Opinion
No. A161244.
03-29-2022
CIM URBAN REIT 211 MAIN STREET (SF) LP, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
[Modification of opinion (75 Cal.App.5th 939; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___).]
THE COURT.—The Court has considered the petition for rehearing filed by respondents City and County of San Francisco, et al., on March 17, 2022. Rehearing is denied.
It is ordered that the opinion certified for partial publication and filed herein on March 3, 2022, be modified as follows:
1. On page 3 of the opinion [75 Cal.App.5th 948, advance report, 2d full par., line 2], in the first paragraph, delete the second sentence (which is in parentheses) and replace it with the following: "(See Govt. Code, § 53725, subd. (a).)"
2. On page 8 of the opinion [75 Cal.App.5th 952, advance report, 2d par., line 1], in the first full paragraph, delete the first sentence and replace it with the following: "At the heart of this case are transactions that featured a merger in March 2014 (Merger)."
3. On page 14 of the opinion, in footnote 3 [75 Cal.App.5th 956, advance report, fn. 3, line 4], delete the first sentence and replace it with the following: "In 731 Market Street Owner, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 937 (731 Market), San Francisco contended that the Ordinance conflicted with the State Act (in that SFBTRC 1102 calculates the consideration for, or value of, the transferred property without excluding the value of a lien or encumbrance, while Section 11911 does exclude the value of any lien or encumbrance), and the Ordinance should therefore be evaluated under San Francisco's home rule powers rather than Section 11911."
The modification effects no change in the judgment.