Sugar Land council adopts Imperial Historic District vision, sets RFQ timetable for master developer

Sugar Land’s City Council voted unanimously Feb. 3 to adopt a vision statement and four guiding pillars for the Imperial Historic District and to move forward with a procurement process to select a master developer.

Jessica Hubbell, the city’s assistant director of redevelopment, told the council the city secured ownership of the 40-acre site in June 2025 and worked with TPUDC and staff on community engagement and a draft strategic vision. Hubbell said staff would release a request for qualifications (RFQ) late in February — with a planned notice around Feb. 25 — and expected RFQ submissions between March 30 and June 1. She described a two-track approach that pairs the master-developer procurement with separate Char House preservation and design work.

The adopted vision centers on four pillars: telling the city’s story (including preserving artifacts and creating museum space), creating a living district with everyday activation, designing for gathering and inclusivity, and connecting and enhancing mobility across Oyster Creek. Hubbell said the city will prioritize walkability and multiple modes of access rather than a car-focused design.

Hubbell described the outreach and recruitment plan for developers: a targeted marketing campaign using BizCred to reach roughly 6,000 qualified development and real-estate professionals with an estimated 183,000 impressions at a cost of about $7,500 to be paid from regular marketing operations. Hubell said the campaign will link to the public RFQ page and will not provide special access to respondents.

During public comment, resident Susan Fortenberry said she had attended engagement sessions and watched recordings but ‘does not feel heard,’ argued the consultant (identified in testimony as Mr. Wright/TPUDC) gave more weight to his own ideas than to residents’, and urged the city to consider a larger dedicated, climate-controlled museum space to house historical artifacts now in storage. Fortenberry also raised accessibility concerns about proposed access (she said a rooftop gathering space accessed by spiral stairs would “exclude children, the elderly and the disabled”) and asked how much TPUDC was paid for the engagement; the transcript does not record an answer to the payment question.

Council members repeatedly emphasized that the document is a visioning statement, not final design plans. Councilmember Vandehar stated that this is a ‘‘visioning statement, not a set of plans’’ and that no decisions had been made on Char House redevelopment, the 3-bay warehouse uses, or other site details. Hubbell said the RFQ stage is primarily a qualifications review; detailed financial proposals and project-specific plans would be requested later in phase 2 of the procurement and would be reviewed with finalists and the council (including executive-session review of top candidates).

A motion to adopt Resolution No. 26-11 was made from the dais and seconded; the council voted 7–0 to approve the vision and guiding pillars. Council members asked staff to publish the approved document and update the project web page and to provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement before construction begins.

The council’s action moves the Imperial Historic District into a procurement phase; staff said they will return with more detailed proposals, interviews of top applicants, and subsequent council review as the RFQ and phase-2 solicitation proceed.