AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST MIAMI CITY COMMISSIONER MARC DAVID SARNOFF, MR. SERGIO GUADIX, AND POSSIBLY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CURRENT CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATION FOR VIOLATION OF
ORDINANCE No. 72-82, § 1, 11-21-72)(g).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION
1 – 5 THE BASIS OF FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THIS COMPLAINT IS MADE
5 THE VIOLATION AS IT APPLIES TO
COMMISSIONER SARNOFF AND MR. GUADIX
5 – 14 A NARRATIVE OF THE ACTIONS AND MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN AUGUST 6, 2010 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010, IN SUPPORT OF THIS COMPLAINT.
INTRODUCTION
This is a complaint against Miami City Commission Chairman Marc David Sarnoff, Mr. Sergio Guadix, and any other individuals found to have acted improperly in the matter of the investigation and handling of City of Miami Code Enforcement CR: CE20110016964.
The complaint allege serious ethical violations were committed over the period of August 4th, 2010 to August 27th, 2010, related to the operation of the law firm, Sarnoff and Bayer, operated by Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff and his partner Neil Bayer, out of a home that Commissioner Sarnoff owns adjacent to his principal, homesteaded residence at 3100 Virginia Street. The property in question is located at 3000 Shipping Avenue, Coconut Grove.
The complaint involves the actions of Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff to use his official position to improperly influence and pressure members of the Miami City administration and the refusal of the City of Miami’s Code Enforcement Department as a result of that influence and pressure to follow the traditional and standard, time sensitive procedures that it employs on a daily basis with the regular – not politically connected - citizens of the City of Miami when dealing with similar allegations of violation.
By allowing what was essentially a private matter between a resident and the City’s Code Enforcement Department to become a major political football, involving private meetings, extensions of time required to conduct an investigation and the other actions engaged in by these senior members of the City’s administration warrant the allegation that they kowtowed under political pressure, and that Mr. Sarnoff engaged in a series of actions that would in any context be considered an exploitation of his official power as defined in of (Ord. No. 72-82, § 1, 11-21-72)(g) .
The evidence to support the claims against Mr. Sarnoff and Mr. Guadix is as follows:
THE BASIS OF FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THIS COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT IS MADE
The basis for this complaint centers on a very simple and straightforward issue, even though the documentation and narrative of meetings, emails, and actions by various City officials described below might seem to have created a very confusing –albeit on purpose – series of actions intended to create confusion and dispute where none exists.
From the years 2001, through, 2010, Mr. Marc David Sarnoff and Mr. Neil Bayer, practiced law as partners in the “Law Firm”, Sarnoff & Bayer, at 3000 Shipping Avenue, Coconut Grove, Fl, a private residence owned by Mr. Sarnoff.
The City of Miami Master Zoning Ordinance 11000, which was in effect from before 2001 through May 20, 2010, established a clear set of criteria for allowing an “individual” to operate a home office. That criteria spelled out in Article 9, Section 906.5.1, stated that in order to operate a home occupation in a residential district the individual had to:
(a)The home occupation shall be conducted by not more than two (2) persons, one (1) of whom shall reside on the premises.
(b)The use of the dwelling unit for the home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its occupants, and the area devoted to the conduct of the home occupation shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of the residence, exclusive of the area of any open porch or attached garage or similar space not suited or intended for occupancy as living quarters.
(c)Home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building only when it is proven that the accessory building existed prior to the application and it complies with all requirements of the district where it is located.
(d)There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the building or premises as a result of the conduct of such home occupation, or any visible evidence thereof except not to exceed one (1) sign, not exceeding one (1) square foot in area, non illuminated and mounted flat against the wall of the residence.
(e)No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volume than would normally be expected in the neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by such occupation shall be met off the street and other than in a required yard adjacent to a street.
(f)No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, or odors detectable to the normal senses off the lot, if the home occupation is conducted in a detached dwelling, or outside the dwelling unit if conducted in any other form of dwelling. No equipment or process shall be used which creates visible or audible interference in any radio or television receiver, or causes fluctuations in line voltage, off the premises.
(g)No commodity shall be sold and/or delivered upon the premises.
