← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 09795-2013 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 2013
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber dismissed the amparo appeal, finding no violation of the principle of public participation or irregularity in the determination of the environmental assessment instrument for a moderate-impact commercial project.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el recurso de amparo, al no constatar violación al principio de participación ciudadana ni irregularidad en la determinación del instrumento de evaluación ambiental para un proyecto comercial de moderado impacto.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber analyzed an amparo appeal filed against SETENA for the alleged violation of the principle of public participation in the environmental assessment of the "Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados" (Plaza Viva) project. The appellant argued that SETENA failed to notify the Municipality of Desamparados about the project and that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should have been required instead of an Environmental Management Plan (P-PGA), given the project's scale. The Chamber determined that, as a moderate environmental impact project (484 Environmental Impact Significance points), the appropriate instrument is an Environmental Management Plan, not an EIS, according to SETENA's technical classification, which cannot be questioned in this venue as it involves a mere legality discussion. Regarding public participation, the Chamber reiterated its importance but concluded that no violation occurred, because the Municipality was aware of the project through the land-use certificate and other documents, and a social perception study with surveys of the population in the area of influence was conducted. Moreover, the appellant was able to join the administrative file and present objections. The Chamber dismissed the appeal.La Sala Constitucional analiza un recurso de amparo presentado contra SETENA por la presunta violación al principio de participación ciudadana en la evaluación ambiental del proyecto "Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados" (Plaza Viva). El recurrente alegó que SETENA omitió notificar a la Municipalidad de Desamparados sobre el proyecto y que debió exigirse un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA) en lugar de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental (P-PGA), dada la magnitud de la obra. La Sala determinó que, al tratarse de un proyecto de moderado impacto ambiental (484 puntos de Significancia de Impacto Ambiental), el instrumento adecuado es un Plan de Gestión Ambiental y no un EsIA, según la clasificación técnica de SETENA, la cual no puede ser cuestionada en esta sede por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad. Respecto a la participación ciudadana, la Sala reiteró su importancia, pero concluyó que en este caso no hubo violación, ya que la Municipalidad tuvo conocimiento del proyecto mediante el certificado de uso de suelo y otros documentos, y se realizó un estudio de percepción social con encuestas a la población del área de influencia. Además, el recurrente pudo apersonarse al expediente y presentar sus objeciones. La Sala declaró sin lugar el recurso.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Thus, this Court cannot question the technical criteria that justify that the project in question requires an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as it involves a mere legality discussion. In the specific case, the appellant considers such right violated, pointing out that the appealed authority failed to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, resulting in the municipality not informing the community about the intended work, so they could express their opinion or intervene as they deemed appropriate. However, from the evidence provided, it is clear that the Project is not classified as high impact, which means it does not require an Environmental Impact Study and, as such, any request for a hearing must be previously assessed by the Plenary Commission. Regarding the municipality's lack of knowledge alleged by the appellant, the record shows that from the moment the proponent submitted the project to SETENA, the land-use conformity certificate and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, referring to the plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences.De manera que, no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los criterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en reiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción competente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el impacto ambiental que pueda producir un proyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad. En el caso concreto, el recurrente estima violentado tal derecho, por cuanto señala que la autoridad recurrida omitió notificar a la Municipalidad correspondiente de la existencia del proyecto en cuestión, lo que trae como consecuencia que el municipio no ponga en conocimiento de la comunidad la obra pretendida, para que puedan emitir su opinión al respecto o intervenir como lo consideren pertinente. No obstante, de las pruebas aportadas a los autos, se tiene que el Proyecto aludido no está calificado de alto impacto, motivo por el cual no requiere de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y como tal, cualquier solicitud de audiencia, requiere ser valorada de previo por la Comisión Plenaria. En cuanto a la falta de conocimiento del municipio que alega el recurrente, del expediente se desprende que desde el momento en que el gestionante presentó ante SETENA el proyecto a su conocimiento, se adjuntó el certificado de uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia al plano donde se realizará el proyecto y sus eventuales consecuencias.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda."
"The best way to address environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the relevant level."
Considerando IV
"El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda."
Considerando IV
"la participación ciudadana no se limitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, (…) sino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les ofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas del Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, o eventualmente pudieren afectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos sectores de la población."
"public participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, (…) but also, in this new vision, that people are offered a real opportunity to contribute to political decision-making by the State, especially when these have national significance, or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population."
Considerando IV
"la participación ciudadana no se limitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, (…) sino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les ofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas del Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, o eventualmente pudieren afectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos sectores de la población."
Considerando IV
"no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los criterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en reiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción competente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el impacto ambiental que pueda producir un proyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad."
"this Court cannot question the technical criteria that justify that the project in question requires an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as it involves a mere legality discussion."
Considerando III
"no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los criterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en reiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción competente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el impacto ambiental que pueda producir un proyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad."
Considerando III
Full documentDocumento completo
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at ten hours zero minutes on the nineteenth of July, two thousand thirteen.
Amparo action processed in expediente number 13-007375-0007-CO, filed by Rafael Ángel Rojas Jiménez, of legal age, married, with identity card 1-830-927, resident of Desamparados, against the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.
Resultando:
1.- By writing received in the Secretariat of the Sala at 14:49 hours on July 1, 2013, the appellant files an amparo action against SETENA. He states that on November 26, 2012, the project "Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados" was submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, to which the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012-SETENA was assigned. He explains that the cited project occupies an area of 14,400 square meters, at a cost of 14 million dollars. He adds that on May 24, 2013, he filed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental -SETENA- a request to become a party to the administrative expediente, in which he noted that SETENA had not complied with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, which states: "Within the five business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental shall send an extract of it to the municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out («)". He adds that by official letter SGDEA-1599-2013 of May 31, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA admitted his request to become a party and indicated that his observations would be taken into account. He explains that by official letter SG-1695-2013 of June 7, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA indicated to him that, in accordance with Executive Decrees 31849 and 32966 (Reglamento de Procedimientos de la SETENA and its reform), the project developer is the one who must deliver to SETENA the environmental impact declaration with the received stamp of the Municipality of the Canton. He emphasizes that Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente orders that any human activity that alters or destroys elements of the environment or generates waste, toxic or hazardous materials requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. He points out that the technical-legal instrument that the developer submitted to SETENA for the project evaluation is called "Pronóstico de Plan de Gestión Ambiental (P-PGA)", for a project of medium environmental impact. He states that SETENA issued official letter DEA-1384-2013 of May 13, 2013, addressed to the developer, in which it ordered that within thirty business days an annex to the P-PGA must be submitted, since there were a series of doubts. He alleges that meanwhile the people who are within the area of direct influence know nothing regarding this project. He claims that SETENA has not ordered any citizen participation activity such as a public hearing to be carried out, despite the magnitude of the project, which is being carried out in a residential zone, where on the lot boundaries alone more than 600 people reside and thousands of vehicles transit, since it borders a national route. He highlights that regardless of the technical instrument with which SETENA endorses the project, it must send a copy to the competent Municipality (Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) so that it can also comply with the principle of citizen participation. He explains that in this case the developer directly submitted the documents for SETENA to approve the project, specifically submitted a Pronóstico de Plan Gestión Ambiental, implying that the project is of medium environmental significance, which is not true, since even SETENA requested an annex to its P-PGA, so the appropriate course was to carry out an Environmental Impact Study. He requests that SETENA be ordered to require the developer to submit an Environmental Impact Study and to hold a public hearing.
