This proceeding was instituted by an application for a writ of certiorari, RCW 7.16, to determine whether a conditional use permit approved by an examiner of the City of Seattle and affirmed with modification by the *619Seattle Board of Adjustment conforms to law. The trial court determined that the permit did not and ordered it vacated. We affirm.
The facts are that Friends Services, Inc., sought to establish a home for retarded children in the Madison Park area of Seattle. It applied for a permit to build a facility there housing up to 12 children to be supervised by a professional staff. There is some dispute as to how the proposed facility would be operated, but it is clear that Friends Services will supply a professional staff, at least one of whom will be in residence at all times. The site for the proposed facility is within a zone classified as "Single Family Residence High Density Zone," Seattle zoning code § 26.16, and a children's resident home is permitted only as a conditional use when authorized by the Board. Seattle zoning code § 26.12.030.
After a public hearing, an examiner approved the conditional use permit. A neighborhood group appealed to the Seattle Board of Adjustment. The Board confirmed the issuance with the condition that "someone will live in the dwelling unit and that the complete staff will not be rotated at all times." The neighborhood group then obtained review by certiorari to the superior court. The court decided that the facility would not meet the requirements of a children's resident home and vacated the permit. Friends Services' appeal followed.
A board of adjustment is only permitted to grant a conditional use permit in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the zoning ordinance. See State ex rel. Pruzan v. Redman, 60 Wn.2d 521, 374 P.2d 1002 (1962). In reviewing such action, judicial review is limited to an inquiry of whether the action of the Board is "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law." Lewis v. Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 22, 548 P.2d 1093 (1976). See also State ex rel. Lyon v. Snohomish County, 9 Wn. App. 446, 512 P.2d 1114 (1973). The appellate court stands in the same position as the superior court and applies the same test directly to the administrative *620action. Leschi Improvement Council v. State Highway Comm'n, 84 Wn.2d 271, 286, 525 P.2d 774 (1974).
The guidelines established by the Seattle zoning code for the proposed facility require that it be a children's resident home which is defined as:
A dwelling unit occupied by a family which provides full-time supervision for from seven to twelve children unrelated to the resident family.
Seattle zoning code § 26.06.040.
A "Family" is defined as:
Any number of related persons, or not to exceed eight nonrelated persons, or not to exceed a total of eight related and nonrelated, nontransient persons living as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a club; boarding, lodging, or rooming house; fraternity, sorority, or group student house.
Seattle zoning code § 26.06.070.
The issue on appeal is whether the staff of the facility as proposed by Friends Services constitutes a "family" within this definition. Friends Services argues that only one staff member need be a nontransient resident of the children's home for the "family" requirement to be satisfied. The remainder of the staff need not live on the premises. The neighborhood group argues that the definition of family requires that all the staff live on the premises as a non-transient, single housekeeping unit. This is a question of law for the court to decide. Standow v. Spokane, 88 Wn.2d 624, 564 P.2d 1145 (1977), Leschi Improvement Council v. State Highway Comm'n, supra.
It should be noted that the code provides not only for a children's resident home, but, also, for a children's institution which is defined as:
An establishment consisting of one or more buildings organized and maintained for the group care and supervision of thirteen or more children, but not including hospitals.
Seattle zoning code § 26.06.040.
*621It is apparent that the scheme of the code is to differentiate between a dwelling occupied by a family which takes in and cares for children and one which is occupied by children supervised by a staff. The former is compatible with the traditional notion of a family; the latter is compatible with the traditional notion of an institution. The framers of the code recognized the distinction and allowed land in a single family resident zone to be used for the former. A staff operated institution such as that proposed by Friends Services does not fit. There is not the stability and continuity of living and sharing which a family unit affords.
The trial court's order vacating the permit is affirmed.
Andersen, A.C.J., concurs.