(h)Home occupations shall be limited to the following: Architect, artist, broker, consultant, dressmaker, draftsman, engineer, interior decorator, lawyer, manufacturer's agent, notary public, teacher (excluding band instrument, and group instruction), and other similar occupations. Specifically excluded from permitted home occupations are physicians, dentists and medical laboratories.
(i)A home occupation shall be subject to all applicable city occupational license and other business taxes.
In the letter from (Commissioner) Marc Sarnoff addressed to Mr. Carlos Migoya, City Manager, Ms. Julie Bru, City Attorney and Ms. Lourdes Slazyk, on August 25th, but supposedly delivered on August 24th, and cited by Mr. Guadix as his reason for not serving Mr. Sarnoff with a Notice of Violation to Mr. Crespo in their August 24th meeting, Mr. Sarnoff stated in this letter that: (Exhibit 1, Page 2, Paragraph E,F,F.)
“E. That on or about December 1, 2001, a Class I Special Permit application was submitted for approval of a law office to be located on the portion of this duplex zoned property having an address of 3000 Shipping Avenue. That said Class I Special Permit was assigned Number 01-0488 and the application was paid for by Receipt No. 01182854. (Exhibit 2)
F. In accordance with the Class I Special Permit process, the Property was inspected and recommended for approval by a Zoning Inspector and Net Administrator.
F. That on or about December 27, 2001, the Class I Special Permit was approved with the following findings by the Zoning Administrator:
Approved. As recommended by the Net Administrator. Further
Subject to all conditions and limitations of Zoning Ordinance 11000.”
A review of the Exhibit 2 submitted by Commissioner Sarnoff that accompanied this letter reveals that almost midway down page 1 of that document there is a section that states, HOME OCCUPATION, followed by the handwritten words, Law Office. On the next line it lists the criteria related to the home office and circled is the words ““one only” outside employees.” (Exhibit 2.)
There is no dispute that had Commissioner Sarnoff conducted himself as he attempted to do so in his representations used to obtain the Special Class I permit, there would never have been any questions of his operating a sole practitioner law office as a home occupation.
The problem, and it is an insurmountable problem, is that instead of operating as a sole practitioner, Commissioner Sarnoff operated a “Law Firm,” with a law partner who was neither an owner of the property in question, nor “resided on the premises,” which is the first criteria spelled out in 906.5.1.(a) to wit:
(a)The home occupation shall be conducted by not more than two (2) persons,
one (1) of whom shall reside on the premises.
The additional fact that in addition to Commissioner Sarnoff and Mr. Bayer they shared a secretary, and that Mrs. Sarnoff was also an employee of the firm, violates the requirement that “not more than two (2) persons,” are allowed to “work” out of the home office.
It is these irrefutable facts – and not any questions about square footage, or parking, or any other portions of Section 906.5.1 – and supported by documents including Florida Bar registrations, Florida Annual Corporate Reports, phone book listings, the Commissioner’s bio on his City of Miami website, and even a sign on the door that states SARNOFF & BAYER, that establishes without fear of contradiction that Commissioner was illegally using his property at 3000 Shipping Avenue, as the location for a “Law Firm. (Exhibits 3 – 17.)
It was this knowledge that led him to engage in actions to “exploit his official position” as a way to thwart any investigation by the City of Miami’s Code Enforcement Department, and in so doing, corrupted Mr. Sergio Guadix, the director of that Department into using his official position to aide and abet in the “exploitation” of his own official position in the furtherance of this scheme.
THE VIOLATION
Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff, by the virtue of his position as a Miami City Commissioner attempted to use the power of his office to illegally influence and manipulate the inspection process required by the provisions of the City of Miami’s Ordinance 11000, and 311 Code Violation Procedures, is in violation of (Ord. No. 72-82, § 1, 11-21-72)(g) to wit:
“(g) Exploitation of official position prohibited. No person included in
the terms defined in subsection (b)(1) through (6) shall use or attempt
to use his official position to secure special privileges or exemptions for
himself or others except as may be specifically permitted by other
ordinances and resolutions previously ordained or adopted or hereafter
to be ordained or adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.”
