benefits that come with that. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kyle. i am here with transit inc. we are the first and only permitted private transit vehicle operator in the city of san francisco. as a part of that permit, we do have to provide drivers with training including training into -- to give deference to munimobile operators. we have a direct line of communication with the sfmta. any kind of operational concerns that you may have, we are in close communication with them. i would like to say that i do think it would be good to give consideration to those companies and entities that are permitted when considering lane usage for these transit only or bus only

lanes. thank you. >> hello. i am here today representing 665 teamsters who drive for several private commuters. it is in our best interest that they continued to allow the is capacity vehicles that are regulated by the m.t.a. our drivers are highly trained and can manage the traffic and buses. there is an established program which allows them to use these lanes. faster services of these vehicles will continue to encourage people out of single occupancy vehicles.

we run an affordable company. we pick up and drop off passengers from designated stops using a transit only lane is and will be beneficial for the passengers and the company. the drivers are all well trained and the drivers are proud teamsters. it is safer for vehicles to share these neat -- lanes with other buses. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here on behalf of cherry transit inc. this is an important conversation. we appreciate the supervisors having this conversation. currently there are two types in the lanes. they allow both buses and taxis

to operate on them. because our vehicles are of the size and capacity that they are, they are defined as buses by the state. they therefore have access to bus and taxi lanes. i'm here to say that chariot will stay committed to complementing public transit. based on the permit that we have with sfmta, the criteria that we are abiding by that requires this to complement public transit and not compete with it. we do share our data in realtime and this is important for this conversation. we can work with m.t.a. to determine whether our vehicles are getting in the way of public transit and we have moved several of our routes and stops in order to make sure that we are truly complementing and not competing. moreover, we are still committed to taking single occupancy vehicles off the road for every chariot. we are committed to our

partnership with the teamsters and committed to investing in drivers. half of whom are san francisco residents. thank you for your time. >> any other members of the public who wish to comment on public six? public comment is closed. all right. colleagues, can we get a motion on this item? item six. ok. we will make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation. i'm sorry. you have your amendment? >> we would make a motion to accept the amendment. do you have an additional amendment? >> thank you, very much. >> except the amendment as proposed by supervisor peskin's his office. >> can we do that without objection? ok. all right. on the underlying item, as amended, to the full board with a positive recommendation. we will do that without objection. all right.

thank you, everyone. told on. next item, item seven. >> item 7-11. >> 7-11. >> item seven is an ordinance amending the general plan by adding the central south of market or central soma area plan making conforming amendments and making appropriate findings. item number 8 isn't ordinance amending the zoning map to create a central south of market special use district. and make other amendments that are making appropriate findings. item number 10 -- item number 9 is an ordinance amending that business and tax regulations to create the central south of market housing sustainability district to provide a streamlined and ministerial approval process for certain housing projects within the districts. creating a board of appeals process for appeals or projects within the district and making appropriate findings. item ten is an ordinance amending the administrative and planning codes to give effect to the central south of market area

plan and making appropriate findings. item number 11 isn't ordinance amending the tax financing law to allow it with facilities and services for the central south of market plan and make other necessary amendments. >> thank you. i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> thank you. i really want to appreciate the land use committee's patients as they traverse through the central soma plan with me over the next -- over the last three months. i really hope that we will be able to pass the plan out of committee today with recommendation to the full board i only have one final set of amendments to make in regards to the old mint and increasing their c.f.d. revenues to $20 million. thank you for the additional time. this did force the california historical society and community groups to come together and

there was a level of agreement which was codified in the amendments that i am presenting here today in regards to the increase of the $20 million and linking it to a provision of below market rate space -- community serving spaces that may be at least at below market rates to organizations associated with cultural districts established under chapter 107 of the administrative code. the 20 million should be allocated to the restoration of the old mint and 155 million should be allocated to regional transportation capacity enhancement expansions. this one amendment does require a number of amendments to be implemented in the document that we have articulated. i am sorry. and then there were a number of

