Jorge Araya G.
WHEREAS:
1.- By filing received via Online Filing at 1:30 p.m. on March 21, 2026, the petitioner files this unconstitutionality action against Decreto Ejecutivo No. 44486-S, published in La Gaceta No. 110 of June 18, 2024, for having been approved and published in violation of constitutional articles 11 and 50. He sets forth as the “sole ground of unconstitutionality” that on June 18, 2024, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 44486-S was published in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 110, which is the new regulation for environmental noise control in Costa Rica. In said regulation, Chapter III, Article 5, Table 1, specifies the number of decibels permitted during daytime and nighttime hours in the different zones. Likewise, Article 6 of the same chapter establishes that “In the event that there is no Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), the Ministry of Health shall determine the type of receiving zone according to the classification in Table 2 of this regulation” (Table 2, classification of receiving zones). He complains that these classifications contained in these two articles violate the constitutional norm because they do not conform to the appropriate reality, which causes the classification of zones in various parts of the country not to be taken as indicated by this decree and instead causes them to be classified as commercial zones when the correct classification is mixed-use zone (zona mixta). This classification originates from each of the existing regulatory plans in the different cities of the country and, therefore, the Ministry of Health, when carrying out noise measurements and, as an example of this, if a noise measurement were taken from the receiving zone or source in this area, the measurements are established as indicated by numeral 5 of that decree, that is, the levels would be at 70 decibels during daytime hours and 55 decibels during nighttime hours, but in Chapter IV, Article 7, point 2, subsection c), it says “Cultural, musical, and sporting events held in plazas, parks, and stadiums or public thoroughfares must all have prior permission from the Ministry of Health. Likewise, the permitted sound levels during the nighttime period shall be extended, under these particular circumstances, until 10:00 p.m., always respecting the maximum permitted noise levels in the receiving zone affected by the noise”. That is, it obliges the receiving zone to accept 70 decibels under any circumstance involving any cultural, musical, or sporting activity within Parque Mario Cañas Ruiz in downtown Liberia, which is classified as a tranquility zone, which contravenes everything specified in Article 6 of this same decree, resulting in an antinomy (antinomia), which is incompatible with the application of a right, in this case the right to public health, in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as established by Article 50 of the Political Constitution. He alleges that, furthermore, the same situation is encountered again and even more aggravating with the issue of noise pollution, which is set forth in Chapter VIII, Article 16, subsection a): “The limits established in Table 1 must be adjusted as follows: a) Adjustment for environmental noise: When the environmental noise of the area exceeds the maximum permissible limits, the maximum permissible limit for the generating source shall be the measured environmental noise plus 3 dB(A), at the dwelling of the affected person”. He points out that from the foregoing it is inferred that, in the event of carrying out a noise measurement, an additional 3 decibels would be added to the maximum permitted during an extended schedule until 10:00 p.m. He explains that in the particular case of downtown Liberia, the main quadrants are established, including the east, north, south, and west quadrants of the central park of Liberia, and quadrants of the southern sector of the central core of Liberia, which, although it is comprised of the commercial zone, the truth is that this zone includes multiple permanently inhabited dwelling houses (casas de habitación) of families that have resided there for more than 70 years. He indicates that, in his case, his family has lived there for more than 100 years, his dwelling house having remained continuously inhabited for more than 65 years, same situation, within the same southern quadrant of the central core facing Parque Mario Cañas Ruiz, there is the dwelling house of the Baltodano Cortés family, in the western quadrant there is the dwelling house of the Baltodano Guillén family, in the eastern quadrant there is the dwelling house of the Larios family, among others, and each one of them inhabited permanently, as well as the main central quadrant of the Liberia zone, which is the public park Mario Cañas Ruiz, being classified within the tranquility zone (see Article 6, Table No. 2, classification of receiving zones) and, at the same time, in the same southern quadrant there are the hotels Primavera and Liberia, the latter inhabited by the Kauffman Hernández family. He considers it evident that the classification established in numeral 6 of this decree is neither concrete nor exact, since these quadrants are classified as commercial zone, when the correct classification would be mixed-use zone (zona mixta) (it is a mixture of activities comprised of the residential zone and tranquility zone with influence from the industrial zone and the agricultural/livestock zone), the foregoing, because, as detailed, there are permanently inhabited dwelling houses and hotels (residential zone), a public park (tranquility zone), but this area was classified as commercial zone.\n\n**Violation of the Principle of Legality (violación al principio de legalidad)**: the plaintiff alleges that the violation of the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), which is a fundamental legal principle implying that every action of public power must be supported by a prior legal norm, meaning that no authority can act arbitrarily; its acts are only valid if they are based on the law. In this sense, as is common knowledge, the functions of both the Supreme Powers of the Republic and the various public entities and bodies of the country are defined either in the articles of the Political Constitution or in legal-ranking norms approved by the Legislative Assembly. In other words, the actions of the public sector are regulated by the \"literalness\" of the law; that is, they are restricted to what the country's internal law stipulates. However, according to Law, the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) has two facets and spheres of application: in its positive aspect, the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) \"refers to the specific administrative powers that are at the service of the community for the fulfillment of public purposes.\" However, in its negative aspect, \"this principle is projected as a limit and a restriction on public behavior.\" In the specific case, the contradiction of articles 5, 6, 7 and the aggravating factor in article 16 of that decree. Regarding the position of violation of the right to health, a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, it suffices to indicate what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment No. 08891 of June 16, 2017. **Violation of the Principle of Legal Reserve (principio de reserva de ley).