## Facts

- A developer sought City approval to construct an eldercare facility on a 1.5-acre residentially zoned parcel in Woodland Hills along Fallbrook Avenue.
- Under existing zoning limits, the site could support roughly 12,600 square feet and 16 guest rooms.
- The proposal was approximately 50,289 square feet with 60 rooms and 76 beds, exceeding the normal floor-area and room limits.
- The City processed the application under Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) § 14.3.1, an ordinance intended to expedite review of eldercare facilities.
- LAMC § 14.3.1(E) requires a finding that strict application of land-use regulations would cause “practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships” inconsistent with the zoning regulations’ purposes and intent.
- Neighbors opposed the project, citing traffic and incompatibility with surrounding single-family uses.
- The zoning administrator approved the project, including a finding that strict application of the zoning limits would create “practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships.”
- The developer asserted that a code-compliant, smaller facility would not be economically feasible due to lack of “economy of scale,” but the administrative record contained no financial documentation substantiating that claim.
- A neighborhood association petitioned for a writ of mandate; the trial court granted relief, finding no substantial evidence supported the “unnecessary hardship” finding, and set aside the approval.
- The developer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the zoning administrator’s finding under LAMC § 14.3.1(E) that strict compliance with applicable zoning limits would cause “unnecessary hardship” justifying approval of a substantially larger eldercare facility.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that the project would provide needed housing and services for the elderly to meet citywide demand.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment granting the writ of mandate and setting aside the City’s approval.
- Substantial evidence did not support the “unnecessary hardship” finding because the record contained no evidence that a smaller, code-compliant facility would be infeasible or would impose financial or other qualifying hardship.
- Substantial evidence supported the separate finding that the project would provide elder housing and services responsive to citywide need.

## Legal Principles

- When an ordinance conditions approval on an “unnecessary hardship” finding, the agency must support that finding with substantial evidence in the administrative record.
- “Unnecessary hardship” is a term of art from variance law; it requires more than developer preference, convenience, or generalized policy support for the land use.
- Unsupported assertions about profitability or “economy of scale” do not constitute substantial evidence of hardship absent concrete financial or feasibility evidence.
- A valid finding of public need (e.g., citywide demand for elder services) does not substitute for the separate, required showing of “unnecessary hardship” when the ordinance demands both.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judicial relief vacating the City’s approval of an oversized eldercare facility because the required “unnecessary hardship” finding under LAMC § 14.3.1(E) was not supported by substantial evidence, even though the record supported a finding of citywide need for elder services.


Walnut Acres Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 235 Cal. App. 4th 1303 (Ct. App. 2015)