Sponsored link
Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsTurn the Flower Mart into tech offices? Say it's...

Turn the Flower Mart into tech offices? Say it’s not so

Former Mayor Art Agnos speaks at a rally to save the Flower Mart
Former Mayor Art Agnos speaks at a rally to save the Flower Mart

By Zelda Bronstein

The Flower Mart, a beloved San Francisco institution, is in danger of falling victim to the City Hall-stoked tech real estate boom.

The wholesale market for flowers, a staple for local florists at Sixth and Brannan since 1956 that Martha Stewart once called the “best flower market in the country,” could soon be bought by a real-estate developer, meaning the tenants may face eviction since the property is far more valuable if it’s turned into office space.

Although the headline in the July 25 Chronicle—“Developer acquires S.F. Flower Mart”— suggested that the market is doomed, the Mart can still be saved, and with it a big piece of the city’s old, industrial, blue-collar base.

But that will take a prompt and vigorous show of public support and political muscle.

The beginning of a campaign to save the Flower Mart was on view this week, as Mart tenants, joined by florists, flower market enthusiasts and advocates of an inclusive San Francisco, gathered for a noontime “Save the Flower Mart” press conference and rally in Repetto’s Nursery at the site.

Organized by Mart tenant Patrick McCann of Greenworks, the rally featured an impressive array of speakers: tenants David Repetto of Repetto’s Nursery, “Mama” Lee of SoMa Flowers, and Lupe Rico of Lassen Ranch; former State Senator Quentin Kopp; former Mayor Art Agnos; former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin; District 6 Supervisor Jane Kim; Small Business Commissioner and florist Kathleen Dooley; and the grand old man of the city’s flower-selling industry, the proprietor of the “I. Magnin” flower stand, 92-year-old Albert Nalbandian.

The 98-year-old Albert Nalbandian, dean of the SF florist word, speaks on behalf of saving the Flower Mart
The 92-year-old Albert Nalbandian, dean of the SF florist word, speaks on behalf of saving the Flower Mart

Six years ago, then-Board of Supervisors President Peskin sank the Academy of Art’s attempt to buy the Flower Mart and turn it into sculpture studios.

Some of the Mart’s 100 tenants approached him and Agnos after the Los Angeles-based Kilroy Realty Corporation announced on July 11 that it had “executed a merger agreement to acquire all the outstanding shares” of the San Francisco Flower Growers Association, one of the three firms that own portions of the Mart site.

Describing the SFFGA as “a privately owned entity whose only material asset” is a 1.9 acre portion of the Flower Mart site, Kilroy said that the transaction was valued at about $27 million. The merger is contingent on its approval by a majority of the SFFGA stockholders in a September 11 vote.

Last Wednesday Agnos and Peskin presided over a meeting of 40-odd tenants in the patio of the Flower Mart Café. Both made it clear that they were neither running for office nor being paid to advocate the tenants’ cause. They were there, Agnos said, because protecting the flower market is “part of a struggle to save the heart and soul of this great city,” a fight that he linked to the defeat of the 8 Washington condo project at the polls last November and the successful defense of the tenants at the San Francisco Design Center at the BoS Land Use Committee in July.

A major impetus for the meeting was an August 19 letter that the SFFGA had sent to its sixty tenants, copies of which Peskin distributed to the group.

“Rest assured,” wrote SFFGA’s Ron Chiappari,

that an integral part of Kilroy’s development plan includes a new, state of the art Flower Mart enabling continued operations of present and future flower mart tenants and customers, as well as a plan for continuous operations of the Flower Mart during construction.Our understanding comes directly from the highest decision-makers at Kilroy and is consistent with the statements that John Kilroy, President, CEO, and Chairman of Kilroy, has made in the attached news article [the Chronicle story referenced above, which has been removed from the paper’s website].


Peskin, however, focused on another line in the letter:

“After the transaction has been completed[,] Kilroy will be able to meet with you on site, show you its preliminary plans, and seek your feedback.”

Mart tenant "Mama" Lee delivers an impassioned speech in Chinese
Mart tenant “Mama” Lee delivers an impassioned speech in Chinese

This, Peskin observed, was not at all reassuring. If the SFFGA and Kilroy really want to demonstrate their commitment to the tenants and the Mart, they should offer to meet with them and seek their input—not just their feedback—before the transaction is completed, not afterwards. Peskin also said that the developer had called him and asked him not to hold the meeting.

