 Hello. I'm Don Seltzer. I live at 104 Irving Street and I've been an Arlington resident for 48 years. I'd like to begin by providing some context to this warrant article. Arlington has a serious fiscal imbalance in its residential commercial makeup. Among the larger communities in Massachusetts, we are dead last in non-residential property tax revenue. Compared to our sister communities in the Metro Mayors Coalition, our tax space is particularly dismal. We also have a lack of decent paying jobs in town. Arlington has a population of nearly 45,000 people and only 1,700 actually work in town. 93% of a working population have to get in their car or crowd on to a T-bus to commute elsewhere. This makes no sense. We should have good paying jobs in town that people can walk to or bike to. Two years ago, town meeting appropriated $70,000 to bring in a consultant to advise us on how to better utilize our dwindling industrial district, a small strip along Milbrook, reserved for industries that may not be compatible with homes right next door. Starting in December 2019, I attended every presentation made to the Zoning Biola Working Group and the Redevelopment Board. Throughout all this time, the objective was clear. How can we attract new emerging companies to our tired, underutilized industrial districts? How can we bring in good high-paying jobs? How can we enrich the community with these new businesses? We heard ideas that appealed to our aspirations such as micro breweries, fine dining, maker spaces, and even vertical forming. Through the first 10 months of the study, there was no discussion of residential mixed use. A town survey carried out last summer showed that residential was the least popular use for industrial districts. The proposal to allow residential mixed use was introduced at a very late stage in October during a presentation to the Redevelopment Board. It was not actually mentioned or even listed in the slide shown, but was deeply buried in a single footnote in the documentation. It was up to residents to call attention to this hidden surprise addition. RKG Consulting would later try to justify this recommendation by producing pro- formal analyses of a few scenarios. These analyses did not evaluate job potential or the benefit to the town, but looked solely at what type of development would earn the highest returns to the landowners. The choice of sites for these analyses was also very curious. Scenario one analyzed an industrial refit of a narrow lot located partially in a federally regulated floodway. Scenario two was for new industrial development on town-owned parcels used by the DPW on Rider Street. It strangely ignored the much larger and much more suitable lots owned by the Myrak family next door. Scenario three was a look at office and industrial mixed use on a small corner of the Dudley district, most of it in the FEMA flood plain. Scenario four was picked for the residential mixed use example. For that analysis, RKG chose the large five-acre Lowell Street Park Avenue industrial district known as the Gold's Gym Site. Guess which scenario worked out best financially for the developer? The danger of rezoning our industrial districts for residential mixed use is that it will ultimately drive out everything else. In adding residential use at the end of their contract, RKG failed to include all of the other normal requirements that apply to residential uses in every our zone and business zone. This is a developer's dream. There are no requirements for open space, either landscape to useable. There are minimal yard setbacks. The current proposal actually prohibits a front yard of more than 10 feet, and there are no minimum lot sizes required. It is easy to predict what will come out of this proposal. Two or three story apartment buildings with some nominal low-cost industrial use on the ground floor. Picture a self-service storage warehouse on the ground floor, and because inclusionary affordable housing doesn't kick in until six units, this article also encourages developers to slice up the district into small subdivisions to build apartment buildings or townhouses with only four or five units, all renting for high market rates. North Cambridge, Somerville, Watertown, and Newton are bursting with new growth for the life sciences industry. This is overflow from Kendall Square, where rents are out of sight. Our life on our doorstep is grabbing this overflow at $70 per square foot. In Arlington's industrial districts, the going rents are only $25 to $30 per square foot. This study and proposed zoning amendments do nothing towards attracting this type of desirable growth to our community. I urge you to vote no on the motion as originally proposed.