San Francisco card rooms face further legal challenges

     Associated Press
      SAN FRANCISCO -- A challenge to the building of card rooms at Golden Gate Fields racetrack was revived Friday by a state appeals court.
      The proposed 24-hour facility, with up to 150 tables, was narrowly approved in November 1994 by voters in the Alameda County community of Albany. But the 1st District Court of Appeals said the measure may have been invalid.
      The court said the city's development agreement with Ladbroke Group, which manages Golden Gate Fields and has agreed to buy the track, should have been accompanied by an environmental impact report.
      The city and Ladbroke agreed last year that the city would prepare an environmental impact report in the future, before the facility was built. But the court said the proper time for such a study was during negotiation of the development agreement that was later submitted to the voters.
      The court noted that the agreement requires the company to provide open space areas and rules out further commitments. The agreement also provides for a traffic control plan that does not envision any reduction in the size or hours of the facility.
      Those provisions would appear to tie the city's hands even if the environmental impact report finds that further protective measures are needed, the court said. But it returned the case to Superior Court Judge Sandra Margulies to consider the effect of last year's agreement to conduct the environmental study. The court also said the language of the 1994 ballot measure was unduly partisan, in violation of a state law that requires neutral language.
      The court noted that the measure asked voters whether card room gambling should be allowed in order to generate revenue for the city, create jobs, provide for a bay trail and allow waterfront access. Those beneficial effects were proclaimed by advocates of the measure and disputed by opponents, the court said.
      Rather than resolving the issue, however, the court said Margulies must decide whether the ballot wording had any effect on the election.
      The 3-0 ruling, by Justice Douglas Swager, overturned Margulies' decision to dismiss the suit.
      Robert Outis, lawyer for a group of residents who sued the city over the project, said the ruling was "a good sign." He said he didn't see how an after-the-fact environmental review could cure the city's failure to conduct a study before it submitted the measure to voters.
      A lawyer for the city could not be reached for comment.