Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 1 of 43
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95 816
`(408) 883 -4428
`
`legal@ash ley gjov ik .com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik , an individual,
`
`Plaintiff’s 2 n d Request
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`for Judicial Notice
`
`(Supplement to 7/31)
`
`
`
`In Support of Plaintiff ’s
`
`Opposition to Defendant’s
`
`Apple Inc., a corporation,
`
`Motions to Dismiss & to Strike
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion Hearing & Ca se
`Management Conference:
`Dept: Cour troom 5 (Zoom)
`Judge Edwa rd M. Chen
`Date: Augus t 28, 2024
`Time: 9 :30 AM PT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 2 of 43
`
`
`
`I. Judicial Notice Arguments; Points &
`Authorities
`
`
`Plaintiff Ashley Gjovik respectfully requests, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. E.
`
`201, that the Court take judicial notice of the following of the public records
`
`described below and attached as Exhibits. Plaintiff incorporates her Memorandum
`
`of Points and Authorities filed 7/31.
`
`I verified the authenticity of each of these documents. A true and correction
`
`version of each document is attached in each exhibit. I declare under penalty of
`
`perjur y this is true and correction.
`
`Dated: August 18, 2024.
`
`Signature:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
`
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`
`Email: lega l@ashleygj ovik.com
`
`Physica l Address :
`Boston, Massachusetts
`
`Mailing Address:
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816
`
`Phone : (408) 883 - 4428
`
`
`
`— 1 —
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 3 of 43
`
`A. Appendix I: Exhibits re: First Request (7/31 Repeated)
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`RECORD
`DESCRIPTION
`
`ASSOCIATED CLAIMS
`
`FACTS TO BE NOTI CED
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`US EPA RC R A
`I ns p ec t i o n Rep o r t fo r
`3 2 5 0 S c o t t B l vd
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- U S E PA a ll e ge d it i d e nt i fi e d at l ea st 1 9
`un i qu e v i o l at i o n s o f t he RC R A d ur i n g
`RC R A- s pec i fic i n sp ec t io ns in Au g ust
`2 0 2 3 a nd Ja nu a r y 2 0 2 4 .
`- Th e se in s pec t io n s o c c u r re d d ue to a
`pu b l ic ( G jov ik ’s) t i p & Ap p le wa s
`in fo r m ed a b o ut t h is by U S E PA i n
`Au g ust 2 0 2 3 .
`- U S E PA a ll e ge d t h at Ap pl e i s t r eat in g
`a n d di s po si n g o f RC R A - re gu la ted
`ha z a r do us wa ste w it ho ut r eq u ir ed
`pe r mit s, re po r t in g , o r t r a n sp o r t at i o n
`ma n i fe st s .
`- Th e c he m ic a l ex h au st fo r so m e o f t he
`fac to r y o p er at i o ns i s r el ea se d d ir ec t ly
`i nto t h e o u tdo o r a i r.
`- Th e c he m ic a l ex h au st fo r so m e o f t he
`fac to r y o p er at i o ns i s r o u te d i nto a 5 5 -
`ga ll o n c a r b o n d r u m t hat E PA a ll eg e s
`Ap p le .
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`M ap : L o c at i o n o f 3 2 5 0
`S c o t t Bl vd S a nt a Cl a ra ,
`C A, 9 5 0 5 4 .
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- Di st a nc e b et wee n 3 2 5 0 Sc o t t B lvd a n d
`ad jac e nt b u i ld i ng s.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 4 of 43
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`RECORD
`DESCRIPTION
`
`ASSOCIATED CLAIMS
`
`FACTS TO BE NOTI CED
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`H a z ard o us P rod uc t i o n
`G a se s
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- Da ng er s o f t h es e ga s es .
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`S il ic o n Val l e y t ox ic s p os e
`a ‘ Bh o p a l’ pe r il
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`I CS C f o r : Ar s i n e ,
`Pho s p hi n e, S t i b i n e,
`F l u o r i n e , D i b o ra n e ,
`S i l a n e
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- Da ng er s o f t h es e c h e m ic a ls .
