Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-26 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity , Development Department Planning DMxian SuiWirg Saloy Division Environmental Sails Division P,fl_ Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)360-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.ug/cdd/` MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JANUARY 26, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Merle Irvine. Members present were Vice Chair Chris Brown, Ed Criss, Todd Turner, Richard Klyce, Bill Rainey and James Powell. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING, continued, possible DELIBERATION: PA -1 1 -51TA-1 1-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner (1.5 hours). Peter showed some slides with an overview of the process to date. Vice Chair Brown and Peter discussed prioritization of projects. Public Comments: Heather Richards, CDD Director for Redmond, testified regarding the Quarry Avenue interchange and said that the City of Redmond would like to see it kept in the TSP. Commissioner Powell asked if the intersection could be relocated. Heather said it would have to go through a Goal 3 process. A significant analysis would be required. Commissioner Powell asked about affected properties and whether there would be clearer routes in another direction. Heather said that if the Goal 3 process is slowed down, they would be happy to submit it as a separate application. They had conversations with property owners and only a few would be affected. Nick added that the Quarry Avenue interchange was placed on the map as the most reasonable location. As Redmond completes the plan for road alignment, the location may shift. Heather said they are trying to keep it as consistent as they can with what is already on the map. Quality Services Perfionned with Pride Rick Coffin testified that he loosely represents a group of property owners on the northwest side of 97. He discussed the proposed language for the frontage road. If the median extends northward from Deschutes Junction to Ewe Avenue, it will greatly impact the people with conditional use permits. He proposed wording to allow an alternative to provide some kind of a turnout. The High Desert Museum, for example, has a similar situation and will have to provide some interim way to turn in. The businesses north of Deschutes Junction would like to see something similar and are very open to participating in the discussions and planning for a frontage road for better access. Carolyn Perry asked how the illustrative list and project list differ. Peter said the project list is a 20 -year list. The illustrative list is more of a "wish list" for projects more than 20 years out. Carolyn said she would like to advocate for the median being removed from the TSP. They would like to continue to develop a plan with ODOT to maintain safe access. Commissioner Powell asked Carolyn about discussions regarding safe bike routes for children and people who had said they had problems with their children having a safe route to school. Is there a list of roads that the TSP should consider for bike safety? Carolyn agreed there is a need, and kids and parents should receive a questionnaire. Right now they do not feel it is safe. Chair Irvine and the Commissioners discussed how to proceed. Commissioner Turner suggested that the oral and written testimony be closed this evening and deliberations begin at the next meeting. Commissioner Criss agreed with Commissioner Turner. Vice Chair Brown agreed. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to close the written and oral testimony and begin deliberations at next meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Discussion: Commissioner Powell asked Nick if we could explain to the public what closing the oral and written testimony really means. Nick said that no new information can be provided to the Commission that could be used as the basis for a decision. As a practice, we have to forward any comments to the Planning Commission no matter when they are received. Also, the Board's record will be open when anything is forwarded to them. Vote: Motion passed. IV. DELIBERATION continued: TA -11-3, Commercial Events Text Amendments in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone — Nick Lelack, Planning Director (1.5 hours). Nick spoke about the matrix and said he is not introducing anything new into the record. Chair Irvine mentioned issues raised in the staff report that were discussed at the last meeting and requested Nick go through those and highlight them. Nick said that regarding noise, clearly the biggest issue, we had looked at the extended mass gatherings ordinance as a basis for how to address sound. He had also provided responses from other counties regarding their ordinances. Staff proposed a decibel level of 65 rather than 70 since these events could occur more often than those under mass gatherings. It was also the level used by several other counties, and we considered tapering the level as the evening progresses. 2 Vice Chair Brown said he had looked at the comments from the Sheriff's Department, and he is a bit concerned about the change from 70 to 65 dB. He would like to see the decibel limits match the outdoor mass gathering limits. Commissioner Criss said he agreed and thought it would be easier to enforce than having to consider what type of permit the event was being held under. Also, there is no distance mentioned in the mass gathering permit and it is not enforceable. He felt that the property line is the best place to take a decibel reading. Commissioner Turner felt that these two types of events are very different. He felt that if the Sheriff can enforce a 55 -mph limit on one road and a 45 -mph limit on another, it should be the same with decibels. Commissioner Rainey felt that he tended to agree with Commissioner Turner's original position that no amplification be allowed. He could be persuaded to go for 50 dB between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and no amplification after 8 p.m. Nick said he also had suggested that Country Gatherings propose a ten -acre minimum for any amplification. Commissioner Turner spoke about how dB increases — it is not a linear progression. Commissioner Klyce said he