Planning Commission recommends landmarking First Saint John’s United Methodist Church despite owner objections

The Planning Commission voted unanimously Sept. 20 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors designate First Saint John’s United Methodist Church (601 Clay/1601 Larkin) as a San Francisco landmark based on its architectural association with George Washington Kramer and its historical integrity.

Sophie Middlebrook of the Planning Department summarized the staff review and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board’s unanimous endorsement. Michael Skolnick and a range of preservation advocates presented evidence tying the building to Kramer’s “combination church” and Akron plan variants, and noted that the building appears eligible for listing on both the National Register and the California Register under the criteria cited in the case report.

The property owner, represented by Gordon Egan for the Northern California‑Nevada United Methodist Conference and by Joel Yodowicz for the project sponsor under contract to buy the site, opposed designation. The owner’s attorney and witnesses argued the building is seismically vulnerable (unreinforced masonry, extensive interior deterioration), costly to retrofit, and the subject of pending litigation that could preclude local designation. They also submitted an independent report challenging the historicity claims used in the Landmarks Board report.

Neighbors, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, San Francisco Architectural Heritage and several historians urged landmarking. Courtney Damkroger and Joe Butler emphasized Kramer’s regional significance and the building’s retained character‑defining features (bell tower, stained glass fenestration, stucco/brick base and roof forms). Several neighborhood speakers voiced concern about maintenance and safety; others countered that allowing demolition would eliminate an increasingly rare Kramer example in California.

Commissioners debated legal and procedural questions — including whether pending litigation affects the commission’s authority to forward a recommendation — and whether landmarking would make reuse infeasible. Staff and the City Attorney’s Office advised the commission that it may hear the matter and forward a recommendation despite litigation; final authority rests with the Board of Supervisors and courts may later adjudicate legal issues. After extensive deliberation, the commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark designation to the Board of Supervisors.

The recommendation does not itself change ownership or immediately bar demolition; it forwards the issue to the Board for adoption of the ordinance and triggers further environmental review steps tied to the property’s CEQA record.