Neighbors association brought writ proceeding against city and California Coastal Commission, challenging approval of eldercare facility in city.
The Superior Court denied the petition, and neighbors appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- Proposed eldercare facility was not subject to city zoning code’s yard requirements;
- Evidence was sufficient to support city’s determination that facility was compatible with the neighborhood, and thus that Class 32 categorical California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for in-fill development projects applied;
- Evidence was sufficient to support city’s determination that facility did not violate community plan’s policy of preserving and protecting views from hillsides, public lands, and roadways; and
- Evidence was sufficient to support California Coastal Commission’s determination that proposed eldercare facility presented no substantial issue under the Coastal Act.
Proposed eldercare facility was not subject to city zoning code’s yard requirements pursuant to ordinance stating that no such requirements apply to the residential portions of buildings located on lots “[1] used for combined commercial and residential uses, if [2] such portions are used exclusively for residential uses, [3] abut a street, private street or alley, and [4] the first floor of such buildings at ground level is used for commercial uses or for access to the residential portions of such buildings,” where facility was to have ground floor bistro open to the public, facility contained private individual rooms where resident elders would sleep, and residential portions of the facility would abut streets.