By Coral Gables Gazette staff
Coral Gables officials signaled Tuesday that plans for a proposed dog park at 520 University Drive will continue, while committing to neighborhood meetings aimed at addressing resident concerns about process, design and impacts on nearby homes.
The discussion came during a lengthy Jan. 13 City Commission debate that followed weeks of controversy over a prior November vote authorizing city staff to move forward with development of an off-leash dog park on the city-owned parcel across from the Coral Gables Library. While some commissioners questioned whether nearby residents had sufficient notice before that vote, city leadership emphasized that the site is already designated as park land and that public input is typically gathered during the design phase.
Staff outlines conceptual dog park plan
City staff opened the discussion with a conceptual presentation outlining how the dog park could be configured. Deena Bell, the city’s assistant public works director for green space management, described a plan that would divide the site into separate large- and small-dog areas, preserve existing mature trees, and include a 25-foot landscaped buffer between the park and adjacent residential properties. Bell stressed that the renderings were conceptual and intended to start a conversation.
“This was already a park site,” City Manager Peter Iglesias said during the meeting, explaining that staff customarily presents proposed layouts to residents once a use has been identified. “The next step would be to meet with the residents to show them the proposed project.”
Residents cite notice, green space and neighborhood impacts
Before commission deliberations began, more than a dozen residents spoke during public comment, most opposing the location of the dog park. Speakers repeatedly cited the lack of direct notice prior to the November vote, the loss of an unfenced passive green space, concerns about noise and sanitation, and the proximity of historic homes dating to the 1920s.
Several residents said they learned of the dog park only after the commission had already approved the earlier resolution. “No one asked the neighbors who are directly impacted,” said Jose Aval Cohen, who lives across from the site. “There was no notice, no flyer, no neighborhood meeting.”
Others focused on environmental and quality-of-life issues. Residents described the parcel as a natural green space used by families, children, and seniors, and as a habitat for birds and wildlife. “This passive green space brings serenity and is a healing spot for me,” said Maria Rojas, urging the city to preserve what she called a “hidden gem.”
Legal concerns and historic context raised
Opposition speakers were joined by Chris King, an attorney representing the University Green Group, who argued that the proposed dog park raised zoning, noise, and historic-preservation concerns. King said residents felt excluded from the earlier decision and asked the commission to reverse course.
Supporters point to citywide demand and prior vote
Supporters of the dog park also addressed the commission, pointing to petitions expressing citywide demand for additional off-leash areas. Mary Powell, who organized petitions in favor of dog parks, said support extended across Coral Gables and defended the November process as properly noticed and debated.
“Support for dog parks in Coral Gables is broad, documented, and citywide,” Powell told commissioners, urging them to honor the earlier vote.
Commissioners divided on process, united on engagement
Commissioner Melissa Castro, who introduced the Jan. 13 item calling for reconsideration, said she acted after being approached by residents who were dissatisfied with how the project advanced. “When I have this amount of residents approaching me with dissatisfaction… I can’t just turn my face,” Castro said, while emphasizing that she was not opposing dog parks in principle.
Commissioner Ariel Fernandez echoed concerns about outreach and supported revisiting the process. Commissioner Richard Lara, however, defended the November vote as lawful and cautioned against undoing it, saying the focus should be on design-stage engagement rather than relitigating whether the park should exist at all.
City clarifies notice requirements and next steps
City Attorney Cristina M. Suárez clarified that no mailed notice was legally required before the November vote and that agenda posting constitutes official notice. She added that community input is typically sought once staff begins developing a park’s design.
Mayor Vince Lago sought to de-escalate tensions and repeatedly emphasized consensus-building. He rejected claims that residents were intentionally excluded and said the city followed its established procedures. At the same time, he acknowledged the depth of neighborhood concern and proposed facilitated discussions moving forward.
“We’re here to find a solution,” Lago said, cautioning against “pitting homeowners against homeowners.” He suggested that representatives from both supporters and opponents meet with city staff and legal counsel to explore ways to address issues such as layout, buffers, and potential impacts.
Lago also asked staff whether existing dog parks adjacent to residential areas had generated noise complaints. Iglesias responded that they had not. “We’ve had no complaints concerning noise on those dog parks,” he said.
Neighborhood meetings expected as planning continues
By the end of the meeting, commissioners broadly agreed that additional neighborhood engagement would occur before final design decisions are made. While the underlying disagreement over the location remains unresolved, city leaders indicated that the next step will be community meetings focused on the proposed design and mitigation measures, rather than an immediate reversal of the project.
This Post Has 14 Comments
There was no “pitting of homeowners against homeowners” by the University Green Neighborhood Association. The mayor claimed it was a political move on the part of Commissioner Castro. That is totally untrue and misrepresentative of the reality of the situation.
