The Brief

After years of soaring rents, increasingly out-of-reach home prices and an enduring homelessness crisis that touches every corner of the state, California is finally creating a state agency exclusively focused on housing issues.

You might wonder what took so long.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced a proposal to split up the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency — an awkward grabbag of disparate bureaucratic operations — into two fresh agencies: One just for housing and homelessness-related departments and one for everything else.

The Legislature had until July 4 to veto the plan. It didn’t (though some Republicans tried). Now the work of standing up California’s first housing agency begins.

Supporters of the bureaucratic reshuffle say the move is long overdue. In surveys, Californians regularly name housing costs and homelessness as among the state’s top concerns. That alone warrants the creation of a new cabinet-level adviser to the governor, said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which advocates for affordable housing development.

“A cabinet-level secretary who will sit with other cabinet secretaries, whose purview will be housing … that is elevating the agenda to the highest level,” he said.

Pearl, like virtually every expert interviewed for this article about the new agency, described the reorganization as “just the first step” in bringing much-needed order and efficiency to California’s network of funding programs for affordable housing.

“Simply moving people around and giving them a new business card doesn't change the system,” he said.

A spokesperson for the governor stressed that the creation of a new housing agency is part of a broader effort by Newsom to prioritize one of California’s most vexing issues. Since taking the helm of state government in 2018, the governor has ramped up pressure on local governments to plan for more housing, urged them to clear encampments of unhoused Californians and pushed for legislation aimed at ramping up construction.

“This is the first administration to make this a part of our everyday conversation — putting a magnifying glass on the issue of homelessness and finding ways to effectively address it. These structural and policy changes are going to create a generational impact,” said spokesperson Tara Gallegos.

Among the seven cabinet-level agencies, the BCSH has always seemed like the “everything else” wing of state government. Affordable housing grantmakers, lenders and urban planning regulators share agency letterhead with cannabis and alcohol industry overseers, professional licensors, car mechanic watchdogs and everyone at the California Horse Racing Board.

“We used to call it ‘The Island of Misfit Toys,’” said Claudia Cappio, who ran both the California Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Community Development in the years immediately before and after 2012 when both were packed into the newly created BCSH. “Imagine a staff meeting of all those things … I learned a lot about horse racing.”

How many financing systems is too many?

Aside from giving housing and homelessness its own box atop Newsom’s organizational chart, the chief selling point of the reorganization has been to simplify the state’s hydra of affordable housing financing systems.

Currently, there is one state organization where affordable housing developers apply for loans, another where they go for most grants, a third where they apply for the federal tax credits that builders use to entice private investors to back their projects and a fourth for the bonds needed to secure many of those credits. This doesn’t include one-off programs for veterans, transit-oriented development and short-term housing for homeless people, which are sprinkled across state government.

Complicating things further, the tax credit and bond funding programs — the backbone of funding for affordable housing development across the country — aren’t even under the governor’s control. Those programs are run by the state’s independently elected treasurer.

“Many, many states have what is essentially a housing finance agency that controls the majority of affordable housing funds,” said Sarah Karlinsky, who directs research at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation. California’s programs are split up, which is unusual.

Beyond that, “what makes California so unique,” said Karlinksy, “is the fact that the resources are spread across two different constitutional officers.”

That fragmentation appears to be adding to the cost of construction in California. A Terner Center analysis this spring estimated that each additional public funding source delays a project by, on average, four months, and adds an additional $20,460 in costs per unit.

Affordable housing construction is already distinctly expensive here. Building a publicly funded project in California costs more than 2.5 times more per square foot than in both Texas and Colorado, a recent report from the Rand Institute found.

The dance of secretaries

Will the new housing agency solve that problem? Not everyone is convinced.

Of the many ways in which the scarcity of affordable housing affects most people, “the lines on the org chart” don’t crack the “top 100 list,” Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat, said about the governor’s proposal at a hearing in March.

Cabaldon noted that executive reorganizations are a semi-regular feature of California governance. The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency is itself the product of a reorganization which spun off California’s independent transportation agency.

“The dance of the secretaries we do constantly, always with grand ambitions,” said Cabaldon. “Simply saying that it's going to cause more focus, that it will be streamlined, that it will cause leadership level action — but how?”

