I However, that restriction may be adjusted, EC 9.5500(11)(e), and, in this case, the <br />2 developer requested and received an adjustment to allow through traffic on the internal <br />3 parking circulation areas. <br />4 It is undisputed that the two internal circulation areas in dispute here will be <br />5 lined with parking spaces "along a significant portion of their length," and the site plan <br />6 shows that to be the case. Nonetheless, petitioners contend that they are actually <br />7 "streets," as defined in EC 9.0500, and therefore should have been excluded from the net- <br />8 density calculation. See EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1) (stating that, for purposes of calculating net <br />9 density, "public and private streets" shall be excluded from "the acreage of land <br />10 considered part of the residential use"). In relevant part, EC 9.0500 defines a "street" as <br />11 "[a]n improved or unimproved public or private way, other than an alley, that is created <br />12 to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more lots or parcels." <br />13 (Emphasis added.) <br />14 LUBA ruled that the internal parking circulation areas are not streets, <br />15 because they were "not created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or <br />16 more lots or parcels," but, instead, "are designed primarily to provide vehicular <br />17 circulation to parking spaces in the apartment complex" for residents and visitors and, <br />18 therefore, are parking drives. Further, LUBA "agree[d] with the city that the adjustment <br />19 to the parking area that allows internal traffic circulation from access points on both <br />20 River Road and Lombard [Street] does not transform the parking drives into streets." <br />21 Petitioner argues that, because the internal parking circulation areas allow <br />15 <br />