** The plaintiff alleges the violation of the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley), which constitutes a fundamental element in the juridical structure of the Costa Rican Social and Democratic State of Law. This principle establishes that certain essential matters can only be regulated by a formal law emanating from the Legislative Power, their treatment by inferior norms being prohibited. In other words, decisions that significantly affect fundamental public rights, obligations, or interests must be adopted exclusively through laws approved by the Legislative Assembly, and not by executive decrees or other administrative provisions. This principle stands as a pillar of the State of Law, by guaranteeing that the creation of legal norms in sensitive areas rests on the democratic will expressed in Parliament and is subject to formal legislative procedures. Its doctrinal relevance lies in the fact that it ensures the primacy of law and the subjection of state action to the Law, preventing arbitrariness and protecting the legal certainty of citizens. Which clearly implies the right to the enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, both recognized constitutionally. The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, recognized in the Costa Rican Political Constitution, whose importance lies not only in having that condition but also in being transversal in nature, since it is present in or related to practically all areas of human development. Added to this, it is closely related to other vital fundamental rights such as the right to health. By virtue of its relevance, the phenomena that affect it become urgent, so that their regulation, management, and attention by the State cannot be postponed. This is the case of acoustic contamination (contaminación acústica), which is generated when noise levels are reached that are harmful to human beings. This phenomenon has direct effects on the environment and people's health, for example, on hearing, sleep, physiological functions, mental health, performance, and behavior, among others, as an example of this judgment No. 04879 of the Constitutional Chamber of March 30, 2009. It also mentions the unconstitutionality action 00-007341-0007-CO and resolution No. 2002-05105 of expediente No. 02-001259-0007-CO. **Background (Antecedente)**: states that the administrative background motivating the presentation of this action dates from the sanitary order issued by the Ministry of Health No. MS-DRRSCH-DARSL-OS-026-2023 against the Municipality of Liberia, which was notified at 11:45 hours on February 28, 2023, due to the violation of the right to health, to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, regarding the perturbation that still persists from sonic contamination (contaminación sónica) emanating from Parque Mario Cañas Ruiz at the time cultural activities are carried out, among others, especially affecting people suffering from chronic palliative care conditions, older adults who reside in this central core, and a 19-year-old person with Down syndrome and a combined spectrum between the first condition and autism. Considers that, as established by numeral 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, there is an administrative background to date, which is the complaint established on Friday, January 13, 2023, before the Ministry of Health of Liberia, number D#-007-2023. Based on the foregoing, it requests that numerals 5, 6, 7, and 16 of Decree 44486-S be declared unconstitutional, for having proven the violation of articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution.\n\n**2.-** Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition brought to its attention that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a previous, equal, or similar rejected petition.\n\nDrafted by Judge **Castillo Víquez**; and,\n\n**CONSIDERING:**\n\n**I.- REQUIREMENTS AND FORMALITIES OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION.** This Chamber has repeatedly indicated that the unconstitutionality action is a process with certain formalities, which, if not met, make it impossible to rule on the merits of the matter. Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law establishes the admissibility requirements for unconstitutionality actions and regulates different situations.\n\nIn the first paragraph, the existence of a matter pending resolution is required, whether in a judicial forum—including habeas corpus or amparo remedies—or in an administrative forum—in the procedure for exhausting this avenue, that is, in the administrative challenge procedure against the final act—in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest deemed injured in the main matter. The second and third paragraphs regulate the direct action—no base matter is required—in the following cases: a) when, due to the nature of the matter, no individual and direct injury exists; b) when it concerns the defense of diffuse interests or those affecting the community as a whole; and c) when the action is brought by the Attorney General of the Republic (Procurador General de la República), the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contralor General de la República), the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic (Fiscal General de la República), and the Ombudsperson (Defensor de los Habitantes). Regarding the requirement of a matter pending resolution, this Chamber, through judgment no. 04190-95 at 11:33 a.m. on July 28, 1995, indicated the following:\n\n\"(...) In the first place, it is a proceeding of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, which means that the existence of a matter pending resolution is required—whether before the courts of justice or in the procedure for exhausting the administrative avenue—in order to access the constitutional avenue, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered injured in the main matter, so that the Constitutional Court's ruling, whether positive or negative, affects said proceeding pending resolution, as it rules on the constitutionality of the norms that must be applied in that matter; and only by exception does the legislation permit direct access to this avenue—presuppositions of the second and third paragraphs of Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) (...).\"\n\nLikewise, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the filing document must be authenticated and contain an explicit determination of the challenged regulations, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the components of the block of constitutionality (bloque de constitucionalidad) that are considered infringed (Article 78 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law). In addition, proof of standing (powers of attorney and certifications) must be provided, the payment of the Costa Rican Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Costa Rica) stamp must be made (Article 4 of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963), and a literal certification of the document in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged norms was invoked in the base matter must be submitted (Article 79 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law).\n\nII.- ON THE PROCEDURE. In the sub iudice, the Chamber observes that the petitioner failed to comply with several formal admissibility requirements. First, the payment of the Costa Rican Bar Association stamp, in the amount of two hundred seventy-five colones, corresponding to the authentication of the initial document, is not accredited. Second, the petitioner grounds his standing in Article 75, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, since he indicates as the prior matter the complaint D#-007-2023 filed before the Directorate of Health of Liberia (Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud de Liberia) on January 13, 2023, based on which sanitary order MS-DRRSCH-DARSL-ER-OS-026-2023 was issued, which ordered \"to totally suspend the use of equipment, systems, speakers, or any other device intended for sound amplification on the esplanade of Mario Cañas Ruiz Park during activities carried out during the Civic Festivals of Liberia (Fiestas Cívicas de Liberia), since it was proven through technical evidence that the acoustic emission from such activities exceeded the limits permitted in Decree No. 39428-S.