He went on to suggest terms that the tenants should ask Kilroy to guarantee in writing before the deal closed:

  • no tenant will be displaced even temporarily under construction


  • leases will be renewed (at affordable rates)


  • tenants’ expenses due to the new construction will be paid for


  • Kilroy will reveal its plans for the site and its management


Former Sup. Aaron Peskin says tenants should demand honest answers from the developer
Former Sup. Aaron Peskin says tenants should demand honest answers from the developer

A week later, neither Kilroy nor the SFFGA had contacted the tenants.

Addressing the rally, tenant David Repetto said, “We need long-term leases at rental rates that are affordable for small business….Kilroy also needs to tell us who will run the Flower Mart? Will it be the biggest tenants? Wholesalers? Retailers? Will it be democratically run? And we need professional management that understands the flower business, not just a real estate entity.”

According to McCann, what’s at stake is not just the 60 locally owned businesses that lease from the SFFGA but also the thousands of living-wage jobs provided by the growers, shippers, and truck drivers who supply our region’s 46,000 florists. The Flower Mart is one of only five such markets in the U.S. In most other places, florists have to drive around from small wholesaler to small wholesaler.

My North Berkeley neighborhood florist, Amir Abdolhosseini of Solano Flowers, was shocked to learn that the Mart might close. “The Flower Mart cannot disappear,” he said. “Where would people”—i.e., florists such as himself—“go to get their flowers?”

At last week’s tenants meeting, Peskin said he neither trusted nor distrusted Kilroy. But he told the rally that he’d changed his mind. That’s because former Planning Commissioner Bill Sugaya had just handed him the Planning Department’s preliminary assessment of what Kilroy is proposing for the SFFGA property at 575 Sixth Street:  an 11-story, 160-foot-tall, 655,150-square-foot development separated into one nine-story building and one 11-story building, connected by pedestrian bridges at the fifth and sixth levels. The buildings would include 508,040 square feet of new office space, plus 16,410 square feet of retail on the ground floor. All structures on the site would be demolished. The proposal says nothing about phasing in existing businesses.

In other words, Kilroy has known for more than a year exactly what it’s proposing to build — and yet has said nothing to the Flower Mart’s tenants.

Peskin also noted that the Kilroy project “does not fit the current zoning.”

No kidding. For starters, the SALI (Service/Arts/Light Industrial) District prohibits offices. In addition, the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceeds the allowed maximum, and the proposed 160-foot-tall building exceeds the current 40-55 foot height limit.

But like the many other big developers salivating over SoMa’s industrial lands, Kilroy is looking beyond the current zoning to the relaxed standards of the forthcoming Central SoMa Plan. As is their wont, the city’s planners have evaluated Kilroy’s proposal with respect to both current standards and to proposed zoning—in this case, proposals that won’t come before the Planning Commission, much less the Board of Supervisors, before next year.

To wit, the draft Central SoMa Plan would replace SALI with Mixed Use-Office (MUO), a category that exemplifies the Planning Department’s deregulatory approach to land use. In SoMA Leadership Council President Jim Meko’s memorable phrase, MUO is “zoning for people who don’t like zoning.” It permits just about everything but adult entertainment and heavy industry.

In another respect, however, the Kilroy project would be inconsistent even with the relaxed development standards of the proposed Central SoMa Plan. The city’s planners want to raise the height allowances on the block from 40-55 feet to either 55/65 feet or 65/85 feet—significantly less than the 160 feet Kilroy hopes to construct.

At the rally, Supervisor Kim announced that at the September 9th Board meeting, she would be proposing that interim controls that would prohibit conversions from Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR), i.e., light industry, to office or residential during the time the Central SoMa Plan is under deliberation and encourage the Planning Department “to work with the developer to ensure the vibrancy of the Flower Mart.”

That’s a step in the right direction.

But it’s going to take far more than interim controls and requests that the planners work with the developer to protect the Flower Mart and the rest of SoMa’s light industrial economy. As 48 hills reported last winter, the Central SoMa Plan is openly premised on the destruction of that economy and its replacement by a high-rise, high-rent, tech-dominated second Downtown.

