Board approves Flower Mart zoning change and development agreement for Fifth and Brannon site

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Jan. 7 approved an ordinance establishing the 2000 Marin Street special use district and adopted a development agreement with KR Flower Mart LLC to govern redevelopment of the Flower Mart site on the southern half of the block north of Brannon Street between Fifth and Sixth streets.

The measures matter because the Flower Mart is a long‑running wholesale market that employs vendors and workers across the region; the actions also include environmental findings under the California Environmental Quality Act and provisions intended to protect legacy businesses and vendor interests as the site is redeveloped.

Supervisor Peskin, who sponsored the items before the board, described the Flower Mart as “the second largest wholesale flower market in The United States Of America,” and praised the vendors and employees who work there across multiple generations. Item 1 — an ordinance to amend the planning code and zoning map to create additional key‑site exceptions and establish the 2000 Marin Street special use district — passed on a roll call with 11 ayes. Recorded yes votes included Supervisors Peskin, Preston, Ronan, Safaie, Stefani, Walton, Yi, Feuer, Haney, Mandelmann and Marr (tally: 11‑0).

Item 2, the development agreement between the city and KR Flower Mart LLC for an approximately 6.5‑acre site at Fifth Street and Brannon Street, was discussed later in the meeting. Ms. Topier, a staff member who spoke for the administering department, read a set of changes to the draft agreement that were incorporated before final adoption. She said, verbatim, that “we are striking language that refers to a judicial challenge… at any vendor of the existing flower market, challenging the permanent off‑site approvals,” and that the city was “extending the cure period from 60 to 90 days.” She also read the added language on the legacy business fund, saying the city “may consider contributing additional funds to the Central SoMa legacy business and PDR support fund.”

Supervisor Peskin told colleagues the changes “do not materially increase the city's obligations or liabilities,” and recommended the development agreement on second reading. The ordinance and development agreement both include CEQA determinations, as noted on the record. The development agreement as adopted lists project‑specific public benefits and legacy‑business support provisions; the agreement description on the agenda also says it provides for various public benefits and makes the appropriate findings.

The transcript shows the board accepted the changes Ms. Topier read and then passed the ordinance and agreement by the end of the meeting. The development agreement had been held earlier in the session at the sponsor's request and taken up again later after clarifying changes were read into the record.

Implementation details in the agreement include the extended cure period for certain approvals, removal of vendor‑challenge language referenced above, and the added discretionary city language about potential additional contributions to the Central SoMa legacy business and PDR support fund. The ordinance and agreement require follow‑up with the planning department and other city offices for the permits and approvals referenced in the documents.

The board’s actions preserve CEQA findings for the project and add specific language intended to address vendor concerns and legacy business supports as the site moves through entitlement and construction phases.