2.- Uriel Juárez Baltodano, in his capacity as Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, reports under oath that on the 26th, the project called ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´ (Plaza Viva) was filed, and it was assigned the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012. The Project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a useful or sellable area of 9,559.49 meters, the rest is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom sets, and covered parking. The project is presented for mixed uses, among which are commercial and service premises, such as pharmacy, bookstore, home store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for restaurants and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone where it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, also integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure and contributes to the urban quality of the area. On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted an official letter correcting the square meters of construction of the project, clarifying that it is 15,495 m2 in total and not 16,747.64 m2 as initially indicated. By official letter DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, the legal representative of the developing company was cautioned that, prior to resolving the pertinent matter, they must present and clarify 12 points within a period of 30 days. On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested SETENA to have him as a party to the expediente and stated his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. On May 31, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1599-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, this Secretariat accepted the appellant as a party to the administrative expediente D1-9349-2012. On June 7, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1695-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case, the project has as its Environmental Impact Assessment instrument a Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental, not an environmental impact study, which is why the application of the provisions of Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not applicable. Likewise, it was indicated that in the environmental assessment instrument submitted by the developer, a Social Perception Study prepared by a professional in Sociology was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the area of direct and indirect influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population and which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. On June 17, 2013, the developer responded to official letter DEA-1384-2013, which is currently under analysis by the technician in charge of this Project in the Environmental Assessment Department. It indicates that it is true that the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente in Article 22 states that within 5 business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, SETENA shall send an extract thereof to the Municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out. However, as this Sala established in judgment No. 2002-1220, that does not mean that the Executive Branch cannot, through regulatory means and based on precise technical studies, determine that a specific activity or project does not require environmental impact studies, which in any case assumes that such a definition is duly reasoned and justified. That is why by regulation it was determined that the cited Article 22 would apply to all activities classified as high environmental impact and whose environmental assessment instrument is an environmental impact study, but not for other assessment instruments classified as moderate or low environmental impact. It points out that part of the requirements that SETENA asks of the developer is to present a certificate of compliant land use issued by the Municipality where the activity, work, or project is to be carried out. In this way, the Municipality will know in advance the type of project intended to be built in its cantonal jurisdiction, and which constitutes a prerequisite for being submitted to SETENA. It states that the project in question is still under study, and therefore environmental viability has not been granted. In the technical report issued by the Environmental Assessment Department in official letter UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, it was indicated that the Project complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present a Plan de Gestión Ambiental. It also noted that there was indeed awareness among the people in the project's area of influence, since when the sociologist prepared the socioeconomic and social perception study, it is information that has the character of a sworn statement, and is therefore considered current and true. In the report provided, the occupied dwellings existing in both the direct and indirect area of influence were taken as the unit of observation, numbering 725 dwellings in which approximately 2,972 people reside. 52.1% of those surveyed stated they were in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. Among the main aspects that generated concern in the population were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which the traffic study from the Dirección General de Tránsito was requested and has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions were provided. It indicates that public hearings, in accordance with Article 56 of Decree 31849, occur when any natural or legal person requests SETENA to hold one, which the Comisión Plenaria authorizes or not depending on its assessment of the magnitude of the potential environmental impact. In the event of deciding not to hold the requested public hearing, said commission must determine the mechanism through which it will receive observations. On the other hand, it points out that SETENA expedientes are public, so interested persons can become parties and make observations they deem pertinent, as the appellant did. It indicates that according to what is stated in technical report UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the developer delivers to SETENA the environmental impact declaration of the Project with the received stamp of the Municipality of the canton where the activity, work, or project is located; the compliant land use and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so they do have knowledge of the development thereof. It clarifies that SETENA did not request an annex, as the appellant suggests, but rather issued a caution to the developer in accordance with the regulations, and that this per se does not imply that the required assessment instrument must be modified. It considers that, for all the reasons stated, it is not appropriate to require an environmental impact study in the present case, since we are dealing with a project of moderate impact that also included a section on social participation. It requests that the appeal be declared without merit.
3.- By a writing filed on July 19, 2013, the appellant comments on the report issued by the respondent authority.
4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.
Drafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,
Considering:
I.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:
Likewise, it was indicated that in the environmental assessment instrument submitted by the developer, a Social Perception Study prepared by a professional in Sociology was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the area of direct and indirect influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population and which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. (see evidence attached by the respondent authority) g) According to the technical report issued by the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA, in official letter UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the Project in question complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA; furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present a Plan de Gestión Ambiental and it points out that there was indeed awareness among the people in the project's area of influence, since the socioeconomic and social perception study took as its unit of observation the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, in which approximately 2,972 people reside, of whom 52.1% of those surveyed stated they were in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. (see report issued under oath by the respondent authority) h) The main aspects that generated concern in the population in the perception study conducted by the developing company were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which SETENA requested the traffic study from the Dirección General de Tránsito which has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions are on record in the expediente. (see report issued under oath by the respondent authority) i) The Project developer delivered to SETENA the environmental impact declaration with the received stamp of the Municipality of Desamparados; the compliant land use and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so that said municipality does have knowledge of the development thereof. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority) j) SETENA has not granted environmental viability to the project in question, as it is under study. (see report issued under oath by the respondent authority) II.- Object of the appeal. The appellant states that the principle of citizen participation is violated, because SETENA has not notified the Municipality of Desamparados of the existence of the project ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´, preventing the population from being able to express themselves on the matter. He also considers that, given the magnitude of the project, an Environmental Impact Study should have been requested and not a Plan de Gestión Ambiental.
III.- On the merits. From the expediente it is evident that, in effect, the project called ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´ (Plaza Viva) was submitted to the respondent authority for the study and granting of the respective environmental viability, to which the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012 was assigned. Said project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a useful or sellable area of 9,559.49 square meters, and the rest is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom sets, and covered parking. It was designed for diverse uses, among which are commercial and service premises, such as pharmacy, bookstore, home store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for restaurants and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone, and it has 321 parking spaces. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone where it will be located. This project was evaluated by the environmental consultant who submitted it to SETENA, who classified it as medium impact, based on the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project, which is 484 points. This implies the need to present a Plan de Gestión Ambiental, not an Environmental Impact Study, which is only required for high-impact projects. This was also corroborated and endorsed by the specialized officials of SETENA. Therefore, this Tribunal could not question the technical criteria that justify that the project in question requires a Plan de Gestión Ambiental as the appropriate instrument to evaluate the environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, this Sala has stated that it is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as this is a discussion of mere legality.
IV.- On the other hand, this Tribunal has strengthened the right of the population to participate in matters that are of interest to them and that involve affecting the environment. On this point, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information concerning environmental projects, or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation but must also promote it and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322, and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held on the matter in public offices, relating to environmental impact studies under the responsibility of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, for example, be made available to interested parties. It was the Rio Convention that, in Principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:
"The best way to deal with environmental issues is through the participation of all interested citizens, at the corresponding level. At the national level, every person should have adequate training on the environment available from public authorities, including information on materials and activities that pose danger in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided." From this principle, the importance given internationally to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community, is clearly evident. Precisely, by Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought about the consequence that a very broad standing is admitted to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternated, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of attaining a public office by popular election, but also, in this new vision, to providing people with the real opportunity to contribute to the making of political decisions of the State, especially when these have national significance, or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, then, is rescued the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State, in which they can at least have access to information on the environment held by public authorities. The commented precept, therefore, incorporates the cited principle through access to the information available and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. In the matter now under analysis, our legal system already provides that private individuals can even request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by interested communities are taken into account in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been included in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and its Regulation, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance merits it, which can be requested by any interested party and assessed as such by the Comisión Plenaria. This Sala has also emphasized that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups of a private nature, as well as through local governments, to whom, due to their competence assigned in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that may in some way affect the community of their jurisdiction, and rather, if they fail to do so, they would be failing to fulfill one of their duties assigned by the constituent power, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:
"Municipalities shall promote the active, conscientious, and democratic participation of the people in the decision-making of local government. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly complied with" (Article 5 of the Código Municipal).
Thus, citizen and municipal participation is certainly of transcendent importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions charged with the preservation, monitoring, and protection of the environment and natural resources.
