Historic Preservation Commission decline to add Justice for Vicha sign at 717 California St. to landmark work program

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously Dec. 17 to deem the community‑sponsored Justice for Vicha wall sign at 717 California Street in Chinatown not eligible for the city’s Article 10 landmark designation work program.

Alex Westhoff, planning department staff, told commissioners staff had not found sufficient evidence to establish historical significance for an Article 10 landmark because the sign has not reached the 50‑year guideline commonly used to evaluate historic significance and because the department lacks a historic context statement tying the object to a demonstrably exceptional association. "The sign has not yet reached 50 years, which is the age normally associated with historical designations," Westhoff said during the staff report.

Montanes Ratanapakdi, the community sponsor for the Vicha memorial, urged the commission to act now, saying the installation "represents a defining moment in recent history" and arguing that "waiting 50 years risks losing it." Supporters framed the sign as a living memorial to Vicha Ratanapakdi and part of efforts to document anti‑Asian violence during the pandemic.

Building owners and their representatives contested the nomination. Kelly Yashima, attorney for California Grant Family LP (the property owners), called the installation a temporary sign on removable plywood and said it "is less than 5 years old" and was installed under a six‑month license that could be terminated with 60 days' notice. Jeff Chan, one of the building owners and manager, described the same temporary license and said the owners intended the site for rotating public art. Artist and tenant Amanda Klimek said the project was developed to create "continuing dialogue" and was never intended to be a permanent installation.

Commissioners focused their deliberations on two questions: whether the object met Article 10 criteria given its age and portability, and the implications of landmarking where the installation is on privately owned property with a contested chain of communication between the property owners and the memorial sponsors. Commissioner Vergara said the commission must apply landmark criteria rather than use designation to settle ownership disputes and expressed concern that landmarking could effectively "commandeer" private property.

On a motion to deem the property not eligible for the landmark designation work program, the commission voted 6–0 to decline the nomination. The commission chair said the body supported the memorial’s message but was bound to follow the established standards governing landmark designation.

Next steps: The commission’s action does not bar the Ratanapakdi family or community members from pursuing other memorial projects; commissioners noted a permanent public‑right‑of‑way mosaic stair project in Anza Vista that has already received supervisory support.