The Beaumont City Council on June 17 approved a development agreement (DA) with Beaumont Regency AVG LLC to build a 279,941‑square‑foot shopping center on about 29 acres near Oak Valley Parkway and Interstate 10, and adopted related measures to reimburse some off‑site improvements.

The DA, approved on a 3‑0 vote of members present, locks in entitlements and development rules for a 10‑year term with one 5‑year extension and allows the city to reimburse actual costs of certain public improvements on Oak Valley Parkway up to $6,000,000 under a separate reimbursement agreement. City staff and the developer described Phase 1 as roughly 230,000 square feet (including a 148,000‑sq.‑ft. general merchandise anchor, a 24,000‑sq.‑ft. grocery, and 58,000 sq. ft. of inline and pad space), with an anticipated later Phase 2 that could add roughly 50,000 sq. ft.

Why the agreement matters: City staff said the project would recapture local retail sales currently leaving Beaumont, generate significant development impact fees (estimated at $3.6–$5.0 million depending on permit timing), create jobs and new taxable activity, and provide extensive street and signal upgrades along project frontage. The reimbursement agreement conditions payment on completion of the Oak Valley Parkway public improvements and either (a) opening of a major retailer of at least 125,000 sq. ft. or (b) certificates of occupancy and receipt of sales tax for at least 50,000 sq. ft., plus completion of on‑site improvements.

What the council approved: The DA (ordinance, first reading), a resolution approving the off‑site traffic improvements reimbursement agreement, and a resolution amending the five‑year capital improvement plan to budget up to $6,000,000 for the reimbursement (to be funded first from streets & bridges DIF funds and then, if required, from reprogrammed CIP dollars and general fund reserves per the staff funding plan). Council also received staff analysis of fiscal benefits and risks, including a projected general‑fund payback period of roughly four years after the center reaches stabilized occupancy (staff estimate ~ $905,000 annual net revenue at Phase 1 stabilization, rising if Phase 2 happens).

Conditions and risks emphasized in council discussion: The developer and the council repeatedly noted there is no absolute contractual guarantee that a named anchor (Target) will open. Regency and the developer said they will not close escrow and acquire the property without an executed lease, and the DA becomes effective only after close of escrow and other conditions, but they declined to provide a covenant guaranteeing the anchor will open. Staff and the developer also described the reimbursement payment structure designed to reduce city risk by making payment contingent on occupancy or tax receipts as noted above. Council members asked about contributions toward the Oak Valley interchange (an existing regionally‑funded TUMF and DIF facility), and staff said the project will pay its TUMF and DIF obligations that can be applied to the interchange.

Public review and entitlements: The Planning Commission previously approved plot plan, variances, a master sign program (excluding the electronic billboard, which would require separate discretionary review), and a site plan. Staff reported that the DA and related approvals were found exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines §15183 (projects consistent with a community plan or zoning where the environmental effects are covered by an existing EIR) and that a notice of exemption was filed for the planning entitlements; the council’s DA action was tied to the ordinance process (second reading is scheduled next month per the city’s ordinance procedures).

Key votes/actions recorded in the meeting (see Actions section for structured details): the council approved the DA package (first reading and related resolutions) by roll call (three yes votes from the members present). The staff report and developer presentation are on the city record.

Speakers quoted or referenced in the meeting: Rob Steele (economic development consultant), Melody Archiega (planning staff), Chris Sanchez (applicant/developer), and Rob’s presentation team.

Next steps: The DA requires the developer to close escrow (outside date in DA June 30, 2026), submit building permits and meet conditions of the reimbursement agreement. The ordinance returns for a second reading at the council’s next regularly scheduled meeting; the reimbursement payments will be made only after the conditions in the reimbursement agreement are satisfied.

Ending: Council members stressed they wanted the public improvements in place and said they had negotiated safeguards (timing, actual cost reimbursement, and tax/occupancy triggers) intended to limit exposure of city funds while enabling the project to proceed.