\" This Chamber observes that the said administrative proceeding dates from the year 2023, a time when the regulation challenged here, No. 44486-S, effective from December 20, 2024, had not yet entered into force, and, furthermore, the petitioner does not prove that this prior matter is in the phase of exhausting the administrative avenue, nor that the unconstitutionality of the regulations challenged here was invoked (for which purpose he should have provided the literal certification pursuant to Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law). Consequently, it is not possible to verify that this action is a reasonable means to protect the rights or interests allegedly violated in the antecedent. Although the petitioner could be warned to submit proof of payment for the omitted stamp and clarify the procedural status of the base matter, the truth is that the warning regulated in Article 80 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law is dispensed with, for procedural economy, since the unconstitutionality action is inadmissible on grounds of its subject matter, as explained below.\n\nIII.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THIS ACTION ON GROUNDS OF ITS SUBJECT MATTER. In the sub iudice, the action is inadmissible on grounds of its subject matter, since, in essence, the conflict raised by the petitioner is a matter of ordinary legality, not constitutionality. The petitioner seeks for this Chamber to declare the unconstitutionality of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 16 of Decree No. 44486-S, called the Regulation for the Control of Environmental Noise (Reglamento para el control del ruido ambiental), published in La Gaceta No. 110 of June 19, 2024. He claims that Article 5 provides that, based on the Zoning Plan (Plan Regulador), the Ministry of Health shall determine the applicable limits in the different zones of the cantons, according to the type of affected receiver, in accordance with Table 1; while Article 6 provides that, when no Zoning Plan exists, the Ministry of Health shall determine the type of receiving zone according to the classification in Table 2 of the same regulation.\n\nIt alleges that both provisions fail to conform to reality, resulting in the classification of zones in various locations \"(…) not being applied as indicated by this decree and instead being classified as commercial zones when the correct designation is mixed-use zone (zona mixta), this classification arising from each of the existing regulatory plans (…)\" (page 5 of the initial brief). That is, the petitioner's dissatisfaction is not with the content of the challenged provisions per se, but with their application pursuant to the regulatory plans. Moreover, he complains that Article 7.2.c provides that cultural, musical, and sporting events held in plazas, parks, and stadiums or public thoroughfares must all have prior authorization from the Ministry of Health and that permitted sound levels during the nighttime period shall be extended, in these particular circumstances, until 10:00 p.m., always respecting the maximum sound levels permitted in the receiving zone (zona receptora) affected by the noise. Thus, in the petitioner's opinion, the receiving zone is forced to receive the 70 decibels under any circumstance involving cultural, musical, or sporting activity; which, in the words of the plaintiff \"(…) contravenes everything specified in Article 6 of this same decree, which results in an antinomy (…)\" (page 5 of the initial brief). However, despite his allegations, this Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly held that matters concerning alleged normative antinomies fall outside its jurisdiction, as they relate to a conflict between infra-constitutional norms. Finally, regarding Article 16, subsection a, the petitioner complains that the same situation is repeated, since it provides for an adjustment for environmental noise, such that, when the environmental noise of the area exceeds the maximum permissible limits, the maximum permissible limit for the generating source shall be the measured environmental noise plus 3 dB(A), in the dwelling of the affected person. The petitioner interprets that, in this latter scenario, if a sound measurement is performed, he would be adding 3 decibels more to the maximum permitted limit during an extended schedule until 10:00 p.m. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner mentions an injury to the principles of legality, legislative reservation, and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; however, he does not substantiate in what way the content of the accused provisions violates those constitutional principles and rights, but rather, his claim revolves around what he considers an inadequate classification of the center of Liberia as a receiving zone, by virtue of the cultural activities taking place in Parque Mario Cañas Ruiz. Thus, the claims brought by the petitioner relate to what he terms an infra-legal normative antinomy and the incorrect application of the challenged decree, which evidently constitutes a legality conflict that must be aired in the competent ordinary jurisdiction, such that this unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) is inadmissible by reason of its subject matter.\n\n**IV.- CONCLUSION.** As a corollary to the foregoing, this action must be rejected outright (rechazar de plano), as is hereby ordered.\n\n**V.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE.** The parties are advised that, if they have submitted any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be retrieved from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not retrieved within this period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Plenary Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\nThis action is rejected outright.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresident\n\n||||\n| :---: | :---: | :---: |\n| | | |\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nIn the Constitutional Chamber's analysis of this file, it verified that no records exist of the property ever having been placed under a forest regime, nor does it have any forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that could be considered unusual. Likewise, from the record and the evidence provided, it was established that the property does not have springs (nacientes) or drainage lines within its boundaries that must be protected under current technical regulations for the development of subdivisions (fraccionamientos) for housing purposes. Furthermore, there is no risk management map from the National Emergency Commission (CNE) identifying it as a flood-prone, landslide, or unstable terrain zone, and for this reason it is not subject to the application of the lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) restrictions defined in Article 33 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575. Regarding the testimonial evidence provided in the process, this was analyzed by this Court, specifically the opinion of the municipal engineer Paul Rueda L., who determined, after analyzing the terrain conditions and its surroundings, that the property is suitable for the housing subdivision project proposed by the appellant company.\n\n| |\n| Paul Rueda L. |\n\nMSc. Ramón Vengas N., Expert in Geology, Geotechnical Engineering, and Environmental Management, also provided an expert opinion in this process, determining that the property does not present any restriction regarding land-use or environmental aspects, indicating that limited land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) to implement a housing project is feasible.\n\nThe image appears to be a scanned signature of \"Luis Fdo.\" which is part of a Costa Rican legal document.\n\nSalazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
