By Coral Gables Gazette staff
The City Commission voted 4-0 Tuesday to advance the University of Miami’s proposed 30-year development agreement and four related comprehensive-plan and zoning amendments, with Commissioner Ariel Fernandez absent from the discussion and votes.
Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioners Melissa Castro and Richard Lara each voted yes on all five ordinances. The measures still require second-reading approval before taking effect.
A sixth UM item, a resolution seeking conditional-use approval of the university’s amended Campus Master Plan, was not voted on Tuesday and is expected to return when the ordinances come back for final consideration.
The package would replace the campus’s existing 6.8 million-square-foot development cap with a floor area ratio of 1.0, allowing approximately 10.5 million square feet; permit hospital use of up to 100 beds within the campus Multi-Use Area; raise the enrollment mitigation threshold from 13,000 to 17,500 students; convey the 5.52-acre Lee Lincoln property to the city as Centennial Park; increase UM’s annual payment to the city by 4 percent each year; and transfer management of certain city-controlled metered parking spaces to the university.
Jeff Bass, the attorney representing UM, framed the proposal as the next long-term chapter of a regulatory structure he helped negotiate in 2010. If commissioners ultimately approve it, Bass told them, “you won’t see me again for another 30 years once we get through second reading.”
He called Tuesday’s hearing a “historic moment” for the city and university and introduced several members of UM’s Board of Trustees in attendance, including Chairman Manny Kadre.
Park restrictions clarified, but Castro seeks tighter language
The most sustained commission discussion centered on the Lee Lincoln property, which the agreement would convey to Coral Gables and rename Centennial Park.
Bass described the property during UM’s presentation as a “green and beautiful passive place, much like it is now,” and said it serves as a buffer between the university and nearby single-family homes.
Castro said she wanted the language governing the property made “airtight,” with the land explicitly maintained as a passive park without major structures. She suggested walkways, benches and trees as appropriate uses and asked to work with the city attorney on stronger language before second reading.
She also sought additional direct benefits for Coral Gables residents, including possible access to university facilities for Coral Gables Senior High School, and proposed some form of periodic financial review, potentially every five years. Castro nevertheless said before the vote that she intended to support the agreement and wanted to work through the remaining details between readings.
Lago responded that the park protections Castro was seeking had been part of the negotiations from the beginning. He read portions of the proposed restrictions into the record, saying the property “shall be perpetually used and maintained for public park purposes only” and could not be sold, leased or used for commercial, medical or other nonpark purposes.
He said there would be no major playground structures or water features. City Manager Peter Iglesias, who lives across the street from the park, confirmed that the restrictions had been part of the negotiations.
Lago also said UM had received interest from developers in the property because of its development potential but had declined to pursue those opportunities. In the same discussion, he said there had “never been an interest in developing this property” by the university and that there never would be.
Separately, Lago said he intends to pursue a broader city measure requiring voter approval before city parkland could be sold, including land at the War Memorial Youth Center. That proposal was not part of Tuesday’s UM package.
How future campus projects would be reviewed
City planning staff also addressed a question that has followed the agreement through earlier hearings: which future university projects would return for public review and which could be approved administratively.
Staff explained that increased development intensity within the Campus Core Area would trigger conditional-use review. Other changes within the Core Area could be reviewed administratively, while projects in the Transition and Buffer areas are subject to different standards that can require either conditional-use or administrative review depending on what is proposed.
Staff said those approval processes are not being changed by the current amendments.
No new traffic analysis presented
Traffic, one of the principal concerns raised during the Planning and Zoning Board’s Aug. 12 hearing, received discussion Tuesday but no new study directly addressing a board member’s request for updated analysis.
Bass highlighted transportation measures already in place under the existing agreement, including the prohibition on freshman cars, assigned parking, an internal campus road and the Hurricane Shuttle, which he said carries 463,000 riders annually. He also said UM conducts traffic counts at campus entrances and exits every year and submits a regional traffic study to the city every five years.
Bass argued those programs demonstrate that university growth can occur without corresponding increases in surrounding traffic if mobility measures are implemented alongside development.
