← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 17957-2017 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 10/11/2017
OutcomeResultado
The Chamber denied the amparo challenging environmental approval of the UCR projects, although one dissent would have granted relief for environmental harm and another would have summarily rejected the case for resolution in ordinary proceedings.La Sala declaró sin lugar el amparo contra la viabilidad ambiental de los proyectos de la UCR, aunque un voto salvado lo declaró con lugar por lesión al ambiente y otro estimó que el asunto debía rechazarse de plano y discutirse en la vía ordinaria.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber denied an amparo filed by users and neighbors of the University of Costa Rica’s sports facilities against SETENA, the Municipality of Montes de Oca, and UCR. The petition challenged the environmental approval granted through SETENA Resolution 1193-2016 for twenty-two projects, including construction of the School of Dentistry on Finca 3, because of the planned removal of seventy-four trees, major soil excavation, and possible effects on riparian forests, wildlife, and the Río Torres Biological Corridor. It also alleged deficiencies in the environmental impact study, missing tree-cutting permits, and inadequate public participation. Although the majority denied relief, separate opinions differed substantially. Justice Cruz Castro would have granted the petition for environmental harm and held the Municipality and SETENA responsible, while Justice Hernández López considered that the petition should have been summarily rejected because the technical, evidentiary, and monitoring issues belonged before the administrative authorities and ordinary administrative courts rather than the summary amparo process.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el recurso de amparo promovido por personas usuarias y vecinas de las instalaciones deportivas de la Universidad de Costa Rica contra la SETENA, la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca y la UCR. El recurso cuestionaba la viabilidad ambiental otorgada mediante la resolución 1193-2016-SETENA a un conjunto de veintidós proyectos, incluida la Facultad de Odontología en Finca 3, por la prevista tala de setenta y cuatro árboles, la remoción de suelo y los posibles efectos sobre bosques ribereños, fauna silvestre y el Corredor Biológico Río Torres. También denunciaba deficiencias del estudio de impacto ambiental, ausencia de permisos de tala y falta de participación ciudadana. Aunque la mayoría rechazó el amparo, hubo votos separados: el magistrado Cruz Castro lo declaró con lugar por lesión al ambiente y condenó a la Municipalidad y a SETENA; la magistrada Hernández López consideró que debía rechazarse de plano porque la controversia técnica y probatoria correspondía a la vía ordinaria.
Key excerptExtracto clave
8. In this specific case, the situation presented falls within those situations in which intervention through the Administration’s protective mechanisms and the ordinary courts provides a broader and more complete avenue, because the disputed matter involves a discussion of advantages and disadvantages and an assessment of benefits, all of which requires extensive evidence, monitoring, and studies that exceed the scope of amparo. For that reason, I dissent, because in my judgment the claims raised must be examined in ordinary proceedings and not in this venue; Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law should therefore have been applied and the petition summarily rejected. Therefore: The petition is denied. Justice Jinesta Lobo gives different reasons concerning the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Justice Cruz Castro dissents and grants the petition for environmental harm, holding the municipal authority and SETENA liable; he also adds a note concerning public participation. Justice Hernández López dissents and summarily rejects the petition because claims alleging infringement of Article 50 of the Political Constitution must be heard in ordinary proceedings.8. En el caso concreto, se observa que la situación planteada se ubica dentro de aquellas situaciones en las que la intervención de los medios de protección de la Administración y la justicia ordinaria, resultan ser una vía más amplia y completa pues el tema discutido que involucra una discusión sobre ventajas y desventajas y valoración de los beneficios, todo lo cual requiere abundante prueba, seguimientos y estudios que exceden el ámbito del amparo. Por lo anterior, salvo el voto pues a mi juicio los extremos planteados deben ser analizados en la vía ordinaria y no en esta sede, por lo que debió aplicarse el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y rechazar de plano el recurso. Por tanto: Se declara sin lugar el recurso. El Magistrado Jinesta Lobo da razones diferentes, en lo que respecta al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El Magistrado Cruz Castro salva el voto y declara con lugar el recurso por lesión al ambiente, condenando a la autoridad municipal y a Setena; y pone nota en cuanto al tema de participación ciudadana. La Magistrada Hernández López salva el voto, y rechaza de plano el recurso pues los reclamos por infracción al numeral 50 de la Constitución Política deben ser conocidos en la vía ordinaria.-
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Hoy en día, nos encontramos frente a un “denso entramado” de normativa ambiental –tal y como acertadamente lo ha descrito el Magistrado Jinesta Lobo en su voto salvado sobre este tema- lo cual ha producido dos fenómenos relevantes: el primero y más obvio, es el surgimiento de una abarcadora regulación jurídica respecto de actividades cuya incidencia en el ambiente estaba poco o nada ordenada, así la creación de órganos estatales con potestades de vigilancia y control sobre los efectos de la actividad humana en el entorno."
"Today, we face a “dense web” of environmental regulations—as Justice Jinesta Lobo aptly described it in his dissent on this subject—which has produced two relevant phenomena: the first and most obvious is the emergence of comprehensive legal regulation of activities whose environmental effects were previously subject to little or no regulation, together with the creation of state bodies empowered to monitor and control the effects of human activity on the environment."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 2
"Hoy en día, nos encontramos frente a un “denso entramado” de normativa ambiental –tal y como acertadamente lo ha descrito el Magistrado Jinesta Lobo en su voto salvado sobre este tema- lo cual ha producido dos fenómenos relevantes: el primero y más obvio, es el surgimiento de una abarcadora regulación jurídica respecto de actividades cuya incidencia en el ambiente estaba poco o nada ordenada, así la creación de órganos estatales con potestades de vigilancia y control sobre los efectos de la actividad humana en el entorno."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 2
"En ese contexto, no resulta apropiado jurídicamente , ni desde el punto de vista funcional, que la Sala Constitucional desplace , o -peor aún- sustituya , a los órganos de justicia ordinarios en la realización de su tarea, también de rango constitucional, de velar por el efectivo cumplimiento de leyes y reglamentos."
"In that context, it is neither legally nor functionally appropriate for the Constitutional Chamber to displace—or, worse, replace—the ordinary courts in performing their own constitutionally grounded task of ensuring effective compliance with statutes and regulations."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 3
"En ese contexto, no resulta apropiado jurídicamente , ni desde el punto de vista funcional, que la Sala Constitucional desplace , o -peor aún- sustituya , a los órganos de justicia ordinarios en la realización de su tarea, también de rango constitucional, de velar por el efectivo cumplimiento de leyes y reglamentos."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 3
"La decisión de dar un paso al lado en la materia ambiental por parte de este Tribunal no debe ser vista como un abandono de la materia ambiental, sino al contrario, de su adecuada tutela en la instancia que mejor se aviene a la naturaleza de su complejidad y diversidad."
"This Court’s decision to step aside in environmental matters should not be viewed as abandoning environmental protection, but rather as ensuring its proper protection before the forum best suited to its complex and diverse nature."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 5
"La decisión de dar un paso al lado en la materia ambiental por parte de este Tribunal no debe ser vista como un abandono de la materia ambiental, sino al contrario, de su adecuada tutela en la instancia que mejor se aviene a la naturaleza de su complejidad y diversidad."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 5
"La Sala debe reservarse el conocimiento de situaciones como por ejemplo los reclamos por infracciones ambientales que además pongan en riesgo directo la salud de las personas , o el acceso o calidad del agua; los casos de violaciones groseras y directas al ambiente y en los cuales se constate una palmaria ausencia de la protección por parte de las autoridades estatales, siempre y cuando además la naturaleza del reclamo permita ser abordado mediante el instrumento del amparo como instituto procesal sumario y especial."
"The Chamber should retain jurisdiction over situations such as claims involving environmental violations that also directly endanger human health or access to or quality of water, and cases of gross and direct environmental violations in which there is a manifest absence of protection by state authorities, provided that the nature of the claim can be addressed through amparo as a summary and special procedural mechanism."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 7
"La Sala debe reservarse el conocimiento de situaciones como por ejemplo los reclamos por infracciones ambientales que además pongan en riesgo directo la salud de las personas , o el acceso o calidad del agua; los casos de violaciones groseras y directas al ambiente y en los cuales se constate una palmaria ausencia de la protección por parte de las autoridades estatales, siempre y cuando además la naturaleza del reclamo permita ser abordado mediante el instrumento del amparo como instituto procesal sumario y especial."
Voto salvado de la magistrada Hernández López, apartado 7
Full documentDocumento completo
Víctor Granados Jiménez Víctor Granados Jiménez 2 0 2017-11-27T19:54:00Z 2017-11-27T19:54:00Z 2 38490 211699 PJ 1764 499 249690 12.00 120 false 21 false false false ES-CR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 *160126930007CO* Decision No. 2017017957 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine twenty a.m. on diez de noviembre de dos mil diecisiete.
Petition for constitutional relief (recurso de amparo) filed by AMELIA QUESADA ALPÍZAR, identity card 1-0382-0274, AMPARO DE LOS ÁNGELES ALGUERA ALGUERA, identity card 8-0070-0519, ANA CAROLINA QUINTERO FERNÁNDEZ, identity card 1-0846-0347, ANA ELENA GARITA INCER, identity card 1-0799-0125, ANA MARITZA DEL CARMEN MONGE FALLAS, identity card 1-0523-0393, ANDERSON ESTEBAN FONSECA LEANDRO, identity card 3-0464-0995, ARIELA NATALIA LEANDRO ESPINOZA, identity card 1-1565-0698, ARTURO SOLÍS CASTRO, identity card 1-0378-0652, BETTY TORRES VICTORIA, identity card 8-0093-0899, BRENDA DANIELA CALDERÓN TALENO, identity card 1-1711-0709, CARLOS MANUEL UGALDE HERNÁNDEZ, identity card 1-0598-0200, CARMEN MARIA ROJAS GONZÁLEZ, identity card 1-0527-0868, CAROLINA DE LOS ÁNGELES ZÚÑIGA ALFARO, identity card 1-1509-0848, CAROLINA LEANDRO PIEDRA, identity card 1-0956-0506, CESAR AUGUSTO BRENES QUIRÓS, identity card 1-1329-0490, CIRCE MILENA BRENES QUIRÓS, identity card 3-0393-0627, DANIEL HERRERA MUSMANI, identity card 1-0838-0017, DAVID ARAYA RUÍZ, DEIBY MARIANO PANIAGUA ARCE, identity card 1-1484-0219, DERIAN YADIR BRENES BADILLA, identity card 1-1685-0541, EDWIN DE LOS ÁNGELES DELGADO PIEDRA, identity card 6-0360-0052, ELEAZAR FEMENIAS ALFARO, identity card 1-1447-0639, EMILIT MARITZA LAMSICK ALGUERA, identity card 7-0116-0409, ERICK NICHOLAS THOMSEN CHUMPITASI, identity card 1-1714-0682, ERICK VILLALOBOS QUIRÓS, ESMERALDA VERALIS ARÉVALO HUEZO, identity card 8-0090-0359, FABIÁN ALVARADO QUESADA, identity card 1-1048-0058, FERNANDO BARRANTES ELIZONDO, identity card 1-0714-0689, FLORA ISABEL VIRGINIA DE JESÚS PÉREZ GUTIÉRREZ, identity card 4-0102-0894, FRANCISCO JAVIER MARÍN GUZMÁN, identity card 1-1370-0026, GISELLE ACOSTA POLONIO, identity card 1-0327-0412, ILONA MARÍA MAROTO VÍQUEZ, identity card 1-0887-0848, INGRID DEL CARMEN RODRÍGUEZ WOLTER, residence card 186200138927, JASON MICHAEL BATEMAN, residence card 184000298936, JAZMIN ESTHER CAMACHO GAMBOA, identity card 1-1443-0601, JORDAN GARCÍA, JOSÉ ALBERTO PEÑA QUESADA, identity card 1-0516-0162, JOSÉ JACINTO BRENES MOLINA, identity card 3-0200-0520, KATHERINE PAOLA BASTOS VILLALOBOS, identity card 4-0233-0685, KATTIA VANESSA ZAPATA VEGA, identity card 1-0857-0052, LAURA DEL CARMEN MADRIGAL ROJAS, identity card 1-1247-0971, LAURA SALDARRIAGA TORRES, identity card 1-1703-0703, LORENA CANTERO ACOSTA, identity card 1-0975-0474, LORENA MARIEL GUILLÉN RODRÍGUEZ, residence card 121400084033, LUIS ARTURO CHAVARRÍA BLANCO, identity card 5-0243-0339, LUIS GUILLERMO ALVARADO SÁNCHEZ, identity card 1-0453-0626, LUIS MANUEL BEJARANO FERNÁNDEZ, identity card 1-0543-0641, LUIS MAURICIO DE LOS ÁNGELES JIMÉNEZ MENA, identity card 1-0654-0423, LUZ MARY ALPÍZAR LOAIZA, identity card 1-0711-0855, MANUEL MONESTEL RAMÍREZ, identity card 1-0388-0206, MARÍA CAROLINA CHANTO SEGURA, identity card 1-1356-0564, MARÍA DE LOS ÁNGELES FERNÁNDEZ PÁREZ, identity card 3-0452-0602, MARÍA DE LOS ÁNGELES PIEDRA RAMÍREZ, identity card 1-0392-1031, MARÍA DEL PILAR ARIAS FERNÁNDEZ, identity card 1-0846-0889, MARÍA DEL ROSARIO JARA ROJAS, identity card 1-0376-0798, MARÍA EMILIA CHAVES REES, identity card 1-0402-0576, MARÍA ESTHER MONTANARO MENA, identity card 1-0922-0124, MARÍA GABRIELA DIAZ LARRALDE, residence card 186200027525, MARÍA JESÚS LEÓN ABARCA, identity card 2-0741-0233, MARÍA JOSÉ MATA QUIRÓS, identity card 3-0456-0638, MARÍA TERESA PINEDA CORDERO, identity card 1-0695-0985, MARIO ALBERTO RUIZ SALAS, identity card 1-1370-0284, MELISSA ALEJANDRA MUÑOZ LÓPEZ, identity card 1-1396-0167, MELISSA PACHECO SEGURA, identity card 1-1238-0589, MELISSA VANESSA SOLANO ZAPATA, identity card 1-1394-0510, MIRIAM QUESADA ALPÍZAR, identity card 1-0423-0331, NANCY MELISSA BRENES QUIRÓS, identity card 3-0359-0765, NATALIA ZELEDON FONTANA, identity card 1-1287-0996, PABLO BRIZUELA CALVO, identity card 1-0667-0723, PAULINA MATA MONGE, identity card 1-0791-0223, PIETRO ANTONIO SCAGLIONI SOLANO, identity card 1-0662-0065, RAQUEL PAOLA BONE GUZMÁN, identity card 1-1401-0048, RASCHID LEANDRO CAMACHO, identity card 3-0200-0764, REBECA RAMÍREZ BARRIENTOS, identity card 1-1344-0824, ROCIO ISABEL OTAROLA ULATE, identity card 1-0799-0498, ROSALINA DEL CARMEN ROJAS BLANCO, identity card 7-0051-0974, SEBASTIAN ALVARADO MONTERO, identity card 1-1345-0538, SONIA MARÍA AMADOR SABALLOS, residence card 155823152931, SUSANA ALVARADO MONTERO, identity card 1-1582-0120, TAMARA OLIVIA VALENCIA FONTANA, identity card 1-1154-0988, TANIA MARÍA LEANDRO ESPINOZA, identity card 1-1405-0586, VALERIA SALDARRIAGA TORRES, identity card 1-1656-0742, VALERIANE BRABANT, VICENTE GABRIEL JULIO CANTERO VALVERDE, identity card 6-0055-0153, VILMA MARIA QUIRÓS JIMÉNEZ, identity card 9-0048-0542, WALLACE FEDERICO SCHUMACHER HANKE, identity card 1-0587-0712, WALNER RAMÓN ALANIZ ÁLVAREZ, identity card 1-1495-0980, YERLIN VERÓNICA SALAS DELGADO, identity card 6-0427-0300, YESKA GABRIELA FONSECA CASTILLO, identity card 1-1283-0574, ANA CAROLINA QUINTERO FERNÁNDEZ, identity card 1-0846-0347, CARMEN MARÍA ROJAS GONZÁLEZ, identity card 1-0527-0868, EMILIT MARITZA LAMSICK ALGUERA, identity card 7-0116-0409, FRANCISCO ENRIQUE VÁSQUEZ MAY, identity card 1-1097-0317, INEKE LAMEY VAN MARLE, identity card 8-0065-0011, JOSÉ IGNACIO VALENCIANO ANTILLÓN, 1-0630-0191, LAURA SAUMA SOLANO, identity card 1-085-0755, MAURICIO VARGAS BARGUIL, identity card 3-0286-0035, NOEL DOUNE ELIZABETH PAYNE WARREN, 8-0068-0331, MECHTHILD FRIDERIEKE BORS DE BARQUERO, residence card 127600115431, on behalf of ALL USERS OF THE UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA SPORTS FACILITIES, most of whom reside in the canton of Montes de Oca and surrounding areas, against the SECRETARÍA TÉCNICA NACIONAL AMBIENTAL (SETENA), the MUNICIPALIDAD DE MONTES DE OCA, and the UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA.- Findings of Fact (Resultando):
FIRST: Incorrect application of Article 28 of the Ley Forestal due to the omission of tree-felling permits (permisos de tala).
SECOND: Violations of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
THIRD: Omission of the tree-felling permits required under decreto Ejecutivo No. 25721-MINAE.
FOURTH: Impact on wildlife.
FIFTH: Omissions concerning the construction of the Facultad de Odontología in the Environmental Impact Study.
SIXTH: Serious inconsistencies in the Environmental Assessment Document (Documento de Evaluación Ambiental).
SEVENTH: Violation of the right to public participation (participación ciudadana).
EIGHTH: Violation of the rights set forth in Article 46 of the Constitution concerning health protection, access to information, economic and environmental interests, receipt of truthful information, freedom of choice, and equitable treatment, all with respect to users of the sports facilities at UCR’s Finca 3.
The petitioners state that they are users of the respondent Universidad’s sports facilities and, for the most part, residents of the canton of Montes de Oca and surrounding areas; they allege that the respondent institutions failed to observe the environmental principles of non-regression (no regresión), precaution, in dubio pro natura, and sustainable development (desarrollo sostenible), as well as the constitutional principles of reasonableness and proportionality, in connection with the Universidad’s project, endorsed by SETENA, to construct the Facultad de Odontología on Finca 3, which entails felling seventy-four mature trees and affects the wild flora and fauna at the project site and in surrounding areas, including the Corredor Biológico del Río Torres, the riparian forest of the quebrada Sabanilla, and the forest of Finca 4.
The petitioners request that the corresponding proceedings be ordered and that a violation of the rights recognized in Articles 9, 46, and 50 of the Constitution and Article 4º of the Pacto de San José be declared; that the environmental feasibility issued by SETENA for the aforementioned project be annulled because it is contrary to the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and diminishes the quality of life of thousands of people who use the sports facilities at Finca 3. They also request that the Universidad de Costa Rica be ordered to assess the possibility of constructing the Facultad de Odontología on Fincas 1 and 2, or in adjacent areas where the impact would not be as substantial, while retaining Finca 3 primarily for recreation, sports, and environmental conservation.-
“ARTICLE 94.- Stages of the environmental impact assessment. The environmental impact assessment concerning biodiversity must be carried out in its entirety, even when the project is scheduled to be implemented in stages.” In light of the foregoing, the Secretary General considers that, far from constituting noncompliance, presenting all the projects in a single environmental assessment instrument (instrumento de evaluación ambiental) enabled the application of the most rigorous technical instrument, incorporating the most extensive substantive studies, and allowed the environmental studies to be assessed comprehensively rather than separately, for the benefit of the environment. By using an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA) as the EIA instrument, which is the most exhaustive instrument available to SETENA, the assessment encompasses the physical, biological, and social components, which are considered in their entirety to determine whether there is harmonization or an acceptable balance, from the standpoint of environmental load, between the development and implementation of a project and its potential environmental impacts—that is, environmental viability (Viabilidad ambiental).
Regarding the first ground of the appeal, concerning the incorrect application of Article 28 of the Ley Forestal due to the failure to obtain a tree-felling permit (permiso de tala), the Secretary General of SETENA states that Article 28 of the Ley Forestal establishes an exemption from the cutting permit (permiso de corta) not only for plantations, as the appellants claim, but also for agroforestry systems (sistemas agroforestales) and individually planted trees (árboles plantados individualmente). The Secretary General specifies, therefore, that SETENA did consider it possible to apply Article 28 of the Ley Forestal under the category of individually planted trees. However, the Secretary General considers that the Administración Forestal de Estado (AFE) is the final authority responsible for ensuring the proper application of the Ley Forestal and its regulations and for issuing the corresponding permit, for which environmental viability is a prerequisite.
With respect to tree cutting, through the EIA SETENA ensures that compensatory measures (medidas compensatorias) are established, as defined by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 32966-MINAE, for impacts that are irreversible or unavoidable; although such measures do not prevent or mitigate the effect, they counterbalance the alteration of terrestrial flora in some manner. The Secretary General considers that, according to the information requested by that Secretariat and provided by the developer, page 037 of the document Response to Resolution N° 030-2016 SETENA includes the “Manual for Restocking Trees on the Rodrigo Facio University Campus Properties” (“Manual de Repoblamiento de Árboles en Fincas del Campus Universitario Rodrigo Facio”). The Secretary General states that this manual analyzes the biophysical characteristics of the university campus and defines the forest species to be planted, the planting season, care before and after planting, and potential areas for restoration.
In light of the foregoing, the Secretary General notes that SETENA considers that the procedure followed neither harms nor leaves the environment unprotected; on the contrary, it establishes precautionary and compensatory measures for the removal of trees, since the developer undertakes to reforest two trees for every tree cut, using native species with specific ecological functions, such as restoration, heritage conservation, nesting, food sources, edible uses, and others. Regarding the second ground of the appeal, concerning violations of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the Secretary General of SETENA reports that the specified project complied with Article 50 of the Constitution, Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del ambiente, Decreto No. 31849- MINAE, and all other applicable technical instruments and regulations from the standpoint of environmental assessment (Evaluación Ambiental), as demonstrated in this report; accordingly, a violation of the stated fundamental right cannot be alleged at the constitutional level.
Regarding the third ground of the appeal, concerning the failure to obtain the tree-felling permits required under Decreto No. 25721-MINAE, the Secretary General states that this decree concerns the forestry oversight (control forestal) that the Administración Forestal del Estado must perform when a natural or legal person seeks to conduct timber harvesting (aprovechamiento maderable) in non-forested areas (áreas sin bosque). The Secretary General argues that timber harvesting in non-forested areas does not include forest plantations (plantaciones forestales), agroforestry systems, or individually planted trees, because these forestry systems are defined separately in Article 3 of the Ley Forestal; in other words, Article 90 of the Reglamento a la Ley Forestal applies only to areas that are not forest plantations, agroforestry systems, or individually planted trees. The Secretary General considers that the foregoing leads to the definition of agricultural-use and non-forested land (terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque).
