The Brief

This year Pasadena hosts its annual Cheeseburger Week, Jan. 21- 27. It's been a regular event for more than a decade, but this year is particularly notable — the city says it's 100 years since the national icon was born.

The week is hosted in honor of Lionel Sternberger, who, according to local lore, created the beloved cheeseburger at his roadside stand off Route 66 in Pasadena in the 1920s.

But did Sternberger really create the cheeseburger? And what year? And why? While the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce believes it occurred in 1924, other sources give different dates. Other states also claim the honor. It’s one of SoCal’s numerous unsolved mysteries.

Burger history

The course of food history is often murky at best. According to The Great American Burger Book, by George Motz, it is believed burger meat (originally raw mutton) originated in the 13th century Mongol empire, before Russian and German immigrants brought their chopped beef version to America in the 19th century. It was in the go-go U.S.A. that a sizzling burger was probably slapped between two slices of bread, with multiple people claiming the honor sometime between 1885-1900.

But there is no ambivalence about the fact that 20th century Southern California is the birthplace of fast food. Due to our early adoption of cars, freeways, commutes, and our love of a cheap, greasy meal, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Fatburger, and In-N-Out, among others, were all started by savvy, entrepreneurial Southern Californians. And Lionel Sternberger was a true forerunner to these revolutionary restaurateurs.

Sternberger’s road stand

The earliest known version of Sternberger’s creation of the cheeseburger was recently discovered by food historian Andrew Smith, author of Hamburger: A Global History. It is in an article in The Pasadena Post, a now defunct newspaper. Published July 23, 1931, it sheds light on Sternberger’s early life and innovative ideas.

Lionel Sternberger was born in New York City in 1907. Soon the Sternberger family was off to booming SoCal, and Lionel attended grade school in Eagle Rock before attending high school in Pasadena. A natural born entrepreneur, he started a cider stand at the age of 12 and was running a grocery store at the age of 15.

Lionel Sternberger in the Pasadena Post.

(

Courtesy of the California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside

)

According to the Pasadena Post, in 1927, an act of kindness led Sternberger to his most famous acquisition — 1500 West Colorado Boulevard (part of the legendary Route 66), just west of the Colorado Street Bridge:

The young man started on the present enterprise in 1927, as the result of an interesting incident. On the approach to Pasadena, he halted his automobile and gave a lift to a waysider who wanted to get off at the soft drink stand at the crown of Colorado Street near Annandale Golf Links. Sternberger knew this location well — he and his father, years before, sold fruit on the same spot.

The road was already lined with quick serve options for harried commuters.

“There was a row of food stands offering everything from burgers and fries to Chinese food,” says Paul Little, president of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association in an interview over email. “They catered to drivers heading into Eagle Rock and other parts of L.A. and toward Glendale.”

Sternberger reached the little stand, which a 1937 issue of Western Restaurants claims was called Hinky Dink Barbecue Stand. The Post reported:

“On reaching the top of the hill, Sternberger drove his car to the doorstep so his passenger would not have to wade in the mud left by the rain the night before. Sternberger engaged the owner of the soft drink stand in conversation, with the result he swapped his car for the stand.”

He renamed the stand (little more than a cooking shack) the Boulevard Stop, before changing its name to The Rite Spot. But the going was rough, and Sternberger’s stand was only bringing in around $2 a day.

Adding the cheese

Stories diverge wildly over what prompted Sternberger to add a slice of cheese (kind unspecified) on the hamburger. According to The Pasadena Post, an unnamed friend suggested the struggling Sternberger try something new that would set his stand apart.

“Together the pair ‘invented’ a new hamburger sandwich,” the Post reported, “which included a slice of cheese, a food never before tried on such a sandwich. It was very tasty.”

Sternberger’s nephew Don heard another story from his father, Van, who would join Lionel in the family business.

“Lionel was a big eater,” he told the Los Angeles Times in 2012. “One day he just decided he wanted a hamburger with cheese on it and started doing it. That’s how my dad described it to me. My dad was proud of it. I tried once to get him to go to In-N-Out with me and he wouldn’t.”

(There are also other versions, like Sternberger putting “everything” on a burger as requested by an enthusiastic customer, including cheese, and Sternberger burning one side of a patty, which he covered up with a cheese slice.)

