The Brief

Charging an electric vehicle in Southern California often involves conditions that are less than ideal — like sitting in your hot (or cold) car in an empty parking lot. Now some companies are trying to reimagine the experience.

The company Rove recently opened a charging station off the 5 Freeway in Santa Ana that includes a 24-hour indoor lounge with bathrooms, a car wash, and a Gelson’s mini market. Kristi Ochoa, the company’s vice president of marketing, said the idea was borne out of company leaders’ own public charging woes.

“And then we just kept problem solving,” she said. “What were the challenges people were having where they were finding chargers that didn't work well? How do we fix that? And how do we make it easy to pay and how do we make them as fast as possible and how do we reduce the line?”

Rove’s Santa Ana station has 40 fast chargers, and attendants who can help newbie EV drivers figure out how to charge and address problems onsite rather than via telephone, like at most other charging stations.

And they have smaller amenities that are gas station norms but usually absent from charging stations, like squeegees to clean your windshield. “They’re kind of an underrated piece,” Ochoa said.

This reporter’s charging woes

My family entered the brave new world of electric vehicle ownership when we bought a used Nissan Leaf in 2018. We were lucky — our landlord split the bill with us to install a Level 2 charger (a typical home or work charger that takes 4-10 hours to fully charge a vehicle) in the garage of our apartment.

It was mostly great. We could charge up overnight, get to work, where I could usually find an available charger nearby, and get home to charge again. We felt like we were saving money by not buying gas and doing our part to try and usher in a cleaner energy future.

But then we moved to a place where we couldn’t charge at home and our EV journey got significantly more complicated. Charging in the wild — aka, on the streets of Southern California, outside of home and/or work — could be exasperating. There were only a few charging stations within several miles of our home. The closest one, just a block away, only had one charger that we could use for our particular vehicle and it was almost always busy.

Sometimes, I’d check the charging company’s app (charging in the wild required us to have multiple apps for different companies, and a third app to find nearby charging stations), see that the charger was open, and rush over there only to find that someone had beat me to it.

Other times, chargers would be out of service — just when I desperately needed one. I once took my 9-year-old daughter to a movie on a rainy night, planning to charge at the parking garage adjacent to the theater while we watched the film. One of the garage’s two chargers was out of service and the other was busy.

The competition for a charge can be fierce.

(

Justin Sullivan

/

Getty Images

)

After the movie, I found a charger at a nearby shopping center only to find that it was also out of service. It was now pouring and we wouldn’t make it home without charging. We finally begged a car dealership to let us use their only available Level 1 charger (the slowest) for enough time to get us home. I sat in the fogged-up car for 20 minutes trying to stay awake while my daughter dozed in the back.

We eventually gave up and sold our EV. I hope to try again when we can buy a car that gets more miles to the charge and when the public charging infrastructure for EVs, other than Tesla, is better developed. (The Tesla Supercharger network is already robust.)

More full service stations coming

The Rove-style station — if there were enough of them — seems like an answer to some of the problems we faced.

On a recent afternoon, Nick O’Malley and Caleb Ostgaard were lounging at an outdoor table at the Santa Ana station, waiting for O’Malley’s car to finish charging before heading back to L.A. O’Malley said he’d like to see more stations like Rove’s, “where it's less of just a random parking lot in the middle of nowhere.”

Tico Brown stopped at the Santa Ana station to charge up his new Tesla. “This is nice that I can grab something to eat real quick and then get back on the road,” he said.

Rove's EV charging station in Santa Ana has an indoor lounge, Gelson's mini market, and outdoor seating.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Rove plans to open 10 similar stations in Southern California by 2026, including in Costa Mesa, Torrance, Long Beach, and Corona.

Other companies are also trying to improve EV owners’ experience with public charging. Electrify America opened its first indoor charging station with a lounge in San Francisco in February.

“I think that and the Rove model are a reflection of charging stations realizing we need to provide a better experience when it comes to charging,” said Lindsay Buckley, a spokesperson for the state Energy Commission.

