In 2006, the Los Angeles City Council passed ordinance section 14.3.1. As stated in the ordinance, section 14.3.1’s purpose is to “provide development standards for Alzheimer’s/Dementia Care Housing, Assisted Living Care Housing, Senior Independent Housing and Skilled Nursing Care Housing, create a single process for approvals and facilitate the processing of application of Eldercare Facilities. These facilities provide much needed services and housing for the growing senior population of the City of Los Angeles.” (§ 14.3.1(A).) In this case, the zoning administrator for the City of Los Angeles (City) approved a permit for an eldercare facility that exceeded the building square footage and number of guest rooms allowed under zoning regulations. Under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, no variance may be granted unless “the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations.” Nearby residents challenged the facility arguing that the zoning administrator failed to make all of the necessary findings, including a finding of “unnecessary hardship.” The trial court found no substantial evidence supported the finding of “unnecessary hardship.” In affirming, the appellate court agreed with the trial judge that there was not substantial evidence to support the developer’s argument the unnecessary hardship was based on the construction’s economy of scale. The Court of Appeal ruled: “We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment requiring the City to rescind its approval of the proposed eldercare facility.” (Walnut Acres Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (John C. Simmers) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 8; April 15, 2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1303 [185 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].)