The intention of Commissioner Castro (and very much appreciated by the University Green
Neighbors) was to request a rescinding of the vote taken November 18th without any noticing of or input from the immediate residents who will be directly impacted by the placement of a fenced bark park which will share their property lines. This lack of notice was not accidental, it was completely intentional in an attempt to avoid opposition. Even if it isn’t legally required by the city (which it certainly should be), Rhonda Anderson should have reached out and requested input from the impacted neighborhood in an effort to be transparent and respectful of the residents and the voters she claims to represent and protect.
The group requested a meeting with her after the vote became known, and that group meeting was also denied.
Her opportunity to correct these mistakes was ignored, even with a roomful of her constituents asking politely and backed up by facts. All that was requested was a reset, so that the most impacted residents would have the opportunity for discussion and input that they should have been offered before the vote was taken.
That was denied by Anderson, Lago and Lara.
The notion that the bark park item was on the agenda for November 18th and the affected neighborhood would have had access to it 3 days prior to the meeting is ludicrous! Why would anyone who wasn’t aware that a bark park was being planned for their backyard, be expected to check the agenda??? The neighborhood was intentionally kept in the dark, and that flimsy excuse carries no weight.
As far as the petition the supporters presented at the November meeting, it included addresses far outside the area slated for the bark park, some as far away as Cocoplum, North Ponce, and 8th Street. Other addresses were outside the city and as far away as Brickell Bay, 27th and 79th Avenues! Some of the signees only wrote their first names. Some don’t even own dogs. But they were touted as residents who were in support of a dog park, as though it was a real need, although the petition didn’t even specify where this proposed park would be located.
A word to the wise…when one neighborhood is treated like this, all neighborhoods in the Ciry Beautiful are vulnerable to the same treatment. Keep your eyes and ears open, it may happen to you!
Could you imagine voting for Rhonda and then having her situate a dog park next to your house? I would be mad af. In the words of Bono, thank God it’s them instead of you.
I support dogs, and dog parks.
Rhonda Anderson and I bond on this subject.
I think residents’ concerns must be meaningfully addressed and remedies found, but I join Ms Anderson in being unable to comprehend hostility towards dogs.
There is no hostility toward dogs!
The objection is to having a bark park placed adjacent to homes, slipped surreptitiously into the neighborhood, with no notice whatsoever.
The residents most impacted have dogs of their own.
This has nothing to do with dogs, it has to do with the intrusion into your home of noise and traffic. Avecitvin your backyard. Anderson is a Lago who is a total authoritarian bully. Lara is their puppet. First to blame Castro who is his favorite punching bag is ridiculous. He is shameless. Then Inglesis who we did not want in our city telling us what to do. YOU WORK FOR US!!! And Anderson has never answered my calls on other subjects. Everything is about her agenda. The 3 worst leaders in South Florida. Hey Lago, can’t wait until Castro gets more votes than you. You 3 are deplorables and lack respect for your residents.
This “petition” should’ve been thrown out. Impacted neighbors needed to be informed prior, as we always are when things go up in our backyards. Why wasn’t this done is the question. Follow the money! It always leads to the answers!!
Agreed!
yes, they shouldve been informed before. but that’s the way Lagos Coral Gables runs. In any event, they’re informed now. and their POV is out. (a NIMBY POV that surprised no one!). Stop using this lame excuse as a reason to not do this. yes, you werent told before. youre told now. get over it!
I am so sick of King Lago and his authoritarian behavior. Does he not read these feeds that shows how much this man is disliked in this City. We have had enough !!! Dade County Mayor Cava is being recalled. Will someone please start the process and get rid of Lago. He is a cancer to our City and vindictive to Castro. Hey Lago, did you see the poll. Castro is way ahead of you so all your antics are just making you look horrible.
I have yet to see ONE dog at the dog park behind Salvadore Park, so I question the “need” for another dog park.
Having a green and spacious dog park is more than necessary in times when families are increasingly embracing responsible pet ownership. Salvatore Park is something, but without green and play areas, without space for owners to sit, without greenery, we still need a lot for our dogs.
Again, it is also the way this was handled. Lago, Anderson, Inglesis and Lara WORK FOR US. Underhanded bunch of rulers.
If your neighbor across the street wanted to paint their house blue ( I understand we have rules for that ) but let’s say we didn’t, and the neighbors who woke up each day and had to look at that were against it. But a vote was taken and the majority of residents around the corner or blocks away liked the houses painted blue voted for it. Would that be fair and exceptable ???
This is exactly what is happening here…
I actually do have hostility toward dogs.