A California appellate court has upheld the City of Davis’ decision to relocate the Sky Track playground equipment within Arroyo Park, rejecting a legal challenge that argued the project required further environmental review due to noise impacts on nearby homes.
In a decision certified for publication and filed Dec. 30, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a Yolo County Superior Court ruling denying a petition for writ of mandate brought by Joe and Janet Krovoza. The Krovozas had challenged the city’s filing of a notice of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act for the relocation of the Sky Track, arguing that unusual circumstances required a more detailed environmental analysis.
“The judgment is affirmed,” the court concluded, ordering that the City of Davis recover its costs on appeal.
The case arose from ongoing controversy surrounding the Sky Track, a piece of playground equipment installed by the city in May 2019. According to the appellate ruling, the Sky Track “imitates the sense of flight” and consists of a swing and suspended seat that moves along parallel tracks, functioning similarly to a zip line. Soon after installation, residents living near Arroyo Park began submitting complaints about noise, particularly from the equipment’s mechanical movement and its proximity to nearby homes.
In response, the city retained acoustical consultants and undertook a series of mitigation efforts, including limiting operating hours, adding rubber bumpers to absorb sound, and locking the equipment overnight. While those measures reduced nighttime noise, the court noted that the city encountered repeated vandalism of the locking mechanisms and staffing difficulties that made consistent enforcement challenging.
As a result, city officials explored relocating the Sky Track to another location within Arroyo Park. Additional noise studies were conducted, and consultants concluded that moving the equipment closer to the center of the park would significantly reduce noise levels at nearby residences. Based on those findings, the Davis City Council approved the relocation in August 2022 and filed a notice of exemption from CEQA review, relying on categorical exemptions for small structures, minor alterations to land, and accessory facilities.
The Krovozas challenged that determination, arguing that the relocation fell within CEQA’s “unusual circumstances” exception, which prohibits use of categorical exemptions where there is a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances. They contended that noise impacts, including alleged violations of the city’s noise ordinance, required further environmental review.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. In its analysis, the appellate court emphasized that CEQA is concerned with changes in the physical environment compared to existing baseline conditions, not merely with regulatory compliance issues in isolation.
The court stated that “merely showing that the project will exceed a standard in the City’s noise ordinance cannot as a matter of law establish that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” It explained that even if a local noise ordinance violation were assumed, such a showing “neither establishes that there will be a change in the baseline conditions nor that any such change will be adverse.”
Instead, the court focused on the evidence that noise impacts would be reduced after relocation. The ruling cited expert studies showing that predicted decibel levels at nearby residences would be lower in the new location than at the original site. “The reduction in noise levels does not demonstrate an adverse change in the environment,” the court wrote.
The court also rejected claims that public comments and resident complaints established a fair argument that the relocated Sky Track would cause significant environmental harm. It characterized many of the objections as speculative or focused on past conditions rather than the impacts of the relocation itself, noting that “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinions, concerns, and suspicions about a project do not rise to the level of substantial evidence necessary to support a fair argument.”
In addressing claims that the city failed to conduct certain types of noise analysis, the court reiterated that projects deemed categorically exempt from CEQA are not subject to CEQA’s procedural requirements. “Once this determination of threshold exemption is made,” the court wrote, “none of the CEQA requirements or procedures apply.”
The appellate ruling represents the latest chapter in a dispute that has extended well beyond the technical details of playground noise. As the Vanguard has previously reported, the Sky Track controversy became a flashpoint for broader concerns about city decision-making, public process, and the use of CEQA exemptions.
Earlier Vanguard reporting detailed criticism from residents who argued that the original installation was rushed through without sufficient neighborhood engagement or transparency. Those concerns intensified when former Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza filed a lawsuit against the city in 2022, alleging that the approval process for the Sky Track at Arroyo Park was corrupt and wasteful, and that city officials had improperly relied on CEQA exemptions to avoid environmental scrutiny.
