Carson Reclamation Authority reports executed settlement in Cam Carson LLC case, says it clears way for development
Loading...
Summary
After a closed session, legal counsel reported the final executed settlement in Cam Carson LLC v. Carson Reclamation Authority is included in the agenda packet; board members said the settlement ends more than five years of litigation and allows the authority to pursue a new developer for the 157‑acre site on South Main Street.
The Carson Reclamation Authority reported after closed session that the ‘‘final, executed copy of the settlement agreement’’ in litigation with Cam Carson LLC is included in the meeting agenda packet, clearing a major legal obstacle for future development, authority legal counsel said.
The action was disclosed by the authority’s legal counsel, who told the board that the matter — identified in the agenda as Cam Carson LLC v. Carson Reclamation Authority, City of Carson, successor agency to the Carson Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles Superior Court case number 20STCV16461 — was discussed in closed session and that the executed settlement agreement is now part of the public record. Counsel also said the board met in closed session on a second item related to real‑property negotiations over a 157‑acre site at 2400 South Main Street but that item produced no reportable action.
Board member JR described the development implications, saying the settlement ‘‘ends five and a half years of litigation’’ tied to the mall project and ‘‘allows us as a CRA to move forward with another developer on that cell.’’ JR said the authority will roll out public information and presentations about next steps and public outreach over the coming weeks.
The authority did not provide additional contractual details, developer names, a revised project timeline or financial terms in the open meeting. Legal counsel’s statement that the executed settlement copy is included in the agenda packet is the only reportable action disclosed at the meeting.
Next steps described by board members were procedural: public communications and outreach and pursuing replacement development options for the affected parcel. The board did not vote on the settlement in open session at the meeting; the counsel’s report described the closed‑session disposition and the inclusion of the executed settlement in the materials made available to the board and public.
The authority also discussed ongoing real‑property negotiations with the owner of the Carson Goose property during closed session; that discussion produced no reportable action, counsel said. The meeting adjourned shortly after the board’s announcements.
