19 <br />1 and EC9.2751(1)(c)(1) are read to only include those areas listed in EC <br />z 9.2751(1)(c)(1), then EC 9.2751(1)(b) has become wholly superfluous. Only under <br />3 Petitioner's reading will effect be given to each provision of the EC. See ORS <br />4 174.010 ("where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, <br />5 possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.") <br />6 b. The internal circulation area must be removed from the <br />7 net density calculation because it satisfies the definition <br />s of a "street" <br />9 <br />10 As noted above, the "net density" calculation does not include <br />11 streets. See EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1) ("The acreage of land considered part of the <br />12 residential use shall exclude public and private streets and alleys, public parks, and <br />13 other public facilities."). Because, as Petitioners argued below, the paved interior <br />14 circulation areas fall squarely within the definition of "street," those areas must be <br />15 excluded from the "net density" calculation. <br />16 The City concluded that the paved interior circulation areas were "parking <br />17 drives," as that term is defined at EC 9.5500(11)(b). Specifically, that provision <br />18 defines a parking drive to apply to "multiple-family developments with more than <br />19 20 units" if they "emit no through motor vehicle movements." ER-30; ER-7-8 <br />zo ("Lombard requested and was allowed an adjustment for the planned parking <br />21 drives that allow through motor vehicle movement."). In other words, a parking <br />22 drive that has more than 20 units is not intended to allow access to another street, <br />