According to The Pasadena Post, Sternberger was initially wary of promoting this new burger with cheese, due to cheese costs at the time. However, he tried it out one day on two faithful customers — and they loved it.

“The next day,” The Pasadena Post reported, “an automobile with six passengers halted at the door. The driver asked: ‘Is this where hamburgers with cheese are served?’”

The customers loved the newfangled cheeseburger so much they ordered seconds. Soon The Rite Stop cheeseburgers were all the rage in Pasadena, and Sternberger was banking $400 a day.

“As a Muir Tech student in Pasadena in the late ‘20s and early ‘30s,” Pasadena native Jim Horbuckle recalled, per Smith, “the big treat was to take our dates to Lionel Sternberger’s Rite Spot — delicious hamburgers with cheese — 15 cents, a glass of cider, 10 cents. The total bill was $1.”

The menu of the Rite Spot showing Aristocratic Hamburger, the original hamburger with cheese, on the top left hand side.

(

Courtesy of the Archives (EPH-RES 2.39)

/

Pasadena Museum of History

)

An undated menu for The Rite Spot shows just how important this new edition to the menu was. The first item on the menu, it was called the “Aristocratic Hamburger” and billed as “the original hamburger with cheese.” The rest of the menu was standard Americana fare — chili and beans, Steak Lover’s Delight, Baked Alaskan Shrimp, and Pie á la Mode.

One side of the menu from a Rite Spot restaurant.

(

Courtesy of the Archives (EPH-RES 2.39)

/

Pasadena Museum of History

)

By 1931, Sternberger was prospering. The Rite Spot expanded to another brick-and-mortar eatery in Pasadena, and also opened locations in Glendale and Highland Park. With his newfound fortune, Sternberger reportedly built a large house in the Pasadena neighborhood of Annadale, which he shared with his mother.

The Sternberger family continued in the restaurant business for decades. When Sternberger died in 1964, Time Magazine credited him as the inventor of the cheeseburger (although it stated he had created it while working at a stand owned by his father).

Rivals to the crown

However, there are other claimants to the cheeseburger throne. According to George Motz, a 1928 menu from Odell’s Restaurant in South Los Angeles features a chili cheeseburger. Kaelin’s Restaurant in Louisville, Kentucky, has long asserted that their founder Carl Kaelin created the cheeseburger in 1934. And Louis Ballast of Humpty Dumpty Drive-In in Denver had the name “cheeseburger” trademarked in 1935.

“There has been some discussion back and forth in a friendly rivalry,” Little says of the competing claims. “Menus and other historical artifacts support the Rite Spot as being the originator of the hamburger with cheese. Sternberger did not call it a cheeseburger, which is what the others who claim to be originators use.”

Indeed, if the newly uncovered Pasadena Post article is accurate, it seems the main competition for “first cheeseburger” may only be the long-gone Odell’s. But Pasadena has embraced the legend of Lionel Sternberger and uses it today to celebrate the city’s thriving restaurant scene.

“In 2011, as part of California Restaurant Month, we started hosting Cheeseburger Week in January,” Little says. “We have done that every year since. It was a take-out version during the pandemic.”

A plaque commemorating cheeseburger's invention in Pasadena in the sidewalk outside the LA Financial Credit Union at 1520 W. Colorado Boulevard.

(

Courtesy Pasadena Chamber of Commerce

)

In 2017, a marker was placed at the site of the first The Rite Spot, into the sidewalk outside of the LA Financial Credit Union at 1520 W. Colorado Blvd. It tells yet another version of the story.

“On this site in 1924,” it reads, “sixteen-year-old Lionel Sternberger first put cheese on a hamburger and sold it to a customer, thereby inventing the cheeseburger. The “Aristocratic Burger” at the Rite Spot is the first instance of a hamburger with cheese being served to a customer.”

Whatever the case, we can all agree the end result was delicious — and well worth celebrating during Cheeseburger Week.

Malibu is pushing back the next phase of its speed camera program along a deadly stretch of PCH to November. The 60-day warning period was originally set to start in November, where drivers going 11 or more miles per hour over the speed limit will get a warning instead of a fine.

The delay, the city says, is needed so adjustments can be made to camera installations.

Yesterday, a Nobu worker was killed about a block from the upscale Japanese restaurant on PCH. CBS LA reports that a juvenile had crashed into the employee's parked vehicle.

