A state official told the City Council nine months ago that it could expect a clear-cut determination about whether or not it’s safe to build in Runkle Canyon most likely by this summer.

But with the end of August just two weeks away and the plan to collect new soil samples at the 1,595acre property slated for 461 homes not yet approved, an imminent answer seems unlikely.

Norm Riley of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) made that November statement inside council chambers in Simi Valley.

Last week he told the Simi Valley Acorn that the involved parties are still working out just how many samples should be taken and where, and that once the response plan is approved the actual investigative work wouldn’t take long to complete.

“I hope that we will have an answer soon,” he said.

When asked what is delaying the approval of the plan, Riley said he would not characterize it as a “delay” but rather as the DTSC “being thorough.”

“We want to make sure that the investigation of the site is adequate and so we’re being very thorough about looking at the proposal for additional sampling,” said Riley, the DTSC’s Santa Susana Field Lab project director.

The site of the proposed Runkle Ranch development is at the end of Sequoia Avenue along Simi’s southern border. The property is adjacent to the field lab, a former rocket engine and nuclear test site known to be contaminated with hazardous chemicals and radionuclides.

The Simi Valley City Council approved the project in 2004 after it received a positive environmental impact report, but developers voluntarily halted grading in 2006 due to concerns of nearby residents.

Last April, Runkle Canyon LLC—a joint partnership between home builders KB Home and Lennar—signed an agreement with the DTSC that required them to submit documentation summarizing previous investigations that occurred at the project site between 1999 and 2007.

After reviewing the documents, the DTSC requested that the developer prepare a response plan for addressing the state’s remaining requests. Dade Moeller & Associates, based in Richland, Wash., was hired to do the work.

Submitted in January, the draft plan stirred up concerns from residents and nuclear activists who criticized the objectivity of the developer’s consultant and the amount of sampling proposed.

Work under the draft plan entails additional soil sampling for strontium-90 and cesium-137 in the proposed development’s nonresidential areas—which are closest to the field lab—and the removal of a small amount of tar material from drainage areas.

Though the DTSC has been reviewing the plan for more than six months, the City Council members said they are okay with the DTSC taking longer than originally planned.

“We want them to do a thorough job. I’m not concerned at this point,” Mayor Paul Miller said. “We want to make sure we get it right so whatever time they need is fine with us.”

Councilmember Glen Becerra agreed.

“I have a high level of confidence that Norm (Riley) is pushing this as hard as he can to get this done as quickly as he can,” Becerra said. “Obviously, I would like to see the plan approved as soon as possible because I think the residents that are up there deserve to have the peace of mind that I am hoping will come with a clean bill of health for the property.”

Keith Jajko, spokesperson for Runkle Canyon LLC, said Riley indicated during a field lab work group meeting in July that he expected the plan to be approved in a few weeks.

“We’ve said all along we’re willing to work with the department and anxiously await the time when the response plan will be approved,” Jajko said. “We’re ready to commence the work when the DTSC gives us the goahead.”