East Bellevue residents packed the King County Superior Court of Appeals Division I on Monday morning to hear the arguments for a long-simmering land-use case.

Counsel for Puget Sound Energy told the panel of three judges that the East Bellevue Community Council had overstepped its bounds in rejecting a conditional use permit for a 115-Kilovolt transmission line between the Lake Hills and Phantom Lake substations.

“It acted outside the authority granted to it by the legislature,” said Rita Latsinova, counsel for PSE.

The counsel for the community council, Cathleen Haggard, said that not only was the council’s decision well-within its legal bounds, but that PSE had not demonstrated the need for the project in the first place, and the city erred in permitting it.

Furthermore, she said, by using the term “urban boulevard” in comprehensive plan documents, the city had itself given reason to not place power lines on 148th Avenue Northeast for aesthetic reasons.

“When you weigh the considerations, the aesthetics versus the goal of reliability, it doesn’t come out in favor of the project,” Haggard said before adding a caveat in the legal language of some EBCC written documents. “It’s not worded as elegantly as it could be.”

Last June, the community council rejected the Puget Sound Energy conditional use permit and application, citing more than a dozen legal arguments for opposing a transmission line project largely in the council’s area of jurisdiction.

The plan was to run the 115-kV line 2.89 miles between two substations, running along Southeast 16th Street, 148th Avenue Northeast and Northeast Eighth Street. The vast majority of the route is through the community council’s territory. The city of Bellevue approved the permit, the EBCC rejected it.

The utility company filed suit, claiming the community council had overstepped its bounds.

According to a paragraph on the city of Bellevue’s website, the East Bellevue Community Council “is empowered by state law with approval/disapproval authority over certain land-use actions in a part of East Bellevue. The EBCC may also act in an advisory capacity on other land-use issues that directly or indirectly affect its jurisdiction.”

The council won the suit, with King County Superior Court Judge William Downing affirming the council’s right to make decisions regarding a land-use permit for a transmission project. Puget Sound Energy appealed in December of 2015.

One of the utility company’s main arguments is that language provided by the community council in a resolution all but calls for a ban on transmission and distribution power lines in the 148th corridor. Banning outright is not legal, and the council must review on a case-by-case basis.

“The resolution reads “obviously, an urban boulevard cannot have transmission lines,”” Latsinova said. “The community council has an advisory role, not a legislative one and it has exceeded its authority.”

She added that the term “urban boulevard” has no significant regulatory meaning.

“The EBCC can strike any balance it wants,” Latsinova said. “But no amount of balancing bans transmission lines on 148th.”

Haggard countered by saying that city officials communicated to the council using the term urban boulevard, so it was responding to that communication.

“Boulevards are different,” she said.

Boulevards have a legal definition in some states as “adapted and set apart for purposes of ornament, exercise, and amusement.” The community council is alleging that transmission lines on that road would strip the pleasing views along that thoroughfare (and in fact, the PSE permit would have removed nearly 300 mature trees. However, it had agreed with the city of Bellevue to pay $856,000 to replace the trees and add more landscaping in a five-year plan).

“Power lines are not consistent with the goal of aesthetics,” Haggard said.

Bill Capron, chair of the East Bellevue Community Council, said he was confident the appeals court would maintain judge Downing’s initial ruling.

“Downing understands land-use cases very well and is well respected in that field,” he said.

The appeal could be decided in the next few weeks or it could take up to six months.

Haggard and Latsinova elected not to comment after the hearing. Calls to PSE were not returned by press time.