I and apply to lease an apartment. "2 As for the maintenance building, petitioners argued, <br />2 and the developer did not dispute, that it would not be "reserved for the exclusive use of <br />3 the residents," which, based on the parties' arguments, appears to refer to the fact that <br />4 nonresident maintenance staff would use the building to perform maintenance work at the <br />5 complex. <br />6 Notwithstanding the minimal information in the record about the leasing <br />7 office and the maintenance building, we must construe EC 9.2751 and endeavor to apply <br />8 it correctly based on the information that we have. In that regard, we are in the same <br />9 position as the city and LUBA were. We focus on LUBA's order, because it is the order <br />10 on review, but note that LUBA largely agreed with the city's analysis. <br />11 As to the leasing office and the maintenance building, LUBA began its <br />12 discussion by noting the planning commission's focus on EC 9.2751(1)(c) as providing "a <br />13 specific manner to calculate net density" and not containing "any references to resident- <br />14 only exclusivity." LUBA then stated that it "disagree[d] with petitioners that EC <br />15 9.2751(1)(b) contains independent approval criteria." In LUBA's view, so long as areas <br />16 are "not open to the public, but instead are spaces used exclusively to support the <br />17 residential use of the property," they may be included in the "net density" calculation, <br />18 even if they are "not in actual residential use (such as a dwelling) or reserved for the <br />2 On review, respondent developer refers to the leasing office as "leasing/resident <br />amenity building," but nothing in the record supports that description, and the hearings <br />official, the planning commission, and LUBA all referred only to a "leasing office." <br />5 <br />