Table of Contents <br />1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />1 <br />A. Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought <br />1 <br />B. Nature of the Final Agency Decision Sought to be Reviewed <br />1 <br />C. Jurisdiction <br />1 <br />D. Timeliness of the Appeal <br />2 <br />E. Question Presented <br />2 <br />F. Summary of Arguments <br />2 <br />IL FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR - LUBA erred in affirming the Planning <br />Commission's interpretation of the Eugene Code, finding that the leasing office, <br />maintenance shed, and streets within the proposed apartment complex did not need <br />to be excluded from the "net density" calculation <br />6 <br />A. Preservation of Error <br />6 <br />B. Standard of Review <br />6 <br />C. Argument <br />7 <br />1. Legal Background <br />7 <br />2. Petitioners argument below <br />8 <br />3. LUBA's Decision <br />9 <br />a. LUBA's decision regarding the leasing office and maintenance shed ......9 <br />b. LUBA's decision regarding parking drives and streets ...........................11 <br />4. Analysis ....................................................................................................12 <br />a. The leasing office and maintenance shed must be removed from the net <br />density calculation because neither is for the actual or exclusive residential <br />use ...................................................................................................................13 <br />b. The internal circulation area must be removed from the net density <br />calculation because it satisfies the definition of a "street" .............................19 <br />IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................21 <br />