As written, the new housing agency will consist of the current agency’s housing-related entities along with a new Affordable Housing Finance Committee, which will be tasked with coordinating the housing subsidy programs currently under the governor’s control.

But the major funding sources managed by the treasurer’s office will remain where they are. The California constitution wouldn’t have allowed Newsom to commandeer those functions from the independent treasurer even had he wanted to.

That’s a significant shortcoming, according to the Little Hoover Commission, the state government’s independent oversight agency, which reviewed the governor’s plan before it was passed along to the Legislature. In its final report, the commission recommended that the governor and treasurer strike a formal deal to “create a unified application and review process” for all the affordable finance programs under their respective purviews.

Neither the governor’s office nor the office of state Treasurer Fiona Ma would say if or how they are pursuing that goal.

A single, unified application for every one of California’s public affordable housing funding programs has been the bureaucratic holy grail of California affordable developers and policy wonks since at least the mid-1990s. Though the reorganization stops short of requiring that, it set up both constitutional offices to better coordinate in the future, said Matt Schwartz, president of the California Housing Partnership, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable housing.

“There’s going to be a bit of diplomacy” between the two executive branches to work out a joint application, said Schwartz, who spoke to CalMatters earlier this year after the governor first introduced the proposal. “That’s the longer-term prize that many of us will be pushing to come out of this process.”

Some affordable housing advocates have urged lawmakers to be cautious in mushing the various bureaucracies together.

In a letter to four powerful Democratic legislators, the California Housing Consortium stressed that the application systems administered by the treasurer’s office already “function extremely well.”

That process “is not broken and doesn't need fixing,” said Pearl, the consortium’s director. Before monkeying with it, he said, “let’s get the agency set up.”

Pearl and the consortium also noted that past legislation has already mandated the creation of a working group to propose a consolidated application. The findings of that group are due on July 1, 2026. That’s the same day the current BCSH is set to officially dissolve and the two new agencies will take its place.

That’s also just five months before statewide elections will be held to replace Newsom and Ma, giving voters a chance to decide who will shape the future of affordable housing policy in California.

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

A judge declared a mistrial on Friday for a former Pacific Palisades resident accused of starting a fire that led to last year’s destructive Palisades Fire after the jury said it was deadlocked.

Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, was facing up to 45 years in federal prison for one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of timber set afire.

It was announced Thursday that the jury had reached a verdict, but when attorneys and Rinderknecht filed into the room, the judge said the opposite — the jury cannot make a unanimous decision on each of the three charges based on a note they shared with the court.

The jury exchanged further notes with the judge that said there is nothing the court could do to help them reach a unanimous verdict and there were jurors dead set on both sides.

What happened in court?

The trial reconvened Friday to figure out the next steps after the jury said it was deadlocked.

Prosecutors were pushing for the court to tell the jurors to go back to deliberations in an attempt to work it out, but U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang expressed concerns that it could come off as coercion.

Hwang decided to call the jurors into the courtroom to confirm they cannot reach a unanimous verdict, and that there is nothing else the court could do to help them. All 12 members confirmed that was the case and said the split was 10 not guilty and two guilty.

Prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht maliciously started a smaller fire — the Lachman Fire — near a hiking trail in the Santa Monica Mountains just after midnight on New Year’s Day 2025. About a week later, it became the Palisades Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in California history. It killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

How we got here

Firefighters initially kept the Lachman Fire contained to about 8 acres, but it continued to burn underground in the days following. A strong, widespread windstorm spread the remnants to the surface and into nearby communities, becoming the Palisades Fire on Jan. 7.

Rinderknecht was working as an Uber driver on New Year’s Eve and dropped a passenger off in the Pacific Palisades before walking up the trail about a block from his former home, according to the criminal complaint. Two passengers later described Rinderknecht as appearing angry and agitated that night.

He took two phone videos from a hilltop clearing about half an hour before the first signs of the Lachman Fire were spotted in the area. Rinderknecht unsuccessfully tried to call 911 several times in the following minutes, eventually reporting the fire when he got through to authorities toward the bottom of the trail, according to prosecutors.

This undated photo shows Jonathan Rinderknecht, who was accused of starting the Palisades Fire.

(

U.S. Attorney's Office

)

Cameras captured Rinderknecht driving away from the area before turning around and following fire trucks to the scene, according to the complaint. Prosecutors said he then hiked back up the same trail to take phone videos of the fire and first responders.

