There is a report from the City Attorney on the matter along with a draft ordinance repealing the original ordinance of intention and serving as a new ordinance of intention. The first document is by far the most interesting of the two, confirming as it does the role of the LAFLA letter. It also makes it clear that it wasn’t just the fact that LAFLA was right that convinced the City to retreat, but the fact that LAFLA was going to sue them. Thus the stick is mightier than the carrot, or whatever. You can read a selection after the break if you prefer that to clicking on the PDF:
In a letter date [sic] August 24, 2016, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles alleged that the formation of the District was legally in jeopardy because not all members of the public who requested to provide testimony during the public hearing were allowed to do so. To address this allegation and mitigate against the potential legal challenge over the District’s formation, we recommend that the public hearing upon the proposed assessment be repeated.
In order to repeat the public hearing, State law requires the adoption of a new Ordinance of Intention and new findings to be made in accordance with the City Clerk Report dated June 24, 2016, and other related documents already in Council File No. 16-0749. The new Ordinance of Intention will also provide notice by mail at least 45 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Therefore, we recommend the adoption of the proposed draft Ordinance of Intention for the establishment of the District. The proposed draft ordinance also repeals the original Ordinance of Intention and the recently adopted Ordinance of Establishment.