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`S a n Jo s e M e rc u r y Ne w s ,
`L S I L O G I C
`ad ver t i s em e nt .
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`-
`
`I nd ust r y c o nc er n s a b o ut l o c at i ng
`c hi l dr e n o r o t he r s en s it i ve po pu lat io n s
`ne a r c o n duc to r fa b r ic at i o n .
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`L e t t er f ro m Ca l i fo r n i a
`As s em b ly m em b e r
`Co n n el ly
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- G over n m e nt c o nc e r ns a b o ut t h e
`po te nt ia l fo r c at a st ro ph e d u e to t he us e
`o f toxic ga se s i n s e mic o nd uc to r
`fa b r ic at i o n.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`Wa r ni ng t o S il ic o n Val l e y
`o n c o mp u t e r c h i p g a s es
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 5 of 43
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`RECORD
`DESCRIPTION
`
`ASSOCIATED CLAIMS
`
`FACTS TO BE NOTI CED
`
`EXHIBIT I
`
`Ac t i v is t c al l s
`se mi c o nd u c t o r i n d us t r y
`h i s t o r y’s m os t d a ng e r o u s
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`Bl a s t s c e ne ‘ pre t t y
`b r ut al’
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`Res id e n t s fl e e h o m es i n
`fe a r of n e w b l a s t
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`EXHIBIT L
`
`Tox ic g as l e ak i s
`‘ i ne v i t ab l e’ d oc t or w ar n s
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`EXHIBIT M
`
`D ead l y g a s s t ore d n e x t
`d oo r t o So ut h B ay h o me s
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- P ub lic c o nc er n s a b o ut t h e po te nt i a l fo r
`c at a st ro p he du e to t h e u se o f toxic ga s e s
`in se m ic o n duc to r fa b r ic a t io n.
`
`EXHIBIT N
`
`M o d el i ng Tox i c Ga s
`Rel ea s e s Us i ng a
`S c r e en i n g M o d el
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- Th e p o te nt ia l fo r c at a st r o p he fr o m t h e
`ga se s u se d fo r s e m ic o n d uc to r
`fa b r ic at i o n.
`
`EXHIBIT O
`
`I nt er na t i o na l Fi r e a n d
`Z o ni ng Co d e ; Ca l i fo r ni a
`Fi r e Co d e
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us Ac t iv it i es ,
`N u is a nc e , I I E D, Ta m n e y ,
`Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 1 1 0 2 . 5
`
`- Co d e r eq ui re m e nt s fo r s e mic o nd uc to r
`fa b r ic at i o n a n d u se o f toxic ga se s.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 6 of 43
`
`B. Appendix II: Exhibits for Second Request (New)
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`RECORD
`DESCRIPTION
`
`ASSOCIATED
`CLAIMS
`
`FACTS TO BE NOTI CED
`
`EXHIBIT P
`
`I T h o ug h t I w as D y i ng ; My
`A pa r t me nt w as b u il t o n
`Tox ic Was t e , S F Bay Vi ew
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us
`Ac t iv it ie s, N u is a n c e ,
`I IE D , st at u te o f
`li m it at io n s
`
`I nc o r po ra ted by Re fer e n c e:
`-
`- W hat G jov ik ac t ua lly sa i d i n Ma rc h
`2 0 2 1 .
`
`EXHIBIT Q
`
`Ap p l e Ca r e s a b o u t Pr i v acy
`Unl e ss Yo u Wo r k a t Ap p l e
`
`S ec t i o n 1 7 2 0 0
`
`I nc o r po ra ted by Re fer e n c e:
`-
`- G jov ik ’s st a te me nt s a b o ut G o b b l er.
