City attorney Rick Doyle told a crowd at an Oct. 27 meeting about the complex that the eight pages of concerns regarding the proposed soccer/baseball/softball fields complex in the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve the county sent to the city were merely retaliation for the city's lawsuit over the county's music hall project.

The city and the county have floated rival plans for a concert venue. The county wants to build on fair grounds property, while the city is planning a downtown venue. Both sides contend the other side is trying to undercut support for the respective projects.

But Ann Ravel, the county's chief counsel, fired back in a letter dated Nov. 2, saying, in part: "In the spirit of the law, the city should not be dismissing a legitimate, thoughtful objection to the proposed project as 'retaliation.' While this is certainly simpler for you to do rather than to address the serious environmental and policy concerns that have been raised by the county, such rhetoric does nothing to advance a reasoned consideration of the issues of interest to the county and to the residents of the Almaden area."

The letter concludes that Doyle's comments at the public forum suggests a "lack of commitment by the city to the legal requirements of the Environmental Quality Act and to consider the significant effect the project will have on the community."

One of the county's concerns is that the city claims the complex is a "public" city project. That nuanced attribution lets the complex skirt the county's land-use regulations.

"It's not a decision the county made. There was no discussion. The city came in and said it's a public project," said Rachael Gibson, land-use advisor to County Supervisor Don Gage, who represents the district that includes Almaden Valley.

The county was originally the lead agency on the project, but denied approval of the complex two years ago because of what the environmental impact report says are its "significant, unavoidable" environmental problems.

Doyle appears to be relying upon a letter sent from then-county planning director Ann Draper on March 29 to the San Jose planning department. The letter states that the county will not oppose the city's designation of the sports complex as a city public project.

But that letter isn't legally binding, according to the county counsel's office.

"Only an action of the County Board of Supervisors could bind the county," said Lizanne Reynolds, deputy county counsel. "Please also note that Ms. Draper did not state that she or anyone else at the county agreed with the city's conclusion that the sports complex is a 'public' project."

The San Jose Planning Commission will vote Nov. 29 on whether to approve the project's latest environmental impact report. The meeting starts at 6 p.m. in council chambers at city hall.