The Secretary General notes that Article 3.- Subsection w) of the Reglamento a la Ley Forestal (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25721-MINAE) defines Agricultural-Use and Non-Forested Land (Terrenos de Uso Agropecuario y Sin Bosque) as follows:
“These are privately owned properties containing trees that were not established under an agroforestry system, or properties with areas of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) measuring less than two hectares” It explains that trees on agricultural-use, non-forest land (terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque) may be considered to include all forest species established through natural regeneration (regeneración natural) in deforested, abandoned, and isolated areas following their productive degradation. They also include all forest species remaining after intensive forest use. It states that Costa Rica has two types of timber harvesting (aprovechamiento maderable) on the aforementioned land, governed by the “Regulations for Processing Permits and Monitoring Timber Harvesting on Agricultural-Use, Non-Forest Land and in Special Situations in Costa Rica” (“Reglamento para trámite de permisos y control del aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario, sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica”) (Decreto Ejecutivo m 38863-MINAE).
It states that the first type is the small permit (permiso pequeño, PP), under which no more than three trees per hectare of effective area may be harvested, up to a maximum of 10 trees per property per year; these permits are subject to strict oversight by the AFE. Second, it clarifies that forest inventories (inventarios forestales) are submitted when no more than three trees per hectare of effective area are to be harvested but the number exceeds 10 trees per property per year. It explains that, in both cases, Decreto Ejecutivo NQ 38863-MINAE establishes in Article 7 the timber-harvesting requirements for permits issued by the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal de Estado, AFE). It notes that the requirements include subsection a) viii: For applications in which the applicable regulations require prior SETENA environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), the permit application must state the number and date of issuance of that decision.
It therefore considers that harvesting trees on agricultural-use, non-forest land, including under small permits and forest inventories, does not require authorization from SETENA, because that Secretariat’s environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) procedure contains no rule requiring submission of a tree-felling or harvesting permit issued by the AFE. It therefore emphasizes that SETENA did not fail to act by not requesting the relevant felling permits (permisos de corta) from the developer, because these are independent processes that must be carried out at different procedural stages. It emphasizes that it may be inferred from subsection a), cited above, that obtaining Environmental Viability (License) (Viabilidad (Licencia) Ambiental) is a requirement that, once granted by SETENA, must be submitted to the AFE to obtain the corresponding permits, and not the other way around.
Regarding the fourth ground of the appeal (recurso), concerning the project’s impact on wildlife (vida silvestre), it reports that the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA), the most rigorous instrument that may be submitted to SETENA, was applied. It states that the Manual for the Preparation of Technical EIA Instruments (Manual para la elaboración de Instrumentos Técnicos de EIA) (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 32966-MINAE) initially serves to describe the environmental baseline (línea base ambiental), that is, to characterize those environmental elements located within the project area (área del proyecto, AP) that give rise to the need to submit an Environmental Impact Study. It notes that, as part of the environmental baseline, this Secretariat assessed the protection status of the AP, namely, whether any Protected Wildlife Area (Área Silvestre Protegida, ASP) defined by SINAC was located near the project.
It states that although no ASP officially declared by SINAC was identified, in Resolución No 030-2016 SETENA, (folio 1129. Tomo VI), SETENA considered the existence of Reserva Leonel Oviedo, Jardín Botánico, and the initiatives to create an interurban biological corridor (corredor biológico interurbano) that would connect green patches with river and stream protection zones. In this regard, it states that on folio 158 of the document Respuesta a la Resolución N° 030-2016 SETENA, the developer made an environmental commitment (compromiso ambiental) to direct the reforestation and restoration programs toward maintaining the riparian forests (bosques riparios) of the streams and Río Torres. It also asserts that folio 156 of the same document states that their banks will not be affected and their nearby areas will not be used, and therefore their environment will not be directly affected by construction of the project.
It further notes that, following an observation made by SETENA, folio 151 states that the creation of restoration strips serving as biological corridors seeks to reverse or mitigate the impacts of current urban fragmentation by allowing wildlife species to pass through. It therefore states that the review of the EsIA was neither defective nor incomplete, because SETENA considered biological connectivity and the relationship among plant and animal species. It further notes that the EsIA identifies and describes the natural associations (ecosystems) present in the AP and the Direct Area of Influence (Área de Influencia Directa, AID), for which the conservation potential must be described, that is, the degree to which each identified ecosystem is important enough to warrant establishing a protection buffer (margen de protección). On folio 225 of the EsIA, the developer identifies five natural associations: grasslands, riparian forests, mixed woodlands, patches of secondary forest, and scrublands (charrales).
It emphasizes that, for finca 3, the developer indicates that three associations exist (Jardines, Bosque, Pastos y Arboleda Mixta); it underscores the importance of forest conservation and notes that folio 135 defines a proposed university interurban-corridor model for the entire Campus, showing that the Facultad de Odontología does not interfere with the proposal. It specifies that the EsIA also includes a section considering the AP’s most representative plant and animal species (wildlife), which must be related to the existing ecosystem and must identify which species have a protected status under CITES, are endemic, or are considered to have a small population or to be endangered. It argues that, with regard to threatened specimens, only plant species were identified, and SETENA therefore requested that the relevant environmental control measures (medidas de control ambiental) be established for the two identified species (Caoba and Cedro amargo).
In response, on folio 158 of the document Respuesta a la Resolución N° 030-2016 SETENA, the developer states that these species will be protected and that reproductive material will be collected to incorporate the species into the reforestation program. It also notes the need to relocate and transplant two Caoba trees directly affected by the project; for this purpose, through official letter (oficio) OEPI-520-2016 (folio 140 of the aforementioned document), the project developer undertakes to hire a specialized company to carry out the relocation. It considers that SETENA did not minimize the project’s impact on threatened plant species; on the contrary, through the EIA, it ensures that the project is harmonized with the environment. It emphasizes that, according to folio 215 of the EslA, on finca 6, specifically in the Odontología area, the developer identified 75 individual plants distributed among 18 species as part of the characterization of the flora present in the AP.
On folio 16 of the document Respuesta a la Resolución N° 030-2016 SETENA, the developer states that only 15 of the 75 identified trees must be felled for construction of the building. It states that SETENA required the corresponding compensatory measures (medidas compensatorias) to be established through a restoration plan (plan de restauración). It states that, with respect to fauna, SETENA requires the EsIA, as part of the environmental assessment (diagnóstico ambiental) or baseline, to consider accurate and current information on the different taxonomic groups present in the AP and AID; to that end, through Resolución N° 0455-201 5 SETENA, SETENA required a team of specialist consultants to produce that information. It states that the developer, through the consulting team, reports the existence of 20 mammal species; additionally, Universidad de Costa Rica has maintained data on bird diversity since 1968, recording 188 bird species, which currently have habitat of sufficient quality to survive.
The aforementioned information forms part of the preparation of the environmental baseline within the EIA, because it is the first step toward properly identifying and assessing environmental impacts (impactos ambientales). It asserts that, for this purpose, SETENA required the EsIA to use a conventional, scientifically accepted methodology that considered each stage and applied the Environmental Impact Significance Matrix (Matriz de Importancia de Impacto Ambiental, MIIA), a scientific and technical procedure for identifying and predicting the effects that will be exerted on the environment and for quantifying and weighting them, so that the corresponding environmental control measures may subsequently be established. It explains that this Matrix is regulated by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 32966-MINAE. It considers that, in the present case, folio 115 of the document Respuesta a la Resolución N° 030-2016 identifies, describes, and assesses the potential impacts that the project would generate on the environment; the MIIA was used for this purpose as an analytical mechanism for prospectively investigating what may occur.
Upon completion of the EIA, the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) must be prepared, setting out the practices that the developer must implement to prevent, control, reduce, or offset significant environmental impacts and maximize the project’s positive impacts. It states that, regarding wildlife, SETENA assessed each of the proposed measures, including constructing buildings on sites with minimal vegetation, implementing a tree-planting, landscaping, and green-area restoration program using native species, and establishing strips that function as biological corridors, particularly along waterways. In view of all the foregoing, it considers that SETENA ensured that the impacts identified for wildlife (flora and fauna) throughout the EIA process would be duly controlled by applying measures to prevent, mitigate, offset, and restore negative impacts, as well as measures to enhance positive impacts.
Scientific and technical procedures were used for this purpose. It emphasizes that, in accordance with the specific, viable, and functional standards for environmental conservation that, through the EIA, make it possible to ensure an environmentally acceptable balance between development of the project and its environmental impacts. It asserts that, regarding the fifth ground of the appeal, concerning omissions relating to construction of the Facultad de Odontología in the Traffic Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Vial), SETENA reports that the Traffic Impact Study was approved by the Departamento de Estudios y Diseños de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito del MOPT through official letter DVT-DGIT-ED-2015-4615. It notes that the project assessed by SETENA includes construction of a Parqueo Integral Universitario on finca 2, consisting of a building with an approximate area of 26855 square meters, distributed across eight levels, that will accommodate 750 automobile parking spaces and 40 bicycle parking spaces; it will be used to meet the parking needs associated with the construction and operation of the project’s various buildings, including the Odontología building.
It argues that, as may be verified in the project’s Environmental Management Plan Table and given that, according to the studies conducted, traffic congestion problems were expected to occur at certain locations near the sites where the works will be constructed, environmental measures associated with the increase in vehicles on the access roads to the project area (área del proyecto, AP) were proposed for both the construction and operational phases of the project, such as establishing schedules for the circulation of vehicles and heavy machinery to prevent such circulation during peak traffic hours; coordinating with the University’s Office of Security and Traffic to regulate and control internal vehicle flow; posting signs to inform users that heavy vehicles will be traveling on the roads; and other measures. It states that, regarding air pollution caused by the increase in gas emissions from the machinery that will operate on the project, the Forecast—Environmental Management Plan Table (Cuadro Pronóstico Plan de Gestión Ambiental, PPGA) (folio 017 of the document Response to Notice DEA-1501-2016-SETENA) indicates that sample-based air-quality monitoring (PTS AND PM10) will be conducted during the construction process to ensure compliance with the current national legislation governing this matter.
It emphasizes that, with respect to air pollution caused by gas emissions during the operational phase, annual monitoring of ambient pollutant concentrations (inmisiones) on campus is proposed in order to determine specific measures in the event of noncompliance with the current legislation governing the matter, for at least 2 years (folio 017 of the document Response to Notice DEA-1501-201 6-SETENA). It alleges that the foregoing demonstrates that the impacts generated by the increase in the project’s vehicle flow were duly assessed and that the corresponding environmental measures were proposed. It states that, with regard to the sixth ground for challenge, the Secretary General of SETENA asserts that, as provided in Article 94 of the Biodiversity Law, “The environmental impact assessment with respect to biodiversity must be conducted in its entirety, even when the project is scheduled to be carried out in stages”; the project “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio,” consisting of the construction of 22 buildings distributed among 3 different UCR properties, was assessed comprehensively under a single case file, considering that all its components fall within the Construction Category, have the same Developer, and involve properties located within nearby geographic areas with similar environmental characteristics.
It alleges that it is important to consider that, at SETENA’s request, in Resolution N° 0455-2015- SETENA (Folios 1030-1016, volume V of the administrative case file), the project was assessed through an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EslA), which is the most rigorous and exhaustive instrument available to this Secretariat. It explains that it should be clarified that the Initial Environmental Assessment matrix (matriz de Evaluación Ambiental Inicial) constitutes a PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT of the potential impacts that the project will generate, which are expanded upon and detailed during the Environmental Assessment Process (Proceso de Evaluación Ambiental), specifically in the Forecast—Environmental Management Plan Table, as is the case with effects on the landscape, flora, and fauna, for which environmental measures are presented in folios 020-011 of the document Response to Notice DEA-1501-2016-SETENA).
It notes that, in this specific case, the use of separate Initial Environmental Assessment matrices for each component of the project would not add greater rigor to the Environmental Assessment Process and, to the contrary, could justify the submission of an Environmental Management Plan Forecast (Pronóstico Plan de Gestión Ambiental) or a Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales) as the assessment instrument instead of an EslA. It adds that the assertions concerning the instrument, its meaning, and its interpretation demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the Environmental Assessment process. It states that, regarding the seventh ground of the appeal, the Secretary General emphasizes that, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental), it was the project developer’s responsibility to provide the Municipality of Montes de Oca with a copy of the Environmental Impact Declaration (Declaratoria de Impacto Ambiental).
It stresses that the document is recorded as having been received by that entity on 08 October 2015, as evidenced by folio 1046 of Volume V of the case file. It explains that, pursuant to D.E. N232966- MINAE, it consists of a technical summary of the EslA. It also states that the project developer likewise delivered a copy of the EslA to Área de Conservación Volcánica Central on 19 October 2015, as shown in folio 1047 of Volume V of the case file. It further explains that the project developer published a notice on 26 August 2015 in the newspaper La República, as recorded in folio 1034 of Volume V of the case file, informing the public that it had submitted the EslA to this Secretariat and inviting the public to submit objections, if any. It adds that SETENA did not deny the public the right to enter appearances (apersonamientos) or submit observations during the EslA review process; moreover, the project’s case file has been available for consultation by any citizen, as has all information submitted to SETENA concerning environmental matters.
It comments that the project developer complied with the requirement to submit the information pertaining to the Socioeconomic Section (Apartado Socioeconómico), for which social perceptions of the project were taken into account by conducting a survey using a representative sample of the population. It contends that the results of the quantitative study conducted were presented and clarifies that this instrument was used because the project is located in an urban area, namely the district of San Pedro. It notes that the sample consisted of 162 people drawn from a population of 2688 persons who were 20 years of age or older and lived on the streets immediately surrounding the UCR. It explains that the results of the quantitative study were as follows: 44% of respondents perceived the project as something that would be neither favorable nor unfavorable; 24% indicated that it would not be favorable; 19,8% believed that it would be favorable; and 11.7% did not know or did not respond.
It states that, with respect to support for the project, 15,4% supported it, 63% were indifferent, and 21,6% did not support it. It notes that, as may be seen from the respondents’ opinions, it cannot be concluded that there is opposition to carrying out the project; rather, indifference predominates. It further observes that a qualitative study was also conducted, the results of which appear in folios 191 through 189 of the EslA and in folio 133 of the Annex to the EslA. It also notes that environmental measures were established in response to the environmental impacts identified through the consultation conducted and that the developer must comply with those measures as part of the commitments undertaken. It considers that construction of this project does not restrict people’s right to engage in sports activities on campus; furthermore, it must not be overlooked that the Universidad de Costa Rica is an educational institution and that its purpose is not to serve as a park for recreational purposes, although it does designate areas for that purpose.
It clarifies that the social-research techniques applied in preparing the EslA are those established by the current regulations, including D.E. N232966-MINAE. It states that participatory workshops (talleres participativos) (interactive participatory process) were not applicable to this project because the results of the studies conducted did not predict the existence of opposition or social conflict, and that instrument is used only in such cases or for projects in which the population of the Area of Influence (Área de Influencia) is Indigenous. It states that, with regard to the eighth ground, at SETENA’s request, in Resolution N° 0455-2015-SETENA (Folios 1030-1016, volume V of the administrative case file), the project was assessed through an EslA, which is the most rigorous and exhaustive instrument available to this Secretariat. Accordingly, it notes that the EslA, as an environmental impact assessment instrument (instrumento de EIA), is intended to provide an analysis of the physical, biological, and social components, which are considered as an integrated whole to determine whether there is a state of harmonization or acceptable balance, from the standpoint of environmental load (carga ambiental), between the development and execution of a project and its potential environmental impacts (Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental)).
Additionally, it considers that at no point during the review of the project’s Environmental Assessment was the public restricted from expressing its opinions. It reiterates that the project developer and the Environmental Consulting team (equipo de Consultoría Ambiental) relied on the current regulations in preparing the EslA, particularly the Socioeconomic Section.
3 of the cited Decreto 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT defines it as follows: “[...] Public Hearing (Audiencia Pública): The presentation that SETENA orders the developer and the environmental consulting team for a Category A activity, work, or project to conduct when it deems necessary, in order to inform civil society about it and its impacts, in accordance with the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley de Biodiversidad, this regulation, and all other consistent regulations, as well as to hear the opinions of those present at the hearing so that they may be analyzed during the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) process and a decision may be made as to whether or not to include them.” It explains that, therefore, there is no obligation to hold a public hearing; rather, SETENA has the authority to determine when to order one because it considers it necessary. It states that the Universidad de Costa Rica, as a public university entity and the project developer, complied by preparing the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and the submitted annexes, based on the terms of reference issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, which were established by that body through Resolución No. 455-2015-SETENA, following the requirements of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 MINAE- SALUD.
MOPT- MAG- MEIC. It notes that the new building for the Facultad de Odontología will in no way affect the quality of life of users of the athletic facilities; on the contrary, the most important component of the project is the new facilities that will be available to provide oral healthcare to neighboring communities and the country. It states that it is not true that only a very small population will benefit from the project. It asserts that, since the founding of the Facultad de Odontología, high-quality dental services in several specialties have been provided to thousands of children and adults from various parts of the country, most of whom have limited financial resources. It further estimates that the new facility must serve a student population of 730 undergraduate licentiate-degree students, 75 students in the dental-assistant course, and 30 graduate students, in addition to places in internships and short courses lasting approximately one year.
It states that, of the undergraduate students, approximately 500 are preclinical students (first, second, and third years), while 230 students would be assigned to dental clinics (fourth, fifth, and sixth years). It further explains that the building will accommodate between 180 and 190 professors per semester. It states that the administrative staff consists of 80 employees. It adds that the project proposes an environmentally friendly structure, with a balanced urban design that would have a positive impact on the health and quality of life of its occupants (faculty, students, administrative staff, and visiting patients), as well as on neighboring communities, the environment, and its inhabitants. 11. It asserts that it is not true that the project would cause an unnecessary and disproportionate environmental impact on one of the last remaining forest areas. It states that the project does not affect the protection zones (zonas de protección) of the río Torres or the quebrada Sabanilla.
It explains that, for the río Torres, INVU establishes a setback (retiro) of 50 meters, and for the quebrada Sabanilla, 10m. With respect to the latter, the Universidad decided to adopt a setback of 60 m. (50 m more than required) and a setback of 75 m for the río Torres (25 m more than required). It attaches INVU alignment (alineamiento) No.41527. It also states that it is not true that the Universidad has other spaces in which to locate this project. It clarifies that, because this is a building with a substantial healthcare component, more than 60 % of the project area consists of the Dental Clinics. It states that this requires a parcel of land of at least two hectares on which separate buildings may be located, with a clear distinction among educational, office, and clinical uses. It notes that all areas must likewise have adequate ventilation and natural lighting, and therefore the project cannot be developed as a compact vertical structure.
It emphasizes that a wastewater treatment plant (planta de tratamiento de aguas) is also required because special wastewater is generated by the chairs, plaster laboratories, and other activities specific to dental practice and, under Ministerio de Salud regulations, must be treated before being discharged into the sanitary sewer system (alcantarillado sanitario). It states that discharging the treated water into the río Torres has not been contemplated, precisely in order to reduce the environmental impact. It indicates that the project area for the Facultad de Odontología building contains none of the elements that constitute a forest (bosque), as defined in Art. 3 of Ley Forestal N° 7575, subsection d): “Forest: A native or indigenous ecosystem, whether or not disturbed, regenerated through natural succession or other forestry techniques, occupying an area of two or more hectares and characterized by the presence of mature trees of different ages, species, and sizes, with one or more canopies covering more than seventy percent (70%) of that area, and containing more than sixty trees per hectare with diameters of fifteen or more centimeters measured at breast height (DAP).” However, it explains that several species in the area in question are classified as non-native or exotic.
The contribution of exotic species to the plant component of the Facultad de Odontología project area is evident. It states that the existing ecosystem, in addition to trees and shrubs, includes animals typical of an urban area, and that interactions between these two biotic elements occur with trees that provide them with some important benefit, such as food, shelter, or protection; there are no studies concerning the benefits of exotic species to local wildlife. It indicates that anthropogenic factors (factores antrópicos) in the area in question disrupt or prevent ecological interactions, including the constant presence of outside visitors, users of Finca 3, and their pets, particularly dogs, which drives wild animals away from green areas as a means of defense and protection. It therefore explains that the Universidad does seek to protect the riparian protection areas (áreas de protección ribereña) on the Universidad’s properties where important ecological interactions can occur.
It states that, in fact, larger setback areas have been provided: 60 m in the case of the quebrada Sabanilla and 75 m for the río Torres. It argues that another important factor in defining the area as forest is the two-hectare size established by Ley Forestal, with the equivalent of 60 trees more than 15 centimeters in diameter at breast height (DAP); in this case, the petitioners (recurrentes) state that the project area is 20000 m2 without providing proof thereof. The Universidad therefore clarifies, as stated in the Environmental Impact Study and Resolución N° 1193-2016-SETENA, that the construction area is 9000 m2 and that urban-development works (obras de urbanización) cover 3000 m2. It therefore states that the proportion of trees per hectare required to satisfy one of the characteristics of a forest is not present, as is also clearly indicated by the land use (uso de suelo). It states that an Environmental Impact Study always identifies species potentially affected by the development of projects to be constructed—in this case, at Finca 3—and proposes environmental measures to be implemented during both the construction and operational phases.
On this occasion, specifically for the Facultad de Odontología Building project, a biological-environment analysis study was prepared that considers the potential effects. It further notes that a traffic impact study (estudio de impacto vial) was prepared and included as part of the Environmental Impact Study, containing a comprehensive analysis of the works to be carried out at Finca 1, 2 and 3 and their potential scope, which is not significant for the dentistry project. It states that the recommendations concern Finca 1 and 2 because that is where the greatest impact will occur, while no major impact is anticipated at Finca 3. It explains that this is because the largest volume of construction will take place at Finca 1 and 2. It notes that it is appropriate to point out that a series of residential and commercial projects have been developed near the area where Finca 3 is located, resulting in increased vehicular traffic and, consequently, gas emissions.
It states that the vehicular traffic generated by the construction will be minimal compared with the existing situation. It explains that the main means of transportation will be buses, both internal and external, because the building will have a minimal number of parking spaces, including those required for persons with disabilities and loading zones. It also states that the Environmental Impact Study analysis, specifically the air-quality section, identifies the potential sources of pollution resulting from the development of the projects to be implemented at the various properties of Sede Rodrigo Facio, as well as the subsequent application of mitigation measures (medidas de mitigación). Regarding the statement in the legal action (recurso) that: “The petitioners argue that the interests of the community that has used the athletic facilities for more than 30 years must take precedence over the construction of facilities with an impact of approximately 20000 m2 that could readily be built elsewhere on Finca 1 and 2 [...]”, it explains that the preliminary studies conducted for every project include marking the setbacks from streams and rivers.