`
`EXHIBIT R
`
`Ex a m p l e D e e d Po l l
`(“c o m fo r t s t u d y ”)
`
`S ec t i o n 1 7 2 0 0
`
`EXHIBIT S
`
`2 0 2 2 Po l i c e Rep o r t “c i v i l
`m at t er ” o f Ap p l e p r i v a cy
`p o l i c i e s
`
`S ec t i o n 1 7 2 0 0 ; I I E D
`Out ra ge
`
`I nc o r po ra ted by Re fer e n c e:
`-
`- Ap p le’s u se o f r est r ic t i ve c o ven a nt s , a n d
`t he ter m s o f t h o s e d o c u m e nt s , r el ate d to
`m ed ic a l st ud i es a nd pr o duc t st u di e s o n
`e mp l oye es .
`
`- Po lic e r ep o r t su m m a r iz e d t hat App le
`b u gg i ng G jov ik ’s pr o p e r t y a nd
`sur vei ll i ng h er w a s a c iv il i ssu e d u e to
`Ap p le’s a gg re ssi ve “sur vei ll a nc e”
`po lic i es fo r e mp l oye es . ( No r e qu ir e d
`m e ns r e a).
`
`EXHIBIT T
`
`C AR B I nve s t i g at i o n o f
`3 2 5 0 S c o t t B l vd
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us
`Ac t iv it ie s, N u is a n c e ,
`I IE D ,
`
`- A n o t h er o p e n i nve st i gat i o n i nto t h e fa b
`at 3 2 5 0 Sc o t t B lvd .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 7 of 43
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`RECORD
`DESCRIPTION
`
`ASSOCIATED
`CLAIMS
`
`FACTS TO BE NOTI CED
`
`EXHIBIT U
`
`2 0 2 0 EC H O Pa g e fo r 3 2 5 0
`S c o t t Bl vd
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us
`Ac t iv it ie s, N u is a n c e ,
`I IE D , st at u te o f
`li m it at io n s
`
`I nc o r po ra ted by Re fer e n c e:
`-
`- Th e c o nte nt i n pa ge re fe re nc ed a s o f
`S ep te mb er 8 2 0 2 0 .
`
`EXHIBIT V
`
`Ap r i l 2 0 2 3 Per m i t
`Ap p l i c a t i o n fo r a ne w
`“VO C Ab at em e nt S ys t e m”
`at 3 2 5 0 S c o t t Bl vd .
`
`Ult ra ha z a r do us
`Ac t iv it ie s, N u is a n c e ,
`I IE D , Twit ter p o st s
`ge n er a l ly
`
`- T i m i ng a nd c o nte nt o f a pp lic at i o n.
`- Ru le 4 0 7 exc e pt io n: i m p eac h m e nt .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 8 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appendix: Exhibits
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 9 of 43
`
`
`
`P. Exhibit P: Ashley Gjovik, “I thought I was Dying; My Apartment was
`
`Built on Toxic Waste,” SF Bay View, March 2021.
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 10 of 43
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 10 of 43
`
`
`
`My doctors screened meforall sorts of severe, permanent and often fatal illnesses. The symptoms were so
`debilitating and unpredictable that | felt | had no control over my body. | really thought | could be dying.
`
`| bought books on coping with terminal illness; notified friends of the location of my will and power of attorney
`documentation. | slept with my phone by my bed in case | had to call 911 in the middle of the night. | was utterly
`terrified.
`
`| spent the next six months on medical leave and disability, contemplating what my future would hold. | work full time
`as a program manager while attending law school to become a public interest attorney. But faced with an apparent
`severe long-term disability or even a fatal illness, | had to consider if | needed to quit my job and drop out of school -—
`and what that would mean for my future.
`
`In September 2020 | stumbled upon thefirst hint of what was actually happening to me. At that time, the wildfires
`were burning and smoky air covered the Bay Area. | have asthma, so|tried to weatherproof my apartment, blocking
`all outside air from entering and running air purifiers.
`
`where | wasliving, which is when things really got eerie.
`
`My indoorair quality monitors showed low particulate levels and everything looked great. However, shortly after, |
`started getting nosebleeds and hallucinations. I'd wake up almost every night thinking there were massive
`earthquakes shaking my bed.