When fines start

Malibu officials announced the delay of the program's warning phase last week after a testing period in September recorded around 100,000 speeding violations in less than 10 days.

Enforcement at the 10 cameras along a 21-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway will start sometime after the end of the warning period. According to the city, violations will result in fines, but not driver’s license points or insurance penalties.

Why Malibu added speed cameras

Since 2010, traffic collisions on that part of PCH have killed more than 60 people, the city says. In 2023 alone, there were 220 reported crashes there, with 93 injuries and seven deaths — including four Pepperdine University students who were standing along PCH when a driver hit and killed them. The driver, who is charged with murder, is scheduled to stand trial beginning Dec. 1.

Following that incident, Malibu City Council declared a local emergency over dangerous conditions posed by reckless and speeding drivers.

In 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 1297 into law to allow Malibu to install the speed cameras

Looking to say adios to your lawn by sheet mulching or to add a protective layer to your flower beds? Good news, you don’t need to pay for mulch or woodchips. You can instead get them for free in Southern California. Here are a few different ways, depending on your flexibility - and muscle power.

Free mulch piles

Municipalities across the region offer free mulch.

City of L.A.: You can grab mulch anytime from one of its free mulch piles.

O.C.: You can schedule a pickup from a greenery/landfill

Other cities: see below (or check out your own city government’s page).

• Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 
• City of Rialto Free Compost & Mulch 
• Burrtec's Coachella Valley Composting Facility. It is located at 87011 Landfill Rd in Coachella. 
• City of Rancho Mirage Free Compost and Mulch Program 
• City of Ventura Free Compost and Mulch Program

Free mulch delivery

If you don’t want to go pick up the free mulch yourself, consider ChipDrop. It’s a service that connects arborists with gardeners to deliver free wood chips.

Beware: you may get a lot of mulch. Like, a lot.

(

Jenn Baughman

/

LAist

)

Connect with an arborist:

If you want to try to control the amount of mulch you get - or the date of delivery - you may want to consider talking to an individual arborist. They often end up with excess woodchips they need to get rid of, or take to the dump. If you call they might be happy to offload some for your garden.

Opponents of Proposition 40 have a message for voters: Don’t be fooled. The billionaire tax is a “Trojan horse” for new taxes on all Californians, ads proclaim. But is that true?

Tucked into the initiative is language granting the Legislature authority to amend the tax by a two-thirds vote “if the statute is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.” Opponents argue lawmakers and a future governor could, with the stroke of a pen, expand the wealth tax to people with far less than $1 billion.

In a high-tax state, that argument could hold a lot of sway with voters.

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West put Prop. 40 on the ballot; the initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax on billionaire’s assets. The union rejects the premise of the ad. It says the tax is limited to billionaires and any legislative amendment would have to hew closely to that purpose. Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, said opponents’ ads are pure scare tactics.

“The billionaire tax is a tax on billionaires. Period. If you’re not a billionaire, you don’t pay the tax,” Regan said in a statement to CalMatters.

Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, the group that paid for the ad, said the message was meant to highlight the policy implications of a wealth tax and the power Prop. 40 gives lawmakers.

“Californians deserve to understand those issues and what they could mean for taxpayers and the state’s economy,” Lapsley said in a statement.

A separate, billionaire-backed group opposed to Prop. 40 has also said the initiative “gives politicians the power to expand the tax to anyone.”

The truth lies somewhere in between.

California courts have given lawmakers real authority to amend laws created by ballot initiatives if the original text of the initiative permits it. However, that power is not unlimited and the measure includes language restricting future legislative changes, said Michael Colantuono, an attorney with expertise in state election law.

Opponents’ ads also don’t mention that Prop. 40 writes the tax into the state Constitution, not just state law, so expanding it would likely require another trip to the ballot.

Legislative authority

Legal experts agree that if Prop. 40 passes, lawmakers would be able to make certain amendments without taking it back to voters.

The state Constitution allows the Legislature to amend a ballot initiative without another vote if the initiative permits it. That’s a relatively common clause in ballot measures, and Prop. 40 includes it.

Megan Jones, a tax attorney at Holland & Knight, said proponents’ claims that the tax could never be changed are disingenuous.

“If it’s going to further the purposes, then they could,” Jones said.

For example, voters passed the Political Reform Act, which governs campaign finance and lobbying rules, in 1974 and lawmakers have amended it almost continually since.