. – TRIBUNAL AMBIENTAL ADMINISTRATIVO. San José, at eleven o’clock on the twenty-fourth of April, two thousand twenty-three.—-\n\nRESULTANDO\n\n1. That in an official letter dated December 10, 2020, Mr. PATRICK ENNIS JOHNSON and Ms. ADRIANA HERRERA BARQUERO, filed before the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, a complaint for alleged environmental damage within the property inscribed in the province of Guanacaste, under folio real 52050-000. They specifically informed that the company Ecoland Costa Rica LTDA acquired a farm that borders their property, that the representatives of the defendant company separated the property into two lots, obtaining from the Municipality of Carrillo the respective land-use permits (permisos de uso del suelo), as well as the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) granted by SETENA for a tourism development; that the document attached to the respective environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), by means of SETENA Resolution 1612-2005, indicates that there is a spring (naciente) at the southeast end within the property. They also informed of a logging activity that would have affected the spring (naciente) and the permanent protection area of the same.\n\n2. That this Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, by means of Resolution 012-2021 of January 8, 2021, admitted the environmental complaint, granting the complainant parties a period of ten working days to indicate the new evidence offered, and incorporated the documentation attached to the official letter dated December 10, 2020.\n\n3. That by means of the official letter dated January 27, 2021, Mr. PATRICK ENNIS JOHNSON and Ms. ADRIANA HERRERA BARQUERO, provided the new evidence offered.\n\n4. That in Resolution 112-2021 of March 23, 2021, the aforementioned documentary evidence was admitted and incorporated into the administrative environmental file.\n\n5. That in Resolution 201-2021 of May 20, 2021, the preliminary inspection was ordered, scheduled for July 2, 2021.\n\n6. That in Resolution 723-2021 of August 16, 2021, the municipality of Carrillo was requested to report on the urban planning regulations and the status of the land-use permits (permisos de uso del suelo).\n\n7. That in Resolution 150-2022 of March 4, 2022, the Central Regional Office of SINAC-ACOSA was informed of the environmental complaint.\n\n8. That through office SINAC-ACOSA-CR-091-2022, the Central Regional Office of the Área de Conservación Osa forwarded copy of the field inspection report conducted on one of the lots affected by logging.\n\n9. That in Resolution 002-2023 of January 6, 2023, the preliminary inspection was ordered, scheduled for January 27, 2023.\n\n10. That on February 10, 2023, through office TAA-064-2023, the Central Regional Office of ACOSA was requested to report on the investigations and actions taken regarding the file opened by said Regional Office, to which no response has been received.\n\n11. That in the proceedings, the formal and substantive legal requirements have been met, and no grounds for nullity capable of invalidating what has been acted upon have been observed.\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI. ON THE FACTS. The complainants stated that the company Ecoland Costa Rica LTDA acquired a farm that borders their property, property under folio real 52050-000, which, according to them, has a logging plan and a development for tourism purposes, and upon its execution, they have perceived effects both on the permanent protection area of the spring (naciente) and on its forest cover (cobertura boscosa). Specifically, the complainants pointed out: \"The complaint is about the logging of trees in the forest in the protection area of the spring (naciente) on the property of Ecoland Costa Rica Ltda. The logging includes large trees up to 40+ meters tall. In 2020, the logging increased and most of the large trees were cut down. We could hear the logging from our house and the chainsaws working to cut the trees all day for several weeks. The logging drastically reduced the forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and last year (2020) the spring (naciente) dried up completely for the first time in our 25 years living on our property. We suspect that the logging in the protection area of the spring (naciente) is affecting the flow of the same. That is why we are before this Tribunal requesting an investigation into the logging of the forest in the protection area of the spring (naciente). In addition, among the trees that were cut down, we could recognize species such as pochote, ron ron, oak, holywood, cedar and mahogany. These species were cut down, leaving only the stumps. There are also monkeys, iguanas, armadillos, skunks, raccoons and many birds that depend on the forest. Some of them we already see less than before.\"\n\nGiven the facts stated by the complainants, it is important to note:\n\nIn the first place, regarding the logging, the complainants' request is aimed at determining whether the logging carried out by the defendant company caused an environmental damage on their property, which is evidenced by the decrease in flow and drought of the spring (naciente), as well as the effects on the area of protection of the spring (naciente) regulated by the Ley Forestal. In this regard, the reports of the inspection carried out by SINAC and the Tribunal show that on the property of the company Ecoland Costa Rica Ltda, the logging that occurred eliminated almost the entirety of the trees in a mature secondary forest area and that said logging activity was carried out without having the respective logging permit. In this regard, it is necessary to point out that the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was granted for a tourism development but that said environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) does not include the logging permits, nor the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) permits, nor the construction permits, which must be processed before the respective institutions.\n\nThus, from the documentation that appears in the file, it is clear that the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was granted for a tourism development, but the logging did not have the respective permit from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado), which is the competent body to authorize it, according to the provisions of the Ley Forestal. Consequently, this Tribunal warns that the logging carried out constitutes an activity contrary to the law, which was carried out without the corresponding permit and which produced an environmental damage, consisting of the loss of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) in a mature secondary forest area. The logging that was carried out constituted a land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) and contrary to the provisions of the Ley Forestal, it was carried out without the respective permit. In this regard, in section IV, the corresponding administrative sanctioning procedure will be analyzed.