That earlier lawsuit raised broader governance questions, including whether the city had minimized legitimate resident concerns and whether internal processes were driven by expediency rather than careful review. While those issues animated public debate in Davis, the appellate court’s decision focused squarely on the legal standards governing CEQA exemptions and the evidentiary burdens required to defeat them.
The court made clear that the burden rests on project opponents to produce substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and that reductions in noise, even if not eliminating all audible sound, undermine claims of environmental harm. The opinion also reinforced the principle that CEQA does not mandate environmental review where categorical exemptions apply and no valid exception is supported by evidence.
For the City of Davis, the ruling affirms its authority to manage park facilities and address neighborhood impacts through relocation and mitigation without triggering full environmental review, so long as evidence supports the conclusion that environmental conditions will improve rather than worsen.
For opponents of the Sky Track, the decision closes the door on judicial intervention through CEQA, though the underlying tensions over neighborhood impacts, public engagement, and trust in city governance remain part of Davis’ civic landscape.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was unanimous. It was authored by Justice Boulware Eurie, with Acting Presiding Justice Mauro and Justice Mesiwala concurring. The case now stands as published precedent clarifying how noise impacts and baseline conditions are evaluated when cities rely on categorical exemptions under CEQA.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The total cost of this piece of playground equipment has to be very expensive. You have to consider not just the price of the equipment and it’s initial installation price but also the costs associated with trying to adapt it to create less noise, the cost of having a city worker lock it up every night and unlock it in the morning and the vandalism associated with the locking mechanism. Then there’s all of the noise studies and consultants, the litigation costs and the cost to move the apparatus to a different location.
Yeap. Seems like something that they should have thought of before installing it in the first place, especially since Davis has “no kids” at this point (or so we’re told).
In any case, I’m gathering that CEQA can still apply within cities, as long as it doesn’t involve housing (I think).
I grew up without any zip lines, and lived to tell the tale. Also had one of them bikes that you had to pedal, instead of charge up. (And needless to say, walked uphill in the snow both ways to school and back.)
Yep, this strange six-year episode could have been avoided if the city had sought public comment as their guidelines for park additions require. But they didn’t. In fact, the 2018 approval of the SkyTrack was buried in a consent item staff report to “replace” old park equipment. In fact, the SkyTrack was a new addition, on a huge new pad. Not at all what the staff report represented. One of the most sad interactions in all of this for us was talking to the representative from GameTime (manufacturer of the SkyTrack) who had sold the equipment to the city. When we shared how loud it was for all us neighbors she replied something to the effect: “If I’d known there were noise concerns, I would have recommended something else.” Well, something else is now in the SkyTrack’s place and kids seem just fine with it and we see many on it all the time. But the city still wants to take out still more grass and add the SkyTrack.
The Davis Vanguard coverage does a great job of summarizing yesterday’s court ruling. Below are a few pertinent quotes from the court opinion:
— “In its analysis of the anticipated noise level impacts as to relocation of the Sky Track to Location B, Acoustics identified the existing Sky Track noise level impacts at the three short-term noise level measurement locations as 57.2, 55.5, and 66.3 decibels, respectively, and the predicted operating noise levels at those same locations following relocation of the Sky Track to Location B as 49.2, 47.7, and 54.3 decibels, respectively. In a chart, Acoustics explained that 40 to 50 decibels is generally equated with a refrigerator humming, 50 to 60 decibels is generally equated with a quiet office environment, and 60 to 70 decibels is generally equated with normal conversation.
— “To establish the project will have a significant noise impact on the environment, the Krovozas had to show that relocating the Sky Track would cause an adverse change in noise levels compared to existing physical baseline conditions. Assuming without deciding that the Krovozas can prove the project exceeds the standards in the noise ordinance, such a violation alone says nothing about the baseline conditions against which the project must be compared. It neither establishes that there will be a change in the baseline conditions nor that any such change will be adverse. Accordingly, merely showing that the project will exceed a standard in the City’s noise ordinance cannot as a matter of law establish that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. And, as explained post, the evidence shows that noise impacts will decrease following relocation of the Sky Track.
