5. Consideration of the Factors Set Forth in § 1002

Section 1002 requires the Commission to consider several factors, including community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, and influence on environment.

5.1. Community Values

Applicants state that the Proposed Project is consistent with community values because the response to Applicants' outreach efforts has been favorable and because the Proposed Project provides community benefits. Applicants state that they have held several open houses in the cities of Madera, Mendota, and Kerman to provide information to local community members.

Applicants state that GRS and PG&E representatives have been in contact with state and local agencies and elected officials, including the Madera County and Fresno County Planning Departments, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the USFWS, the Bureau of Reclamation, Madera County and Fresno County Supervisors, and the City Managers of the cities of Kerman, Mendota, and Firebaugh.

Applicants state that they have made presentations to the Kerman City Council, the Boards of Directors of the Madera County and Fresno County Farm Bureaus and the Westlands Water District, and that Applicants' representatives have met with other elected officials that represent the area where the Proposed Project is located, including Assemblyman Juan Arambula, Senator Dean Florez, Congressman Jim Costa and Congressman George Radanovich.

Applicants state that the Proposed Project will create socioeconomic benefits for Madera County and Fresno County through employment opportunities and tax revenues. Applicants assert that construction of the Proposed Project will require approximately 350 workers over a 10- to 12-month period, and estimate that up to 40 percent of these workers will come from the local labor pool. Applicants estimate that 10 full-time local employees will operate the Proposed Project after construction.

GRS estimates the Proposed Project will contribute approximately $1.2 million per year to fund local services in Madera County and approximately $600,000 per year to fund local services in Fresno County, but the Proposed Project will not result in significant impacts to public facilities or services.

In considering the Proposed Project's compatibility with community values as set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1002, we give considerable weight to the views of the local community. We also consider the views of the elected representatives of the area because we believe they are speaking on behalf of their constituents.

The Commission received letters of support for the Proposed Project from Senator Dave Cogdill, 14th District, California State Senate; Assemblymembers Michael N. Villines, 29th District, and Juan Arambula, 31st District, California Legislature; Supervisor Susan B. Anderson, Chair, Fresno County Board of Supervisors; Supervisor Max Rodriguez, Chair, Madera County Board of Supervisors; Ryan Jacobsen, Executive Director, Fresno County Farm Bureau; and Jim Erickson, Board President, Madera County Farm Bureau. In addition, GRS provided the Commission with copies of letters of support it received from Ron Manfredi, City Manager, City of Fresno and Gabriel Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Mendota. The Commission has received no letters in opposition to the Proposed Project.

No one disputes Applicants' assertions that the Proposed Project provides benefits to the community and is consistent with the community values of the area. Given the support from elected officials for the Proposed Project and absent any concerns expressed by the public, we conclude that the Proposed Project is consistent with community values.

5.2. Recreational and Park Areas, Historical and Aesthetic Values, and Influence on Environment

Applicants state that construction and operation of the Proposed Project will not affect recreation or park areas because all project components will be located on private lands, there are no park and recreation areas in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, and construction and operation of the Proposed Project will not result in a change in the use of existing parks or other recreation areas.

Applicants also state that the historic use of the Gas Field area has included natural gas production and agricultural development and no other Proposed Project components affect historical values. Therefore, according to Applicants, the Proposed Project is consistent with historical values in the Gas Field area.

Applicants state that, after incorporating design features and mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not result in significant effects on the environment.

No party disputes Applicants assertions that the Proposed Project will not affect recreation or park areas, historical and aesthetic values, or that the Proposed Project will not result in significant effects on the environment.

Although recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, and influence on environment are factors identified under § 1002, these factors are considered as a part of the environmental review discussed below and, where necessary, mitigation measures are adopted. With adoption of the mitigation measures discussed below, we conclude that the Proposed Project is consistent with recreation or park areas and historical and aesthetic values, and that the Proposed Project will not have significant effects on the environment.