\n\nIn second place, regarding the effects on the water resource, specifically on the spring (naciente) located in the protection area, according to the complainants’ assertions, the water flow decreased and there have been periods where the spring (naciente) dried up, a situation that had not occurred before. However, from the technical assessments provided by the inspections and reports in the file, it is possible to demonstrate that, effectively, there is a spring (naciente) located at coordinates 10.392334, -85.700339, but there is no certainty that the logging in the property of the defendant company is the cause of such decrease in flow, nor that the logging occurred within the protection area of said spring (naciente). On the contrary, in the technical report prepared by SINAC, it was determined that the spring (naciente) is located on the property of the complainants and that the logging occurred more than 100 meters from the site, therefore, the protected area of the spring (naciente) was not affected. However, given the circumstances described, it is determined that there is no proof in the administrative file of a direct relationship between the logging carried out and the flow of the spring (naciente), so it is not possible to establish a causal link between the logging and the decrease in flow of the spring (naciente).\n\nNotwithstanding the above, the logging that occurred in the property of the company Ecoland Costa Rica Ltda constitutes an environmental damage, because it was carried out in a mature secondary forest area without the respective permit from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado). As indicated, the logging eliminated almost the entirety of the trees in said area and therefore, a sanctioning procedure will be followed for this fact. In the following section, the environmental regulations violated with the logging will be analyzed, as well as the reparation measures that must be applied.\n\nII. VIOLATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK. In the process of analysis that has been carried out on the merits of the case, it is concluded that the logging executed without the corresponding permit, violated the provisions of Articles 18 and 19 of the Ley Forestal, which establish:\n\n\"Article 18: The State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) may authorize logging in forests, the use of timber from trees, including those that are on agricultural or livestock lands without forest, through forest management plans and inventories, as well as logging permits for specific cases and special permits.\"\n\n\"Article 19: Authorization to cut trees. The following authorizations from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) are required: a) To cut trees in forests, even if they are from natural regeneration, forest plantations, trees planted as live fences, windbreaks, and those considered endangered. b) For the logging of trees in protected wild areas, as long as it is compatible with and allowed by the respective management plan, prior justification. c) For land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), defined as the total or partial elimination of tree cover, and for earthworks (movimientos de tierra), drainage, soil drying, or flooding, when it is not necessary to carry out an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA).\"\n\nThe logging that was carried out on the property of the defendant company is part of the land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) since, as proven in the file, the logging aimed to change the land use to develop a tourism project. The aforementioned Article 19 establishes that any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) requires authorization from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado), a permit that, in this case, was not requested or processed, which makes it illegal. In addition, as has been indicated, the logging eliminated practically all the trees in the affected area, which constitutes the total elimination of the forest cover (cobertura boscosa), an activity that required the respective environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) from SETENA, which was processed and granted, but did not exempt from obtaining the logging permit from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado). This situation constitutes a clear violation of the cited regulations, since the logging permits are not implicit in the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) granted by SETENA, but must be processed independently. Consequently, the logging carried out on the property of the company Ecoland Costa Rica Ltda, without the respective permit from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado), constitutes a violation of the forestry regulations, which causes environmental damage that must be repaired.\n\n**REGISTRATION NOTES:** With the publication of this executive decree, the Regulation to the Forestry Law (Reglamento a la Ley Forestal) is published as Annex 1 (Anexo 1) forming an integral part of this executive decree. The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and the Regional Council of the Brunca Conservation Area (ACOSA) will provide the necessary follow-up for the proper compliance of the provisions herein established. In accordance with Article 5 of the General Law of Public Administration (Art. 5 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), the Administrator is subject to the rule of law. Therefore, the instruction for the fulfillment of the basic rights and duties established by the Costa Rican legal system must be promoted and directed towards its end. The inviolability of persons and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are unavoidable premises of respect for human dignity. This executive decree shall govern as of its publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta. (File SINAC-ACOSA-001-2024).\n\n**Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE.—** The President of the Republic and the Minister of Environment and Energy, Pursuant to the powers conferred by Articles 140, sections 3 and 18, and 146 of the Political Constitution; Articles 25, 27 paragraph 1, 28 paragraph 2(b) of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), Law No. 6227; Law No. 7575, Forestry Law (Ley Forestal); Executive Decree No. 25721-MINAE, Regulation to the Forestry Law, and Executive Decree No. 42633-MINAE-MOPT-MIVAH-S-MAG.\n\n**Whereas:**\n\n| I.— | That the Forestry Law, Law No. 7575, in its Article 6, establishes that the State, through the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), shall ensure the protection, conservation, and management of the natural forests and the forest cover (cobertura boscosa) of the national territory, as well as the restoration of priority areas through the Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA) program. |\n| II.— | That the forest cover of the Brunca Conservation Area (ACOSA) constitutes a strategic resource for the protection of water resources, biodiversity, and the scenic beauty of the region, which sustains local economic activities such as ecotourism, the provision of water for human consumption, and hydroelectric generation, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation to the Forestry Law. |\n| III.— | That in file SINAC-ACOSA-001-2024, a technical study is recorded that supports the modification of the boundaries of the La Amistad International Park buffer zone in the sector of the canton of Coto Brus, establishing restrictions on land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) to guarantee the connectivity of the forest cover and the protection of the springs (nacientes) that supply the aqueducts administered by the ASADA of Sabalito and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA). |\n| IV.