— “The public comments upon which the Krovozas rely pertain to complaints about noise from use of the Sky Track at its existing location—i.e., the physical baseline against which the project must be measured—and speculative comments that the project may have adverse noise impacts at the new location. Most of the Krovozas’s citations are to communications between them and the City regarding past noise impacts from use of the Sky Track in 2019. The Krovozas’s other citations are to: (1) a City employee’s presentation before the City Council and her statement regarding the additional measures that were recommended to address nighttime noise issues at the existing location; (2) a comment by an unknown individual regarding noise impacts from the Sky Track at its existing location; (3) a comment by the City Attorney to the City Council that it would be unusual to conduct additional environmental review of a facility of the Sky Track’s size; and (4) a comment from a member of the public stating that although he had “not had a chance to use or hear this particular piece of equipment,” a grating noise is annoying and harmful. None of the foregoing comments constitutes substantial evidence that the SkyTrack will increase noise levels above the baseline levels at the new location….Accordingly, the Krovozas have not produced any evidence, other than unsubstantiated opinions, that the project will produce a particular adverse effect.
— “Contrary to the Krovozas’s assertion, the City’s noise studies do not constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Acoustics study shows that the relocation of the Sky Track to
Location B will result in lower noise levels at the three locations where measurements were taken. The reduction in noise levels does not demonstrate an adverse change in the environment.
— “The Krovozas’s attempt to manufacture an argument that the Acoustics study shows the ambient noise level could increase as much as 12 decibels is unsubstantiated. They ask us to assume distances between the locations considered for relocation and certain residences are the same and to speculate the ambient noise level “in the approximate location of the nearest residence to the south of Location B” is the same as for “the residences nearest to Location B to the north.” Our function is to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Our function is not to create evidence or infer findings from evidence where there is no basis for doing so….
— ” …..(The) Krovozas have identified no substantial evidence that the Sky
Track would generate noise that would be heard inside their home. The noise studies merely analyzed noise levels outside of certain residences.”
“Assuming without deciding that the Krovozas can prove the project exceeds the standards in the noise ordinance, such a violation alone says nothing about the baseline conditions against which the project must be compared. It neither establishes that there will be a change in the baseline conditions nor that any such change will be adverse.”
Weren’t the “baseline conditions” (that are being compared) established when the city installed that structure (rather recently) in the first place?
If so, it seems like the “baseline conditions” should (instead) consist of no structure at all.
If I’m understanding this correctly, the city initially created a nuisance by installing that structure in the first place, but are now claiming that the secondary location is “better than the first” – and therefore no further analysis is required.
I’m gathering that the neighbors aren’t too keen about the second location either – even if it’s better than the first.
Maybe all of this should have been considered before installing the structure in the first place.
“Maybe all of this should have been considered before installing the structure in the first place.”
Exactly.
DC, the Krovozas didn’t do this for fun, getting involved in a court case is a major arse pain. They did it because the noise is annoying AF
Yes, the city prevailed and does not have to conduct an EIR, even if its own data shows that the SkyTrack will violate the local noise ordinance. I am not sure why the city spent thousands of dollars to not have to do an EIR for something that will be out of compliance if installed.
“merely showing that the project will exceed a standard in the City’s noise ordinance cannot as a matter of law establish that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.”
In other words, the court held up the middle finger to the neighbors. I proudly hold up my middle finger to the court and the City.
” . . . address neighborhood impacts through relocation and mitigation without triggering full environmental review, so long as evidence supports the conclusion that environmental conditions will improve rather than worsen.”
That’s like nonsensical. That’s like, ‘well we mitigated the smell of the landfill, so now it’s just really stinky, instead of super stinky’. WTF kind of decision is that???
Sounds like one of those elite “West Davis” nimby problems to me. Maybe the District 1 City Counsel member should have stepped in to defuse this dispute.
JC, how about giving a F about people’s lives? They purchase a house next to a park and the City installs a zip line behind their house, causing a permanent daily auditory annoyance? Have you heard the thing? It’s like RAAAACHATATA RAAAACHATATA RAAAACHATATA ZING! WURRRRR! CLACK! CLACK! CLACK! CLACK! CLACK! CLACK! CLACK! CLACK!
