April 12, 2022: UPDATE: Beth Nelsen, who had filed complaints about Pedroza with the FPPC commented it was actually six checks, not two. “The FPPC never ruled there was no conflict of interest, the advice desk merely told Pedroza, based on his first email after we blew the whistle, that an in-law is not immediate family. It was all very informal.”
April 5, 2022: California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has opened an investigation into possible conflict of interest accusations against Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza. A letter confirming the investigation was sent on March 25 to Napa resident Beth Nelsen, who had filed complaints about Pedroza with the agency. The agency received a total of eight complaints regarding the supervisor.
Nelsen had presented to the Board of Supervisors findings that Pedroza’s father-in-law, Esteban Llamas, is named the owner of land adjacent to Walt Ranch (owned by local vintners Greg and Kathryn Hall) under the name “Vinedos LLC.” Vinedos purchased the land in May 2021 for $2 million. Nelsen uncovered several things that linked the Vinedos company to Pedroza: Pedroza’s signature is on two checks for property taxes on his father-in-law’s land. The supervisor also used his home as collateral for Vinedos’ financing of the property.
An appeal to the Walt Ranch request to plant grapevines on the property — thereby removing thousands of old oak trees — has been the subject of Board of Supervisors meetings. So, during a board meeting in December, Pedroza voted on a tentative hearing regarding greenhouse gas mitigation at Walt Ranch without disclosing his connection to the adjacent property. The value of the adjoining property could ostensibly rise after the Halls successfully install a vineyard at Walt Ranch, so some argued that he should have recused himself from any decisions regarding the 2,300-acre property.
According to the FPPC spokesperson, the average time for an investigation is 141 days, though he said this could vary wildly, with some taking weeks and others years.
It was actually 6 checks, not 2. The FPPC never ruled there was no conflict of interest, the advice desk merely told Pedroza, based on his first email after we blew the whistle, that an in-law is not immediate family. It was all very informal.
Thank you for the clarification, Beth.
This issue certainly begs investigation, by an outside source!
The fact that 188 “community members” were willing to show support for Alfredo via a full page ad in the Napa Register serves only, IMO, as a show of hands for those that will one day have their hands out for political benefits in return. Particularly when the list is peppered with very wealthy vineyard/winery owners who “appreciate” Pedroza’s position on their financial interests.
The list is perhaps more telling by the names NOT on it.