The Planning Department says the Central SoMa Plan emerged out of “a community planning process.” When did the “community” embrace the elimination of 1,800 blue-collar jobs (that’s Planning’s figure, not mine), including the jobs at the Flower Mart?

As for the Flower Mart: The city’s planners, too, have known for well over a year what Kilroy intends to do at 575 Sixth Street. Why haven’t they come forward and supported the tenants, or at least informed them about the proposed project?

At the rally, Art Agnos said he’d called Mayor Lee and asked him to bring his Planning Department and Kilroy to the Mart and tell the tenants what they’re going to do to protect them. Will the mayor accept that invitation?



Sponsored link


  1. I’m not paid by anyone and i notice that nobody here ever can refute my points but, instead, they just throw out baseless personal attacks. That tells me that i am winning the debate.

    What you should really worry about is that professional progressives are being refuted by an amateur political neophyte.

  2. I’ve noticed “Sam’s” obnoxious posts for some time; I think he is a regular on SFist and probably SFGate. I don’t know about the CIA affiliation, but he clearly works for someone who is paying him to advance a specific viewpoint. Sam has a lot to say about development, local politics, and public transpiration, which can be summarized in the following talking points: If you can’t afford to live here, get out; the SF Board of Supervisors are a bunch of morons (unless it’s about an issue Sam likes but never mentions; and, MUNI employees as well as every other union worker) are lazy, incompetent and overpaid. Oh, and you might as well toss taxi drivers into that category. When Sam responds to what appears to be anti-development (or NYMBY-ism, which used to apply to rich white people who didn’t want non-rich white people anywhere near their property values), Sam uses local opposition to 8 Washington Street the Prop B legislation (both overwhelmingly endorsed by San Francisco voters–Sam, please check the voting counts by District for proof) to support his pro-development slant. He also specifically dislikes former SF Mayor Art Agnos and former BOS Arron Peskin. Hey, I didn’t really care for Peskin myself, but whatever. As for Art Agnos, his decision to demolish the Embarcadero freeway overpass after the 1989 earthquake probably made him a one-term mayor. But hey, Sam.ee Guess what? That decision spurred one of the most significant and profitable development periods San Francisco has ever seen. As for a basketball arena on piers 30-32? Prop B probably saved the GG Warriors, George Lucas, and anybody else a lot of heartache in 30 years when their very expensive developments are literally underwater.

    I imagine Sam is being paid very well for his comments; otherwise, why spend so much time posting almost daily, if not hourly, on such negativity? I mean, don’t you have a friggin’ job? I would love to ignore you but I can’t, since you seem to be everywhere. Please go away.

  3. There are no streetcars or BART anywhere near there, while CalTrian doesn’t do city residents any good. I’m not aware of 7 bus lines that stop on that block.

    Yes, there’s the odd bus but, for a major retail location it is very inaccessible without a car. And therefore could easily be out on Bayshore which is more suited to an entity like this

  4. Dan, do you have any idea how utterly stupid you sound when you claim that a poster here works for the CIA?

    Redmond may be an irritant to some local interests but the odds of him registering of the radar of our federal security agencies is exactly zero.

    But I love how none of you can refute any of my points and show that so clearly by launching personal attacks.

  5. Well since you asked:
    He’s the resident obnoxious troll on this site, on Mission Local and the main “Guest” troll on the Bay Guardian’s site. He was “John” on Mission Local until he changed his name to “Sam.” His content and level of ignorance is the same on all three sites. It must take a lot of work even for his copy-paste jobs, but if one is being well paid, I guess it’s worth it. My guess is he’s connected with this:

    CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Internet & Interact With Users to Discredit Factual Information
    “Confirmed: Government Employing Internet Trolls”

    He’s working for somebody despite denials to the contrary. No sane and rationale person would put that much effort into it if they weren’t being paid by someone. He recently wrote that San Francisco is a place where one doesn’t have to be an adult. He’s the poster child for that since he’s never matured to an adult level of understanding to know that one does not constantly have to be an abrasive asshole to people. He’s clearly lacking in social skills and is a child in an adult body.

