County Rejects Hearings Into Sunshine Dump : Solid waste: A judge will decide Thursday whether expansion of the landfill can resume amid legal challenges.

A move to reconsider the expansion of Sunshine Canyon Landfill north of Granada Hills was defeated Tuesday as the political posturing and legal maneuvering that has long surrounded the project intensified.

Responding to complaints from residents who live around the now-idle dump, and from Los Angeles city officials, Supervisor Mike Antonovich asked the Board of Supervisors to order public hearings into whether dump operator Browning Ferris Industries Inc. violated any laws when it began clearing the canyon by felling mature oak trees in June.

Supervisors approved the project last November--allowing the dump to expand its capacity to 17 million tons in a sensitive oak woodland just outside the Los Angeles city limits.

Antonovich’s motion failed when his fellow supervisors refused to second the idea.

Although they testified in support of the motion, dump opponents said they were just as pleased it did not pass.

“This means we can go straight into court,” said Rosemary Woodlock, an attorney representing the North Valley Coalition of Concerned Citizens. “This was not a loss for us at all.”

Indeed, the war over Sunshine Canyon is being fought on so many fronts that the effects of individual actions often are difficult to gauge. This week alone, for instance, the project faces three potentially critical points.

Antonovich’s motion was the first--and both sides characterized the outcome as a victory. Today, the Los Angeles City Council is scheduled to discuss settling its lawsuit against the county and Browning Ferris. And Thursday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge will decide whether to make permanent a temporary order barring Browning Ferris from any further work on the dump until legal challenges are resolved.

Although the negotiations between Browning Ferris and the city are secret, documents obtained by The Times show that last week Browning Ferris offered to reimburse the city $500,000 in legal fees and donate $1 million toward community improvements if the city drops its lawsuit.

Browning Ferris also wants the city to end restrictions on a road leading through a portion of the dump that was closed by the city in 1991. City officials say Browning Ferris needs their permission to use the road.

*

In return, the settlement would allow the city to dump trash at the site when it opens. Angry at the city for refusing expansion in its jurisdiction, county officials retaliated by limiting the amount of city trash the landfill could accept.

But sources said Browning Ferris this week has balked at city counteroffers, which reportedly ask for as much as $700,000 more in legal fees and community improvements.

One City Council source suggested that the negotiations appeared to be hitting an impasse. Deputy City Atty. Keith Pritsker declined to comment on the negotiations as did Browing Ferris spokesman Arnie Berghoff.

Unless the city settles today, Pritsker and Woodlock will face off against Browning Ferris attorneys Thursday to argue whether preparation work should continue at the dump site while legal challenges are pending.

In June, a judge issued a temporary restraining order against Browning Ferris after crews cut down about 1,800 oak trees in the days after a county committee allowed preparation work to commence. Opponents claim Browning Ferris did not have proper clearance from state authorities.

Even if the city drops out of the lawsuit, Woodlock said, the North Valley Coalition will continue to fight the landfill. But, she said, the group will ask the city to reimburse it about $400,000 in legal fees--money she said the city saved by piggybacking on the coalition’s lawsuits.