The Brief

Welcome to LAist City Treks, a series of easy hikes and walks that will help you explore the parts of Los Angeles and SoCal we rarely get to see — or only see through the car window. Expect to get about 5K steps, and plenty of photos for your social media channels. Keep scrolling, because you'll also find recommendations for grabbing a quick bite to eat once you're finished.

Where are we headed?

Why now?

In its peak year of 1924, a staggering 109,185,650 passengers rode Los Angeles’ premier streetcar line, the Pacific Electric Red Car. Up until 1955, one of its most popular routes was from downtown to Glendale, with a stop on the east bank of the Los Angeles River.

While we can’t go back in time and ride the trolley (at least, not yet), we can at least experience ephemeral reminders of its former glory in Atwater Village, a place where the past comfortably commingles with the vibrant present.

Quickly, what can I expect?

• Route conditions: Nearly all flat, paved sidewalks and walkways (with the option to detour on unpaved trails at Sunnynook River Park)
• Difficulty: An easy 1 on a scale of 1 to 5
• Distance: About 2.5 miles, with the option to add on more if desired
• Dog friendly: Yes, and you'll walk by the Morrison Restaurant which touts its dog-friendly patio.
• Parking: Street parking, free
• Bathrooms: Several opportunities to stop in at businesses along the way, so you might want bring a few singles to tip in exchange for using the facilities.

Map it!

OK, let's get started ...

Nostalgia is a funny thing. Many Angelenos — myself included — were not even alive during the Red Car era, yet we pine for the trolley’s re-emergence. As Southern California Railway Museum puts it, Los Angeles was home to America's largest electric railway system, "blanketing the Los Angeles region with more than 1,000 miles of rail lines."

This loop through Atwater Village kicks off at Red River Park, a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it sliver of green just east of the Glendale-Hyperion Bridge where the Red Car once crossed over to the center median of Glendale Boulevard.

The entrance to this walking area sneaks up on you. It's easy to miss, especially when there are many cars parked along the street.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

It leads to a 430-foot-long pedestrian and cycling bridge over the L.A. River, reinforcing the adage “what’s old is new.” After the last train rumbled over the river, the tracks were ripped up, leaving behind several concrete stanchions protruding from the water.

What it used to look like

What it looked like back in the day: A vintage shot of the Pacific Electric Railway Company streetcar crossing the Los Angeles River on the Glendale Line on April 17, 1952.

(

Alan Weeks

/

Metro Library and Archive

)

What it looks like today

You'll walk across this pedestrian bridge to get to the other side of the L.A. River, and enjoy walking along the bike trail. Just stay to the far right.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

Forlorn and purposeless, the pillars got a new lease on life when the Red Car Bridge, upon which you will tread as you walk across it, was laid over them in 2020. The viaduct’s decorative red stripes are a winking tribute to the erstwhile trolleys.

After you step off the bridge, being mindful of cyclists, turn right on the L.A. River bicycle path. The river factors into Atwater’s etymology: When it was subdivided in 1902, the tract was advertised as “at-water.” You'll pass under the Glendale-Hyperion Bridge, a 13-arch work of art designed by Merrill Butler in 1927.

What makes this stretch of the L.A. River special

Up ahead, Sunnynook River Park emerges on your left. Pause if you like to stroll its paths of restored native vegetation along the bike path. The park’s riparian trees are in keeping with the Glendale Narrows, the name given to an 11-mile stretch through Northeast L.A. While much of the L.A. River is encased in concrete, this section boasts a natural soft bottom, much to the delight of the herons and egrets who feast on fish (and to you, who delight in herons and egrets).

Once you've taken in the park, you'll cross back over the river via an older pedestrian bridge. Officially called the Sunnynook Bridge, it’s better known as the Love Lock Bridge. You'll find dozens of locks fastened to the fencing. It’s a place for soulmates to solidify their love, minus the potential regret of lifelong tattoos!

That pedestrian bridge crossing back over the river? That's where you're headed.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

The entrance to the footbridge back over the L.A. River.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

This is a popular place for lovers to leave behind a padlock.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

Once you're off the footbridge, you'll turn left and contine walking along the banks of the L.A. River, to Los Feliz Boulevard.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

When you step off this pedestrian bridge, turn left and continue on the river's walkway.

Then, exit and turn right onto Los Feliz Boulevard.