Not to be outdone, Tesla is currently building a charging station in Hollywood that will include a diner and drive-in theater. And a new Tesla Super Charger station — with 112 fast chargers, a 7-Eleven, and a lounge — is expected to open in late 2025 near the Grapevine section of the I-5.

California’s big EV plans

The state has 10 years to reach its goal of having zero emission vehicles make up 100% of all new vehicles sold. The outgoing Biden administration approved California’s mandate to phase out gas-powered cars via a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But the incoming Trump administration is likely to challenge the waiver in court.

Currently, about one in four new vehicles sold in California are zero emission.

The state also recently began tracking the number and distribution of EV charging stations. Currently, there are more than 152,000 public and shared private chargers, according to the state Energy Commission. Shared private chargers are located at workplaces or in parking garages that charge a fee to park while charging.

The state’s goal is to have 250,000 chargers installed by the end of 2026. Buckley, the agency spokesperson, said California is on track to reach that goal “in the next couple of years.”

Buckley said the state is also “laser focused on reliability” — the Energy Commission is in the process of developing standards to make sure chargers are working 97% of the time. Those standards will apply to chargers that get some amount of public funding, which Buckley said applies to about half of the state’s installed chargers.

In December, the Energy Commission announced plans to invest $1.4 billion over the next four years on new infrastructure for refueling electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Buckley said the bulk of that investment will be directed toward communities where chargers are even more scarce than I experienced during my years of EV ownership.

“We’re giving a little more love to rural areas and low-income areas,” Buckley said, “going where the market is not going.”

The restaurant:

Detroit-style pizza is hard to find in Southern California, given how far away it is from the Motor City.

Angelenos can consider themselves fortunate though to have a spot tucked in West Hollywood — DTown Pizzeria. The pizzeria is owned by Ryan Ososky, the 2025 Pizza Maker of the Year at the International Pizza Expo. He's received numerous honors for his pan pizzas.

The food: 

Oskosky's been all over the map during his time as a chef, and he's worked under the likes of Michael Mina, Charlie Palmer and Wolfgang Puck. After gaining all that experience, he’d eventually start a pizza pop-up in West Hollywood.

“I’m a chef by trade, but I guess I just happen to own a pizzeria and won some awards around it,” Ososky said.

What Austin tried:

• Goomba
• "Haole" aka not Hawaiian
• The 313
• The 1946 cheese

The verdict:

“Excellent puff of flavor in the middle of an excellent pizza, soft crust,” Austin said after trying the pepperoni-topped Goomba slice.

When taking a bite of the 313, Austin said “the pesto on top of this zings it up,” adding, “It stays moist … but it’s got a moist and crisp with soft dough.”

Listen:

Los Angeles Angels legend Garret Anderson has died. The team announced his death today on social media.

The cause and location of his death were not immediately announced.

"Garret was a cornerstone of our organization throughout his 15 seasons," owner Arte Moreno said in a statement, "and his stoic presence in the outfield and our clubhouse elevated the Angels into an era of continued success, highlighted by the 2002 World Series championship."

Anderson's story is a Southern California one in so many ways. He was born in Los Angeles and graduated from Kennedy High School in Granada Hills, where he was a three-sport star in baseball, basketball and football. He won All-Los Angeles City and All-League Honors as a junior and helped lead Kennedy's basketball team to an L.A. City Championship.

The Angels drafted him out of high school in 1990, and he made his Major League debut in 1994.

He spent all but two of his 17 Major League seasons with the Halos and was a key player on the 2002 team that won the franchise's first, and still only, World Series.

After the Angels decided not to renew his contract at the end of the 2008 season, Anderson signed with the Atlanta Braves in 2009 before returning to SoCal in 2010, this time as a member of the Dodgers. He spent a single season there before retiring in 2011.

He leads the Angels all-time in a slew of statistics, including games played (2,013), hits (2,368), RBIs (1,292), doubles (489) and several others. He was a three-time All-Star, the 2003 Home Run Derby winner and All-Star Game Most Valuable Player.

But Angels fans will probably remember him best for his go-ahead, three-run double in Game 7 of the 2002 World Series. It gave the Angels a 4-1 lead, which they never surrendered.