Mr. Sergio Guadix, as the Director of the City of Miami’s Code Enforcement Department, and the person responsible for the impartial enforcement of the responsibilities and duties of his Department as described in City of Miami Ordinance 11000, and 311 Code Violation Procedures is also in violation of (Ord. No. 72-82, § 1, 11-21-72)(g) to wit:
“(g) Exploitation of official position prohibited. No person included in
the terms defined in subsection (b)(1) through (6) shall use or attempt
to use his official position to secure special privileges or exemptions for
himself or others except as may be specifically permitted by other
ordinances and resolutions previously ordained or adopted or hereafter
to be ordained or adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.”
Upon further investigation, the Ethics Commission may find that additional individuals within the Miami City administration knowingly and in collusion with Commissioner Sarnoff and/or Mr. Guadix also engaged in actions that violated (Ord. No. 72-82, § 1, 11-21-72)(g).
A NARRATIVE OF THE ACTIONS AND MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN AUGUST 6, 2010 AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2010.
In the following narrative, the writer sets down a chronological timeline of how this incident started, the meetings that took place, the documents that were provided Mr. Guadix, and the inescapable conclusion that in addition to Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff and Mr. Sergio Guadix engaging in a manner that “exploited their official positions,” a number of City of Miami officials, including City Manager Carlos Migoya, City Attorney Julie Bru, Assistant Zoning Director Lourdes Slazyk and City of Miami Building Official Mariano Fernandez, have decided that the best way to avoid becoming further entangled in this mess they will willfully and knowingly violate Florida Public records law by refusing to provide documents that would either support the claims raised in this complaint, or reveal their complicity in this matter.
THE FIRST OFFICIAL COMPLAINT BY JOHN EL-MASRY
On August 4th, 2010, Mr. John El-Masry, owner of Mr. Moes in Coconut Grove, in an email, alleged numerous violations occurring at Sarnoff and Bayer, 3000 Shipping Avenue, Miami FL 33133, to Mr. Sergio Guadix, the Director of Code Enforcement for the City of Miami, Ms. Julie Bru, City Attorney, all of the City Commissioners, State Attorney Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, as well the office of the Ethics Commission.
On August 6th, 2010, Mr. El-Masry called the City’s 311 Complaint Line and made a formal complaint. In his complaint, Mr. El-Masry cited numerous documents as evidence, alleging that over a period of at least ten years, Mr. Sarnoff had operated Sarnoff and Bayer out of a residential unit (zoned R-3).
On August 9th, Mr. Al Crespo went to the offices of Code Enforcement in an effort to learn about the process involved in the department’s efforts to investigate this complaint, and to gather information about a topic he was not that familiar with. During his visit he was able to obtain a copy of the status report on the complaint that Mr. El-Masry had filed, and learned that the investigator assigned to the case was Ms. Brenda Marmol. He also attempted to speak to Mr. Guadix, but Mr. Guadix was otherwise occupied and Mr. Crespo left.
On August 10th, Mr. Crespo attempted to reach Ms Marmol on the phone, and left he a message requesting that she call him. When she did not, Mr. Crespo returned to the Code Enforcement Office and spoke with Ms. Yolanda Padrino, a member of Mr. Guadix’s staff explaining the situation to her. Ms. Padrino called Ms. Marmol on her cell phone, and after a brief conversation relayed the information from Ms. Marmol that she was not going to be conducting a visit to 3000 Shipping Avenue and that Mr. Crespo should talk with Mr. Guadix.
Mr. Guadix was again unavailable. On August 12th, Mr. Crespo sent Mr. Guadix an email expressing his interest in this matter and detailed several outstanding issues surrounding his office’s failure to respond to Mr. El-Masry’s August 6th complaint. (Exhibit 18.)
On August 13th, Mr. Crespo visited the offices of Code Enforcement and was told that Mr. Guadix had taken the day off.
THE FIRST MEETING BETWEEN MR. GUADIX AND MR. CRESPO
On Thursday, August 19th, Crespo visited the offices of Code Enforcement and was finally able to have a meeting with Mr. Guadix. At that meeting, Mr. Guadix volunteered the following information.
1. He had met with Commissioner Sarnoff, City Manager Carlos Migoya, Ms. Capo and other unidentified parties at the City Manager’s office on Monday, August 16th.
