City’s refusal to honor requests for public records fuels existing skepticism over transparency and accountability
A lawsuit filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court is seeking to address what the filing describes as months of delays and refusals by the City of Patterson to provide public records that should be available for public review. While the new legal challenge involves Keystone Ranch, the lawsuit more broadly contends that the city has failed to meet its legal obligation to provide timely access to public documents that both Keystone Ranch and the general public are entitled to receive.The new lawsuit alleges that the City of Patterson has “wrongfully withheld” documents formally requested on March 5, 2025. It seeks to compel the release of records related to the City’s water supply and water infrastructure projects in the Del Puerto Creek area—matters central to ongoing litigation, in which trial is scheduled to begin on December 11, 2025. The lawsuit also seeks the release of information related to the Zacharias-Baldwin Ranch Master Plan development agreement—in which Keystone Ranch is an affected stakeholder—that is scheduled to be considered by the Patterson Planning Commission on November 13, 2025.
Bottom Line: This lawsuit is not just about the City of Patterson’s treatment of Keystone Ranch — it is about transparency, accountability, and the law. The City of Patterson has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for operating behind closed doors, obstructing access to information, and delaying public disclosure. For more information visit www.exposingpatterson.com.
It’s not just us asking questions about White Brenner, LLP.In Ceres, CA—where White Brenner is also contracted for legal guidance—City Councilmember Rosalinda Vierra is calling for a closer look at rising city attorney costs and pressing for transparency and accountability around the firm’s billing practices. Read the full story in the Ceres Courier.
Meanwhile, in Patterson, White Brenner’s Deputy City Attorney Doug White has claimed the city faces a “water crisis.” “However, data from California’s Department of Water Resources tells a different story: above-average reservoirs, rising groundwater storage, and stable local wells cast doubt on the quality of Patterson’s legal counsel and the authenticity of the City’s declared "water emergency." View our recent ad in the Patterson Irrigator where you can fact check our claims and monitor the City's groundwater levels in real time. For more information visit www.exposingpatterson.com.
Recent Patterson City Council meeting and citizen letters highlight the dysfunction and financial mismanagement currently roiling the City.
At Tuesday’s Patterson City Council hearing, former city attorney and longtime resident Dennis Beougher sharply criticized the city’s relationship with its contracted law firm, White Brenner LLP, during public forum. Beougher, who warned that outside counsel faces no incentive to resolve disputes quickly or fairly without proper oversight, cited Patterson’s September legal bill of more than $285,000—nearly 90% of the city’s entire annual legal budget spent in a single month. Beougher urged officials to consider hiring an in-house attorney to curb wasteful spending and improve the quality of legal counsel.Just minutes later, City Councilmembers heard from Captain Nick Jamieson, a Patterson firefighter and President of Patterson Firefighters IAFF Local 4577, who spoke to the current lack of contract between the City and the union as well as the union’s singular request during negotiations of binding arbitration.
These comments are just the latest instance of an outpouring of criticism by Central Valley residents toward Patterson’s leadership in recent weeks. A letter to the editor in this week’s Patterson Irrigator excoriated the Mayor for defending astronomically high legal bills and the City Attorney’s legal advice during the hearing, while Patterson underpays its first responders and other hometown heroes. “Let that sink in: nearly a third of a million dollars for lawyers in one month,” said author Daniel Davis, “but supposedly no funds to fairly compensate the people who actually serve the community.”
Between September 2023 and July 2024, the Mayor and Council approved payments to White Brenner totaling nearly $1 million—three times the City’s legal budget for that fiscal year. This doesn’t factor in multiple 2025 lawsuits.
In just one ongoing 2025 case—Keystone Ranch v. City of Patterson, stemming from the City’s unlawful denial of the Keystone Ranch project—Patterson spent over $174,000 in legal fees last month alone. This decision has also brought the scrutiny of the state’s housing authorities. In an instance of glaring irony, particularly against the backdrop of the financial numbers above, the Mayor lamented that Patterson’s potential budget deficit precludes the City from offering the firefighters wage increases.
Bottom Line: Patterson leaders claim fiscal constraints are holding them back when it comes to paying its frontline workers, but seem to have plenty of resources to pay a private law firm engaged in endless litigation.
Patterson says it’s out of water and blocked Keystone Ranch housing development — while the County approves a $23.6M water project in the same Delta-Mendota ground water basin.
On October 14, 2025, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a $23.6 million contract for well drilling and water system improvements at the Crows Landing Business Park. As reported in an article by Ken Carlson in the Modesto Bee, the project includes "two well sites", as well as other improvements including "a 1.6 million-gallon storage tank and pumping and treatment facilities."
“Crows Landing is a crucial catalyst project for the region, and we whole heartedly support the creation of an innovation center that will create 14,000 jobs. The fact that this project is on unincorporated County land, though, doesn’t change how groundwater flows – and there is nothing in the staff report to explain why the County can under take this large well and pumping project while the City of Patterson, in the same groundwater basin, has declared a bogus groundwater emergency. The in consistency is unbelievable and indefensible: if, as the County believes, there is enough water for Crows Landing, then there is enough for Patterson to proceed with Keystone Ranch. Patterson’s city attorney erroneously declared a water emergency but forgot to get the rest of the region to sign on. The County’s pending vote confirms what we’ve been saying since April 1—there is no water emergency, and none of the 20 other jurisdictions in this basin have declared such an emergency. Unfortunately, as a result of its own short-sighted actions, the City of Patterson will not have the homes necessary to support these new 14,000 jobs because the City invented a false water emergency and rejected our project, which would have provided 700 homes in the next few years. That is why the State housing authorities have demanded answers from Patterson. This vote should be a wake-up call for residents to pay closer attention to the decision being made by their city.”- Evette Davis, Spokesperson, Keystone Corporation
Bottom Line: Same county. Same water basin. Different leadership. Crows Landing gets county-funded water infrastructure, while Patterson city leaders demand a single developer foot the bill for a solution to a “bogus” water emergency.