In the specific case, the petitioner considers this right violated, since he indicates that the respondent authority omitted to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, which results in the municipality not making the intended work known to the community, so that they can issue their opinion on the matter or intervene as they deem pertinent. However, from the evidence provided to the record, it is clear that the aforementioned Project is not classified as high-impact, for which reason it does not require an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and, as such, any request for a hearing must be evaluated beforehand by the Plenary Commission. Regarding the municipality's lack of knowledge alleged by the petitioner, it can be deduced from the file that from the moment the applicant submitted the project to SETENA for its consideration, the certificate of compliant land use and the stormwater drainage permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, in which reference is made to the site plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences. Likewise, the Environmental Management Plan submitted to SETENA bears the received stamp of the indicated Municipality. Thus, regardless of whether SETENA notified said municipal government or not, the truth is that it has had full knowledge of the existence of said project. In addition to the foregoing, together with the Environmental Management Plan, a Social Perception study prepared by a professional in Sociology, with the character of a sworn statement, was provided, showing the result of the social perception surveys in the area of direct and indirect influence and which showed a 90% level of confidence on the part of the interviewed population. This study also allowed SETENA to verify that two aspects were of most concern to the interviewed sector. One is the increase in vehicular traffic that could occur; and the other, the provision of public services. Precisely to address these concerns, SETENA requested the traffic study from the Dirección General de Tránsito, which has already been provided by the Project developer. Regarding the provision of public services, the respondent authority indicates that the certified letters of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions are in the file. This being the case, in the opinion of this Court, no injury is verified in the sense alleged by the protected party, since more than the determination of the type of instrument used to evaluate the environmental impact of the project or what is provided in the infra-legal regulations, the fact is that in the present case, the residents and the Municipality of Desamparados have been made aware of the existence of this project and have had the opportunity to express their views. This Chamber verifies that the petitioner himself appeared in the file of the project in question, where he has had the opportunity to raise his concerns, which have been answered in a timely manner by the respondent authority; and it will be in the final resolution issued by SETENA where it rules on the substantive aspects it deems appropriate, given that the project under study does not yet have the granting of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) as it is under analysis.
V.- For all of the foregoing and with respect to this jurisdiction, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of any fundamental right is verified.
Therefore:
The appeal is declared WITHOUT MERIT.
Fernando Cruz C.
Presidente a.i Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.
Aracelly Pacheco S. Rosa María Abdelnour G.
Jorge Araya G. Jose Paulino Hernández G.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- & 0!,,+0'1# The project is presented for mixed uses, which include commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, a space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone (zona franca). It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban area where it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, and it also integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure and makes a contribution to the urban quality of the area. On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant (consultor ambiental) responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted a correcting communication regarding the square meters of project construction, clarifying that it totals 15,495 m2 and not 16,747.64 m2 as had been indicated at the outset. By communication DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, the legal representative of the developer company was warned that, prior to resolving the pertinent matter, they had to submit and clarify 12 points within a period of 30 days. On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested that SETENA recognize him as a party to the proceeding in the case file (expediente) and expressed his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality (Municipalidad) of Desamparados. On May 31, 2013, through communication SGDEA-1599-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, this Secretariat recognized the appellant as a party to the administrative case file D1-9349-2012. On June 7, 2013, through communication SGDEA-1695-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case the project's instrument of Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) is an Environmental Management Forecast-Plan (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), which is why the application of the provisions of Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not applicable. Likewise, it was indicated to him that in the environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) instrument presented by the developer, a Social Perception Study prepared by a professional in Sociology was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the direct and indirect area of influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. On June 17, 2013, the developer responded to communication DEA-1384-2013, which is currently under analysis by the technician in charge of this Project in the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental). It indicates that it is true that the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), in Article 22, states that within the 5 business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, SETENA shall forward an extract of it to the Municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out. However, as the Chamber (Sala) has established in judgment No. 2002-1220, this does not mean that the Executive Branch cannot, via regulation and based on precise technical studies, determine that a specific activity or project does not require environmental impact studies, which in any case assumes that such a definition is duly reasoned and justified. It is for this reason that, by regulation, it was determined that the cited Article 22 would apply to all those activities classified as having high environmental impact and whose environmental assessment instrument is an environmental impact study, but not to other assessment instruments classified as having moderate or low environmental impact. It points out that part of the requirements that SETENA asks of the developer is to present a certificate of conforming land use (certificado de uso conforme del suelo) issued by the Municipality where the activity, work, or project is to be carried out. In this way, the Municipality will previously know the type of project that is intended to be built in its cantonal jurisdiction, and this constitutes a prerequisite for presentation to SETENA. It states that the project in question is still under study, so environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) has not been granted to it. In the technical report rendered by the Department of Environmental Assessment in communication UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, it was indicated that the Project complies with the stipulations of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, since it is presented by a developer and an environmental consultant, both registered and active with SETENA. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental). It also noted that there was indeed knowledge of the project among the people in the area of influence, since when the sociologist rendered the socioeconomic and social perception study, that information has the character of a sworn statement (declaración jurada), and is therefore considered current and truthful. In the report provided, the observation unit consisted of the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, in which approximately 2,972 people reside. 52.1% of those surveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to respond. Among the main aspects that generated concern in the population were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which the traffic study (estudio de vialidad) from the General Directorate of Traffic (Dirección General de Tránsito) was requested and has already been submitted; and the provision of public services, however the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions were submitted. It indicates that public hearings, according to Article 56 of Decreto 31849, take place when any natural or legal person requests SETENA to hold one, which the Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria) authorizes or not depending on its assessment of the magnitude of the potential environmental impact. In the event it decides not to hold the requested public hearing, said commission must determine the mechanism through which it will receive observations. On the other hand, it points out that SETENA's case files are public, so interested persons can appear and make the observations they deem pertinent, as the appellant did. It indicates that according to what is set forth in technical report UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the developer delivers to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) of the Project with the receipt stamp of the Municipality of the canton where the activity, work, or project is located; the conforming land use certificate and the stormwater drainage permit (permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales), issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so they do have knowledge of its development. It clarifies that SETENA did not request an annex, as the appellant makes it seem, but rather issued a warning (prevención) to the developer as established by the regulation, and that this does not in itself imply that the required assessment instrument must be changed. It considers that, for all the reasons stated, it is not appropriate to require an environmental impact study in the present case, as we are facing a project of moderate impact that also included a section on social participation. It requests that the appeal be declared unfounded.
3.- By a brief filed on July 19, 2013, the appellant comments on the report rendered by the appealed authority.
4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.
Drafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,
Considering:
I.- Proven facts.
Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:
II.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant states that the principle of citizen participation is violated, because SETENA has not notified the Municipality of Desamparados of the existence of the "Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A." project, preventing the population from expressing their views on the matter. Likewise, he considers that given the magnitude of the project, an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) should have been required and not an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental).
III.- On the merits. From the file, it is established that, indeed, the project called "Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A." (Plaza Viva), to which administrative file number D1-9349-2012 was assigned, was submitted to the respondent authority for the study and granting of the respective environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental). Said project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 square meters, with the rest reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom batteries, and covered parking.
It was designed for various uses, including commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. In addition, it has several spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free zone, and has 321 parking spaces. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban area where it will be located. This project was evaluated by the environmental consultant who submitted it to SETENA, which classified it as medium impact, as a result of the Project's Environmental Impact Significance being 484 points. This implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), which is only required for high-impact projects. The foregoing was also corroborated and endorsed by the specialized officials of SETENA. Therefore, this Court could not question the technical criteria justifying that the project in question requires an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate the environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact a project may produce, as it is a discussion of mere legality.