-- six and seven are different amendments that we are making to reflect the prior amendments made to the funding. >> i'm sorry. can you repeat that? >> number 1 is a new. what did you say? it was confusing. >> amendments two, three and four and five are amendments that need to be made to the implementation document to reflect the change that we are making. >> these are all related to number 1? >> yes. my apologies. six and seven are different. item six is to -- edits to the implementation document to reflect prior amendments made to the planning code administrative code which reduces funding for enhanced stormwater management in complete streets by $4 million and water recycling stormwater management and public spaces by $1 million. the final is another conforming edits based on another prior

amendment made at the land use committee to reflect the amendments to the central soma c.f.d. six and seven are technical cleanup amendments to reflect previous amendments that have already been adopted by this committee. and those are my final amendments that i will be introducing to land use committee today. i do really have to think lisa and josh. along with our city attorney attorney. both peter and victoria for working so closely with our office over the last four months to get the plan to the place it is today and i want to recognize april and bobby who have worked on this plan quite intensely to make sure we can get to the place that it is right now. it is a large plan in a complicated plan. it has a lot of missing parts. both the planning department and the city's attorney his office

has dedicated countless hours and basically unlimited resources to our office to make sure we get this plan through before the end of the year. i want to thank everyone that is involved. and the mayor's office. for helping us think through some of the knots in the plans that we really need to work out. i hope we can move this forward at a land use committee today and give this some daylight at the full board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> i am seeing this for the first time. i want to look at this real quick. i want to make a comments before i'm sorry. >> if i may, deputy city attorney. this may help you as you look through the amendments. the planning department has

submitted a new version of the implementation document for the clerk's file and the amendments members two-7 reflect the changes that the planning department has made to the document. they submitted that the clerk on and those changes reflect decisions that the planning commission and this committee have made in the past. those amendments conform the document to the decisions you have already made. item number 1 is an additional amendment to the ordinance that supervisor kim is proposing today. the committee can only amend the ordinance and then the planning department will change the actual document later. so supervisor kim's amendment, number 1 on the list, addresses the old mint funding and says, we are accepting everything in the document that planning has submitted plus the board intends

to fund the old mint, according to supervisor kim's proposal pick one final note that is the document itself as a guide for the city for future funding and doesn't bind the city. so that in each year, you will appropriate funds and the purpose of this document is to provide guidance for future boards in making those appropriations. >> ok. just to clarify, or amendment number 1, this doesn't really belong in this ordinance. it goes in the implementation documents. >> because the board can't amend -- the document belongs to planning. the board -- the committee isn't amending the documents right now

about $15 million to be allocated to the old mint and $160 million should be allocated to regional transit capacity. basically you are saying we accept everything in the document that planning is proposing except for this one piece which we will do differently. >> ok. as written on page 147, it is ok for us to adopt today. >> that's right. >> ok. ok. it is not my preference, given that i think it is important for the project itself to be able to move forward before even trying to commit future uses, even though i absolutely support having the community space there , if that is what supervisor kim is proposing, it is a compromise. i would be ok with that. >> thank you. what i wanted to say is when i read this, the thing that would

make me 100% comfortable would be to add language that says to a competitive process. i don't know how many nonprofit organizations or -- are associated with cultural districts under chapter 107 of the administrative code. but it talks about -- his says communities serving organizations. would you be amenable to that? we will be doing it through a competitive process. are there multiple organizations that fall under that chapter of the code. >> for what i understand, it is -- i am not sure if compton's is an approved cultural district. ok. >> there are a few others that are in the works that have not yet been approved by the city including the african-american arts and cultural district.

>> if i read this correctly, it says if the old mint is developed with this community serving space, then they would get an additional $5 million if they choose not to have this space than they would stay at $15 million. >> yes. that is the proposal. >> is there somewhere that is clarified later on the amount of space or a set up for negotiations? >> i would add to the language that says through a competitive process. >> ok. >> all right. i am not sure if this would be done through the master tenant or through the city but i do support a competitive process. whoever it might be doing the process. the final decision maker. >> ok. >> they are conforming edits. >> i'm sorry i was a little

confusing in my presentation. thank you for clarifying that. >> ok. should i talk about the one amendment that i want to bring back up or should we do it after public comment? >> it is up to you. why don't we go to public comment and we can continue that conversation. any members of the public would like to comment on item 7-11? please come on up. >> an afternoon members of the board. i am here for kilroy. as you know from our testimony last week, we have been working closely with staff and the planning commission and 60 wholesale flower vendors to deliver a high-quality high quality project on the flower mart site. we have had to thread the needle carefully to design a functional wholesale delivery in a development that is compatible with late-night wholesale

