Does section 14.3.1 (subdivision E) need to include "unnecessary hardship"?

Although Stolman v. City of Los Angeles did not involve section 14.3.1, its analysis of "unnecessary hardships" is persuasive because the court considered the identical language at issue under section 14.3.1 (subdivision E). It is appropriate to interpret the identical language in sections 12.27 and section 14.3.1 to mean the same thing. ( Estate of Griswold (2001) 25 Cal.4th 904, 915916, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 24 P.3d 1191 [where statutory language has been judicially construed subsequent use of the language is presumed to carry the same construction unless contrary intent appears].) This is especially warranted in this case as section 14.3.1 was an effort to create an approval process for eldercare facilities, which prior to its implementation required applying for numerous entitlements and variances. Although section 14.3.1 does not require all of the same findings as required for a variance under section 12.27, the requirement of "unnecessary hardship" is the same.