![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/SAC_5525_EastSacDev_HA_260401.JPG\" "\\"A")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
A lot in East Sacramento, photographed on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, that the city\u2019s planning commission approved to be developed into a six-story 332-unit apartment complex. The project is opposed by a secretive group called Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation.<\/p>\n
HECTOR AMEZCUA<\/p>\n
hamezcua@sacbee.com<\/p>\n
When a group called Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation recently asked the<\/a> Sacramento City Council to reject plans for a six-story apartment project near McKinley Park<\/a>, it called itself \u201can unincorporated association whose members reside in or around\u201d the city.<\/p>\n The group does not have a website and is not listed in a directory of city neighborhood associations. Its letter to the council did not mention any leaders or say how many members it has overall. It was sent by a Southern California attorney who has represented Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation in legal disputes with Sacramento for over a decade.<\/p>\n The mysterious group, though, has at least one known member. Her name is Maria Kelly.<\/p>\n Kelly has earned a reputation from elected leaders and developers as a formidable force willing to try and defeat changes to East Sacramento that she does not like. The 332-unit complex planned for Alhambra Boulevard is her latest battleground.<\/p>\n \u201cThe project would be fine some other place and a lot of other places, as is,\u201d she said, while standing next to the vacant brick warehouse buildings where the apartments are planned.<\/p>\n To her, the complex is just too tall, would put lives at risk with more \u201cunrelenting traffic\u201d and add too much of a strain on the city\u2019s wastewater system in an area of East Sacramento she loves dearly.<\/p>\n \u201cMaria usually gets involved in anything around McKinley Park,\u201d said former City Councilmember Jeff Harris.<\/p>\n Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation, which Kelly helped found, has filed three lawsuits against the city since 2015. In each of those cases, the group accused Sacramento officials of violating the California Environmental Quality Act<\/a>, the landmark law that requires public agencies to evaluate the environmental consequences of development projects, but that critics argue has been used to stifle housing construction.<\/p>\n But the rules have changed.<\/p>\n In response to that criticism, California leaders last year created a carve out that exempts certain projects in urban areas from needing a CEQA review to move forward. The city\u2019s Planning and Design Commission in February voted to use the new law for the first time on the Alhambra Boulevard project.<\/p>\n Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation argues in its letter appealing that decision that the exemption should not apply, leading to a clash that will test whether the environmental law can remain a tool for residents to challenge projects they do not like.<\/p>\n The City Council has not publicly announced when it will hear the group\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n Kelly, 83, spent part of her childhood in a home on H Street that overlooks McKinley Park. It was built in 1915.<\/p>\n She sees preserving the area\u2019s history as a \u201clife assignment from the universe.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve grown up here and I\u2019ve grown old here,\u201d she said, \u201cand I want to do what I can to have the benefits go forward to other generations.\u201d<\/p>\n Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation said in the letter it \u201cwas created to advocate for positive growth\u201d in Sacramento and for \u201cthe preservation of safe, healthy, and livable residential neighborhoods\u2014including older and historic park-centered neighborhoods\u2014throughout the City.\u201d<\/p>\n Kelly would not say who is in the group with her.<\/p>\n \u201cThe membership is not public unless it\u2019s subpoenaed,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation\u2019s 2015 lawsuit argued that Sacramento officials violated CEQA by failing to \u201cidentify, study, and mitigate a wide range of significant\u201d traffic-related issues as part of a general plan. The case made it all the way to the 3rd District Court of Appeal, which ruled in the city\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n The two later cases challenged an effort by the City Council to make it easier to build taller and denser developments by shrinking a special planning zone<\/a> in parts of East Sacramento near Alhambra Boulevard that has a height limit on buildings.<\/p>\n A Sacramento County judge ruled in the group\u2019s favor in the first case involving the zone. An appeals court sided with Sacramento in the second case, and the planning area was ultimately reduced.<\/p>\n It is not clear how much funding Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation has, or where its money is coming from. Kelly, through the group\u2019s attorney, did not agree to a follow-up interview and a spokesperson for Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation declined to say how many members it has, but said that no one provides dues \u201cor have paid to be included.\u201d<\/p>\n But it is clear that Kelly has money to spend.