Case Name: LBJ MOTEL CORPORATION et al, Appellants, v. SALEM, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1978-09-25
Citations: 36 Or. App. 323
Docket Number: No. 103762, CA 10548
Parties: LBJ MOTEL CORPORATION et al, Appellants, v. SALEM, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson, Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 36
Pages: 323–325

Head Matter:
Argued September 19,
affirmed September 25, 1978
LBJ MOTEL CORPORATION et al, Appellants, v. SALEM, Respondent.
(No. 103762, CA 10548)
584 P2d 361
Gary E. Rhoades, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was O’Donnell, Rhoades & Gerber, Portland.
Jeannette M. Launer, Assistant City Attorney, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was William J. Juza, City Attorney, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson, Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners obtained a writ of review seeking review of the decision of the City of Salem adopting a sign ordinance eliminating free-standing signs. The circuit court quashed the writ and petitioners contend on appeal that the writ of review is a " proper remedy for challenging failure to apply the LCDC [Land Conservation and Development Commission]' goals to a legislative land-use decision." Assuming, arguendo, that a sign ordinance is a land-use decision, the fact remains that a legislative land-use decision is not subject to judicial scrutiny in a writ of review proceeding. Parelius v. City of Lake Oswego, 22 Or App 429, 539 P2d 1123 (1975); Culver v. Dagg, 20 Or App 647, 532 P2d 1127, rev den (1975).
Affirmed.