`
`A friend suggested | check if carbon monoxide might be causing hallucinations. | checked a new, more advancedair
`quality monitor and, to my surprise, the monitor showed very high levels of something called “tVOCs.” | didn’t know
`whatthat meant, but | noticed something compelling.
`
`Ashley purchased numerousair quality monitors to be able to monitor the “tVOCs’ in her apartment. She quickly found a long history
`of VOCsin the soil and groundwater on her apartment's property as well as at nearby sites, including several EPA Superfund sites
`less than a mile away.
`
`One of my most bizarre symptoms since moving in was waking up every few weeksexactly at 3 a.m. and feeling like
`| was choking and going to vomit. When | looked, the “VOCs” on my monitor spiked exactly at 3 a.m. | also noticed
`the tVOCs seemedto rise and fall at different times of the day when | was having the worst symptoms. | began to
`think that there was an important correlation between this data and my symptoms.
`
`The air quality monitor read that the VOCs repeatedly spiked exactly at 3 a.m. each night — correlating directly to her sudden 3 a.m.
`feelings of nausea and choking.
`
`| spent the next few days buying more air quality monitors for additional data points, all of which showed high levels
`of tVOCs,rising and falling. | contacted my property manager, Irvine Company, about my concerns. Irvine Company
`knew | had been sick and was also helping meinvestigate the “earthquakes.”
`
`| tald them about the high tVOCs and that | thought it could be causing my health issues and the earthquake
`hallucinations. | asked them to investigate, but they refused to help.
`
`Within a few days,| learned that Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are high vapor pressure compounds emitted
`as gases, and “tVOCs" are the total amount of VOCspresentin a certain location. | learned from reading
`government documentation that unexpectedly high levels of (VOCs, especially when their emissions fluctuate, can
`be caused by something called “vaporintrusion,” which is when solvents and other hazardous materials are in the
`ground — soil or water — and as they evaporate, the vapors rise up and “intrude” into buildings.
`
`| was vaguely aware of the EPA Superfund program and knew there were sites all over Silicon Valley, so | started
`searching online to see the details of the sites closest to me. | found the environmental impact report for the property
`
`
`
`PL.’s REQ. FOR JUD. NOT. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S OPP.
`| CASE NO. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 11 of 43
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 11 of 43
`
`
`
`outdoors.”
`
`Apparently, the 1,800-unit Santa Clara Square apartment complex was built on industrially Zoned land that required
`a clean-up — remediation — plan authorized by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The
`site development notice stated, “Environmental investigations at the site have shown the presence of arsenic, lead
`and pesticides in shallow soils related to historical agricultural use.”
`
`The clean-up activities seemed to focus only on these specific contaminants. Per the report submitted to
`DTSC, most of the contaminants were apparently not removed as part of clean-up, but instead kept on-site.
`Thousands of cubic yards of hazardous soil were buried under the parking garages in “containmentcells.” They also
`wrote that they left toxic soil around certain trees for “1.5 times the tree canopy width” and simply put fabric on top of
`the toxic soil with “3 inches of clean soil or mulch.”
`
`There were also land use restrictions required by the governmentfor the garages which were nowthe ceiling of the
`“containment cells” and the trees with toxic soil, which they called “TPZs.” These areas, just yards away from me,
`were not to be used for “residential human habitation,” hospitals, schools or day cares.
`
`“My beautiful view became haunting.” The Department of Toxic Substances Control approved certain areas of the SCSA as “Tree
`Protection Zones” — areas specifically authorized to keep toxic soil on site and only protected by a thin fabric and a few inches of
`much.
`
`| was horrified to learn all of these facts and then see mapsofthe site with my apartment unit right above areas with
`the bright red “Class 1 hazardous waste” shading and to know the redwood trees outside my window were
`surrounded by hazardous soil. My beautiful view became haunting.