I had to put up with the bass subwoofers from Tres Hermanas and Ket Mo Ree for a decade, every Thursday through Saturday 10:45pm – 1:45am, right in the window when I was going to sleep, because the City A) Didn’t five a F; B) Didn’t listen when I testified several times the night-club scene on those nights was getting out of control; C) Couldn’t register as noise complaint because the heavy bass energy that travels in the ground didn’t register on the police noise meters which pick up higher-frequency noise energy in the air. I call it the DECADE FROM H*LL. And what stopped it? A gun threat at Tres Hermanas followed soon after by a MURDER at Ket Mo Ree.
I have had it with you selfish anti-NIMBY types who think everyone should make the biggest investment of their life and then “for the greater good” the City backed by people like you decides it’s fine to wreck people’s lives by proposing or building: (1) open an unofficial nightclub district in a small town; (2) re-zone the next property for a taller building than promised in city plans; (3) try to shove through an incomplete EIR to build a massive new sprawlburb; (4) stick a respite center in the middle of residential area (with vague, never to be implemented ‘mitigation’ ‘promises’); or (5) put in a gawdwaffle CLACK CLACK zip line behind someone’s fence.
And the courts seem to say FU to the people as well. All good if you buy in the middle of sprawling high-cost expensive suburb surrounded by other houses, but those of us living by a park, a drainage canal, a bike path, Section 8 housing, a railroad, a city-owned property, or pretty much a good chunk of District 3, etc., just roll the dice on whether a good chunk of your life is ruined after investing your life savings in an expensive house. And no, I’m not exaggerating – my life was living hell for that decade when those subwoofers were pounding until 1:45am – regular music downtown was no problem – but no one gave a F until the murder. No problem my first 20 years here, or the last 5 or so since the murder – but those 10 in between — Oy Vey!
You anti-NIMBY selfish *%%&*&*(‘s p*ss me off.
Oh Puh… lease. I’m pretty NIMBY, or so I am told. Plus, you stated “the City A) Didn’t five a F; B)”, what exactly does THAT mean???. Please don’t post in Trumpian gibberish.? I live a half block away from Slide Hill Park. Am I annoyed when the softball season comes around and my access street (Tulip) is crowded with the cars of players parents. Then those awful game time sounds of a crack of the bat and cheering all day long…. Is why I love the sounds of my neighborhood park, because it’s the sound of children having FUN.
I realize us “boomers “ aren’t quite ready for Zip Lines, but sounds to me like the West Davis elites want kids to return to playing with a hoop and stick. (Just so long as they aren’t having fun). Today’s youth have been driven inside to engage in video games as outdoor activities become more prohibited. I remember jumping my Schwinn
Stingray over jumps in a vacant city lot. To complain about night time city noise is one thing, to sue the city over “kids having fun” is totally different.
Hope you read to the end here:
try to shove through an incomplete EIR to build a massive new sprawlburb; (4) stick a respite center in the middle of residential area (with vague, never to be implemented ‘mitigation’ ‘promises’);
That’s where I certainly connect with your post.
Just remember, the anti- kids having fun stuff is a West Davis Prerogative.
Fighting against urban sprawl (Village Farms), or reasonable oversight of the L st respite is a totally reasonable issue.
That the “Zip Line” issue was ever even pertinent shows that the West Davis Monied Class holds a large sway of influence.
John, I have read and re-read your comments and I actually, maybe naively, think we are on the same page. Anyone concerned about Village Farms not sticking to agreements or violating ordinances ought to see the SkyTrack saga as a cautionary tale. If the city can blow off an existing, explicit ordinance it’s hard to trust anything the city might promise or even agree to.
If you haven’t already, please read this from 2023. After the section describing the trial court’s dismissal of our case, it lays out just where the city is today with the appellate court having done the same. Thanks in advance. https://davisvanguard.org/2023/09/guest-commentary-city-exempt-from-ceqa-for-arroyo-park-sky-track-location-b/.