Similarly, lawmakers have amended the Mental Health Services Act, a voter-approved 1% income tax on millionaires, 10 times since its passage in 2004. None of those amendments adjusted the tax rate. Most recently, lawmakers voted to substantially alter how the state spends mental health money and raise additional bond funds. Those changes went back to voters in 2024 as Proposition 1.

But there isn’t always a clear line for when voters need to approve changes, experts say.

“It is common for the Legislature to make amendments,” Colantuono said. “It is (also) common for there to be disputes about those amendments.”

‘Furthers the purposes of’

“Ultimately, it ends up in court,” said Chris Parker, a principal tax attorney at the firm Baker Tilly.

The California Supreme Court ruled in a 1995 case that the Legislature may amend voter-approved laws if the changes can be interpreted as furthering voters’ original goals “by any reasonable construction” — giving lawmakers broad latitude.

In 2021, the state Supreme Court held that the Legislature appropriately amended Proposition 57, a criminal justice reform measure, by barring the transferring of minors under 16 to adult court. Justices cited the 1995 case, noting that “a strong presumption of constitutionality supports the Legislature’s acts.”

Still, the language of the proposition matters.

A few years earlier, in 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a legislative attempt to allow public funding of political campaigns “directly conflicts with a primary purpose” of the Political Reform Act. Lawmakers responded by passing a new bill asking voters to weigh in directly — it appears on this year’s ballot as Proposition 4.

Judges look at two things, Coluantuono said: what reasonable voters thought they were approving, and whether later legislative changes helped that goal, or got in the way.

Certain provisions of Prop. 40 would make it difficult for lawmakers to expand the tax beyond billionaires. The 1995 case established that courts may weigh the language of a ballot measure, arguments printed in the voter guide, and historical context when deciding whether change is consistent with voter intent.

Prop. 40’s purpose and intent section says the measure is meant to support healthcare and education “by raising revenue from a one-time tax on billionaire wealth” — referencing billionaire wealth three times. The voter guide arguments similarly target “approximately 200 California billionaires.”

“They could probably adjust the structure of the tax in marginal ways, but what they couldn’t do is make it a more than a one-time tax, and they probably couldn’t lower the threshold on wealth,” Coluantuono said.

Opponents contend lawmakers could interpret the purpose of the act far more broadly, and a court would agree. They point to the first listed purpose of the initiative that says the tax is meant to “protect access to high quality, equitable health care, and to support funding for kindergarten through grade fourteen public education and food assistance programs.” Opponents also say the proposal gives the Legislature the authority to change all parts of the initiative, including the constitutional provisions.

“Prop 40’s findings and statement of purpose and intent were carefully crafted to ensure that

extending the tax to non-billionaires would be consistent with the measure,” said Kurt Oneto, a lawyer for the No on 40 campaign, in a statement.

Experts said the question would likely come down to how a court read the act’s purposes.

A separate concern: how do you prove wealth? 

Should Prop. 40 pass, it would create an entirely new tax structure in California — one that assigns a value to very wealthy people’s investments, public and private businesses, as well as personal property such as art or car collections.

Valuing something like a tech startup that hasn’t produced a product or gone public could prove especially difficult, Parker said.

“The excise tax that’s being proposed here is on potential,” he said. “The question then is, if we open the door to taxing potential, when does that stop?”

Lawmakers have periodically tried to pass wealth taxes, but the bills quickly stalled. This marks the first time voters will directly decide on one, making Prop. 40 a crucial test of how much appetite Californians have for his kind of tax structure. Jones said the bigger worry isn’t the tax itself, but other taxes that could follow.

“It’s a slippery slope,” she said.

Coluantuono said it would still be politically risky for lawmakers to try to implement a wealth tax on everyday Californians, but history shows temporary taxes have more than once become permanent.

“When we get a revenue stream in the government and we start spending it on services that people value… there’s tremendous political pressure to prevent the sunset,” he said.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, City Councilmember Nithya Raman, appeared at a South L.A. forum Saturday, where they agreed on some aspects of the city’s approach to reducing homelessness, but offered different ideas on addressing housing costs.

The two appeared separately in conversations with Brenda Verano of CALO News at A Place Called Home, a youth services community organization.

Bass went first, saying she grew up just 20 blocks south of the venue.

