I identified no error in LUBA's ruling that the internal parking circulation areas were "not <br />2 created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more lots or parcels" <br />3 but, instead, "are designed primarily to provide vehicular circulation to parking spaces in <br />4 the apartment complex" for residents and visitors. Because the internal parking <br />5 circulation areas meet the definition of parking drives, and do not meet the definition of <br />6 streets, LUBA did not err in affirming the inclusion of the acreage used for the internal <br />7 parking circulation areas in the net-density calculation. <br />8 CONCLUSION <br />9 In sum, we conclude that LUBA's order is unlawful in substance in that it <br />10 misconstrues EC 9.2751 with respect to the leasing office, but LUBA did not err with <br />11 regard to the maintenance building or the internal parking circulation areas. <br />12 Reversed in part and remanded. <br />17 <br />