At 5:31 am Saturday, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District firefighters responded to a report of a motorcycle on fire inside an abandoned Food Maxx in the City of Antioch.
Crews arrived on scene at the FoodMaxx, which has been closed for several years, to find smoke inside the building and once they made forced entry, they located an active fire. It was quickly extinguished. No injuries were reported.
Antioch Police said they get at least 12 calls a week to this abandoned building.
By 6:15 am, Contra Costa County firefighters found two people inside that they walked out the front door of the building.
This location has been known to have homeless inside the building and fire crews have responded to many warming fires during the cold months. This is also the second fire in a week where homeless were inside an abandoned building, on Monday, crews responded to the smoke and flames a commercial warehouse behind the Antioch Police Department at 1200 W 4th Street. Several homeless were inside the building refusing to exit.
No other information was made available.
Editors Note:
One of the worst votes in Antioch City Council history came in Sept. 2020 in the form of delaying a redevelopment project that would have cleaned up a blighted area in an effort to “punish” the property owner. Another “symbolic vote” that only hurts Antioch and puts a strain on police and fire services.
Split 3-2 Vote: Antioch City Council Postpones Decision on Delta Fair Village Apartments
The Antioch City Council voted to continue blight indefinitely after postponing moving a project forward that would have begun redeveloping a blighted shopping center at the corner of Delta Fair Blvd and Buchanan in the City of Antioch.
If approved, the property would have began being cleaned up and redeveloped into a new shopping center and apartment complex. Currently, the property is full of empty buildings, boarded up retail, garbage all over the property and many homeless frequenting the area.
The project was put on hold in a 3-2 vote after Councilmembers Lamar Thorpe, Joy Motts and Monica Wilson had concerns over the property owners handling of blight and fines over the past five years. Meanwhile, Mayor Sean Wright and Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock called it an opportunity to clean up a blighted area in town and begin the redevelopment of an area desperately in need.
The Delta Fair Village Multi-Family home project was a 210-apartment unit facility that would have been developed at the corner of Delta Fair and Buchanan Road with a new 4,000 square foot retail building. In total, there would be five buildings. The total size of the project was estimated of 411,511 square feet with renovation of existing 73,535 of retail space.
The applicant, Chui Family LLC, proposed a residential density of 45 units per acre which is the highest allowed per the General Plan. There would be 392 parking spaces including 324 in a gated parking garage, 38 on parking garage tandem, 68 spaces outside of the building along with bicycle parking area.
Along with the shopping center renovation, they would realign parking drive aisles, upgrade parking lot landscaping, add roof variation and façade articulation, materials in shopping center would match apartments, replace broken storefronts, remove signed and condition renovations to begin prior to apartment construction. — Full Story
Previous Fires
- Oct.9 – Fire Crews Battle Warehouse Fire behind Antioch Police Department Building
- Sept. 5 – Five Displaced After Tuesday Morning House Fire in Antioch
- Aug 12, 2023: Contra Costa Firefighters Battling 4-Alarm Fire in Pittsburg
- Aug 6, 2023: Contra Costa Fire Says 600 Chemicals Found San Pablo Shed
- July 27, 2023: Contra Costa Firefighters Battle 3-Alarm Fire in Bay Point
- July 4, 2023: Contra Costa Fire Highlights July 4 Fireworks-Related Responses
- June 25, 2023: Firefighters Battle 73-Acre Vegetation Fire in Brentwood
- June 20, 2023: Updated: Fire Crews Battle 4 Alarm Fire at Abandoned Warehouse in Antioch
- June 19, 2023: Vehicle Crash Ignites Vegetation Fire on Highway 4 Near Pittsburg
8 comments
One would think that the city should be on the property owner’s butt about properly securing the building so that “incidents” can at least be confined to the exterior grounds.
It probably was secure. They break in. Its not like the property owners are putting out the welfome mat. There’s only so much one can do. At my work they busted a hole in the sidee of building to gain access. Get real. These folks don’t care about others’ property, trespassing, rights, etc..
The property owner is a slum lord tho! He owes the city in unpaid fines for years and years of code violations. This property and the other ones he owns all look like crap. He is responsible for the condition of that entire strip mall and everything that goes on in it due to his negligence and not giving a F. Why give him an opportunity to create more neglected projects?
No one said anything about letting any landlord “create more neglected projects.” I’m talking about physically securing the building to prevent illegal entry.
If you embrace the ” unhoused “, thugs, criminals, tweekers and trash, then you get what is the City of Antioch.