`
`At that point, | started calling lawyers and doctors and reporting my concerns to government agencies. | knew the
`situation waslikely going to be complicated and that the tVOC readings on my personal monitors were not going to
`be conclusive on their own, but my gut told me something wasterribly wrong.
`
`I'll spoil the surprise — if there is any — and tell you now: | never got an answer to what happened to me, nor was|
`able to get anyone in charge to earnestly investigate. | only have more questions. Let my situation illustrate all the
`ways the system is currently set up to support financial interests instead of public health.
`
`Will the property owner help?
`
`| sent Irvine Company numerous emails and phone calls pleading for help. The day | found the high tVOCs| wrote,
`“| think my apartment might be poisoning me” and sent a description of “sick building syndrome.” pointing out that
`I've been experiencing almostall of those symptoms since movingin.
`
`That day, | asked Irvine to investigate and test to identify which VOCs were causing the issues and provide guidance
`on how to mitigate the exposure.| talked to the service manager on the phone and stressed the same message.
`
`“The chemicals are still pouring outfull blast. | felt so terribly sick, I’ve ended upsitting in the outdoor
`courtyard with [my dog] waiting for it to hopefully stop tonight ... [We] need a better plan than [me] sleeping
`outdoors.”
`
`Two dayslater after no response | wrote, “I'm sitting by an open window right now trying to catch my breath. | feel
`like I'm choking.” | sent them screenshots and photosof the air monitor readings, again asking for help. More days
`passed with no response.
`
`One night was so bad | ended up sleeping outside on a community lounge chair out of desperation. At 2 a.m., |
`wrote them again: “The chemicals are still pouring out full blast. | felt so terribly sick, I've ended upsitting in the
`outdoor courtyard with [my dog] waiting forit to hopefully stop tonight ... [We] need a better plan than [me] sleeping
`
`
`
`PL.’s REQ. FOR JUD. NOT. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S OPP.
`| CASE NO. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 12 of 43
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 12 of 43
`
`
`
`The general manager for the complexfinally responded: “We had PGE out on Friday and they tested the
`surrounding stairwells, the area of your apartment homeonthe [exteriors as] well [as your] building, and there are
`no gas leaks or chemical spills. As of now, there is no evidence suggesting that your apartment homeis unsafe.
`What are you wanting to do atthis point? If you feel that your health and safety are in jeopardy you need to call 9-1-
`1 or emergency service.”
`
`| read her message and waslike, “You have to be kidding me.” However, a few days after | found the environmental
`impact report and started notifying agencies of my concerns, Irvine Company did make a suspiciously unsolicited
`offer to let me break my lease — with nearly a year remaining — and move out without penalty. It seemed bizarre that
`they would email me out of nowhere offering to let me leave without paying the $7,500 penalty to break my lease.
`
`Irvine Company then rented out my unit with only eight days of turn-around, despite my protests demanding an
`investigation. They also hired a hazardous waste public relations consultant, presumably to try to get me tolet the
`issue go.
`
`The consultant promoted herself as “one of the state’s leading public affairs strategists for redevelopment of
`property in the Bay Area,” but within a couple of days, she seemed convinced something bad was going on in my
`apartment and started requesting the companyto investigate as well.
`
`After her attempts, she said they stopped giving her updates. She said twice, in writing, “It sure seems something is
`going on [in your apartment].”
`
`Several maps of the Santa Clara Square Apartments area show grading and remediation plans along with soil sampling sites
`mapped by the property manager, Irvine Co., the developer, Roux, Inc., and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
`(DTSC). In eachof the first two maps, the areas lined in red are sites contaminated by “Class 1” hazardous materials.In the first
`photograph, you can see that Ashley’s apartment, circled and labelled “#349,” is right on top of a Class 1 site. Considering Ashley’s
`symptomsandrelief of those symptoms upon moving, It is very likely the remediation plans were faulty or inadequate or, as is
`claimed by Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai to be the case with Hunters Point and Treasure Island — totally impossible.