would support the criteria indicated by staff for noise levels, with the exception of 65 dB instead of 70 for consistency. This could be used County -wide, not just for events. Commissioner Powell said he did not find any access provisions in the matrix. There is a provision for enforcement of noise in mass gatherings, and part of a permit should include access for inspectors or whoever needs to be there for enforcement. Also, when the noise level is restricted starting at 10 p.m., there is no waiver for people leaving the premises at that time. Nick said it could be interpreted as any noise, including noise from people leaving the property. He wrote it as addressing sound - producing devices and did not include traffic, but perhaps we should include that. Commissioner Rainey asked if the amplified music could then continue all through the night at the 50 dB level. Commissioner Powell said he wondered if the assumption was that the event ended at 9:30, and by 10:00 whatever you measured at the property line would meet these standards. Commissioner Klyce asked who needed access to the property. Commissioner Powell said there is a provision in the mass gathering permit to allow sanitation inspectors, etc. Commissioner Klyce said he thought that law enforcement could gain access anywhere they wished. Commissioner Powell said that when Deputy Nelson was here, he indicated they had to have permission to enter the property. Nick read from the permit which had specific language regarding granting access to the property. Vice Chair Brown said we had discussed this before and a strong consensus was reached that access was appropriate and language should be on the application; also, Commissioner Powell had pointed out a flaw - decibels are not just limited to amplified sound. Commissioner Rainey asked why we think that, in these types of events, amplified sound should be allowed all through the night. These will be a lot more frequent than mass gatherings. Commissioner Turner said that 45 dB is a level that awakens a sleeping person, so if we allow 50 dB all night long it will be disturbing. Sixty dB is the sound of a vacuum cleaner. Chair Irvine asked if the events would stop at a certain time and if so, why we are concerned with a dB reading after 10:00. Commissioner Criss mentioned testimony where people had complained about events continuing after they were supposed to be over. Also, the 70 dB would not be heard by someone sleeping in their bed because the level would be taken at the property line and also would be affected by trees, buildings, etc. 3 Most of the complaints he has heard about seem to be from people some distance away from these events. Have we had any complaints about mass gatherings that exceeded the noise levels? We need to look at this realistically. Maybe we also need to include language that amplified music needs to stop at 10:00. Chair Irvine felt that when we said the event had to be over, we need to consider the whole event and not just sound amplification. Commissioner Rainey again said that a mass gathering happens once every three months, and it is easier to be accommodating. If events will be occurring throughout the summer, people will not be as tolerant. Commissioner Powell mentioned the concept of changing times and use of outdoor amplified sound. If we allow a ten -acre lot minimum and say they have to reduce amplified sound by a certain hour, maybe they can continue in an indoor structure. He also would not support fireworks. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned to set the dB level at 70 between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Commissioner Powell said that Commissioner Turner's comment about increasing dB was correct - going from 60 to 70 dB involves twice the energy, and pressure is also a consideration. Vice Chair Brown added that we are considering daylight hours, since it stays light until 10:00 in the summer. Vote: Motion passed. Vice Chair Brown suggested removing the section with language indicating "amplified from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m." Nick said that if we remove it, we could say explicitly that amplified music is not allowed after 10 p.m. Also, language stating "plainly audible" is difficult to interpret. Commissioner Powell said that if someone is used to ambient noises, even a faint noise can be audible if it is different from the norm. Commissioner Turner asked why we are allowing a minimum sound level at all between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., since 40 dB can wake someone up. Commissioner Powell and Commissioner Turner discussed enforcement if the event has to end at 10:00. Nick suggested that a section of the Code be applicable. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned that between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., the County noise ordinance shall prevail. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Vote: Motion passed. The Commissioners discussed the references to "plainly audible." Commissioner Rainey suggested leaving the term in and defining it. Motion: Vice Chair Brown moved to delete the definition of "plainly audible" from (c), (d) and (f). Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Discussion: Commissioners Criss and Powell discussed noise control ordinance and enforcement. Commissioner Rainey commented that he bought 20 acres in a rural setting in the country; if he goes to bed at 9:00 he doesn't want to hear rhythmic base from an adjoining parcel. He didn't move to the country to have his peace and quiet interrupted by noise from events. His property rights include the right to quiet and peacefulness. Commissioner Criss asked if Commissioner Rainey could hear someone talking at his property line and Commissioner Rainey said that had not happened to him yet. 4 Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to cut off the level at 9:00 p.m. for noise amplification. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Commissioner Turner amended his motion for event hours to be from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. Discussion: Nick asked if this was for both event and sound levels and the Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Rainey said he was okay with the time of the event running from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m., with the time of amplification running from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. Commissioner Powell said that if times are limited by dB levels, then an event could wind down by 9:30 to meet the described dB levels. Commissioner Turner withdrew his motion and wanted to change the time from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. for amplification; the event could continue until 10 p.m. Commissioner Rainey said it was hard for him to conceive of an event starting at 7 a.m. with amplified sound. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to set the limit on sound amplification from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., and event time until 10 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Discussion: Commissioner Powell said that if the key is decibels at a property line at a certain point in time, used as a means to control noise - if the decibels are set at 70 until 10:00 at night and you want people to be out by 9:00, there is a disconnect. Commissioner Turner said his motion was to discontinue amplified sound at 9:00 with the event continuing until 10:00 so people can disburse. Commissioner Klyce said if the line is 10:00, people have to start shutting down before then and it all comes out the same. Chair Irvine felt that if we say everything has to be completed by 10:00 and that means stopping amplification at 9:00 or 9:30, the event manager would be responsible. Remember the permit is for two years and if someone is in violation, the permit will not be renewed. Vice Chair Brown felt the event operators will be willing to cooperate and should make the call. They want their clients and the citizens to be happy. He does not want to set a second bar regarding amplification at 9:00. Commissioner Rainey said that during the week he gets up early and later on weekends. There will be others who sleep later, so the point is that staff's original proposal of sound amplification between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. was reasonable, with events from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. He would vote against Commissioner Turner's motion. Vote: Motion failed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved that the time of events be from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. and sound amplification from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Vote: Motion failed. Nick suggested that the decibel level be set at 70 from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m., and all noise is controlled by the noise ordinance from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. Motion: Chair Irvine motioned that events be allowed from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m., with a decibel reading of 70 applicable during that time. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. 5 Discussion: Commissioner Powell wanted to clarify with Nick whether there was a change from staff's recommendation. Nick also wanted to clarify that these decisions would be consistent with SB960 and HB3280. Commissioner Turner commented that if this passes, the Commissioners will be doing a disservice to rural residents. Commissioner Rainey agreed. Commissioner Powell asked Commissioner Turner why he felt this way, and Commissioner Turner said it relates to both time and decibel levels. Vote: Motion passed. The Commissioners discussed tying the number of people at events to lot size. Nick also said that 3280 relates to wineries and we may not able to tie event size to that. We cannot be less restrictive than State law. They also have to build to commercial standards. Commissioner Turner said that he would like to present the idea that event size be capped at 250 no matter what the property size. There is a big difference between a mass gathering of 500 people and events we are considering. We could stay with 125 people up to 40 acres and up to 250 people over that. Commissioner Rainey asked about owners who wanted to host 350 people, so they don't fit within either category. Nick said that one of the things SB960 said was that different categories cannot be combined on a single property. People are not allowed to apply for another type of permit once they have a permit, but they can apply for a mass gathering permit for 350 people. Chair Irvine asked how this would be enforced. How do you stop the 126th person from coming onto the site if the limit is 125? If the 125 for 40 acres includes caterers, etc., the actual attendance of people would be lowered to maybe 110. Vice Chair Brown agreed — 100 cars can be parked on one acre and this may be more than 100 people. There should be some established level of evaluation. He had over 500 people at his daughter's wedding on 12 acres and there were no problems fitting everyone in. He knows of tracts of land that are 40 acres with varying terrain that are totally different than 80 acres in Brothers when it comes to the amount of people they can accommodate. Commissioner Turner asked if it would be important to set the maximum size at 500 people, since we do have a mass gathering permit that starts at 500 people? Vice Chair Brown agreed and said, if someone has 40 acres, 30 of which are under irrigation, how much of the remaining 10 acres is available for event use? Commissioner Powell asked for more clarification regarding lot sizes. He remembered that some of the original problems here originated with an operator who had 3.5 acres. We have heard from operators with larger pieces of property such as 12 acres. He is uncomfortable with none of these having site plan reviews. What do we need to put into place for sanitation, etc., which will affect how many people one can handle? It is not just lot size. The fire marshal determines how many people can safely be in a building. How do we get the health, safety and traffic issues resolved? Is the property on a major road or winding road in the country? He is concerned about allowing 500 people as a blanket amount if we do not require a minimum lot size. Commissioner Klyce said we had discussed this a few years ago. We have to realize that an event operator runs a business where if conditions are unsanitary, word will get around. Les Schwab Amphitheater services 90,000 people a year with port -a -potties. It is in the best interests of the event operators to handle this well. There also ways to approach size limitations without using hard numbers. 