Re suing over “kids having fun,” I am not sure what that’s grounded in. Nope, have never complained about kids playing in the park. Never in the 26 years we have lived here. I coached soccer in the park for years. We hear the pool noise as late as 10:00 pm all summer. Never complained. The issue is the SkyTrack’s operation requires constant clanging and banging impact noise — like a construction site — in the day and in the middle of the night. When you get woken up three out of five nights in the middle of the night and it goes on for a half hour until the drinkers get tired and move on, it gets old. Technically the park is closed at night, but teens and college students who are out and about love it and the city can’t “close” it at night. The city was asked to lock the SkyTrack at the new location and they voted not to.
Our first inquiry to the city in the spring of 2019 led off with us stating that we were not complaining about kid noise, just the noise inherent in the operation of the SkyTrack, especially when both tracks are being flung by a parent at once. We have repeated this over and over, but the city still measured kid noise for the second sound study. Total waste of money since that’s never, ever been the issue.
I just took a look at how the consultants are representing the city’s noise ordinance in the Village Farms EIR. If the consultants are in sync with the city (and I suspect they are), the city has flip-flopped again on the noise ordinance and abandoned its position since mid-2022 that the primary limit for Residential, Commercial and High Noise Traffic Corridor are govern by average noise (Leq). Abandoning average/Leq is unquestionably correct (it’s simply not in the ordinance at all!); now they correctly recognize that maximum noise (Lmax) governs. However, they seem to be increasing every primary limit by 20 db, whether or not someone has gone through the process for a waiver, exemption or exception. This isn’t supported in the least by the plain language of the ordinance. If allowed, this change will affect planning and noise enforcement citywide and it likely makes Davis one of the weakest municipalities in the state for noise regulation. I have a good source to check this last statement if/when needed.
Ron, you are spot on. At places the court does use the original location’s noise level as the baseline. We briefed and documented that the original SkyTrack was removed by the city because it violated the noise ordinance. There is no debate on this point; this is straight out of a city staff report and the final noise report of early 2022. Using the SkyTrack’s initial location that was in violation of an ordinance as a baseline is odd indeed.
The SkyTrack in the original location even violated the ordinance using the self-serving “average” noise measurements the city tried to sneak by everyone – not max noise levels as are clear as day in the ordinance. Get this, the city used max noise levels in 2021 to evaluate the Mace Blvd. carwash in South Davis. This was the main noise issue considered by the city before the SkyTrack relocation decision was made by the city council in 2022. Why the double standard in applying the noise ordinance when the city is creating the noise and not a business? At oral argument earlier this month we had a hint of this and we were perplexed when one justice pressed our attorney that the impacts were less at the new location. Yes, less to us, but still a violation, and worse for everyone to the north.
To be clear, we don’t think there should be a violation of the law. Period. This problem shouldn’t be pushed anywhere. Arroyo Park is great with lots of amenities for kids – there are four or five kid play structures (not counting the pool!) right where the city wants to add the SkyTrack. We need more? And there?
…would love to have him engage on this now that the court issue is over.
If you have never heard the clanging and banging of the SkyTrack in your home, and for hours on end and into the night, I’d kindly ask that you not belittle those concerned by the disturbance. We lived in fine peace with the park for 15+ years (moved in well before there was a park), and enjoy hearing kids play, soccer games, and the pool activity…. Plenty of others loathed the SkyTrack’s noise as well, they just don’t want to take the heat of all the nastiness.
Fair piece above. The court ruled that the city doesn’t have to do an EIR. That does mean the August 2022 relocation decision can stand. In summary, the court’s view was that the violation of a local noise ordinance doesn’t necessarily qualify as a significant environmental impact requiring CEQA review. Of course, I disagree.
The fact remains that the city’s own data shows that the new location violates its own noise ordinance. Thus, the city will still need to decide if it will spend more money to install (once again) something that violates its ordinance. To be clear, the passive/quiet replacement equipment was put in the original area because there was zero doubt – per the city’s data — that the original SkyTrack placement was violating the noise ordinance.
