I development site, the planning director shall round down to the previous whole <br />2 number.") <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />Before LUBA, in the first assignment of error, petitioners argued that the <br />planning commission misconstrued applicable law in calculating the subject <br />property's maximum net density. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D). Petitioners argued that <br />the planning commission improperly included in the acreage calculation a leasing <br />office, maintenance building, and internal parking circulation areas. We <br />concluded that those areas could be included in the net density calculation and <br />affirmed the planning commission's decision. <br />Petitioners sought judicial review of our decision. In the sole assignment <br />of error, petitioners argued that LUBA's order is unlawful in substance because <br />it misconstrues EC 9.2751 by affirming the city's decision to include the leasing <br />office, maintenance building, and internal parking circulation areas in the net <br />density calculation. With respect to the leasing office, petitioners argued that <br />building is not "in actual residential use and reserved for the exclusive use <br />of the residents in the development." EC 9.2751(1)(b). The court affirmed our <br />decision that the planning commission properly included the maintenance <br />building and internal parking circulation areas in the net density calculation. <br />However, the court agreed with petitioners that the leasing office should have <br />been excluded from the acreage used to calculate net density. The court reasoned: <br />"We conclude that the leasing office is not acreage `in actual <br />residential use and reserved for the exclusive use of the residents <br />in the development,' EC 9.275 1 (1)(b), and that LUBA therefore <br />Page 5 <br />