operations and capable of subsidizing wholesale rents for an important san francisco institution and one of its most important p.d.r. employers. to minimize conflicts between late-night operations, the project has been attacked from the outset, and all commercial and p.d.r. project. it contributes its fair share to affordable housing with some 55 million in jobs housing fees. last week, and amendment was proposed to restrict a portion of the site for housing. you heard from the sponsor and vendors that that was a problematic change due to the conflicts i just mentioned. with that said, we immediately started working with leading advocates of affordable housing and representatives to enhance the project's housing benefits. in the past week, we reach an agreement in principle to provide a -- and affordable housing site of 14,000 square feet in the community, contingent on the flower market site being zoned for commercial

use within -- without an on-site -- on-site resin but -- on site residential requirement. this would be a win for tenants who do not have to worry about conflict with residential and it would be a win for the city to have a housing site that would serve the neighborhood populations in need and not in luxury condos with a small inclusionary component. the zoning that was proposed by the -- or recommended to you by the planning commission has been carefully thought out. we urge you to restore that zoning this week when you take action on the amendments before you. the project sponsor and i are here to answer your questions. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is jake and i am a development manager with the real text inc. it is an honour to speak before you today. as i have been following this plan for the last four years.

for those of you who aren't familiar, we are a local development firm focused on mixed-use multifamily housing. we have three projects within the central soma plan which total 400 residential units. i'm speaking today on behalf of the proposed hotel at 305th street. this is the only nonresidential project in the history of our firm. i would like you -- i would like to use my time to explain why we are pursuing a hotel and to ask you to consider what should be built in this location given the site specific restraints. there is a deed, a copy of which i have here which was used to convey title of the land. it does restrict residential uses, particularly in mixed-use multifamily on the site. so it reads, using or improving the premises for residential purposes including multifamily residential uses is prohibited. this prohibit -- this prohibition runs with the land

and applies to all successors in interest. october 1st, staff presented the planning commission process recommendations which included grandfathering provisions for hotels which we submitted in an evaluation. to date, we spent a lot of money and resources. it was submitted in october 2016 and we feel a hotel would be great in this location. in our opinion, the site can't be used for housing or office, what should be used for? is the highest and best use of this site. i'm available for any questions. >> any members of the public who wish to comment on item seven through 11? public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> we went through a couple amendments and i thank you had something else that you wanted

to speak about? >> yes. i know we talked about this last time. i thought about it a lot more. i still am not comfortable with the 14-foot floor to ceiling p.d.r. exemption for the project we looked at the development restraints on the site and believe it is fundamentally a question between more office space and p.d.r. space. at the end of the day, given the office space tap, the amendments we are having to make to that and the idea that ultimately the site i was at a another site that is under threat for p.d.r. space being demolished or displaced or existing the existing tenants. i. i like to make an amendment to put it at 17 feet as supported by the planning department for fourth and harrison project so

that was on page 90, line 23. through not line 25 that we would make it the requirement as recommended by the planning department at 17 feet. >> what page was that? >> page 90 through 91. lines 21 -- 23 through 25. >> this does not get the planning commission even the discretion to consider lowering the ground floor to 14 feet as we had amended back in july. >> i understand. >> i know. i am asking. on my understanding correctly? >> just like every other site in the district has a requirement to have 17 feet. that is what the planning department recommended department recommended on the site. may be we can ask the planning department. >> i am just clarifying what you're amendment is. >> i am verbally saying it out loud. we would be removing the amendment to provide a minimum of 14 feet so we would say

minimum of 17 feet. >> just so -- i did also make an amendment in july that gives the commission the discretion to keep it at 17 feet or allow 14 feet. my question is, are you reverting back to the previous amendment which gives the planning commission the discretion to go either way? or i understand -- >> i understand. i would like to hear through the planning department and then i can clarify that. >> to be clear right now, there are two auto places in the planning code where this site could have less than 17-foot space for p.d.r. it exists both in section 339 and the key sites exemption process, given the provision of certain amenities and additional

sections that you are discussing on page 90. it is a section that grants it without discussion, essentially by rights. striking that out would still leave the planning commission and the discretion under section 329 to provide that exception. >> striking that outwards give the planning commission -- >> it still stays in the planning code. >> all the sites have the discretion? it is essentially -- it is discretion based on the planning department process recommendations and approval. >> it is actually not all of the sites that would have the ability to seek that exception. there were certain exceptions that the commission is being granted for southern -- certain key sites based on the past years of analysis aren't on what the possible range of exceptions could be for each site. there is not a blanket allowance

