August 10, 2026 

Dear Neighbors: 

We hope you and your families are continuing to recover after the Palisades Fire. We  write to you as concerned homeowners regarding the SMPOA Board’s second attempt  to amend the CC&Rs.  

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the fire, the Board is continuing to expend significant  time and resources pushing four major, permanent changes to our 60-year-old CC&Rs,  rather than prioritizing bread-and-butter issues that matter much more to homeowners  returning to Sunset Mesa, including security, safety, fire resilience, becoming a Firewise  community to lower insurance premiums, beautifying the neighborhood, and expediting  homeowners’ ability to rebuild and return.  

We ask you to vote “NO” on all four proposed Amendments to the CC&Rs. 

In June, some of us asked the Board to provide all SMPOA homeowners with an  objective “pro” and “con” explanation of each proposed Amendment in connection with  their re-vote. However, the Board has not yet done so, nor has the Board provided  sufficient information to educate the community to make a decision when they vote.  

We feel a responsibility to ensure that all SMPOA residents have adequate information  regarding the negative impacts of the proposed Amendments before the voting period  opens, to counterbalance the one-sided communications distributed thus far by the  Board. We have therefore prepared this explanation regarding why each proposed  Amendment deserves a “NO” vote. 

Amendment 1 — “Loser Pays” Attorney Fees: Vote “NO” 

● Homeowners Lack Adequate Information to Make this Decision: The Board  has not disclosed the number of lawsuits they have lost in recent years. Nor have  they disclosed the number of current or anticipated legal disputes in which they  are involved, the amount of money the Association has spent on legal fees since  the fire, the extent of their insurance coverage, and the potential adverse  financial impact this Amendment could have on our community. No one should  be asked to make a decision of this magnitude in a vacuum. 

● This Amendment Shifts the Financial Risks of Litigation to Homeowners: If  the Board loses any legal dispute, the shortfall could be passed straight to all  SMPOA homeowners through special assessments or higher dues—meaning we

would ultimately pay for any litigation that involves the Board, at a time when we  are all under financial stress related to rebuilding and restoring our homes.  ● It Discourages Reasonable Settlements: Shifting legal fees onto the losing  side raises the stakes of every dispute, which has the potential to fuel litigation,  discourage reasonable settlements, and distract the Board from spending their  time on high-urgency issues such as safety and security. 

Amendment 2 - Roof Deck Prohibition: Vote “NO” 

● The Board is Not Being Transparent About the Significant Detrimental  Impact this Amendment Would Have on Families in Our Neighborhood: The  Board has not disclosed the number of roof decks that existed before the fire, the  number of roof decks that currently exist on standing homes, or the number of  roof decks that were engineered and submitted to the Architecture Committee  (AC) before the Board proposed this sweeping change to our CC&Rs.  

● This Proposed Amendment Unfairly Targets Residents Who Want to  Rebuild their Pre-Fire Homes: Multiple homes lost on January 7 had roof decks  that gave their owners valuable outdoor living space. For some of these  homeowners, the roof deck provided their only view of the ocean. Some of these  SMPOA residents are now trying to rebuild exactly what they had—like-for-like  reconstructions that keep the same rooflines and meet every height, setback,  and OVI requirement in the CC&Rs. However, the Board and AC are currently  refusing to approve the architectural plans of homeowners who seek to rebuild  roof decks that existed before the fire. Additionally, we understand that individual  Board members improperly asked County Planning to deny permits to Sunset  Mesa fire rebuilds containing roof decks. 

● Roof Decks are Not and Have Never Been Prohibited by Our CC&Rs: Roof  decks have existed in Sunset Mesa for years and are not a pervasive concern.  This proposed Amendment attempts to add a brand-new and unnecessary  restriction. Notably, the Board’s prior attempt to restrict a rooftop deck failed in  court.  

● The Board is Not Being Transparent About the Fact that this Proposed  Amendment Conflicts with a California Statue Designed to Help Fire  Survivors Rebuild: After the Palisades and Eaton Fires, the California State  Legislature passed Civil Code 4752, which forbids homeowner associations from  interfering with like-for-like fire rebuilds. Although the Board’s proposed rooftop  deck ban directly implicates this statue, the Board has taken a position that it is  not subject to Civil Code 4752 because it is not a Davis-Stirling HOA. However, 

the California State Senator who drafted the Senate Bill underlying Civil Code  4752 wrote a letter to our Association in June 2026 in which she expressly  clarified that the law is intended to apply to all HOAs. The Board has not shared  that letter with the community. 

● The CC&Rs’ Objective Standards Adequately Protect Neighbors: Height,  setback, and OVI rules address the real concerns that our CC&Rs are designed  to protect. As a member of the Board acknowledged during a recent town hall,  rebuild plans that meet those objective standards should be approved. The  CC&Rs already provide adequate tools to protect Sunset Mesa residents: if a  roof deck creates OVI, then it should be rejected. If it does not create OVI, then it  should be allowed.  

