I Respondents offer a number of responses to petitioners' arguments, but <br />2 cite only one relevant finding, which does not address the alleged impacts of <br />3 the proposed east-west bypass on the NIA. <br />4 It is certainly possible that the east-west bypass envisioned by the TSP <br />5 amendment might negatively impact the loading docks and parking associated <br />6 with the two buildings the east-west bypass would pass between, if that <br />7 roadway is actually constructed in the location shown in the amended TSP.g <br />8 But the fourth paragraph of Goal 9 does not operate in the broad way that <br />9 petitioners argue. The "specific industrial and commercial uses" that the fourth <br />10 paragraph of Goal 9 refers to are limited to "specific commercial or industrial <br />11 uses with special site requirements." Opus Development, 28 Or LUBA at 693. <br />12 We explained in Opus Development, 28 Or LUBA at 692, that OAR 660-009- <br />The TSP Amendment's brief finding on Goal 9 provides: <br />"The Coburg TSP is consistent with this goal because it reinforces <br />the City's freight network with transportation projects that will <br />provide access to freight facilities and employment sites. Adopting <br />the TSP will ensure that transportation improvements will be <br />available to support the planned uses in the City's employment <br />areas, consistent with other local economic development goals that <br />are consistent with Goal 9." Record 790. <br />8 Respondents contend the TSP only displays the general location for the <br />east-west bypass, and that when the specific location for the east-west collector <br />is selected, appropriate measures can be imposed at that time to mitigate any <br />impacts there might be to existing businesses in the Coburg NIA. <br />Page 9 <br />