The next few blocks feature mom-and-pop stores and two iconic theme establishments — Bigfoot Lodge and the Tam O’Shanter.

The Disney connection

Occupying the corner of Los Feliz and Boyce Avenue since 1922, the Tam was designed by Harry Oliver, an Oscar-nominated art director who also took on non-studio clients. Oliver was a leading architect of the Storybook style. As the name implies, its structures were defined by crooked windows, pitched roofs, and whimsical flourishes — think Hansel and Gretel’s fairy tale house, or the real-life "Witch's House" in Beverly Hills (also designed by Oliver).

If you look closely, you can still see Walt Disney's fingerprints at the Tam.

The original Disney studio was just over the river in Silver Lake. Walt Disney himself (and his animators) frequented the roadhouse so often that the Tam was the de facto studio commissary. In fact, Disney’s legacy is well-preserved in the lobby of Tam O'Shanter's.

Sketches of Mickey Mouse and his gang hang on the walls, including one drawn by Walt himself. (Book a dinner reservation for later: A plaque memorializes Walt’s favorite table — the much-sought-after Table 31 — near the fireplace.)

One could see how the restaurant appealed to Walt. How much so is debatable, but there are clear parallels between the Tam and the whole Village Haus portion of Disneyland’s Fantasyland. A more direct link is the Hyperion-Glendale Bridge near this route's trailhead, and which led to Disney’s studio back in the day: A replica of it extends over Buena Vista Street at Disney California Adventure.

What's with all the turns?

After checking out the Tam, regroup back at the intersection of Los Feliz Boulevard and Boyce Avenue. You want to head southeast on Boyce Avenue. (Don't know which direction is southeast? As you walked up Los Feliz Boulevard and came upon the Tam, you would have turned right onto Boyce Avenue. So do that.)

Then, make your first right, onto Dover Street, and then take your second left, onto Edenhurst Avenue.

Why this zig-zag route?

It takes you through the heart of Atwater’s residential district, where you can enjoy some of the prettiest homes around. Deodar cedar trees provide ample shade as you take in an array of architectural styles dominated by 1920s Spanish-style bungalows, perfectly suited for the village’s relatively small lots.

Why Glendale Boulevard is so wide

A colorful building at the intersection of Edenhurt Street and Glendale Boulevard is painted in a variety of hues, a hint of the relaxed, breezy style this community is known for.

(

Rene Lynch

/

LAist

)

Six blocks later, you'll find yourself at Glendale Boulevard, whose wide center median once served the Red Car tracks that ran through here.

Fortunately, Atwater’s main drag has staved off the type of decline that has gutted other L.A. business districts, thanks to its diverse and creative community, strong neighborhood pride, and a good mix of essential and trendy retailers that appeals to both locals and outsiders.

Here, you have a decision to make. You can turn right onto Glendale Boulevard and make your way back to your car.

Or, you can browse Glendale Boulevard's many boutiques, or languish in a neighborhood bar or bistro. We have a few dining recommendations below. Heck, Red Car River Park took some 50 years to come into being; what’s a few more minutes as it awaits your return?

Done! Where to eat?

LAist's Associate Editor for Food and Culture Gab Chabrán recommends the following four places in the area to grab a bite:

Hugo's Tacos

Tacos — soft or crispy — are so popular here at Hugo's. You might almost forget everything else that's on the menu, including burritos, protein bowls and quesadillas. And then there's the torta ahogada, served on a Mexican sandwich roll layered with beans, guac, your protein choice, veggies, and then griddled in a honey chipotle dressing.

Dune

Dune is known for its Mediterranean breakfasts — avocado toast with tomato confit on Bub and Grandma's sourdough — and fried chicken shawarma, as well as lavish meze plates made for sharing.

Proof Bakery

Proof Bakery is a slice of carb heaven. And it has plenty for those with a savory tooth as well as a sweet tooth. In additional to favorites such as croissants and fruit danishes, scones, and coffee cakes, there are also sandwiches, too, including a focaccia BLT.

Holy Basil

Considered to be some of the best Thai food in L.A. But Holy Basil is really all about chef Wedchayan “Deau” Arpapornnopparat's channeling of Thai flavors and Chinese influences into something uniquely original. The "Grandma's fish and rice" — the chef's beloved dish from childhood — is a favorite.