But despite all the accolades, one of the most impressive stats from Anderson's career was his reliability. He had a stretch of eight seasons where he appeared in at least 150 games and played in at least 140 games in 11 of his 17 seasons in the pros.

Shortly after he retired, he joined the Angels television broadcast team to provide pregame and postgame analysis.

The Angels will wear a special "GA" memorial patch on their uniforms for the remainder of the season. They'll also play a tribute and hold a moment of silence in his honor before tonight's game against the San Diego Padres at Angel Stadium.

This story first appeared in The LA Local.

For Koreatown resident George Chan, the appeal of public transit in Los Angeles is simple: avoiding the daily grind of driving.

“I don’t like cars, so I’m all for having more public transportation,” said Chan, who lives near Olympic Boulevard and Hobart Street and uses transit about twice a week to get to work in Culver City. “I feel like that’s one of the things L.A. really lacks, a working public transportation system. You go to any other major city and you’re able to take a train anywhere, but here you can’t.”

Even if it takes longer, he said, public transit offers something driving doesn’t.

“I don’t have to sit in traffic. I don’t have to deal with drivers at all,” he said. “I feel pretty comfortable on the train and bus, so it’s not a big deal for me.”

That’s why Chan is looking forward to the opening of the first phase of the Metro D Line extension on May 8, which Koreatown residents like him say will make it easier to reach some of Los Angeles’ most visited cultural hubs without sitting in traffic.

Where things stand

The project, more than a decade in the making, will add three new underground stations along Wilshire Boulevard at La Brea, Fairfax and La Cienega, closing an important gap between Downtown Los Angeles and the Mid-Wilshire area.

From Koreatown, the new stops will put destinations like the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures and the La Brea Tar Pits within roughly a 15- to 20-minute ride from Union Station, offering a faster alternative to driving along one of the city’s most congested corridors. 

Another view of the Wilshire/La Brea Station.

(

Courtesy Metro Art

/

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

)

Metro projects the new stations will add roughly 16,200 daily riders and increase foot traffic for local businesses. The opening comes more than three years behind its original 2023 timeline and about $700 million over budget, with this part of the project now reaching around $3.51 billion. 

The project is part of Metro’s “Twenty-Eight by ’28” push to finish major transit expansions before the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics.

For Chan, that could mean easier trips west, whether that’s grabbing brunch near Miracle Mile or visiting museums that currently require multiple transfers.

How residents are feeling

Other residents said the expansion is also expected to reshape how often they use transit, particularly for trips that currently require driving. Davis Read, a Koreatown resident who is a part of the Wilshire Center Koreatown neighborhood council, says he uses Metro about once a week now, but that will likely change once he gets more access to the museums by La Brea. 

“I’m also excited to be able to go to Beverly Hills, where a lot of my medical appointments are,” Read said. “That’s something that was usually like a half-hour drive.”

But while many welcome the expansion, residents say the city still has work to do — especially when it comes to building housing people can actually afford, shortening timelines for major transit projects and improving bus infrastructure.

Sherin Varghese, a Koreatown resident and organizer with Ktown for All, said buses remain essential for many in the neighborhood.

“A lot of our neighbors, housed and unhoused, don’t have cars,” she said. “Building out infrastructure that isn’t car-forward is generally a good move.”

At the same time, she noted that buses, which often serve lower-income riders, have historically been deprioritized.

“I’m really excited about the trains,” Varghese said. “But I also want us to continue investing in bus infrastructure, like dedicated bus lanes that don’t get closed off that aren’t just for rush hour.”

Wilshire/La Brea Metro station remains closed off to the public as of April 14.

(

Marina Peña

/

The LA Local

)

For Varghese, who relies on transit regularly, the D Line will open up parts of the city that currently feel out of reach.

“I’m going to be able to take the D straight to LACMA or to the Academy Museum to see a movie,” she said. “It opens up a huge amount of access to the west side.”