`
`The consultant introduced herself to me saying."| would be happyto talk with you about the steps that were taken to
`ready the site for the community and residential land use.” And | waslike, “How on earth did you know | was looking
`into that?”
`
`| also foundit strange that | had not told Irvine Companythat | discovered the environmental impact report, yet Irvine
`Company seemed to have found out | knew and proactively reached out to me aboutit via the consultant.
`
`At one point, Irvine Company communicated through the consultant that they may do some testing, but only after
`they found out | was bringing in an industrial hygienist of my own. Both the California Department of Toxic
`Substances Control (DTSC) and the consultant told me they never heardif Irvine Company actually did any testing
`or not.
`
`challenges,” then “Irvine would donate one million dollars” to an unrelated city project.
`
`| did try to do my own testing, but it was incredibly expensive and turned out to be insufficient. | wanted to get some
`formal data in the brief time before | moved out, so | hired an industrial hygienist to sample the indoor air and some
`of the topsoil. Despite the $1,555 | had to payforit, the results were inconclusive. Apparently a different test - a
`“summa canister” — over a longer period of time would have been better.
`
`Then, through searching and public records requests, | found a numberof reported issues at Irvine Company sites
`in the area. First, a report from 2019. where one of my neighbors at the same complex complained about blue tap
`water and paid for a private lab test showing “very high” levels of lead, copper and other contaminants in the water.
`
`| found no records of any actions taken by Irvine Companyto address that report. Next, | found an article from 2014
`stating Irvine Company appeared to offer a quid pro quo to the Santa Clara city government as part of another
`development agreementfor a site nearby, stating, “If the city would approve the ... project” and “resolvelitigation
`
`
`
`PL.’s REQ. FOR JUD. NOT. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S OPP.
`| CASE NO. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 13 of 43
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 13 of 43
`
`
`
`developerdollars?
`
`Then,| found _an article about another nearby Irvine Company site underlitigation against the city of Sunnyvale over
`an incomplete environmental assessment report. So, my situation didn't sound like a one-off, even with this specific
`company.
`
`In 2014 Irvine Company appeared to offer a quid pro quoto the Santa Clara city governmentas part of
`another development agreementfor a site nearby, stating, “If the city would approvethe ... project”
`and “resolve litigation challenges,” then “Irvine would donate one million dollars” to an unrelated city
`project.
`
`It's so broken that it's up to the property owner to test and confirm there's an issue in these situations — if they
`suspect the property could be making a tenantsick, it does not seem to bein their financial interest to actually
`confirm that suspicion. | also realized how intimidating, if not impossible, it is for an individual to go up against these
`big, powerful companies.
`
`Will the agency in charge help?
`
`When | complained to DTSC about the VOCs in my apartment, the site managerinitially offered to look into it. She
`admitted it sounded like my health issues were the result of VOC fumes in my unit, even putting in writing, “It seems
`like something is happening in your unit.”
`
`She said she contacted the Irvine Company's environmental attorneys to suggesttesting, but quickly retreated,
`saying there was actually nothing she could do to help me. She wrote, “I’m not trying to shut down on you. We've
`been working collaboratively with our contacts at the Irvine Company. And they've started to push backthatif the
`problem isn't related to the soil or groundwater contamination, that we [DTSC] don’t have authority.”
`
`It was my understanding from our phone calls that DTSC only had authority over the chemicals that werelisted as
`“contaminants of concern” in the Environmental Assessment Report, none of which were VOCs.
`
`Then the DTSC manager tried to tell me that she suspected the VOCs were “coming from an indoor source, such as
`construction materials or [industrial] cleaning products.” | kept asking if that was true, then who had authority over
`that type of issue. | never got a clear answer, other than DTSC saying “not us.”
`
`| tried asking local indoor air and public health agencies, but they said the same: “Not us.” This wasjust the
`beginning of the story with DTSC.
`
`The developer, Roux, Inc., claimed in their second clean-up completion report that “no volatile organic compounds
`(VOCs)in soil vapor were identified as COCsat the Site” and that “several different VOCs were detected in soil
`vapor samples[but well] below their respective [screening levels].” That wasn’t even accurate according to the other
`reports!
