CECILIA MATTINO v. CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 3, 2022
Docket20-1921
StatusPublished

This text of CECILIA MATTINO v. CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA (CECILIA MATTINO v. CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CECILIA MATTINO v. CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 3, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1921 Lower Tribunal No. 20-032 ________________

Cecilia Mattino, et al., Appellants,

vs.

City of Marathon, Florida, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Economic Opportunity.

Richard Grosso, P.A., and Richard Grosso (Plantation), for appellants.

Shawn D. Smith, Key West City Attorney, and George B. Wallace, Assistant City Attorney; Smith Hawks, PL, and Barton W. Smith, Nikki Pappas and Christopher B. Deem, for appellees.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

EMAS, J. I. INTRODUCTION

Appellants Cecilia Mattino, Naja Girard and Catherine Bosworth,

permanent residents of the Florida Keys, appeal from a final order of the

Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), which determined that the

Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by the City of Key West, City of

Marathon and City of Islamorada (collectively the Cities) are in compliance

with Florida law. While appellants raise several claims,1 we write to address

only the contention that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments fail to

maintain a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of

no more than 24 hours, as required by section 380.0552(9)(a)2., Florida

Statutes (2020). We agree and, for the reasons that follow, we reverse the

order as to the City of Marathon and City of Islamorada. However, we affirm

the order as it relates to the City of Key West.2

1 We affirm without further discussion as to the additional claims raised by appellants, which include: (1) the amendments violate the “internal consistency” requirement in section 163.3177, Florida Statutes; (2) the two- phase evacuation plan violates section 163.3177(1)(f)1., Florida Statutes, because it is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis; and (3) the Agency erred in interpreting section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, to allow the general “Principles for Guiding Development” to justify non-compliance with the specific 24-hour evacuation time development cap in section 380.0552(9)(a)(2). 2 The cities of Marathon and Islamorada are located within the statutorily designated “Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern.” In 1984, the City of Key West was designated an Area of Critical State Concern, pursuant to

2 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Florida Keys Area Protection Act and the 24-Hour Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time Requirement

Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (2020), is known as the “Florida

Keys Area Protection Act.” First enacted in 1979, the Act designates the

Florida Keys as an Area of Critical State Concern, and expresses a

legislative intent to establish a land use management plan to protect the

Florida Keys environment, preserve the Keys’ unique character, promote

orderly and balanced growth, and protect and improve water quality.

Importantly for our purposes, the Legislature also expressed, through this

Act, its intent to:

Provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys.

Ensure that the population of the Florida Keys can be safely evacuated.

§ 380.0552(2)(d) and (j).

In 2006, the Florida Legislature revised the Act, adding a provision that

all amendments to the comprehensive plans in the Florida Keys Area must

Chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code. As a result, Marathon and Islamorada are subject to the requirements of section 380.0552(9)(a)2., while Key West is not. Key West is instead subject to the Principles for Guiding Development contained in Florida Administrative Code, Rule 28- 36.003.

3 be reviewed for compliance with the “[g]oals, objectives and policies to

protect public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster by

maintaining a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent

residents of no more than 24 hours.” § 380.0552(4)(e)2.,3 Fla. Stat. (2006)

(emphasis added). The statute further provides this evacuation clearance

time “shall be determined by a hurricane evacuation study conducted in

accordance with a professionally accepted methodology and approved by

the state land planning agency.” Id.

B. The Cities’ Current Comprehensive Plans

Each City’s current comprehensive plan includes a DEO work program

designed to address certain categories of concern. Relevant to this appeal,

the work program included a list of requirements that had to be satisfied by

July 1, 2012. Significant among them was a requirement that local

governments within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern

(Islamorada and Marathon, but not Key West) enter into a memorandum of

understanding with DEO, the Division of Emergency Management and each

of the other Keys local governments to stipulate to “input variables and

assumptions, including regional considerations, for utilizing the Florida Keys

3 The language of this provision has remained unchanged since its adoption in 2006, but in 2010 was renumbered to section 380.0552(9)(a)2.

4 Hurricane Evacuation Model or other models acceptable to the Department

to accurately depict evacuation clearance times for the population of the

Florida Keys.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-20.140. Further, the model had to be

run so as “to complete an analysis of maximum build-out capacity for the

Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, consistent with the requirement

to maintain a 24-hour evacuation clearance time and the Florida Keys

Carrying Capacity Study constraints.” Id.

In 2012, the DEO created the Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time

Workgroup (the Evacuation Workgroup), which held a series of public

workshops. The Evacuation Workgroup ultimately presented its findings and

selected a hurricane model (the Transportation Interface for Modeling

Evacuations, “TIME”) to accurately depict evacuation clearance times for the

population of the Keys Area of Critical State Concern and the Key West Area

of Critical State Concern. The selected scenario included the continuation

of then-existing annual building permit allocations and produced an

evacuation clearance time of 24 hours, with a future allocation of 3,500 new

residential building permits to be distributed over a ten-year period from 2013

to 2023. Each local government would be allotted their share of residential

building permits from the 3,500 additional units accounted for in the TIME

model.

5 This evacuation scenario assumed a two-phase evacuation plan, with

Phase I (the “first” 24-hour evacuation period) consisting of non-residents,

visitors, recreational vehicles, travel trailers, live-aboards (transient and non-

transient), military personnel, mobile home residents, special needs

residents, and hospital and nursing home patients. The Phase I evacuation

was further divided into two groups with military personnel, tourists, and

other non-residents ordered to evacuate approximately 48 hours in advance

of predicted arrival of tropical storm force winds; and mobile home residents,

special needs residents, and hospital and nursing home patients ordered to

evacuate approximately 36 hours in advance of predicted arrival of tropical

storm force winds.

Phase II (the “second” 24-hour evacuation period) consisted of Florida

Keys permanent residents living in site-built homes (as opposed to

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
530 U.S. 363 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Larimore v. State
2 So. 3d 101 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
State v. Jett
626 So. 2d 691 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion
604 So. 2d 452 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
United Grand Condominium Owners, Inc. v. Grand Condominium Association, Inc.
929 So. 2d 24 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Florida Convalescent Centers v. Somberg
840 So. 2d 998 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Spv Realty, Lc
212 So. 3d 419 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Dmb Investment Trust v. Islamorada, Village of Islands
225 So. 3d 312 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Safirstein v. Dept. of Health
271 So. 3d 1178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Florida Hospital v. State Agency for Health Care Administration
823 So. 2d 844 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
CECILIA MATTINO v. CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecilia-mattino-v-city-of-marathon-florida-fladistctapp-2022.