Metro's overall plan

The D Line extension is part of Metro’s broader plan to connect Downtown Los Angeles to Westwood through a nine-mile subway, with future phases expected to open in 2027. Additional stations will include Beverly Drive, Century City, Westwood/UCLA and Westwood/VA Hospital.

Another major project — the K Line Northern Extension — would further expand that network by linking South L.A. to West Hollywood. But with funding not expected until 2041 and an opening still years after that, between 2047 and 2049, many residents say the timeline highlights a broader frustration.

After last-minute negotiations between Mayor Karen Bass and local leaders, Metro’s board voted unanimously in late March to approve the route. The planned underground extension would tie into four major rail lines and is projected to carry up to 100,000 riders daily

“There’s a repeated trend in which these great public projects are having to conform around the needs of wealthy home ownership groups. I think that’s frustrating,” Read said. “I think at this point, we should be pressuring our elected leaders to act quicker on the Metro.”

He pointed to the K Line extension as one example, where opposition from a group of homeowners in Mid-City, particularly in affluent Black neighborhoods like Lafayette Square, raised concerns about construction, safety and property values, contributing to delays.

“That’s the most important stitch in the Metro system — it would be a game changer,” Read said. “A two-seat ride to LAX from Koreatown or downtown would make a huge difference. Right now, it takes about three lines and can take just as long as driving in traffic.”

The Wilshire/Fairfax station where the D line and K line would meet is expected to add 33,000 riders, according to Metro.

Residents ask: Why'd it take this long

Varghese, who has lived in Koreatown for 15 years, said her frustration is less about the current timeline and more about missed opportunities in the past.

“I wish we had started this 50 years ago,” she said. “But I’m glad it’s happening now.”

Alongside transit improvements, residents also raised concerns about what new development around stations will look like, particularly whether it will include housing that current residents can afford.

“A lot of the housing is built for upscale renters,” he said. “If they built low-income or cheaper housing, that would be great, but that’s not what’s happening.”

Read said transit and housing need to be planned together.

“If we don’t act drastically to construct new housing, we’re never going to dig ourselves out of this crisis,” he said.

Varghese echoed that concern, pointing to what she sees as a gap between policy goals and what’s actually being built.

“We need to build housing that people can actually afford now,” she said. “We need to be affecting the supply directly and not hoping that housing eventually trickles down in terms of pricing.”

The post ‘I wish we had started this 50 years ago’: Koreatown is ready for Metro’s D Line appeared first on LA Local.

Earlier this year, tickets to see SZA perform at the Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 a piece. In San Francisco, tickets to see Sam Smith at the newly renovated Castro Theater went on sale for $120, only to be quickly snatched up by scalpers and resold for upwards of $600.

Those are some of the stories that California lawmakers are citing as they advance two plans to change the ticketing landscape. One caps the extent to which resellers can mark up the original ticket price while the other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t yet own.

Democratic Assemblymembers Issac Bryan of Culver City and Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying bills that they say would protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive ticket sales.

Both measures are backed by the ticket market’s dominant seller, Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. Its support has some worried that the bills will help the company crush its competitors and jack up prices. A federal jury in New York this week found that the company illegally acted as a monopoly in a victory for, among others, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who with colleagues in other states sued the company two years ago and kept going after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now awaiting penalties.

Despite these headwinds, the ticket bills are sailing through the Legislature.

Supporters say the legislation has nothing to do with the antitrust case against Live Nation and helps consumers. Opponents disagree.

“The state Legislature should really be standing up for consumers instead of advancing bills that are there to help a monopoly that has been caught on record calling its fans stupid and has bragged about robbing them blind,” said Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights advocacy group.

Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying against the measures, a sign that they view the proposals as a threat to their business.

Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, wrote to CalMatters, stating, “Passing laws that hand the Ticketmaster monopoly more power and don’t actually make tickets more affordable is the last thing California’s leaders should do.”

But Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, argues that they will regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging the face value — or below face value — exchange of tickets.

“Ultimately, that is what these bills will do, in addition to making sure that the tickets are actually real,” he said. “That is a good thing for California consumers. It's a good thing for artists and it's a good thing for these small businesses and nonprofits that make up the independent stages across the state.”

