I an apartment and the maintenance building is also not reserved for the exclusive <br />2 use of the residents.2 <br />3 The planning commission reasoned that EC 9.2751(1)(c) provides a <br />4 specific manner to calculate net density and noted that, unlike subsection (1)(b), <br />5 subsection (1)(c) "excludes any references to resident-only exclusivity." Record <br />6 26. The planning commission reasoned that the leasing office and maintenance <br />7 building support the residential use and will serve apartment complex residents <br />S and "employees carrying out functions directly related to maintenance and <br />9 operations of the residential use." Record 26. The planning commission observed <br />10 that those areas are "[i]n no way * * * public facilities for the purpose of <br />11 calculating density." 7d. <br />12 We disagree with petitioners that EC 9.2751(1)(b) contains independent <br />13 approval criteria. In Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 70 Or <br />14 LUBA 132, 140 (2014), rev'd and rem'd on other grounds, 269 Or App 176, 344 <br />15 P3d 503 (2015), the opponents challenged the city's net density calculation where <br />2 In its response brief, Lombard argues that the net density standard in EC <br />9.2751 is ambiguous, not "clear and objective," and thus cannot be applied to its <br />application to develop housing in light of the limitation in ORS 197.307(4), <br />which we set out below under the second assignment of error. See n 3. However, <br />Lombard does not assign error to the city's determination that EC 9.2751 <br />constitutes applicable criteria in its cross-petition for review and Lombard may <br />not challenge the applicability of EC 9.2751 in its response brief. We deny the <br />first assignment of error and express no opinion on Lombards' argument that the <br />net density standard in EC 9.2751 cannot be applied. <br />Page 10 <br />