City wants to know ‘What’s the holdup?’

The proposal to build a large-scale residential development in Simi’s Runkle Canyon is in limbo with the state, and city officials are growing more frustrated every month that passes without a final decision.

“I think the state of California is doing a total disservice to the residents of Simi Valley by not stepping up and addressing what they committed to doing,” Mayor Pro Tem Glen Becerra said. “Everyone is just sitting here waiting now because promises to the city have gone unmet.”

In November 2008, officials from the Department of Toxic Substances Control told the City Council their office would make a clear-cut determination about whether or not it’s safe to build in Runkle Canyon by summer 2009.

Located at the end of Sequoia Avenue along Simi’s southern border, the proposed Runkle Ranch development is adjacent to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory—a former rocket engine and nuclear test site known to be contaminated with hazardous chemicals and radionuclides.

But last summer’s deadline came and went. Today, even the response plan to collect new soil samples at the 1,595-acre property slated for 461 homes remains unapproved.

The plan includes additional soil sampling for dangerous radionuclides strontium-90 and cesium137 in the proposed development’s nonresidential areas.

Norm Riley, the state’s field lab project director at the time, told the Simi Valley Acorn in August that he hoped to have an answer soon. He said the lag in approving the work plan was not a “delay,” just DTSC “being thorough.”

And yet, six months later, the plan hasn’t moved forward and the city is no closer to getting Runkle the final stamp of approval it is looking for.

“This isn’t about building homes. . . . There isn’t an overwhelming need for new homes in Simi,” Becerra said. “My concern is, is the land safe or not? For them to not give us an answer is not doing service or justice by our residents who deserve to have an answer.”

Controversy over whether the site poses a health and safety risk has been raging for years.

In 2004, the City Council approved the project after it was given a clean bill of health in an environmental impact report, but developers voluntarily halted grading in 2006 due to the concerns of nearby residents who called the results of the previous studies into question.

Earlier this month, Becerra and Mayor Paul Miller met with representatives from Runkle Canyon LLC—a joint partnership between home builders KB Home and Lennar—who wanted to discuss the stalled response plan.

Last fall, Miller and Becerra said they weren’t concerned with the DTSC’s taking longer than originally planned. But their moods have changed.

The pair said it seems the problem stems from the removal last August of Riley, who was guiding the cleanup of the field lab as well as the investigative work at Runkle Canyon. Riley was replaced by Rick Brausch, DTSC’s policy and legislative director and a 25-year veteran of the department.

The DTSC said Riley was simply reassigned, but he retired from state service soon after he was replaced.

“It looks like they’ve dropped the ball,” Miller said. “We were hoping to get some word from them, and whatever politics are going on in that agency, I can’t say. . . . It’s important to get an answer because nothing is going to happen until the council is convinced there isn’t a toxic substance up there.”

Becerra said it is “weird” and unfortunate that Riley was “forced into retirement” since he was trustworthy as a third-party arbitrator and stuck to his word.

Brausch said he understands the city’s “desire for timeliness” but denied the notion that the delay has anything to do with the change in leadership.

“I can assure you that there is no delay that has occurred from anything other than trying to manage this project effectively,” he said. “At the end of the day, public trust and a scientifically supported decision is the goal.”

Brausch said the delay is largely due to comments received from residents and nuclear activists who are criticizing the objectivity of the consultant that was hired by the developer to do the work, as well as the amount of sampling proposed.

He said the DTSC is working with the developer to come to a resolution regarding the gathering of the data that will foster community confidence that the results are accurate.

There’s a range of options for doing this, Brausch said, and he didn’t rule out finding a new consultant—though he said that might not be possible or beneficial. He said the department could also be present in the field during sampling and collect its own duplicate samples.

He added that the DTSC would have liked to tap the radiologic expertise of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency but that the agency’s specialists are tied up doing work related to the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab.

Brausch didn’t have a timeframe for when the plan would finally be approved, only saying the DTSC hopes to move forward “as soon as we can.”

Keith Jajko, spokesperson for the developer, gave the Acorn a prepared statement.

“Runkle Canyon LLC representatives contacted the City Council to make sure they were aware that the lack of information on the draft response was not due to inaction by Runkle Canyon LLC. We have been ready to implement the response plan since it was submitted and have repeatedly called for its approval.”