>> how many of the key sites have that flexibility? >> that one. >> so then, no. my amendment would be to remove the planning department's discretion all together and make it a minimum 17 feet. >> just to be clear, the commission still has the discretion and then have to be justified in the project sponsor would have to make a case. the commission is not obligated to make that. >> and just so it is clear, all of the key sites have this discretionary approval that are only limited to their key sites and so you'd only be singling out this one project. the other key sites will be allowed to keep their discretionary approval. >> i understand. to the chair, it is only the discretionary approval as it pertains to 17 feet. all the other ones don't have that. >> that's true. there are a range of different specialized exceptions that are being provided. >> i am limiting mine.

my amendment would be limiting the discretionary approval as it pertains to the florida to ceiling height on the ground floor to a minimum of 17 feet. they can keep all their other discussions. i am not my removing. that is not what my amendment is is that clear? is that clear? that would be what my amendment would be. >> so, we will take the motion. we will do a roll call vote on that one. >> ok. >> on the motion to amend the legislation as stated by supervisor. [roll call] >> the amendment passes. >> i would like to make a motion to adopt the amendment as i

articulated previously to public comment on page 147, line 6-18. >> are we adding in the language about a competitive process as well? >> yes. we can add in that language. do we need a vote on that when? >> we will do that without objection. colleagues, i would like to make a motion to remove this item -- move this item with a recommendation recommendation to the full board. >> we need. >> thank you for the reminder. i do want to strike. let me pull up the section code. >> then i have another one. >> while you are doing that, can i make another comment? supervisor kim? >> go ahead. >> i am curious, after hearing

public comment, it sounded like -- the reason i am waiting is because i want to ask supervisor kim this question. sorry. this is not related to the other thing. this is specifically to the flower mart site. >> what i heard from the presenters was in the one week that we have had this conversation, they have made significant steps to having an m.o.u. signed that would talk about dedicating another site for affordable housing. so if that is the case, i would be in favor of removing the

amendment that you proposed last week given the fact that they have made significant progress in the conversation with regard to affordable housing. i wanted to see what you had to say about that. >> kilroy did sit down with the community groups and are looking at another alternative to dedicating affordable housing within the central soma plan. we still have to continue conversations with all stakeholders and i have made a commitment to kilroy to do that before november 13th. i don't feel comfortable at this time striking that amendment. i will not be making that motion today. but i will make a motion to strike 249.78 g. s. was placed in the ordinance last week. am i doing that correctly? >> i thank you are meaning to strike a section six, the

unquantified section on page 236 of the ordinance. >> you are a mindreader. >> ok. i don't know why it is listed under that section but that is correct. we would be striking section six lines 11-25 on page 236. >> say that one more time? >> section six what? what did you say? >> 11-25. i apologize. we have so many different versions here. >> that is what i have.

>> there are a lot of versions with different edits on the website. but i believe what the amendment was to strike section six in its entirety. and that section is on page 237 lines six through 20. >> it is on page 236. >> you allergic -- originally said section six, right? on my document it is 11325. >> the document you have printed out in front of you may include amendments that were circulated today which is why it is off. it is basically section six. the unquantified section at the end of the ordinance. in the public late notice

document on 237. >> you made a motion to strike section -- section six. page 236 or page 237. 237 on the public document. >> do we need a roll call or can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. >> through the chair, can i ask another question? on the points with the flower mart, i wanted to hear what you had to say one more time. >> we need to continue discussions with all of the stakeholders on this amendment. i have made a commitment to kilroy to come to some kind of resolution by november 13th to the full board. i am not making an amendment to strike this today. >> i heard that.

i wanted to hear the other part about the conversation. it seems pretty significant. >> we still haven't continued the discussion with all of the stakeholders. >> ok. >> ok. at this time, does the committee have any suggestions on how you want to move forward? >> i would like to make a motion to move this far with positive recommendation to the full board >> ok. can i recommend we do it without recommendation just for a couple of outstanding items? >> that is totally fine. i will change my motion to move this forward and got recommendation to the full board >> ok. do we need to do a roll call vote? we will do that without objection. ok. are there any other items before us today? >> for clarity that was item seven through 11?

>> yes. >> there is no further business. >> ok. thank you. we are adjourned. women's netwo

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of

having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable

space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone.

>> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the

pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.or >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some

restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of

partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people

to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san

>> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five.

everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. >> the best lit in san francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to

be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are

interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear culture. strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that. it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very.

we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this.

>> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world

is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market

value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to

our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property?

this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also

available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or