IV.- On the other hand, this Court has strengthened the right of the population to participate in matters of their interest that involve environmental impact. In this regard, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information regarding environmental projects, or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must also promote and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322, and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held by public offices on the matter be made available to interested parties, relative to the environmental impact assessments in charge of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), for example. It was the Rio Convention which, in principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:
"The best way to handle environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the appropriate level. At the national level, every person must have adequate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided." From this principle, the importance given at the international level to environmental issues is clearly evident, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great importance for the community. Precisely, through Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought as a consequence that a very broad standing be admitted to denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of achieving a popularly elected public office, but also, and in this new vision, to giving people the real opportunity to contribute to the making of the State's political decisions, especially when these are of national importance, or could eventually affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is thus recovered, in which they can at least have access to information on the environment held by public authorities. The commented precept, then, incorporates the cited principle through access to available information and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. In the matter we are now analyzing, our legal system already provides that individuals may request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by interested communities are taken into account in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been included in the Organic Law of the Environment and its Regulation, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose importance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and evaluated as such by the Plenary Commission. The Chamber has also emphasized that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups of a private nature, as well as through local governments, to whom, for their assigned competence in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that in some way may affect the community of their jurisdiction, and indeed, in case of not doing so, they would be failing to fulfill one of their duties that the constituent assigned them, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:
"The municipalities shall encourage the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in the decision-making of local government. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly fulfilled" (Article 5 of the Municipal Code).
Thus, certainly, citizen and municipal participation is of transcendental importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions responsible for the preservation, monitoring, and protection of the environment and natural resources.
In the specific case, the appellant deems such right violated, as he indicates that the respondent authority omitted to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, which results in the municipality not informing the community of the intended project, so they can issue their opinion on the matter or intervene as they deem pertinent. However, from the evidence provided to the case file, it is evident that the aforementioned Project is not classified as high impact, which is why it does not require an environmental impact assessment and as such, any request for a public hearing requires prior evaluation by the Plenary Commission.
Regarding the municipality's lack of knowledge alleged by the petitioner, it is clear from the case file that from the moment the applicant submitted the project to SETENA for its consideration, the certificate of compliant land use (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage (desfogue de aguas pluviales) permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, which reference the plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences. Likewise, the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) submitted to SETENA bears the received stamp of the aforementioned Municipality. Therefore, regardless of whether SETENA notified said municipal government or not, the truth is that it has had full knowledge of the existence of that project. In addition to the foregoing, together with the Environmental Management Plan, a Social Perception (Percepción Social) study was provided, prepared by a professional in Sociology, under oath, which shows the result of the social perception surveys in the area of direct and indirect influence and which showed a 90% confidence level on the part of the interviewed population. This study also allowed SETENA to verify that two aspects have been of greatest concern to the interviewed sector. One is the increase in vehicular traffic that could occur; and the other, the provision of public services. Precisely to address these concerns, SETENA requested the road-impact study (estudio de vialidad) from the Dirección General de Tránsito, which has already been provided by the Project developer. Regarding the provision of public services, the appealed authority indicates that the file contains the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions. This being the case, in the opinion of this Court, no injury is substantiated in the sense alleged by the petitioner, since more than the determination of the type of instrument used to evaluate the environmental impact (impacto ambiental) of the project or what is provided in the sub-legal regulations, the truth is that in the present case, the neighbors and the Municipality of Desamparados have been made aware of the existence of this project and have had the opportunity to express themselves. The Chamber verifies that the petitioner himself appeared in the file for the project in question, where he has had the opportunity to raise his concerns, which have been promptly answered by the appealed authority; and it will be in the final resolution issued by SETENA that it rules on the substantive aspects it deems appropriate, since the project under study does not yet have the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) as it is under analysis.
V.- For all the foregoing and as concerns this jurisdiction, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of any fundamental right is substantiated.
Por tanto:
Se declara SIN LUGAR el recurso.
Fernando Cruz C.
Acting President Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.
Aracelly Pacheco S. Rosa María Abdelnour G.
Jorge Araya G. Jose Paulino Hernández G.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verifier code -- & 0!,,+0'1# Nº 2013009795 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours zero minutes on the nineteenth of July of two thousand thirteen.
Amparo action being processed in case file number 13-007375-0007-CO, filed by Rafael Ángel Rojas Jiménez, of legal age, married, with identity card 1-830-927, resident of Desamparados, against the National Environmental Technical Secretariat.
Findings of Fact:
1.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:49 hours on July 1, 2013, the petitioner filed an amparo action against SETENA. He states that on November 26, 2012, the project "Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados" was submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, and was assigned administrative case file number D1-9349-2012-SETENA. He explains that the cited project occupies an area of 14,400 square meters, with a cost of 14 million dollars. He adds that on May 24, 2013, he submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat -SETENA- a request to appear as a party in the administrative case file, in which he noted that SETENA had not complied with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which states: "Within five business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat shall forward an extract of it to the municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity or project will be carried out («)". He adds that by official communication SGDEA-1599-2013 of May 31, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA admitted his request to appear as a party and indicated to him that his observations would be taken into account. He explains that by official communication SG-1695-2013 of June 7, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA indicated to him that in accordance with executive decrees 31849 and 32966 (Regulation of Procedures of SETENA and its amendment), the project developer is the one who must submit to SETENA the environmental impact statement with the received stamp of the Municipality of the Canton. He stresses that Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment orders that any human activity that alters or destroys elements of the environment or generates waste, toxic or hazardous materials, requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental). He points out that the technical legal instrument that the developer submitted to SETENA for the evaluation of the project is called "Environmental Management Plan Forecast (Pronóstico de Plan de Gestión Ambiental, P-PGA)", for a project of medium environmental impact. He states that SETENA issued official communication DEA-1384-2013 of May 13, 2013, addressed to the developer, in which it ordered him to submit, within thirty business days, an annex to the P-PGA, since a series of questions existed. He alleges that in the meantime the people who are within the area of direct influence know nothing about this project. He complains that SETENA has not ordered any citizen participation activity such as a public hearing to be carried out, despite the magnitude of the project, which is being carried out in a residential zone, where only on the adjacent boundaries of the lot more than 600 people live and thousands of vehicles transit, since it borders a national route. He emphasizes that regardless of the technical instrument with which SETENA endorses the project, it must send a copy to the competent Municipality (Article 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment) so that it can also comply with the principle of participation by citizens. He explains that in this case the developer directly presented the documents for SETENA to approve the project, specifically presenting an Environmental Management Plan Forecast, implying that the project is of medium environmental significance, which is not true, since SETENA even requested an annex to its P-PGA, so the appropriate course of action was to carry out an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). He requests that SETENA be ordered to require the developer to submit an Environmental Impact Study and to hold a public hearing.
2.- Uriel Juárez Baltodano, in his capacity as Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, reports under oath that on the 26th, the project called "Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A." (Plaza Viva) was submitted, and was assigned administrative case file number D1-9349-2012. The Project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 meters, the remainder is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, supply platform, public restroom facilities, and covered parking. The project is presented for mixed uses, including commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has various spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, a space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone in which it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, and also integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure, making a contribution to the urban quality of the area. On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted a correction communication regarding square meters of construction of the project, clarifying that it is 15,495 m2 in total and not 16,747.64 m2 as had been initially indicated. By official communication DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, the legal representative of the developing company was given notice that, prior to resolving the pertinent matter, he had to present and clarify 12 points within a 30-day period. On May 24, 2013, the petitioner requested SETENA to recognize him as a party appearing in the case file and expressed his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. On May 31, 2013, by official communication SGDEA-1599-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, this Secretariat recognized the petitioner as a party appearing in administrative case file D1-9349-2012. On June 7, 2013, by official communication SGDEA-1695-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA answered the petitioner's concerns, indicating that in this case the project has as its Environmental Impact Assessment instrument an Environmental Management Plan Forecast (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study, which is why the application of the provisions of Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE does not apply. Likewise, he was told that in the environmental assessment instrument presented by the developer, a Social Perception Study (Estudio de Percepción Social) prepared by a sociology professional was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the area of direct and indirect influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, constituting a representative sample of the sector. On June 17, 2013, the developer responded to official communication DEA-1384-2013, which is currently under analysis by the technician in charge of this Project in the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental).
