Davis Municipal Code Art. 40A.02 Dispute Resolution

(a) Agricultural operations shall not be considered a nuisance under this chapter unless such operations are deemed to be a nuisance under California Civil Code Sections 3482.5 and 3482.6. Agricultural and agricultural processing operations shall comply with all state, federal and local laws and regulations applicable to the operations.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no action shall be maintained under this chapter alleging that an agricultural or agricultural processing operation has interfered with private property or personal well-being or is otherwise considered a nuisance unless the plaintiff has sought to obtain a decision pursuant to the agricultural grievance procedure provided in Section 40A.02.020 (resolution of disputes) or a decision has been sought but no decision is rendered within the time limits provided in said section. This subsection shall not prevent any party or person from proceeding or bringing a legal action under the provisions of other applicable laws without first resorting to this grievance procedure.

(Ord. 1823 § 1)

(a) The city shall establish a grievance procedure to settle any disputes or any controversy that should arise regarding any inconveniences or discomfort occasioned by agricultural operations which cannot be settled by direct negotiation of the parties involved. Either party shall submit the controversy to a hearing officer as set forth below or to community mediation services, if agreed to by the parties, in an attempt to resolve the matter prior to the filing of any court action.

(b) Any controversy between the parties shall be submitted to the hearing officer within ninety days of the later of the date of the occurrence of the particular activity giving rise to the controversy or the date a party became aware of the occurrence.

(c) The effectiveness of the hearing officer for resolution of disputes is dependent upon full discussion and complete presentation of all pertinent facts concerning the dispute in order to eliminate any misunderstandings. The parties are encouraged to cooperate in the exchange of pertinent information concerning the controversy and are encouraged to seek a written statement from the agriculture commissioner as to whether the activity under dispute is consistent with adopted laws and regulations and accepted customs and standards.

(d) The controversy shall be presented to the hearing officer by written request of one of the parties within the time limit specified. Thereafter the hearing officer may investigate the facts of the controversy but must, within twenty-five days, hold a meeting to consider the merits of the matter and within five days of the meeting render a written decision to the parties. At the time of the meeting both parties shall have an opportunity to present what each considers to be pertinent facts. No party bringing a complaint to the hearing officer for settlement or resolution may be represented by counsel unless the opposing party is also represented by counsel. The time limits provided in this subsection for action by the hearing officer may be extended upon the written stipulation of all parties in a dispute.

(e) Any reasonable costs associated with the functioning of the hearing officer process shall be borne by the participants. The city council may, by resolution, prescribe fees to recover those costs.

(Ord. 1823 § 1)