<\/p>\n A trust in her name gave $32,500 in 2025 to Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton. Kelly herself also contributed $5,500 to the re-election campaign of Assemblymember Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, that same year.<\/p>\n A foundation in her name and that of her late husband Robert Kelly, a former co-owner of KCRA-TV, had more than $1.5 million in cash and investments at the end of 2024, according to a tax filing.<\/p>\n The foundation has contributed to groups that aim to preserve Sacramento history, trees and help maintain McKinley Park, though tax filings since 2012 do not show direct contributions to Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation. Another foundation in their name also did not make direct payments to the group during that time, according to its tax records.<\/p>\n Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation has a sophisticated \u2014 and apparently expensive \u2014 operation.<\/p>\n Stephen Cook, the group\u2019s attorney, is based in the Irvine office of the multinational law firm Brown Rudnick. He helps lead the firm\u2019s white collar defense, investigations and compliance work and was recently part of a team that helped defend businessman Mark Cuban in a class action lawsuit.<\/p>\n Along with Cook, Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation has a CEQA consultant it has used for years and retains the services of a public affairs company that answers media questions and sends out news releases on its behalf.<\/p>\n \u201cThe group has a number of times challenged government overreach,\u201d Cook said. \u201cJust making sure that they play by the same rules that we do, that\u2019s been CPGP\u2019s goal for a while.\u201d<\/p>\n Kelly\u2019s history of legal fights and speaking out against development projects in East Sacramento started decades before Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation filed its first lawsuit.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve known my neighbors for some time, and we\u2019ve waged many battles,\u201d she said. \u201cSome have been successful and others not.\u201d<\/p>\n In the early 1990s, a group called Friends of H Street sued the city to force it to limit vehicle traffic on the road that runs next to McKinley Park and in front of the home Kelly grew up in. Kelly was one of the plaintiffs in the case, which made it to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. It ruled in the city\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n During a 2014 City Council meeting<\/a>, she identified herself as part of a group called East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City while speaking out against the McKinley Village project \u2014 a plan to build more than 300 new homes by Sutter\u2019s Landing Regional Park<\/a>.<\/p>\n The purpose of the group was \u201cto enhance the livability of East Sacramento\u201d and the city \u201cthrough environmental and historic building stewardship; human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly, safe and beneficial environments; and by revitalizing neighborhoods and parks as a center of community life,\u201d according to a filing with the California Secretary of State.<\/p>\n During the meeting, Kelly said the council should reject the McKinley Village project due to \u201cexplosive methane from city landfill\u201d and other health concerns. Just a few months earlier<\/a>, Kelly had also urged the City Council to reject a three-story housing project that was planned on I Street near McKinley Park.<\/p>\n After she was done, then-City Councilmember Steve Hansen asked her a question:<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ve taken a great interest in the character and preservation of East Sacramento and dedicated a significant portion of your personal resources and I\u2019m trying to understand what your vision for East Sacramento is if it doesn\u2019t include senior residences or smart in-fill development?\u201d<\/p>\n Kelly did not respond.<\/p>\n But in the recent interview, Kelly said she sees herself as more just a resident. \u201cI\u2019m really a steward for McKinley Park and the neighborhood because I\u2019ve been able to survive. I\u2019ve been able to survive here for a long time.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear, though, how often Kelly is in the area.<\/p>\n The home she grew up in near McKinley Park is owned by a limited liability company, which is listed in Kelly\u2019s care and has a mailing address for a house in Washington, according to the Sacramento County Assessor\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n The Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation spokesperson did not answer whether Kelly is primarily based in Sacramento or Washington, but said \u201cKelly\u2014and her family before her\u2014have lived in the same East Sacramento neighborhood since the 1930s.\u201d<\/p>\n Phil Angelides, a former state treasurer and a developer on the McKinley Village project, sees Kelly\u2019s pursuits differently. East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City sued Sacramento after the council approved the McKinley Village project, alleging city officials violated CEQA by failing to disclose and make efforts to address air quality, public health, traffic, and other issues. Going to court cost developers over $1 million, Angelides said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe litigation was very much driven by Ms. Kelly,\u201d he said. \u201cShe hides behind these phony names. They are not lasting community institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement, the Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation spokesperson countered that it was \u201cnot surprising that Mr. Angelides \u2014 a developer with seemingly limitless resources \u2014 would oppose someone seeking to hold him and his colleagues accountable for their projects.