I "1. The acreage of land considered part of the residential use shall <br />2 exclude public and private streets and alleys, public parks, and other public <br />3 facilities." <br />4 With respect to the leasing office and the maintenance building, the <br />5 fundamental disagreement between the parties is what it means for land to be "in actual <br />6 residential use and reserved for the exclusive use of the residents in the development." <br />7 EC 9.2751(1)(b). With respect to the internal parking circulation areas, the disputed issue <br />8 is whether those areas qualify as "streets," such that they must be excluded from the <br />9 calculation under EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1). We consider each argument in turn, addressing the <br />10 leasing office and the maintenance building together because they raise similar legal <br />11 construction issues. <br />12 LEASING OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING <br />13 Everyone agrees that the planned development includes a leasing office and <br />14 a maintenance building. Indeed, the site plan shows two stand-alone buildings near the <br />15 River Road entrance to the complex, the larger of which is identified as "Leasing Office," <br />16 and the smaller of which is identified as "Maintenance/Bike Storage" (with a notation of <br />17 36 bike storage spaces). Without mention of specific buildings, the application also <br />18 describes the planned development as including "leasing," "bicycle storage," and <br />19 "maintenance storage." Beyond that, however, the record is silent as to the intended <br />20 purposes of the buildings at issue. The only other information about them comes <br />21 indirectly from the LUBA proceedings. Before LUBA, petitioners argued, and the <br />22 developer did not dispute, that the leasing office would permit nonresidents to "inquire <br />4 <br />