community preference is noted in the record.

[Month 5 + 2 weeks] — Governing Body Selection Staff presents jury recommendation and community vote results. Governing body selects winning proposal and authorizes staff to negotiate a development agreement with the winning team.

Community Display Guidelines

The public display of finalist submissions is a civic event, not an administrative step. Treat it accordingly.

  • Display all finalist submissions at equal scale and equal prominence
  • Include a brief plain-language description of each proposal (provided by the design team, reviewed by staff)
  • Provide physical ballots and a digital voting option
  • Post vote totals in real time (or daily) on the jurisdiction website
  • Issue a press release at the opening with images of all finalists
  • Invite local media to the opening event
  • Allow at least three weeks of public display before closing the vote

Award and Next Steps

The winning team will be awarded:

  • The opportunity to negotiate a development agreement with [Jurisdiction Name]
  • A stipend of $[X] for preparation of Phase 1 construction documents (negotiated separately)
  • Public recognition at the governing body meeting at which the selection is ratified

Non-winning finalists will receive:

  • A participation honorarium of $[X] (recommended: $2,000–$3,500 per finalist team)
  • Public display and recognition at the community event
  • Written jury feedback on their submission

Model RFP Issuance Language

The following language may be adapted for the jurisdiction’s formal Request for Proposals document:

[Jurisdiction Name] invites design teams to submit proposals for the Built Right Workforce Homeownership Pilot — a precision-built, for-sale housing program on publicly-owned land at [Site Address].

Built Right is an open framework published by the California Stewardship Alliance. [Jurisdiction Name] is adopting the framework under [Resolution Number], dated [Date]. The California Stewardship Alliance is serving as technical partner.

This competition seeks an integrated site, landscape, and architecture proposal for [X] workforce homeownership units at 80–100% AMI, to be constructed using precision-built or modular construction methods. The winning proposal will be selected through a public jury process with community input, and ratified by the [City Council / Board of Supervisors / Agency Board].

Complete submission requirements, evaluation criteria, jury composition, and timeline are available in the Built Right Design Competition Template at [URL]. Questions may be directed to [Staff Contact, Title] at [email].

Resources

All model documents referenced in this template are available at no charge from the California Stewardship Alliance:

  • Model Adoption Resolution
  • Model Site Designation Resolution
  • Site Criteria Checklist & Scoring Matrix
  • Eligibility Framework Template
  • Demographic Review Protocol
  • Model 99-Year Ground Lease
  • AMI-Indexed Resale Formula Ordinance Language
  • Homebuyer Lottery & Selection Protocol

Contact CSA at info@californiastewardship.org or visit californiastewardship.org/built-right/playbook for the full City Adoption Playbook.

California Stewardship Alliance

Democracy starts at home.

californiastewardship.org