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMaria Kelly is hiding from no one,\u201d the statement continued, \u201cand has spoken out against environmental violations and the destruction of our historical resources both individually and through neighborhood collaboration and coalitions.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018My job to act\u2019<\/p>\n The Alhambra Boulevard apartments would rise well above the mostly single-family homes that occupy a corner of East Sacramento, a few blocks north of McKinley Park.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a project that the new CEQA law appears designed for.<\/p>\n Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators pushed the change<\/a>, called Assembly Bill 130<\/a>, as a way to speed up home construction in the state\u2019s urban areas and help counteract what they saw as a strategy from local groups to use CEQA lawsuits to delay or defeat housing plans.<\/p>\n The new law expands and simplifies when an infill exemption applies. Developments can avoid CEQA reviews if they meet a series of requirements, including that they are fewer than 20 acres, in cities and on properties where homes or retail structures used to be. Instead of making the case that a city\u2019s environmental review was inadequate, residents will now be more often forced to argue that CEQA even applies at all.<\/p>\n Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation is searching for an opening. Its letter claims the project goes against the city\u2019s general plan and zoning, in part because it \u201cdoes not properly consider the existing physical characteristics\u201d of the other buildings nearby. If it can prove it, the CEQA exemption would not apply.<\/p>\n Kelly said the group is part of a coalition opposed to the apartment project called Save East Sac! It sent out fliers ahead of the planning commission\u2019s February meeting to people living in the area, urging them to show up and voice their opposition.<\/p>\n She said its leadership includes her, Carl Seymour, president of the Casa Loma Terrace \u2013 East Sacramento Neighborhood Association and Will Green, president emeritus of East Sacramento Preservation.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are emphatically not NIMBYs,\u201d Seymour said.<\/p>\n The acronym, which stands for \u201cNot in my backyard,\u201d is used as shorthand for those who are opposed to new housing developments in their neighborhoods.<\/p>\n Seymour said he welcomes \u201cappropriate development\u201d and \u201chigher density\u201d but called the project \u201cjust grotesquely out of scale with the neighborhood.\u201d<\/p>\n Even if council members share their concerns, they have a high bar to clear if they want to deny the project or force an environmental review. For years, legislators and Newsom have approved an array of changes not just to CEQA but also state housing rules that leave local officials with fewer lawful reasons to reject developments.<\/p>\n City Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum declined to discuss the specifics of the Alhambra Boulevard complex because it has not yet come before the council, but said the curtailing of local control with those laws \u201cjust makes it a lot harder to be a NIMBY now.\u201d<\/p>\n Jack Farrell, a research attorney for YIMBY Law, whose name stands for \u201cYes in my backyard,\u201d is not optimistic about Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation\u2019s chances.<\/p>\n \u201cIn short, it\u2019s a bad argument that is going to lose,\u201d he said in an email. The organization sues local governments who it believes are violating state housing laws.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are many things that could render a section of a general plan inapplicable, and thus not relevant for CEQA purposes,\u201d Farrell said. \u201cThis appeal gets itself in a tangle trying to argue against the explicit text of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n The tougher odds have not deterred Kelly. She views the changes to CEQA as part of an effort by politicians to \u201cmanipulate the system so that the public\u2019s last chance to have recourse is eliminated\u201d and feels a responsibility to put up a fight.<\/p>\n \u201cIf I feel strongly about something,\u201d she said, \u201cit\u2019s my job to act on that behalf.\u201d<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/SAC_0022_EastSacDev_HA_260401.JPG\" "\\"SAC_0022_EastSacDev_HA_260401.JPG\\"")
A lot in East Sacramento, photographed on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, that the city\u2019s planning commission approved to be developed into a six-story 332-unit apartment complex. The decision was appealed to the City Council. HECTOR AMEZCUA hamezcua@sacbee.com \u2018Not public\u2019<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/SAC_0030_EastSacDev_HA_260401.JPG\" "\\"SAC_0030_EastSacDev_HA_260401.JPG\\"")
A lot in East Sacramento, photographed on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, that the city\u2019s planning commission approved to be developed into a six-story 332-unit apartment complex. Opponents say the project is out of scale with the neighborhood. HECTOR AMEZCUA hamezcua@sacbee.com \u2018Waged many battles\u2019<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/20220812_LS_Stephen_Hobbs_016a.jpg\")