Where to next?

Any suggestions for great hikes in and around L.A.? Don't keep it to yourself! Let us know, and we might check them out for a future story.

Haddad is the author of the hiking bible 10,000 Steps A Day in LA and the upcoming Inventing Paradise: The Power Brokers Who Created the Dream of Los Angeles. Read more about Haddad here.

Today is officially the last day as a county employee for L.A. County CEO Fesia Davenport, who has been on medical leave for the past six months and received a controversial $2 million taxpayer payout that LAist brought to light last fall.

Davenport announced her planned departure last month, citing health concerns. While on leave, she has faced criticism from the public and county employees over the payout, as well as a lawsuit alleging it was an illegal gift that must be reversed. The payout was labeled “confidential” and kept secret from the public until LAist unearthed it two months later, even though state law requires settlement agreements to be public.

When announcing her plan to step down, Davenport said in a LinkedIn post last month she was doing so “to focus on my health and wellness.” She also emailed CEO office staff to say she’s learned she has a predisposition for the same type of health problem that killed her brother Raymond in 2018 and that two of her sisters experienced last year. One of her sisters will require 24-hour care for the rest of her life, Davenport wrote.

The $2 million payout, approved in secret by county supervisors, was in response to Davenport claiming she was harmed by a voter-approved measure that will change her job into an elected one in December 2028, almost two years after her employment contract was set to expire in early 2027.

The supervisors agreed to pay Davenport the $2 million she had requested, without negotiating her down from that amount. As part of receiving the taxpayer payout, the settlement deal says Davenport cannot make — nor cause anyone else to make — “negative statements or communications disparaging” the Board of Supervisors and other county officials. There are exceptions, including for required testimony and disclosing workplace conduct she believes is unlawful.

The $2 million payout was in addition to Davenport’s county salary of $630,813 in annual base pay.

Leaders of the two largest L.A. County employee unions — representing nurses, social workers, sheriff’s deputies and others — said many of their members were shocked and outraged to learn about the payout from LAist’s reporting. They said Davenport had been telling workers there was no money to give them raises, while secretly negotiating a $2 million payout for herself.

A lawsuit filed by a county resident and taxpayer in February claims the payout was illegal because Davenport did not have a valid legal dispute with the county. Under the state Constitution, local government settlement payouts are illegal gifts of public funds if they’re in response to allegations that completely lack legal merit or exceed the agency’s “maximum exposure,” according to court rulings.

If a judge finds a payment was an illegal gift, they can order the money to be paid back. County lawyers are disputing the case, saying the payout served a legitimate public purpose.

The judge assigned to the lawsuit, James C. Chalfant of L.A. County Superior Court, is retiring at the beginning of next month, before the first scheduled hearing in the case. Online court records do not yet indicate which judge will take over the case.

Last month, county supervisors ordered new transparency measures in response to LAist revealing the payout. The county will now create a public dashboard of settlements between the county and its executives, and make sure all such settlements are reported to the public on meeting agendas after they’re finalized.

Ever since Davenport suddenly went on leave Oct. 8, her CEO role has been filled temporarily by Joe Nicchitta, the county’s chief operating officer.

The county CEO oversees the roughly $50 billion county budget, labor relations with over 100,000 county employees and implementing key priorities of the county Board of Supervisors — including poverty alleviation and addressing homelessness.

County supervisors, who oversee the CEO, will be in charge of selecting a permanent chief executive.

California lawmakers passed legislation in 2017 agreeing to cover up to $270 million of losses related to the Olympic Games after L.A. covers the first $270 million should a deficit occur. That legislation directed the governor to execute a contract solidifying the state's commitment.

But more than eight years later, that contract hasn't been inked by the governor's office.

The state's guarantee is of potentially huge importance to the city of Los Angeles, which took on a huge risk when it agreed to be the financial backstop for the Olympics in order to secure the host city bid. L.A.'s financial exposure is essentially unlimited. If LA28, the private nonprofit running the games, winds up with a deficit exceeding $540 million, the city is responsible for the rest.

When asked about the contract, the governor's office directed LAist to the California Department of Finance. Spokesperson H.D. Palmer said that the state is currently in talks with LA28 and the city of L.A. about contract language, but asserted there are no “sticking points.” He said only that working out contract language takes time.