— | That the technical opinion of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE), the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), and the National Council of Rectors (CONARE) has been obtained, as provided for in Article 19 of the Regulation to the Forestry Law with respect to the regulation of land use in areas adjacent to Protected Wild Areas. |\n| V.— | That the Governing Council, in session No. 42 of October 11, 2024, approved the issuance of this Regulatory Plan for the Sabalito-Miraflores Biological Corridor, which establishes the technical guidelines for the sustainable development of the region, including the delimitation of protection zones for springs, the establishment of biological connectivity corridors, and the regulation of land-use change for agricultural and urban activities, in accordance with Constitutional Chamber Vote 4654-2003. |\n\n**Therefore,**\n\n**THEY DECREE:**\n\n**REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE SABALITO-MIRAFLORES BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR, COTO BRUS CANTON**\n\n**Article 1.—Object.** The present Regulatory Plan establishes the technical guidelines and regulations for land use in the territory that makes up the Sabalito-Miraflores Biological Corridor, located in the canton of Coto Brus, province of Puntarenas. The purpose of this regulatory instrument is to guarantee the protection of water resources, the conservation of forest cover and biodiversity, and the sustainable development of productive activities, in compliance with the provisions of the Forestry Law, Law No. 7575, and the Regulation to the Forestry Law, Executive Decree No. 25721.\n\n**Article 2.—Application Area.** The provisions of this Regulatory Plan shall apply to the geographical area delimited by the following coordinates according to the CR05 projected coordinate system of the National Geographic Institute (IGN), as detailed in Annex 1 (Anexo 1) of this executive decree:\n\n| Vertex ID | East (X) | North (Y) |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| SM1 | 569100.48 | 986500.55 |\n| SM2 | 571250.00 | 986500.55 |\n| SM3 | 571250.00 | 984200.00 |\n| SM4 | 569100.48 | 984200.00 |\n\n**Article 3.—Definitions.** For the purposes of this Regulatory Plan, in addition to the definitions contained in the Forestry Law and its Regulations, the following are established:\n\na) **Protection Zone for Springs:** Area of land with a radius of 200 meters around the spring (naciente) measured horizontally, where land-use change and forest cover clearing are prohibited, in accordance with Voto 4654-2003 of the Constitutional Chamber and Article 33 of the Forestry Law.\n\nb) **Biological Connectivity Corridor:** Strip of forest cover of at least 20 meters wide on each bank of rivers and streams, measured from the maximum ordinary water level, intended to maintain the connectivity of forest ecosystems and the protection of aquatic resources.\n\nc) **Sustainable Use Zone:** Area where agricultural, livestock, ecotourism, and low-impact urban development activities are permitted, subject to the environmental management guidelines established in Annex 2 (Anexo 2) of this decree.\n\nd) **Restricted Subdivision (Fraccionamiento) Zone:** Area where subdivision of lands for urbanization purposes is subject to the prior approval of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) and the emission of an environmental feasibility from the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), in accordance with Executive Decree No. 31849.\n\n**Article 4.—Land-Use Classification.** The territory comprised within the limits described in Article 2 is classified into the following land-use categories, which are spatially represented in the map of Annex 1:\n\n| Category | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| Absolute Protection | Areas of primary forest cover, paramos, and springs, where all types of logging or land-use change activities are prohibited. |\n| Riparian Forest | Strips of biological connectivity corridors along permanent rivers, streams, and water bodies. |\n| Agroforestry Use | Areas destined for productive activities under agroforestry systems, silvopastoral systems, and best agricultural practices. |\n| Low-Impact Urban Use | Areas suitable for urban and tourism development, subject to environmental viability and the provisions of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU). |\n\n**Article 5.—Regulated Activities.** The following activities are subject to environmental viability by the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) prior to their execution within the territory of the Biological Corridor:\n\na) Land-use change for agricultural, livestock, or forestry activities in parcels greater than two hectares.\n\nb) Subdivisions for urban, tourist, or industrial purposes, regardless of the area of the land, in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Regulation (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento) applicable in the matter.\n\nc) Earthworks (movimientos de tierra) that alter the natural drainage of springs or wetlands, including the channelization of streams and the construction of drainage works.\n\nd) Water concessions for agricultural irrigation, aquaculture, or industrial activities, which must guarantee the ecological flow of the affected bodies of water according to the technical provisions issued by the Water Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE).\n\n**Article 6.—Easements (Servidumbres).** The properties included within the Protection Zone for Springs, defined in Article 3(a) of this Regulatory Plan, are affected by a lifetime environmental easement (servidumbre ambiental de irreductibilidad) for the protection of the forest cover and the water recharge of the aquifers. The JASEC and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA), as operators of the public water supply systems for the populations of Sabalito and Miraflores, are responsible for the registration of the respective easements before the National Registry, in coordination with the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and the Institute of Rural Development (INDER).\n\n**Article 7.—Payment for Environmental Services (PSA).** The National Forestry Financing Fund (FONAFIFO), in coordination with the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), shall prioritize the allocation of resources from the Payment for Environmental Services (PSA) and Protection of Water Resources (PSAH) programs to properties located within the absolute protection and riparian forest zones defined in the map of Annex 1, with the purpose of economically compensating owners for the conservation of forest cover, the protection of biodiversity, and the generation of water resources for human consumption.\n\n**Article 8.—Technical Studies.** The National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (ICT), and the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) must coordinate with the Municipalities of Coto Brus and the Institute of Rural Development (INDER) the preparation of the following technical studies within a maximum period of eighteen months from the publication of this decree:\n\na) Cadastral Map of the Sabalito-Miraflores Biological Corridor, at a scale of 1:10,000, based on the orthophoto of the National Geographic Institute (IGN) and the Cadastre Directorate database.