When Justice Sims presented the central question in this case -- whether the denial of a request to renew a conditional use permit is a "project" that requires a study under the California Environmental Quality Act -- and answered it in the affirmative (hence reversing the trial court), I thought he was wrong. That didn't seem right to me, and I thought that such a holding would unjustifiably (and untenably) expand the scope of CEQA review requirements.
But then I got to page 40, at which point Justice Sims begins to analyze this issue (after dispensing with a variety of ancillary points). And you know what? Justice Sims is correct. Or at least I'm persuaded.
It takes a pretty darn good opinion to convince me that my initial impressions of a case are wrong. Justice Sims does so here.