Summary#

Council passed Bylaw 89D2026 at third reading on July 21, 2026. It changes the existing Direct Control land use district for about 8.15 hectares (20.14 acres) at 245 and 415 Ricardo Ranch Road SE, 160 Church Road SE, 115 Nostalgia Drive SE, and 21210 and 21209 – 72 Street SE, in Ricardo Ranch (Ward 12). City staff say the goal is to allow a digital sign on a community clock tower and support a local focal point.

• The site’s land use changes from one Direct Control district to another, based on the Mixed Use – General district.
• The new district allows a Clock Tower to be combined with an Address Sign, Digital Message Sign and Digital Special Events Sign. It also sets rules for the Digital Special Events Sign; those rules are not included in the supplied material.
• The site is intended for mixed-use buildings, with commercial retail at street level and homes above. The amendment itself does not approve those buildings or the sign.
• Council passed the bylaw 13 to 1. Councillor Atkinson voted against it. One person spoke at the public hearing; their comments are not included in the supplied material.

What it means for you#

• People living nearby: The land use rules now allow a Digital Special Events Sign as part of the clock tower. City staff say the site is currently undeveloped. A new development permit is required to add the sign to the tower.
• The landowners and applicant: They may seek a development permit for the sign under the new land use rules. The amendment does not itself approve that permit.
• Residents and visitors: The amendment does not itself build homes, shops or the clock tower. City staff say the site is intended for mixed-use development, and a permit for the clock tower was approved in October 2025.

Money#

City staff reported no anticipated financial impact from the land use amendment.

• The materials give no cost estimate for the future development permit or sign.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material refers to sign rules in the proposed bylaw’s Attachment 2 but does not include them. The sign’s operating limits and other conditions are therefore unclear.
• The new development permit process for adding the sign is not described here.
• The public hearing record says one person spoke, but does not provide what they said. It also does not explain Councillor Atkinson’s vote against the bylaw.

Case for#

• City staff say the sign could provide information to residents and visitors and help make the clock tower a community focal point.
• City staff say the mixed-use development would bring homes and commercial space close together, and could support local businesses and provide housing and employment opportunities.

Case against#

• The amendment allows a digital special-events sign, but the supplied material does not show the rules that would limit it. Residents cannot assess those limits from these materials.
• The amendment creates no requirement for the sign to be built; a separate development permit is needed. The likely appearance and operation of the sign are not clear here.
• Councillor Atkinson voted against the bylaw, but the supplied material gives no reason.