I We further noted that there is no requirement that uses near all lands <br />2 zoned commercial or industrial must be limited to compatible uses, and the <br />3 fourth paragraph is only applicable "where the local government has designated <br />4 certain commercial or industrial zoned land for specific commercial or <br />5 industrial uses with special site requirements." 28 Or LUBA at 693. Petitioners <br />6 have not demonstrated that the Light Industrial (LI) zoning that applies in the <br />7 Coburg NIA is for "specific commercial or industrial uses with special site <br />8 requirements," or includes any specific and special site requirements for <br />9 particularized uses. Therefore, the fourth paragraph of Goal 9 is inapplicable <br />10 and does not provide a basis for remand. <br />11 Petitioners' first argument that the proposed east-west bypass will <br />12 effectively remove land from the county's or city's inventory of land for <br />13 industrial or commercial uses is similarly without merit. The LI zone lists eight <br />14 uses. Petitioners' Appendix F. As we have already explained, those uses are <br />15 not "specific commercial or industrial uses with special site requirements." In <br />16 fact, the eighth listed use in the LI zone is "[t]ransportation facilities consistent <br />17 with the City's Transportation System Plan[.]" The LI zone applied to the NIA <br />would not interfere with development of the site for the <br />intended use; and <br />"(c) Where necessary to protect the site for the intended <br />industrial or commercial use, include measures which either <br />prevent or appropriately restrict incompatible uses on <br />adjacent and nearby lands." <br />Page 11 <br />