It states that, specifically in the case of the Facultad de Odontología, the relevant watercourses are the Río Torres and the Quebrada Sabanilla, and Ley Forestal No. 7575 establishes a setback of 10 m on flat land and 50 m on rugged land or land with slopes greater than 30%. It states that, as shown on the attached plan, the setbacks are 75 m from the Río Torres, measured from the western side of the building, and 60 m from the Quebrada Sabanilla, measured from the northern side of the building. It argues that the building is located outside the protection area, will have no adverse impact on it, and is situated on land whose designated use permits infrastructure development and which is not considered forest. It also states that the designated land use demonstrates that Finca 3 is entirely separate from Finca 4 and that the project will not affect that property either. It notes that the Environmental Impact Study and submitted annexes were prepared in accordance with Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 MINAE- SALUD.
MOPT- MAG- MEIC Reglamento General sobre los procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental del 28 de junio de 2004, as established by national environmental legislation, fully complying with the requirements established by SETENA for technical approval of both the Facultad de Odontología building project and the other projects to be developed on the other properties of Sede Rodrigo Facio. It explains that the Environmental Impact Study and its annexes, as submitted to and approved by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, were prepared, submitted, evaluated, and approved in accordance with national environmental legislation. It further states that the Environmental Impact Study is the most rigorous instrument available under environmental law for conducting environmental impact assessments, because it requires an in-depth examination of all environmental matters related to the project—in this case, the 22 projects submitted to Setena.
It indicates that, under national environmental legislation, the Proyectos Varios Sede Rodrigo Facio project was submitted to and approved by the entity designated and competent under the Law to approve the documents submitted by the Universidad de Costa Rica, and that any missing information or corrections to the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) were submitted in a timely manner and approved. It states that, as with any construction project, all preliminary studies were conducted in depth to determine the project’s feasibility. It comments that each of them, ranging from the soil study, slope stability, setback from the river, analysis of access or parking requirements, and the environmental studies commissioned from Geocad, yielded favorable findings regarding use of the land for construction of the Facultad de Odontología. It states that, according to Administrative Case File (Expediente Administrativo) N° D1-14285-2014-SETENA: Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio, and the Environmental Impact Study submitted, its annex and clarifications, the technical and legal requirements—and therefore the procedure established in DE N° 31849 MINAE-MOPT-MAG- MEIC, DE N° 32966- MINAE, 32712-MINAE and their amendments—were satisfied, as recorded in resolution N° 1193-2016-SETENA.
It notes that the petitioners (recurrentes) in this case do not identify the fauna that has a symbiotic relationship with the flora, nor do they provide assessment criteria with which to challenge the environmental impact study submitted by the Universidad de Costa Rica and approved by the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (SETENA). It adds that the Environmental Impact Study includes the biological study conducted for the properties of the Sede Rodrigo Facio and identifies the wildlife species that could be sampled there. It further states that the presence of wildlife on Finca 3 is not omitted, nor is the reference to its symbiotic relationship with the flora located there. It states that most of the trees to be cut within the project area for the Facultad de Odontología building do not serve as habitat for the wildlife identified. It also clarifies that, although there is ecological interaction between the green areas of Finca 3 and Finca 4 at the Sede Rodrigo Facio, no forest exists on Finca 4, as recorded in Oficio RNVS-ACCVC-005, dated 3 de febrero de 2015.
(Figure 1 Oficio RNVS-ACCVC-005, dated 3 de febrero de 2015). It explains that the protection areas (áreas de protección) of Quebrada Sabanilla and Río Torres are respected and are in no way affected, as shown on the site plan for the project at issue. It further clarifies that the Universidad is aware of the Corredor Biológico Interurbano del Río Torres (CBI-RT) initiative, whose objective is to establish an interurban biological corridor along the banks of the Río Torres in order to promote ecological restoration and enable flora and fauna connectivity, thereby fostering biodiversity conservation and improving the quality of life of neighboring communities. However, it comments that CBI-RT has not been made official as of today, according to telephone statements provided on viernes 30 de septiembre to Licda. Emilia Martén Araya, coordinator of the UGA, by Ing. Gabriela Sánchez Sibaja, coordinator of the Programa de Cuencas Hidrográficas y Corredores Biológicos del Departamento de Servicios Ambientales de la Municipalidad de San José, who also clarified that participation in that initiative is voluntary for owners of private properties adjoining the protection areas of Río Torres, as is the case of the Universidad, as owner of Fincas 3 and 4 of the Sede Rodrigo Facio.
It states that, as its contribution to that initiative, the Universidad intends to rehabilitate the protection areas through implementation of the Plan de Rehabilitación y Mantenimiento de las Áreas de Protección de la Sede Rodrigo Facio, which is being prepared by the Unidad de Gestión Ambiental de la Universidad. It alleges that the more than 210 trees located outside the area of the project at issue also receive proper forestry management and continue to perform the area’s ecological functions. It emphasizes that the environmental impact study prepared by the Universidad de Costa Rica was produced in accordance with the technical criteria required under existing environmental legislation; specifically, the biological-environment analysis was conducted according to the criteria of a biology professional, who determined the scope of analysis for a specified area for the AP, AID and All, based on a field survey of the impact zone that could be affected by the construction of various projects on Finca 3.
It states that an analysis of Finca 4 was neither conducted nor necessary because the Universidad does not currently contemplate any type of construction work in that area. It states that the social section of the environmental impact study included a random survey conducted by a specialist sociologist registered with Setena, encompassing university students, administrative staff, and residents neighboring the Universidad de Costa Rica. It adds that notice was published in the newspaper La República on 28 de agosto del 2015, as required by Setena regulations. Furthermore, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 MINAE- SALUD. MOPT- MAG- MEIC reglamento General sobre los procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental del 28 de junio de 2004, in its artículo N° 3, punto 12, specifies the following: “Public hearing (Audiencia pública): The presentation that SETENA orders the developer and the environmental-consultant team for a Category A activity, undertaking, or project to conduct when it deems this necessary, in order to inform civil society about the activity, undertaking, or project and its impacts, in accordance with the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley de Biodiversidad, these regulations, and all other consistent regulations”; that is, it is within SETENA’s discretion to determine whether such a hearing is required in order to conduct an adequate analysis of the project at issue.
In the case of the Universidad de Costa Rica, it was not considered necessary. It states that it is not true that construction alternatives were not analyzed during the initial Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) stage. It asserts that other potential locations for the project were assessed during the preliminary-study stages. It states that the first possibility analyzed was constructing the building on the site currently occupied by the Facultad de Odontología and relocating it temporarily to another building during the construction stage. It states that, unlike other types of educational buildings, the dentistry program requires facilities where dental treatment is provided to patients. It notes that these consist of 10 Clínicas Odontológicas divided among different specialties, each containing dental units that require complex electromechanical systems which, in addition to being costly, cannot be relocated to other buildings.
It asserts that this case requires 118 fully equipped individual cubicles. It explains that the investment necessary to provide these facilities temporarily is unmanageable for the Universidad. It states that a substantial supply of water and electricity is required, as is appropriate wastewater treatment. It adds that, from a technical and budgetary standpoint, construction at the Facultad’s current facilities was not feasible because neither the UCR nor the country has another building meeting the conditions necessary to accommodate the Facultad temporarily while the new project is constructed. It alleges that the second option was to construct the Clínicas Odontológicas in the current parking lot of the Facultad de Ontología. It states that although this option reached the preliminary-design stage (anteproyecto), the proposal was rejected for reasons of life safety because it would have left the Biblioteca del Área de Salud enclosed between buildings.
It notes that under current regulations, every building must have direct and safe access for emergency units, including ambulances and fire engines. It states that the third proposal, which was developed through the preliminary-design stage, was located on Finca 4; however, it was rejected because of opposition from neighbors and the absence of a Municipal Land-Use Authorization (Uso de Suelo Municipal). It asserts that, therefore, no irregularity has occurred, because the process followed the provisions of national regulations and SETENA’s terms of reference, and thus the petitioners’ assertions have no basis and are unsupported by any evidence. It states that, with reference to artículo 90 y 91 del Reglamento a la Ley Forestal N° 25721, it should be clarified that both belong to capítulo décimo sétimo del Control Forestal and concern harvesting (aprovechamiento) in non-forested areas. However, it states that the Universidad decided not to request authorization from ACCVC because it has the technical staff required to manage the vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal) of its properties responsibly and in an ecologically balanced manner.
It further indicates that the Universidad will not commercially harvest timber from the species to be felled and that its land is not covered by forest; therefore, pursuant to artículo 28 de la Ley Forestal, it does not require a permit to cut the trees located within the project area of the Facultad de Odontología on Finca 3 (Artículos 2 y 19 de la Ley N°7575, regarding harvesting). It considers that the environmental impact study prepared by the Universidad de Costa Rica was conducted in accordance with the technical criteria required under environmental legislation and established by SETENA. It states that, specifically, the biological-environment analysis was conducted according to the criteria of an experienced biology professional registered with Setena, who determined the scope of analysis for a specified area for the AP, AID and All, based on a field survey of the impact zone that could be affected by the construction of various projects on Finca 3.
It emphasizes that an analysis of Finca 4 was not conducted and is unnecessary because the Universidad does not currently contemplate any type of construction work in that area, which is not part of the area to be affected by the projects. It states that habitat encroachment (invasión del hábitat) is intrinsic to human existence under current conditions and that the Universidad de Costa Rica has acted accordingly by serving as a leader in environmental matters through the measures it has implemented. It adds that, first, it has a forest-restoration plan (plan de repoblamiento forestal) duly agreed upon by the university authorities and has created the Red de Áreas Protegidas (FtAP) to protect and develop the protected areas within university properties, thereby making significant progress in the management of these areas and creating spaces for research. It states that efforts to maintain green spaces are extremely important, as the Comisión de Foresta Universitaria (CFU) and the Unidad de Gestión Ambiental (UGA) maintain strict oversight with the aim of improving the tree component and increasing its ecological importance.
It asserts that, likewise, beginning in 2016, the first internal biological corridor at the Universidad de Costa Rica was established in order to increase opportunities for species movement, and the reserve known as el bosquecito Leonel Oviedo has also been expanded. It clarifies that forest-restoration activities are a fundamental part of the university administration’s work and have been carried out not only on Finca 3, but also through projects undertaken on Finca 1 for many years; likewise, the campuses and facilities are part of this process, through which the natural and cultural heritage of the university facilities grows over time.
It states that the biology section of the environmental impact study refers to all of Finca 3 and not exclusively to the site where the Facultad de Odontología building will be constructed. It says that, although some of the species mentioned are indeed located within the project area (área de proyecto, AP), as stated, the corresponding mitigation measures and compensation through the planting of new species to replace the trees that will be cut down have been submitted, and the transplantation of some species has even been considered. It mentions that last June, 195 trees of native species with greater biological value were planted, including species that can provide food for animals, such as uruca, vainillo, and güitite; shelter, such as Guanacaste, Jacarandas, and cedar; and protected species, such as ron, mahoganies, and Cocobolo, among others. It says that this planting constituted advance compensation for the cutting of the 74 trees in question.
It states that the Universidad currently has an inventory, available for consultation, of the species that could potentially be directly affected at the site where the Facultad de Odontología will be built; poro predominates, a species typical of coffee plantations, which was the former use of those properties. Once again, Article 28 of the Ley Forestal authorizes the Institution to cut trees on its land because they were planted by the Universidad. It says that the species found in the project area include a broad mix of exotic and native species, and that 26 of these trees belong to species of little ecological value, namely cypress, casuarina, foreign poro, and African tulip tree; it adds that, because the first two are conifers, they make few ecological contributions and serve only as resting places for some birds, and it may also be noted that their survival strategies are highly aggressive, as their leaves prevent anything from growing on the adjacent ground.
It mentions that foreign poro has no known ecological benefits and is very brittle, with a tendency toward self-pruning, posing a danger to those walking nearby. It says that, in accordance with current national environmental legislation, the Proyectos Varios Sede Rodrigo Facio project was submitted to and approved by the entity designated and competent under the law to approve environmental study and assessment documents, as carried out by the Universidad de Costa Rica; additionally, any missing information or corrections to the Environmental Impact Study were submitted in a timely manner in accordance with the Secretariat’s requirements. It clarifies, on the other hand, that the Universidad de Cosía Rica has implemented the mitigation measures undertaken as an environmental commitment by planting 195 trees on Finca 3 to compensate for the loss of those trees, as already mentioned. It says that trees, as living organisms, have a life cycle and may deteriorate and suffer from diseases and pathological attacks; in such cases, the Universidad replaces those trees and treats those that can be saved through phytosanitary treatments, which is an ongoing concern of the Unidad de Gestión Ambiental and the Comisión de Foresta Universitaria.
It comments that the identified species have developed and been preserved in an environment already affected by all the activities currently carried out at the Sede Rodrigo Facio and in neighboring communities, such as vehicular traffic and existing air pollution; therefore, as part of its environmental commitments, the Universidad has expressed its interest in preserving the area, offsetting the impacts generated by the construction of a new building, and providing better conditions for everyone potentially affected. It indicates that there is an affected area of 20 thousand square meters. It clarifies that this area corresponds to the space that the construction company must close off during the project implementation stage, which does not mean that the entire area will be disturbed. It mentions that the project footprint is 12.633 m2: 2705 m2 of covered areas (the building and covered walkway) and 9927m2 of urban areas (plazas, internal roads, sidewalks, and parking areas).
It explains that the remaining 7366 m2 would consist of grassed and wooded green areas, corresponding to 5.15% of the property’s total area. Finca 3 has a total area of 245144 m2. It mentions that the existing footprint of buildings, roofed or concrete sports facilities, roads, and sidewalks is 25501 m2. It says that adding the proposed Facultad de Odontología area would result in a total of 38134 m2, equivalent to 15.5% of the property’s area. It argues that the land use (uso de suelo) designated for the project area is Zona Especial Universitaria Rodrigo Facio and is compatible with the activities of the Facultad de Odontología, as recorded in official letter DPU-OF-054-2016 from the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca. It clarifies that Finca 3 generally contains no forest areas, except for certain patches within the riparian protection areas located on the property, for which the applicable protection areas are respected pursuant to Ley Forestal N°7575 and its regulations.
It emphasizes that, although the courts are open for use by visiting members of the public, they are actually classrooms used by the Universidad to teach the degree program in Educación Física y Ciencias del Movimiento Humano and therefore are not merely courts for public use. It says that this is precisely why they will be relocated within Finca 3 so that university teaching and instruction may continue. It argues that, regarding the project’s operational stage, vehicle access to the Facultad will be restricted to a parking area for 78 vehicles, while the remaining spaces required for the project (118) will be located in the new parking structure at Ciudad de la Investigación on Finca 2. It considers that the perimeter road will likewise be restricted to use by the Universidad’s internal bus, emergency vehicles, and supply vehicles. It mentions that the operating hours of the Clínicas Odontológicas and the rest of the building would mainly be from 6 am to 4 pm.
It says that all mitigation measures required for the project were submitted to SETENA and accepted as part of the environmental feasibility approval (viabilidad ambiental). In addition, the project includes a section in the tender specifications entitled Especificaciones Técnicas Ambientales. In this manner, it believes that the Universidad ensures that the company complies with the environmental mitigation measures for all potential impacts associated with the construction process. It mentions that the company will therefore be required to install settling basins and sediment traps, as well as sandbags, to channel runoff and capture sediment, preventing it from contaminating surface water bodies. It says that the design also provides for a stormwater detention or retention pond, as recommended by the Estudio Hidrológico and the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca. It reports that official letter RNVS-ACCVC-005 dated 3 de febrero de 2015 analyzed the application submitted by that group of people and reached the following conclusions: “We are of the opinion that, at some point, due to its regeneration or abandonment characteristics, this area contained elements of a forest (quantity; trees, diameters, species, and strata); however, it contained elements of the Agroforestry System (Sistema Agroforestal) clearly mentioned in ruling 2002-05996 of the Sala Constitucional in its Considerando I Hechos Probados...
It is a forest with the following characteristics: it is a coffee plantation that has been abandoned for many years, where significant tree and vegetation cover has developed (...).” Against this background, it explains that Article 28 of the Ley Forestal permits trees to be cut without the corresponding permit. It says that forest plantations, including agroforestry systems and individually planted trees and their products, do not require permits for cutting, transportation, processing, or export. It mentions that official letter DL-OF-31-15 from the Departamento Legal of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca itself, dated 11 de mayo de 2015, also concluded that “finca 4” is not a forest but an abandoned coffee plantation. It says that, because it is not a forest area, it cannot be included within the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, as requested by the Grupo de Vecinos ProBosque Guaymi de Sabanilla, San José.
It emphasizes that vehicle access to the Facultad will be restricted to a parking area for 78 vehicles, mainly for use by employees and persons with disabilities. It says that the remaining spaces required for the project (118) will be located in the new parking structure at Ciudad de la Investigación on Finca 2. It mentions that the perimeter road will likewise be restricted to emergency, maintenance, and supply vehicles and the Universidad’s internal bus. It adds that it is worth noting that a series of residential and commercial projects have been developed near the area where Finca 3 is located, leading to increased vehicular traffic and, consequently, gas emissions. It states that the vehicular traffic generated by the construction will be minimal compared with the existing situation. It specifies that buses, both internal and external, will be the primary means of transportation, since the number of parking spaces included with the building is minimal and covers only those required for persons with disabilities and loading zones.
It argues that it must be made clear that gas emissions during the construction process will be highly localized and limited to the duration of that process; subsequently, during the operational stage, emissions will result from the motor vehicles used by facility users. It reports that it is worth noting that the site is already visited by users of the other existing facilities on Finca 3. It argues that, regarding the appellants’ assertion that locating the Facultad de Odontología on Finca 3 will result in the arrival of approximately 800 people, it should be noted that most users of the building will be students and patients of the dental clinics who travel by bus, on foot, or by bicycle. Because most of the parking spaces needed for this building will be constructed on Finca 2, a large number of vehicles are not expected to enter Finca 3 to access the Facultad de Odontología. It says that the D1 form is an instrument devised by SETENA to assess the initial environmental impact that a particular activity may cause.
It argues that this form was prepared, submitted, and approved in accordance with environmental regulations by SETENA, as stipulated in Decree 32712- MINAE of 19 de junio del 2005. It explains that the 22 projects were submitted in a single case file at SETENA’s express request because, although roads separate each of the properties, they are adjacent to one another and are all owned by the Universidad de Costa Rica; SETENA therefore treats the projects comprehensively as a single project and requests that they be assessed in this manner. It further emphasizes that this is based on Art. 94 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, Etapas de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental: “The environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) concerning biodiversity must be conducted in its entirety, even when the project is scheduled to be carried out in stages.” It says that the score obtained on the D1 form for the Facultad de Odontología building project is not the maximum score for environmental impact assessment in the Human Impact: Landscape section.
It states that the tool is designed so that the score assigned to each variable yields a total environmental assessment score, and that total is used to select the assessment methodology—specifically, an Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto) in this case. It argues that this does not mean that the project is not environmentally viable (viabilidad ambiental), but rather that mitigation measures (medidas de mitigación) must be developed, namely those submitted in the Study. It states that it must be kept in mind that if a structure is built in a green space, the landscape undergoes a significant alteration. It argues that this is why, when the structure is designed, it is conceptualized within the space where it will be built, with the aim of causing the least possible visual change. It states that the D-1 form and Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) submitted, as previously emphasized, cover not only the building in question but also 21 additional works, for which a series of mitigation and compensation measures (medidas de mitigación y compensación) have been established for implementation both during the construction stage of the buildings and during their operational stage.
It further notes that it is worth emphasizing that, as also previously described in this document, all environmental measures were submitted to and approved by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, the entity responsible for environmental assessment at the national level. It highlights the following statement by the petitioners: “[...] The D1 instrument submitted by the UCR and endorsed by SETENA lacks scientifically reliable information; proof of this is that it indicates that there is no impact whatsoever on wild flora and fauna. In this regard, it says that, as can be seen in the Consumption–Impact tab, section 2.4 Biotopes (Biotopos), it was indicated that there is no effect on flora or fauna, and a value of 1 was assigned by selecting case 1, whose description is ‘there is no impact.’ It states that this was done even though it is known that 74 trees are intended to be felled in connection with the construction of the Dentistry building, and those trees have even been marked by the UCR itself in various files.
It comments that it is disconcerting that a natural-resources professional would select box 1, ‘there is no impact,’ despite knowing that 74 trees will be felled and knowing the impact of such felling on the species of insects, mammals, and migratory and resident birds throughout the area bordering the riparian forests (bosques ribereños) of quebrada Sabanilla and río Torres, the ecological unit that these form with the forest of Finca 4, and its extension toward the Corredor Biológico del Rio Torres (Cf. Evidence No.14, D1 Form, Consumption–Impact tab, section 2.4 Biotopes). [...]” The D-1 Form, Environmental Impact Assessment, and appendices prepared by the Universidad de Costa Rica for approval of the Proyectos Varios Sede Rodrigo Facio project were submitted and approved after being analyzed by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, the entity that, according to Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554, states in its “ARTICLE 18.—Approval and cost of assessments: Approval of environmental impact assessments must be sought from the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental; these assessments must be conducted by an interdisciplinary team of professionals registered with and authorized by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, in accordance with the guidelines prepared by it.” It says that this establishes that, under national environmental legislation, the Proyectos Varios Sede Rodrigo Facio project was submitted to and approved by the entity designated and authorized by law to approve the documents submitted by the Universidad de Costa Rica, and that any missing information or corrections (subsanes) relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment were submitted in a timely manner.
It states that the D-1 Form, Environmental Impact Assessment, and appendices prepared by the Universidad de Costa Rica for approval of the Proyectos Varios Sede Rodrigo Facio project were prepared according to the scientific and technical criteria of various professionals in their respective fields, who were registered and in good standing both with their respective professional associations and in SETENA’s consultant registry. Those professionals established analytical ranges within a specific area for the AP, AID, and All, based on a survey of the impact area that could be affected by the construction of the various projects in Finca 3. It argues that it must be clearly understood that the D-1 Form, the Environmental Impact Assessment, and other instruments adopted by SETENA are the result of that entity’s efforts to implement methodologies and mechanisms that enable an assessment that is as comprehensive, objective, and scientific as possible.
It recounts that, as specified in Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32966-MINAE Manual de Instrumentos Técnicos para el Proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Manual de El A) of 20 de febrero de 2006, the Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Guía de EIA), point 2, provides as follows: “Environmental Impact Declaration (Declaratoria de Impacto Ambiental, DIA): Technical summary of the study: its vocabulary must be readily understandable to the general public. It must generally indicate: an introduction (objectives, location, owning entity, justification); a description of the project, works, or activity (phases, ancillary works, etc.); environmental characteristics of the area of influence (summary of the environmental diagnosis); impacts of the project, works, or activity on the environment; impacts of the environment on the project, works, or activity; corrective or mitigation actions, as well as its Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), and a summary of environmental commitments.