Former Mayor of Patterson, Pat Maisetti, adds her voice to growing alarm over conflicts of interest, costly lawsuits, and poor legal guidance, calling current legal fees a “sin.”
Former Patterson Mayor Pat Maisetti authored a letter to the editor of the Patterson Irrigator sharply criticizing the record and performance of the city’s legal counsel. In the letter, Maisetti condemned the services provided by White Brenner, LLP, the firm contracted to provide municipal legal representation. She cited the City’s growing number of lawsuits and escalating legal fees as evidence that White Brenner offers “bad advice” — and then charges excessive fees to resolve the very problems it creates. Maisetti urged city leaders to follow the example of other cities that have dismissed White Brenner for similar issues. She concluded her letter with a call to action, encouraging Patterson residents to attend the next city council meeting and demand answers about why taxpayer dollars continue to fund what she described as costly and poor-quality legal representation — a “sin” according to the former Mayor.
This is not the first time concerns have been raised about Patterson’s legal representation:
Bottom Line: Patterson taxpayers deserve a legal team that protects the City and their interests, not one that profits from its own manufactured “mistakes.”
During PC hearing, the Vice-Chair of the Commission called a resident a “pain in the ass” as the individual prepared to ask a question, raising concerns about professionalism and respect in public meetings.
At the close of a recent Planning Commission meeting, Patterson resident Marco Ahumada, prepared to speak. As he prepared to address the Commission, Commissioner Bendix was overheard on an open microphone saying, “Marco is a pain in the ass!” The remark was clearly audible to everyone in attendance—both in-person and virtually. Ahumada replied, “I hope I’m not that much of a pain,” before continuing with his question and requesting to see a map of the Baldwin Ranch South project — a 66-acre subdivision consisting of 305 single family residential lots. The incident has since sparked concern among residents and observers who question whether public participation is genuinely valued by Patterson city officials.
This moment is about more than an unprofessional comment —it reflects a broader pattern of troubling behavior by city leadership that calls into question the City’s true priorities:
Bottom Line: Taken together, these actions paint a picture of a rogue city government—one that cancels elections, stalls needed housing, and doesn’t follow the law, while insulting residents during public comment at a city hearing for exercising their rights. Although the City has issued an apology, its behavior raises the question of who Patterson officials work for—the people they serve, or their political agendas?
HCD letter says City failed to meet housing law standards, contradicts own housing element—could prompt Attorney General notification.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the City of Patterson notifying officials that the City’s denial of the Keystone Ranch project is inconsistent with state housing laws—including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Housing Crisis Act (HCA)—as well as theCity’s own 6th Cycle Housing Element. HCD’s letter cites that the City imposed unjustified conditions on Keystone Ranch, including requiring the project to fund the entire $20 million water recharge basin for the Master Plan area—despite Keystone Ranch representing only 14% of the planned homes—and to complete the basin before any permits could be issued. These requirements contradict state laws, which allow denial of housing projects only if there is a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety and prohibit a moratorium or similar restriction on housing development.
Pattern of Scrutiny: The HCD letter is the latest in a series of pro-housing written communications to the City of Patterson. The BIA of the Greater Valley, YIMBY Law and the Bay Area Council have all sent letters to the City criticizing stalled housing development, burdensome conditions of approval, and hollow housing plans, documenting persistent concerns about the City of Patterson’s approach to housing and treatment of the Keystone Ranch housing project.
City fast-tracks another mega-industrial project while ignoring its housing obligations.
The City of Patterson Planning Commission approved Project Zach, a new 3.23 million square foot, five-story distribution facility at the corner of Zacharias and Rogers Roads. The structure will rise to 107.5 feet—the tallest in Patterson’s industrial zone—and include an estimated 1,800 employees. Despite the unprecedented scale of the project, the City relied only on an addendum to a 2012 EIR, claiming the environmental impacts would not exceed what was anticipated 13 years ago.
City lets 162-home project proceed under a 2007 EIR with surface-water purchase, while Keystone Ranch was told to fund a $20M recharge basin and do a supplemental EIR.
The Patterson City Council approved a 162-home subdivision at Olive Avenue and Hartley Street—part of the Villages of Patterson Master Plan. The City released the project’s 143 Conditions of Approval only after the Planning Commission hearing, denying the public’s ability to review them in advance, yet another Brown Act Violation. The approval continues to rely on a 2007 Environmental Impact Report with no supplemental review required by the City.
It’s encouraging to see Patterson approve new housing, especially as the City remains more than 19 months out of compliance with its state-mandated Housing Element. But the contrast here is striking:
The message is clear: Patterson’s water policies are being applied selectively to stifle the Keystone Ranch project and pro-housing organizations, including YIMBY, are starting to notice. If groundwater constraints are real, they should apply to all projects. If they’re not, Keystone Ranch should be allowed to proceed without the extraordinarily costly burdens which have caused 719 units of housing to come to a standstill.
Perfect for basic upkeep and small-scale landscaping needs.
This service is ideal for homeowners who want to enhance their outdoor spaces.
Comprehensive care for large-scale or highly customized landscapes.
.svg)
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}