Indicates that it is true that the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) in Article 22 states that within 5 business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), SETENA shall forward an extract of them to the Municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out. However, as the Chamber established in judgment No. 2002-1220, this does not mean that the Executive Branch may not, by regulation, determine based on precise technical studies that a specific activity or project does not require environmental impact studies, which in any case presupposes that such a definition is duly motivated and justified. That is why by regulation it was determined that the cited Article 22 would apply to all activities classified as having high environmental impact and whose environmental assessment instrument is an EIA, but not to other assessment instruments classified as having moderate or low environmental impact. He points out that part of the requirements that SETENA asks of the developer is to present a certificate of compliant land use (certificado de uso conforme del suelo) issued by the Municipality where the activity, work, or project is to be carried out. In this way, the Municipality will know beforehand the type of project to be built in its cantonal jurisdiction, and it constitutes a prerequisite to be submitted to SETENA. He states that the project in question is still under study, so environmental viability has not been granted. In the technical report issued by the Environmental Assessment Department (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental) in official communication UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, it was indicated that the Project complies with Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and active with SETENA. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to submit an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental). It also noted that the people in the area of influence of the project were indeed aware, since when the sociologist rendered the socioeconomic and social perception study, it is information that has the character of a sworn statement, and is therefore considered current and true. In the report provided, the observation unit was the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, inhabited by approximately 2972 people. 52.1% of those surveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. Among the main aspects that generated concern in the population were: the increase in vehicular traffic, which led to the request for the road study from the General Traffic Directorate (Dirección General de Tránsito) that was already provided; and the provision of public services; however, the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services, issued by the corresponding institutions, were provided. He indicates that public hearings, pursuant to Article 56 of Decree 31849, occur when any natural or legal person requests SETENA to hold one, which the Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria) authorizes or not depending on its assessment of the magnitude of the potential environmental impact. If it decides not to hold the requested public hearing, said commission must determine the mechanism through which it will receive observations. On the other hand, he points out that SETENA's case files are public, so interested parties can appear and make the observations they deem pertinent, as the appellant did. He indicates that according to what was stated in the technical report UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the developer delivers to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) of the Project with the received stamp of the Municipality of the canton where the activity, work, or project is located; the compliant land use (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so they do have knowledge of its development. He clarifies that SETENA did not request an annex, as the appellant suggests, but rather issued a prevention notice (prevención) to the developer as established by the regulation, and that this per se does not imply that the required assessment instrument must be modified. He considers that, based on all of the foregoing, requesting an EIA in the present case is not appropriate, since we are dealing with a project of moderate impact that also included a section on social participation. He requests that the appeal be dismissed.
3.- By brief filed on July 19, 2013, the appellant comments on the report rendered by the respondent authority.
4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.
Drafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,
Considering:
I.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:
(undisputed fact) f) On June 7, 2013, through official communication SGDEA-1695-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case the project's environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) instrument is an Environmental Management Forecast-Plan (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), and therefore the application of the provisions of Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not appropriate.
Likewise, it was indicated that in the environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) instrument submitted by the developer, a Social Perception Study (Estudio de Percepción Social) prepared by a Sociology professional was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the direct and indirect area of influence (área de influencia directa e indirecta) and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. (see evidence attached by the respondent authority) g) According to the technical report rendered by the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental) of SETENA, in official communication UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the Project in question complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA; in addition, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) and indicates that there was indeed knowledge of the persons in the project's area of influence, since the socioeconomic and social perception study took as its observation unit the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence and in which approximately 2972 people reside, of which 52.1% of those surveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority) h) The main aspects that generated concern among the population in the perception study carried out by the developer company were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which SETENA requested the road study from the General Directorate of Traffic (Dirección General de Tránsito) which has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the file contains the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority) i) The Project developer delivered to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) with the received stamp of the Municipality of Desamparados (Municipalidad de Desamparados); the land-use conformity (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage permit (permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales), issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, therefore, said municipality is indeed aware of its development. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority) j) SETENA has not granted environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to the project in question, as it is under study. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority.
II.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant indicates that the principle of citizen participation (participación ciudadana) is violated, because SETENA has not notified the Municipality of Desamparados of the existence of the project "Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.", preventing the population from being able to express their views on the matter. Likewise, he considers that given the magnitude of the project, an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) should have been requested and not an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental).
III.- On the merits. From the file it is evident that, indeed, the project called "Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A." ("Plaza Viva") was submitted to the respondent authority for the study and granting of the respective environmental feasibility, which was assigned administrative file number D1-9349-2012. Said project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 square meters and the remainder reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, a supply platform, public restroom blocks, and covered parking. It was designed for various uses, including commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. Furthermore, it has several restaurant spaces and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free zone, and has 321 parking spaces. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone in which it will be located. This project was evaluated by the environmental consultant who submitted it to SETENA, who classified it as medium impact, resulting from the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project, which is 484 points. This implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan, not an Environmental Impact Study, which is only required for high-impact projects. The foregoing was also corroborated and endorsed by the specialized officials of SETENA. Therefore, this Court could not question the technical criteria that justify the project in question requiring an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate the environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as it is a discussion of mere legality.
IV.- On the other hand, this Court has strengthened the right of the population to participate in those matters that are of their interest and that involve an impact on the environment. In this regard, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information regarding environmental projects, or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must also promote and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322 and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held by public offices on the matter, relating to environmental impact studies under the charge of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), for example, be made available to interested parties.
It was the Rio Convention that, in Principle 10, elevated this participation to the status of a principle in environmental matters, stating:
"The best way to address environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the appropriate level. At the national level, every person shall have adequate training on the environment held by public authorities, including information on materials and activities that pose a danger in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress of damages and relevant remedies, shall be provided." From this principle, the importance given internationally to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community, is clearly evident. Precisely, by Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought as a consequence that a very broad standing is admitted to denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of achieving a popularly elected public office, but also, and in this new vision, to offering people the real opportunity to contribute to the State's political decision-making, especially when these decisions have national significance, or could eventually affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, then, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is rescued, in which they can at least have access to environmental information held by public authorities. The commented precept, therefore, incorporates the cited principle through access to the information available and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not confined to a limited group of interests. In the matter we are now analyzing, our legal system already provides that individuals may request even SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by the interested communities are taken into account in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been incorporated into the Organic Law of the Environment and its Regulations, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and assessed as such by the Plenary Commission. The Chamber has also emphasized that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups of a private nature, as well as through local governments, to whom, by their assigned competence in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that in some way may affect the community of their jurisdiction, and rather, in case of not doing so, they would be failing to fulfill one of the duties assigned to them by the constitutional framer, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:
"Municipalities shall encourage the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in local government decision-making. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly fulfilled" (Article 5 of the Municipal Code).
Thus, certainly, citizen and municipal participation is of transcendent importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions responsible for the preservation, monitoring, and protection of the environment and natural resources.
In the specific case, the petitioner considers such a right violated, as he points out that the respondent authority omitted to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, which results in the municipality not informing the community of the proposed work, so that they may express their opinion regarding it or intervene as they consider pertinent. However, from the evidence provided to the record, it is established that the aforementioned Project is not classified as high impact, for which reason it does not require an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and as such, any request for a hearing requires prior assessment by the Plenary Commission. Regarding the lack of knowledge of the municipality alleged by the petitioner, it follows from the file that from the moment the applicant submitted the project to SETENA for its cognizance, the certificate of land use conformity (certificado de uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage permit (permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales), issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences. Likewise, the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión de Ambiental) provided to SETENA bears the received stamp of the indicated Municipality. So that, regardless of whether SETENA notified said municipal government or not, the fact is that it has had full knowledge of the existence of said project. In addition to the foregoing, together with the Environmental Management Plan, a Social Perception study prepared by a professional in Sociology, under oath, was provided, which shows the result of the social perception surveys in the area of direct and indirect influence and which showed a 90% level of confidence on the part of the interviewed population. This study allowed SETENA also to verify that two were the aspects that most worried the interviewed sector. One is the increase in vehicular traffic that could occur; and the other, the provision of public services. Precisely to address those concerns, SETENA requested the road traffic study (estudio de vialidad) from the Dirección General de Tránsito, which has already been provided by the Project developer. Regarding the provision of public services, the respondent authority points out that the file contains the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions. As things stand, in the opinion of this Tribunal, no harm is verified in the sense accused by the amparo petitioner, since more than the determination of the type of instrument used to evaluate the environmental impact of the project or of what is provided in the infra-legal regulations, the fact is that in the present case, the residents and the Municipality of Desamparados have been informed of the existence of this project and have had the opportunity to express themselves. The Chamber verifies that the petitioner himself appeared in the file of the project in question, where he has had the opportunity to raise his concerns, which have been timely answered by the respondent authority; and it will be in the final resolution that SETENA issues that it rules on the substantive aspects it deems appropriate, since the project under study does not yet have the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) as it is under analysis.
