Svorinich Support for Project Criticized : Politics: The city has opposed a development involving one of his campaign donors. New allegations are made about unreported funds. The councilman denies any impropriety.

Months after the Port of Los Angeles raised serious environmental objections to a proposed waterfront development, Los Angeles City Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. endorsed the multimillion-dollar project whose principals include one of his campaign contributors.

Svorinich’s support of the project involving Union Pacific Resources Corp. came in a letter his former chief deputy claims was written by a local attorney for the company--a letter that dumbfounded officials at the Port of Los Angeles. “We were stunned, actually, because (Svorinich’s letter) was directly contrary” to a lawsuit the city of Los Angeles filed concerning the project, said a city official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Meantime, another former aide to Svorinich has told The Times he saw the councilman with an envelope containing far more in political contributions from Union Pacific Resources than Svorinich has reported. Svorinich’s most recent campaign report shows $1,400 in contributions from Union Pacific and half a dozen of its employees. But former aide John Barbieri claims he went through the envelope and saw at least a dozen checks, totaling $4,000 to $6,000.

Both the allegedly unreported contributions and Svorinich’s support of the Union Pacific Resources project have been reported to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the city’s Ethics Commission. Both agencies have refused to confirm or deny investigations into Svorinich, but have interviewed five former aides to the councilman on these and other matters in recent weeks.

Svorinich has denied any impropriety, insisting that all his campaign contributions have been reported. He also blamed his letter of support for the project on a miscommunication.

Union Pacific Resources officials involved in the project did not return phone calls for comment.

The latest allegations against Svorinich come two months after his former chief deputy and longtime friend, John Vidovich, resigned from the freshman councilman’s office, sparking a staff upheaval that led to five other firings or resignations. Since then, former aides have leveled various accusations against Svorinich, whose district runs from San Pedro to Watts. The aides have alleged that campaign contributions were brought to Svorinich’s city office and that he and an aide have done work for his Wilmington paint store on city time--both potential violations of city ethics laws.

Svorinich has strongly denied those allegations, saying they are the fabrications of disgruntled ex-employees.

The new allegations center on a powerful ally of Svorinich--Union Pacific Resources, a real estate subsidiary of the Texas-based railroad. The subsidiary is also a prominent player in Harbor-area development and politics.

Last year, the company announced plans to sell to the Port of Long Beach about 750 acres on Terminal Island for just over $400 million. The parcel included property that would be used by Toyota Corp. for a new 31-acre auto storage facility.

Los Angeles officials, including those at the port, quickly raised concerns about the project, both because it would be an economic boon for the competing Port of Long Beach and because 240 acres of the property were designated a state Superfund site. The designation was made after reports that tons of toxic waste and chemicals were dumped on the acreage during the 1950s and 1960s.

So serious was Los Angeles about potential hazards at the site that the city sued Long Beach last June, alleging that a full environmental impact assessment should be required before the sale could go through.

But three months after filing of the lawsuit, and on the same day the Port of Los Angeles reiterated its demand for a full environmental report, Svorinich sent a letter to the Port of Long Beach strongly endorsing the Union Pacific Resources-Toyota portion of the project--a key component of the sale.

That project, Svorinich’s Sept. 22 letter says, “is one that is environmentally and economically desirable. The project benefits the environment by developing portions of existing oil field properties into a state-of-the-art automobile processing facility that will mean hundreds of jobs and economic benefits to our communities.”

The letter flabbergasted Los Angeles port officials, according to several who spoke only on condition of anonymity. Said one: “Here we were trying to show there were environmental problems and he comes out with a letter supporting the project.”

Said another: “Svorinich shouldn’t have done it. And what do I make of it? That Union Pacific (Resources) made a contribution and got a favor out of it. It’s pretty simple.”

Without making that charge, Svorinich’s former chief deputy Vidovich has claimed that the councilman’s letter was written by San Pedro attorney Carmen Trutanich, a prominent fund-raiser for Svorinich whose law firm has represented Union Pacific Resources.

The Sept. 22 letter, Vidovich told The Times, was faxed to Svorinich’s City Hall office by Trutanich and brought to Svorinich on the council floor. “And Rudy said to put it on council stationery and he would sign it,” said Vidovich, who last month told The Times that Trutanich once tried to drop off an envelope of campaign contributions at Svorinich’s San Pedro office.

Trutanich denied that allegation when contacted last month. He did not return recent phone calls about the Sept. 22 letter.

Svorinich, meanwhile, denied that the letter was written by Trutanich. Instead, he claimed, it was drafted by a former staff member. “I don’t remember who,” he said.

After the letter caused an uproar among Port of Los Angeles officials, a second letter was sent to the Port of Long Beach softening Svorinich’s mention of the project’s environmental benefits.

Although Svorinich blamed the first letter on “a lack of communication” between the Port of Los Angeles and his office, former aides Vidovich and Barbieri said the councilman had long been aware of the concerns about the project’s potential environmental problems.

But Svorinich, Barbieri told The Times, seemed unconcerned about that issue. In fact, Barbieri claims, Svorinich made it clear he would not alienate prominent political supporters over environmental issues on a site such as Terminal Island.

“What . . . do I care about a toxic dump on Terminal Island?” Barbieri quoted Svorinich as saying in one closed-door meeting. “Least terns don’t vote.”

At that same meeting in Svorinich’s San Pedro office, Barbieri claims, he also saw the councilman with an envelope containing far more in contributions connected to Union Pacific Resources than Svorinich’s last campaign disclosure report reflects. The report, filed last month, listed $1,400 in contributions from the company and several of its employees.

But Barbieri claims he saw thousands more in contribution checks, ranging in amounts from $50 to $500. They included, he alleged, one check for $200 or $250 from a Union Pacific Resources employee he knows. The check, Barbieri claims, had the employee’s name but the post office box number for Union Pacific Resources.

Svorinich’s reports do not list the employee as a contributor. The employee did not return numerous phone calls for an interview about the matter.

The councilman insisted that his campaign reports are complete. “All the checks from UP and any of (its) employees are reported,” he said.

Barbieri’s claims, he added, are “another version of the smear of the week” directed at him by his former employees.

Svorinich’s press secretary, Tom Kruesopon, added: “I think the community of San Pedro and the people of the 15th District want the councilman to accomplish the job he was sent to do and they are smarter than to believe the words and unsubstantiated allegations of fired employees.”

Noting Svorinich’s recent weeklong trip to Washington, D.C., on a variety of projects, Kruesopon also said: “We are trying to accomplish a job and we will not be distracted by the selfishness and self-serving interests of these former staffers.”