GILLETTE, P. J.
Affirmed.
GILLETTE, P. J.
Plaintiffs, certain counties, cities and special districts located, with two exceptions, in the western portion of the state, mount a blunderbuss attack on the validity of the legislative act which created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (Or Laws 1973, ch 80) and the statewide planning goals thereafter promulgated by the Commission pursuant to that act. The trial judge dismissed the case on cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Not to be confused with "a 720 degree whiff of grapeshot," Neuberger v. City of Portland, 37 Or. App. 13, 586 P.2d 351 (1978), a "shotgun blast," Norvell v. LGBC, 43 Or. App. 849, 604 P.2d 896 (1979), or a "disparate, scattered attack," Marquam Investment Corporation v. Beers, 47 Or. App. 711, 615 P.2d 1064 (1980).
Plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that the trial court dismissed this case on the ground that plaintiffs were estopped to contest the matters they raise because they had entered into contractual relationships with the Commission. While we cannot determine for certain that the trial court's ruling was based in whole or in part on this theory, the respondents defend the decision as if it was so grounded. If it was, it was error. See Belton v. Buesing, 240 Or. 399, 411-412, 402 P.2d 98 (1965).
This error does not help plaintiffs, however, because, on the merits, we find no basis to sustain any of their attacks on the act or the goals. See, e.g., LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or. 137, 576 P.2d 1204 (1978), aff'd on rehearing 284 Or. 173, 586 P.2d 765 (1978); Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or. App. 59, 586 P.2d 367 (1978), rev den 286 Or. 303 (1979); Fifth Avenue Corporation v. Washington County, 282 Or. 591, 581 P.2d 50 (1978).
Affirmed.