● Unwise and Unfair to Impose New Restrictions on Construction Right Now:  Changing the rules now penalizes owners already deep in design and  engineering, strips away value and enjoyment they reasonably expected under  our longstanding CC&Rs, and invites the very litigation the Board claims to want  to avoid. It also has the potential to frustrate and slow down many homeowners’  ability to rebuild, which in turn delays construction and slows down our entire  neighborhood’s ability to return to normal.  

● The Proposed Rooftop Deck Ban is Overbroad and Overreaching: At a  minimum, the Amendment should include reasonable carveouts. For example,  residents who had pre-fire roof decks must be allowed to rebuild and/or continue  to enjoy what they had before the fire. Roof decks that do not create OVI should  also be allowed. And, residents whose homes are situated in the back of Sunset  Mesa’s “stadium” should be able to take advantage of their properties’ unique  attributes. The proposed Amendment, as drafted, goes way too far.  

● The Board’s Arguments Against Decks are Arbitrary and Unreasonable: The Board claims that roof decks could create noise from parties, music, and  social get-togethers. However, the CC&Rs DO allow balconies and backyards,  and in theory, people and their guests could make noise, socialize, look into one  another’s homes, and play music from their balconies and in their backyards.  Does this mean we should also ban balconies and backyards? Of course not.  Targeting roof decks is arbitrary and damages particular homeowners who have  an opportunity to maximize the value of their property through careful design  choices.  

● Violates California Public Policy that Encourages Rebuilding without  Interference: Finally, these Amendments are being proposed at a time when the  State of California (via Civil Code 4752), Los Angeles County, the Coastal 

Commission, and the Governor have all coalesced around the same basic public  policy goal: to help fire victims rebuild what they lost with minimal interference  and without piling on new obstacles. The proposed Amendments move Sunset  Mesa in the opposite direction at a time when residents need certainty and  support the most, and when we all want to see our neighborhood built back  without delay. 

Amendment 3 — 30-Day Minimum Lease Term: Vote “NO” 

This is not the right battle to pick when our neighborhood is currently woefully  underpopulated. We urge a NO vote for these reasons: 

● Reduces Flexibility: Short-term rental income may help many homeowners  survive the long path to recovery. Many of us are burdened with high carrying  costs but are not yet ready to come home, or would like the option to take a  break from living in the burnout zone. We deserve more choices about how to  utilize and monetize our property, not less. This Amendment removes optionality  from homeowners trying to navigate a fire-damaged, high-cost environment. 

● What About the Olympics?: The Olympic games are coming to LA in 2028.  Why shouldn’t Sunset Mesa homeowners be permitted to find meaningful ways  to leverage their most valuable assets during a period when many out-of-town  visitors will be searching for short term rentals? 

● More Empty Houses = More Crime Risk: The Board suggests that this  Amendment is needed to preserve our neighborhood’s “quiet” character. But let’s  be honest – right now Sunset Mesa is desolate and feels too quiet for comfort. A  rule that blocks homeowners from renting their homes means more houses will  sit dark and empty. This means less safety and security for those homeowners  returning to standing homes. 

Amendment 4 — The So-Called “Future-Proof” Voting Change: Vote “NO” 

This proposed Amendment replaces tract-by-tract voting with a single community-wide  majority for all future CC&R changes. We urge a NO vote for these reasons: 

● The Board is Not Being Transparent About the Results of the Initial Vote: The Board has not provided the community with a detailed vote tally by tract. And  never provided an explanation regarding why the deadline for the initial voting  period was extended mid-vote. Nor has the Board disclosed the amount they  have spent on their first and second attempts to amend the CC&Rs this year.  The members of the HOA are entitled to transparency and accountability.

● Removes a Key Safeguard: The current tract-by-tract requirement prevents  larger tracts from imposing sweeping changes on smaller ones and stops any single bloc from rewriting the rules for everyone. 

● Concentrates Power in the Board: Rewriting the CC&R’s original voting  provisions would make it far easier for the Board to push through future  aggressive restrictions like the currently-proposed Amendments. 

● Encourages More Legal Maneuvering by the Board: What is the Board trying  to “future proof” against? This proposed Amendment is merely a legal maneuver  to try to circumvent the Board’s prior failed attempt to amend the CC&Rs.  

For all of these reasons, we respectfully ask you to vote “NO” on all four of the Board’s  proposed Amendments. A “NO” vote avoids Board overreach, protects our property  rights and our financial flexibility, keeps the CC&Rs as written, and preserves fair, like for-like rebuilding under the original rules that have long applied in Sunset Mesa. 

Sincerely, 

The Undersigned Sunset Mesa Homeowners 

Sara and Josh Epstein 

Alex Filler and Miriam Feygenson 

Rachel and Max Nichols 

Dave and Samantha Karsh 

Becky Rickley 

Francis Riegler and Alessandra Amadeo 

Linda Kaye