A copy must be delivered to the Municipality or Municipalities of the canton or cantons where the Project is located before the EslA is submitted to SETENA, and the original receipt stamp must be presented.” It comments that the Environmental Impact Declaration was accordingly delivered to the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca on 8 de octubre del 2015, and a copy bearing the Municipality’s receipt stamp was delivered to SETENA on 23 de octubre del 2015. It also says that, through the Minutes of Ordinary Session N° 087- 2008-SETENA, the Comisión Plenaria de SETENA agreed that, beginning on 16 de junio del 2008, all developers must publicly disclose Environmental Impact Assessments being processed by SETENA, through publication in a nationally circulated medium. For the project at issue, expediente D1-14285-2014, notice was published in the newspaper La República on 28 de agosto del 2015, and proof of that procedure was submitted to SETENA on the same day.
It adds that, regarding the provisions of Article 33 of the general regulations governing Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, it must be noted that the Environmental Impact Assessment includes a social study conducted by a qualified sociologist registered with SETENA, who carried out random interviews to determine public opinion about the project. It also states that SETENA did not request a public hearing (audiencia pública), as it has full legal authority to determine whether one is necessary. It states that notice was published in a national newspaper and a copy was delivered to the Municipality, and therefore the project was indeed shared with the community. It argues that, specifically regarding public consultation (consulta pública), Chapter 9 (Description of the Socioeconomic Environment), item 9.7, entitled “Local Perception of the Project,” establishes that the study must: “indicate the perception, position, attitudes, and concerns of the inhabitants of the area of social influence regarding the implementation of the project, works, or activity and the resulting transformations” (Decreto N° 32966-MINAE).
It further comments that the type of opinion study to be conducted is established according to the characteristics of the Project’s areas of influence: “Quantitative study: Conducted through a survey of local perceptions of the project, which must be administered in the AID and the II defined for a representative sample of its population, with a confidence level of 90%. This survey shall be administered for projects whose AREA OF INFLUENCE contains populations regarded as being in an urban area, a rural area transitioning to urban, or a peripheral urban area” (Decreto N° 32966-MINAE). Thus, it says that, based on the foregoing, it must be noted that the local-perception study was conducted by considering the opinions of the inhabitants of the Project’s area of social influence, in accordance with the technical and statistical criteria for the sample design required by the Decree, and that the study was included in the appendices to the report submitted for SETENA’s assessment.
Finally, it explains that the consultation concerned the Universidad de Costa Rica infrastructure-development project as a whole because it forms part of the institutional strategic plan, which seeks to provide better infrastructure conditions for students, workers, and staff members. It further comments that the works to be developed are consistent with the land uses (usos de suelo) established in the Plan Regulador of the canton of Montes de Oca. It argues that the opinion results included in the report derive from two processes: first, the quantitative study, whose instrument consisted of 27 questions and was included in the appendices to the report submitted to SETENA. It states that, second, the qualitative study was developed on the basis of 5 questions because it was a more thorough study involving interviews with specific individuals, whose opinions were recorded in table 9.6 of the report submitted to SETENA.
It says that, with respect to the qualitative study, it should be noted that, as part of the ethical considerations toward the persons interviewed, the comments or statements presented in the section on local perceptions of the Project are coded, since “this is a common practice in qualitative research intended to safeguard the rights of informants; accordingly, during the process of recording the information, pseudonyms or codes must be used to ‘cleanse’ the information of any data that would make it possible to identify the informant or persons to whom the informant refers (...) this measure allows the informant, upon being notified that the informant’s name will not be disclosed in the document, to express views more freely and without reservations arising from being identified with a comment or way of thinking that others in the informant’s community might view negatively” (Galeano, 2009).
It notes that, as previously indicated in these considerations, the study was conducted in accordance with Decreto N° 32966-MINAE: “Manual de Instrumentos Técnicos para el Proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Manual de EIA)~ Parte IV, Guía -Estudios de Impacto Ambiental y Pronósticos- Plan de Gestión Ambiental, valoración de los impactos ambientales y términos de referencia,” which includes the “Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Gula de El A),” setting out the elements to be developed for each chapter of the environmental assessment. It states that, for the Universidad, the playing fields located within the intervention perimeter constitute sports classrooms used primarily by the Escuela de Educación Física. They are not recreational playing fields. It says that the beach-soccer and multipurpose fields will be relocated to the south side of the synthetic-turf field before construction begins; OEPl has already prepared the construction drawings and initiated the contracting process for the works.
Regarding the tennis court, he states that the proposal to leave it on the site is being considered, for which negotiations are underway with the Municipality to replace vehicle parking spaces with bicycle parking spaces. He asserts that although Article 50 of the Political Constitution grants every person standing to report any violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, that right is not infringed in this case, all necessary permits have been obtained, as has the corresponding [illegible], and the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) does not prohibit the project. He emphasizes that no serious argument or valid evidence demonstrates harm or risks to the environment or ecology. On the contrary, the Universidad de Costa Rica would suffer numerous and very serious losses and damages if it were not permitted to proceed with this project.
It states that, in this regard, on page 158 of the document Response to Resolution N° 030-2016 SETENA, the developer undertook the environmental commitment to focus the reforestation and restoration programs on maintaining the primary forests along the streams and Río Torres. Furthermore, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental, EsIA) identifies and describes the natural associations (ecosystems) present in the project area (área del proyecto, AP) and the Direct Area of Influence (Área de Influencia Directa, AID), including a description of their conservation potential—that is, the importance of each identified ecosystem for purposes of establishing a protection buffer. The EsIA also includes a section addressing the most representative flora and fauna species (wildlife) in the AP, which must be related to the existing ecosystem, identifying the species that fall within a protection category under CITES, are endemic, or are considered to have a small population or to be endangered.
It argues that, with respect to threatened specimens, only flora species were identified, and therefore this Secretariat requested that the corresponding environmental control measures (medidas de control ambiental) be established for the two identified species (Caoba and Cedro amargo). In response, the developer states on page 158 of the document “Response to Resolution N° 030-2016 SETENA” that these species will be protected and reproductive material will be collected so that the species may be incorporated into the reforestation program. It also indicates the need to relocate and transplant two Caoba trees directly affected by the project; for this purpose, through official letter OEPI-520-2016 (page 140 of the aforementioned document), the project developer undertakes to hire a specialized company to perform the relocation. Accordingly, these measures minimize the project’s impact on threatened flora species and, through the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), ensure that the project is harmonized with the environment.
Furthermore, according to page 215 of the EsIA, on finca 6, specifically in the dentistry area, the developer identified 75 flora specimens distributed among 18 species as part of the characterization of the flora present in the AP. It adds that, on page 16 of the document “Response to Resolution N° 030-2016 SETENA,” the developer indicates that only 15 of the 75 identified trees must be cut down for construction of the building, for which the corresponding compensatory measures were contemplated through a restoration plan. With respect to fauna, they required that, as part of the environmental assessment or baseline (línea base), the EsIA include accurate and current information on the different taxonomic groups present in the AP and AID; to that end, through Resolution N° 0455-2015 SETENA, SETENA required a team of specialist consultants to generate that information. It adds that the developer, through the consulting team, reports the existence of 20 mammal species; additionally, Universidad de Costa Rica has maintained data on bird diversity since 1968, recording 188 bird species whose habitat is currently of sufficient quality to allow them to survive.
It states that the aforementioned information forms part of the preparation of the environmental baseline within the EIA, since this is the first step toward properly identifying and assessing environmental impacts. For that purpose, SETENA required the EsIA to use a conventional and scientifically accepted methodology that considered each stage and applied the Environmental Impact Significance Matrix (Matriz de Importancia de Impacto Ambiental, MIIA), a scientific and technical procedure that makes it possible to identify and predict the effects that will be exerted on the environment, quantify and weight them, and subsequently establish the corresponding environmental control measures. This Matrix is regulated by Executive Decree N° 32966- MINAE. It alleges that, in the present case, page 115 of the document Response to Resolution N° 030- 2016 SETENA contains the corresponding identification, description, and assessment of the potential impacts that the project would generate on the environment; for this purpose, the MIIA was used as an analytical mechanism for prospective investigation of what may occur.
Upon completion of the EIA, an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) must be prepared, setting forth the practices that the developer must implement to prevent, control, reduce, or offset significant environmental impacts and maximize the positive impacts generated by the project. It notes that, for the wildlife factor, they assessed each of the proposed measures, including constructing buildings in locations where vegetation is minimal; implementing a program for tree planting, landscaping, and restoration of green areas using native species; and establishing strips that function as biological corridors, particularly along watercourses. It states that, based on all the foregoing, they considered that the impacts identified for wildlife (flora and fauna) throughout the EIA process would be duly controlled through the application of measures to prevent, mitigate, offset, and restore negative impacts, as well as measures to enhance positive impacts.
For this purpose, scientific and technical procedures were used in accordance with specific standards that are viable and effective for environmental conservation and that, through the EIA, make it possible to ensure an environmentally acceptable balance between development of the project and its environmental impacts. The Traffic Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Vial) has been approved by the competent entity, which in this case is the Departamento de Estudios y Diseños de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito del MOPT; through official letter DVT-DGIT-ED-2015-4615 (Page 340 of the document Response to Resolution N° 030-2016-SETENA), that entity stated: “...from a functional standpoint, the Traffic Impact Study is approved in all respects for the corresponding environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) proceedings before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA).” It alleges that the project assessed by this Secretariat includes construction of a Parqueo Integral Universitario on finca II.
It consists of a building with an approximate area of 26855 m2 distributed over 8 levels, which will accommodate 750 automobile parking spaces and 40 bicycle parking spaces. It will be used to meet the parking needs associated with the construction and operation of the project’s various buildings, including the Edificio de Odontología. It states that, as can be verified in the project’s Environmental Management Plan Table, and because the studies conducted determined that traffic congestion problems would arise in certain locations adjacent to the sites where the works will be constructed, environmental measures were proposed in connection with the increase in vehicles on the access roads to the AP during both the construction and operational phases of the project, including the following: Construction (Page 014 of the document Response to Notice DEA- 1501-2016-SETENA). It explains that schedules will be established for the circulation of vehicles and heavy machinery to prevent such circulation during peak traffic hours.
Coordination will take place with the Universidad’s Oficina de Seguridad y Tránsito to regulate and control internal vehicle traffic. Signs will be used to notify road users that heavy vehicles will be traveling on the roads. Likewise, UCR internal email and social media will be used to communicate information regarding the construction processes. It asserts that the design of the works will include suitable access routes that do not congest the main access roads to the AP, as well as temporary parking areas to prevent vehicle parking from congesting the areas surrounding the AP. Preventive signs and markings will also be installed in the AP and the AID to inform the public about construction activities and the entry, departure, and circulation of cargo vehicles. It states that an exclusive access point must be provided for the entry and exit of construction machinery, as well as a separate access point for light vehicles and construction personnel.
Likewise, as part of the summary of environmental commitments, it was proposed, among other measures, that the necessary contacts be established with the Ministerio de Transportes to plan the supplementary works required to reduce the resulting traffic impact, as indicated in the Traffic Impact Study conducted. With respect to air pollution caused by the increase in gas emissions from the machinery that will operate on the project, the PPGA table (page 017 of the document Response to Notice DEA-1501-2016-SETENA) indicates that sample air-quality monitoring (PTS AND PM10) will be conducted during the construction process to ensure compliance with current national legislation on the matter. Likewise, with respect to air pollution caused by gas emissions during the operational phase, annual monitoring of ambient pollutant concentrations (inmisiones) on the campus is proposed for at least 2 years to determine specific measures in the event of noncompliance with current applicable legislation (page 017 of the document Response to Notice DEA-1501-2016-SETENA).
The foregoing demonstrates that the impacts generated by the project’s increased vehicle traffic were duly assessed and that the corresponding environmental measures were proposed. It requests that the appeal be denied.
In addition, she states that the institution has worked throughout this construction process in coordination with the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental and the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, so that the institution acts in accordance with environmental policies. She notes that, although the institution is public, its land is not public property and, in the case of Finca 3, it holds the land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo) required to carry out construction at that site, pursuant to the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca. It is important to emphasize that the properties of the Sede Rodrigo Facio are planned spaces that maintain a balance between the natural environment and the built environment, in keeping with best urban-development policies. She states that a clear example is that, despite having approval to develop buildings on up to 85% of the site area, occupancy does not exceed 40% on any campus, even with the new developments.
She mentions that the UCR has focused on improvements, new opportunities, and preparing for the future through respectful, responsible, planned, and balanced development on land authorized for that purpose, within the applicable legal framework. She states that the institution is experiencing a historic period of growth that benefits the entire country; it does not alter publicly owned environments, but neither can it accept having its land treated as a recreational park—as it has been called—and it has amply demonstrated to the competent authorities that its campuses contain no primary forests. Finally, she emphasizes that information regarding the university’s contribution through protected areas and areas devoted to research is openly and publicly accessible. Regarding the appellant’s assertion that the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) is incomplete and defective, the Universidad complied with the applicable legislation governing submission of the environmental impact assessment, and SETENA is the entity with authority to validate the study.
She stresses that the study was submitted in December 2014 and that environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was not obtained until June 2016. During that period, SETENA requested additional information, corrections to the study, and other items customary in the process. During the preliminary-study stages, other potential locations for the project were evaluated: First, the possibility of constructing the building on the site currently occupied by the Facultad de Odontología was analyzed, with the Facultad temporarily relocated to another building during construction. Unlike other types of educational buildings, that Facultad requires facilities where dental treatment is provided to patients. These facilities consist of 10 Clínicas Odontológicas divided among different specialties, each equipped with dental units that require complex electromechanical systems which, in addition to being costly, cannot be relocated to other buildings.
This option would require 118 separate, fully equipped dental cubicles. The cost of temporarily providing these facilities is unmanageable for the Universidad. She further states that there is substantial demand for water and electricity services, as well as a need for proper wastewater treatment (tratamiento de las aguas residuales). For these reasons, she indicates that, from a technical and budgetary standpoint, construction at the Facultad’s current facilities was not feasible because neither the UCR nor any other institution in the country has another building that meets the requirements for temporarily relocating the Facultad while the new project is constructed. She mentions that the second option was to construct the Clínicas Odontológicas in the Facultad de Odontología’s current parking lot. Although this option reached the preliminary-design stage (etapa de anteproyecto), the proposal was rejected on life-safety grounds because it would have left the Biblioteca del Área de Salud enclosed between other buildings.
She argues that, under current regulations, every building must have direct and safe access for emergency-response units, including ambulances and firefighters. She states that the third proposal, which was developed through the preliminary-design stage, was located at Finca 4; however, it was rejected because of opposition from neighbors and the lack of municipal land-use authorization (Uso de Suelo Municipal). She reiterates the arguments presented in the report submitted in this amparo proceeding (proceso de amparo) before consolidation. She requests that the appeal be dismissed.
Because of the private nature of its property and the full legal capacity enjoyed by the Universidad de Costa Rica, it may, if it deems appropriate, undertake projects within the properties it owns that are necessary for the expansion of its campuses or for the provision of new decentralized administrative, teaching, research, social outreach, or sports services. It states that, as has been repeatedly indicated, the University needs to expand its infrastructure to accommodate its growing institutional activities, with the same right afforded to any landowner in the canton of Montes de Oca. It is important to emphasize that this property is located within the Rodrigo Facio Special University Zone regime; therefore, under the Montes de Oca Regulatory Plan published in the supplement to La Gaceta No. 51 on Tuesday, August 29, 2016, the properties are compatible with the activity specifically identified in each case (see official letter DPU-OF-054-2016).
It states that the University has begun construction of the Faculty of Dentistry Building on Property 3, No. 1-193549-000, at the Sede Rodrigo Facio, registered under cadastral survey plan (plano catastro) SJ-1766942-2014. It alleges that this project is one of the 22 construction processes submitted in Administrative File (Expediente Administrativo) N° D1-14285- 2014-SETENA: Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio, which has environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) granted through Resolution N° 1193-2016-SETENA. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that environmental viability has been granted by SETENA in this case and that the appellants’ assertion that national environmental regulations are being disregarded is untrue. It mentions that the land use (uso de suelo) of the project area corresponds to the Rodrigo Facio Special University Zone and is compatible with the activities of the Facultad de Odontología, as stated in official letter DPU-OF-054-2016 from the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca.
It clarifies that Property 3 generally contains no forested areas, except for certain patches within the riparian protection areas (áreas de protección ribereña) located on the property, and that the applicable protection areas are respected in accordance with Ley Forestal N°7575 and its regulations. It emphasizes that although Article 50 of the Constitución Política gives every person standing to report any violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, that right has not been violated in this case, and all necessary permits and the environmental viability granted by SETENA have been obtained. It adds that no serious argument or valid evidence demonstrates harm or risks to the environment or ecology. It contends that, on the contrary, the Universidad de Costa Rica would suffer numerous and extremely serious losses and damages if it were not allowed to continue this project.
It mentions that the Universidad de Costa Rica, as a public university entity and the project developer, fulfilled its obligations by preparing the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and the submitted annexes. This was based on the terms of reference issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, which were established by that body through Resolution No. 455-2015-SETENA, following the requirements of Executive Decree No. 31849 MINAE- SALUD. MOPT- MAG- MEIC. It states that the Environmental Impact Study and the submitted annexes were prepared in accordance with Executive Decree No. 31849 MINAE- SALUD. MOPT- MAG- MEIC, General Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) of June 28, 2004, as established by national environmental legislation, fully complying with the requirements established by SETENA for the technical approval of both the Faculty of Dentistry building project and the other projects to be developed on the other properties of the Sede Rodrigo Facio.
It alleges that it is important to note that the properties of the Sede Rodrigo Facio are planned spaces that maintain a balance between the natural environment and the built environment, consistent with the best urban-development policies. A clear example is that, despite having approval to develop up to 85% of the area as building coverage, occupancy does not exceed 40% on any of the campuses, even with their new developments. It contends that the UCR has focused on improvements, new opportunities, and preparing for the future through respectful, responsible, planned, and balanced development on the land for which authorization has been granted, within the applicable legal framework (ordenamiento jurídico). It mentions that the institution is experiencing a historic period of growth, which benefits the entire country; it does not alter publicly owned environments, but neither can it accept that its land be treated as a recreational park (as it has been called), and it has amply demonstrated to the competent authorities that its campuses contain no forests.
Justice Hernandez Gutierrez drafted the opinion; and,
Whereas:
I.Regarding supporting interventions (coadyuvancias). Pursuant to Article 34 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, third parties to the proceeding may file a request for supporting intervention, which is a form of ancillary intervention (intervención adhesiva) that occurs when a person participates in a proceeding by joining the claims of one of the principal parties. Accordingly, a person who has a direct interest in the outcome of the petition (recurso) has standing to act as a supporting intervenor (coadyuvante); however, because the supporting intervenor is not a principal party, that person will not be directly affected by the judgment, meaning that its effect may not extend to that person directly and immediately, nor will that person be affected by the res judicata (cosa juzgada) status of the ruling (See, among others, judgments number 3235 at 9:20 hours on 30 de octubre de 1992 and judgment 2010-000254 at 11:28 hours on 08 de enero de 2010).
In this case, because the supporting intervenors state that they are residents who use the university’s sports facilities and students of the Universidad de Costa Rica, as well as deputies from the Fracción del Partido Frente Amplio, who could be directly affected by the construction of the project challenged in this amparo proceeding (amparo), or who represent persons in that situation, the requests for supporting intervention are admitted.
II.Subject matter of the petition. The petitioners (recurrentes) claim that, for 30 years, the Universidad de Costa Rica has maintained extensive green areas (áreas verdes) within its sports facilities, which are used not only by the student population but also by thousands of citizens. Notwithstanding the foregoing, construction of the Facultad de Odontología is causing a series of harms, specifically: a) failure to obtain tree-felling permits (permisos de tala de árboles); b) violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado), infringing the environmental principles of non-regression (no regresión), precaution (precautorio), and in dubio pro natura, as well as the constitutional principles of reasonableness and proportionality; c) inconsistencies and omissions in the environmental assessment document (documento de evaluación ambiental) and the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental, EsIA); d) violation of the right to public participation (participación ciudadana); e) issuance of the land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) and construction permits without considering that 60% of the area is classified as having “high environmental fragility” and 20% as having “very high environmental fragility”; h) disagreement with the Traffic Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Vial) performed; and i) false statements both in the reports provided by the Universidad de Costa Rica and in the information it submitted to SETENA.
They request that the environmental approval (viabilidad ambiental) issued by SETENA for the aforementioned project be annulled and that the Universidad de Costa Rica be ordered to assess the possibility of constructing the Facultad de Odontología on Fincas 1 y 2 or in adjacent areas. They also request that the municipal land-use authorization (uso de suelo municipal) and the construction permits for the Facultad de Odontología granted by the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca be annulled.
