Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville

Discussion. 1. The asterisked footnote at page 1 of the opinion is modified to include parts “II.A.” and “II.C.” of the Discussion and will now read as follows: * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, only the introduction, the Factual and Procedural Background, the Standard of Review at the beginning of the Discussion, parts II.A., II.C., and III.A. of

** Butz, Acting P. J., Mauro, J., and Murray, J.

1 the Discussion, and the Disposition of this opinion are certified for publication.

2. Previously unpublished parts II.A. and II.C. remain unchanged from the opinion filed on August 19, 2013, and read as follows:

II. Analysis of Hydrological Impacts

Plaintiffs raise four contentions on this subject. A. Baseline Description of Hydrological Conditions Plaintiffs have two concerns here.

The first concern is with “Mitigation Measure HYD-4” (MM HYD-4), which specifies that, prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project, Wal-Mart shall retain a qualified civil engineer to prepare and submit a drainage plan for City‟s approval that identifies onsite drainage facilities to ensure that runoff from the Project site is released at a rate no…