The Brief

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

After widespread reports last year of immigration agents interfering with patient care and privacy at local hospitals, Los Angeles County now has a policy that asserts the rights of detained patients and instructs county public hospital staff on how to handle the ICE agents that accompany them. 

The policy, which went into effect in March, clarifies that patients brought in by civil law enforcement officers, including immigration agents, have the right to communicate with family members, legal counsel and advocates. Implemented by the LA County Department of Health Services, the policy has been described as a “new gold standard of care” meant to safeguard patient rights as hospitals navigate an influx of federal immigration raids.

There’s one problem, though: Hardly anyone knows about it. 

To physicians and advocates with the People’s Care Collective, a network of health care workers and organizers, this policy marks a major shift in how hospitals handle patients in immigration custody. But they said awareness of it has been lacking within the health care system, even though the Department of Health Services said the policy has been shared with staff. 

“The vast majority of the [LA County Department of Health Services] workforce, which is the second largest health care system in the country — second only to NYC — is unaware of this policy, unaware of all of the rights of their patients under this policy, and how the policy empowers health care workers to protect these rights,” said a Department of Health Services physician who is a member of the People’s Care Collective. The doctor asked to speak anonymously due to fear of retaliation.

The policy follows a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors directive requiring the Department of Health Services to develop guidelines allowing patients detained by immigration authorities to authorize the release of information to family, counsel and government representatives. 

The policy also:

• Instructs staff to ask agents to remain outside of a patient’s room at all times, absent safety concerns
• Forbids unnecessary restraints, or shackling, of patients
• Requires agents to remain in public areas of the hospital unless they have a judicial warrant
• Requires agents to “remain identifiable at all times”
• Prohibits agents from acting as interpreters or surrogate decision-makers for detained patients
• Instructs staff not to physically interfere with ICE agents or assist a patient in hiding or fleeing
• Prohibits discharging the patient back into immigration custody “until custody is confirmed as lawful and documented.”

You can read the full policy here. 

These new guidelines only apply to public health care facilities and not private hospitals such as Adventist White Memorial in Boyle Heights, where doctors last year reported ICE agents violating the privacy rights of detained patients and prohibiting contact with patients’ family members. 

This article was published in collaboration with LAist.

People’s Care Collective members say they hope private health care facilities adopt similar measures — and they may have to if the state legislature passes several bills making their way through the legislature. But first, the members say, an education campaign is crucial to inform hospital workers and the public at large about the new guidelines.

“Being upfront about this really can set the precedent for places across the country to follow suit,” the LA County Department of Health Services physician said. “It’s our patients’ rights to know these rights. If we really care as a county that wants to live by our values [of caring] about all of its residents, including immigrant residents and folks who are being targeted by ICE, we need to walk the walk.”

The physician said members of the collective, who were aware of the Board of Supervisors’ directive, learned about the policy’s implementation last month only after searching through the Department of Health Services’ internal website. The department officially announced the policy a few days later by summarizing key points through email, according to the physician.

“The majority of health care workers are only going to know about the policy to the extent that is shared with them … and are not going to have the time and capacity to be digging deep into this internal website, finding the policy, reading it through [and] understanding it,” the physician said.

While health care facilities may fear retaliation by the Trump administration for being vocal about the rights of patients and immigrants, the physician said the Department of Health Services should “model the bravery and integrity” that its workforce has embodied since the beginning of the raids.

“These rights are not up for negotiation. They’re not flexible pending political circumstances,” the physician said.

A statement provided by the Department of Health Services said the policy is accessible to staff through a workforce portal, adding that a “guidance tool” has been distributed.

“We have also taken proactive steps to communicate this specific policy to all staff, supervisors, and managers through multiple internal channels, including all staff emails, hospital newsletters,” the statement said.

None of the hospitals or medical centers operated by LA Health Services have received a patient under civil custody, including ICE detention, since January 2026, according to the department.

This article was published in collaboration with LAist.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

Rebecca Trotzky-Sirr, a physician at LA General who has worked closely with patients in criminal custody, said hospitals across the country were caught off guard when the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration tactics led to an influx of patients brought in by ICE for emergency care. Many hospitals, including LA General, have clear protocols for handling patients in criminal detention, for example, after being arrested by a police officer. 

But most patients accompanied by ICE are civil, not criminal detainees.

“It took a long time for people to understand that,” she said. Trotzky-Sirr spoke with LAist as an individual physician, not on behalf of the Department of Health Services or LA General. 

Initially, she said, many health care workers assumed ICE had the same authority as criminal law enforcement agencies in medical settings to take precautions like restricting a patient’s communications.

“But that’s not what we should do," she said. "That’s not what we’re legally obligated to do.”

Plus, Trotzky-Sirr said, hospital staff, like anyone, might feel intimidated by a masked, armed agent.

“It’s hard to stand up confidently to someone with a gun,” she said. 

But staff members’ deference to the demands of federal immigration agents over patients’ rights  has been slowly changing, the doctor said, as more staff become educated on policies for handling detained patients, and especially, the difference between patients in civil custody versus criminal custody. Most patients who have been apprehended by ICE are civil, not criminal detainees.

“It took a long time for people to understand that,” the doctor said.

To Henry Perez, executive director of InnerCity Struggle, the county can strengthen awareness by working with organizations “with deep roots in the community.”

Perez, who has been involved in community efforts to protect patient rights at White Memorial, thinks of the county’s outreach work around housing and renters’ rights, partnering with organizations like Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Public Counsel and InnerCity Struggle. 

“There is a roadmap … and the county needs to reproduce that template that they already know how to do,” Perez said. “Just as housing is a critical issue in the community, so are immigrant rights and protections.

“A policy is only as good and as strong as its implementation and enforcement.”

Some Southern California legislators are trying to safeguard the rights of detained patients at the state level. State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, who represents Burbank and the San Fernando Valley, authored a bill, SB 915, that would, among other measures, prohibit immigration officers from remaining at a patient’s bedside unless there’s a credible risk of harm, or the officer has a valid judicial warrant.

A second bill, SB 1323, authored by state Sen. Susan Rubio, whose district stretches from El Monte to Ontario, would require hospital staff to immediately notify management when immigration agents show up. It would also require hospital management to instruct staff on how to respond to a detained patient’s request to notify family of their whereabouts. 

Both bills would apply to all health care entities in California, both public and private. 

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. This story will be updated if a response is received.

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.