FREMONT — The memory of a feud sparked during the early months of the pandemic when Fremont forced the East Bay Regional Park District to close off access to a popular Mission Peak Regional Preserve entrance is apparently still lingering, with bitterness and hostility between the two agencies complicating lease negotiations for the park.

Though the city maintains its actions last year were motivated by an effort to limit the potential spread of COVID-19, park district officials are still miffed at what they have called overreach and interference in their authority to operate the park.

Park district board member Colin Coffey called Fremont’s actions “shameful” and “unlawful” at a Nov. 2 board meeting where the new potential lease was discussed. Board member Beverly Lane said the actions were “illegal.”

Fremont Councilmember Raj Salwan, at the Nov. 9 council meeting, said Coffey’s words were “inflammatory” and “litigious,” and not the words of a partner.

In an interview, Fremont Councilmember Jenny Kassan said, “I really never expected it to be so hostile.”

For nearly a year, staff from the city and the park district have been conferring to hammer out a potential 25-year extension of the lease for roughly 900 acres of Mission Peak grounds and trails, and the Stanford Avenue parking lot and staging area, which are owned by the city, and leased for free to the park district, which manages the 3,000-acre park.

The old lease, created in 1978 and extended in 1993, expired in July 2020, but because of the pandemic, negotiations were put on hold until later in the year, and the lease is currently continuing on a month to month basis.

“This conversation has definitely taken on a life of its own, and it’s made more difficult a working relationship for our council, when they hear people speaking this way about the city,” Geneva Bosques, a spokesperson for Fremont, said in an interview.

The park district board of directors voted earlier this month to approve signing the lease, but the Fremont City Council rejected the agreement at its meeting Nov. 9, citing a number of concerns. One key issue discussed by the council was whether the city would have legal authority in the future to shut down Stanford Avenue in front of the staging area and trailheads, effectively cutting off access to that entrance of the park.

In April and May of 2020, Mark Danaj, the former city manager, and Kimberly Petersen, the former Fremont police chief, both sent letters strongly requesting and then ordering the park district to close off the Stanford Avenue entrance and trails, citing concerns about lack of social distancing between hikers, in violation of county health orders at the time.

Though the park district reluctantly instituted a couple of temporary closures because of Fremont’s demands, when park officials planned to reopen the park in early May, Petersen threatened that she would close off the road leading to it.

“Given the lack of enforcement for social distancing violations at the Stanford Staging Area, and the ongoing danger this presents to public health and community safety, I will close Stanford Avenue in front of the Mission Peak trails, staging area and parking lot that are accessed from Stanford Avenue … unless you choose to extend your own closure of this entrance,” Petersen wrote in an April 30, 2021, letter.

The park district again relented, criticizing the city’s decision as limiting access to public parks during a time when health officials were encouraging outdoor activity, and questioning Petersen’s authority to make such an order and threat.

The park district board of directors was convinced by its staff during its recent Nov. 2 meeting that new, clarified language in the revised lease would ensure the district has “sole authority” over the park operations, including the power to decide on any temporary closures.

“Should a closure like we experienced ever happen again, and the city try to close the park again, we would have a good basis to go into court and seek an injunction,” Carol Victor, the park district’s attorney, said at the meeting.

But Fremont’s attorneys have said they disagree with that interpretation.

“The park district does have the authority over the park, but the city still does have the authority over the streets,” Interim City Attorney Debra Margolis said during the Nov. 9 council meeting.

Deputy City Attorney Bronwen Lacey said Petersen’s authority at the time was under the health and safety code, and had “nothing to do with the lease.” Lacey said if Fremont ever took such an action again, and the park district wanted to take the city to court, “they are welcome to do so.”

“I just don’t see how we can sign a lease when there is such a clear misunderstanding or a divergence of understanding of what the lease actually means,” Councilmember Kassan said at the council meeting.

“We were well within our authority to make that decision,” Mayor Lily Mei said of the city’s earlier actions. “We did not close down the park. What we did is, we decided to close down the street,” she said.

“To suggest that all they were doing was shutting down the street, and not the entrance to the park, is like claiming that Trump is still president. It’s just make-believe; it’s not true,” Coffey said in an interview.

“The purpose and intent of what they did was to shut that park entrance down so people could not access the park from there,” he said.

Dave Mason, a park district representative, said that although the Fremont City Council’s vote to send the lease back for further negotiations was disappointing, the district is still “optimistic that we can come to an agreement.”

Bosques, the city spokesperson, also struck a hopeful tone in an interview.

“They’re the best ones to manage this park and it’s a regional attraction that also has some benefits to the city of Fremont, so we definitely want to see this lease worked out, and on the books,” she said.