2. During the course of that meeting Commissioner Sarnoff refuted the claim that he was doing anything illegal, and cited previous allegations that had been made regarding his use of his home to operate an illegal law firm, claiming that all of these allegations were unfounded and had been made for political reasons.
3. Mr. Guadix also said that the Commissioner, when asked if he would allow an inspection of the property, stated he would not.
4. Mr. Crespo raised the issue of the alleged permit that Commissioner Sarnoff had claimed to possess during his 2006 campaign, when this issue was first raised during a radio debate on the Jim Defede Show between himself and Mrs. Linda Haskins, his opponent. Mr. Guadix stated that Commissioner Sarnoff did not provide him with any such documents during this meeting.
5. This in turn led Mr. Guadix to explain to Mr. Crespo that several years ago, when he was the Assistant Director of the Code Enforcement Department, he was approached by Mr. Mariano Loret de Mola, who was then the Director, and that Mr. De Mola, had proceeded to tell him that having heard complaints about Mr. Sarnoff’s illegal use of his house for a law office, he has personally gone and investigated and found no violations.
6. Mr. Crespo then asked for copies of any public records that might exist related to
this incident, and Mr. Guadix indicated that there were no documents in any of the
office’s computers that related to this visit or conversation. Mr. Guadix then went on to say that the only document that he thought might exist would be a copy of a supposed floor plan that might have detailed the portion of the property at 3000 Shipping that was being used as a “law office” at the time, but that unfortunately this document, if it existed, was part of the city’s document collection currently controlled by the Iron Mountain company over their contract dispute with the city.
7. Mr. Crespo and Mr. Guadix discussed the various issues involved and Mr. Crespo detailed his own investigation regarding this matter, especially the problems associated with Mr. Neil Bayer, Mr. Sarnoff’s cousin and law partner operating out of the house because of the fact that it was not his house, nor was the house homesteaded. Mr. Crespo also briefly touched on the issues that would apply to a commercial property, such as fire inspections, OSHA violations and the like, and was assured by Mr. Guadix that none of these issues applied in the current situation.
8. Mr. Guadix ended the interview by indicating to Mr. Crespo that he believed that Commissioner Sarnoff was probably in violation and that he was going to have an inspector serve the Commissioner with a Notice of Violation either the next day or on Monday.
When Mr. Crespo got home that evening, he sent Mr. Guadix 3 emails with copies of the documents that he had cited during the meeting related to the allegations surrounding the illegal use of the 3000 Shipping Avenue house as a law firm. (See Exhibits 3-17.)
The documents that Mr. Crespo provided were copies of a filing that Mr. Neil Bayer, Mr. Sarnoff’s law partner, had filed earlier in the year for a new corporation in which he listed himself as the Registered Agent at to 3000 Shipping Avenue address; the Annual Corporate Reports for both Mr. Bayer and Commissioner Sarnoff in which they listed the 3000 Shipping Avenue address as the location of their Law Firm.
THE SECOND MEETING BETWEEN MR. GUADIX AND MR. CRESPO
On Tuesday afternoon, August 24th, Mr. Crespo visited the Code Enforcement Office to pick up a copy of the Notice of Violation he assumed had been served on Mr. Sarnoff, and was told by Mr. Guadix that at noon that day, Mr. Sarnoff had hand delivered a Memorandum to the City Manager challenging the Code Enforcement Office’s right to serve him with a Notice of Violation.
Mr. Guadix proceed to tell Mr. Crespo that he had been informed of this when he met the City Manager in the lobby of the MRC building, and was shown the copy of the memorandum as the City Manager was on his way to deliver it to the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Crespo asked for a copy of this Memorandum, and was told by Mr. Guadix that he did not have a copy himself.
Mr. Crespo briefly raised a question with Mr. Guadix regarding a photograph that he had emailed to him on August 21st, which showed 4 garbage cans outside the entrance of 3000 Shipping Avenue, and which appeared to be the garbage cans for both the 3000 Shipping and 3100 Virginia Street properties. Mr. Guadix brushed the issue aside indicating that it was no big thing.