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>In official letter OSJ-271-2013 dated 19 de marzo de 2013, the Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación determined that the properties on which the Universidad de Costa Rica is located do not constitute forest areas (áreas de bosque) (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>On 19 de diciembre del 2014, SETENA received the Environmental Assessment Document (Documento de Evaluación Ambiental, D-1) for the project entitled “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio,” corresponding to 22 projects that the Universidad de Costa Rica intends to develop within the university campus, which was assigned expediente number D1-14285-2014-SETENA (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]>Through official letter RNVS-ACCVC-005 dated 3 de febrero de 2015, the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca determined that no forest (bosque) exists within the properties on which the Universidad de Costa Rica is located and stated that tree cutting (corta de árboles) is permitted in areas of that type without the corresponding permit (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>4. <![endif]>By Resolution N° 455-2015-SETENA dated 23 de febrero del 2015, the project developer was ordered to submit an EsIA as an environmental impact assessment instrument (instrumento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>5. <![endif]>On 19 de agosto de 2015, SETENA received the documents containing the EsIA requested from the project developer (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>6. <![endif]>On 26 de agosto de 2015, the project developer published a notice in the newspaper La República informing the public that it had submitted the EsIA to SETENA and inviting citizens to submit objections, if any (see the report submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>7. <![endif]>On 8 de octubre de 2015, the developer delivered a copy of the Environmental Impact Declaration (Declaratoria de Impacto Ambiental) to the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>8. <![endif]>On 19 de octubre de 2015, the project developer delivered a copy of the EsIA to the Área de Conservación Volcánica Central (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>9. <![endif]>By Resolution No. 030-2016 SETENA dated 12 de enero de 2016, SETENA requested that the developer submit an annex containing a series of technical and legal requirements (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>10. <![endif]>Through official letter No. DPU-OF-054-2016 dated 10 de marzo de 2016, the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca stated, with respect to the land-use applications for the 22 projects, that they are located within the Rodrigo Facio Special University Zone designation (zona Especial Universitaria Rodrigo Facio) and that, pursuant to the Plan Regulador de Montes de Oca, the properties are compatible with the activity specifically addressed in each case (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>11. <![endif]>On 17 de marzo de 2016, SETENA received the annex requested from the developer (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>12. <![endif]>Through official letter No. DEA-1501-2016-SETENA dated 24 de mayo de 2016, SETENA requested clarifications concerning the Annex to the EsIA within 30 business days (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>13. <![endif]>On 10 de junio de 2016, the developer submitted the clarifications requested in official letter DEA-1501-2016-SETENA dated 24 de mayo de 2016 (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>14. <![endif]>Through official letter DEA-1891-2016-SETENA dated 24 de junio de 2016 and official letter DEA-1911.2016-SETENA dated 27 de junio de 2016, it was determined that the EsIA annex for the project “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio” complied with Resolution No. 030-2016-SETENA and official letter DEA-1501-2016-SETENA and, consequently, with the civil-engineering requirements (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>15. <![endif]>On 28 de junio de 2016, the Presidente del Consejo Director del Consejo Nacional para Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICIT) consented to the granting of the permits required by the project developer for the property located in the Ciudad de Investigación de la Universidad de Costa Rica, which is owned by CONICIT (see the evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>16. <![endif]>Technical report DEA-1934-2016-SETENA dated 28 de junio de 2016 described the project based on the EsIA and the corresponding clarifications and recommended, among other things, approval of the D-1 Environmental Assessment document, the EsIA, and the corresponding sworn declaration of environmental commitments (declaración jurada de compromisos ambientales) (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>17. <![endif]>By Resolution number 1193-2016-SETENA dated 30 de junio de 2016, SETENA decided to approve the study on the basis of the information submitted by the development company and the project’s consulting team, both of which were responsible for preparing the Environmental Impact Study, its annex, and the clarifications, whose information and studies have the status of a Sworn Declaration (Declaración Jurada), and ordered that environmental approval be granted to the project (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>18. <![endif]>On 14 de julio de 2016, the Universidad de Costa Rica submitted a copy of the performance bond receipt (comprobante de garantía de cumplimiento) (see the evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>19. <![endif]>In response to Resolution N° 030-2016-SETENA, the developer attached the “Manual de Repoblamiento de Árboles en Fincas del Campus Universitario Rodrigo Facio,” which identified, among other things, areas that could be restored and in which the developer undertook to reforest two trees for every tree cut down (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>20. <![endif]>The developer made an environmental commitment (compromiso ambiental) to direct the reforestation and restoration programs toward maintaining the riparian forests (bosques riparios) along the streams and Río Torres (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>21. <![endif]>On 28 de octubre de 2016, SETENA received the project’s first environmental oversight report (informe de regencia ambiental), covering the period from agosto to octubre de 2016 (see the evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>22. <![endif]>Through official letter SG-DEA-3339-2016-SETENA dated 1 de noviembre de 2016, SETENA informed the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca that the document referred to as the EsIA and clarifications included the construction of the Odontología building, among other structures, and set forth the proposed environmental measures (see the evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>23. <![endif]>Through official letter OEPI-520-2016, the project developer undertook to hire a specialized company to relocate a mahogany tree that would be directly affected by the project (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>24. <![endif]>The developer determined that only 15 of the 75 identified trees must be cut down for construction of the building; therefore, SETENA requested that the corresponding compensatory measures (medidas compensatorias) be established through a restoration plan (plan de restauración) (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>25. <![endif]>Through official letter DVT-DGIT-ED-2015-4615, the Departamento de Estudios y Diseños de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito del MOPT approved the traffic impact study (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>26. <![endif]>The project assessed by SETENA includes construction of a Parqueo Integral Universitario on finca 2, consisting of a building with an approximate area of 26855 square meters, distributed across eight levels, that will provide 750 parking spaces for automobiles and 40 for bicycles (see the report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>27. <![endif]>The first planting stage began at Finca 3 of the Universidad de Costa Rica, and 17.180 m2 are expected to be reforested; moreover, a campaign is under way to plant 195 native trees as part of the established compensation measure (see report submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>28. <![endif]>INVU established a 50-meter setback (retiro) from the río Torres and a 10-meter setback from the quebrada Sabanilla (see report submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>29. <![endif]>The Universidad de Costa Rica decided to maintain a 60-meter setback from the quebrada Sabanilla and a 75-meter setback from the río Torres (see report submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>30. <![endif]>In 2016, the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca issued a certificate of compliant land use (uso de suelo conforme) for the construction of the Facultad de Odontología on the property of the Universidad de Costa Rica (see report submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>31. <![endif]>On 13 de enero de 2017, SETENA received a request to annul the environmental feasibility approval (viabilidad ambiental) granted to the project in question (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>32. <![endif]>On 30 de enero de 2017, SETENA conducted a field inspection at the site (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>33. <![endif]>Technical report ASA-0144-2017-SETENA of 2 de febrero de 2017 documented the observations made during the field inspection, and a request for a legal opinion was sent to the Departamento de Asesoría Jurídica de SETENA (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>34. <![endif]>On 2 de febrero de 2017, the Departamento Legal de la SETENA received the petition for annulment (incidente de nulidad) filed against resolution No. 1193-2016-SETENA and the request for the immediate suspension of the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) under way (see report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>35. <![endif]>By official letter AJ-45-2017-SETENA of 7 de febrero de 2017, the Departamento Legal de la Secretaría issued the requested legal opinion regarding the request to annul the environmental feasibility approval (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>36. <![endif]>On 8 de febrero de 2017, SETENA served the Universidad de Costa Rica with notice of the petition for annulment that had been filed (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>37. <![endif]>By official letter OPEI-0289-2017 of 17 de febrero de 2017, the Universidad de Costa Rica submitted evidence in opposition to the petition for annulment (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>38. <![endif]>By official letters AJ-69-2017-SETENA and AJ-72-2017-SETENA, both dated 17 de febrero de 2017, the Departamento Legal requested technical opinions from the Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental and the Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental, respectively, as to whether the road that was the subject of the complaint lies within the project area (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>39. <![endif]>In official letter ASA-0282-2017-SETENA of 17 de febrero de 2017, the Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental stated that the road does lie within the project area but is not included in the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) (see evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
<![if !supportLists]>40. <![endif]>By resolution No. 594-2017-SETENA issued at 7:20 on 22 de marzo de 2017, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental declared inadmissible a petition for annulment filed by William Brenes Gómez and others against resolution No. 1193-2016-SETENA in connection with the construction of the Odontología building at Finca 3 (see report and evidence submitted by the respondent authority).
IV.Unproven fact: The following fact is not deemed to have been duly proven: Sole fact.- That the project affects the protected zones (zonas de protección) of the río Torres and the quebrada Sabanilla (the case record).
V.Regarding the right to health and the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The right to health recognized in Articles 21 of the Constitución Política, 1 and 11 of the Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 4 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, and 10 of the Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en Materia de Derechos is closely linked to the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment, enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution, which is intrinsically related to Principles 4 and 15 of the Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. Environmental quality is a fundamental measure of quality of life, as are health, food, work, housing, and education, among others. It has been held that the lawful exercise of that right requires resources to be used rationally and that the State is responsible for protecting the environment in accordance with the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) governing environmental matters.
This principle requires the State to take every necessary measure within the scope permitted by law to prevent irreversible environmental harm; to that end, it is responsible for fostering the social conditions that enable every person to enjoy health, understood as a state of physical, psychological or mental, and social well-being (see judgment Nº 180-98 issued at 16:24 on 13 de enero de 1998). The State’s objective obligation regarding environmental protection does not necessarily entail an individual right for persons to demand through the courts that a particular measure be taken, but it does entail the right to have appropriate measures adopted to protect that right when public authorities or natural or legal persons act with manifest negligence. The State thus assumes the obligation to regulate those areas of social life from which dangers may arise to the physical existence of the inhabitants of its territory, as well as those that may harm the environment, which it may do through laws, regulations, agreements, or other measures related to administrative organization and procedures.
Consequently, the ability to demand judicially, through an amparo proceeding (recurso de amparo), a specific type of affirmative action by the State in fulfillment of its duty to protect the life, health, or environmental rights of its inhabitants is limited to cases in which an imminent threat to those rights is clearly established.
VI.Regarding the alleged failure to apply for tree-felling permits (permisos de tala de árboles). In the case at bar (sub judice), the appellants allege that the authorities of the Universidad de Costa Rica failed to apply for the respective felling permits and ordered the felling of 74 trees of various species in the project area for the construction of the Facultad de Odontología, thereby disregarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. However, based on the report submitted by the authorities of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental and the evidence added to the case record, this Chamber finds that the appellants’ allegations are unfounded. This is because, as established, although SETENA is not responsible for issuing tree-felling permits, nor is such a permit a requirement for granting environmental feasibility approval, the fact remains that, with respect to tree cutting (corta de árboles), SETENA’s role is to ensure, through the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), that compensatory measures are established, as defined by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32966-MINAE, for impacts that cannot be remedied or avoided, so as to counteract in some manner the disturbance that may be caused.
Accordingly, the documentation submitted by the Universidad de Costa Rica to that Secretariat includes the “Manual de Repoblamiento de Árboles en Fincas del Campus Universitario Rodrigo Facio,” which sets forth how the Universidad will proceed to fully replace through reforestation the trees that had to be cut down to develop the project. Additionally, this Chamber was able to establish that the Universidad de Costa Rica has taken sufficient precautionary and compensatory measures regarding tree felling, since the Environmental Impact Study states that two trees will be planted for every tree felled. Furthermore, specialists in the field were hired to transplant trees such as mahogany and bitter cedar, which could not be felled because of their species and were planted in other areas of the campus. It was also established that, by this time, the Universidad had already begun the first planting stage at Finca 3 and intended to reforest 17.180 m2; moreover, a campaign was under way to plant 195 native trees as part of the established compensation measure.
The case record likewise shows that, pursuant to official letter RNVS-ACCVC-005 of 3 de febrero de 2015, the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca determined that there is no forest within the properties where the Universidad de Costa Rica is located and stated that, in areas with that characteristic, trees may be cut without the corresponding permit. Consequently, this Chamber does not find that the fundamental rights invoked by the appellants were infringed in any way in this respect, since it could not be established that any permit was required to carry out the challenged action and, moreover, it was established that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent a severe and irreversible environmental impact. Additionally, determining which permit must be obtained to carry out a particular activity is not a matter for this Constitutional Court to decide. Therefore, if the appellants believe that there was any omission regarding this issue in the specific case, they may, if they so choose, report it through the appropriate ordinary proceedings (vía ordinaria).
VII.Concerning the environmental feasibility approval granted by SETENA. In judgment 2006-8628 issued at 15:23 on 20 de junio del 2006, this Court held as follows:
“IV. On the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) by SETENA.- Before analyzing the parties’ arguments, it should be noted that the purpose of the Project Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental de Proyectos) process is to identify, predict, interpret, and communicate preventively to interested parties the effects of a project on the environment. It is an administrative project-control procedure that, supported by a technical study of the environmental effects of a specific activity, known as an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) (a technical document that must be submitted by the project developer or owner), and by a public-participation process, enables the competent environmental authority to issue an environmental impact declaration (declaración de impacto ambiental), rejecting, approving, or modifying the project. Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente makes it mandatory for the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) to assess, before they begin, the environmental impact of human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste or toxic or hazardous materials.
The Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) involves a series of phases in which the project developer, the competent oversight body (SETENA in the case of Costa Rica), and civil society participate. It begins with the submission of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar), a document that must be evaluated by the Preliminary Assessment Group (Grupo de Evaluación Preliminar) of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA). Subsequently, the environmental assessment instrument (instrumento de evaluación ambiental) required for the activity is determined, and the developer submits the document that must be examined to determine whether additional information is required. The project developer must provide a bond (garantía), appoint an Environmental Manager (Regente Ambiental), and submit a declaration of environmental commitments (declaración de compromisos ambientales).
Only after all these stages have been completed does the project obtain an environmental feasibility declaration from SETENA; therefore, the requirement of Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente may be considered satisfied only once the entire process has been completed.” In the case under examination (sub examine), the petitioners claim that the environmental feasibility at issue should not have been granted by SETENA because, in their view, the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) and the Environmental Impact Study lack rigor. They further contend that the impact-reduction measures proposed by the project developer are insufficient and maintain that, based on the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), construction of the Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Costa Rica should be postponed and the environmental feasibility granted to that project should be annulled.
In this regard, according to the information provided by the respondent authorities of SETENA, the project known as “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio,” consisting of the construction of 22 buildings distributed among 3 separate properties belonging to the UCR, was assessed comprehensively under a single case file, pursuant to Article 94 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, which provides that “The environmental impact assessment concerning biodiversity must be conducted in its entirety, even when the project is scheduled to be carried out in stages.” They further state that the Environmental Impact Study is the most rigorous and exhaustive instrument available to that Secretariat. Indeed, this Constitutional Court was able to verify that, from 19 de diciembre de 2014, when the project was submitted to SETENA, until 30 de junio de 2016, when the environmental feasibility at issue was granted through Resolution No. 1193-2016-SETENA, the respondent Secretariat conducted a series of inspections and requested the submission of various appendices and studies in order to obtain a clear understanding of the project intended for development and to comply with all the stages and requirements mandated by law for that purpose, all with a view to reaching a conclusion and deciding to grant the environmental feasibility challenged herein.
Additionally, the record shows that, following a complaint filed with SETENA on 13 de enero de 2017, which requested the annulment of the feasibility granted and stated that a road not included in the project had been opened, SETENA conducted a field inspection and requested a series of opinions from the Secretariat’s competent departments to determine whether any irregularity existed in connection with the allegations. Moreover, although it declared the incidental challenge (incidente) inadmissible through Resolution No. 594-2017-SETENA of 22 de marzo de 2017, the fact remains that, after verifying that the reported road was located within the project but had not been included in the environmental assessment, it sanctioned the project developer and required a mitigation plan (plan de mitigación) for that damage. This demonstrates that SETENA has not only faithfully performed its duties by comprehensively reviewing the project and requesting all requirements necessary for its implementation, but has also fulfilled its project-oversight role by ensuring full compliance with what was authorized and requiring the establishment of any mitigation plans necessary to prevent irregularities in the project’s construction.
Accordingly, this Chamber finds that, in the case under review, there is an absence of elements that could support a finding of environmental harm, because it has been established that the technical entity competent to conduct the project’s environmental assessment, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, approved the Environmental Impact Study, which establishes that the project will not cause any serious environmental impact. Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, the circumstances involving a risk of serious and irreversible harm—those in which the precautionary principle may be applied—are not present. Rather, what exists is the petitioners’ disagreement with the use of the Environmental Impact Study as the environmental assessment instrument. This Chamber finds that such disagreement exceeds the jurisdiction of this Constitutional Court and the matters that may be examined through an amparo proceeding (recurso de amparo); accordingly, the petition must be dismissed as to this issue, without prejudice to the possibility of raising such objections in the corresponding ordinary proceedings.
VIII.On violations of the principle of citizen participation (principio de participación ciudadana) in environmental assessment procedures. The petitioners allege that the respondent authorities violated the principle of citizen participation by failing to notify neighboring residents and potentially affected persons about the project’s construction and the environmental assessment conducted for that purpose. Regarding this point, the authorities of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental report that, on 26 de agosto de 2015, the project developer published a notice in the newspaper La República informing the public that it had submitted the EsIA to that Secretariat and inviting members of the public to submit any objections they considered appropriate. They also conducted a survey regarding perceptions of the project, through which it was determined that participatory workshops (talleres participativos) would not be held because no opposition or social conflict was perceived.
Additionally, they state that, pursuant to Article 3 subsection 12) of Decreto Ejecutivo 31849-MINAE-SALUD-MOPT- MEIC, SETENA shall request a public hearing (audiencia pública) for category A projects when it deems one necessary. However, it should be noted that this Court held in Judgment No. 6773-2014, issued at 11:41 on 16 de mayo de 2014, that the proper forum for overseeing compliance with the principle of citizen participation is the ordinary courts rather than the constitutional jurisdiction. The cited decision held as follows:
“IV.- UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION. QUESTION OF LEGALITY. In amending Article 9 of the Constitución Política, the constituent reforming body sought to give positive legal effect to the Principle of Participation (Principio de Participación) and thereby bring governed persons closer to the state decision-making process, as part of what legal scholarship calls the ‘corrective mechanisms’ of representative democracy. Thus, except in exceptional cases, the reforming constituent left the means, scope, and timing of citizen participation to infra-constitutional legislation (normativa infra-constitucional). In that regard, the proper forum for overseeing compliance is the ordinary courts, not the constitutional jurisdiction. For that reason, the issues raised in this specific case fall outside and are far removed from this Court’s jurisdiction: namely, the alternative mechanism ordered by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental—following the violence and intimidation that arose during the hearings of 9 de noviembre de 2013 and 25 de enero de 2014—to ensure the stage for comments by interested parties and responses by the developer in the environmental assessment procedure for the project involving a new Terminal de Contenedores en Moín, on behalf of APM Terminals Moín S.A. In this specific case, Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente does not define whether such participation must be oral, written, or otherwise, or how the participation requirement is satisfied.
This must be examined in proceedings allowing extensive evidence and adversarial argument, which, in our view, is incompatible with amparo as a prompt, simple, summary, and special proceeding for protecting fundamental human rights. It therefore falls to legality review (control de legalidad), and not to this Constitutional Court, to determine whether the administrative acts and conduct undertaken (whether acts or omissions) by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental comply with the infra-constitutional legal system (ordenamiento jurídico infra constitucional). For the reasons stated, we find that the issue raised falls outside the specific jurisdiction that the Sala Constitucional is charged with protecting, without this meaning that it does not warrant examination in the ordinary jurisdiction or in proceedings involving purely administrative legality disputes, pursuant to Article 49 of the Constitution.
(…)” Based on the foregoing, it is not for this Court to determine, as the petitioners seek, whether some form of consultation regarding the project at issue should have been conducted in this particular case; nor is it for this Chamber to determine which mechanism the respondent authorities must use to optimally ensure citizen participation. Thus, in accordance with the cited precedent, it is not for this Constitutional Court to determine whether the administrative acts and conduct undertaken (whether acts or omissions) by SETENA in this specific case comply with the infra-constitutional legal system; all such matters must be challenged by the petitioners through the respective ordinary legal proceedings.
IX.Regarding the challenge to the issuance of the land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) and building permits (permisos de construcción). The appellants contend that the authorities of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca granted land-use approval and building permits for the Facultad de Odontología, which is part of the project known as “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio,” without complying with the requirements established by the regulations in force or with the applicable prerequisites; specifically, without taking into account that the canton of Montes de Oca has an environmental-fragility zoning map (mapa de zonificación de fragilidad ambiental), prepared by PRUGAM, and that precisely 60% of the construction overlaps with a II-G zone of “high environmental fragility,” while 20% overlaps with a II-G zone of “very high environmental fragility,” which may have a significant impact on the site.
In this regard, the authorities of the respondent municipality state that the PRUGAM initiative failed and that it did not establish any rule that could be applied within the GAM; therefore, because the environmental feasibility approval (viabilidad ambiental) granted by SETENA had been obtained, there was no municipal impediment to issuing the challenged permits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is important to clarify to the appellants that analyzing the matters complained of—which are, in part, strictly technical—would entail disregarding the summary nature of the amparo proceeding (amparo) by turning it into an ordinary proceeding, although its purpose is to protect and restore violated fundamental rights. Moreover, the claims concerning compliance with the legal requirements for granting building permits and land-use approval under the legislation in force are matters of ordinary legality (legalidad ordinaria) that must be resolved through the appropriate ordinary proceedings.
Accordingly, if they deem it appropriate, they must submit their objection or claim to the respondent authorities or pursue it before the court of competent jurisdiction, where they may fully litigate the merits of the matter and assert their claims.
X.Regarding the potential effects on the quebrada Sabanilla and the río Torres. The appellants allege that the project will adversely affect the protection zones (zonas de protección) of the río Torres and the quebrada Sabanilla. The record, however, shows that the appellants’ allegations are unfounded. First, it was demonstrated that INVU established a setback (retiro) of 50 meters from the río Torres and 10 meters from the quebrada Sabanilla; nevertheless, the University decided to provide setbacks of 60 meters and 75 meters, respectively. Thus, it not only complies with the legally established setback but also provides a greater distance. In addition, the documents submitted to SETENA and presented to this Constitutional Court show that the mitigation and reforestation plans (planes de mitigación y reforestación) contain sufficient measures to be implemented in the areas surrounding both the río Torres and the quebrada Sabanilla. It was also established that no treated wastewater is discharged into them in a manner that could adversely affect them. Consequently, this Chamber was unable to establish the harm alleged by the interested parties, and the appeal must therefore be denied on this point.
XI.Regarding the alleged harm arising from omissions in the Traffic Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Vial). The appellants assert that gas emissions constitute an additional problem that was not quantified in the MOPT Traffic Impact Study because, in their view, the daily arrival of nearly 800 people at the facilities in their respective vehicles will adversely affect traffic and the environment through the emissions generated by those vehicles. However, the record shows that, by official letter DVT-DGIT-ED-2015-4615, the Departamento de Estudios y Diseños de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito of MOPT approved the traffic impact study submitted by the respondent University and did not find that there would be any impact capable of causing traffic problems in the areas surrounding the campus. It was likewise established that the project submitted by the Universidad de Costa Rica includes the construction of a Parqueo Integral Universitario on finca 2, consisting of a building with an approximate area of 26.855 square meters, distributed across eight levels, which will accommodate 750 automobile parking spaces and 40 bicycle parking spaces.
This demonstrates that the appellants’ assertion that approximately 800 vehicles will enter finca 3, where the Facultad de Odontología is being built, each day is inaccurate, because the record shows that no parking facility will be constructed there; instead, transportation to that location will be provided internally by means of a special bus. In addition, as reported by the Rector of the Universidad de Costa Rica, most University students use other means of transportation to reach the campus, and only a minority arrive in their own vehicles. In any event, the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) submitted by the Universidad de Costa Rica shows that environmental measures were proposed in connection with the increase in vehicles and to prevent traffic impacts in the area, including controls and monitoring of air quality and ambient pollutant concentrations (inmisiones) on campus, in order to protect the environment and prevent harm to it.
Accordingly, because this Constitutional Court was unable to establish that any violation of the appellants’ fundamental rights occurred in this case, the appeal must also be dismissed with respect to this claim.
XII.Regarding the alleged untruthfulness of the reports submitted by the respondent authority and of the information provided to SETENA. Finally, the appellants allege that the authorities of the Universidad de Costa Rica were untruthful both in the reports submitted under oath to this Constitutional Court and in the information provided to SETENA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, any inaccuracies or falsehoods contained in a report may render the allegedly responsible official liable for the offenses of perjury or false testimony. Likewise, the information submitted to SETENA was provided by means of a sworn statement (Declaración Jurada), with a warning that any untruthfulness could result in liability for the aforementioned offenses. However, it is not for this Chamber but for the criminal court to determine whether those offenses occurred. Therefore, if the appellants believe that the conduct of the respondent authorities falls within the provisions mentioned and that they made false statements, they may file the corresponding criminal complaint with the Ministerio Público, where it may be determined whether the challenged statements were false.
