You need to be signed in to add your comment.

You cannot leave comment in this blogpost unless you are a part of the project panel.

Key Differences: BL2025-955 Original vs. Proposed Substitute

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis regarding BL2025-955.

From CM Ellis:


Colleagues,

Below is a side-by-side redline comparison of my original bill and the proposed substitute for BL2025-955. While the substitute may look similar on the surface, it makes substantive changes that weaken clarity, dilute neighborhood protections, and negate the signage requirement.

Aspect

Original Bill

Proposed Substitute

Change / Impact

Geographic Scope

Applies within residential zoning districts.

Deletes reference to zoning; applies broadly without geographic limitation.

⚠️ Broadens scope: no longer unique to neighborhoods; could apply in commercial or industrial areas.

200-foot Audibility Standard

Prohibited operation if exhaust noise is plainly audible at 200 feet or more.

This standard is removed.

⚠️ Weakens clarity: eliminates a clear, objective test officers could use.

Residential Test

Prohibited operation within a residential zoning district if exhaust noise is audible inside a residential structure or at 75 feet.

Revised to: if audible within a residential structure containing a dwelling unit, or at 75 feet.

⚠️ Shifts from zoning-based to structure-based enforcement. Harder to apply near mixed-use areas and negates the signage requirement in Section 2 — signage works with zoning districts, not individual dwelling units.

Policy Effect

Focused on protecting neighborhoods in residential zones.

Broader but less precise — weakens objective standards and shifts focus away from zoning.

⚠️ Alters intent: less neighborhood-specific, more open to interpretation.




Summary

The substitute:

  • Removes the residential zoning district focus, making the bill less about protecting neighborhoods.

  • Eliminates the 200-foot objective test, leaving enforcement more subjective.

  • Replaces zoning-based enforcement with dwelling-unit enforcement, which undermines clarity and negates the signage campaign meant to inform drivers.

For these reasons, I believe the substitute alters the original intent of BL2025-955 and weakens both clarity and enforceability.