I motor vehicle movement. EC 9.5500(11)(e); EC 9.8030(8)(e). Petitioners do not <br />2 challenge that adjustment. <br />3 Petitioners argue that the internal parking circulation area constitutes a <br />4 "street" that should be excluded from the acreage used for the density calculation <br />5 under EC 9.275 1 (1)(c)(1), which provides that "[t]he acreage of land considered <br />6 part of the residential use shall exclude public and private streets." The planning <br />7 commission determined that the adjustment did not transform the parking drive <br />8 into a street and concluded that the area of land used for the parking drive area <br />9 could be included in the net density calculation. Record 26. <br />10 The parking drives are within the apartment complex and lined with head- <br />11 in parking spaces along a significant portion of their length. Record 221. The <br />12 parking drives are not "created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic <br />13 to one or more lots or parcels" within the meaning "street" as defined at EC <br />14 9.0500. The parking drives are designed primarily to provide vehicular <br />15 circulation to parking spaces in the apartment complex for parking for resident <br />16 and visitor access to the apartments. We agree with the city that the adjustment <br />17 to the parking area that allows internal traffic circulation from access points on <br />18 both River Road and Lombard Lane does not transform the parking drives into <br />19 streets. Thus, the city did not err by include the parking drive area in the net <br />20 density calculation. <br />Page 8 <br />