`
`Then they said, “Several VOCs were detected in groundwater beneath the site, but they were all below their
`applicable screening levels for risk to indoorair.” The EIR states no VOCspose a “significant risk with respect to
`potential vapor intrusions issues.” Based on what| discovered next, this all appeared to be some expert
`wordsmithing and spin, possibly to avoid addressing data about onsite chemicals that would have made the clean-
`up much more costly.
`
`In an environmental impact report conducted on the SCSAsite by Impact Sciences, a firm hired by property
`manager Irvine Company, the report claims that no VOCsposea “significant risk with respect to potential vapor
`intrusions issues.” Impact Sciences also makesit clear the developmentand testing of the site were done on an
`“expedited schedule.” What kind of costs were cut and timeframes shortened at this toxic site in the name of
`
`
`
`PL.’s REQ. FOR JUD. NOT. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S OPP.
`| CASE NO. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 14 of 43
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document95 Filed 08/18/24 Page 14 of 43
`
`
`
`In an environmental impact report conducted on the SCSAsite by Impact Sciences, a firm hired by property manager Irvine
`Company, the report claims that no VOCs posea “significant risk with respect to potential vaporintrusions issues.” Impact Sciences
`also makes it clear the development and testing of the site were done on an “expedited schedule.” Whatkind of costs were cut and
`timeframes shortened at this toxic site in the name of developerdollars?
`
`In reading the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) response plan and thousands of pages of reports, | quickly
`noticed there seemed to be many VOCsfound on site. The reports even said the VOCs were aboveresidentiallimits
`and, in some cases, even above vaporintrusion risk levels.
`
`When | first presented this to the DTSC manager, she acknowledgedit is unusual to have chemicals above
`residentiallimits not considered contaminants of concern, saying, “In general, if the chemicals are present at the
`subsurface at concentrations exceeding residential levels, they would typically be considered contaminants of
`concern.”
`
`A few of the reports tried to explain why several specific VOCs weren't part of the clean-up plan, saying samples
`were only found in a couple spots or just a general statement that they do not believe the chemical will create a risk
`to public health. However, | couldn't find any explanations for some of the chemicals.
`
`| was thinking: “If you don’t want me to be worried about this chemical’'s impact to my health, you should tell me
`exactly why it wasn't included in the clean-up despite being above residential limits.” All | heard was crickets and |
`got more suspicious.
`
`Oneof the chemicals, vinyl chloride, was found above vaporintrusion risk levels, with no explanation that | could
`find as to why it was not included in the remediation plan.In fact, vinyl chloride is a breakdown product of the
`contaminants at one of the Superfundsites uphill from my apartment.
`
`When | asked DTSC for reasoning as to why the VOCs weren't part of the clean-up plan, | never got a straight
`response. | began to get very worried about the integrity of everything that was approved. | raised additional
`questions to DTSC.
`
`It appeared the least amountof pre-excavation testing, if any, was done on the property directly under my apartment
`building. Further, after excavation, Roux said they did no post-excavation testing on the remaining soil. | kept asking
`why solittle testing was done there. | asked why conclusive statements were being made about my apartment unit
`based on what appeared to be very little data. | never got a straight answer.
`
`in the soil and groundwateras the potential cause for my VOC exposure and subsequentillness.
`
`| asked about a rogue “500-gallon underground storage tank”filledorpreviouslyfilled with an unknown chemical.
`Apparently, no one knows whereit is under the property, though it was expected to be slightly uphill from my unit.|
`askedif that could be under my unit or leaking under my unit. No answer.
`
`| asked why Roux and Irvine Company apparently planned to install a vapor intrusion mitigation system beneath one
`of the buildings, and why they originally planned for four buildings though the rest were cancelled mid-way.
`
`The completion report said, “While not an environmental remedy, because there are no significant risks, a VIMS
`consisting of