When asked what would happen next, Mr. Guadix stated to Mr. Crespo his frustration with what had happened, how all of this had now created a problem within his Department as it related to the timeliness issues associated with the compliance requirement of a 311 Complaint, and that he hoped to have a decision from the City Attorney by the end of the day. Mr. Guadix, then gave Mr. Crespo a business card, and wrote his cell phone number on the back.
THE THIRD MEETING BETWEEN MR. GUADIX AND MR. CRESPO
On Wednesday morning August 25th , Mr. Crespo called Mr. Guadix on his cell phone, and was told that while Mr. Guadix had not heard anything yet, he did state that he now had a copy of the Memorandum. Mr. Crespo requested a copy, and Mr. Guadix, asked that Mr. Crespo send him an email requesting the document. Mr. Crespo, did so, and enlarged his request to all the documents in the possession of the Code Enforcement Office on this matter.
On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Crespo again visited the offices of Code Enforcement and was provided a copy of the memorandum and the other documents. Still no decision had been made by the City Attorney’s Office. During the meeting, which was short, Mr. Guadix revealed to Mr. Crespo that he was now being required to prepare a report to the City manager detailing all that had taken place regarding this incident. (See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. Guadix also continued to express his frustration over the process, reiterating once again his personal belief that Mr. Sarnoff, based on his investigation -including talks with individuals who had been inside the 3000 Shipping Avenue property and had described the layout – was indeed guilty of the violation, and that given the time that had passed, there was no assurance that Mr. Sarnoff had not managed to rearrange and move out furniture to sanitize the property. A video had been shot several days before outside of the 3000 Shipping Avenue property of a van from a document retrieval company collecting boxes of files from the house.
That evening, Mr. Stephen Murray and Mr. Crespo wrote letters to Ms. Julie Bru, the Miami City Attorney detailing their concerns regarding what had transpired, and raising questions about the ethical and abuse of power issues related to the Commissioner’s actions. (Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20.)
On Thursday, August 26th, at around noon Mr. Crespo once again called Mr. Guadix, and was informed that the decision had been made to allow Code Enforcement to serve the Commissioner with a Notice of Violation and that it would be done that afternoon. Mr. Crespo requested a copy, and was told to come by the office after 4 P.M..
THE FIRST MEETING BETWEEN MR. GUADIX, MS. CAPO, MR. CRESPO AND MR. MURRAY
A little after 4 P.M., Mr. Crespo, accompanied by Mr. Stephen Murray, arrived at the Code Enforcement Office and met with Mr. Guadix and Ms. Jessica Capo, who were in Mr. Guadix’s office. When Mr. Guadix attempted to pull up the Notice of Violation on his computer so as to make copies for Mr. Murray and Crespo, he discovered that it had not yet been entered by the inspector, and he had to make a call to Inspector Marmol, instructing her to stop what she was doing and enter the Notice immediately.
During the conversation that ensued while everyone waited for the Notice to be entered into the computer, Mr. Crespo raised the issue of the report that Mr. Guadix was going to have to prepare to the City Manager about this incident, and Mr. Guadix confirmed, in Mr. Murray’s presence that he did indeed have to prepare such a report.
There was additional discussion between Mr. Murray and Mr. Guadix about the ethics and behavior of Mr. Sarnoff and the actions of Mr. Guadix in allowing this matter to go as long as it had, and the perception that this incident raised about a two-tiered level of treatment for regular citizens and politicians.
During this conversation Mr. Guadix continued to check his computer to verify the entering of the violation, and when it did, he had copies made for Mr. Murray and Mr. Crespo, and informed them that he, Ms. Capo and Inspector Marmol would be visiting the property at 3000 Shipping Avenue the next day.
Although the initial complaint, and the subsequent conversations and emails between Mr. Guadix and Mr. Crespo centered on a list of potential issues related to the illegal use of the 3000 Shipping Avenue property, the actual Notice of Violation only cited one (1) specific violation: “Failure to follow the requirements for Home occupation business.” (Exhibit 21.)
THE FIFTH MEETING BETWEEN MR. GUADIX, AND MR. CRESPO
On Monday August 30th, Mr. Crespo, having heard that Mr. Guadix had voided the Notice of Violation and had issued an Affidavit of Compliance, returned to the Code Enforcement Office to get a copy. (Exhibit 22.)