LAist asked LA28 for more details on what's being discussed and when the contract would be finished.

"We engage regularly with our state partners on various Games planning items and look forward to continuing our strong partnership with the state and the city in the lead up to 2028 as we work to execute a fiscally responsible Games," Jacie Prieto Lopez, vice president of communication and public affairs at LA28, said in a statement.

Ilanna Morales, a spokesperson for L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, told LAist in a text message that the city was "confident that an agreement will be reached and that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a financial success."

The lack of a signed state contract could trigger alarm bells in city government, where some officials are already upset that another key contract remains unsigned. That is an agreement between Los Angeles and LA28 over compensating the city for extra services it will provide for the Olympics, such as police overtime. That contract was scheduled to be signed more than six months ago.

City officials say if that contract isn't airtight, it could leave L.A. with millions in unexpected costs. Referring to that unsigned contract, Councilmember Monica Rodriguez warned CEO Reynold Hoover in a public letter last week that the coming Olympics could "bankrupt" the city.

Love them or hate them, jacarandas are back and in bloom.

One question that might come to mind as you’re pointing out how pretty they are, or complaining about the flowers falling all over your lawn — am I even saying that tree’s name right?

To answer this question, I put on my linguist hat and traced the word back to its origins.

The English pronunciation

You likely already know this one, or can guess it — “jack-uh-RAN-duh.”

This is the pronunciation in most English dictionaries, but many Spanish speakers bristle at the hard “j” sound. Overall, it’s not super close to the original pronunciation, but it turns out that people saying the word with a hard “j” sound are onto something. More on that soon.

The Spanish pronunciations

Yes, that’s pronunciations in the plural.

If you grew up seeing Mexico City’s iconic jacarandas in bloom, you likely pronounce it “hah-cah-RAHN-dah” (that’s written out with English phonetics). That’s how it’s said in Mexico and Central America.

You can hear this pronunciation loud and clear in the song “What Else Can I Do” from the movie Encanto.

But the tree is native to South America, specifically Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Brazil. And for those who grew up seeing the equally iconic floral displays in Buenos Aires, there’s a subtle but important difference. In South American Spanish, the word is spelled jacarandá, so it’s pronounced with emphasis on the last syllable: “hah-cah-rahn-DAH.”

But where does the word come from?

Here’s the twist: jacaranda might register as a Spanish word to many, but it isn’t — at least not originally. It comes to English via Portuguese and Old Tupi, a language that used to be a lingua franca for much of colonial Brazil. The word, which refers to a number of different trees, is in the historical record as early as 1614.

The Tupi word was originally recorded as yacaranda or îacaranda — unfortunately, there are no recordings of how this was pronounced back then. Then, it turned into jacarandá in Portuguese. In Portuguese, the letter “j” is pronounced like “zh,” not like the English letter “h.”

So that means in Brazil, it’s pronounced something like “zhah-cah-run-DAH.” You can hear my best attempt at saying it, after a year’s worth of college-level Portuguese classes, in the audio clip above.

However you say jacaranda — “jack-uh-RAN-duh,” “hah-cah-RAHN-dah,” “hah-cah-rahn-DAH,” “zhah-cah-run-DAH” — have at it. Just make sure not to park under one.

The latest clash between California and President Donald Trump over abortion and gender-affirming care could soon leave doctors caught between state and federal law.

Under a bill that may soon pass the Legislature, California medical providers and affiliated businesses could face hefty state fines if they comply with a federal subpoena seeking abortion, gender-affirming or reproductive care information without first notifying the California attorney general, patients and providers.

But delaying responding to the feds could put them at risk of violating federal law, and independent constitutional scholars say the pending law might not survive a legal challenge.

The bill is in response to efforts the Trump administration and conservative states have undertaken to block or criminalize abortion services and care for transgender people.

Under Assembly Bill 1930, any medical provider or business served with any civil, criminal or regulatory inquiry, investigation, subpoena or summons seeking “legally protected health care activity” “shall not comply” unless the provider notifies the state attorney general as well as others involved in the care.

The measure’s author, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles, said the impetus for the bill, in part, was a federal subpoena from the Trump administration to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles seeking medical records for youth transgender patients.

“No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk,” he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee at a hearing last week.