“South L.A. has been a big part of my life and what I have done,” said Bass, who in 1991 helped start Community Coalition, which fights for racial and economic justice in that part of the city.

Each candidate was asked how they would build trust in City Hall among Black and Latino residents in South L.A.

“Black and brown poor folks the most have been central in my administration and will continue to be so,” Bass said. “But to me, representation is not just about faces in a room. It's about collaborating on everything you're doing.”

Raman said the establishment “has taken the people of Los Angeles for granted.”

“I’m running for mayor because I don’t want to ignore any part of this city,” she said. “I want to make sure we are people who know these communities not just in the mayor's office but across the many commissions, across the many departments that are designed to oversee these neighborhoods.”

How the candidates would work with LAPD 

Both vowed to expand pilot programs where unarmed social workers respond to certain non-emergency 911 calls instead of the police department.

“Law enforcement should not be dealing with homelessness and substance abuse and mental health,” Bass said. “Those are public health issues.”

But Bass said it's doubtful the police department’s budget will be cut before the 2028 Olympics. The mayor in the past has expressed support for growing the number of police officers.

Raman has said the department is about the right size. She expressed concern about the police department’s cooperation with ICE during recent federal immigration raids.

Raman also criticized the department for its crowd control tactics during protests around ICE facilities. Police used tear gas and rubber bullets against some protestors.

“This mayor did not speak out against those actions by LAPD, appointed a chief who has not met this moment, who said he would not enforce laws put in by the state to protect us,” Raman said.

Chief Jim McDonnell has previously said his department would not enforce California's state law banning federal immigration and law enforcement agents from wearing masks on duty. A federal appeals court in February blocked enforcement of the law.

Bass said if the judicial ban is lifted, she would order McDonnell to enforce the state law. The mayor also defended the department’s use of police officers for crowd control during ICE operations.

“If there is a crowd around an arrest, then LAPD is involved because we don’t want to have the federal government doing that,” she said.

Both say city should exit troubled homelessness agency

On the city’s response to homelessness, Bass called the current system “completely disfunctional” and called for a new system under the control of the city.

Currently, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority oversees the city’s delivery of homeless services. Numerous audits have found poor accounting of taxpayer money at the agency — which spent nearly $830 million in public funds last fiscal year.

The county has already pulled its funding from the agency in favor of standing up a new county-run Department of Homeless Services and Housing.

Bass said unhoused people are not getting enough care once they leave the streets.

“It is insufficient. They are not taken care of in terms of their health, education, etc. A new system would enable us to do that,” Bass said.

Raman has said she also supports leaving LAHSA and investing in a new homelessness bureau. She noted that street homelessness fell in her council district while numbers across the city went up, according to this year’s homeless count.

“In the past few years, this mayor has refused to audit our homelessness response,” Raman said. “I am very committed to doing that, and I'll request that audit on day one.”

Sharp divides on housing development, renter protections

On housing, Raman criticized the mayor’s opposition to building more densely in residential neighborhoods near transit centers. She said the result has been more building in the city’s poorer council districts, including the South L.A. district that hosted Saturday’s forum.

“Wealthier neighborhoods, less diverse neighborhoods, whiter neighborhoods have actually pushed back on affordable housing, on greater density,” Raman said.

More of the city, said Raman, should bear the burden of greater density.

“We need to build more housing in Los Angeles, but we need to build it across every single neighborhood,” Raman added.

Bass has said density doesn’t belong in some neighborhoods. She opposed a state law, SB 79, that will force cities to allow apartment buildings up to nine stories tall near rail transit stations.

Bass said her administration has fast-tracked new income-restricted housing. But she argued that certain development restrictions are necessary to prevent gentrification.

“We need housing, but we cannot displace Black and Brown people,” Bass said. “If you have housing that is just built anywhere and everywhere, they're coming for us.”

Raman also criticized Bass’ move to temporarily lift restrictions on short-term rentals in preparation for an influx of visitors during the 2028 Olympics.

“I want to make sure that this mayor’s push for deregulating short-term rental during this time, in ways that are harmful to renters, don’t go through,” Raman said. She said tenants could be displaced as landlords turn long-term rentals into short-term accommodations.

Airbnb and business groups back the proposal, saying it will fill a visitor lodging gap for the Olympics and that it would generate significant municipal revenue. Airbnb has put more than $4 million toward backing Bass and three other city candidates, according to the latest campaign finance reports.