When he arrived, both Mr. Guadix and Ms. Jessica Capo were in Mr. Guadix’s office. The mood and conversation were different that that which Mr. Crespo had experienced the previous Friday. Among one of the first things that Mr. Crespo requested, besides a copy of the Affidavit was a copy of the report that Mr. Guadix had said the week before he had been requested to write detailing all that had transpired from the time that the original complaint by Mr. El-Masry had been filed. Now, Mr. Guadix denied that he had ever been asked to write such a report.
On the issue of voiding the Notice of Violation and issuing the Affidavit, Mr. Guadix offered a description of what had taken place during the Friday visit, and describing how they had found the interior of the property at 3000 Shipping Avenue, along with looking at the back yard of the property, which had been a subject of verbal complaints over the years because of allegations that Mr. Sarnoff had supposedly violated the 30% green requirements of houses in the Grove.
Mr. Guadix assured Mr. Crespo that everything had been in compliance and that he and his staff had been completely satisfied with what they found, and consequently his conscience was clear in ordering the Notice of Violation voided.
In addition to the copy of the Affidavit of Compliance, Mr. Crespo was also provided a copy of an email that Mr. Guadix had sent to “Commissioner “ Sarnoff on Monday morning, August 30th. This body of this email is reprinted below in its entirety: (Exhibit 23.)
“Mr. Chairman, attached you will find the Affidavit of compliance for
complaint #2010016964, and a copy of the violation screen from our
Complaint tracking system (City-view). This screen shows the violation
was voided since at the time of our actual physical inspection we found
that no more than 25% of the property located at 3000 Shipping AVE
was being used for office space, and we also found that all of the
documentation concerning Mr. Neil Bayer was changed from 3000
Shipping Avenue to another address.”
While Mr. Guadix failed to include the other address that Mr. Bayer had transferred his documentation, it turns out to have been 5840 SW 119 Street, Coral Gables. On September 1, 2010, the Coral Gables Office of Code Enforcement issued a Notice Of Violation, Case # 1009954, against Mr. Bayer for “operating a business from a residential area.” (See Exhibit 26.)
In addition, Mr. Guadix and/or the Inspector failed to include any mention of the sign “Sarnoff & Bayer,” that has been affixed to the front wall of the property just below the house number 3000. (See Exhibit 16.)
Mr. Guadix raised the issue of this sign during this meeting and informed Mr. Crespo that he had advised Mr. Sarnoff that the sign had to be removed. Mr. Sarnoff supposedly assured Mr. Guadix that the sign would be taken down immediately that afternoon.
On Friday, September 3rd, as part of the updated version of an article that appeared in the South Florida Business Journal, by Oscar Pedro Musibay, included a photo of that sign that had been taken at 10 a.m. that morning.
THE SECOND MEETING BETWEEN MR. GUADIX, AND MR. MURRAY
On Tuesday, August 31st, Mr. Murray was at Miami City Hall for the Emergency
Meeting of the Miami City Commission regarding the current budget shortfall. During the course of the meeting, Mr. Murray had occasion to meet Mr. Guadix, who proceeded to berate Mr. Murray in a profanity laden rant about his feelings about the members of the City Commission, his own actions in the Sarnoff matter, and that he was going to go to the Miami-Dade State’s Attorney and seek an investigation into the actions that Mr. Murray, Mr. El-Masry and Mr. Crespo had engaged in to pressure him into issuing a Notice of Violation.
Shortly after this meeting, Mr. Murray prepared a sworn affidavit of what took place during that meeting, and it is included as (Exhibit 24.)
THE SECOND COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. SARNOFF
On Thursday, September 2nd, Mr. John El-Masry was contacted by a third party and advised that he should refile his complaint against Mr. Sarnoff and the illegal use of the 3000 Shipping Avenue property. Mr. El-Masry did.
On Friday, September 3rd, Mr. Crespo was on a distribution list of an email from Mr. Guadix, which detailed instructions and directions to 4 City officials/employees regarding the property at 3000 Shipping Avenue. Here is the text of that email:
“William, Please send an inspector today to 3000 shipping Ave and if the sign is still outside showing Sarnoff & Bayer have the inspector sent a TKT warning letter for violation 1811 pertaining to the nonconforming home occupation sign.