\n\nb) Hydrological study for the delimitation of the maximum ordinary water level of the Sabalito, Miraflores, and secondary streams, with the support of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE) and the National Meteorological Institute (IMN).\n\nc) Diagnosis of the demand for urban land and projection of population growth, prepared by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) with the technical support of the National Council of Rectors (CONARE).\n\n**Article 9.—Compliance Follow-up.** The Brunca Conservation Area (ACOSA), as the regional operational unit of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), shall be responsible for verifying compliance with the provisions of this Regulatory Plan and the technical guidelines established in Annexes 1 and 2 (Anexo 1 y Anexo 2). To this end, it shall coordinate with the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), the municipalities, the Public Force, and the National Emergency Commission (CNE) the corresponding operational actions. The violations of the provisions of this decree shall be sanctioned in accordance with the Forestry Law and the General Law of Public Administration, without prejudice to any civil, administrative, or criminal responsibilities that may be incurred.\n\n**Article 10.—Effective Date.** This executive decree shall govern as of its publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta. It is decreed at the Presidency of the Republic.—San José, on the twenty-fourth day of October, two thousand and twenty-four.\n\n8. **Diamantinal Trail Section II (Sendero Diamantina Tramo II):** This trail is located in the community of Santa Elena de Pérez Zeledón, in the sector known as Sector Diamantina, on a street that goes from the community aqueduct spring (naciente del acueducto comunal) to the properties of Don Pedro Pérez, and continues above the community aqueduct spring (naciente del acueducto comunal) at 1700 meters above sea level. It is an area made up of small hills or mounds, low vegetation (mosses, grasses, herbaceous plants, etc.). It is an area rich in springs (nacientes). The depth at which the water table is found ranges from 1 to 2 meters. There are soil sealing processes, caused by livestock trampling - the passage from one pasture to another, towards the spring (naciente). There is evidence of earthworks (movimientos de tierra). The trail is located in a protection zone for springs (nacientes). There is a growth of \"sombrilla de pobre\" (*Gunnera insignis*), \"cola de gallo\" (*Equisetum bogotense*), and \"lengua de vaca\" (*Hydrocotyle sp.*). No trees were observed in the area. It is a steeply sloping trail with steps, suitable for hiking. The borders of the trail are delimited by the presence of \"helecho lengua de venado\" (*Elaphoglossum lingua*), \"suro\" (*Chusquea sp.*), and \"mora\" (*Rubus urticifolius*). Along the trail there are fences (live and dead) demarcating the boundaries of the properties. On the right side of the trail, a slope with erosion problems generated by runoff and an old earthwork (movimiento de tierra) was observed. There is a fence that was placed to stabilize the slope, but it is not fulfilling its function. Along the trail there are some drains or sewers that are partially clogged. In some sectors there is no drainage, so runoff runs directly onto the street, washing away material from the street itself (sand, gravel, stones, etc.).\n\n9. **Biodiversity Analysis:** Based on the review of satellite images from 2005 and 2017, the comparison of land cover (cobertura) for the area delimited by the upper part of the micro-basin shows that forest cover (cobertura boscosa) decreased by 4.4 ha, pasture cover (cobertura de pastos) decreased by 3.2 ha, and urban cover (cobertura urbana) increased by 8.8 ha. Additionally, based on the query of the “Atlas of the 2008 Ecosystems,” the study area is located within the Montane Pluvial Forest Sector of the Talamanca Mountain Range and the Alto de los Robles and Bosque de los Niños Forest Reserve, according to the SINIG (National Geographic Information System). Furthermore, it encompasses ecosystems within the PMC-LCD Montane Pluvial Forest, almost the entire study area is made up of towns and farmland, with remnants of Montane Pluvial Forest. The remaining forest patches have tree species characteristic of the area, such as oak (*Quercus*), ira rosa, magnolia, jaúl, cedrillo, ciprecillo, and candelillo, among others. In the sampled areas, the presence of 30 species of birds, 5 species of mammals, and one reptile was observed. A list of observed species, mainly birds, is attached in Anexo 1, as well as photographic records of some observed species (Anexo 2). Finally, it should be noted that with respect to the species listed in lists of endangered species (Executive Decreto N° 31849-MINAE), for this area the presence of the two-fingered sloth (*Choloepus hoffmann*) was observed, a species with reduced populations (R), and other species that are not listed.\n\n10. **Forest Legislation and Connectivity - Decree 31849:** It was verified that the environmental management plan (PGA) is harmonized with current forest legislation, specifically with the provisions of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) (Law 7575) and its Regulations, in terms of the protection of forested areas and restrictions on land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) for the areas identified in the baseline forest cover diagnosis (diagnóstico de cobertura boscosa de la línea base). It is noted that this project does not have a specific forest map, so it was verified by field inspection that there are no tree or shrub layers present in the project site that are subject to any restrictions for the execution of the works.\n\n11. In this same area, a baseline forest cover diagnosis (diagnóstico de cobertura boscosa de la línea base) was prepared, in which 0% forest cover (cobertura boscosa), 10% pasture cover (cobertura de pastos), and 90% urban cover (cobertura urbana) were identified, for a total study area of 1.7 ha, and 0 ha of forest. In terms of connectivity, the project is located within the urban area, not affecting biological corridors or remnant forest patches in the area. On a micro-watershed scale, forest cover (cobertura boscosa) has decreased by 4.4 ha between 2005 and 2017, while urban cover (cobertura urbana) increased by 8.8 ha, accelerating the processes of forest fragmentation in the CF Mc Queen micro-basin. Therefore, from the analysis carried out, it is concluded that no forest ecosystems will be affected by the project, and that the project will not increase forest fragmentation in the area.\n\n12. That all the works described in the construction plan and the environmental management plan (PGA) are located outside the protection zones for springs (zonas de protección de nacientes) that the Forest Legislation establishes in Art. 33 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) of 100 m measured horizontally, or failing that, 50 m in permanent protection areas, for springs (nacientes) located within lands with a land-use capacity for forestry protection or within public domain areas. The Ministry of Environment is empowered to issue standards of general scope regulating the protection of springs (nacientes) and protective zones in relation to urban developments.\n\n13. That the environmental management plan (PGA) is compatible with the SETENA procedure, evaluates environmental impacts, defines appropriate environmental commitment measures (medidas de compromiso ambiental), and establishes monitoring and control plans associated with the construction phase. The environmental management plan (PGA) includes work fronts and a schedule, as well as plans for waste management, emissions, occupational health and safety, erosion and sediment control, and the certification reasoning with which the environmental management plan (PGA) was developed.