XIV.Separate reasoning of Magistrado Jinesta Lobo regarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Magistrado Jinesta Lobo denies this aspect of the appeal, but for different reasons:
XV.Partial dissenting opinion of Justice Cruz Castro. It is regrettable that it must be acknowledged that the so-called “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio” is located within an environmentally fragile area. Indeed, the canton of Montes de Oca has an environmental fragility zoning map prepared by PRUGAM, and precisely 60% of the challenged construction coincides with zone II-G of “high environmental fragility” and 20% with a zone II-G of “very high environmental fragility,” which may cause significant harm to the environment. This judgment acknowledges the failure of the PRUGRAM initiative, which identifies significant environmental vulnerabilities. Neither the local government nor the central government has adopted measures to prevent harm to the environment, despite such a specific technical report. Within a framework of incomprehensible lawlessness, harm to the environment is permitted despite such a highly qualified technical report.
The municipality must undertake the protection of the environment because it has in its possession a technical report requiring an institutional response. It is sufficient to apply the powers of the local government to conclude that the PRUGAM report requires an institutional response from the local government, thereby becoming a limitation on land use (uso del suelo) and a supplement to the regulatory plan (plan regulador). The justification provided by the local government is insufficient in light of the importance of protecting the environment. Although the PRUGAM initiative failed, that circumstance does not prevent the municipality from incorporating such a specific technical report and requiring the building to conform to the limitations established in that opinion, in furtherance of the defense of a right as important as the urban environment. In this case, SETENA’s environmental approval (viabilidad ambiental) is insufficient because there is a technical assessment imposing additional limitations.
SETENA should have taken that technical assessment into consideration. In view of the foregoing, I dissent and grant the amparo on the grounds of harm to the environment, ruling against the municipal authority and SETENA. The project to be carried out must conform to the limitations established by PRUGAM’s environmental fragility map. This case demonstrates the serious weaknesses of the environmental policy applied in Costa Rica, which disregards an initiative as important as PRUGAM. State and municipal political authorities render reports concerning serious threats to the urban and rural environment invisible. These grave omissions seriously call into question the commitment of state and municipal political authorities to defending the environment.
XVI.Note by Justice Cruz Castro: Although it is true that, in cases involving the principle of citizen participation (principio de participación ciudadana) established in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, I have considered the matter to be constitutionally significant, in this particular case I do not dissent because, as was established in the record, on 26 de agosto del 2015 the project developer invited the interested public, through a notice published in the newspaper La República, to submit any objections they deemed pertinent. Accordingly, and because the interested parties voluntarily failed to express an interest in participating in the workshops, I join the majority and deny the application with respect to this issue.
XVII.Dissenting opinion of Justice Hernández López regarding the claim alleging a violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution.
1. The historical context that once prompted the Chamber’s extensive involvement in environmental matters has changed considerably, requiring this body to reconsider the conditions governing its participation in safeguarding the right of persons to a healthy and balanced environment, as protected by Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Indeed, the current situation—characterized by an extraordinarily extensive body of statutes and regulations that includes substantive rules, procedures, and the creation of bodies to enforce the provisions of the Fundamental Charter—is radically different from the previous situation, in which the absence of legislation and of state bodies with appropriate authority compelled the Chamber to assume a leading, almost exclusive, role in defending the aforementioned constitutional right.
2. Today, we face a “dense web” of environmental rules—as Justice Jinesta Lobo aptly described it in his dissenting opinion on this issue—which has produced two relevant phenomena. The first and most obvious is the emergence of comprehensive legal regulation governing activities whose environmental impact had previously been subject to little or no regulation, as well as the creation of state bodies with powers to monitor and control the effects of human activity on the environment. The second phenomenon is that this increasing juridification—predominantly through statutes and regulations—necessarily brings both administrative justice and the ordinary courts—primarily the contentious-administrative courts, but also the criminal courts—into play. In keeping with the importance of environmental law, those jurisdictions have established broad procedural avenues and inclusive rules on standing (legitimación), enabling persons subject to the Administration to enforce the provisions of the extensive legal framework concerning environmental matters.
3. In that context, it is neither legally nor functionally appropriate for the Constitutional Chamber to displace, or—worse still—replace, the ordinary judicial bodies in performing their task, which is also constitutional in rank, of ensuring effective compliance with statutes and regulations. It is legally improper because, in the overwhelming majority of these cases, the Chamber is asked to interpret and enforce statutory and regulatory provisions, thereby risking an overlap between its jurisdiction and that of other judicial bodies that were specifically created to perform such tasks. It is also functionally unsound because the design of its proceedings is ill-suited to the complexity of numerous environmental disputes, which consist of series of technically and legally complex facts and acts. There are well-known examples involving both issues in which the Chamber has issued a partial or technically incomplete ruling, or in which unnecessary friction and adverse effects on legal certainty have arisen.
4. Among the technical considerations I have evaluated, I would add that this jurisdiction lacks judges responsible for enforcing judgments, who could adequately monitor compliance with those judgments—which are generally complex and sometimes involve monitoring remediation plans, among other measures, with interinstitutional coordination and follow-up lasting months or even years.
5. From that perspective, this Court’s decision to step aside in environmental matters should not be viewed as abandoning such matters but, on the contrary, as ensuring their proper protection in the forum best suited to their complex and diverse nature. Nor should it be viewed as this body’s abdication of its duty to protect the constitutional rights entrusted to it by the Political Constitution and its Organic Law, a role that, in my view, remains reserved in this field for specific cases. Rather, this entails reallocating the burdens and tasks assigned to the various state bodies so that each may fully perform its work within its designated sphere, as well as exercising the authority to define its own jurisdiction, as established in Article 7 of its Organic Law.
6. It is clear that the Chamber does not contemplate leaving the protection of persons’ environmental rights entirely to other jurisdictions. It is well known that, although any claim alleging a violation of statutory or regulatory provisions may ultimately be traced to the constitutional sphere, some cases require nothing more for their resolution than the application of constitutional law. The goal, therefore, is for the Chamber to become one leading participant among others, so that—collectively, with each acting within its own sphere—the full range of situations involved in protecting the right to a healthy and balanced environment may be addressed in a society that also faces other equally pressing needs. I firmly believe that this position does not diminish the protection afforded to citizens in the slightest, while substantially improving its breadth and perspective and fostering respect for the balance and distribution of powers, the latter being a principle that must be taken into consideration because it governs the constitutional dynamics of any liberal and democratic system such as ours.- 7.
Consistent with the foregoing, I maintain that this Chamber should refrain from hearing claims alleging violations of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, leaving them to administrative justice and the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The foregoing is stated as a general rule, without prejudice to recognizing that certain individual cases or categories of cases would, in my view, continue to be better protected by this Chamber and should therefore be heard and decided by it.- Among those categories of cases, without this enumeration being regarded as a closed and definitive list, I would indicate that the Chamber should retain jurisdiction over situations such as claims concerning environmental violations that also directly endanger human health or the access to or quality of water; cases involving egregious and direct violations of the environment in which there is a manifest absence of protection by state authorities, provided that the nature of the claim also allows it to be addressed through amparo as a summary and special procedural mechanism. I also believe that amparo should not be converted into an ordinary proceeding to address, even in the aforementioned cases, matters exceeding its capacity to provide adequate relief.
8. In this particular case, the situation presented falls within those circumstances in which the Administration’s protective mechanisms and the ordinary courts provide a broader and more comprehensive avenue, because the matter under discussion involves weighing advantages and disadvantages and assessing benefits, all of which requires extensive evidence, monitoring, and studies exceeding the scope of amparo. Accordingly, I dissent because, in my view, the issues raised should be examined in ordinary proceedings and not before this Chamber; Article 9 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction should therefore have been applied and the application summarily dismissed.
XVIII.Documentation submitted to the case file (expediente). The parties are hereby advised that if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, or telematic device, or produced through new technologies, they must retrieve them from the court office (despacho) within a maximum period of 30 business days from the date of service of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not retrieved within that period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the “Regulations on Electronic Case Files before the Poder Judicial” (“Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial”), approved by the Corte Plena at session N° 27-11 of 22 de agosto del 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of 26 de enero del 2012, as well as pursuant to the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session N° 43-12 held on 3 de mayo del 2012, Article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The appeal (recurso) is denied. Justice Jinesta Lobo provides different grounds with respect to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Justice Cruz Castro dissents and would grant the appeal on the grounds of environmental harm, holding the municipal authority and SETENA liable; he also submits a separate note regarding public participation. Justice Hernández López dissents and summarily dismisses the appeal because claims alleging a violation of Article 50 of the Constitución Política must be heard through ordinary proceedings (vía ordinaria).- Ernesto Jinesta L.
Chief Justice Fernando Cruz C.
Fernando Castillo V.
Nancy Hernández L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jose Paulino Hernández G.
Ronald Salazar Murillo *S00WC43KVXDE61* Telephone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 meters south of the iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Receipt of documents: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, streets 19 and 21, avenues 8 and 6
Víctor Granados Jiménez Víctor Granados Jiménez 2 0 2017-11-27T19:54:00Z 2017-11-27T19:54:00Z 2 38490 211699 PJ 1764 499 249690 12.00 120 false 21 false false false ES-CR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 *160126930007CO* SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del diez de noviembre de dos mil diecisiete .
Recurso de amparo interpuesto por AMELIA QUESADA ALPÍZAR, cédula de identidad 1-0382-0274, AMPARO DE LOS ÁNGELES ALGUERA ALGUERA, cédula de identidad 8-0070-0519, ANA CAROLINA QUINTERO FERNÁNDEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0846-0347, ANA ELENA GARITA INCER, cédula de identidad 1-0799-0125, ANA MARITZA DEL CARMEN MONGE FALLAS, cédula de identidad 1-0523-0393, ANDERSON ESTEBAN FONSECA LEANDRO, cédula de identidad 3-0464-0995, ARIELA NATALIA LEANDRO ESPINOZA, cédula de identidad 1-1565-0698, ARTURO SOLÍS CASTRO, cédula de identidad 1-0378-0652, BETTY TORRES VICTORIA , cédula de identidad 8-0093-0899, BRENDA DANIELA CALDERÓN TALENO, cédula de identidad 1-1711-0709, CARLOS MANUEL UGALDE HERNÁNDEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0598-0200, CARMEN MARIA ROJAS GONZÁLEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0527-0868, CAROLINA DE LOS ÁNGELES ZÚÑIGA ALFARO, cédula de identidad 1-1509-0848, CAROLINA LEANDRO PIEDRA, cédula de identidad 1-0956-0506, CESAR AUGUSTO BRENES QUIRÓS, cédula de identidad 1-1329-0490, CIRCE MILENA BRENES QUIRÓS, cédula de identidad 3-0393-0627, DANIEL HERRERA MUSMANI, cédula de identidad 1-0838-0017, DAVID ARAYA RUÍZ, DEIBY MARIANO PANIAGUA ARCE, cédula de identidad 1-1484-0219, DERIAN YADIR BRENES BADILLA, cédula de identidad 1-1685-0541, EDWIN DE LOS ÁNGELES DELGADO PIEDRA, cédula de identidad 6-0360-0052, ELEAZAR FEMENIAS ALFARO, cédula de identidad 1-1447-0639, EMILIT MARITZA LAMSICK ALGUERA, cédula de identidad 7-0116-0409, ERICK NICHOLAS THOMSEN CHUMPITASI, cédula de identidad 1-1714-0682, ERICK VILLALOBOS QUIRÓS, ESMERALDA VERALIS ARÉVALO HUEZO, cédula de identidad 8-0090-0359, FABIÁN ALVARADO QUESADA , cédula de identidad 1-1048-0058, FERNANDO BARRANTES ELIZONDO, cédula de identidad 1-0714-0689, FLORA ISABEL VIRGINIA DE JESÚS PÉREZ GUTIÉRREZ, cédula de identidad 4-0102-0894, FRANCISCO JAVIER MARÍN GUZMÁN, cédula de identidad 1-1370-0026, GISELLE ACOSTA POLONIO, cédula de identidad 1-0327-0412, ILONA MARÍA MAROTO VÍQUEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0887-0848, INGRID DEL CARMEN RODRÍGUEZ WOLTER, cédula de residencia 186200138927, JASON MICHAEL BATEMAN, cédula de residencia 184000298936, JAZMIN ESTHER CAMACHO GAMBOA, cédula de identidad 1-1443-0601, JORDAN GARCÍA, JOSÉ ALBERTO PEÑA QUESADA, cédula de identidad 1-0516-0162, JOSÉ JACINTO BRENES MOLINA, cédula de identidad 3-0200-0520, KATHERINE PAOLA BASTOS VILLALOBOS, cédula de identidad 4-0233-0685, KATTIA VANESSA ZAPATA VEGA, cédula de identidad 1-0857-0052, LAURA DEL CARMEN MADRIGAL ROJAS, cédula de identidad 1-1247-0971, LAURA SALDARRIAGA TORRES, cédula de identidad 1-1703-0703, LORENA CANTERO ACOSTA, cédula de identidad 1-0975-0474, LORENA MARIEL GUILLÉN RODRÍGUEZ, cédula de residencia 121400084033, LUIS ARTURO CHAVARRÍA BLANCO, cédula de identidad 5-0243-0339, LUIS GUILLERMO ALVARADO SÁNCHEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0453-0626, LUIS MANUEL BEJARANO FERNÁNDEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0543-0641, LUIS MAURICIO DE LOS ÁNGELES JIMÉNEZ MENA, cédula de identidad 1-0654-0423, LUZ MARY ALPÍZAR LOAIZA, cédula de identidad 1-0711-0855, MANUEL MONESTEL RAMÍREZ, cédula de identidad 1-0388-0206, MARÍA CAROLINA CHANTO SEGURA, cédula de identidad 1-1356-0564, MARÍA DE LOS ÁNGELES FERNÁNDEZ PÁREZ, cédula de identidad 3-0452-0602, MARÍA DE LOS ÁNGELES PIEDRA RAMÍREZ, cédula de identidad 1-0392-1031, MARÍA DEL PILAR ARIAS FERNÁNDEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0846-0889, MARÍA DEL ROSARIO JARA ROJAS, cédula de identidad 1-0376-0798, MARÍA EMILIA CHAVES REES, cédula de identidad 1-0402-0576, MARÍA ESTHER MONTANARO MENA, cédula de identidad 1-0922-0124, MARÍA GABRIELA DIAZ LARRALDE, cédula de residencia 186200027525, MARÍA JESÚS LEÓN ABARCA, cédula de identidad 2-0741-0233, MARÍA JOSÉ MATA QUIRÓS, cédula de identidad 3-0456-0638, MARÍA TERESA PINEDA CORDERO, cédula de identidad 1-0695-0985, MARIO ALBERTO RUIZ SALAS, cédula de identidad 1-1370-0284, MELISSA ALEJANDRA MUÑOZ LÓPEZ, cédula de identidad 1-1396-0167, MELISSA PACHECO SEGURA, cédula de identidad 1-1238-0589, MELISSA VANESSA SOLANO ZAPATA, cédula de identidad 1-1394-0510, MIRIAM QUESADA ALPÍZAR, cédula de identidad 1-0423-0331, NANCY MELISSA BRENES QUIRÓS, cédula de identidad 3-0359-0765, NATALIA ZELEDON FONTANA, cédula de identidad 1-1287-0996, PABLO BRIZUELA CALVO , cédula de identidad 1-0667-0723, PAULINA MATA MONGE, cédula de identidad 1-0791-0223, PIETRO ANTONIO SCAGLIONI SOLANO, cédula de identidad 1-0662-0065, RAQUEL PAOLA BONE GUZMÁN, cédula de identidad 1-1401-0048, RASCHID LEANDRO CAMACHO, cédula de identidad 3-0200-0764, REBECA RAMÍREZ BARRIENTOS, cédula de identidad 1-1344-0824, ROCIO ISABEL OTAROLA ULATE, cédula de identidad 1-0799-0498, ROSALINA DEL CARMEN ROJAS BLANCO, cédula de identidad 7-0051-0974, SEBASTIAN ALVARADO MONTERO, cédula de identidad 1-1345-0538, SONIA MARÍA AMADOR SABALLOS, cédula de residencia 155823152931, SUSANA ALVARADO MONTERO, cédula de identidad 1-1582-0120, TAMARA OLIVIA VALENCIA FONTANA, cédula de identidad 1-1154-0988, TANIA MARÍA LEANDRO ESPINOZA, cédula de identidad 1-1405-0586, VALERIA SALDARRIAGA TORRES, cédula de identidad 1-1656-0742, VALERIANE BRABANT, VICENTE GABRIEL JULIO CANTERO VALVERDE, cédula de identidad 6-0055-0153, VILMA MARIA QUIRÓS JIMÉNEZ, cédula de identidad 9-0048-0542, WALLACE FEDERICO SCHUMACHER HANKE, cédula de identidad 1-0587-0712, WALNER RAMÓN ALANIZ ÁLVAREZ, cédula de identidad 1-1495-0980, YERLIN VERÓNICA SALAS DELGADO, cédula de identidad 6-0427-0300, YESKA GABRIELA FONSECA CASTILLO, cédula de identidad 1-1283-0574, ANA CAROLINA QUINTERO FERNÁNDEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0846-0347, CARMEN MARÍA ROJAS GONZÁLEZ, cédula de identidad 1-0527-0868, EMILIT MARITZA LAMSICK ALGUERA, cédula de identidad 7-0116-0409, FRANCISCO ENRIQUE VÁSQUEZ MAY, cédula de identidad 1-1097-0317, INEKE LAMEY VAN MARLE, cédula de identidad 8-0065-0011, JOSÉ IGNACIO VALENCIANO ANTILLÓN, 1-0630-0191, LAURA SAUMA SOLANO, cédula de identidad 1-085-0755, MAURICIO VARGAS BARGUIL , cédula de identidad 3-0286-0035, NOEL DOUNE ELIZABETH PAYNE WARREN, 8-0068-0331, MECHTHILD FRIDERIEKE BORS DE BARQUERO, cédula de residencia 127600115431, a favor de TODAS LAS PERSONAS USUARIAS DE LAS INSTALACIONES DEPORTIVAS DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA, vecinas en su mayoría del cantón de Montes de Oca y aledaños, contra la SECRETARÍA TÉCNICA NACIONAL AMBIENTAL (SETENA), la MUNICIPALIDAD DE MONTES DE OCA y la UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA.-
Resultando:
PRIMERO: Incorrecta aplicación del artículo 28 de la Ley Forestal, por omisión de permisos de tala.
SEGUNDO: Violaciones al derecho a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
TERCERO: Omisión de los permisos de tala contenidos en el decreto Ejecutivo No. 25721-MINAE.
CUARTO: Impacto sobre la vida silvestre.
QUINTO: Omisiones sobre la construcción de la Facultad de Odontología en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental.
SEXTO: Severas inconsistencias del Documento de Evaluación Ambiental.
SÉTIMO: Violación del derecho de participación ciudadana.
OCTAVO: Violación de los derechos contenidos en el artículo 46 de la Constitución, con relación a la protección de la salud, acceso a información, intereses económicos y ambientales, a recibir información veraz, a la libertad de elección y a un trato equitativo, todos ellos de los usuarios de las instalaciones deportivas de la Finca 3 de la UCR.
Los recurrentes manifiestan que son personas usuarias de las instalaciones deportivas de la Universidad recurrida y vecinas, en su mayoría, del cantón de Montes de Oca y aledaños; reclaman que las instituciones recurridas no han observado los principios ambientales de no regresión, precautorio, in dubio pro natura, desarrollo sostenible, así como los principios constitucionales de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, por causa del proyecto de la Universidad, avalado por SETENA, para la construcción de la Facultad de Odontología en Finca 3, que implica la tala de setenta y cuatro árboles maduros, impacta la flora y fauna silvestre del lugar del proyecto y zonas aledañas, entre ellas, el Corredor Biológico del Río Torres, el bosque ribereño de la quebrada Sabanilla y el bosque de Finca 4.
Los recurrentes piden que se ordenen las diligencias correspondientes y se declare la violación de los derechos reconocidos en los artículo 9, 46 y 50 de la Constitución y 4º del Pacto de San José, que se anule la viabilidad ambiental emitida por SETENA para el proyecto mencionado, por contraria al derecho constitucional a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y por disminuir la calidad de vida de miles de personas que utilizan las instalaciones deportivas de Finca 3. Piden, además, que se ordene a la Universidad de Costa Rica valorar la posibilidad de construir la facultad de Odontología en las fincas 1 y 2, o zonas adyacentes, donde no hay una afectación tan grande, manteniendo la Finca 3 para uso mayoritariamente de recreación, deporte y conservación ambiental.-
“ARTÍCULO 94.- Etapas de la evaluación del impacto ambiental. La evaluación del impacto ambiental en materia de biodiversidad debe efectuarse en su totalidad, aun cuando el proyecto está programado para realizarse en etapas”.
Conforme lo anterior, estima que lejos de ser un incumplimiento la forma de presentación de todos los proyectos en un solo instrumento de evaluación ambiental que permitió la aplicación del instrumento técnico más riguroso, y con los mayores estudios de fondo, permitió la evaluación integral, y no fraccionada de los estudios ambientales, en beneficio del ambiente. Al utilizar como instrumento de EIA un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA), que es el más exhaustivo con que cuenta la SETENA, se abarca el análisis del componente físico biológico y social, los cuales son considerados en su integralidad para determinar la condición de armonización o de equilibrio aceptable, desde el punto de vista de carga ambiental, entre el desarrollo y ejecución de un proyecto y sus impactos ambientales potenciales, esto es, la Viabilidad ambiental. Acota que en cuanto al primer motivo del recurso, en cuanto a la incorrecta aplicación del artículo 28 de la Ley Forestal por omisión de permiso de tala, el Secretario General de SETENA manifiesta que el artículo 28 de la Ley Forestal establece la excepción del permiso de corta, no solo para plantaciones, como lo alegan los recurrentes, sino que también es aplicable para sistemas agroforestales y árboles plantados individualmente.
Precisa que por lo tanto, la SETENA si valoró que, bajo la figura de árboles plantados individualmente, es posible utilizar el artículo 28 de la Ley Forestal. Sin embargo, considera que es la Administración Forestal de Estado (AFE) la última instancia que vela por la correcta aplicación de la Ley Forestal y su reglamento y emite el permiso correspondiente, para lo cual la Viabilidad Ambiental es requisito. En cuanto a la corta de árboles, la SETENA por medio de la EIA garantiza que se establezcan medidas compensatorias, conforme lo define el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 32966-MINAE, medidas para aquellos impactos irrecuperables o inevitables, que no evitan o atenúan el efecto, pero contrapesan de alguna manera la alteración a la flora terrestre. Estima que de acuerdo con la información requerida por esa Secretaría y aportada por el desarrollador, en el folio 037 del documento Respuesta a la Resolución N° 030-2016 SETENA, se adjunta "Manual de Repoblamiento de Árboles en Fincas del Campus Universitario Rodrigo Facio".