Moving beyond the CEQA issue, the city argues that the noise ordinance’s regulation of “maximum” noise, really means “average” noise, and so, voila, the new location will comply. The city has an explanation for using average when the ordinance explicitly uses max over and over and over. I’d encourage you to try to follow the logic of this novel interpretation if anyone at the city will state it publicly. Their case might be helped if the word “average,” or any synonym for such, or the duration that should be used for an average measurement, appeared anywhere in the noise ordinance.
And of course, it’s logical to regulate max noise since that’s most likely to cause a disturbance. It’s also worth noting that the city tried to amend the noise ordinance in 2021 to exempt itself and change “maximum” to “average.” When that failed, the city correctly used “maximum” noise to evaluate the new carwash on Mace in South Davis. The carwash passed muster; but the SkyTrack didn’t and so the city instructed their consultants not to publish the collected maximum noise level data of the SkyTrack for its proposed new location. They got called on that sneaky move and now the truth is known. Yep, businesses must comply with max noise levels in the ordinance, but not the city itself.
The latest salmon count on Putah Creek counted 2100 mature Salmon returning to spawn. I remember when Joe Kravoza worked to require the conditions necessary for restoration of the fishery by the people in control of watershed.
Thanks Joe.
Thanks, Ron. Yep, a very exciting year for salmon coming back up the creek. When we (Putah Creek Council, City, UC Davis) sued for more water, we were never sure we’d get the salmon back. It’s almost beyond our wildest dreams, honestly. We just celebrated 25 years of the historic court victory for fish flows. One of my retirement projects is working with other environmental groups statewide interested in following our playbook for better flows and river restoration. Best to you and yours for 2026.
…also, see my next main comment below at “Remaining Issues” sharing a 2023 piece on why the city won’t be using the new location. This is a complete mess.
Some might like to read the “Remaining Issues” section of this 2023 Davis Vanguard post. It explains the non-compliance ahead for the SkyTrack if re-sited in Arroyo Park, and how (though certainly not why) the city just spent thousands of dollars to defend its right to place the SkyTrack in a location they can’t and don’t plan to use. https://davisvanguard.org/2023/09/guest-commentary-city-exempt-from-ceqa-for-arroyo-park-sky-track-location-b/. We’ll see if the current city council keeps throwing good money after bad.
“I live a half block away from Slide Hill Park.”
My guess is that the Krovozas live a lot closer than that to Arroyo park.
Seems to me that if there’s residences very close to, or adjacent to a park – cities should consider what they install more carefully than a park with more separation from residences.
Actually, that goes for schools as well (though they’re essentially noise factories). Periodically, I hear an intercom blasting an entire neighborhood (which causes me to think that one of their prisoners has escaped).
JC say, “I live a half block away from Slide Hill Park.”
Slide Hill Park doesn’t have a Zip Track. Also, noise energy dissipates as a cubic inversion formula from the source. So distance matters. The Zip Track was right behind people’s fences, and if moved will be a couple hundred feet away. But what also matters is the type of noise and how that grates on the human nervous system, and meters don’t accurately reflect that. How are you need reading what JK keeps saying, he never EVER complained about any other park noise. CLANKING and BANGING metal is a whole different noise animal than children playing, pool noise, etc.
As for al the weird trashing of West Davis for actually acquiring some money in life, a pox on the rest of you to ever be successful lest ye be trashed – not to mention if you even live in Davis and aren’t a student you probably are viewed the same way by the masses of Sacramento, Vacaville, Woodland, Winters, Esparto and Knights Landing, so suck it up.
Too, it’s the adjacent houses that are the issue, not the whole of West Davis who don’t live anywhere near this. A few people shouldn’t have to suffer constantly from metal clanking and banging so that people with kids who want to use a Zip Track can impose their noise and concentrate it on a few people who live nearby. The siting of the Zip Track was always a poor decision on someone’s part. It should never have been near residences.
I’m completely on the Krovoza’a side of this dispute. Owning a home is the biggest investment that most families make in their lives and who would ever want a loud clanking amusement apparatus erected close to the home?