V.- For all the foregoing and with respect to this jurisdiction, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of any fundamental right is verified.
Por tanto:
The recourse is declared SIN LUGAR.
The paragraph contains only non-breaking spaces and an empty span. The translation is provided faithfully:
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing: -.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing: -.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing: -.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing: -.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing: -.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:-.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:-.2pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:12.2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:263.15pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='color:black;letter-spacing:-.15pt'>Fernando Cruz C.
Acting President Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.
Aracelly Pacheco S. Rosa María Abdelnour G.
Jorge Araya G. Jose Paulino Hernández G.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- & 0!,,+0'1# one;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:-.05pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none'><span style='color:black;letter-spacing:-.05pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> </div> </body> </html>
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas cero minutos del diecinueve de julio de dos mil trece.
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 13-007375-0007-CO, interpuesto por Rafael Ángel Rojas Jiménez, mayor, casado, con cédula de identidad 1-830-927, vecino de Desamparados, contra la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.
Resultando:
1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 14:49 horas del 1 de julio de 2013, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra SETENA. Manifiesta que el 26 de noviembre de 2012, se presentó ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental el proyecto "Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados", al que se le asignó el número de expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012-SETENA. con un costo de 14 millones de dólares. Agrega que el 24 de mayo de 2013, presentó ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental -SETENA-una solicitud de apersonamiento al expediente administrativo, en la que hizo la observación de que la SETENA no había cumplido lo establecido en el párrafo segundo del artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, que indica: "Dentro de los cinco días hábiles siguientes al recibido de una evaluación de impacto ambiental, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental remitirá un extracto de ella a las municipalidades en cuya jurisdicción se realizará la obra, la actividad o proyecto («)". Añade que el mediante oficio SGDEA-1599-2013 del 31 de mayo del 2013, el Secretario General de la SETENA admitió su solicitud de apersonamiento y le indicó que sus observaciones serían tomadas en cuenta. Expone que por oficio SG-1695-2013 del 7 de junio de 2013, el Secretario General de SETENA le indicó que de conformidad con los decretos ejecutivos 31849 y 32966 (Reglamento de Procedimientos de la SETENA y su reforma), el desarrollador del proyecto es el que debe entregar a SETENA la declaratoria de impacto ambiental con el sello de recibido de la Municipalidad del Cantón. Destaca que el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente ordena que toda actividad humana que altere o destruya elementos del ambiente o genere residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requiere una Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. Señala que el instrumento técnico legal que el desarrollador presentó a SETENA, para la evaluación del proyecto se llama "Pronóstico de Plan de Gestión Ambiental (P-PGA)", para proyecto de mediano impacto ambiental. Manifiesta que SETENA emitió el oficio DEA-1384-2013 del 13 de mayo de 2013, dirigido al desarrollador, en el que le ordenó que en treinta días hábiles debía presentar un anexo al P-PGA, ya que existían una serie de dudas. Alega que mientras tanto las personas que están dentro del área de influencia directa no saben nada con respecto a este proyecto. Reclama que SETENA no ha ordenado llevar a cabo ninguna actividad de participación ciudadana como una audiencia pública, a pesar de la magnitud del proyecto, el cual se realiza en una zona residencial, donde solo en las colindancias del lote habitan más de 600 personas y transitan miles de vehículos, ya que colinda con ruta nacional. Resalta que sin importar cuál sea el instrumento técnico con el que SETENA avale el proyecto, esta debe enviar una copia a la Municipalidad competente (artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) para que pueda también cumplir con el principio de participación ciudadana. presentó directamente los documentos para que SETENA aprobara el proyecto, concretamente presentó un Pronóstico de Plan Gestión Ambiental, dando a entender que el proyecto es de mediana significancia ambiental, lo cual no es cierto, ya que incluso SETENA solicitó un anexo a su P-PGA, por lo que lo procedente era realizar un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Solicita que se ordene a SETENA pedir al desarrollador la presentación de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y que lleve a cabo una audiencia pública.
2.- Informa bajo juramento Uriel Juárez Baltodano, en su condición de Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, que el 26 ingresó el proyecto que se llama ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´(Plaza Viva), y se le asignó el número de expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012. El Proyecto consiste en un área de construcción distribuida en 4 niveles y un sótano, con un área útil o vendible de 9.559.49 metros, el resto se reserva a áreas de circulación, servicios, plazas, andén de abastos, baterías de baños públicos y parqueos cubiertos. El proyecto se presenta para usos mixtos, entre los cuales se encuentran locales comerciales y de servicio, tales como farmacia, librería, tienda de hogar, bancos, panadería, salón de belleza, veterinaria, entre otros. Además cuenta con varios espacios para restaurante y una plaza de comidas, un complejo de 4 salas de cines, consultorios médicos, gimnasio, espacio para universidad, espacios para oficinas o zona franca. Se localiza en un área comercial y tiene como fin suplir servicios comerciales de la zona urbana en la que se localizará. Cuenta con 321 espacios de estacionamiento, además integra mejoras en la infraestructura vial existente y el mismo hace un aporte a la calidad urbanística de la zona. El 25 de enero de 2013, el consultor ambiental responsable del proyecto, el señor Allan Astorga Gattgens, presentó oficio de corrección sobre metros cuadrados de construcción del proyecto, aclarando que es de 15.495 m2 en total y no de 16.747.64 m2 como se había indicado al inicio. Por oficio DEA-1384-2013-SETENA del 13 de mayo de 2013, se previno al representante legal de la sociedad desarrolladora, que de previo a resolver lo pertinente debía presentar y aclarar 12 puntos en un plazo de 30 días. El 24 de mayo de 2013, el recurrente solicitó a SETENA que lo tuviera como apersonado en el expediente y manifestó su oposición al proyecto por la falta de comunicación a la Municipalidad de Desamparados. El 31 de mayo de 2013, por oficio SGDEA-1599-2013 notificado el 12 de junio de 2013, esta Secretaría tuvo por apersonado al recurrente al expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012. El 7 de junio de 2013 mediante oficio SGDEA-1695-2013 notificado el 12 de junio de 2013, SETENA contestó al recurrente sus inquietudes, indicándole que en este caso el proyecto tiene como instrumento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental un Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental, no un estudio de impacto ambiental, motivo por el cual no procede la aplicación de lo dispuesto en el Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC y No. 32966-MINAE. Asimismo, se le indicó que en el instrumento de evaluación ambiental presentado por el desarrollador, se aportó un Estudio de Percepción Social elaborado por un profesional en Sociología, en el que se realizaron encuestas de percepción social al área de influencia directa e indirecta y mostró un 90% de nivel de confianza de la población entrevistada y que constituye una muestra representativa del sector. El 17 de junio de 2013, el desarrollador dio respuesta al oficio DEA-1384-2013, el cual se encuentra en este momento en análisis del técnico encargado de este Proyecto en el Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental. Indica que es cierto que la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente en el artículo 22 señala que dentro de los 5 días hábiles siguientes al recibo de una evaluación de impacto ambiental, la SETENA remitirá un extracto de ellas a las Municipalidades en cuya jurisdicción se realizará la obra, la actividad o proyecto. Sin embargo, como lo ha establecido la Sala en la sentencia No. 2002-1220, ello no quiere decir que no pueda el Poder Ejecutivo vía reglamentaria determinar con fundamento en estudios técnicos precisos que una determinada actividad o proyecto no requiera los estudios de impacto ambiental, lo que supone en todo caso que tal definición esté debidamente motivada y justificada. Es por ello que por reglamento se determinó que el artículo 