Dice que ese manual realiza un análisis de las características biofísicas del campus universitario, define las especies forestales a plantar época de siembra, cuidados previo y posterior a la siembra y área potenciales a restaurar. Por lo anterior, menciona que SETENA considera que el procedimiento llevado a cabo, no lesiona ni desprotege al ambiente, por el contrario, establece medidas precautorias y compensatorias, por la eliminación de árboles, toda vez que el desarrollador se compromete a reforestar dos árboles por cada uno cortado, utilizando especies nativas con funciones ecológicas específicas, por ejemplo: restauradores, patrimonio, anidación, alimentación, comestibles, etc. Arguye que en cuanto al segundo motivo del recurso, por violaciones al derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, informa el Secretario General de SETENA que el proyecto indicado cumplió con el artículo 50 constitucional y 17 de la Ley Orgánica del ambiente, Decreto No. 31849- MINAE, y demás instrumentos técnicos y normativa aplicable desde el punto de vista de Evaluación Ambiental, según se demuestra en el presente informe, sin que se pueda alegar a nivel Constitucional la violación del derecho fundamental señalado.
Dice que en relación al tercer motivo del recurso, por omisión de los permisos de tala contenidos en el Decreto No. 25721-MINAE, manifiesta que ese decreto se refiere al control forestal que debe realizar la Administración Forestal del Estado en los casos que una persona física o jurídica requiera realizar un aprovechamiento maderable en áreas sin bosque. Alega que el aprovechamiento maderable en áreas sin bosque no contempla las plantaciones forestales sistemas agroforestales y árboles plantados individualmente, ya que estos sistemas forestales son definidos por aparte en el artículo 3º de la Ley Forestal, es decir, el artículo 90 del Reglamento a la Ley Forestal únicamente aplica, para aquellas áreas que no son plantaciones forestales, sistemas agroforestales o árboles plantados individualmente. Considera que lo anterior, lleva a la definición de terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque. Comenta que el artículo 3.- Inciso w) del Reglamento a la Ley Forestal (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25721-MINAE) define qué, son Terrenos de Uso Agropecuario y Sin Bosque, así:
"Son aquellas fincas privadas con la presencia de árboles no establecidos bajo un sistema agroforestal o fincas que tienen áreas con cobertura boscosa menores a dos hectáreas"
Redacta el Magistrado Hernandez Gutierrez; y,
Considerando:
I.Sobre las coadyuvancias. De conformidad con el artículo 34, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, terceros al proceso pueden interponer una solicitud de coadyuvancia, que es una forma de intervención adhesiva que se da, cuando una persona actúa en un proceso, adhiriéndose a las pretensiones de algunas de las partes principales. En consecuencia, se encuentra legitimado para actuar como coadyuvante quien ostente un interés directo en el resultado del recurso; sin embargo, al no ser actor principal, el coadyuvante no resultará directamente afectado por la sentencia, es decir, la eficacia de ésta no podrá alcanzarle de manera directa e inmediata, ni le afecta la condición de cosa juzgada del pronunciamiento (Véanse, entre otras, las sentencias número 3235 de las 9:20 horas del 30 de octubre de 1992 y la sentencia 2010-000254 de las 11:28 horas del 08 de enero de 2010). En este caso, por indicar los coadyuvantes que son vecinos que utilizan las instalaciones deportivas de la universidad y estudiantes de la Universidad de Costa Rica; así como los diputados de la Fracción del Partido Frente Amplio, que podrían verse afectados directamente por la construcción del proyecto que se cuestiona en este amparo o representan a personas en esa condición, se admiten las coadyuvancias presentadas.
II.Objeto del recurso. Reclaman los recurrentes que la Universidad de Costa Rica durante 30 años ha albergado en las instalaciones deportivas extensas áreas verdes, las cuales son utilizadas no solo por la población estudiantil sino también por miles de ciudadanos. No obstante lo anterior, con la construcción de la Facultad de Odontología se están causando una serie de agravios, específicamente: a) omisión de permisos de tala de árboles; b) violación a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, lesionando los principios ambientales de no regresión, precautorio, in dubio pro natura y los principios constitucionales de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad; c) inconsistencias y omisiones en el documento de evaluación ambiental y en el estudio de impacto ambiental; d) violación al derecho de participación ciudadana; e) emisión del certificado de uso de suelo y permisos de construcción, sin tomar en cuenta que se trata de una zona de afectación de “alta fragilidad ambiental” en un 60% y de “muy alta fragilidad ambiental” en un 20%; h) disconformidad con el Estudio de Impacto Vial realizado y, i) falta a la verdad tanto en los informes brindados por la Universidad de Costa Rica como en la información dada por estos al SETENA.
Solicitan que se anule la viabilidad ambiental emitida por SETENA para el proyecto mencionado y que se ordene a la Universidad de Costa Rica valorar la posibilidad de construir la Facultad de Odontología en las Fincas 1 y 2, o zonas adyacentes. Así como que se anule el uso de suelo municipal y los permisos de construcción de la Facultad de Odontología otorgados por la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca.
III.Hechos probados: De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>En oficio OSJ-271-2013 del 19 de marzo de 2013, el Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación estableció que las propiedades donde se encuentra la Universidad de Costa Rica no constituyen áreas de bosque (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>El 19 de diciembre del 2014, el SETENA recibió el Documento de Evaluación Ambiental (D-1) para el proyecto denominado: “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio”, correspondiente a 22 proyectos que pretende desarrollar la Universidad de Costa Rica, dentro del campus universitario, al cual se le otorgó el número de expediente D1-14285-2014-SETENA (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]>Por medio del oficio RNVS-ACCVC-005 del 3 de febrero de 2015, la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca estableció que no existe bosque dentro de las propiedades donde se encuentra la Universidad de Costa Rica y afirman que en zonas con esa se permite la corta de árboles sin su respectivo permiso (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>4. <![endif]>Mediante resolución N° 455-2015-SETENA del 23 de febrero del 2015, se ordenó al desarrollador del proyecto la presentación de un EsIA como instrumento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>5. <![endif]>El 19 de agosto de 2015, la SETENA recibió los documentos con el EsIA solicitado al desarrollador del proyecto (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>6. <![endif]>El 26 de agosto de 2015, el desarrollador del proyecto realizó una publicación en el periódico La República, en la cual hizo de conocimiento de la población que presentó el EsIA ante la SETENA y se invitó a la ciudadanía a presentar objeciones en caso de tenerlas (ver informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>7. <![endif]>El 8 de octubre de 2015, el desarrollador entregó una copia de la Declaratoria de Impacto Ambiental a la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>8. <![endif]>El 19 de octubre de 2015, el desarrollador del proyecto entregó una copia del EsIA al Área de Conservación Volcánica Central (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>9. <![endif]>Por resolución No. 030-2016 SETENA del 12 de enero de 2016, la SETENA solicitó al desarrollador la presentación de un anexo que contuviera una serie de requerimientos técnicos y legales (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>10. <![endif]>Mediante oficio No. DPU-OF-054-2016 del 10 de marzo de 2016, la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca indicó con relación a las solicitudes de uso de suelo de los 22 Proyectos, que estos se encuentran ubicados bajo el régimen de zona Especial Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, por lo cual según el Plan Regulador de Montes de Oca, las fincas son compatibles con la actividad a la cual se refiere puntualmente cada caso (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>11. <![endif]>El 17 de marzo de 2016, la SETENA recibió el anexo solicitado al desarrollador (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>12. <![endif]>Mediante oficio No. DEA-1501-2016-SETENA del 24 de mayo de 2016, la SETENA solicitó aclaraciones al Anexo al EsIA en un plazo de 30 días hábiles (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>13. <![endif]>El 10 de junio de 2016, el desarrollador presentó las aclaraciones solicitadas en el oficio DEA-1501-2016-SETENA del 24 de mayo de 2016 (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>14. <![endif]>Mediante oficio DEA-1891-2016-SETENA del 24 de junio de 2016 y oficio DEA-1911.2016-SETENA del 27 de junio de 2016, se estableció que el anexo de EsIA para el proyecto “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio, cumplió con la resolución No. 030-2016-SETENA y con el oficio DEA-1501-2016-SETENA y por ende con los requisitos en el área de ingeniería civil (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>15. <![endif]>El 28 de junio de 2016, el Presidente del Consejo Director del Consejo Nacional para Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICIT), dio anuencia para el otorgamiento de los permisos requeridos por el desarrollador del proyecto, en el inmueble ubicado en la Ciudad de Investigación de la Universidad de Costa Rica, que es propiedad del CONICIT (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>16. <![endif]>Mediante informe técnico DEA-1934-2016-SETENA del 28 de junio de 2016, se realizó una descripción del proyecto según el EsIA y sus respectivas aclaraciones, por medio del cual se recomendó aprobar el documento D-1 de Evaluación Ambiental, el EsIA y la respectiva declaración jurada de compromisos ambientales, entre otras cosas (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>17. <![endif]>Por resolución número 1193-2016-SETENA de 30 de junio de 2016, la SETENA resolvió aprobar el estudio, de acuerdo con la información aportada por la empresa desarrolladora y el equipo consultor del proyecto, ambos responsables de la elaboración de Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, su anexo y aclaraciones, cuya información y estudios tienen carácter de Declaración Jurada y se dispuso otorgar la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>18. <![endif]>El 14 de julio de 2016, la Universidad de Costa Rica presentó copia de comprobante de garantía de cumplimiento (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>19. <![endif]>En respuesta a la Resolución N° 030-2016-SETENA, el desarrollador adjuntó el “Manual de Repoblamiento de Árboles en Fincas del Campus Universitario Rodrigo Facio”, en el cual se determinó entre otras cosas las áreas posibles a restaurar y en él, el desarrollador se comprometió a reforestar dos árboles por cada árbol cortado (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>20. <![endif]>El desarrollador adquirió el compromiso ambiental de referir los programas de reforestación y restauración al mantenimiento de los bosques riparios de las quebradas y el Río Torres (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>21. <![endif]>El 28 de octubre de 2016, la SETENA recibió el primer informe de regencia ambiental del proyecto correspondiente al período de agosto a octubre de 2016 (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>22. <![endif]>Por oficio SG-DEA-3339-2016-SETENA del 1 de noviembre de 2016, la SETENA le comunicó a la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca, que por oficio llamado EsIA y aclaraciones, se incluye el desarrollo de la construcción del edificio de Odontología, entre otras construcciones y se reflejan las medidas ambientales propuestas (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>23. <![endif]>Mediante oficio OEPI-520-2016, el desarrollador del proyecto se comprometió a la contratación de una empresa especializada para realizar el traslado de un árbol de caoba que se vería directamente afectado por el proyecto (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>24. <![endif]>El desarrollador estableció que, únicamente, 15 de los 75 árboles identificados se deben cortar para la construcción del edificio, por lo que, SETENA solicitó que se establecieran las respectivas medidas compensatorias, mediante un plan de restauración (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>25. <![endif]>Mediante oficio DVT-DGIT-ED-2015-4615, el Departamento de Estudios y Diseños de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito del MOPT, aprobó el estudio de impacto vial (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>26. <![endif]>El proyecto evaluado por SETENA incluye la construcción de un Parqueo Integral Universitario en finca 2, el cual consiste en un edificio con un área aproximada de 26855 metros cuadrados, distribuido en ocho niveles, que albergará 750 espacios de estacionamiento para automóviles y 40 para bicicletas (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>27. <![endif]>La primera etapa de siembra inició en la Finca 3 de la Universidad de Costa Rica y se pretende reforestar 17.180 m2; además, existe una campaña para reforestar 195 árboles nativos, como acción para la compensación establecida (ver informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>28. <![endif]>El INVU estableció un retiro de 50 metros para el río Torres y de 10 metros para la quebrada Sabanilla (ver informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>29. <![endif]>La Universidad de Costa Rica decidió dejar un retiro de 60 metros en relación con la quebrada Sabanilla y de 75 metros en cuanto al río Torres (ver informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>30. <![endif]>En el año 2016, la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca, emitió certificado de uso de suelo conforme para la construcción de la Facultad de Odontología en la propiedad de la Universidad de Costa Rica (ver informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>31. <![endif]>El 13 de enero de 2017, la SETENA recibió solicitud de anulación de la resolución de viabilidad ambiental otorgada al proyecto en cuestión (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>32. <![endif]>El 30 de enero de 2017, la SETENA realizó inspección de campo en el lugar (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>33. <![endif]>Por medio del informe técnico ASA-0144-2017-SETENA del 2 de febrero de 2017, se estableció lo observado en la inspección de campo y se envió solicitud de criterio legal al Departamento de Asesoría Jurídica de SETENA (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>34. <![endif]>El 2 de febrero de 2017, el Departamento Legal de la SETENA, recibió la solicitud de incidente de nulidad presentado contra la resolución No. 1193-2016-SETENA y la solicitud de paralización inmediata de los trabajos de movimientos de tierra que se están desarrollando (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>35. <![endif]>Mediante oficio AJ-45-2017-SETENA del 7 de febrero de 2017, el Departamento Legal de la Secretaría emitió el criterio legal solicitado respecto de la solicitud de anulación de la viabilidad planteada (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>36. <![endif]>El 8 de febrero de 2017, la SETENA dio traslado a la Universidad de Costa Rica del proyecto del incidente de nulidad planteado (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>37. <![endif]>Por oficio OPEI-0289-2017 del 17 de febrero de 2017, la Universidad de Costa Rica presentó prueba de descargo contra el incidente de nulidad (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>38. <![endif]>Mediante oficios AJ-69-2017-SETENA y AJ-72-2017-SETENA, ambos del 17 de febrero de 2017, el Departamento Legal solicitó criterio técnico al Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental y al Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental, respectivamente, sobre si el camino denunciado se encuentra dentro del área del proyecto (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>39. <![endif]>En oficio ASA-0282-2017-SETENA del 17 de febrero de 2017, el Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental, indicó que el camino sí se encuentra dentro del área del proyecto, pero no se encuentra incluido en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (ver prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
<![if !supportLists]>40. <![endif]>Por resolución No. 594-2017-SETENA de las 7:20 horas del 22 de marzo de 2017, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, declaró inadmisible un incidente de nulidad presentado contra la resolución No. 1193-2016-SETENA, interpuesto por William Brenes Gómez y otros, relacionado con la construcción del edificio de Odontología en Finca 3 (ver informe y prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida).
IV.Hecho no probado: No se estima como debidamente demostrado el siguiente hecho: Único.- Que el proyecto afecte las zonas de protección del río Torres y de la quebrada Sabanilla (los autos).
V.Sobre el derecho a la salud y el derecho a gozar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El derecho a la salud reconocido en los artículos 21 de la Constitución Política, 1 y 11 de la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 4 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 10 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en Materia de Derechos, se encuentra íntimamente ligado al derecho a vivir en un ambiente sano y equilibrado, consagrado en el artículo 50 constitucional, el cual se encuentra intrínsecamente relacionado con los principios 4 y 15 de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. La calidad ambiental es un parámetro fundamental de la calidad de vida; al igual que la salud, alimentación, trabajo, vivienda, educación, entre otros. Se ha indicado que el ejercicio legítimo de ese derecho requiere que los recursos sean utilizados de manera racional, y que corresponde al Estado la protección del ambiente, según el principio precautorio que rige en materia ambiental.
Este principio obliga al Estado a disponer todo lo que sea necesario, dentro del ámbito permitido por la ley, a efectos de impedir que se produzcan daños irreversibles al ambiente, para cuyo efecto es responsable de lograr las condiciones sociales propicias a fin de que cada persona pueda disfrutar de su salud, entendido este derecho como una situación de bienestar físico, psíquico (o mental) y social (véase sentencia Nº 180-98 de las 16:24 horas del 13 de enero de 1998). La obligación objetiva del Estado en materia de protección ambiental no apareja, ineludiblemente, un derecho subjetivo de las personas a exigir, a través de los organismos judiciales, que se tome una medida determinada, pero sí a que se adopten las que sean idóneas en tutela de ese derecho, ante actitudes abiertamente negligentes de las autoridades públicas, o bien, de personas físicas y jurídicas. De este modo, el Estado adquiere la obligación de regular las áreas de la vida social de las cuales puedan surgir peligros para la existencia física de los habitantes de su territorio así como también aquellas que vulneren el ambiente, lo cual puede hacer a través de leyes, reglamentos, acuerdos u otras medidas relacionadas con la organización y los procedimientos administrativos.
En consecuencia, la posibilidad de exigir judicialmente, a través del recurso de amparo, un tipo específico de actividad prestacional por parte del Estado en cumplimiento de su deber de protección a la vida, salud o derecho al ambiente en beneficio de sus habitantes, está restringida a la clara verificación de un peligro inminente contra esos derechos de las personas.
VI.En cuanto a la alegada omisión de solicitar permisos de tala de árboles. En el sub judice , los recurrentes alegan que las autoridades de la Universidad de Costa Rica, omitieron solicitar los respectivos permisos de tala y dispusieron la tala de 74 árboles de distintas especies en la zona del proyecto para la construcción de la Facultad de Odontología, con lo cual desatendieron el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Sin embargo, del informe rendido por las autoridades de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la prueba allegada a los autos, estima esta Sala que no llevan razón los recurrentes en sus alegatos. Lo anterior, por cuanto, según quedó acreditado, si bien la SETENA no es la encargada de brindar el permiso de tala de árboles ni tampoco éste es un requisito para otorgar la viabilidad ambiental, lo cierto es que, en cuanto a materia de corta de árboles, la función de SETENA se centra en garantizar por medio de la evaluación de impacto ambiental que se establezcan, según define el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32966-MINAE, medidas compensatorias para aquellos impactos irrecuperables o inevitables, que logren contrarrestar de alguna manera la alteración que pueda causarse.
Es así como, en la documentación aportada por la Universidad de Costa Rica a dicha Secretaría consta el “Manual de Repoblamiento de Árboles en Fincas del Campus Universitario Rodrigo Facio”, dentro del cual se establece la forma en la cual la Universidad procederá con el fin de reforestar completamente los árboles que se tuvieron que cortar para desarrollar el proyecto. Adicionalmente, esta Sala pudo acreditar que la Universidad de Costa Rica ha tomado las medidas precautorias y compensatorias suficientes en relación con el tema de tala de árboles, ya que consta en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental que se sembrarán dos árboles por cada árbol talado, además, se contrataron especialistas en la materia que procedieran a realizar el traslado de árboles como la caoba y el cedro amargo, los cuales no podían ser talados por su especie, y que fueron sembrados en otras áreas del campus. También pudo comprobarse que para este momento, la Universidad ya inició con la primera etapa de siembra en la Finca 3 y se pretende reforestar 17.180 m2; además, existe una campaña para reforestar 195 árboles nativos, como acción para la compensación establecida.
Asimismo, consta en autos, que de conformidad con el oficio RNVS-ACCVC-005 del 3 de febrero de 2015, la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca estableció que no existe bosque dentro de las propiedades donde se encuentra la Universidad de Costa Rica y afirman que en zonas con esa característica se permite la corta de árboles sin su respectivo permiso. En consecuencia, no estima esta Sala que en relación con este extremo se hayan lesionado de manera alguna los derechos fundamentales que reclaman los recurrentes, por cuanto no pudo comprobarse que se requiriera permiso alguno para realizar la acción denunciada y además, pudo acreditarse que se han tomado las medidas necesarias para evitar un impacto fuerte e irreversible al medio ambiente. Adicionalmente, determinar cuál es el permiso que debe sacarse para realizar determinada actividad, es un extremo que no compete determinar a este Tribunal Constitucional, razón por la cual, si los recurrentes estiman, que en el caso concreto, existió alguna omisión en cuanto a este tema, así deberán denunciarlo si a bien lo tienen, ante la vía ordinaria correspondiente.
VII.Atinente a la viabilidad ambiental otorgada por SETENA. En la sentencia 2006-8628 de las 15:23 horas del 20 de junio del 2006, este Tribunal estableció lo siguiente:
“IV. Del otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental por la SETENA .- Antes de analizar los alegatos de las partes, cabe señalar que el proceso de Evaluación Ambiental de Proyectos tiene por objeto identificar, predecir, interpretar, y comunicar a los interesados preventivamente, el efecto de un proyecto sobre el medio ambiente. Es un procedimiento administrativo de control de proyectos que, apoyado en un estudio técnico sobre las incidencias ambientales de una actividad determinada, denominado Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (documento técnico que debe presentar el promotor o titular del proyecto) y en un trámite de participación pública, permite a la autoridad ambiental competente emitir una declaración de impacto ambiental, rechazando, aprobando o modificando el proyecto. El artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente impone la obligatoriedad de que la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) evalúe el impacto ambiental de las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, previo a que éstas inicien.
La Evaluación Ambiental involucra una serie de fases en las que participan el desarrollador del proyecto, el ente fiscalizador competente (SETENA en el caso de Costa Rica), y la sociedad civil. Inicia con la presentación del Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar, documento que debe evaluar el Grupo de Evaluación Preliminar de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA). Posteriormente, se determina qué instrumento de evaluación ambiental requiere la actividad, y el desarrollador presenta el documento que debe ser examinado a fin de determinar si se requiere o no información adicional. El desarrollador del proyecto debe rendir una garantía y nombrar un Regente Ambiental, además de dar una declaración de compromisos ambientales. No es sino hasta que se cumplen todas estas etapas que el proyecto obtiene la declaración de viabilidad ambiental por parte de SETENA, por lo que una vez que se ha llevado a cabo todo el proceso es que puede considerarse satisfecho el requerimiento del artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente.” En el sub examine, los recurrentes reclaman que la viabilidad ambiental en cuestión, no debió ser otorgada por SETENA, por cuanto, a su parecer, la evaluación de impacto ambiental y el estudio de impacto ambiental carecen de rigurosidad; además, consideran que las medidas de reducción de impactos planteadas por el desarrollador del proyecto son insuficientes y estiman que con base en el principio precautorio debe posponerse la actividad de construcción de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Costa Rica y anularse la viabilidad ambiental otorgada a dicho proyecto.
Al respecto, según informaron las autoridades recurridas del SETENA, el proyecto denominado “Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio”, constituido por la construcción de 22 edificios distribuidos en 3 fincas distintas de la UCR, fue evaluado de forma integral y bajo un mismo expediente, esto de conformidad con el artículo 94 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, el cual establece que “La evaluación del impacto ambiental en materia de biodiversidad debe efectuarse en su totalidad, aun cuando el proyecto esté programado para realizarse en etapas”. Además, señalan que el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental es el instrumento más riguroso y exhaustivo con que cuenta esa Secretaría. Ciertamente, este Tribunal Constitucional pudo constatar que desde el 19 de diciembre de 2014, momento en fue presentado el proyecto ante la SETENA, hasta el 30 de junio de 2016, en donde se otorgó la viabilidad ambiental en cuestión por medio de la resolución No. 1193-2016-SETENA, la Secretaría recurrida llevó a cabo una serie de inspecciones y solicitó la presentación de diversos anexos y estudios, con el fin de tener claro el panorama del proyecto que se tenía pensado desarrollar y cumplir con todas las etapas y requerimientos que por ley se exigen al efecto, todo esto para llegar a una conclusión y decidir otorgar la viabilidad ambiental que se denuncia.
Adicionalmente, consta en autos que ante una denuncia que se realizó ante la SETENA el pasado 13 de enero de 2017, por medio de la cual se solicitó la nulidad de la viabilidad otorgada y se indicó que se abrió un camino que no se encontraba dentro del proyecto. En consecuencia, pudo acreditarse que la SETENA realizó una inspección de campo y solicitó una serie de criterios a los Departamentos competentes de la Secretaría, con el fin de determinar si existía alguna irregularidad en cuanto a lo denunciado; además, si bien declararon inadmisible el incidente por medio de la resolución No. 594-2017-SETENA del 22 de marzo de 2017, lo cierto es que al verificar que el camino denunciado se encontraba dentro del proyecto, pero no dentro de la evaluación ambiental, sancionaron al desarrollador del proyecto, solicitando un plan de mitigación para dicho daño, de lo cual se desprende que la SETENA no solo ha cumplido fehacientemente con sus funciones al estudiar integralmente el proyecto y solicitar todos los requerimientos necesarios para su ejecución, sino que también han cumplido con una función fiscalizadora del proyecto al velar porque se cumpla a cabalidad con lo otorgado y para que establezcan los planes de mitigación que sean necesarios en aras de evitar irregularidades en la construcción del proyecto.
Así las cosas, estima esta Sala que en el caso de análisis existe ausencia de elementos que puedan llevar a admitir una lesión al ambiente, pues se ha acredita que la entidad técnica competente para realizar la evaluación ambiental del proyecto, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, aprobó el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental en el que se establece que el proyecto no causará impacto grave alguno en el medio ambiente. Por lo anterior, en criterio de la Sala no se dan los supuestos de riesgo de daño grave e irreversible, supuestos en los que cabe aplicar el principio precautorio sino más bien lo que existe es una discrepancia por parte de los recurrentes en que se haya utilizado como instrumento de evaluación ambiental el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Disconformidad que estima esta Sala excede el ámbito de competencia de este Tribunal Constitucional y la materia que puede ser analizada por medio del recurso de amparo, por lo que en cuanto a este extremo el recurso debe desestimarse, sin perjuicio que tales reparos puedan plantearse en la vía ordinaria correspondiente.
VIII.Sobre las infracciones al principio de participación ciudadana en los procedimientos de evaluación ambiental. Los recurrentes aducen que las autoridades recurridas violentaron el principio de participación ciudadana, al no comunicar a los vecinos y posibles afectados sobre la construcción del proyecto y la evaluación ambiental realizada para dicho efecto. Ahora bien, sobre dicho punto, las autoridades de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental informan que el desarrollador del proyecto realizó un aviso el día 26 de agosto de 2015 en el periódico La República, en el cual hizo de conocimiento de la población que presentó el EsIA, ante esa Secretaría e invitó a la ciudadanía a presentar las objeciones que estimaran pertinentes. Además, realizaron una encuesta sobre la percepción del proyecto, por medio de la cual se determinó que no se realizarían talleres participativos, al no percibirse la existencia de una oposición o conflicto social.
Adicionalmente, señalan que de conformidad con el artículo 3 inciso 12) del Decreto Ejecutivo 31849-MINAE-SALUD-MOPT- MEIC, la audiencia pública en proyectos de categoría A, la solicitará SETENA, cuando lo estime necesario. Sin embargo, es preciso indicar que este Tribunal, estimó en la sentencia No. 6773-2014 de las 11:41 horas de 16 de mayo de 2014, que la sede natural para vigilar el cumplimiento del principio de participación ciudadana es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional. En la referida resolución, se consideró lo siguiente:
“ IV.- BAJO UNA MEJOR PONDERACIÓN. DISCUSIÓN DE LEGALIDAD. Al modificar el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, el órgano constituyente reformador quiso dar positividad al Principio de Participación y así acercar a los administrados al proceso de toma de decisiones estatales, como parte de lo que la doctrina llama “mecanismos de corrección” de la democracia representativa. Así, el Constituyente reformador dejó los medios, alcance y oportunidad de la participación ciudadana a la normativa infra-constitucional, salvo en casos excepcionales. En ese sentido, la sede natural para vigilar su cumplimiento, es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional. Por esa razón, son ajenas y lejanas a la competencia de este Tribunal, las cuestiones que se plantean en el caso concreto, a saber, el mecanismo alternativo ordenado por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental –a raíz de la violencia y la situación de intimidación generada en las audiencias de 9 de noviembre de 2013 y 25 de enero de 2014– a fin de garantizar la fase de comentarios de los interesados y réplicas del desarrollador en el procedimiento de evaluación ambiental del proyecto de una nueva Terminal de Contenedores en Moín, a nombre de APM Terminals Moín S.A En el caso específico, precisamente el artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, no define si esa participación es a viva voz, por escrito o de qué manera se satisface la exigencia de la participación, lo cual requiere ser analizado en un proceso que permita la amplitud de prueba y contradictorio que, desde nuestro punto de vista, no encuadra en el amparo como proceso rápido, sencillo, sumario y especial de protección de derechos humanos fundamentales.
Le corresponde entonces, al control de legalidad y no a este Tribunal Constitucional, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas desplegadas (activas u omisas), por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, se ajustan o no, al ordenamiento jurídico infra constitucional. Por las razones indicadas, estimamos que el tema planteado está lejos de las competencias específicas, que la Sala Constitucional está llamada a proteger, sin que ello signifique que no merezca análisis en la jurisdicción ordinaria o de mera legalidad contenciosa administrativa, conforme al artículo 49 constitucional. (…)” A partir de lo expuesto, no le corresponde a este Tribunal determinar, tal y como lo pretenden los recurrentes, si en el caso particular debió realizarse algún tipo de consulta sobre el proyecto en cuestión, así como tampoco le compete a esta Sala verificar cuál es el mecanismo que deben utilizar las autoridades recurridas, para garantizar forma óptima la participación ciudadana.
De este modo y, conforme con el precedente de cita, no le corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas desplegadas (activas u omisas) por la SETENA en el caso concreto se ajustan o no al ordenamiento jurídico infra constitucional, todo lo cual, deberá ser cuestionado por los recurrentes en las vías de legalidad ordinaria respectivas.
IX.En cuanto a la disconformidad con la emisión del certificado de uso de suelo y permisos de construcción. Los recurrentes consideran que las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca, otorgaron uso de suelo y permisos de construcción para la Facultada de Odontología que se encuentra dentro del proyecto denominado "Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio", sin cumplir los requerimientos dispuestos en la normativa vigente y, ni los requisitos exigidos, específicamente, sin tomar en cuenta que el cantón de Montes de Oca, cuenta con un mapa de zonificación de fragilidad ambiental, elaborado por el PRUGAM y justamente, un 60% de la construcción coincide con zona II-G de “alta fragilidad ambiental” y en un 20%, en una zona II-G de “muy alta fragilidad ambiental”, lo que puede causar un impacto importante en el lugar. Al respecto, si bien las autoridades del municipio recurrido indican que la iniciativa PRUGAM fracasó y que por medio de ella no se estableció norma alguna que pudiera utilizarse a nivel del GAM, por lo que, al contar con la viabilidad ambiental otorgada por SETENA, no existía a nivel municipal, impedimento alguno para brindar los permisos cuestionados.
No obstante lo anterior, es importante aclararle a los recurrentes que el análisis de los aspectos reclamados, en una parte, de carácter estrictamente técnicos, implicaría obviar la naturaleza sumaria del amparo, ordinariando un proceso, que lo que busca es la protección y la restitución de derechos fundamentales violados y, de otra parte, los reclamos relativos al cumplimiento de requisitos de legalidad para el otorgamiento de los permisos de construcción y uso de suelo, conforme con la legislación vigente, es un asunto de legalidad ordinaria que debe resolverse en esa vía. Por ello, deberán plantear, si a bien lo tienen, su inconformidad o reclamo ante las autoridades recurridas o en la vía jurisdiccional competente, vías en las cuales podrán, en forma amplia, discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones.
X.Atinente a las posibles afectaciones a la quebrada Sabanilla y al río Torres. Reclaman los recurrentes que el proyecto causará una afectación a las zonas de protección de río Torres y de la quebrada Sabanilla. No obstante lo anterior, de los autos se desprende que no llevan razón los accionantes en sus alegatos. Por cuanto, en primer lugar pudo demostrarse que el INVU estableció un retiro de 50 metros para el río Torres y de 10 metros para la quebrada Sabanilla y sin embargo, la Universidad dispuso dejar un retiro de 60 metros y de 75 metros, respectivamente, con lo cual, no solo se respeta el retiro legalmente establecido, sino que además, se deja un porcentaje mayor a este. Adicionalmente, consta en los documentos aportados a SETENA y presentados ante este Tribunal Constitucional, que existe dentro de los planes de mitigación y reforestación suficientes medidas que se tomarán en torno a los alrededores tanto del río Torres como de la quebrada Sabanilla; además, pudo comprobarse que no existe descarga de aguas tratadas hacia ellos que pueda llegar a afectarlos. En consecuencia, no pudo comprobar esta Sala que exista la afectación alegada por los interesados, razón por la cual sobre este punto, el recurso debe declararse sin lugar.
XI.Sobre la supuesta afectación por omisiones en el Estudio de Impacto Vial. Acusan los accionantes que la emisión de gases representa un problema adicional que no fue cuantificado en el Estudio de Impacto Vial del MOPT, debido a que para ellos, el ingreso de casi 800 personas diarias a las instalaciones, en sus respectivos vehículos, provocará una afectación vial y al ambiente por la emisión de gases que generarán dichos vehículos. Sin embargo, consta en autos que Mediante oficio DVT-DGIT-ED-2015-4615, el Departamento de Estudios y Diseños de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito del MOPT, aprobó el estudio de impacto vial presentado por la Universidad recurrida y no estimó que existiera impacto alguno que pudiera causar un problema vial en los alrededores del campus. De igual forma, se tuvo por demostrado que el proyecto presentado por la Universidad de Costa Rica, incluye la construcción de un Parqueo Integral Universitario en finca 2, el cual consiste en un edificio con un área aproximada de 26.855 metros cuadrados, distribuido en ocho niveles, que albergará 750 espacios de estacionamiento para automóviles y 40 para bicicletas.
Lo anterior, acredita que el dicho de los recurrentes en cuanto a que en la finca 3, donde se está construyendo la Facultad de Odontología ingresaran alrededor de 800 vehículos diarios, es inexacto, debido a que consta, que en dichas instalaciones no se construirá un parqueo, por el contrario, el transporte hasta allí, será a lo interno y por medio de un autobús especial. Adicionalmente, tal y como informa el Rector de la Universidad, la mayoría de estudiantes de la Universidad utilizan otro medio de transporte para llegar al campus y son la minoría los que llegan en su vehículo propio. De todas maneras, se desprende del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental presentado por la Universidad de Costa Rica, que se propusieron medidas ambientales asociadas con el aumento de vehículos y para evitar que se provoque un impacto vial en la zona, dentro del cual se establecen controles y monitoreo de la calidad de aire y de inmisiones en el campus, con el fin de resguardar el medio ambiente y evitar algún daño en contra de éste.
Así las cosas, al no poder comprobar este Tribunal Constitucional que en la especie se haya producido lesión alguna a los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes, lo correspondiente es desestimar el recurso también en cuanto a este extremo.
XII.Atinente a la alegada falta a la verdad en los informes rendidos por la autoridad recurrida y en la información remitida a SETENA. Finalmente, alegan los recurrentes que las autoridades de la Universidad de Costa Rica faltan a la verdad tanto en los informes rendidos bajo fe de juramento ante este Tribunal Constitucional y en la información brindada ante la SETENA. No obstante lo anterior, de conformidad con el artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, las inexactitudes o falsedades que pudiera contener un informe hará incurrir al funcionario presuntamente responsable en los delitos de perjurio o falso testimonio. Asimismo, en cuanto a la información rendida ante el SETENA, ésta fue brindada por medio de una Declaración Jurada, con la advertencia de poder incurrir en los delitos referidos en caso de faltar a la verdad. No obstante, no es a esta Sala a quien compete determinar la existencia o no de esos delitos, sino al Juez penal, por lo que si los recurrentes estiman que las actuaciones de las autoridades recurridas, son típicas en relación con las regulaciones mencionadas y que incurrieron en falsedad, podrán interponer ante el Ministerio Público la respectiva denuncia, para que sea ahí donde se determine la falsedad o no de las manifestaciones reclamadas.
XIV.Razones diferentes del Magistrado Jinesta Lobo, en lo que respecta al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El Magistrado Jinesta Lobo declara sin lugar este extremo del recurso, pero por razones diferentes:
XV.Voto salvado parcial del Magistrado Cruz Castro Es lamentable que deba reconocerse que el denominado "Proyectos Varios UCR Sede Rodrigo Facio", está dentro de una zona de fragilidad ambiental. Efectivamente, el cantón de Montes de Oca, cuenta con un mapa de zonificación de fragilidad ambiental, elaborado por el PRUGAM y justamente, un 60% de la construcción que se objeta, coincide con zona II-G de “alta fragilidad ambiental” y en un 20%, en una zona II-G de “muy alta fragilidad ambiental”, lo que puede ocasionar una importante lesión al ambiente. En esta sentencia se reconoce el fracaso de la iniciativa del PRUGRAM, que define vulnerabilidades ambientales importantes. Ni el gobierno local, ni el gobierno central, han adoptado medidas para impedir una lesión al ambiente, a pesar de un reporte técnico tan específico. En el marco de una anomia incompresible, se permite la lesión al ambiente, a pesar de un informe técnico tan calificado.
El municipio debe asumir la tutela del ambiente, porque tiene en sus manos un informe técnico que requiere una respuesta institucional. Basta aplicar las competencias del gobierno local, para considerar que el reporte de PRUGAM requiere una respuesta institucional del gobierno local, convirtiéndose en una limitación al uso del suelo y complemento del plan regulador. La justificación que brinda el gobierno local, es insuficiente frente a la relevancia que tiene la tutela del ambiente. Si bien la iniciativa PRUGAM fracasó, esa situación no impide al municipio incorporar un informe técnico tan específico y exigir que la edificación se adapte a las limitaciones de dicho dictamen, en función de la defensa de un derecho de tanta relevancia como el ambiente urbano. En este caso, la viabilidad ambiental de Setena es insuficiente, porque existe un criterio técnico que impone otras limitaciones. Ese criterio técnico debió tomarlo en consideración Setena.
En razón de lo expuesto, salvo el voto y declaro con lugar el amparo por lesión al ambiente, condenando a la autoridad municipal y a Setena. La obra que se realizará, deberá adaptarse a las limitaciones que define el mapa de fragilidad ambiental del PRUGAM. Este caso muestra las graves debilidades de la política de ambiente que se aplica en Costa Rica, ignorándose una iniciativa tan importante como el PRUGAM. Autoridades políticas estatales y municipales invisibilizan reportes sobre graves amenazas al ambiente urbano y rural. Estas omisiones tan graves, cuestionan seriamente la vocación de defensa del ambiente de las autoridades políticas estatales y municipales.
XVI.Nota del Magistrado Cruz Castro: Si bien es cierto en aquellos casos en los que se encuentra de por medio el principio de participación ciudadana establecido en el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política he estimado que se trata de un tema de relevancia constitucional, en el caso concreto no salvo el voto porque tal y como se logró acreditar en autos, el desarrollador del proyecto el día 26 de agosto del 2015 mediante la publicación que realizó en el periódico La República invitó a la población interesada a presentar las objeciones que estimaran pertinentes. Por lo anterior y siendo que voluntariamente los interesados no manifestaron su interés en participar en los talleres me sumo a la mayoría y declaro sin lugar el recurso en cuanto a este extremo.
XVII.Voto salvado de la Magistrada Hernández López respecto del reclamo por infracción al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política.
1. El contexto histórico que motivó en su momento la amplia intervención de la Sala en materia ambiental, ha tenido una considerable variación que impone a este órgano reconsiderar las condiciones para su participación en el aseguramiento del derecho de las personas a un ambiente sano y equilibrado, tal y como ha sido tutelado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. En efecto, la situación actual –caracterizada por una amplísima producción legal y reglamentaria que incluye reglas de fondo, procedimientos y creación de órganos para el cumplimiento de lo ordenado en la Carta Fundamental- es radicalmente diferente de la anterior, en la cual la ausencia de normativa y de instancias estatales con competencia apropiada, le impuso a la Sala un papel de protagonista , casi único , en la defensa del precitado derecho constitucional.
2. Hoy en día, nos encontramos frente a un “denso entramado” de normativa ambiental –tal y como acertadamente lo ha descrito el Magistrado Jinesta Lobo en su voto salvado sobre este tema- lo cual ha producido dos fenómenos relevantes: el primero y más obvio, es el surgimiento de una abarcadora regulación jurídica respecto de actividades cuya incidencia en el ambiente estaba poco o nada ordenada, así la creación de órganos estatales con potestades de vigilancia y control sobre los efectos de la actividad humana en el entorno. El segundo fenómeno consiste en que esa creciente juridificación –predominantemente legislativa y reglamentaria– trae aparejada una ineludible entrada en escena tanto de la justicia administrativa como de la jurisdicción ordinaria -prioritariamente la contencioso administrativa, pero también la penal. En ellas, acorde con la importancia del derecho ambiental, se han regulado de forma amplia vías procesales y medios de legitimación incluyentes, de manera que los administrados puedan hacer valer lo establecido en ese amplio orden jurídico que se relaciona con el tema ambiental.
3. En ese contexto, no resulta apropiado jurídicamente , ni desde el punto de vista funcional, que la Sala Constitucional desplace , o -peor aún- sustituya , a los órganos de justicia ordinarios en la realización de su tarea, también de rango constitucional, de velar por el efectivo cumplimiento de leyes y reglamentos. Es impropio jurídicamente porque en la inmensa mayoría de estos casos lo que se solicita es que interprete y haga valer normas legales y reglamentarias con lo que arriesga traslapar sus competencias con las de otros órganos jurisdiccionales que –ellos sí- han sido creados para ejecutar tales tareas; y resulta también funcionalmente incorrecto, porque el diseño de sus procesos se aviene mal con la complejidad que está presente en numerosos conflictos ambientales que se componen de series de hechos y actos técnica y jurídicamente complejos. Sobre ambas cuestiones existen conocidos ejemplos en los que la Sala ha arrojado una resolución a medias o técnicamente incompleta, o bien se han generado fricciones innecesarias y afectación de la seguridad jurídica.
4. Como parte de los aspectos técnicos que he valorado, añado que está el hecho de que esta jurisdicción no cuenta con jueces ejecutores de sentencia que permitan darle seguimiento adecuado a las mismas -generalmente complejas-, que implican en ocasiones el seguimiento de planes remediales, entre otros, con coordinación interinstitucional y seguimiento de meses y hasta años.
5. Desde esa perspectiva, la decisión de dar un paso al lado en la materia ambiental por parte de este Tribunal no debe ser vista como un abandono de la materia ambiental, sino al contrario, de su adecuada tutela en la instancia que mejor se aviene a la naturaleza de su complejidad y diversidad. Asimismo tampoco debe ser visto como la declinación de esta instancia en su tarea de protección de los derechos constitucionales que le imponen la Constitución Política y su Ley Orgánica, que desde mi punto de vista, queda reservada en esta materia para casos específicos. Se trata más bien, de un ejercicio de reacomodo de las cargas y tareas que corresponden a los distintos órganos estatales, de manera que cada uno de ellos, pueda desplegar plenamente su labor dentro del ámbito que se le ha asignado , así como del ejercicio de fijar su propia competencia, según lo establece el artículo 7 de su Ley Orgánica.
6. Queda claro que la Sala no se plantea abandonar a otras jurisdicciones la labor de protección de los derechos de las personas en materia ambiental. Es conocido que si bien todo reclamo por infracción de normas legales y reglamentarias puede ser reconducido hasta el ámbito constitucional, existen casos cuya resolución no exige más que la aplicación del derecho de la Constitución. Se trata entonces de lograr que la Sala se convierta en protagonista junto con otros, de manera que –entre todos y cada uno en su espacio- se pueda cubrir toda la variedad de situaciones que presenta una protección del derecho a un medio ambiente sano y equilibrado dentro de una sociedad en la que también existen otras necesidades igual de acuciantes. Con esta posición creo firmemente que el ciudadano no pierde un ápice de protección pero se gana sustancialmente en amplitud, en perspectiva y en respeto al equilibrio y distribución de poderes, principio este último de obligada consideración, puesto que rige la dinámica constitucional de cualquier sistema liberal y democrático como el nuestro.- 7.
En línea con lo anterior, sostengo que esta Sala debe abstenerse de conocer los reclamos que se le presenten por supuesta infracción al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política para dejar en manos de la justicia administrativa y la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa su conocimiento. Lo anterior se deja afirmado con carácter general, sin perjuicio de reconocer la existencia de casos particulares o grupos de casos que, según mi criterio, si resultarían aún mejor tutelados por esta Sala y por tanto deben ser conocidos y resueltos por ella.- Dentro de tales grupos de casos, y sin que esta enunciación pueda considerarse como una lista cerrada y definitiva, puedo señalar que la Sala debe reservarse el conocimiento de situaciones como por ejemplo los reclamos por infracciones ambientales que además pongan en riesgo directo la salud de las personas , o el acceso o calidad del agua; los casos de violaciones groseras y directas al ambiente y en los cuales se constate una palmaria ausencia de la protección por parte de las autoridades estatales, siempre y cuando además la naturaleza del reclamo permita ser abordado mediante el instrumento del amparo como instituto procesal sumario y especial, ya que estimo que tampoco se debe “ordinariar” el amparo para abordar, aún en estos casos citados, temas que rebasen la capacidad de ser atendidos adecuadamente en el mismo.
8. En el caso concreto, se observa que la situación planteada se ubica dentro de aquellas situaciones en las que la intervención de los medios de protección de la Administración y la justicia ordinaria, resultan ser una vía más amplia y completa pues el tema discutido que involucra una discusión sobre ventajas y desventajas y valoración de los beneficios, todo lo cual requiere abundante prueba, seguimientos y estudios que exceden el ámbito del amparo. Por lo anterior, salvo el voto pues a mi juicio los extremos planteados deben ser analizados en la vía ordinaria y no en esta sede, por lo que debió aplicarse el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y rechazar de plano el recurso.
XVIII.Documentación aportada al expediente . Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, éstos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar el recurso. El Magistrado Jinesta Lobo da razones diferentes, en lo que respecta al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El Magistrado Cruz Castro salva el voto y declara con lugar el recurso por lesión al ambiente, condenando a la autoridad municipal y a Setena; y pone nota en cuanto al tema de participación ciudadana. La Magistrada Hernández López salva el voto, y rechaza de plano el recurso pues los reclamos por infracción al numeral 50 de la Constitución Política deben ser conocidos en la vía ordinaria.- Ernesto Jinesta L.
Fernando Cruz C.
Fernando Castillo V.
Nancy Hernández L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jose Paulino Hernández G.
Ronald Salazar Murillo *S00WC43KVXDE61*
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.