well the puc parcel? i'm not trying to redo the settlement, but were things like that considered? >> many options were considered. it's the puc parcel. they must get maximum value. they cannot split a parcel and have a portion that's basically useless on the market. from the puc's perspective, if they're going to sell a surplus asset, they're going to sell it at the highest value, which includes the dpw parcel being thrown in at the same time. when you have a larger parcel thrown together, it's a higher value. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm glad we got that clear. i think the piece that was missing for me is the reason that we cannot provide the easement, so i got it. >> and i should clarify, the reason why it's going to rezone technically, it's standard practice that the unzoned would take -- so it would transfer the property to the plaintiff in this case. and standard practice is that it would not remain public, or we would have to face this issue or rezone it. it is happening before or at the same

>> the sf-puc parcel -- correct. it was zoned public, but i believe 20 years ago it was determined by the sf-puc not to use that land for whatever public purpose they had for it before. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm still -- i feel like -- and that's the analysis of the only options. i know in the case report, it sort of says that the staff looked at how else to achieve the goals of the settlement and one was to -- can you explain those again? it was unclear to me why there was a couple of options and you said it was unfeasible. if you can go through those options again. >> absolutely. the first option looked at was installing an extension of the staircase or the public sidewalk along copper alley to connect burnett avenue to greystone terrace. unfortunately again, the slope of the lot becomes a problem. it would not only have to be a very interesting engineering solution that would need to be found to create that access, but

puc. >> so the swap was a different parcel than what is being proposed? >> that's correct. >> okay. city college itself, have we heard from them officially about this project and their view of it? >> the board of trustees had a meeting on october 26 of this year and there was a resolution tabled. >> so they didn't come to an opinion pro or con? >> correct. >> okay. the project as it's being talked about, how firm a project definition is that at this stage? >> that's part of what we'll talk about. we intend to discuss this project with the city college and make sure that the project works hand in hand with what they're proposing on their site. >> projecting forward when the project is better defined, what kind of approval has to take place? >> we'll come back to you with terms and conditions and you will have to approve them and it will include a project description, which will be carried forward to the environmental review process. >> and then the environmental review process, that's siqa? >> correct. >> as we know it? >> correct. >> and that will look at all kinds of impacts, parki

parcel. in today's discussion, we will propose how the city will use each of these design storms. we just looked at the core flood risks to show you direct comparison between storms. when puc uses the five-year design storm to identify the need for capital projects, we use a broader flood risk metric. so, the shows how we do that. we make most effective use of rate payer dollars by prioritizing projects that address high risk. which is shown in red here. the biggest and most costly projects are concentrated in core flood areas that have a lot of red on the map. and the goal for our capital projects is to eliminate the red on this map. that's what we are doing over the long-term with our capital infrastructure. but in doing so, we also address much of the ajay dent green -- adjacent green areas. this allows us to initiate construction earliest where the need is the greatest. it means some neighborhoods won't get projects right away because we simply can't do everything immediately. so, we prioritize using flood risk. so, construction of the collection system began in the 1840's. by the 1940's, the five-year storm was designated and since at least the 1950's, standards have