Monday, August 10, 2026

Coral Gables approves dog park zoning, but alternate site and lawsuit keep fight alive

  • NEWS
Pet waste station sign in a grassy park area with a person walking a dog in the background.
The city-owned parcel at 520 University Drive, shown near the Coral Gables Library, remains the focus of a dog park dispute even after commissioners approved zoning changes for the site Tuesday.

By Coral Gables Gazette staff

After receiving the go-ahead from a Circuit Court judge who declined to halt the project, the Coral Gables City Commission voted 3-2 Tuesday to approve zoning changes needed to keep plans for a proposed dog park at 520 University Drive moving forward. The property sits across the street from the Coral Gables Library and has been at the center of a months-long dispute between city officials and nearby residents.

Despite the vote, several developments at the meeting suggested the future of the dog park remains uncertain. Commissioners heard a new proposal for an alternate location, city staff was directed to evaluate that option, opponents argued the project lacks funding, and the city’s lawsuit over the proposal will continue even after the city’s victory in court.

A 3-2 vote after court clears the way

The ordinance passed with Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioner Richard Lara voting in favor. Commissioners Melissa Castro and Ariel Fernandez opposed the measure, with Fernandez repeating a position he took at first reading, saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The ordinance removes conditions that had limited the 520 University Drive parcel to overflow parking and eliminates a provision that would have returned the property to single-family zoning if it was no longer used for parking. Planning Director Jennifer Garcia clarified that the action did not change the property’s special-use zoning designation but instead allows the parcel to be used as a public park in addition to overflow parking.

Neighbors press safety, notice and compatibility concerns

About 45 minutes of public testimony preceded the vote, with most speakers representing the University Green Neighbors Association and reiterating concerns they have raised for months, including traffic safety, environmental impacts, neighborhood compatibility and a lack of notice before the city first advanced plans for the site.

An alternate site emerges

Among the most detailed presentations came from resident Lynn Guarch Pardo, who urged commissioners to postpone the vote and instead consider relocating the dog park to the Youth Center’s west parking lot along Segovia Street. Using a PowerPoint presentation, she outlined 20 reasons why she believes the alternative site would better serve both dog owners and nearby residents.

Guarch Pardo argued the parking lot is already zoned for park use, does not border single-family homes, is closer to many residents who originally signed petitions supporting a neighborhood dog park and already has water, electrical service and drainage infrastructure. She also said the location would provide safer pedestrian access away from busy University Drive, offer mature shade trees, require less maintenance, preserve the library’s nearby microhabitat and still allow overflow parking when needed. She concluded by asking commissioners to delay action long enough for staff to study the proposal.

Her presentation appeared to gain some traction with commissioners.

Immediately after the vote, Anderson asked City Manager Peter Iglesias to have staff review the proposed alternative site and report back with its findings.

“We received today an alternative location which staff has not had an opportunity to look at,” Anderson said. “I’d like for staff to look at this and provide feedback.”

Iglesias agreed, telling commissioners staff would evaluate the proposal and return with recommendations.

Funding and recusal questions remain

Another opponent, attorney Sylvia King, who has been assisting residents challenging the project, also suggested construction may not happen anytime soon.

King told commissioners that during the court hearing, “the city admitted there are no funds and no donors for this project” and represented that it would be “at least three years before it could move forward.” Based on that testimony, she argued the commission should not rush to advance zoning changes while litigation remains pending and funding has not been secured.

King also renewed her request that Anderson recuse herself from voting, arguing the vice mayor had publicly supported the University Drive location for years and had prejudged the issue. Anderson did not recuse herself and voted with the majority.

Judge denies emergency injunction

The commission vote came only hours after the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The hearing lasted roughly six hours the previous day before continuing the following morning with closing arguments conducted over Zoom. The plaintiffs had sought an emergency injunction preventing the city from taking any further action on the ordinance until the lawsuit could be resolved.

The mayor concluded the discussion by asking City Attorney Cristina Suarez to summarize the status of the litigation.

Suarez said the lawsuit filed by the University Green Neighbors Association and resident Jose Val Cohen remains active even though the court denied the request for emergency relief.

“The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking injunctive relief to, among other things, stop the second reading of this ordinance,” Suarez said. “The court ruled from the bench and denied the motion for injunctive relief.”

Lawsuit continues

Asked what comes next, Suarez replied, “The lawsuit proceeds … we were able to have today’s second reading, but the lawsuit proceeds. There’s been no final determination.”

This Post Has 29 Comments

  1. Justin July 11, 2026 Reply

    Hi.

  5. Lynn Guarch-Pardo July 13, 2026 Reply

    It was very disappointing to have no discussion on the dais during this second reading, even though there was new information provided.
    It was very disturbing to have no acknowledgment of the motion requesting Rhonda Anderson to recuse herself, while it’s very obvious that there exists no objectivity as to her position on the item.
    It was very much appreciated that Commissioner Fernandez and Commissioner Castro actually listened to the residents and tried to protect the neighborhood and the green space. The removal of the reverter clause was not discussed, was glossed over by the majority on the commission, and shows a total disregard and disrespect for the nearby community, and to the prior commission who sought to protect the space from incompatible development.

  6. Expect no less July 13, 2026 Reply

    Do you expect anything different from underhanded King Lago. Someone is paying him off.

Leave a Reply

RECENT STORIES