But no new traffic analysis was presented specifically in response to Planning and Zoning Board Felix Pardo’s request.
Anderson praised the university’s transportation efforts, saying residents she speaks with are pleased that UM has concentrated much of its growth inward rather than toward surrounding neighborhoods. She also cited UM’s participation in regional transportation efforts and efforts to improve pedestrian safety around campus.
Lago, who lives near the university, said parking problems that once affected his neighborhood had substantially improved and credited UM’s campus transportation programs with reducing impacts on surrounding residents.
Lago says land value drove the financial trade-off
Lago provided the commission’s fullest explanation of the financial bargain underlying the agreement, arguing that Coral Gables deliberately accepted a comparatively modest annual cash payment in exchange for acquiring land he expects to become substantially more valuable.
He cited as comparisons a nearby five-acre property he said sold for $80 million about five years ago and a three-acre parcel he said UM more recently sold for $90 million. The Gazette has not independently verified those sales.
“Do you know what the value of those six acres are?” Lago asked, referring to Lee Lincoln. “Just run the numbers.”
Later, Lago said UM had been willing to pay more annually but that the value of the land required the parties to find a “happy medium.” He said the city prioritized permanent control of the property and noted that the new agreement, unlike the existing one, provides for a 4 percent annual increase in UM’s payment.
“That’s why you don’t see a much higher annual payment like maybe you see in other universities,” Lago said, predicting the park property could double or triple in value over the next 10 to 20 years.
He then directly rejected Castro’s suggestion that the financial terms could be revisited periodically.
“This is a 30-year agreement,” Lago said. “There’s no renegotiating.”
He said there would not be a five-year window in which the city and university returned to reopen the bargain.
Lara characterized the agreement as a “win-win,” saying UM gains greater certainty and capacity for long-term growth while Coral Gables receives permanent parkland, recurring revenue, negotiated protections and greater certainty about how university development will occur.
Castro raises questions directly with UM chairman
After public comment closed, Kadre addressed commissioners, calling the agreement transformational for both the university and Coral Gables and saying he hoped for unanimous approval. He also noted disappointment in Fernandez’s absence.
Castro then told Kadre she had emailed him directly with concerns ahead of the meeting.
Kadre said receiving an email from a commissioner was “a little unusual” because Iglesias had been designated to negotiate for the city but said he was willing to answer Castro’s questions and believed the concerns she had raised had already been addressed. He also offered to continue discussing them between readings.
Castro responded that some issues had been addressed while others remained questionable and said she wanted to continue working through them with the city attorney before final consideration.
Lago later thanked Kadre and other university representatives for their roles in reaching the agreement.
Resident questions reporting under existing agreement
Resident Maria Cruz used public comment to raise questions about UM’s reporting under the current 2010 agreement.
Cruz said the annual report presented to the commission July 7 identified a baseline enrollment of 10,000 students for 2024-25 and referenced additional reporting requirements when enrollment exceeded 12,000 and 13,000 students. She said supporting material she expected to accompany those thresholds was not included before the city moved toward a new 17,500-student mitigation threshold.
She also questioned whether UM’s existing $1.025 million annual payment had been made for 2025, saying the report referenced the prior year but did not make the 2025 payment clear.
The Gazette has not independently verified whether the enrollment provisions Cruz cited were triggered, whether additional reporting was required or whether the 2025 payment was made.
Other speakers supported the agreement, including Roger Tovar, a former chairman of Florida International University’s Board of Trustees, who argued that strengthening UM serves the broader community even as traffic, density and neighborhood impacts require continued attention.
A representative of a nearby Ponce de Leon Boulevard property also spoke in support, saying UM’s expansion could improve access to medical care, create jobs and benefit surrounding businesses.
What happens before second reading
The comprehensive-plan amendments will now be transmitted to the state for review before the package returns to the commission for second reading and final consideration.
The Campus Master Plan conditional-use resolution, Item E-16, was listed alongside the other UM items but was expressly not voted on Tuesday. It is expected to return with the ordinances at second reading.
No date for the second-reading hearing was announced Tuesday.