Officials later said the Palisades Fire was a “holdover” fire, a continuation of the smaller Lachman Fire from six days prior.

The Palisades Fire burned for more than three weeks across 23,000 acres. It destroyed homes, businesses and displaced thousands of residents, some of whom still haven’t been able to return to their neighborhoods more than a year later.

About the trial

Rinderknecht pleaded not guilty to the charges last October, and his trial started earlier this month.

Steve Haney, his defense attorney, has said prosecutors are trying to blame Rinderknecht for a fire that started nearly a week before.

"Well what about what happened between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7?" Haney told reporters last fall. "Jonathan wasn't out there with a fire hose putting that fire out at the Lachman location, the Fire Department was. So why are they blaming him for whatever the Fire Department didn't do?"

Haney said during the trial that “no matter what the government's theory is, the evidence will show Jonathan did not start the Jan. 1 fire," according to LAist’s media partner CBS LA.

Haney didn’t immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

Moving forward

According to the Los Angeles Fire Department’s after action report, staffing levels on the day the Palisades Fire started fell short of the standard for extreme weather conditions. Despite the high risk, the report said the decision not to deploy more firefighters in advance was made in part to save money.

Los Angeles Fire Chief Jaime Moore, who was tapped for the top job after the former chief was removed by L.A. Mayor Karen Bass citing the fire response, said things have changed since then.

Moore told LAist’s AirTalk in January that the department has updated its policies to increase staffing for especially hazardous conditions and promoted training in wildland firefighting, which have different challenges than those in urban environments and contributed to confusion during the Palisades Fire.

It’s official: California voters will not be asked to overturn the Los Angeles “mansion tax.”

A measure to eliminate Measure ULA — and similar taxes across the state — was headed for the November ballot. But a last-minute deal in Sacramento convinced the initiative’s sponsor to pull it just before the deadline to remove qualified statewide measures from the finalized ballot.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association agreed to shelve its measure on Thursday because state lawmakers swiftly passed language for a substitute measure. It will ask California voters to raise the threshold for passing new special taxes to two-thirds, up from the simple majority courts have ruled is sufficient to pass many special taxes, such as Measure ULA.

Jon Coupal, the taxpayers association’s president, celebrated the deal in a statement.

“It’s a tremendous turnaround,” he said. “The legislature voted to make it harder to raise taxes by advancing a constitutional amendment, ACA 22, to close a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13.”

Winners and losers

The founding of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association dates back to the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, which ushered in an era often called the “taxpayers’ revolt.” Proposition 13 created statewide limits on property taxes that remain in place today.

But where the taxpayers association sees victory in this week’s Sacramento deal, another powerful group sees defeat. Real estate developers and investors bankrolled the Howard Jarvis initiative in the hope of pressuring state lawmakers to reduce tax rates levied on the sale of high-value properties by Measure ULA and similar “transfer” taxes in other cities.

But the deal cut in Sacramento this week leaves existing transfer taxes untouched, said Mott Smith, board member of the Council of Infill Builders.

“The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association got its major objectives fulfilled,” said Smith, also an adjunct professor of real estate at USC who has co-authored research concluding Measure ULA has depressed development in the city.

“The industry supporters that got them there really got absolutely nothing,” he added. “It is an absolute Game of Thrones twist at the end of this process. Nobody thought this was going to happen.”

‘Mansion tax’ reform stalls… again

Smith and other economists, housing advocates and developers have pushed for new limits on Measure ULA. Nearly 58% of city voters approved it in 2022 following a campaign that described the policy as a “mansion tax.” Previous attempts at the local and state levels to roll back the tax, or stop it from applying to new apartment buildings, have all failed.

The latest attempt at reform briefly coalesced around legislation unveiled earlier this week.

Assembly Bill 736 would have allowed Measure ULA to continue taxing the sale of mansions — defined as single-family homes selling for more than $5.4 million — at current rates, which can be as high as 5.5%. But it would have capped tax rates at 1.5% for non-mansions, such as apartment buildings, retail centers and other types of commercial and industrial properties.

Pro-development housing advocates with the group California YIMBY — as in “yes in my backyard” — argued the bill would have helped “fix the problems with poorly-designed transfer taxes” and “preserve the ability of local governments to expand housing supply.”

