B-09 (NPA-2017-0021.01 - 4530 E. Ben White Blvd; District 3) — original pdf

Backup

Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET March 12, 2019 January 22, 2019 DATE FILED: July 31, 2017 (In-cycle) NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: East Riverside/Oltorf Combined CASE#: NPA-2017-0021.01 PROJECT NAME: East Riverside/Oltorf FLUM Amendment PC DATE: May 12, 2020 March 24, 2020 (hearing canceled) Jan. 28, 2020 Dec. 10, 2019 June 25, 2019 May 28, 2019 April 9, 2019 ADDRESS: 4530 E. Ben White Blvd. DISTRICT AREA: 3 SITE AREA: 12.44 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: 4530 East Ben White Associates, LLC (Trevor Belton, November 27, 2018 October 23, 2018 September 11, 2018 July 24, 2018 June 26, 2018 February 27, 2018 January 23, 2018 May 8, 2018 March 27, 2018 Authorized Signatory) AGENT: Coats Rose (John M. Joseph) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith, Planning & Zoning Department PHONE: (512) 974-2695 EMAIL: Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Single Family & Commercial (as amended) To: Mixed Use Base District Zoning Change: 1 NPA-2017-0021.01 1 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Related Zoning Case: C14-2019-0167 From: CS-CO-NP & SF-2-NP To: CS-MU-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: November 16, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: May 12, 2020 – Pending March 24, 2020 – Public hearing was cancelled. Case was re-notified for May 12, 2020 hearing. January 28, 2020 – Postponed to March 24, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of the Applicant.[J. Thompson- 1st; A. Azar – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [P. Seeger absent]. December 10, 2019 – Postponed to January 28, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of the Applicant. [C. Kenny – 1st; A. Azhar – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [C. Hempel and P. Howard abent] June 25, 2019 – Indefinitely postponed on the consent agenda at the request of the Applicant. [P. Howard – 1st; C. Kenny – 2nd] 11-0 [P. Seeger and J. Shieh absent]. May 28, 2019 – Postponed to June 25, 2019 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [J. Shieh – 1st; P. Howard – 2nd] Vote: 12 -0 [K. McGraw absent]. April 9, 2019 – Postponed to May 28, 2019 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [J. Thompson -1st; C. Kenny – 2nd] Vote: 9-0 [K. McGraw, R. Schneider and P. Seeger absent]. March 12, 2019 – Postponed to April 9, 2019 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [P. Seeger 1st; K. McGraw – 2nd] Vote; 12-0 [A. De Hoyos Hart absent]. January 22, 2019 – Postponed to March 12, 2019 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [J. Schissler – 1st; C. Kenny – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [A. De Hoyos Hart and P. Seeger absent]. November 27, 2018 – Postponed to January 22, 2019 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [Y. Flores – 1st – P. Seeger – 2nd] Vote: 12-0 [D. Anderson absent]. October 23, 2018 – Postponed to November 27, 2018 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [P. Seeger; C. Kenny -2nd] Vote: 11-0 [A. De Hoyos Hart absent. One vacancy]. September 11, 2018 – Postponed to October 23, 2018 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [J. Schissler – 1st; J. Thompson – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [P. Seeger absent. One vacancy]. 2 2 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 July 24, 2018 – Postponed to September 11, 2018 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [G. Anderson- 1st; A. De Hoyos Hart – 2nd] Vote: 8-0 [F. Kazi, J. Shieh, J. Thompson, and T. White absent. One vacancy]. June 26, 2018 – Postponed to July 24, 2018 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [F. Kazi – 1st; T. White – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [J. Thompson absent. One vacancy]. May 8, 2018 – Postponed to June 26, 2018 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [J. Schissler – 1st; C. Kenny – 2nd] Vote: 13-0. March 27, 2018 – Postponed to May 8, 2018 on the consent agenda at the request of Staff. [G. Anderson – 1st; J. Thompson- 2nd] Vote: 12-0 [P. Seeger absent]. February 27, 2018 – Postponed on the consent agenda to March 27, 2018 at the request of Staff. [J. Schissler – 1st; J. Shieh – 2nd] Vote: 12-0 [J. Thompson absent]. January 23, 2018 – Postponed on the consent agenda to February 27, 2018 at the request of Staff. [P. Seeger – 1st; G. Anderson -2nd] Vote: 10-0 [K. McGraw absent. A. De Hoyos Hart and J. Schissler off the dais]. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The property is within 2,000 feet of hazardous material which makes the request not suitable for a residential development. For more information, please see the zoning case report C14-2019-0167. 3 3 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Single family - Detached or two-family residential uses at typical urban and/or suburban densities. Purpose 1. Preserve the land use pattern and future viability of existing neighborhoods; 2. Encourage new infill development that continues existing neighborhood patterns of development; and 3. Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible business or industry and the loss of existing housing. Application 1. Existing single‐family areas should generally be designated as single family to preserve established neighborhoods; and 2. May include small lot options (Cottage, Urban Home, and Small Lot Single Family) and two‐family residential options (Duplex, Secondary Apartment, Single Family Attached, Two‐Family Residential) in areas considered appropriate for this type of infill development. Commercial - Lots or parcels containing retail sales, services, hotel/motels and all recreational services that are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit (for example, theaters and bowling alleys). Included are private institutional uses (convalescent homes and rest homes in which medical or surgical services are not a main function of the institution), but not hospitals. 4 4 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Purpose 1. Encourage employment centers, commercial activities, and other non‐ residential development to locate along major thoroughfares; and 2. Reserve limited areas for intense, auto‐oriented commercial uses that are generally not compatible with residential or mixed use environments. Application major highways; and 1. Focus the highest intensity commercial and industrial activities along freeways and 2. Should be used in areas with good transportation access such as frontage roads and arterial roadways, which are generally not suitable for residential development. PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Mixed Use - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and non‐residential uses. Purpose 1. Encourage more retail and commercial services within walking distance of residents; 2. Allow live‐work/flex space on existing commercially zoned land in the neighborhood; 3. Allow a mixture of complementary land use types, which may include housing, retail, offices, commercial services, and civic uses (with the exception of government offices) to encourage linking of trips; 4. Create viable development opportunities for underused center city sites; 5. Encourage the transition from non‐residential to residential uses; 6. Provide flexibility in land use standards to anticipate changes in the marketplace; 7. Create additional opportunities for the development of residential uses and affordable 8. Provide on‐street activity in commercial areas after 5 p.m. and built‐in customers for local housing; and businesses. Application 1. Allow mixed use development along major corridors and intersections; 5 5 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 2. Establish compatible mixed‐use corridors along the neighborhood’s edge 3. The neighborhood plan may further specify either the desired intensity of commercial uses (i.e. LR, GR, CS) or specific types of mixed use (i.e. Neighborhood Mixed Use Building, Neighborhood Urban Center, Mixed Use Combining District); 4. Mixed Use is generally not compatible with industrial development, however it may be combined with these uses to encourage an area to transition to a more complementary mix of development types; 5. The Mixed Use (MU) Combining District should be applied to existing residential uses to avoid creating or maintaining a non‐conforming use; and 6. Apply to areas where vertical mixed use development is encouraged such as Core Transit Corridors (CTC) and Future Core Transit Corridors. IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANNING PRINCIPLES 1. Create complete neighborhoods across Austin that provide a mix of housing types to suit a variety of household needs and incomes, offer a variety of transportation options, and have easy access to daily needs such as schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and other recreation options. • The property is located along E. Ben White Blvd which is not conducive for pedestrians and bicyclist and has no public transportation located near it. See map below. Although the applicant’s proposal to build multifamily housing would provide additional housing types, it is located in an industrial area that has hazardous material within 2,000 feet of the property. Please see the associated zoning case report C14-2019-0167. 2. Support the development of compact and connected activity centers and corridors that are well-served by public transit and designed to promote walking and bicycling as a way of reducing household expenditures for housing and transportation. • The property is located along the frontage road of E. Ben White Blvd and does not have vehicular access to any other road. E. Ben White Blvd is not conducive for walking and bicycling. There does not appear to have public transportation near the property. See map below. 3. Protect neighborhood character by ensuring context-sensitive development and directing more intensive development to activity centers and corridors, redevelopment, and infill sites. • The property is located north of the McKinney Center industrial node as identified on the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map and less than 1000 feet east of Burleson Road, which is identified as an Activity Corridor. 6 6 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 4. Expand the number and variety of housing choices throughout Austin to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • Although the applicant’s proposal to build multifamily units on the property would expand the number of housing choices, this location is not suitable. 5. Ensure harmonious transitions between adjacent land uses and development intensities. • The zoning case report, C14-2019-0167, states the property is within 2,000 feet hazardous materials and is not suitable for residential development. 6. Protect Austin’s natural resources and environmental systems by limiting land use and transportation development over environmentally sensitive areas and preserve open space and protect the function of the resource. • The property is located near a creek with floodplain and potential creek buffer. 