22 citado aplicaría para todas aquellas actividades clasificadas como de alto impacto ambiental y cuyo instrumento de evaluación ambiental sea un estudio de impacto ambiental, no así para los demás instrumentos de evaluación clasificados como de moderado o bajo impacto ambiental. Señala que parte de los requisitos que SETENA pide al desarrollador es que presente un certificado de uso conforme del suelo emitido por la Municipalidad de donde se vaya a realizar la actividad, obra o proyecto. De esta forma la Municipalidad de previo conocerá el tipo de proyecto que se pretende construir en su jurisdicción cantonal, y que constituye un requisito previo para ser presentado a SETENA. Refiere que el proyecto en mención se encuentra aún en estudio, por lo que no se le ha otorgado la viabilidad ambiental. En el informe técnico rendido por el Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental en el oficio UE-DEA-0007-2013 del 11 de julio de 2013, se indicó que el Proyecto cumple con lo estipulado en el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, ya que es presentado por un desarrollador y un consultor ambiental, inscrito y vigente en SETENA. Además, la Significancia de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto es de 484 puntos, lo que implica la necesidad de presentar un Plan de Gestión Ambiental. También señaló que sí existía conocimiento de las personas del área de influencia del proyecto, toda vez que al rendir el sociólogo el estudio socioeconómico y de percepción social, es una información que tiene carácter de declaración jurada, por lo que se considera actual y verdadera. En el informe aportado se tomó como unidad de observación a las 725 viviendas ocupadas que existen en el área de influencia tanto directa como indirecta y en las que habitan aproximadamente 2972 personas. Un 52.1% de los encuestados mencionaron estar a favor del proyecto, un 31.3% en contra y un 16.7% no supieron o no quisieron responder. Entre los principales aspectos que generaron preocupación en la población fueron: el aumento de tránsito vehicular, por lo cual se solicitó el estudio de vialidad de la Dirección General de Tránsito que ya fue aportado; y la prestación de los servicios públicos, sin embargo fueron aportadas las notas certificadas de disponibilidad de cada uno de los servicios básicos emitidas por las instituciones correspondientes. Indica que las audiencias públicas conforme al artículo 56 del Decreto 31849 se dan cuando alguna persona física o jurídica solicite a SETENA que se lleve a cabo, lo cual autoriza o no la Comisión Plenaria dependiendo de la valoración que haga de la magnitud del potencial impacto ambiental. En caso de decidir no celebrar la audiencia pública solicitada, dicha comisión debe determinar el mecanismo mediante el cual recibirá las observaciones. Por otro lado, señala que los expedientes de SETENA son públicos, por lo que las personas interesadas se pueden apersonar y hacer las observaciones que estimen pertinentes, como lo hizo el recurrente. Indica que según lo expuesto en el informe técnico UE-DEA-0007-2013 del 11 de julio de 2013, el desarrollador entrega a SETENA la declaratoria de impacto ambiental del Proyecto con el sello de recibido de la Municipalidad del cantón donde se localiza la actividad, obra o proyecto; el uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia la plano donde se realizará el proyecto, por lo que sí tienen conocimiento del desarrollo del mismo. Aclara que SETENA no solicitó un anexo, tal como lo hace ver el recurrente, sino que realizó una prevención al desarrollador conforme lo establece el reglamento y que ello per se, no implica que deba modificarse el instrumento de evaluación requerido. Considera que por todo lo señalado, no procede requerir un estudio de impacto ambiental en el presente caso, ya que estamos frente a un proyecto de moderado impacto que contempló además un apartado de participación social. Solicita que se declare sin lugar el recurso.
3.- Por escrito presentado el 19 de julio de 2013, el recurrente se manifiesta sobre el informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida.
4.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.
Redacta el Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,
Considerando:
I.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
Asimismo, se le indicó que en el instrumento de evaluación ambiental presentado por el desarrollador, se aportó un Estudio de Percepción Social elaborado por un profesional en Sociología, en el que se realizaron encuestas de percepción social al área de influencia directa e indirecta y mostró un 90% de nivel de confianza de la población entrevistada y que constituye una muestra representativa del sector. (ver prueba adjunta por la autoridad recurrida) g) Según el informe técnico rendido por el Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental de SETENA, en el oficio UE-DEA-0007-2013 del 11 de julio de 2013, el Proyecto en cuestión cumple con lo estipulado en el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, ya que es presentado por un desarrollador y un consultor ambiental, inscrito y vigente en SETENA; además, la Significancia de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto es de 484 puntos, lo que implica la necesidad de presentar un Plan de Gestión Ambiental y señala que sí existía conocimiento de las personas del área de influencia del proyecto, toda vez que el estudio socioeconómico y de percepción social tomó como unidad de observación a las 725 viviendas ocupadas que existen en el área de influencia tanto directa como indirecta y en las que habitan aproximadamente 2972 personas, de las cuales un 52.1% de los encuestados mencionaron estar a favor del proyecto, un 31.3% en contra y un 16.7% no supieron o no quisieron responder. (ver informe rendido bajo la fe de juramento por la autoridad recurrida) h) Los principales aspectos que generaron preocupación en la población en el estudio de percepción realizado por la empresa desarrolladora fueron: el aumento de tránsito vehicular, por lo cual SETENA solicitó el estudio de vialidad de la Dirección General de Tránsito que ya fue aportado; y la prestación de los servicios públicos, sin embargo, en el notas certificadas de disponibilidad de cada uno de los servicios básicos emitidas por las instituciones correspondientes. (ver informe rendido bajo la fe de juramento por la autoridad recurrida) i) El desarrollador del Proyecto entregó a SETENA la declaratoria de impacto ambiental con el sello de recibido de la Municipalidad de Desamparados; el uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia al plano donde se realizará el proyecto, por lo que, dicho municipio sí tiene conocimiento del desarrollo del mismo. (ver pruebas aportadas por la autoridad recurrida) j) SETENA no ha otorgado la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto en cuestión, por encontrarse en estudio. (ver informe rendido bajo la fe de juramento por la autoridad recurrida.
II.- Objeto del recurso. El recurrente señala que se violenta el principio de participación ciudadana, por cuanto SETENA no ha notificado a la Municipalidad de Desamparados la existencia del proyecto ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´, evitando que la población pudiera manifestarse al respecto. Asimismo, considera que para la magnitud del proyecto se debió haber solicitado un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y no un Plan de Gestión Ambiental.
III.- Sobre el fondo. Del expediente se tiene que, en efecto, ante la autoridad recurrida fue presentado para el estudio y otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental respectiva, el proyecto denominado ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´(Plaza Viva), al cual se le asignó el número de expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012. Dicho proyecto consiste en un área de construcción distribuida en 4 niveles y un sótano, con un área útil o vendible de 9.559.49 metros cuadrados y el resto se reserva a áreas de circulación, servicios, plazas, andén de abastos, baterías de baños públicos y parqueos cubiertos. Fue diseñado para diversos usos, entre los cuales se encuentran locales comerciales y de servicio, tales como farmacia, librería, tienda de hogar, bancos, panadería, salón de belleza, veterinaria, entre otros. Además, cuenta con varios espacios para restaurante y una plaza de comidas, un complejo de 4 salas de cines, consultorios médicos, gimnasio, espacio para universidad, espacios para oficinas o zona franca y cuenta con 321 espacios de estacionamiento. Se localiza en un área comercial y tiene como fin suplir servicios comerciales de la zona urbana en la que se localizará. Este proyecto fue evaluado por el consultor ambiental que lo presentó ante SETENA, que lo calificó de mediano impacto, producto de la Significancia de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto que es de 484 puntos. Esto implica la necesidad de presentar un Plan de Gestión Ambiental, no un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, que solo se requiere para los proyectos de alto impacto. Lo anterior fue corroborado y avalado también por los funcionarios especializados de SETENA. De manera que, no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los criterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en reiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción competente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el impacto ambiental que pueda producir un proyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad.
