Svorinich Sued in Housing Dispute

After months of coaxing his aging mother, John Fentis finally persuaded her to sell the California Hotel, a rundown property in San Pedro that she had inherited from her husband in 1992.

A Community of Friends, a nonprofit organization that provides housing for mentally ill adults, wanted to buy the hotel for $382,500 and renovate it with federal funds. Financing was arranged and escrow opened in July 1994.

Then Los Angeles City Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. stepped in. Within a year, the sale was in jeopardy, and the Fentis family--including Pearle Fentis, a 75-year-old in failing health--had been criminally prosecuted as slumlords and fined $11,000.

Today, it is Svorinich’s turn to go to court. In a federal lawsuit headed for trial, the Fentises allege that the harbor-area councilman, in violation of anti-discrimination laws, sought to kill the hotel sale to satisfy constituents who viewed housing for the mentally ill as a drain on the San Pedro economy.

The lawsuit charges that Svorinich worked behind the scenes to sink the project and encouraged the city’s slum housing task force to crack down on the hotel when the Fentises vowed to fight the councilman’s attempts to stop the deal.

As a result, family members say, a $3-million renovation of the property was delayed for 18 months and they were forced to make almost $50,000 in repairs that were eventually torn out.

“The city took a sledgehammer approach to the Fentises when there was absolutely no reason to. What happened to them was ridiculous,” said William J. Davis, an Irvine attorney representing the family.

Svorinich declined to discuss the case. His lawyer, Deputy City Atty. Anita Parys, denied that the councilman or building inspectors engaged in any wrongdoing.

“The city acted appropriately under the circumstances, and the task force inspection was made in the normal course of business,” Parys said. “There is nothing peculiar about this case.”

Parys says the Fentises suffered no financial loss because the City Council eventually approved the project and the California Hotel was sold to A Community of Friends at market value.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. It accuses Svorinich and city officials of violating the federal Fair Housing Act, which bars discrimination in the provision of housing.

In this case, the Fentises say that they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Pearle Fentis’ health deteriorated because of Svorinich’s attempts to keep the mentally ill out of the California Hotel.

“This was an abuse of the city’s authority,” said John Fentis, 49, a Long Beach deputy city prosecutor. “Instead of finding a reasonable method by which to settle this dispute, they just persisted in prosecuting us.”

The controversy began in July 1994, when the Fentises signed a sales agreement with A Community of Friends, a Los Angeles-based organization that wanted to use the 40-room hotel on Pacific Avenue to house mentally ill adults.

A Community of Friends planned to renovate the property with the help of tax credits and federal funds administered by the city of Los Angeles. The funding hinged on council approval.

Court records show that city housing officials recommended the California Hotel for a $1.3-million federal loan, scoring it third out of 17 applications for the money.

The project, however, crashed head-on into public concern that San Pedro was saturated with projects designed to help the mentally ill, substance abusers, the handicapped and low-wage earners.

The San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce wrote Svorinich saying that the hotel would not be “a positive factor for the community’s attempts at attracting business to Pacific Avenue.”

Svorinich’s view of the project was crucial because he represents the district and because he was head of the City Council’s Housing and Community Development Committee. The proposal had to clear the panel before the full council could consider it.

The lawsuit charges that Svorinich would only vote for the project as long as the mentally ill were excluded. A key piece of evidence is a December 1995 letter from the councilman’s office to A Community of Friends. In the margin is a note saying “no mental tenants.” Court records state that it is in the handwriting of Barry Glickman, Svorinich’s chief of staff.

Two weeks after the letter was sent, the housing committee tabled the project. The lawsuit alleges that Svorinich, who was the only committee member present that day, wanted to delay the project so it would not get federal funding.

Fentis threatened to sue the city, and his attorney wrote to Svorinich, demanding a reversal of the committee’s decision.

A week later, in February 1996, Jeanette Applegate, a building and safety commissioner, showed up at the California Hotel accompanied by inspectors from the city’s slum housing task force. The unit usually deals with recalcitrant landlords and severe building code violations.

Janet Schaaf-Gunter, a San Pedro businesswoman who has emerged as a major opponent of more special-needs housing in the harbor area, had lodged a formal complaint with the building department.

Gunter said she contacted the city on behalf of friends who lived behind the California Hotel and were concerned about the building’s condition and unsavory tenants.

“The place was a sewer,” Gunter said. “It was clear the owners had done zero over the years to correct the situation.”

Fentis contends that Gunter’s motivations were more political than altruistic. The lawsuit states that Svorinich, as a result of the California Hotel dispute, appointed Gunter to a committee that looked into ways to limit special needs housing in San Pedro.

During the inspection, the assistant manager of the hotel said in a deposition that he overheard building and safety Commissioner Applegate tell an inspector that “Rudy [Svorinich] really appreciates your coming down.” Applegate has denied the substance of the conversation. But another inspector has said that Svorinich’s name was mentioned, and that it was unusual for a commissioner to accompany inspectors to a site.

David Lipman, who was head of the task force, also said that the inspection of the California Hotel was handled in an extraordinary fashion because the unit was involved in the first inspection.

According to city records, the task force found a host of problems with the hotel. Among other things, the Fentises were ordered to upgrade the electrical system, replace worn-out flooring, fix chipped sinks, provide smoke detectors, and rid the premises of cockroaches and vermin. They were given 30 days to make improvements.

The lawsuit states that the Fentises spent almost $50,000 for repairs--work that would have occurred months earlier had Svorinich not interfered with the project.

Having received no assurances that the councilman would reverse himself, the Fentises sued the city in April 1996--the same month the city filed 29 misdemeanor counts against them for code violations.

The family alleges that standard building inspections over the years had never found violations serious enough to call in the task force. Fentis said his father, who originally owned the hotel before he died in 1992, was usually given a year to make corrections by the city.

The suit alleges that violations cited by the task force were minor and that in some cases inspectors disagreed among themselves on whether they had found a violation.

After the federal case was filed, Svorinich reversed himself in May 1996 and approved the project. The councilman, according to the lawsuit, said federal law compelled him to change his vote.

But the Fentises say that did little to halt their criminal prosecution as slumlords. In December 1996, Fentis, his wife and his ailing mother pleaded no contest to six misdemeanor counts, and the judge fined them $11,000.

“If not for Svorinich, the hotel would have been renovated . . . much sooner,” said Davis, the Fentises’ attorney. “He prevented the rehab and then complained about the building’s condition.”