7. Integrate and expand green infrastructure—preserves and parks, community gardens, trails, stream corridors, green streets, greenways, and the trails system—into the urban environment and transportation network. • The applicant proposes to expand a walking trail. 8. Protect, preserve and promote historically and culturally significant areas. • Not applicable. 9. Encourage active and healthy lifestyles by promoting walking and biking, healthy food choices, access to affordable healthcare, and to recreational opportunities. • The property is located along a highway which would not be conducive to walking and bicycling, although there is a proposed walking trail. 10. Expand the economic base, create job opportunities, and promote education to support a strong and adaptable workforce. • Not applicable. creative art forms. • Not applicable. 11. Sustain and grow Austin’s live music, festivals, theater, film, digital media, and new 12. Provide public facilities and services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease water and energy usage, increase waste diversion, ensure the health and safety of the public, and support compact, connected, and complete communities. • Not applicable. 7 7 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Proximity to Imagine Austin Activity Corridors and Centers 8 8 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Proximity to Parks 9 9 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Proximity to Public Transportation IMAGINE AUSTIN GROWTH CONCEPT MAP Definitions Neighborhood Centers - The smallest and least intense of the three mixed-use centers are neighborhood centers. As with the regional and town centers, neighborhood centers are walkable, bikable, and supported by transit. The greatest density of people and activities in neighborhood centers will likely be concentrated on several blocks or around one or two intersections. However, depending on localized conditions, different neighborhood centers can be very different places. If a neighborhood center is designated on an existing commercial area, such as a shopping center or mall, it could represent redevelopment or the addition of housing. A new neighborhood center may be focused on a dense, mixed-use core surrounded by a mix of housing. In other instances, new or redevelopment may occur incrementally and concentrate people and activities along several blocks or around one or two intersections. Neighborhood centers will be more locally focused than either a regional or a town center. Businesses and services—grocery and department stores, doctors and dentists, shops, branch libraries, dry cleaners, hair salons, schools, restaurants, and other small and local businesses—will generally serve the center and surrounding neighborhoods. Town Centers - Although less intense than regional centers, town centers are also where many people will live and work. Town centers will have large and small employers, although 10 10 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 fewer than in regional centers. These employers will have regional customer and employee bases, and provide goods and services for the center as well as the surrounding areas. The buildings found in a town center will range in size from one-to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses, to low-to midrise apartments, mixed use buildings, and office buildings. These centers will also be important hubs in the transit system. Job Centers - Job centers accommodate those businesses not well-suited for residential or environmentally-sensitive areas. These centers take advantage of existing transportation infrastructure such as arterial roadways, freeways, or the Austin-Bergstrom International airport. Job centers will mostly contain office parks, manufacturing, warehouses, logistics, and other businesses with similar demands and operating characteristics. They should nevertheless become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, in part by better accommodating services for the people who work in those centers. While many of these centers are currently best served by car, the growth Concept map offers transportation choices such as light rail and bus rapid transit to increase commuter options. Corridors - Activity corridors have a dual nature. They are the connections that link activity centers and other key destinations to one another and allow people to travel throughout the city and region by bicycle, transit, or automobile. Corridors are also characterized by a variety of activities and types of buildings located along the roadway — shopping, restaurants and cafés, parks, schools, single-family houses, apartments, public buildings, houses of worship, mixed-use buildings, and offices. Along many corridors, there will be both large and small redevelopment sites. These redevelopment opportunities may be continuous along stretches of the corridor. There may also be a series of small neighborhood centers, connected by the roadway. Other corridors may have fewer redevelopment opportunities, but already have a mixture of uses, and could provide critical transportation connections. As a corridor evolves, sites that do not redevelop may transition from one use to another, such as a service station becoming a restaurant or a large retail space being divided into several storefronts. To improve mobility along an activity corridor, new and redevelopment should reduce per capita car use and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Intensity of land use should correspond to the availability of quality transit, public space, and walkable destinations. Site design should use building arrangement and open space to reduce walking distance to transit and destinations, achieve safety and comfort, and draw people outdoors. BACKGROUND: The plan amendment application was filed on July 31, 2017, which is in- cycle for neighborhood planning area located on the east side of I.H-35. The applicant proposes to change the future land use map (FLUM) from Single Family and Commercial to Mixed use. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from SF-2-NP and CS-CO-NP to CS-MU-NP for a multifamily development. Please see the zoning case report C14-2019-0167 for more information. 11 11 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Over the last eleven months or so, the property owner has been in negotiations with the City of Austin to possibly purchase the property which is why the case has been postponed numerous times. As of October 30, 2018 communication with the City’s Real Estate Department has confirmed that the property owner has declined the City’s appraised amount to purchase the property. Parks and Recreation Department and Watershed Department was looking at the property for a possible connection to Country Club Creek Trail Project and also for the critical environmental features. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance required community meeting was held on September 19, 2017. Approximately 126 community meeting notices were mailed to people who have an Austin utility account or own property within 500 feet of the property, in addition to neighborhood organizations and environmental groups who requested notification on the Community Registry for this area. Eighteen people attended the meeting, including one city staff member and John Joseph, the applicant’s agent. After a brief presentation from City staff about the planning process and the applicant’s request, John Joseph, the applicant’s agent, made the following presentation. Mr. Joseph said the property is currently zoned CS-CO-NP with a conditional overlay that prohibits many uses. There has been no interest in the property for commercial use and the owner is trying to liquidate the estate. The property has limited access so the owners thought it would be better for a small or medium-size multifamily use and not commercial uses. They don’t have a design for the proposed multifamily use, nor have do they have an idea of the number of dwelling units. There is no access to the north, east, or west. The only access is to the south on East Ben White Boulevard so there should be little impact on traffic on East Ben White Boulevard. After his presentation, the following questions were asked: Q. How many acres is the property? A. There’s a total of 12 acres, but only seven acres are usable because there is a creek on the property. Q. What are the uses to the right of the property? A. There’s a church and a radio station. Q. What is the net site area after the slopes? A. That hasn’t been computed yet. Q. Is the property platted? A. Yes, but for commercial uses. We will need to replat to remove the restrictions on the plat. Q. Where will the access be? A. All access will be off East Ben White Blvd. 12 12 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Q. How many stories would the buildings be? A. We don’t know yet, but we would meet the compatibility standards. The church would trigger compatibility. Q. Is there an environmental report? A. Not yet, but one will be done. Q. When will it be done? A. When the planned use is determined, there will be a site plan submitted then and an environmental report will be submitted. This will happen no matter how we develop the property. Q. I have a question about process….You submitted a plan amendment case but no zoning case. A. We’re trying to avoid spending money unless we know what you say. If we thought we could get the zoning, then we’d file the zoning case. Q. You said there is no interest in commercial uses on the property. A. Yes, there has been zero interest in commercial. Q. Our neighborhood plan says that property was a former land fill. A. I don’t know if it was a landfill, but a landfill must be certified when it’s closed. Q. During the neighborhood planning process we thought the property would be best as parkland. A. The City has not approached us. If they want to buy it, they can contact us. Q. The setback for waterways is 100 feet? A. It depends on the type of waterway. Q. Why would you request Mixed Use instead of Multifamily land use? A. Mixed Use allows for a combination of retail and residential. We’re not ruling out commercial uses. Q. What is the value of the property? A. I don’t have numbers, besides, I couldn’t really tell you that. Q. What is at the north of the property? A. There is a gas line utility easement. CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 1, 2018 ACTION: Postponed to March 22, 2018 at the request of staff. [D. Garza – 1st; A. Kitchen – 2nd] Vote 11-0 13 13 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 ACTION: Postponed to April 26, 2018 at the request of staff. [D. Garza – 1st; P. Renteria – 2nd] Vote: 8-0 [G. Casar and E. Troxclair off the dais. L. Pool was absent]. ACTION: Postponed to June 28, 2018 at the request of Staff. [O. Houston – 1st; D. Garza – 2nd] Vote: 9-0 [A. Alter off the dais. E. Troxclair absent]. ACTION: Postponed to August 9, 2018 at the request of