I specific industrial and commercial uses to those which are compatible with <br />2 proposed uses." We turn to petitioners' second argument first. <br />3 Petitioners argue that the proposed east-west bypass would cut directly <br />4 through the NIA and significantly interfere with the NIA's ability to continue <br />5 to provide regional employment opportunities. Petitioners cite to the testimony <br />6 of Steve Lee to the board of commissioners, which alleged that the east-west <br />7 bypass would severely damage the ability of current NIA industrial users to <br />8 continue operations. Petitioners' Appendix C 1-3. That testimony is further <br />9 supported by Kelly Sandow, a civil engineer who explained how the bypass <br />10 might damage industrial operations by rendering loading docks unusable and <br />11 impairing the use of a parking lot at two existing buildings. Record 851-856. <br />12 Petitioners note that the TSP findings do not address the east-west bypass <br />13 road's impact on the NIA and the city's Economic Opportunity Analysis did <br />14 not account for any loss of employment land capacity due to the east-west <br />15 bypass road's impact. Petitioners assert that the city must explain how the NIA <br />16 will be able to retain existing jobs if it is disrupted by the new east-west <br />17 bypass.6 <br />6 Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0025(1), the TSP "constitute[s] the land use <br />decision regarding the need for transportation facilities, services and major <br />improvements and their function, mode, and general location." <br />Page 8 <br />