The bill, co-authored by Bay Area Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, now faces an uncertain future.

“Politics is often about navigating imperfect choices,” Wicks said in a statement. Getting the Howard Jarvis measure off the November ballot means local revenue raised by Measure ULA and other transfer taxes is no longer at risk of being eliminated, she said.

“At the end of the day, protecting those resources for our local communities is the responsible path forward,” Wicks said.

Why this fight still might not be over

Measure ULA supporters celebrated the death of the Howard Jarvis measure, saying its removal safeguards funding for L.A. affordable housing development and tenant aid programs.

“The best programs we have to build affordable housing and prevent homelessness through ULA were at risk, and — at least for now — they're not,” said Joe Donlin, director of the United to House L.A. coalition. He estimated that AB 736 could have cut tax revenue by up to 50%.

Measure ULA has raised $1.2 billion since taking effect in April 2023. Tens of millions of dollars have already been delivered to tenants in the form of rent relief, legal defense in eviction court and other assistance programs. Other funding has helped subsidize the development of nearly 800 income-restricted housing units.

But the city has run into roadblocks on spending much of the money for its intended purpose. New tenant aid contracts remain held up by outgoing L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, who has refused for more than a year to approve long-term funding for the city’s lead eviction defense contractor.

The City Council is also still mulling changes to get more housing built by loosening strict limits that make Measure ULA dollars hard to pair with other sources of affordable housing funding.

Even with the Howard Jarvis measure now off the ballot, L.A. voters could still be asked to make decisions on other “mansion tax” reforms in November.

The L.A. City Council is considering placing two local measures on the November ballot. One would cancel the tax on new apartment buildings within the first 10 years of their construction. The other would exempt Palisades Fire victims who end up selling their properties.

Both of those reforms need further debate and approval from the City Council before they would be confirmed for the November ballot.

As for the deal Howard Jarvis hatched with state lawmakers, it remains possible that the taxpayer group could achieve none of its goals. If a majority of California voters reject the new measure to make special taxes harder to pass, future tax hikes along the lines of Measure ULA would still be allowed to take effect with a simple majority vote.

On Nov. 3, Californians will vote on 14 statewide ballot measures on environment, taxation, election, housing and healthcare.

For months, interest groups sponsoring ballot initiatives spent heavily on ad blitzes and signature gathering to get on the ballot, but some agreed to withdraw high-profile proposals after striking deals with state leaders or other interest groups this week, ahead of Thursday’s deadline to finalize the November ballot.

Rideshare giant Uber and the state’s trial lawyers pulled rival measures in a deal with state lawmakers and healthcare labor unions and the California Hospital Association agreed to pull two measures that would have capped hospital executive pay and restricted spending by healthcare unions.

Here’s what’s on your November ballot:

Billionaire tax

What it does: This high-profile measure would apply a one-time 5% wealth tax on the assets of roughly 200 California billionaires, to be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would go to pay for healthcare for low-income Californians and 10% toward education and food assistance programs.

Supporters: Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Teamsters California and AFSCME California

Opponents: Gov. Gavin Newsom, prominent billionaires including Google co-founder Sergey Brin and Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, the California Teachers Association, California Primary Care Association and California Medical Association

Audit new tax spending

What it does: This measure in response to the billionaire tax proposal would require state audits of programs funded by new taxes. It would also apply revenue from new taxes to the state’s spending cap, which requires that spiking revenue go back to taxpayers or toward education. That would effectively cancel out the wealth tax proposal. If voters approve both measures, the one with more votes will prevail.

Supporters: Building a Better California, primarily funded by Brin and venture capitalists John Doerr and Michael Moritz, and Reform California, led by GOP Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego

Opponents: Proponents of the billionaire tax initiative

Prohibit new personal property tax and retroactive taxes

What it does: This measure is also aimed at undercutting the wealth tax proposal. It would prevent new taxes on personal property, which would offset the wealth tax. If both pass, the one with more votes prevails.

Supporters: Building a Better California and Reform California

Opponents: Proponents of the billionaire tax initiative

Make high-earner income tax permanent

What it does: The measure seeks to make permanent a temporary income tax — up to 12% — on high earners that voters approved in 2012. The tax applies to household income over $721,000 for couples and over $360,000 for individuals. The tax generates between $5 billion and $15 billion each year for K-12 schools and community colleges. It is set to expire in 2031.