IV.- Por otro lado, este Tribunal ha potenciado el derecho que tiene la población de participar en aquellos asuntos que sean de su interés y que involucren la afectación al ambiente. Sobre el particular se ha indicado, que la participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales abarca dos puntos esenciales: el derecho a la información relativa a los proyectos ambientales, o que puedan causar una lesión a los recursos naturales y al medio ambiente, y la garantía de una efectiva participación en la toma de decisiones en estos asuntos. Por ello, el Estado costarricense no solo debe invitar a la participación ciudadana, sino que debe promoverla y respetarla cuando se produzca (ver sentencias número 2001-10466, 2003-6322 y 2010-6922). Así, resulta de gran importancia que sea puesta a disposición de los interesados la información que en la materia tengan en las oficinas públicas, relativa a los estudios de impacto ambiental a cargo de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, pro ejemplo. Fue la Convención de Río la que en el principio 10 elevó esta participación a rango de principio en materia ambiental, al señalar:
"El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda. En el plano nacional, toda persona debe tener adecuada formación sobre el medio ambiente que dispongan las autoridades públicas, incluida la información sobre los materiales y las actividades que encierran peligro en sus comunidades, así como la oportunidad de participar en los procesos de adopción de decisiones. Los Estados deberán facilitar y fomentar la sensibilización y la participación de la población poniendo la información a disposición de todos. Deberá proporcionarse acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos, entre éstos el resarcimiento de daños y los recursos pertinentes." De este principio, se evidencia claramente la importancia que a nivel internacional se da a las cuestiones ambientales, y en general, sobre todo, a la participación de la sociedad civil en decisiones de gran trascendencia para la comunidad. Precisamente, por Ley No. 7412 del 03 de junio de 1994, la Asamblea Legislativa reformó el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, garantizando a toda persona el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Lo anterior ha traído como consecuencia, además, que se admita una legitimación muy amplia para denunciar actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado, a través del acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos. Asimismo, cuando la Constitución Política hace mención en el artículo 9, que el Gobierno de la República es popular, representativo, participativo, alternativo y responsable, hemos de tener claro que la participación ciudadana no se limitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, o a la aspiración de alcanzar un cargo público de elección popular, sino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les ofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas del Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, o eventualmente pudieren afectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos sectores de la población. De los artículos 1, 9 y 50 Constitucionales se rescata pues, la consideración que los ciudadanos merecen en un Estado democrático, en el cual puedan al menos tener acceso a la información sobre el medio ambiente de que dispongan las autoridades públicas. El precepto comentado, entonces, recoge el principio citado a través del acceso a la información de que se dispone y a la divulgación de ella, para que la toma de decisiones no se circunscriba a un limitado grupo de intereses. En la materia que ahora analizamos, nuestro ordenamiento jurídico ya prevé que los particulares pueden solicitar incluso a SETENA llevar a cabo audiencias públicas, para efecto de que se tomen en cuenta las posiciones formuladas por las comunidades interesadas en la toma de decisiones que afectan el ambiente, lo que ha sido recogido en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y de su Reglamento, como informó la autoridad recurrida. Lo anterior, claro está, en aquellos asuntos que su trascendencia lo amerite, lo cual puede ser solicitado por cualquier interesado y valorado así por la Comisión Plenaria. También ha enfatizado la Sala, que esta participación se puede lograr en forma individual, a través de grupos asociativos de orden particular, así como también a través de los gobiernos locales, a quienes, por su competencia asignada en el artículo 169 de la Constitución, se les reconoce plena competencia para promoverla en los asuntos que de algún modo puedan afectar la comunidad de su jurisdicción, y más bien, en caso de no hacerlo, estaría incumpliendo uno de sus cometidos que el constituyente le asignó, y que ha sido desarrollada en la legislación ordinaria:
"Las municipalidades fomentarán la participación activa, consciente y democrática del pueblo en las tomas de decisiones del gobierno local. Las instituciones públicas estarán obligadas a colaborar para que estas decisiones se cumplan debidamente" (artículo 5 del Código Municipal).
De manera que, ciertamente, la participación ciudadana y de las municipalidades es de trascendental importancia a fin de promover la conciencia en los problemas ambientales y para coadyuvar en la toma de decisiones de las instituciones encargadas de la preservación, vigilancia y protección del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales.
En el caso concreto, el recurrente estima violentado tal derecho, por cuanto señala que la autoridad recurrida omitió notificar a la Municipalidad correspondiente de la existencia del proyecto en cuestión, lo que trae como consecuencia que el municipio no ponga en conocimiento de la comunidad la obra pretendida, para que puedan emitir su opinión al respecto o intervenir como lo consideren pertinente. No obstante, de las pruebas aportadas a los autos, se tiene que el Proyecto aludido no está calificado de alto impacto, motivo por el cual no requiere de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y como tal, cualquier solicitud de audiencia, requiere ser valorada de previo por la Comisión Plenaria. En cuanto a la falta de conocimiento del municipio que alega el recurrente, del desprende que desde el momento en que el gestionante presentó ante SETENA el proyecto a su conocimiento, se adjuntó el certificado de uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia al plano donde se realizará el proyecto y sus eventuales consecuencias. Asimismo, el Plan de Gestión de Ambiental aportado a SETENA tiene el sello de recibido en la Municipalidad señalada. De manera que, independientemente de que SETENA notificara o no a dicho gobierno municipal, lo cierto es que ha tenido pleno conocimiento de la existencia de dicho proyecto. Aunado a lo anterior, junto con el Plan de Gestión Ambiental se aportó un estudio de Percepción Social elaborado por un profesional en Sociología, con carácter de declaración jurada, en el que se muestra el resultado que tuvieron las encuestas de percepción social en el área de influencia directa e indirecta y que mostró un 90% de nivel de confianza por parte de la población entrevistada. Este estudio permitió a SETENA verificar también, que han sido dos los aspectos que más preocuparon al sector entrevistado. Uno es el aumento de tránsito vehicular que podría producirse; y el otro, la prestación de los servicios públicos. Precisamente para atender dichas inquietudes, SETENA solicitó el estudio de vialidad de la Dirección General de Tránsito, el cual ya fue aportado por el desarrollador del Proyecto. En cuanto a la prestación de los servicios públicos, la autoridad recurrida señala que en el expediente constan las notas certificadas de disponibilidad de cada uno de los servicios básicos emitidas por las instituciones correspondientes. Así las cosas, a criterio de este Tribunal, no se constata lesión alguna en el sentido acusado por el amparado, pues más que la determinación del tipo de instrumento utilizado para evaluar el impacto ambiental del proyecto o de lo dispuesto en la normativa de índole infra legal, lo cierto es que en el presente caso, se ha dado a conocer a los vecinos y a la Municipalidad de Desamparados la existencia de este proyecto y han tenido la oportunidad de manifestarse. La Sala constata que el propio recurrente se apersonó al expediente del proyecto en cuestión, donde ha tenido oportunidad de plantear sus inquietudes, las cuales han sido contestadas oportunamente por la autoridad recurrida; y será en la resolución final que emita SETENA donde se pronuncie sobre los aspectos de fondo que considere conveniente, toda vez que el proyecto de estudio no cuenta todavía con el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental por encontrarse en análisis.
V.- Por todo lo expuesto y en lo que respecta a esta jurisdicción el amparo debe declararse sin lugar, al no constatarse la violación a derecho fundamental alguno.
Por tanto:
Se declara SIN LUGAR el recurso.
Fernando Cruz C.
Presidente a.i Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.
Aracelly Pacheco S. Rosa María Abdelnour G.
Jorge Araya G. Jose Paulino Hernández G.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- & 0!,,+0'1#
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.