Lawmakers spent just 17 minutes discussing AB 1930 at its first legislative hearing last week, despite the legal complexities and consequences for California’s patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers, tech companies and others. It passed on a party-line vote, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. It now moves to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it’s scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday

The Los Angeles hospital was one of 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care for minors that received federal subpoenas seeking patients’ medical records. At the time, the U.S. Justice Department said the subpoenas were part of an investigation into “health care fraud” and “false statements.” Some of the families sued to fight the subpoenas. In January, the feds backed off and didn’t receive the records.

Rady Children’s Hospital, which operates facilities in San Diego, Orange and Imperial counties, told CalMatters earlier this year that the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general was investigating the hospital. The investigation preceded Rady’s decision to halt most gender-affirming services for minors, a decision that is now tied up in multiple court cases.

The measure says that in order for a business or provider to release records, the entity making the legal demand must include an affidavit declaring that the investigation is not related to punishing providers for performing abortions, transgender care or other services protected under California law or that the investigation involves a possible California crime or is an inquiry into “professional discipline.”

The recipient would be required to inform the attorney general’s office within seven days of receiving the legal demand. The attorney general would have an additional 30 days to review the matter before the recipient could comply with the order.

The measure, which is co-sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, would also mandate that the provider notify patients and providers whose records are being sought. Those who break the rules would face civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation.

Democrats move to protect abortion

California lawmakers have, in recent years, enacted more than a dozen laws designed to shield medical professionals from conservative states and the federal government on abortion and transgender health care.

Democrats passed the laws after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and other states began banning or criminalizing abortion. Thirteen states ban abortion and some, most notably Texas, penalize anyone who helps another person get an abortion.

Legislative efforts to protect clinicians and patient medical records have expanded as the Trump administration has increasingly politicized other services like gender-affirming care for minors.

California laws prohibit state law enforcement from extraditing medical professionals who may have violated another state’s laws on abortion or gender-affirming care. They also prohibit medical facilities from sharing patient information about those services with out-of-state law enforcement.

LGBTQ+ civil rights group Equality California is the latest bill’s other co-sponsor. Zbur was its executive director before being elected to the Legislature.

Equality California’s legislative director, Craig Pulsipher, told the Judiciary Committee the measure builds “on California’s existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them.”

Various groups that oppose gender-affirming care are against the measure, as is the California Chamber of Commerce.

In a letter to lawmakers, representatives for the state’s influential business lobby said CalChamber’s members appreciate lawmakers wanting to “help defend businesses facing subpoenas,” and they don’t oppose the bill out of “support for misuse of subpoena powers.”

“However, we are concerned that AB 1930 will compel businesses to violate federal law in order to comply with state law,” they wrote.

Layla Jane, a “detransitioner” who sued her health care provider over the gender-reassignment surgery she received as a teen, said the bill would protect doctors from investigations into negligent care and make it harder for patients like her to subpoena for medical records.

“This bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies,” she told the committee. “It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, ‘You are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed.’ There is no blanket for me.”

Would the bill survive a legal challenge? 

Bill Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker who oversees the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said in a statement that Zbur’s measure would be unconstitutional.

“Any effort by California to restrict the federal government’s lawful use of, or compliance with, subpoenas is unlawful and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli said.

Three independent constitutional scholars who CalMatters asked to review the bill suggested Essayli may have a point.

Under that provision of the U.S. Constitution, states cannot pass laws that run counter to the federal government’s legal authority.

“If there’s a conflict between federal law on the one hand, and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins out,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.

Chemerinsky and the other scholars said the measure is unlikely to run into the same legal problems that caused a federal judge to block California’s attempt to ban federal agents from wearing masks. The judge in the mask case ruled that the state had discriminated against the federal government since it exempted state police from the ban.

This proposed measure doesn’t single out the federal government; the bill applies to any entity issuing subpoenas.

Still, the scholars said forcing private health care providers and businesses not to respond to a subpoena on a federal deadline could be legally problematic.

“It looks like the federal government could say you’re impeding their law enforcement,” said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

“Is this impeding federal ... objectives?” said Vikram David Amar, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law. “If so, it would be invalid under Supremacy.”

The California Attorney General’s Office responded to an interview request for Bonta with an unsigned written statement.

“Bills aren’t final when they’re introduced and can change throughout the legislative process,” it read. “Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding AB 1930 and will address concerns as appropriate and needed.”

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