A Live Nation spokesperson said in a statement to CalMatters, “The resale lobby constantly tries to change the subject by pointing fingers at Ticketmaster, even though it has less than 25% of the resale market. This has nothing to do with anyone’s monopoly, but rather is about protecting fans from scalpers and the resale sites that cater to them.”

The company has spent roughly $165,000 on lobbying efforts this legislative session, including to support Bryan’s bill.

'Unlikely allies'

Bryan’s Assembly Bill 1349 would ban the sale of speculative tickets — or tickets that are not in the possession or ownership of the people who list them online. In an April hearing, Bryan said the bill protects consumers from predatory mark ups.

“This bill is so important that, after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together,” Bryan said, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. “In fact, this bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together, brought the National Independent Venue Association and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together.”

Several secondary ticket sellers are fighting the measure, including StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. The three companies have spent roughly $1.1 million dollars on lobbying efforts this legislative session, which included opposition to Bryan’s bill.

People watch fireworks during Bad Bunny’s halftime show from a parking garage outside Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 8, 2026.

(

Jungho Kim

/

CalMatters

)

Opponents including Robert Herrell, executive director for the Consumer Federation of California, argue that the bill strengthens Live Nation Ticketmaster’s grip on the ticketing and live entertainment industry. According to them, the measure would give Live Nation complete control over the ticket even after it has been purchased — meaning, for example, that consumers could lose the ability to sell it or give it away.

“There’s no consumer choice in the matter,” said Herrell. “They can keep people out of shows if they want to. There have been situations where, if you bought a ticket on the secondary market, you’ve been denied entry into a show.”

Proponents say Herrell and other opponents are mistaken. They say they are not trying to prevent transferability but rather, they want to protect fans from speculative costs.

“We want those rooms full,” said Ron Gubitz, executive director of Music Artists Coalition, which is co-sponsoring both bills. “So you have to be able to transfer a ticket. We just want it to be in a way that’s safe, trustworthy and not creating this run on the market that exists now.”

Gubitz pointed to a recent Bruno Mars concert, where tickets were on StubHub for $400 to $2,000 before they were on sale through Ticketmaster.

“That’s crazy,” he said. “That’s a speculative ticket that Bryan’s bill is trying to stop. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not fair to anybody, except for the secondary (market). It seems great for them.”

Price caps in a free market

Haney’s Assembly Bill 1720, also known as the California Fans First Act, would put a 10% cap on resale event ticket markups, inclusive of the ticket fees. In other words, a reseller could not charge more than 10% higher than the original ticket price.

In an interview with CalMatters, Haney said artists, independent venues and downtowns are currently being “screwed over and exploited” by scalpers and brokers.

“We can’t allow the status quo to continue if we want to ensure Californians have access to affordable tickets to see their favorite artists or if we want independent venues or the broader landscape of musicians and artists to thrive in our state,” he said.

Haney rejected the idea that his bill would strengthen the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly, saying that the company is one of the biggest operators and profiteers of the secondary ticket market and would therefore be subject to the same restrictions as any other platform or broker.

“I don't think it's a free market to allow folks to come in and buy up all these tickets and then create scarcity and then you're now required to buy your ticket at a much higher price from someone who had nothing to do with the event,” he said. “This is not something we would ever allow for airplane tickets or even dinner reservations.”

The bill has been criticized by opponents like Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at Progressive Policy Institute, who said price caps notoriously distort the market, describing them as “anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-artist.”

“If you shut down the resale market with price caps then guess what? Ticket buyers have no place to go but right back to Ticketmaster,” said Moss. “If (Live Nation) succeed(s) in decimating the resale market, then they steer millions and millions of fans back to their own ticketing platform where they charge monopoly ticket fees and where fans are hostage to their glitchy online platform and all of their data, privacy and security concerns that we always hear about in the news.”

Those concerns didn’t stop the bill from passing out of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism last week with a 6-1 vote. The bill also passed out of the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection on Thursday with a 9-4 vote.

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.