Operators of Landfill Seek Hearing Delay : Weldon Canyon: The move may allow Waste Management time to regroup and shore up support for the proposed dump.

Faced with almost certain defeat before the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, the operators of the proposed Weldon Canyon landfill asked county officials Tuesday to indefinitely postpone hearings on the matter.

“We’ve bent over backwards to address what we thought was every possible concern,” said Mike Williams, a spokesman for Waste Management of North America Inc. “But it seems like now there are other concerns that we need to work out with the county.”

Last week, Supervisor Maggie Kildee, considered the deciding vote on the landfill, said a new dump would not be the best way to solve the county’s solid waste problems. She suggested that the supervisors find other ways to dispose of the garbage.

Although a county Planning Commission staff report issued Monday recommended approval of the dump at a third of its originally proposed size, the supervisors are expected to vote 3 to 2 to reject the plan at their July 6 meeting.

A postponement would allow Waste Management time to regroup and shore up support for the Weldon project, county Planning Director Keith Turner said. The planning commissioners will decide Thursday whether to postpone the public hearing on the Weldon report.

Opponents of the landfill, which would operate in a canyon between Ventura and Ojai, blasted the request as a stalling technique that would further delay an application process already in its eighth year.

“What are they going to tell us that they haven’t already said?” asked Ojai City Councilwoman Nina Shelley. “It only makes sense to settle the matter right now because opposition is just going to continue to grow.”

Although Waste Management officials said they want to wait until the county can further explain the role of recycling in the landfill proposal, critics said the company was only trying to stall until next year’s elections, when Supervisor Maria VanderKolk is up for election. VanderKolk has strongly opposed the landfill.

Waste Management spokesman Williams denied the charge. “I think we’ve learned through dealing with this county for a number of years that it would not be wise to speculate on county politics,” Williams said, adding that the company still hopes to persuade VanderKolk to support the landfill.

“She hasn’t made her decision yet,” Williams said. “None of them have until the vote occurs.”

VanderKolk, who has said she is unsure whether she will seek reelection, declined comment late Tuesday.

But Supervisor John K. Flynn, who supports the landfill proposal, said he advised Waste Management officials to wait until “the political climate changes” before pushing the project.

“One year from now there are elections in two districts,” said Flynn, referring to VanderKolk’s and Supervisor Vicky Howard’s terms. “The political leadership in those two districts could change and would allow maybe a different view.”

Added Flynn: “I think it is pretty clear it wouldn’t fly right now.”

Supervisor Susan K. Lacey has said she opposes opening a Weldon Canyon landfill, while Howard has joined Flynn in favoring it.

If the commission denies Waste Management’s request, the panel will hear public testimony on the landfill Thursday and then wait a week to make its recommendation to the supervisors on whether the county should approve the proposal.

The landfill plan would then go before the supervisors, who could also decide to postpone their decision.

VanderKolk, Lacey and Kildee said Tuesday they would be opposed to granting Waste Management an extension.

If the Planning Commission approves Waste Management’s request, Williams said company officials will use the delay to persuade county planners and supervisors that the landfill is a good idea.

“It is really the satisfaction of the county that is at hand,” Williams said. “We’ll take however long it takes to clear things up.”

If the request for postponement is denied, Waste Management will proceed with the landfill proposal as originally planned, Williams said.

“This is in no way indicating any attempt to withdraw the project,” he said. “This is just another step in a long process of steps.”

Tina Daunt is a Times staff writer and Sara Catania is a correspondent.