I the city included in the acreage calculation areas encumbered by easements for <br />2 sewer and water lines. The opponents argued that those easements should not be <br />3 counted as part of the residential use because they are "other public facilities" <br />4 and not "reserved for the exclusive use of the residents in the development." Id. <br />5 We affirmed the city's determination that those areas need not be excluded from <br />6 the density calculation because the sewer and water lines are not "public <br />7 facilities" contemplated in EC 9.2751(1)(c). Id. at 142. We agreed with the city's <br />8 interpretation that EC 9.2751(1)(b) must be read together and applied in harmony <br />9 with EC 9.2751(1)(c). Id. We concluded that even though the areas of land that <br />10 included the easements were not in actual residential use (such as a dwelling) or <br />11 reserved for the exclusive use of the residents the development (such as a <br />12 common amenity area), those areas could be included in the net density <br />13 calculation. Id. <br />14 That same reasoning applies to the leasing office and maintenance building <br />15 areas in this case. The city's decision harmonizes EC 9.2751(1)(b) and EC <br />16 9.275 1 (1)(c)(1) and correctly concludes that the maintenance area and leasing <br />17 office can be included in the net density calculation because those areas are not <br />18 open to the public, but instead are spaces used exclusively to support the <br />19 residential use of the property. <br />20 The first assignment of error is denied. <br />Page 11 <br />