\n\n14. Therefore, this SETENA, based on the provisions of the Organic Environmental Law, its reforms and its Regulations, the SETENA Regulations of Executive Decreto N° 31849-MINAE, and the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), issues this environmental license, based on the feasibility study prepared by the technical team:\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\n**ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT**\n**NATIONAL TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SECRETARIAT**\n**OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY.**\n**BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 17, 18, 20, AND 21**\n**OF THE ORGANIC ENVIRONMENTAL LAW No. 7554, ITS REFORMS AND**\n**ITS GENERAL REGULATIONS AND ARTICLES 34 TO 62 OF THE REGULATIONS**\n**ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES. AGREES:**\n\n**FIRST:** To grant the environmental license for the project presented by the \"ASOCIACIÓN PRO DESARROLLO DE PÉREZ ZELEDÓN [INVERSIONISTA]\" to be located in the district of San Isidro del General, canton of Pérez Zeledón, province of San José, with a validity period equal to the useful life of the work (five years for construction plus operation), this being 50 years. Maintenance and operation activities must have the applicable legal permits.\n\n**SECOND:** That the developer must comply with all the commitments stipulated in the environmental management plan (PGA) and must abide by what is indicated in the terms of this document and the established FI (Environmental License Forms). The environmental management plan (PGA) must be applied in its entirety, with the environmental commitment measures (medidas de compromiso ambiental) considered mandatory.\n\n**THIRD:** That the Auditor Regent (Regente Ambiental) must comply with Articles 42, 43, and 44 of the Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures. The first environmental monitoring report, prepared by the Auditor Regent (Regente Ambiental) and covering the first 3 months of construction, must be submitted no later than one month after the end of said period to the Plataforma de Servicios SETENA.\n\n**FOURTH:** That the developer is obligated to submit the environmental monitoring reports, which must be prepared by the Auditor Regent (Regente Ambiental), on the dates established by SETENA.\n\nIt is noted that failure to comply with the terms indicated for the submission of reports by the Auditor Regent (Regente Ambiental) may lead to the initiation of the corresponding administrative sanctioning procedure in accordance with the parameters established in Article 99 of the Organic Environmental Law.\n\n**FIFTH:** That the execution of earthworks (movimientos de tierra) during the rainy season must have drainage works and sediment control structures. Likewise, uncovered areas must be reforested or covered in accordance with the stabilization plan outlined in planning, and soil mitigation and protection measures must be implemented.\n\n**SIXTH:** The developer must also comply with all those requirements, permits, and authorizations that other governmental and/or municipal authorities issue in accordance with their legal powers, which complement the environmental license. This certification does not exempt the developer from compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Plan or obtaining the corresponding construction permit issued by the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón. The developer must also comply with what is established in the Regulations for Subdivision (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento) and Urbanization of the INVU, as applicable, and with all the environmental commitment measures (medidas de compromiso ambiental) established in the environmental management plan (PGA).\n\n**SEVENTH:** That for the execution of the project, covered areas must comply with Law 7600 and its Regulations. For the purposes of guaranteeing accessibility, the developer must have the approval of the CTP (Public Transportation Council), attached to the MOPT. Signs, parking spaces, and sanitary services must meet the necessary accessibility requirements for people with disabilities regulated by Law 7600.\n\n**EIGHTH:** That for the operation of the project, the developer is responsible for obtaining and maintaining the corresponding sanitary operating permits issued by the Ministry of Health, complying with the Regulations for the Discharge and Reuse of Wastewater, the National Regulation for the Drinking Water Quality, and the General Regulations for the Provision of Public Drinking Water Services of AyA. Therefore, the actions within the project must be coordinated with AYA or the respective ASADA, regarding the water and sewerage services.\n\n**NINTH:** That the developer is obligated to cancel the respective environmental guarantee (garantía ambiental), in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures. This guarantee (garantía) must be formalized by the developer within a period not exceeding 30 business days following notification of this administrative act, in accordance with the procedures established in resolution No. 1755-2015-SETENA of the Plenary Commission. The environmental performance bond (depósito de garantía ambiental) will be maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 of the EIA Regulations.\n\n**TENTH:** It is warned that this certification does not constitute a permit that authorizes land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), given that this is not permitted. Land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) is subject to compliance with the relevant regulations administered by the SINAC. This certification does not authorize cutting trees, which must be processed before the respective Sub-Regional Office of the corresponding Conservation Area.\n\n**ELEVENTH:** The environmental license forms (FI) that form the basis for this resolution must be duly signed and stamped by the developer and the responsible environmental consultant, in the understanding that the commitments established therein are accepted.\n\n**TWELFTH:** SETENA shall record this certification in the official registry of environmental licenses. The procedure for publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta shall be followed.\n\n**THIRTEENTH:** That in accordance with Article 18 of Decree No. 32966, any party may file an appeal for reconsideration against this administrative act before this Plenary Commission, within a period of three business days following its notification, or an appeal before the Environmental Administrative Tribunal, which must be filed within a maximum period of 5 business days following notification.\n\n**NOTIFICATIONS:**\n\nAgainst this resolution, the legal remedies of the ordinary administrative procedure apply.\n\n- Appeal for Reconsideration before the Plenary Commission of SETENA within 3 business days following notification.\n- Appeal before the Environmental Administrative Tribunal within 5 business days following notification.\n\nIn accordance with the provisions of Articles 245 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, it is hereby notified to:\n\nOmar Chavarría Calderón\nLegal Representative\nASOCIACIÓN PRO DESARROLLO DE PÉREZ ZELEDÓN [INVERSIONISTA]\n\nRosa María Montero Fonseca\nEnvironmental Consultant\n\nLuis Fdo.\n\nSalazar A.
Jorge Araya G.