Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Etp Appeals Vino Farms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After Vino Farms' appeal, ETP delegates hearing to a subcommittee; company says denial lacked facts
Summary
Vino Farms sought reconsideration of a denied agricultural initiative application; company and counsel argued the denial lacked fact‑based findings. The panel voted to delegate a hearing to a subcommittee to evaluate the appeal.
Vino Farms made a second‑level appeal of the panel’s prior denial of its agricultural initiative application, saying the decision lacked a factual basis and departed from prior approvals the company had received. Ronnie Natera, Vino Farms’ HR director, described the company’s wages, benefits (including a low employee contribution health plan and employer‑paid dental and vision), and sustainability certifications. Counsel Michael Kopp argued the panel’s denial relied on non‑factual outside considerations rather than the content of the training proposal.
Panel members reviewed the regulatory options under 22 CCR §44.50(b)(2): refuse to hear the matter with written reasons, conduct a hearing at a regular meeting, or delegate hearing authority to a subcommittee or an administrative law judge. After discussion the panel voted to delegate the hearing to a subcommittee of panel members rather than issue written reasons or immediately adjudicate the appeal.
Panel staff said they will notify the appellant, counsel and the assigned subcommittee members and will set hearing dates. The subcommittee will conduct the hearing and report back to the full panel.
What happens next: ETP will confirm the subcommittee membership and hearing schedule and inform the appellant and interested parties when a hearing will occur. The subcommittee’s finding will be considered at a subsequent full meeting.