Supporters: The California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers and California School Employees Association

Opponents: California Taxpayers Association

Higher threshold for local special taxes

What it does: This would raise the threshold for citizen-driven special tax ballot initiatives to pass from a simple majority to two-thirds, making it harder to impose or increase taxes. The measure, placed on the ballot at the last minute by state lawmakers, reflects a deal state leaders struck with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California legislators, Newsom

Affordable housing bond

What it does: This would allow the state to borrow a record $11.25 billion for affordable housing, with $10 billion to buy, build, rehabilitate and preserve affordable homes and $1.25 billion to help veterans buy homes.

Supporters: Newsom, Democratic state lawmakers, the California Apartment Association and AFL-CIO California

Opponents: Republican state lawmakers

$25 billion homebuying loan

What it does: This would create a $25 billion mortgage loan program for home buyers who make less than 200% of the area median income. The measure would offer fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price on homes priced under $1.5 million. Home buyers must pay at least 3% of their down payment.

Supporters: Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, Building a Better California, the California Association of Realtors, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and Western States Regional Council of Carpenters

Rainy day fund

What it does: This constitutional amendment from top Democratic leaders would allow the state to deposit up to 20% of its general fund tax revenue into its rainy day fund each year, instead of the current 10%. The state could also spend some tax revenue to pay down its $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt.

Supporters: Newsom and legislative Democrats

Opponents: Legislative Republicans

Expedited environmental review

What it does: This would amend the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act to create deadlines for environmental reviews of most housing, transportation, water, health and clean energy projects to speed up permitting and limit the court’s ability to stop or delay developments.

Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, Building a Better California, the California Building Industry Association, PG&E and Edison

Opponents: Clean and Healthy California, a coalition of environmental advocates and the California State Building and Construction Trades Council

Voter ID

What it does: This constitutional amendment would require voters to present government-issued ID when voting in person or the last four digits of their ID number when voting by mail. Voters would be required to state under the penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens.

Supporters: Reform California, GOP U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert and state Sen. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach

Opponents: League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action and California Donor Table

Public campaign financing

What it does: This measure would allow state and local political candidates to tap into public funds for their campaigns. Public campaign financing has been banned in California since 1988. State lawmakers approved the measure last year to send it to voters this November.

Supporters: California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign and ACLU California Action

Opponents: California Taxpayers Association

Recall election reform

What it does: After a recall, this constitutional amendment would eliminate the election to pick a successor immediately, such as when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced the recalled Gov. Gray Davis, instead leaving the post vacant until it’s filled in a separate election. It would also allow the recalled official to run for the office again.

Supporters: League of Women Voters, California Common Cause and Secretary of State Shirley Weber

Opponents: Election Integrity Project California

Clinic funding

What it does: This measure would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of revenue on direct patient care and services that aid in providing care to low-income and underserved people. Clinics that don’t comply would be fined; the money would go into a state-operated account for worker training and staffing.

Supporters: Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West

Opponents: The California Primary Care Association, which represents clinics, the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Association

Immunology research bond

What it does: This would allow the state to borrow $8.4 billion in debt to research immune system-based technologies for treating conditions including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. The money would be divided between a University of California-affiliated nonprofit and a grant for public or nonprofit institutions. Any resulting technology and drugs from the research would be sold at 20% below the national average.

Supporters: Gary Michelson, philanthropist and funder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, Meyer Luskin, philanthropist and institute board member,The ALS Association, The Alzheimer’s Association and Blood Cancer United

Opponents: Robert Kaplan, former associate director of the National Institutes of Health

CalMatters’ Ben Christopher contributed reporting.

Along a discreet stretch of Hewitt Street, in the Arts District, there’s an unassuming brick facade with a glowing vertical neon sign that says BAR, the downtown skyline visible in the background — like a still from a futuristic sci-fi noir film.

Lynx's moody exterior.

(

Courtesy Lynx

)

Step inside and the room opens up — exposed wood beam ceilings, oversized globe pendants, deep crimson slatted walls, banquettes packed with people leaning into each other. It pulls you in before you even take your seat.

This is LYNX, which opened in March and has already earned a Bib Gourmand — Michelin's designation for exceptional food at a reasonable price — from the Michelin Guide for California.