Staff. [E. Troxclair – 1st; D. Garza – 2nd] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Postponed to September 20, 2018 at the request of Staff. [K. Tovo- 1st; D. Garza – 2nd] Vote: 10-0 [O. Houston off the dais]. ACTION: Postponed to November 15, 2018 at the request of Staff. [L. Pool – 1st; A. Kitchen – 2nd] Vote: 10-0 [A. Alter absent]. ACTION: Postponed to December 13, 2018 at the request of Staff. [D. Garza – 1st; L. Pool – 2nd] Vote: 10-0 [E. Troxclair off the dais. ACTION: Postponed to February 7, 2019 at the request of Staff. [A. Alter – 1st; G. Casar – 2nd] Vote: 9-0 [Mayor Adler off the dais and P. Renteria absent]. ACTION: Postponed to April 11, 2019 at the request of Staff. [P. Renteria – 1st; J. Flannigan – 2nd] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Postponed to June 6, 2019 at the request of Staff. [J. Flannigan – 1st; P. Renteria – 2nd] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Postponed to June 20, 2019 at the request of Staff. [J. Flannigan – 1st; P. Renteria – 2nd] Vote: 10-0. [N. Harper- Madison absent]. March 22, 2018 April 26, 2018 June 28, 2018 August 9, 2018 September 20, 2018 November 15, 2018 December 13, 2018 February 7, 2019 April 11, 2019 June 6, 2019 14 14 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 ACTION: Postponed to August 8, 2019 at the request of Staff. [L. Pool – 1st; N. Harper- Madison – 2nd] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Postponed indefinitely at the request of Staff. [L. Pool – 1st; P. Renteria – 2nd] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Postponed to April 9, 2020 at the request of Staff. [D. Garza – 1st; P. Renteria – 2] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Postponed to May 21, 2020 at the request of Staff. [K. Tovo-1st; P. Ellis – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 ACTION: Pending. June 20, 2019 August 8, 2019 February 20, 2020 April 9, 2020 May 21, 2020 15 15 of 34B-09Applicant Summary Letter from Application Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 16 16 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 17 17 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Applicant’s Letter Amending Application From: Kelly Wright [mailto:kwright@coatsrose.com] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 12:44 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: John M. Joseph <jmjoseph@coatsrose.com>; Colleen Martin <cmartin@coatsrose.com> Subject: RE: Question: NPA-2017-0021.01_ 4530 E Ben White Blvd. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Maureen, We would like to amend our application to change the FLUM from Single Family and Commercial to Mixed Use. When we submitted the NPA Application we were unaware that the property included a small portion of property that had a Single Family FLUM designation. Thank you!! Kelly Wright Entitlements Manager COATS|ROSE A PROFESSIONAL COR PORATION Terrace 2 2700 Via Fortuna, Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78746 Direct: 512.541.3599|Cell: 254.537.2444|Fax: 512.469.9408 KWright@coatsrose.com www.coatsrose.com ** Effective December 1, 2019, our Austin office address will now be Terrace 2, 2700 Via Fortuna, Suite 350, Austin, Texas 78746 ** 18 18 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Letter of Recommendation from the Neighborhood Plan Contact Team (NPCT) From: Malcolm Yeatts Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2019 4:23 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: 'John M. Joseph' <jmjoseph@coatsrose.com> Subject: NPA-2017-0021.01 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** The EROC Contact Team has been working with the owner of the property at 4530 East Ben White for two years to reach an agreement on land use. The EROC Contact Team has voted to support this NPA with the understanding that the property owner will work with the city staff to create a Recreational Use Easement on the property. The Contact Team would like the Planning Commission to include in their recommendation to Council the agreement that the EROC Contact Team and the owner have made with the owner that will improve pedestrian connectivity in this area. This agreement includes public easement along the boundaries of the property. The EROC Contact Team would like City Council to direct the City Manager to allocate resources to create a Recreational Use Easement on this property in accordance with the agreement. Attached are presentations on the connectivity improvements and the Agreement with Attachments. Please include this information in the folder for the Planning Commissioners. Malcolm Yeatts Chair, EROC Contact Team 19 19 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 20 20 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 21 21 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 22 22 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 23 23 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 24 24 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 25 25 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 26 26 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 27 27 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 28 28 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 Site 29 29 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 30 30 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 31 31 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 32 32 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 33 33 of 34B-09Planning Commission hearing: May 12, 2020 34 34 of 34B-09