Lourdes Slazyk, Can you kindly provide me with a determination concerning Homestead exemption as it pertains to Home Occupations. More specifically does the fact that the homestead exemption is not being claimed at the home occupation site constitute prima facie evidence that the permit tee does not reside at the property as required by the zoning Ordinance 11000 requirements for home occupation where it states that the permit fee or the employee must reside at the property?
Julie Bru, Can you Kindly refer this case to the County’s property appraisers office to address the Homestead issue. Since Commissioner Sarnoff states that he lives at 3000 Shipping Ave, but his Homestead exemption is at 3100 Virginia ST. This request has been done in the past by your office in other cases.
Mariano Fernandez, It has been brought to my attention that Home Occupations are subject to (ADA) American Disabilities Act . If this is correct please send inspector to 3000 Shipping AVE . I also suggest that you obtain a list of all other permitted Home occupations in the City because I don’t believe that they have been subject to these regulations in the past.”
On Wednesday, September 8th, Mr. Crespo filed a formal complaint with City Manager Carlos Migoya and Ms. Diana Gomez, the Director of the City of Miami’s Finance Department, regarding the allegation that Commissioner Sarnoff’s cousin and law partner had maintained his law practice at 3000 Shipping Avenue for at least the last 5 years and had never applied and/or received an Occupational License to practice law at that address.
(Exhibit 25.)
On Thursday, September 9th, Mr. Crespo sent Mr. Guadix an email pointing out some inconsistencies in his behavior between his actions in the Sarnoff case, and in Flava Works, Inc. et al, a case that the City of Miami litigated all the way to the Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and also included a public records request following up on his September 3rd email. (Exhibit 26.) Mr. Guadix replied by claiming that he had no responding documents:
“Mr. Crespo,
At this time I’m not aware of any other document concerning the e-mail of SEPT 3rd .
Sergio Guadix
City Of Miami
Code Enforcement Director”
Mr. Crespo replied to that response with his own re-request for responses to Mr. Guadix’s September 3rd email:
Dear Mr. Guadix,
In your September 3rd, email to members of the Regalado administration you addressed 4 specific questions to 4 individuals. To refresh your memory, below is a copy of that email. Does your reply today indicate that none of these individuals replied to the questions you posed in this email?
For example, did William respond about the sign on Sarnoff's door?
Did Lourdes respond to your question about determining homestead exemption?
Did Julie respond to your request that she refer this case to the county?
Did Mariano respond to the question of the ADA?
Those are the emails that I asked for in my public records request?
Perhaps, you misunderstood, since it seems that a few folks are now beginning to claim that they didn't understand me about various issues.
Thank you,
al crespo
On September 13, 2010, Mr. Crespo sent emails to City Attorney Julie Bru, Ms. Lourdes Slazyk and Mr. Mariano Fernandez, requesting copies of any and all documents related to their receipt of Mr. Guadix’s September 3rd email.
On September 14th, in response to another email from Mr. Crespo to Mr. Guadix revealing some new information related to Mr. Bayer’s behavior in this mess, Mr. Guadix write to Ms. Brenda Marmol, the Code Enforcement Inspector assigned to the Sarnoff case, instructing her to issue a new Notice of Violation against the 3000 Shipping Avenue property: (Exhibit 27.)
“Brenda,
Based, on the new information below cite the property this morning located at 3000 Shipping AV for violation (1688), and conducting a business without a BTR. Do not comply the violations until the following:
1. You verify that Mr. Bayer does not have an office established now at 3000 Shipping AVE.
2. We receive written zoning interpretation concerning the Homestead rule and the home occupation ORD.
3. We receive the copies of the Original Class I including the sketch showing the exact location of the approved home occupation set up.
4. We receive written legal opinion concerning the question about citing the property for No BTR and if we can charge for the BTR going back to when the documentation shows Mr. Bayer at the property.”
This new Notice of Violation finally reflects that Mr. Guadix has come to a realization that the manner in which he and his Department were lied to and pressured by Mr. Sarnoff cannot continue to how sway over the operation of the City of Miami Code Enforcement Department, and that although a day late, and a dollar short, does serve to mitigate Mr. Guadix’s collusion in this matter.