Built backwards

On paper, the menu at LYNX is deceptively casual — pizza and cocktails. Beverage director Brandyn Tepper says it's because the math is simple: good margins on flour, water, and alcohol. But Tepper and his partner Chef Joshua Skenes are attempting something far more intentional. The cocktail program is built around a single-ingredient philosophy, and the pizza, in Skenes' words, is designed "backward — from the bite, from the way it eats."

It's rare in L.A. to find a place with such high aspirations, in such an unassuming location.

The craft — pizza

The pizza at LYNX doesn't hold back. The Napoletana: whole anchovy fillets laid across tomato, glistening and curled at the edges from the heat, two kinds of olives, scattered capers, basil leaves wilting into the crust beneath them.

The mushroom pie, covered with an avalanche of mushrooms and parmesan.

(

Courtesy Lynx

)

On the other end of the spectrum, the mushroom pie arrived as an avalanche — paper-thin fungi and Parmesan piled so thick the crust completely disappears. You're handed a slice of lemon to squeeze over it, as if given your own participation trophy. Pizzas run $25 to $29.

Skenes describes the dough as a "thin, shattering exterior that crackles like an eggshell, giving way to a very open, airy, and tender interior at the point of fermentation where the dough reaches maximum aromatic complexity."

The result, in his words, is "a style of pizza that feels weightless yet very satisfying."

Both pizzas are daring, texturally and visually, the kind of thing that pushes the format to a place you hadn't considered. That's what the best food does. It meets you somewhere comfortable, then quietly moves the walls.

The craft — beverage

Whether seated at a banquette or any of the high tops, the bar anchors the room — LYNX is intimate enough that it's always in view. The open kitchen visible in the background, bottles and prep material to the left, and off to the right, a rotovap — a distillation machine that allows Tepper to extract the pure essence of an ingredient, from banana peels to grapefruit.

Lynx aims to extract the pure essence of its cocktail ingredients.

(

Courtesy Lynx

)

Take the Paloma. Before it was ever served to a guest, Tepper tested roughly 30 iterations just to get the carbonation right. Too much and the drink turns acidic. Too little and it falls flat.

The Sudachi daiquiri tells a similar story. Sudachi is a small Japanese citrus — tart, floral, intensely aromatic — and Tepper wanted the drink to taste purely of the fruit. No lime, which would overpower it. Just the peel, shaken directly into the rum, strained, then scraped fresh over the top. You sense the acid on your palate, but what you actually taste is Sudachi in full — its aroma, its character. Cocktails are a flat $20 across the board.

Every glass arrives frosted, chilled with liquid nitrogen before the drink goes in. How a drink feels in your hand, Tepper says, matters as much as what's inside it — from the specifically sourced glassware for each cocktail to the temperature itself. It sounds like a flourish, but at LYNX, the details are far from decorative.

Working with a cheat code

Tepper and Skenes have history. The two worked together in San Francisco — first at Saison, Skenes' three-Michelin-star restaurant, and later at Angler, where Tepper served as corporate beverage director.

Working with a chef of that caliber, Tepper says, is a "cheat code", because of the access it provides to his palate, his instincts, his sense of how flavors relate to each other. When Tepper was developing the Shanghai Pistachio, a bourbon-and-pistachio cocktail, a few words from Skenes — bourbon, pistachio, milky oolong, honey — gave him the architecture. The rest was technique.

The zero-proof ambition

LYNX is also quietly building toward something less common: a zero-proof menu that matches the ambition of the cocktail list. Of the 12 drinks on the menu, 10 already have non-alcoholic counterparts — not juice and ginger, but technique-driven alternatives made with the same rotovap behind the bar. The goal isn't to replicate the alcoholic versions. It's the same philosophy applied differently: find the purest expression of an ingredient, and build from there.

Understated celebration

When LYNX earned its Michelin Guide mention earlier this year, the staff celebrated. Tepper celebrated too, but his framing of it is grounded. "There are literal lives at stake," he says — people on paychecks, livelihoods depending on the bar's ability to execute every service. The Michelin mention is good for morale. But if a bartender's car breaks down, Tepper's calling the Uber. The mention, in that light, isn't a goal. It's what happens when you show up and do the work at a certain standard, every service, regardless of who's watching.