—
“Opportunity Lives Here”
Just what Antioch needs more high density housing projects.
Past decisions by city staff and city councils manifest in a city rife with crime circling the drain.
A large hint would be the large number of businesses that have moved out of Antioch.
Citizens of Antioch need to wake up and take back their city from the woke infestation.
And some poor citizen is out a motorcycle.
I have looked up the owner and found lots of documentation on them and their businesses.
They also have businesses under CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD global property locations. You would think that the city officials would look into their background more thoroughly because Towns, Communities, etc are being ruined. The property they have in Dublin TRALEE VILLAGE APT PLEASE LOOKUP……….. THE RENT START @ OVER $2000 MONTH
THE CHUI FAMILY L . L . C . is a California Limited-Liability Company – Ca filed on April 17, 2002. The company’s filing status is listed as Terminated and its File Number is 200211010133.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is Jenny Chui and is located at 4768 Jaques Court, Fremont, CA 94555. The company’s principal address is 4768 Jaques Court, Fremont, CA 94555 and its mailing address is 4768 Jaques Court, Fremont, CA 94555.
Company Information
Company Name: THE CHUI FAMILY L . L . C .
Entity Type: CALIFORNIA LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY – CA
File Number: 200211010133
Filing State: California (CA)
Filing Status: Terminated
Filing Date: April 17, 2002
Company Age: 21 Years, 6 Months
Registered Agent:
Map Icon spacer Jenny Chui
4768 Jaques Court
Fremont, CA 94555
Principal Address:
Map Icon spacer 4768 Jaques Court
Fremont, CA 94555
Mailing Address:
Map Icon spacer 4768 Jaques Court
Fremont, CA 94555
Products/Services: REAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP/OPERATION/MANAGEME
Governing Agency: California Secretary of State
CHIU FAMILY LLC is a California Limited-Liability Company – Out Of State filed on February 5, 2004. The company’s filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is 200404110034.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is Tiana Jenkins and is located at 1767 Germanon Way, Pleasanton, CA 94566. The company’s principal address is 1767 Germano Way, Pleasanton, CA 94566 and its mailing address is 1767 Germano Way, Pleasanton, CA 94566.
The company has 1 contact on record. The contact is Gabriel Chiu from Pleasanton CA.
Cite as B306918
Filed March 2, 2022, Second District, Div. One
By Golnaz Yazdchi
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
https://www.sheppardmullin.com
Headnote: Litigation – Enforcing Settlement Agreements
Summary: Probate Code Section 259 limits what an abuser can receive from a trust, will, or by the laws of intestacy but does not expand the rights of others or create a rule for interpreting provisions of a trust document.
The Chui family was involved in protracted litigation involving a trust with substantial real estate and other assets, which ultimately resolved by way of a settlement agreement set forth orally on the record. Part of the settlement affected the interests of minor beneficiaries and thus was subject to the approval of the minors’ court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL). The GAL subsequently entered into two agreements with the co-trustees and certain trust beneficiaries, which excluded the minors’ mother, Christine Chui. Christine, a beneficiary of the trust who had been accused of misappropriating trust assets and committing elder abuse against the trustor, sought to cancel and repudiate the agreements through a variety of procedural methods. The court issued orders enforcing the settlement agreement as it related to Christine, denying the first GAL agreement, and approving the second GAL agreement, overruling Christine’s objections. Christine’s request to remove the GAL was denied, and the GAL’s request to represent the minors in related probate cases was granted. Christine and her minor children appealed, challenging the orders enforcing the settlement agreements, among other things.
The appellate court affirmed. The settlement agreement was not procedurally unconscionable because Christine was present in court when the terms were put on the record, represented by three lawyers, and personally affirmed that she heard and understood all of the terms. Nor was it substantively unconscionable because it did not produce a more unfavorable result than losing at trial. Under Probate Code section 259, a person who, among other things, is liable for physical or financial elder abuse or neglect will be deemed to have predeceased the decedent only to the extent the person would have been entitled through a will, trust, or intestacy to receive a share of the damages and costs the person is found to be liable to pay the estate. The section limits what the abuser may receive, but does not expand the rights of others or create a rule for interpreting provisions of a trust document. As to proceedings involving minors, the court has discretion as to whether to appoint a guardian ad litem. In the absence of a guardian ad litem, a minor does not represent herself, but instead the court serves to protect the minor’s interest and may approve a settlement agreement negotiated by a guardian ad litem who may not be appointed for the minors in a related case.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B306918.PDF
Comments are closed.