Listen to this post

In Krovoza v. City of Davis (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 623, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a writ petition challenging the City of Davis’s use of categorical exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the relocation of playground equipment within a city park. The court held that substantial evidence supported the City’s exemption determination and that the petitioners failed to meet their burden to show the unusual circumstances exception applied.

Background

Petitioners Joe and Janet Krovoza sought a writ of mandate against the City of Davis challenging the City’s notice of exemption for the relocation of the “Sky Track” playground apparatus at Arroyo Park under the “unusual circumstances exception” contained in the CEQA Guidelines. The original location had been problematic due to noise complaints and noise studies indicating nighttime noise above local standards; thus, the City proposed relocating it to a different park site. The City claimed the relocation was exempt from CEQA under multiple categorical exemptions—specifically Guidelines sections addressing small structures (Class 3), minor alterations to land (Class 4), and accessory structures (Class 11)—and filed a notice of exemption accordingly.

The trial court denied the petition, finding substantial evidence supported the City’s exemption findings and that no unusual circumstances existed that would preclude the use of the categorical exemptions. The Krovozas appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Analysis and Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the Krovozas failed to establish the unusual circumstances exception to the categorical exemptions. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c), an exemption does not apply if there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances, and the party challenging an exemption bears the burden of producing evidence supporting that exception. A petitioner may establish the unusual circumstances exception under one of two tests. Either they must conclusively show that a project will have a significant impact on the environment, or they must show that the project is different than other similar projects and there is a reasonable possibility of impacts due to the difference.

The Krovozas argued that evidence the park equipment would violate the City’s noise ordinance was sufficient to establish unusual circumstances. The court reiterated that merely showing a project might violate a local ordinance does not, without more, constitute substantial evidence that the project will have a significant environmental impact as defined by CEQA. Even assuming the truth of this argument, the potential violation of the noise ordinance failed to demonstrate that there would be adverse impacts as compared to pre-existing conditions.

The court also found that, under the second test, the Krovozas failed to establish a fair argument there was a reasonable possibility the project would have a significant effect on the environment. In this case, although some noise measurements at the proposed relocation site indicated levels approaching or exceeding the City’s daytime noise standards, the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect. The City’s acoustic study showed, on the contrary, that relocation to the selected site was expected to result in overall quieter conditions. The Krovozas’ speculation, without evidentiary support, was insufficient to overcome otherwise substantial evidence in the record.

The appellate court also rejected the argument that the City’s prior noise studies obligated it to conduct an ambient noise analysis as part of exemption review—noting that when a lead agency properly determines a project is categorically exempt, it need not perform additional studies before finding an exemption applies. The court noted that an agency’s decision to proceed with some level of CEQA analysis does not preclude it from asserting the action was exempt from CEQA altogether.

Key Takeaways

  • This decision reinforces that categorical exemptions can apply even for projects with localized noise concerns, provided substantial evidence supports the exemption finding and the unusual circumstances exception is not shown.
  • A challenger must present credible evidence of a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impact attributable to unusual circumstances to overcome an exemption — mere ordinance deviations or technical exceedances do not automatically satisfy that burden.

Agencies may defend against CEQA challenges by asserting a project was exempt even if they conducted noise studies or other analyses, so long as the exemption determination itself is supported by the record.