I Petitioners' reliance on Friends of Yamhill County is misplaced. LUBA <br />2 simply concluded in Friends of Yamhill County that "the Oregon Employment <br />3 Department job growth projection rate authorized by OAR 660-024- <br />4 0040(9)(a)(A) and the coordinated population forecast projection rate <br />5 authorized by OAR 660-024-0040(9)(a)(B) are mutually exclusive <br />6 alternatives." 62 Or LUBA at 30. We concluded the city could not switch <br />7 back and forth between those methodologies for different industries. Id. at 30- <br />8 31. That is not what occurred here. We agree with intervenor on this point, and <br />9 also agree that Friends of Yamhill County does not support the proposition that <br />10 a government cannot use both the safe harbor provision to project the city's <br />11 population growth based employment land needs and seek to capture additional <br />12 regional employment opportunities by allocating land to capture such regional <br />13 employment growth. <br />14 This subassignment of error is denied. <br />15 D. Double Counting Job Numbers for Large Lot Industrial <br />16 Petitioners also argue that the use of both the projected local <br />17 employment needs (Scenario A) in addition to regional needs (Scenario B) <br />18 double counts those large lot industrial jobs because large lot industrial jobs are <br />19 already a subset of Scenario A. <br />20 Intervenor-Respondent responds: <br />expansion. Industrial or other employment uses with <br />compatible site characteristics may be grouped together into <br />common site categories." <br />Page 60 <br />