0 Commissioner Rainey asked if there is a lot size requirement for mass gatherings. Nick said he did not believe so. But those permits are subject to a reviewing body, unlike the events under consideration. SB960 has no minimum lot sizes. Vice Chair Brown said that as the lot sizes get smaller it is critical to address this. The neighbors probably also have small lots if the operator has one. SB960 states that activities have to be supported by the agricultural activity already taking place on the property. A 3.5 acre piece of property would only support minimal activity due to the limited size of the property. An application should state how many parking places are needed. Nick said we cannot impose something that is not in the Code. Commissioners Klyce and Powell discussed how limits would be enforced. Nick mentioned that the average size of events is around 250 people with an average of 3 people per vehicle. We could start with a minimum of 10 acres. Vice Chair Brown asked how we could make a determination of the usefulness of the 10 acres. There might be a more usable area than a 20 -acre parcel. Commissioner Powell said he would like to see a minimum lot size of at least 10 acres. Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned that people wishing to hold commercial events be required to have a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Commissioner Rainey asked if we were only establishing the minimum lot size, and Commissioner Klyce said he withdrew his second because he did not want to limit the number of people, only the lot size. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Commissioner Powell said he would like to divide the vote because it would be easier to change the minimum lot size. Commissioner Turner said it would not make any difference as different lot sizes can support different numbers of people. Nick added that this would only apply to (c)1 of S13960. Vote: Motion passed. The Commissioners discussed event size. Commissioner Powell asked Nick for more clarification about a provision in HB3280 authorizing wineries as an outright use, and with that use they could hold events, sales, concerts to promote their products. That whole subsection had to do with promotion of the wines. In HB3280, there is a provision that says unless the winery hosted celebratory events, outdoor concerts, commercial events, etc., prior to July 31, they could get permits for those. Does that exclude wineries from having celebratory events unless they follow the provisions of promoting the wine? Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to set an event size limitation based on acreage. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Vote: Motion failed. Commissioner Turner asked if on SB960, we are still at six events at 72 hours per event, and Nick said that would be the next topic. He had initially proposed that the owner should submit a calendar of proposed dates in writing, per the matrix, by a certain date such as April 1, or within 30 days of a renewed limited use permit. He also was considering the operator having to list a responsible person who would be on the premises. A minimum of 30 days was discussed. 7 Vice Chair Brown asked if this implies that the license has already been applied for - at the bottom of the first box it indicates "within 72 hours of any date change." Do you mean "more than 72 hours"? Nick said the first box is as he had initially drafted it, but that is correct — it should be "more than 72 hours." It should also say a "minimum of 30 days." Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to accept staff's recommendation with modifications. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Vote: Motion passed. Nick discussed limiting the duration of an event to 30 hours. Commissioner Criss asked about two weddings being considered separate events or one event. Nick said they could have as many as they wanted to fit between the hours suggested in the matrix. Six would be allowed under State law, but this would be from 7-18 events. Commissioner Powell spoke about the hours already approved, and Nick mentioned setup times and an example of a wedding beginning at 4:00, ending at 10:00, people go home and the next day all that needs to be set up for another wedding is catering and flowers. Commissioner Powell said that three weddings could be run over the course of a weekend. One 72 -hour event could have multiple venues and this whole thing is being cast under agritourism. You could have 18 weddings, a/k/a six events, and the weddings are each one day. That is a lot. We need to define it. Nick said he has spoken many times with DLCD and they basically say it is up to us to come up with definitions of commercial activity and agritourism. Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Rainey discussed looking to the intent of the law when something is questioned. Nick said that weddings were definitely contemplated. It is very rare for an event operator to hold two weddings back to back because of the amount of work it takes. Commissioner Rainey suggested looking at the six -event scenario rather than leaving it open for more, to start with. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned that under the proposed 18.16.042(c)(2), we strike subsection (2); and if there are other other parts they be stricken or altered for Turner. references that implicate subsection (2) in consistency. Seconded by Commissioner Discussion: Vice Chair Brown asked if this could be brought back up. Nick said it is easier to adopt things that are less restrictive and add restrictions later on. Chair Irvine asked if the permit would be for two years or four. Nick said that comes from SB960. Commissioner Powell asked if striking this provision would negatively impact some operators, if we are trying to help farmers. Commissioner Klyce said he would be inclined to leave this in and see what happens. The Commissioners discussed lot sizes for farms. Commissioner Powell said he would be inclined to limit the number of events rather than lot size. Vote: Motion failed. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned to add to Section (c)(2) a minimum lot size of 160 contiguous acres for 7-18 events Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Commissioner Powell again felt that in an area with an operator who has a smaller lot, the neighbors would also probably have smaller lots. If someone bought eight 20 -acre lots he would meet the criteria, even if others had 10 acres. Vote: Motion passed. A straw poll was taken regarding opinions on lowering the number of available weekends for events. Commissioner Powell said that even on 160 acres, you still have ingress and egress issues, and if it is over a three-day period there could be a lot of events. Commissioner Rainey suggested having no more than two events in any one month. Nick clarified that under S13960, the lower bar is up to six events, for up to 72 hours per event. Commercial events are limited to 30 hours. Commissioner Rainey said you could have more events under more sections, the way it reads. Commissioner Powell felt that we do not want to shut the door on non -wedding events that would truly be farm related, such as a rodeo once in awhile. Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Powell discussed agritourism events which would not be held as often, and we could leave the door open. Commissioner Powell said that if he was a neighbor, he would want some safeguards. Vice Chair Brown said that oftentimes an orchard will have a cider press which is low -noise activity, for example. Agritourism is more "comfortable" compared to commercial events, which is an issue in terms of holding an event for three days, 30 hours. Commissioner Klyce said there is an operation down the street from his house that holds events every weekend all summer, and it doesn't cause a problem. Vice Chair Brown said that commercial events should involve a different amount of time. Commissioner Klyce discussed having separate limits for commercial and agritourism events. Commissioner Turner questioned where the line is drawn between an agritourism event and a commercial event. If he puts together a three-day working dog show and charges admission, what type of event is this? Nick suggested we indicate weddings, anniversary parties and similar uses in the definition, and say that these events are excluded from the definition of agritourism. Chair Irvine asked how the 160 acres plays into this, and Nick said it would be another level. Vice Chair Brown spoke about trying to recoup costs and felt it would not be economically feasible if the number of events is too restricted. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned that 7-18 events be allowed for agritourism only, requiring 160 acres. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to allow Nick to define agritourism and commercial events. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned to allow 7-18 commercial events with a 24-hour duration per event. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Commissioner Powell felt that 18 was too high a number, and limiting events to one day was discussed. Amendment: Commissioner Rainey amended the motion to limit commercial events to two a month. Seconded by Commissioner Powell. Vote on Amended Motion: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to adopt staff's recommendation regarding transportation. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Vote: Motion passed. Commissioner Klyce asked if the Commissioners would like to define "incidental and subordinate." Commissioner Rainey said he would prefer not to. Vice Chair Brown asked staff to comment at the next meeting. Chair Irvine wanted to discuss the April 1 submittal of applications, which might be a problem due to weddings being planned a year ahead. Could someone come in mid-term during an existing permit to renew it? Nick recommended that the Commissioners not revisit anything at the next meeting except to check and finalize what he summarizes then, so that he can schedule a work session with the Board next month. We need to ask the Board if they want to adopt this by emergency or not. If they do not, the summer season is out. It will also take time for applicants to come in and apply once a decision is made, and there is an appeal period. Commissioner Powell asked if there should be health/safety requirements for wineries and what we decided regarding access and enforcement. The requirements for the mass gathering application and permanent structures were discussed. Commissioner Powell felt that any commercial events held on EFU land should be subject to the same provisions as anyone else under SB960. The owner should also have to live on the land. Perhaps this ordinance should come up again for review in a couple of years to see how it is working. Vice Chair Brown said he would like to have the Commission forward this to the Board after staff incorporates the actions taken this evening, subject to approval and review for accuracy at the next meeting. Motion: Commissioner Klyce so motioned. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Rainey said he did not agree with this document, but we should move it on to the Board for their consideration. Nick said that implies agreement. Vote: Motion passed. Commissioner Powell discussed access and parcels being operated by the owner for events. Commissioner Turner said he did not think it matters. There are lot of farms with someone other than the owner running the business. Commissioner Rainey agreed. Commissioners Criss and Klyce felt it was inconsequential. The Commissioners discussed whether to reopen the private parks discussion and whether to forward it to the Board with suggestions/parameters. Currently, anyone can come in and apply for a private park permit to hold an event. The Commissioners 10 discussed this loophole and the potential cost. Commissioner Rainey asked if Nick could convey to the Board that this is a lingering issue. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick asked the Commissioners to take a look at the draft survey for South County which will for the most part be online due to costs. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, , r Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary 11