Opinion ID: 870822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Evidence in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion

Text: In opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, the defendants pointed to, inter alia, other portions of Challacombe's deposition testimony regarding the DPP's SEIS procedures, both in general and specifically as to Kuilima's project: Q. [By the plaintiffs' counsel] When[,]. . . based on your understanding, would a [SEIS] be required for a project that involves a[] SMP [7] or a unilateral agreement? A. [By Challacombe] When the scope of the project has changed, the size has changed, density. Whenever there's a significant as per the [HEPA] rules, whenever there's a significant change in the development. Q. How about the timing of the development? A. That's a component, but it's not necessarily the only thing. [I]t's everything. Again, size, scope, you know, it could be the timing, but it's not necessarily. Nowhere Q. It could be any one of those, though, right? A. It could be, yes. Q. That would trigger a [SEIS]? A. It could be. Again, the key wording is significant impact. [A] significant impact would result from the change in the scope, timing, so forth. Q. So is that your understanding of the DPP's view of this, is that a [SEIS] is not necessary for a project that has a[] SM[P] or a unilateral agreement unless there will be a significant impact . . . in some area? A. Yes. Q. And it's not may, it's will? A. May. No, it's may. Q. It's may? A. Yes. It specifically says that in the rules. . . . . Q. So it's not necessarily somebody coming in saying that this will have an impact, it's somebody looking at it to say may this have an impact or not, correct? A. That's correct. (Emphases added.)