Dear Fellow Sunset Mesa Property Owners, I hope you are well!

Regarding Amendment #2, I believe we should look very carefully at the fairness and consequences of this proposal before voting to restrict a legitimate form of modern construction.

There is an important issue that seems to be missing from the discussion: most homeowners with traditional gable-roof houses have no practical ability to benefit from a rooftop. Their existing roof design does not provide that option. Therefore, Amendment #2 places very different consequences on different groups of owners, and will affect they final voting decision.

If you already own a gable-roof home, voting YES to restrict flat roofs does not take away an option you currently have. In practical terms, you are being asked to restrict something that may have no relevance to your own property. By contrast, an owner who wants to rebuild with a modern flat-roof design would lose a potentially valuable architectural option.

That creates a fundamental imbalance: those who cannot use the option are being asked to decide whether those who can use it should be allowed to have it.

This is not about accusing anyone of bad intentions. It is simply recognizing that people naturally place greater value on options that are available to them. If I cannot have a rooftop because of the design of my existing house, I have little personal incentive to protect that option for someone else. But the consequences for the homeowner who wants to build a modern home are very real.

The fact that a rooftop is not an option for your home should not be a reason to deny that option to someone else's home. We should ask whether there is a legitimate, measurable problem that requires a restriction—not whether we personally like or would choose a rooftop. If there are concerns about privacy, noise, height, or visibility, let's address those concerns with reasonable standards that apply fairly to everyone.

The amendment's arguments regarding privacy, neighborhood character, and noise also deserve closer examination.

Privacy: A flat roof does not automatically create a privacy problem, as it could be inferred from the description in the Amendment. If a particular rooftop creates an unacceptable view into a neighboring property, that can be addressed through setbacks, screening, landscaping, sight-line requirements, or limitations on specific features. We should regulate the actual privacy impact—not prohibit the entire architectural concept!

Neighborhood character: Sunset Mesa is a living community, not a neighborhood frozen in the past. Homes will be renovated and rebuilt, and modern architecture can coexist with traditional homes while still respecting reasonable standards for scale, height, appearance, and compatibility. Preserving our neighborhood's character should not mean preventing it from evolving. But we should also ask ourselves: what exactly is the “character” we are trying to preserve today? Nearly two years after the fires, approximately three-quarters of the properties that once stood here remain vacant lots of brown dirt, with rebuilding still largely ahead of us. This is a community in the process of being rebuilt and redefined—not one that can realistically be preserved exactly as it was before. As we rebuild Sunset Mesa, shouldn't we focus on creating a strong, attractive, modern and cohesive community for the future rather than trying to freeze its architectural character in the past?

Noise: Noise is also not inherently a rooftop problem. A pool party, music, conversation, or a BBQ gathering at ground level can affect neighbors just as easily. If excessive noise is the concern, then let's enforce reasonable noise and quiet-hour standards that apply to everyone, rather than assuming that noise becomes unacceptable simply because an activity occurs on a roof.

I am not suggesting that rooftops should be unrestricted. I am suggesting that we regulate measurable impacts—not architectural preferences.

If privacy, noise, height, or visual impact are legitimate concerns, let's establish clear standards that apply fairly to all homeowners. But obstructing an entire category of modern construction style because some owners cannot or do not wish to use it, is unnecessarily restrictive.

We should not take away an option from some homeowners simply because it is not an option for others.

For these reasons, I believe Amendment #2 deserves a NO vote.

Let's protect what truly makes Sunset Mesa valuable—our community, our property values, and our ability to make thoughtful improvements to our homes—while allowing our neighborhood to evolve responsibly with the times.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

Dr. Javier Muniain

3503 Shoreheights Dr