  6. They may have been for it after they were against it, as you claim. But both of these has-beens are getting a reputation for sticking their oar into any development and generally opposing it, (like 8-Wash and the original Warriors stadium). Even though neither of them have any mandate to do so, elected or otherwise.

    As the old saying goes, if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. And it is NIMBYism that is sad, and probably the single biggest driver of unaffordability in the city.

  7. Agnos and Peskin both support Pier 70, an innovative use of derelict waterfront property that will include housing, business start-ups, and offices through Forest City. Also both support the new site for the Warriors arena. Also Agnos was the proponent of a much more far-reaching development for Mission Bay than what was ultimately approved.
    So you are incorrect in your assertions, which appear to be intended simply to marginalize people with whom you disagree. Sad.

  8. I never said they could do that “legally” (assuming of course that I accept the notion that it is illegal in any meaningful sense, and I’m not sure that I do).

    My point, and Tim’s point, was that they pick up and drop off anyway, regardless. And that this “ban” is impossible to enforce for all the reasons that I gave, and so is worthless.

    If you are going to offer bets, at least be clear what the other person is saying. I’m going nowhere.

  9. You were supposed to be gone from here for two weeks, remember? You were wrong when I bet you about TNC/P2P UberX’s not being able to pick up,or drop off, at the airport legally.

  10. I love the flower mart and will certainly support all efforts to save it. I urge all to do something equally or more iimportant and that is to save Beach Chalet. Yes on H, No on I. I wish both campaigns the best of luck. We have the last dark sky in SF threatened with destruction for a new stadium in an inappropriate location. And we are poisoning our children and the planet with plastic grass and toxic tires.

  11. Not all artists are being “forced out of the city”. But like any other profession, not all of them are good enough and successful enough to sustain a life in the world’s favorite city. Some bad artists have to leave but then so do some bad techies, lawyers and hedge fund managers.

    There are other places to live and work in the Bay Area that work better for most people.

  12. Cute? Most customers are businesses that sell flowers or restaurants or hotels? You are obviously not familiar with the business conducted at the flower market, nor are you from San Francisco, but apparently you seem to feel that you know everything about SF as you troll every article on this site. Not all florists run shops. Many work independently and create all of the displays for weddings and high end events.

    I am personally tired of people who move here for the art & culture and then think that it’s okay to crush every business, zoning law, force all of the artists out of the city by giving money to city hall in order to receive kickbacks.

    Enough already

  13. Let’s see how much support Kim gets from the community. If Malia can protect the PDRs in the Design Center, Kim should be able to do the same for the Flower Mart.

  14. The merger is contingent on its approval by a majority of the SFFGA stockholders in a September 11 vote. So, in essence, if they don’t want any change, they can vote no to the merger. Or, if they want the money, they can vote yes to sell.

    They control their fate.

  15. The flower market is cute but its location means that very few ordinary people go there. Those who do go there have to drive as that location is very poorly served by transit. And if folks are going to drive to a flower market, then it can and probably should be further out of the city where there is the available and affordable space for them. From what i have seen most customers are businesses that either sell flowers or places like restaurants and hotels that display fresh flowers every day.

    I feel sure that that key location can be more productively utilized. And Agnos and Oeskin oppose everything so they have lost any credibility.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

Occupy San Francisco was a game-changer

Ten years later, remembering the movement that gave us "We are the 99 percent" and put economic inequality on the national agenda.

Should SF ban the no-knock warrants that lead to Breonna Taylor’s death?

Plus: Juvenile justice, small-business rent relief, and a 'beach-to-the-Bay' bike path. That's The Agenda for Sept. 20-26.

Drenched to perfection: Where to score the best torta ahogada

A Mexican American local's quest for the elusive Jalisco-style, soaked-in-salsa sandwich

More by this author

Wiener’s housing bill could encourage even more sprawl

Read the fine print: Obscene development in Tassajara Valley could qualify for special protection under SB 10.

State housing agency says it’s ‘listening’ — but in closed sessions

Limited format for housing planning sessions dilutes community authority and input.

Facebook’s housing echo chamber

Zuckerberg money funds news outlets that repeat Zuckerberg group's supply-side position on the housing crisis.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED