546
559 801 479
872
708
562 823
479a
81 4
848
41 3
664
786
569 797
571
449
859
785
549
435
476
490
790
525
778
638 834
743 735
650 529
509 71 8 466
589
644
624
853
816
651
796
725
485
456 742
723
505
497
SFUSD’S FUTURE DINING EXPERIENCE
544
404
676
478
750
603
796a
420
621
61 8
832
634
782
838
680
405
607
81 5
876
724
539
537
722
488 656 697 862 760 FACILITY ASSESSMENT AND REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY 71 4
670
842
431
507
729 439
61 4
868
481 757
746
521
820
submitted by
NATE GOORE, PRINCIPAL MKTHINK OCTOBER 2014
867 691
593
625
51 3 764
493
632
830
71 0
575
453
2
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS 01
Executive Summary
02 Background
05 09
03 Facilities Assessment 15 Appliance Assessment 23 Furniture Assessment 27 04 Regional Kitchen Strategy 31 Scenario 1: Current Case 45 Scenario 2: Achievable Future 49 Scenario 3: Flexible Growth 57 Scenario 4: Streamlined for Growth 63 Scenario 5: Lighthouse Scenario 65 05 Recommendation
71
A Appendix Facilities Assessment Data Set - Appliances Facilities Assessment Data Set - Furniture Facilities Assessment Data Set - Sinks
77
all content is proprietary
3
4
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
all content is proprietary
5
01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SFUSD is committed to “implement[ing] a vision to comprehensively reform the school food experience in San Francisco’s public schools in a way that is self-sustaining in the long term, reflects and honors existing SFUSD labor agreements, and meets the needs and desires of today’s students.”
Source: SFUSD Facilities Assessment Request for Proposals, Reforming the School Food Experience Initiative
6
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
How to create a strategy for sustainable growth?
As San Francisco Unified School District’s (SFUSD) student body grows, this means an increased number of meals served per day and an increased kitchen capacity for the district. Student body growth, coupled with SFUSD’s aim to create a healthier, more sustainable and efficient supply chain led the district to re-imagine their food service production, delivery, and service operations. This project was led by directors and project managers in the SNS division of SFUSD and also included the assistance and validation of district leaders, site leaders and division staff to complete. In conjunction with the district, MKThink responded to this challenge in a twofold, interlinking strategy: First, by surveying and analyzing SFUSD’s existing kitchen infrastructure and facilities (including appliances, furniture and sinks), and presenting this data in a database management system for SFUSD’s future use.
be located to best meet the district’s goals of student participation growth and selfsustainability in the long term. Using the facility data from the first workstream, the project team was able to assess what current infrastructure could be used in renovated regional kitchens or a new central kitchen, helping to save costs and reduce waste. The development of the model was assisted and validated by district. Separate sections of this report present these two workstreams in detail, explaining the process, methodology, assumptions and outcomes of each. The report concludes with a recommendation for how SFUSD could approach the creation of high-volume kitchens based on its goals and growth projections. The general recommendation includes key considerations and sensitivity criteria for how SFUSD could further assess the specific physical fit-out requirements of each kitchen.
Second, MKThink created a quantitative and qualitative model and strategy for where new high-volume production kitchens should
all content is proprietary
7
8
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
02 BACKGROUND
all content is proprietary
9
10
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
BACKGROUND
In 2013, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) commissioned a study of its dining facilities and operations by IDEO with the goal of “comprehensively reform[ing] school food in San Francisco’s public schools”. The output of this was the phase one IDEO report, SFUSD’s Future Dining Experience, which examined how SFUSD used its current dining and food preparation space, the district’s supply chain model, and students’ overall experience of dining across elementary, middle and high schools. The report made 10 design recommendations for how SFUSD could progress reforming food services across the district, ranging from space renovation to communal eating to healthy vending machines to supply chain consolidation. Following on from IDEO’s extensive work, SFUSD awarded MKThink a contract in 2014 to investigate in detail one of IDEO’s design recommendations: the creation of new regional kitchen sites. This was the question the MKThink project team asked themselves to address: What is the best way to create a sustainable and costeffective network of regional kitchens for SFUSD? As per the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) submitted to SFUSD in June 2014, MKThink concluded that this would include creating a flexible framework for statistically, financially and geospatially evaluating the potential regional kitchen sites, coupled with concurrently collecting the key data needed to inform the framework for decision-making. The outputs of this would a data-driven justification presented in a report that identified the best site options and cost implications for a series of regional kitchens, and a detailed facilities assessment of SFUSD’s dining and kitchen and cafeteria appliances, furniture and sinks. In order to do this, MKThink met with representatives of SFUSD to determine the programming for the regional kitchens, the proper site selection criteria with input from the project team’s Food Service expert, Webb Design, and the most realistic scenarios for in-depth evaluation. REPORT STRUCTURE This report begins by outlining SFUSD as a school district, and the subsequent needs and issues it faces. The report then details the approach and process taken to undertake the facilities assessment and determine the various scenarios for a regional kitchen strategy. This includes all inputs and assumptions used in creating the system model, which tested scenarios and lead to the final recommendation. An appendix concludes the report, and includes all data collected to inform the facilities assessment.
all content is proprietary
11
02 BACKGROUND
[1]
Produce a kitchen and dining area assessment to survey, analyze and evaluate 105 schools. [2]
Document current equipment conditions and space utilization of each site. Provide equipment upgrade costs. [3]
Identify kitchen spaces at existing school sites that could be utilized as regional kitchens. Source: SFUSD Facilities Assessment Request for Proposals, Reforming the School Food Experience Initiative [with modifications]
12
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
CONTEXT
SFUSD educates approximately 58,270 of San Francisco’s pre-school, elementary, middle, and high school age children through a network of 131 schools. SFUSD’s Student Nutrition Services (SNS) department operates the largest public food service program in San Francisco, serving 33,000 meals and snacks each day (5,500 breakfasts, 21,500 lunches, and 6,000 snacks) at approximately 114 schools. As SFUSD moves to more extensively sourcing ingredients from local producers and toward a new set of food offerings to enhance the school food dining experience, additional and new types of food preparation space will be needed in the form of high volume production kitchens at existing school sites. These kitchens will need to have capacity to produce approximately 3,100 meals a day under the current operating model, and will need to increase to approximately 10,00011,000 meals per day over time as student participation grows. The existing kitchens not converted into regional kitchen sites will need to be assessed for capability to reheat meals and a strategy for converting existing kitchens into receiving and distribution systems will need to be developed.
CAFETERIA STAFF
230
SCHOOLS SERVED
105
MEALS SERVED PER DAY
33,000 BREAKFAST
5,500
LUNCH
21,500
SNACKS
6,000
LUNCH 65.2% BREAKFAST 16.7%
SNACKS 18.2%
This report looks at middle and high school students currently participating in the meal program across 33 sites.
all content is proprietary
13
14
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
all content is proprietary
15
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
PROCESS AND WORKSTREAMS Two workstreams were carried out per MKThink’s RFQ response: the detailed facilities assessment and regional kitchen strategy. The first workstream focused on the detailed, on-site collection of physical infrastructure data related to the kitchen and dining facilities at all 114 sites and is illustrated in the process diagram to the right. A facilities assessment was key to understanding the current physical state of SFUSD kitchens, cafeterias, and equipment functionality. The information collected has informed the decision-making and recommendations presented in this report for site selection decisions. The additional output of the this work, an online database, will also serve SFUSD to make future space planning decisions, and has informed the regional kitchen strategy presented in the next section.
16
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
all content is proprietary
17
SCHOOLS SURVEYED
546
559 801 479
708 823
479a
848
664
569
571
786 797
743
735
650 529
509 718 466
644 544
404
589
796
651 725
750
796a
603
420
782 607
497
742
621
618
832 634
405
456
723
505
478
624
853
816
485
676
449
859
785
549
435
476
490
790
525 413
638 834
814
778
872
562
838 680
815 876 724
539 697
862
656 575
670
537
722
488
842
431
439
830 507
729 614
513
625
764
868
481 757
746
714 710
493
632
760
521
453
820 867 691
593
MAP OF SCHOOLS SURVEYED FOR FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
Number of Appliances 1
Elementary School K-8 Middle School High School
10 20 30 40
735
Site Number Appliance Condition No Data 1 4
18
2
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment 3
SCHOOL SITES ASSESSED FOR FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
SITE
SCHOOL NAME
SITE
SCHOOL NAME
413 420 435 456 449 625 603 872 476 509 478 481 525 507 521 537 539 680 562 575 589 593 453 614 644 544 664 670 490 676 691 830 714 549 718 505 722 724 729 723 650 735 746 638 786 569 790 493 814 816 656 820 823
Alamo Elementary Alvarado Elementary Argonne Elementary Bryant Elementary Bessie Charmichael Elementary George Washington Carver Elementary Cesar Chavez Elementary John Yehall Chin Elementary Chinese Education Center Chinese Immersion School At Deavila Clarendon Alternative Elementary Cleveland Elementary William Cobb Elementary Dr. Charles Drew College Preparatory Academy El Dorado Elementary Fairmount Elementary Diane Feinstein Elementary Leonard Flynn elementary Garfield Elementary Glen Park Elementary Grattan Elementary Guadalupe Elementary Bret Harte Elementary Hillcrest Elementary Jefferson Elementary Francis Scott Key Elementary Lafayette Elementary Lakeshore Alternative Elementary Gordon J Lau Elementary Lawton Elementary Longfellow Elementary Malcolm X Academy Marshall Elementary Frank McCoppin Elementary Mckinley Elementary Harvey Milk Civil Rights Elementary Miraloma Elementary Mission Education Center Monroe Elementary George Moscone Elementary John Muir Elementary New Traditions Elementary Jose Ortega Elementary Jean Parker Elementary Rose Parks Elementary George Peabody Elementary Redding Elementary San Francisco Community Alternative San Francisco Public Montessori Sanchez Elementary Junipero Serra Elementary Sheridan Elementary Sherman Elementary
488 834 838 782 842 750 848 513 859 862 867 497 876 801 832 815 439 764 742 559 466 624 757 405 697 853 725 651 621 785 571 743 618 479 479a 796 796a 485 431 449 632 529 546 404 607 710 634 708 778 760 797 868
Commodore Sloat Elementary Spring Valley Elementary Starr King Elementary Robert Louis Stevenson Elementary Sunnyside Elementary Sunset Elementary Sutro Elementary Edward R. Taylor Elementary Tenderloin Community Ulloa Elementary Visitacion Valley Elementary Daniel Webster Elementary West Portal Elementary Yick Wo Elementary Academy Of Arts And Sciences Ruth Asawa San Francisco School Of The Arts Balboa High Phillip And Sala Burton Academic High Downtown High Galileo High Independence High International Studies Academy June Jordan School For Equity Abraham Lincoln High Lowell High Thurgood Marshall High Mission High John O’Connell High S.F. International High Raoul Wallenberg Traditional High George Washington High Ida B. Wells High Buena Vista/ Horace Mann Lilienthal, Claire (3-8 Winfield Scott Campus) Lilienthal, Claire (K-2 Madison Campus) Rooftop (5-8 Mayeda Campus) Rooftop (K-4 Burnett Campus) Alice Yu Fong Aptos Middle Bessie Charmichael James Denman Middle Everett Middle Francisco Middle A.P. Giannini Middle Herbert Hoover Middle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle James Lick Middle Marina Middle Presidio Middle Paul Revere Middle Roosevelt Middle Visitacion Valley Middle
all content is proprietary
19
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
DATA COLLECTION Prior to developing the strategic work and regional kitchen modeling process, the project team identified the information needed from each kitchen and dining location to inform the recommendations about future equipment use, renovation, sale or disposition. The assessment was done first by gathering data. The project team took an inventory of all of the district’s appliance, furniture and sink assets by completing site visits to 114 school sites. Equipment and furniture information was recorded during on-site observations that focused on detailed attributes about each piece of equipment: APPLIANCE ATTRIBUTES
FURNITURE ATTRIBUTES
SINK ATTRIBUTES
Site Campus Equipment Description Appliance Type Condition Make/Manufacturer Model/Serial Number Year Build/Installed Physical Size (inches) (L/W) In Operation Plumbing Electrical Connection Mode Ampage Voltage Min/Max
Site Campus Furniture Type Condition Manufacturer Seating Capacity Physical Size (inches) (L/W/H)
Site Campus Sink Type Condition Manufacturer Material Physical Size (inches) (L/W/H) In Use Drainage Mode Cold Water/Warm Water Hose Attachment Working surface
Once the data was collected from each school site, the information was then organized into an Excel dataset to easily and rapidly assess and standardize the information across all sites. The dataset was then programmed into an open data management system (DMS) and imported into a singular database, (in this case 4daptive, a proprietary database developed in-house at MKThink). The 4daptive inputs can be accessed by both SFUSD and the project team, and serves as one of the key deliverables to SFUSD. The 4daptive database has allowed the project team to produce the recommendations presented in this report, and will enable SFUSD to access, assess, and utilize this data to inform future decision-making. Additionally, a list of recommended standard kitchen equipment has been included in the Appliances section that follows for both a regional kitchen and a central kitchen.
20
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
HIGH LEVEL FACILITIES ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
APPLIANCE CONDITION
VERY GOOD - 33% GOOD - 42% FAIR - 18% POOR - 8%
FURNITURE CONDITION
SINKS CONDITION
VERY GOOD - 38% GOOD - 46% FAIR - 15% POOR - 1%
VERY GOOD - 37% GOOD - 53% FAIR - 9% POOR - 1%
NUMBER OF APPLIANCES
PIECES OF FURNITURE
NUMBER OF SINKS
722
1,921
242
all content is proprietary
21
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
546
479
559
708
823
848
569
786 797
664
571
743
735
529
718 816 466
544
404
589
725
624 497
456
505 651 796a
478
420
618
832
750
634
782 405
607
697
603
838 680
815
876
724
539 862
742
853 651
796
485
676
449
650
509
644
859
785
549
435
476
490
790
525 413
872
638 834
814 479a 778
562
801
537
722
656
488
760
714
575 670
493
842
431
710 614
439
481
868
757
625
830
513 764
729 632
507
521
Number of Appliances
453
746
1 820
10
867 691
20
593
30 40
735
Site Number MAP OF APPLIANCES LOCATED AT EACH SCHOOL SITE
Number of Appliances 1
Appliance Condition No Data
10
1
20
4
30
2
40
735
Site Number Appliance Condition
22
No Data
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
1 4 2 3
3
APPLIANCE FINDINGS
NUMBER OF APPLIANCES ACROSS THE DISTRICT
0
30
2-Burner Table-Top Range 3-Door Refrigerator
60
90
4 2
6-Burner Range/Oven
3
Barbecue Roaster
1
Can Opener
1
APPLIANCES IN USE
2
Chopper
46
Convection Oven
1 15
Dishwasher
41
Double-Door Freezer
65
Double-Door Refrigerator
42
Exhaust Hood
2
Food Slicer
32
Freezer Chest
2
Griddle/2-Burner Range/Oven
16
Griddle/Oven
1 3
Meat Grinder Microwave
1 38
Mixer
3
Oven Pizza Oven
IN USE - 84% NOT IN USE - 16%
102
Cooler Chest
Ice Machine
150
1
6-Burner Range
Deep Fryer
120
1 135
Retherm Holding Cabinet
9
Retherm Holding Drawers
47
Serving Counter (Heated)
8
Single-Door Freezer
63
Single-Door Refrigerator
15
Slicer
18
Steamer Stove/Oven
1
Triple-Door Refrigerator
1
all content is proprietary
23
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT CENTRAL KITCHEN RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT LIST
100 Gal. Combo Chiller Cook Tank 100 Gal. Tilt Kettle 150 Gal. Batch Chiller Cook Tank 150 Gal. Tilt Kettles 26’ Tramrail And Hoist 3 Compartment Pot Sink Agitator Dolly Air Curtain Basket Battery Chargers Blower Coil Bollards Bulk Cooler Bulk Freezer Bumper Curb Can Opener Cart Wash Cart, Dishwasher Rack Chemical Shelf (Knife Brackets) Chilled Water Take-off Combi Oven Condensate Hood Condensate Hood (Type II) Control Panel Convection Oven Conveyor System Corner Guards and Wall Caps Dairy Cooler Demand Control Dish Cart Dish Table W/ 3 Compartment Pot Sink Dishwasher, Door Type Disposer Distribution Cooler Dolly with Basket Accessory Dough Sheeter Drain Cabinet Dryer Dunnage Rack Equipment Stand Exhaust Hood Exhaust Hood Trim and Closure Panel Eye Wash Station Faucet Faucet Parts Fire Pull Box Fire Suppression System Floor Trough Food Bank Food Preparation Machine Food Processor Fork Lifts Form, Fill, Seal With Pumps Fryer Battery, Gas Glycol Trunk Line Hand Sink
24
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Heavy Duty Range, 36”, 6 Open Burners High Pressure Cleaning System Horizontal Casting Clipper Horizontal Conveyors Horizontal Wrapper Hose Bib Assembly Hose Reel Hybrid Fluid Cooler Ice Bin for Ice Machines Ice Cuber Ice Cuber (Remote) Ingredient Bin Island Work Counter W/ Prep Sink Kettle / Pot Filler Faucets Kettle Agitator Dolly Meat Prep. Meat Saw Meat Slicer Meat Thaw Mixer Stand Mixer Stand Mobile Mixer, Planetary Mobile Dollies Mobile Drying Racks Mobile Enclosed Cabinet Mobile Work Table Mobile Work Tables Mop Holder Mop Sink NH3/CO2 Modular Refrigeration Package Overhead Electrical Bus Bar Overshelf Pallet Jack Pallet Jack Charging Station Portion Scale Pot Storage Shelving Units (Mobile) Pre-Rinse Produce Cooler Produce Soak Pulper Pump Skid Receiving Scale Refrigerated Sandwich Unit (Mobile) Refrigerated Work Top Refrigerator Shelving Units (Mobile) Remote Charging Station Remote Condenser Unit Roll-In Blast Chiller/Freezer Roll-In Oven Roll-In Oven Rack Roll-In Refrigerator Rack Roll-in Refrigerator, 2 sections Scale Scissor Lift Security Enclosure Kit
Security Unit Service Faucet Sink Assembly Sink, Hand Soak Sink Soap and Towel Dispensers Soiled Dish Table Stainless Steel Baker’s Table (Mobile) Stainless Steel Bumper Rails Steel Pallett Racking Storage Chill Grates Storage Shelving Units Storage Shelving Units (Mobile) Storage Shelving Units Mobile Subcritical Booster Skid W/ CPC Controls Table Top Kettle Tilting Skillet, Countertop, Electric Tilting Skillet, Gas Trash Receptacles Truck Dock Lights Utensil Rack Utility Chase Vegetable Dryer Vegetable Washer Vertical Cutter Mixer VCM Vertical Vacuum Clipper Video Display Walk-In Freezer Walk-In Refrigerator Wall Flashing Wall Shelf (Concealed Brackets) Wall Shelf (Knife Brackets) Washer Waste Collector Water Filter Assembly Water Meter Water Treatment System Work Counter Work Table Work Table W/ Prep Sink Working Freezer
RECOMMENDED KITCHEN EQUIPMENT REGIONAL KITCHEN RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT LIST
3 Compartment Pot Sink Air Cooled Remote Refrigeration System Air Curtain Blower Coil Bumper Rails Cash Register Combi Oven Convection Oven Convection Steamer Corner Guards and Wall Caps Custom Exhaust Hood Decorative Lamp Drop-In Cold Food Pan Drop-In Heated Shelf Drop-In Hot Well Dunnage Rack Employee Lockers Exhaust Hood Trim and Closure Panel Faucet Fire Protection System Fire Pull Box Floor Trough Food Carrier Dolly Freezer Shelving Units Heat Lamp Heated Transporation Carts Ice Bin for Ice Machines Ice Cuber Kettle / Pot Filler Faucets Mobile Work Table Mop Holder Mop Sink Reach-in Refrigerator, 1 section Refrigerated Merchandiser Refrigerated Sandwich Unit Refrigerated Transportation Carts Refrigerator Shelving Units Remote Condenser Unit Roll-In Refrigerator Rack Roll-Thru Heated Cabinet, 2 section Roll-Thru Refrigerator, 2 sections Self-Service Refrigerated Open AirScreen Case Service Counter Service Faucet Sink, Hand Sneezeguard with Pass Shelf Soap and Towel Dispenser Stainless Steel Filler Panels and Trim Storage Shelving Units Tilting Kettle, 40 gal Tilting Skillet, Gas Trash Receptacles Utensil Rack Walk-in Freezer Walk-in Refrigerator
Wall Flashing Wall Shelf (Knife Brackets) Waste Collector Water Filter Assembly Water Fliltration Wood Pizza Top Work Table
all content is proprietary
25
Total Seat Count
26
Bessie Charmichael 0
0
Cesar Chavez Elementary
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
*Seat count may differ from a total capacity
Visitacion Valley Elementary
176
Sheridan Elementary
Robert Louis Stevenson Elementary
176 176
20
Ruth Asawa San Francisco School Of ..
George Moscone Elementary
Sanchez Elementary
Redding Elementary
New Traditions Elementary
Chinese Immersion School At Deavila
144 144 144 160 160 160 160 176
180
Mckinley Elementary
128 128 128 136 140 144 144 144 144 144 144 144
200
Lakeshore Alternative Elementary
John Muir Elementary
Grattan Elementary
Fairmount Elementary
Edward R. Taylor Elementary
Cleveland Elementary
Bryant Elementary
Alvarado Elementary
Rooftop (K-4 Burnett Campus)
San Francisco Public Montessori
Marshall Elementary
Malcolm X Academy
112 112 112 112 112 112 112 128 128 128
160
James Lick Middle
Hillcrest Elementary
Garfield Elementary
El Dorado Elementary
William Cobb Elementary
Thurgood Marshall High
Sutro Elementary
Sunset Elementary
Junipero Serra Elementary
Harvey Milk Civil Rights Elementary
96 96 96 104
140
Commodore Sloat Elementary
John Yehall Chin Elementary
Raoul Wallenberg Traditional High
Frank McCoppin Elementary
120
Daniel Webster Elementary
San Francisco Community Alternative
Rose Parks Elementary
Rooftop (5-8 Mayeda Campus)
Leonard Flynn elementary
Jose Ortega Elementary
Ida B. Wells High
Dr. Charles Drew College Preparatory ..
80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
100
Chinese Education Center
64
80
John O'Connell High
40 32 43
60
Independence High
HS
MS
K8
ES
500
Gordon J Lau Elementary
Bessie Charmichael Elementary 0
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
600
580
560
540
520
480
460
440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
Robert Louis Stevenson Elementary
all content is proprietary
Mission Education Center
Galileo High
June Jordan School For Equity
Academy Of Arts And Sciences
Balboa
Longfellow Elementary
Abraham Lincoln High
James Denman Middle
George Washington High
Clarendon Alternative Elementary
Phillip And Sala Burton Academic High
Visitacion Valley Middle
Marina Middle
Jefferson Elementary
George Peabody Elementary
Downtown High
Roosevelt Middle
Lowell High
Sherman Elementary
Presidio Middle
Mission High
Miraloma Elementary
Herbert Hoover Middle
Glen Park Elementary
Francisco Middle
Everett Middle
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle
Starr King Elementary
Lafayette Elementary
Ulloa Elementary
Tenderloin Community
288
256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 266 270 272 272 272 272 272
224 240 240 256
224 224 224
Lawton Elementary
Lilienthal, Claire (3-8 Winfield
Guadalupe Elementary
George Washington Carver Elementary
A.P. Giannini Middle
Yick Wo Elementary
208 208 224 224 224
208 208
208 208 208 208 208
Sunnyside Elementary
S.F. International High
Paul Revere Middle
Francis Scott Key Elementary
Buena Vista/ Horace Mann
Bret Harte Elementary
Argonne Elementary
Aptos Middle
Alice Yu Fong
West Portal Elementary
Monroe Elementary
Jean Parker Elementary
192 192 208
192 192
Lilienthal, Claire (K-2 Madison Campus)
Alamo Elementary
192 192
176 176 184
176 176
Diane Feinstein Elementary
International Studies Academy
Spring Valley Elementary
Sheridan Elementary
Ruth Asawa San Francisco School Of ..
320 320 320 336 356 384 496 496 552 560
CURRENT SEAT COUNT BY SCHOOL
27
03 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
559
546 801 872
479
562
708 823
638 834
476
490
81 4
479a
790 525
778 848
41 3
664
571
786
569 797
859
785
449
549
435
743 735
650 529
509 71 8 589
644 544
404
651
796
466
725
478
832
796a
456 742
723
505
485
676
624
853
816
603 420
621
61 8
750
838
634
782
497
680
405 607 876 724
539
537
722
488
862
656
760
71 4
670 697
842
431
507
729 439
61 4
868
481
Number of Furniture Items
521
757
746
625
51 3 764
493
632
830
71 0
575
453
2
820
20
867 691
40
593
60 80
735
Site Number MAP OF FURNITURE ITEMS LOCATED AT EACH SCHOOL SITE
Number of Furniture Items
Furniture Condition
2
No Data
20
1
40
4
60
2
80
3
735
Site Number Furniture Condition
28
No Data
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
1 4 2 3
FURNITURE FINDINGS
NUMBER OF PIECES OF FURNITURE ACROSS THE DISTRICT
0 Beanery Cart
200
600
800
81
Enclosed Tray Cart
7
Equipment Stand
4 64
Long Table
3 1,036
Long Table w/ Attached Seating Long Tables w/ Attached Seating Mobile Equipment Stand
1 15 67
Mobile Work Table
103
Round Table
58
Round Table w/ Attached Seating Serving Counter (Un-Heated) Shelf
13 20
Tray Cart
42
Triangle Table
43
Utility Cart Work Table
1,000
15
Benches
Long Table
400
158 191
all content is proprietary
29
30
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
all content is proprietary
31
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY Following the facilities assessment workstream, the regional kitchen strategy determined which sites would be suitable to meet this increased demand and the related cost implications. The scenarios and recommendations presented at the end of this report are the outputs of these two workstreams.
In order to determine the optimal location and number of regional kitchens to serve SFUSD’s middle and high schools, MKThink first mapped the district’s supply chain to assess the current case and to determine the variables, inputs, and outputs that would illustrate the characteristics and parameters for the regional kitchen model.
San Francisco Unified School District
FOOD SERVICES SUPPLY CHAIN 1. CENTRAL WAREHOUSE Food Providers BiRite Foster Farms USDA Supply
Meal Costs BiRite $1.00 USDA $0.23 Foster Farms $0.23 Supply $0.15 $1.62 food cost per meal Other Costs Supply coordinator ($95,000/annually) Rent ($800/month for 10 months) Labor ($800/month for 10 months) # of trucks ($) at $35.70 per truck per day
2A. REGIONAL KITCHEN Need for ~10,000-11,000 meals
1.5-2 sq ft/meal
15,000-20,000 sq ft kitchen area
# of staff # of meals produced per labor hour Costs Renovation ($400/sq ft)* Maintenance ($20k annually or $5.3k/kitchen) Chef ($177k annually or $59k/kitchen) Staff ($25 or 28/hour) Utilities ($/year) Revenue Catering ($135k annually) Demo kitchen rental ($102k annually)
2B. EQUIPMENT Reuseable in new kitchen (revenue neutral) Sell or recycle (Revenue) New equipment (Cost/Expense)
*Based on IDEO estimate of $400-500/sq ft
32
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
The infographic below shows the figures and costs across all parts of SFUSD’s food service supply chain. Using the factors determined through this supply chain mapping exercise, MKThink then developed a data-driven model. This model assessed the quantitative aspects of the location strategy, coupled with spatial mapping and qualitative analysis. It is explained in-depth in the following section.
Throughout the regional kitchen strategy development process, MKThink met with SFUSD leaders and staff to determine the optimal programming requirements for the regional kitchens and the proper site selection criteria. This was supplemented by input from the project team’s food service expert, Webb Design, who advised on technical details of kitchen design and facility analysis.
This infographic presents the variables that influence the location and capacity options for a new kitchen to serve the middle and high schools in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). It highlights opportunities for revenue, in addition to costs*. *Revenue and cost figures are based on IDEO’s SFUSD’s Future Dining Experience study and supporting financial models and data.
3. DELIVERY
4. SCHOOL SITE Variables # of meals aka avg. daily participation (ADP) rate/site ~20 meals/labor hour capacity prep & serve Costs Prep & Serve labor ($)/hour/employee Utilities ($)
2,240 meals per truck 1,120 meals per van # of trucks needed/day (-$) # of delivery hours # of routes Delivery distance (miles) Environmental Costs ($): Gas, emissions
KEY FIGURES
Revenue
Avg. Daily Participation Rate
Breakfast
Lunch
Breakfast
Lunch
Total
Free
1,930
5,641
12,739
Free
$2.11
$3.23
Reduced
417
1,492
3,611
Reduced
$1.81
$2.83
Paid
$0.28
$0.58
Paid
85
605
9,024
Total
2,432
7,738
10,170
~10,100 meals per day projected need 180 days of meal service annually 33 middle and high school sites in SFUSD
all content is proprietary
33
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
STRATEGIC MODEL Using a set of assumptions and inputs, the project team created a quantitative model for evaluating the potential regional kitchen sites and subsequent cost implications of each kitchen location scenario. The assumptions and inputs were developed in conjunction with SFUSD and Webb Design, ensuring that they reflected the most realistic and flexible options. Through initial quantitative analysis, visual, spatial and qualitative analysis, and discussions with SFUSD, a short-list of 12 (3 optimal and acceptable) option sites for regional kitchens was determined. These 12 options were then combined into five scenarios and tested indepth, moving towards a final option recommendation a data-driven justification for implementation. The scenarios presented in this section have been refined through meetings with SFUSD and Webb Design, and are based on various criteria for growth projections and meals needed per day based on student participation rates. A high-level model was developed to test these projections and rates, providing a high-level view of how many kitchens would be needed, what the potential costs would be, and what sites could be used as potential kitchens.
34
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND OUTPUTS
ASSUMPTIONS DISTRICT ASSUMPTIONS 180 days per school year Student participation increases 20% over a nine-year period Only current enrollment figures used MEAL ASSUMPTIONS 1.5 - 2.0 sq ft needed for production of one meal Percent of meals produced by SNS increases at a constant rate of 3.1%, from 50% to 75%, over a nine-year period Only breakfast and lunch information used DELIVERY ASSUMPTIONS $35 delivery cost per truck/van from regional kitchen to school sites Trucks/vans operate at 75% full Costs increase at 1% annually to account for inflation Proportion of total meals delivered and served at each school site stay the same over the nine-year period LABOR ASSUMPTIONS 20-35 meals per labor hour dependent on kitchen size $27/hour pay for SFUSD SNS kitchen staff Costs increase at 1% annually to account for inflation
OUTPUTS Number of kitchens needed Number of meal equivalents needed Production staff per kitchen Potential kitchen locations Delivery and operating costs Kitchen area needed (sq ft) Receiver kitchen locations Revenue Infrastructure costs Fixed soft, contingency and equipment costs
all content is proprietary
35
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
559
546
708
778
797
785
571
743
529 624
853 651
466 725
742
404 621 634 405
607
815
697 710 431
439
764 868
632 757
MAP OF SCHOOL SITES ASSESSED FOR HIGH-VOLUME KITCHEN STRATEGY
36
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Middle School High School
SCHOOL SITES ASSESSED
For the detailed infrastructure assessment, 105 schools were surveyed. For the regional kitchen strategy, 33 school sites were assessed for their potential to provide a regional kitchen. These sites are listed below and shown on the map on the opposite page, along with the number of meals needed per day. Only sites with an existing kitchen area near or above 2,000 sq ft were considered as regional kitchen locations. An ideal kitchen size is above 3,000 sq ft for a regional kitchen, but since only three of the districts existing production kitchens meet the ideal criteria, spaces at or near 2,000 sq ft were considered acceptable. SITE
SCHOOL NAME
EXISTING KITCHEN AREA (SQ FT)
405 Abraham Lincoln High 4,373 sq ft*** 632 James Denman Middle 3,033 sq ft*** 559 Galileo High 2,792 sq ft*** 431 Aptos Middle 2,618 sq ft* 815 Ruth Asawa San Francisco School Of The Arts 2,531 sq ft* 571 George Washington High 2,522 sq ft* 778 Presidio Middle 2,395 sq ft* 853 Thurgood Marshall High 2,377 sq ft* 868 Visitacion Valley Middle 2,326 sq ft* 404 A.P. Giannini Middle 2,253 sq ft* 797 Roosevelt Middle 1,998 sq ft* 529 Everett Middle 1,973 sq ft* 624 International Studies Academy 1,959 sq ft 607 Herbert Hoover Middle 1,732 sq ft 757 June Jordan School For Equity 1,690 sq ft 697 Lowell High 1,625 sq ft 634 James Lick Middle 1,540 sq ft 725 Mission High 1,536 sq ft 708 Marina Middle 1,496 sq ft 785 Raoul Wallenberg Traditional High 1,218 sq ft 742 Downtown High 1,204 sq ft 546 Francisco Middle 1,165 sq ft 743 Ida B. Wells High 389 sq ft 710 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle Unknown 439 Balboa High 764 Phillip And Sala Burton Academic High 466 Independence High 651 John O’Connell High 621 S.F. International High Civic Center High Hilltop High Gateway High Gateway to College CCSF *ACCEPTABLE **OPTIMAL
all content is proprietary
37
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
SCENARIOS OVERVIEW This section outlines the scenarios that were tested using the model developed by MKThink. Each scenario determines how many meals would be consumed daily by SFUSD students and staff, and subsequently how much kitchen floorspace and how many regional kitchens would be required to meet this need. An overview of the scenarios are presented on this page, and in further detail in this section.
SCENARIO 1: CURRENT CASE
SCENARIO 2: ACHIEVABLE FUTURE
Scenario 1 sets out the baseline case for
Scenario 2 builds on the baseline scenario
SFUSD. This scenario uses the current rate
and grows student participation in the meal
of student participation in the meal program
program to 60% over a nine year period. It
(40%) and does not include any growth
also grows the percent of meals produce
projections. It assumes 1.5 sq ft to produce
by SNS to 75% over the same period. It also
one meal, and that 50% of meals will be
uses an assumption of 1.5 sq ft to produce
produced by SNS.
one meal.
SCENARIO 3: FLEXIBLE GROWTH
SCENARIO 4: STREAMLINED GROWTH
Scenario 3 also uses the target student
Scenario 4 tests one central kitchen. It uses
participation growth rate of up to 60%
the target student participation growth
and SNS meal production growth rate (up
rate of up to 60% and SNS meal production
to 75%) over the same nine year period.
growth rate (up to 75%) over a nine year
However, this scenario uses the assumption
period, and an assumption of 1.5 sq ft to
of 2 sq ft to produce one meal to show the
produce one meal. This scenario uses an
sensitivity of this input.
assumption of 25 meals per labor hour.
SCENARIO 5: LIGHTHOUSE SCENARIO Scenario 5 also uses only one central kitchen, and the same assumptions as Scenario 4, with the exception of the student participation rate, which this scenario grows to 100%. This scenario uses an assumption of 35 meals per labor hour.
38
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
SCENARIO INPUTS DISTRICT INPUTS
DELIVERY INPUTS
TOTAL STUDENTS ENROLLED
DELIVERY COST WAREHOUSE TO REGIONAL KITCHEN
DELIVERY COST REGIONAL KITCHEN TO SCHOOLS
$35.70
$35.00
MEALS PER TRUCK
MEALS PER VAN
24,759 CURRENT PARTICIPATION RATE
40%
MIDDLE
8,261
HIGH
16,498
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
10,003
SCHOOL DAYS PER YEAR
180
1,120
FACILITY INPUTS AVERAGE REGIONAL KITCHEN CAPACITY
2,619
MEAL INPUTS SPACE NEEDED TO PRODUCE ONE MEAL
1.5-2.0 sq ft
Based on Webb Food Service Design advice and SFUSD’s current production rates
MEALS CURRENTLY MADE BY SNS
MEALS TARGETED TO BE MADE BY SNS
50%
75%
MEALS COSTS BREAKFAST - FREE
$1.89
BREAKFAST - REDUCED
$1.59
BREAKFAST - PAID
$0.28
LUNCH - FREE
$3.01
LUNCH - REDUCED
$2.61
LUNCH - PAID
$0.36
meals
RENOVATION COST PER SQ FT
NEW BUILD COST PER SQ FT
$550
$650
LABOR INPUTS LABOR COST PER HOUR
SHIFTS PER DAY
$27
2
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
Regional Kitchen Central Kitchen Rate 1 Central Kitchen Rate 2
MEAL EQUIVALENTS
Lunch = 1 meal equivalent Breakfast (hot) = 1 meal equivalents Breakfast (cold) = 0.6 meal equivalents TYPES OF BREAKFASTS SERVED
2,240
Hot = 25% Cold = 75%
SHIFT LENGTH (HOURS)
8
20 30 35
LABOR AND DELIVERY COST GROWTH RATE
1.0%
annually
to account for inflation
FIXED COST INPUTS Equipments Costs (Regional Kitchen) Equipments Costs (Central Kitchen) Contingency Costs (Regional Kitchen) Contingency Costs (Central Kitchen) Soft Costs all content is proprietary
AS A PERCENTAGE OF INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
25% 20% 10% 20% 20%
39
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN SFUSD MEAL PROGRAM
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
10,003
10,250
40.4%
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
10,745
11,241
11,983
41.4%
43.4%
45.4%
48.4%
5,643
6,323
7,042
7,799
53.1%
56.3%
59.4%
62.5%
5,228
5,858
6,524
7,226
PERCENT OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
MEALS TO BE PRODUCED BY SNS
5,001
PERCENT OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS 50.0% MEAL EQUIVALENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY SNS
4,634
Scenario 1 presents only the current participation rate of students and does not include any projection for future growth. The Scenario 1 model only uses the data in the first column in the table above. Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 operate on an assumption of non-linear growth of the percentage of students participating in the school meal program. These scenarios are also built on the assumption that the percentage of meal equivalents produced by Student Nutritional Services (SNS), (rising slowly at first and then gradually increasing across the nine year period). The percentage of students participating in the meal program starts at the current SFUSD student
40
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
participation rate of 40% for all scenarios. For Scenarios 2-4, this percentage grows from 40% to 60%. The number of students participating in the meal program starts with the current baseline of 10,003 students across SFUSD and grows to almost 15,000 students in a nine year period (14,954 was used in the model). The grow of 20% participation over a nine year period was used to present a realistic growth scenario for the district. The model also uses an assumption of linear growth of the meal equivalents produced by SNS, growing from 50% to 75% over a nine year period (at roughly 3.1% a year). Year 1 presents the baseline amount of meals at 4,634, and
PARTICIPATION AND MEAL PROJECTIONS
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
13,098
14,088
14,583
14,954
52.9%
56.9%
58.9%
60.4%
8,595
9,430
10,304
11,216
65.6%
68.8%
71.9%
75.0%
7,964
8,737
9,546
10,392
grows to 10,392 over a nine year period. These growth assumptions were used as they represent a realistic growth scenario for SFUSD. Meal equivalent is a measure used to equate the time and labor used to produced a meal (so equating the production of a breakfast meal and a lunch meal). An assumption of one lunch meal is equal to one meal equivalent (ratio of 1:1). For breakfast, it is assumed that 75% of breakfasts prepared will be cold and 25% of breakfasts will be hot. Further, it is assumed that cold breakfasts will take 60% as much time to prepare as a hot meal. The overall approximate meal to meal equivalent ration is 1:0.93. The
meal equivalent numbers have been used to calculate the production time and floorspace, whereas the actual number of meals has been used to calculate the revenue generated by meal sales. The diagram above shows these growth patterns and assumptions in a visual format. The Scenario 2 and 3 models use a phased approach ito bring forward the regional kitchens needed for the projected growth shown above. This is detailed further in the individual scenario sections that follow. Scenario 5 assumes 100% student participation in the meal program, and is not represented in the diagram above.
all content is proprietary
41
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
Participation Rate
78%
Proportion of Meals Produced By SNS
Projected Growth Of Meal Participation Rate and Proportion of Meals Produced By Student Nutrition Services
74% 70% 66% 62% 58% 54% 50% 46% 42% 38% 34% 30% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year
PROJECTED STUDENT MEAL PARTICIPATION RATE IN RELATION TO PROPORTION OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
The charts above and opposite show the data on the previous pages in a graphical visualization over time. The graph illustrates the projected student participation rate in the meal program (yellow line) in relation to the proportion of meals produced by SNS (blue line), and shows the difference between the two rates, varying from approximately a minimum of a 10% difference to a maximum of a 12% difference over the nine-year period. In year 1, approximately 40% of students are participating in the meal program, and SNS is producing 50% of the meals being served. The graph
42
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
illustrates the linear growth rate assumption of the SNS meal production rate, while student participation grows at different rates over time, slowly growing in years 1 and 2, and then picking up over the tested time period.
9
STUDENT PARTICIPTION IN MEAL PROGRAM
15,000
Students Participating Meals Produced By SNS
14,000 13,000
Projected Growth Of Number Of Student Participating and Number of Meals Produced By Student Nutrition Services
12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
PROJECTED NUMBER OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN MEAL PROGRAM IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
The graph above shows the projected number of students (as opposed to rate in the chart opposite) participating in the meal program in relation to the number of meals produced by SNS over the nine-year period. This graph illustrates the relationship between the participation and production rates in the graph opposite through the actual number of meals that are projected to be consumed by students and produced by SNS.
all content is proprietary
43
SCENARIO ONE
SCENARIO [1]:
Current Case
Scenario 1 sets out the baseline scenario for SFUSD. This scenario uses the current rate of student participation in the meal program (40% or 10,003 students across the district), assuming the 40% participation rate stays constant across the nine year projection period. This scenario assumes that it takes 1.5 sq ft to produce one meal at the regional kitchen scale. It also assumes that 50% of meals will be produced by SNS across the nine year period. This scenario results in the need for 9,269 meal equivalents per day, or 4,634 meals per day to be produced by SNS meals per day. This scenario tests two of the current largest kitchens in SFUSD, located at Lincoln High School and Galileo High School. In this scenario, Lincoln primarily serves the south and southwest part of the city, while Galileo serves the north-east part of the city.
44
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Even though these schools are on the edge of the system, delivery costs play a minor role in kitchen operation financials. The model shows that with no change in participation across the nine year period, development of two regional production kitchens will produce enough meals for the current rate of student participation.
SCENARIO 1: CURRENT CASE
SCENARIO PARTICIPATION RATE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
40%
10,003
MEAL EQUIVALENTS NEEDED PER DAY PRODUCED BY SNS
PERCENT OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
7,000 sq ft at 1.5 sq ft/meal
4,634 50% POTENTIAL REGIONAL KITCHEN LOCATIONS
20
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
KITCHEN STAFF NEEDED
Lincoln HS 9 staff Galileo HS 11 staff
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
$52,000
$1,752,000
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (KITCHEN RENOVATION)
$6,108,000 AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE
$5,248,000 ANNUAL AVERAGE AND FIXED COSTS AND REVENUE 30 M 25 M
Total Participation Revenue Versus Toal Costs (Assets, Operations, and Delivery)
20 M 15 M 10 M 5M 0 -5 M -10 M Total Revenue
-15 M -20 M
Fixed Costs Operating Costs Delivery Costs
-25 M -30 M 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
all content is proprietary
45
SCENARIO ONE MAP
Marina 1 57
Presidio 1 48
Galileo 366
Francisco 1 71
Gateway 1 32 Roosevelt 1 71
Washington 265
Wallenberg 1 58
Civic Center 12 Wells 21 Everett 98
Marshall 1 60 Downtown High 15
Independence High 21
ISA 70
Mission O'Connell 252 100
Giannini 118
Hilltop 24
Lick 1 00 Lincoln 263
Hoover 1 75
SF International 1 04
Asawa 69
MLK 84
Gateway to College 12 Lowell 404
Aptos 1 70 Denman 1 30
Balboa 267
June Jordan 1 42
Burton 1 77 Vis Valley 93
MAP OF REGIONAL KITCHEN SITES AND DESIGNATED RECEIVER SITES FOR SCENARIO 1
46
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Abraham Lincoln High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
4,400 sq ft 3,000 meals 18
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,800 sq ft 1,700 meals 15
Galileo High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
James Denman Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
George Washington High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Aptos Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Asawa School of the Arts School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Thurgood Marshall High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Visitacion Valley Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
all content is proprietary
47
SCENARIO TWO
SCENARIO [2]:
Achievable Future
Scenario 2 builds on the baseline scenario and grows student participation in the meal program to 60% over a nine year period, at a rate of 2.5% per year. It also grows the percent of meals being produced by SNS from 50% to 75% over the same nine year period, at a rate of 3.1% per year. Like Scenario 1, this scenario also uses an assumption of 1.5 sq ft needed to produce one meal. 60% of all SFUSD students participating in the meal program equates to 14,954 students by Year 9, with 13,857 meal equivalents needed per day. SNS producing 75% of all meals by Year 9 equates to SNS producing 10,393 meals per day. This scenario tests six of the largest existing kitchens in SFUSD: Lincoln High School, Galileo High School, Denman Middle School, Washington High School, Aptos Middle School and Asawa High School. Because the model operates on an assumption of phased demand, i.e. the student participation 48
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
rate increases gradually over each year, not all six regional kitchens would be needed at Year 1. MKThink has assumed that a two phase build out would be realistic - four regional kitchens renovated and fitted out initially to be ready for use in Year 1 (Lincoln, Galileo, Denman and Washington), and two additional kitchens renovated and fitted out in Year 4 (Aptos and Asawa), ready for use in Year 5 when student participation has increased. The phased approach of Scenario 2 would allow the district to plan for uncertainty in growth, flexibility and to avoid downfall in its operations and financials if the anticipated student demand goes not occur. Plans from Webb Food Service Design have been included in this section illustrating the potential use of Denman and Galileo High Schools as regional kitchens.
SCENARIO 2: ACHIEVABLE FUTURE
SCENARIO PARTICIPATION RATE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
60%
14,954
MEAL EQUIVALENTS NEEDED PER DAY PRODUCED BY SNS
PERCENT OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
15,600 sq ft at 1.5 sq ft/meal
10,393 75%
YEAR 4
YEAR 0
POTENTIAL REGIONAL KITCHEN LOCATIONS
KITCHEN STAFF NEEDED
Lincoln HS Galileo HS Denman MS Washington HS Aptos MS Asawa HS
20
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
13 staff 10 staff 12 staff 10 staff 11 staff 9 staff
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
$85,000
$4,247,000
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (KITCHEN RENOVATION)
$15,233,000 AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE
$12,940,000
ANNUAL AVERAGE AND FIXED COSTS AND REVENUE 30 M 25 M
Total Participation Revenue Versus Toal Costs (Assets, Operations, and Delivery)
20 M 15 M 10 M 5M 0 -5 M -10 M Total Revenue
-15 M -20 M
Fixed Costs Operating Costs Delivery Costs
-25 M -30 M 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
all content is proprietary
49
SCENARIO TWO MAP - PHASE 1
Marina 269
Presidio 254
Galileo 628
Francisco 293
Gateway 226 Roosevelt 293
Washington 455
Wallenberg 271
Civic Center 20 Wells 35 Everett 1 68 Marshall 274
Independence High 36
SF International 1 77 Hilltop 40
Lick 1 71 Hoover 300
ISA 1 20
Mission O'Connell 432 171
Giannini 203 Lincoln 451
Downtown High 26
Asawa 118
MLK 143
Gateway to College 19 Lowell 693
Aptos 291 Denman 223
Balboa 459
June Jordan 243
Burton 304 Vis Valley 1 58
MAP OF REGIONAL KITCHEN SITES AND DESIGNATED RECEIVER SITES FORPHASE 1 OF SCENARIO 2
50
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Abraham Lincoln High School Regional Kitchen Site
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
4,400 sq ft 3,000 meals 11
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,800 sq ft 1,700 meals 8
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
3,000 sq ft 2,000 Meals 10
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,500 sq ft 1,700 meals 4
Receiver Kitchen Site
Galileo High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
James Denman Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
George Washington High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Aptos Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Asawa School of the Arts School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Thurgood Marshall High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Visitacion Valley Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
all content is proprietary
51
SCENARIO TWO MAP - PHASE 2 PHASE 2 (YEAR 5 AND BEYOND)
Marina 351
Presidio 331
Francisco 382
Galileo 820
Gateway 295 Roosevelt 382
Washington 594
Wallenberg 355
Civic Center 26 Wells 45 Everett 220
Marshall 358 Downtown High 34
Independence High 47
Mission 564
Giannini 265 Hoover 391
SF International 232 Hilltop 53
Lick 223 Lincoln 589
ISA 1 57
O'Connell 224
Asawa 1 55
MLK 1 87 Gateway to College 25 Lowell 905
Aptos 380 Denman 291 Balboa 599
June Jordan 31 7
Burton 396 Vis Valley 207
MAP OF REGIONAL KITCHEN SITES AND DESIGNATED RECEIVER SITES FOR PHASE 2 OF SCENARIO 2
52
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Abraham Lincoln High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
4,400 sq ft 3,000 meals 8
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,800 sq ft 1,700 meals 3
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
3,000 sq ft 2,000 Meals 6
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,500 sq ft 1,700 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,600 sq ft 1,700 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,500 Sq Ft 1,700 Meals 8
Galileo High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
James Denman Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
George Washington High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Aptos Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Asawa School of the Arts School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Thurgood Marshall High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Visitacion Valley Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
all content is proprietary
53
GALILEO HIGH TEST FIT PLAN
54
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
DENMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL TEST FIT PLAN
all content is proprietary
55
SCENARIO THREE
SCENARIO [3]:
Flexible Growth
This scenario tests the current rate of student participation (37%) in the breakfast and lunch program plus 10% participation. This scenario assumes that the current participation will grow by 10% to 47% of the student body participating in the breakfast and lunch program. This scenario results in the need for 12,798 meals per day and five kitchens to produce this number of meals. This is based on the assumption that each kitchen can produce a maximum of approximately 3,000 meals per day. Similar to Scenario 2, the Scenario 3 model also uses phased demand to dictate when the various regional kitchens should be renovated and come into use. MKThink has assumed that a two phase build out would also be realistic for Scenario 3, this time with
56
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
five regional kitchens renovated and fitted out initially in Year 1 (Lincoln, Galileo, Denman, Washington and Aptos) to accommodate the growth in student participation for four years. In Year 4, three additional kitchens (Asawa, Visitacion Valley and Marshall) would be renovated to be ready for use in Year 5 and to accommodate growth for the following four years when student participation has further increased. Like Scenario 2, the phased approach of Scenario 3 would allow the district to plan for uncertainty in growth, flexibility and to avoid downfall in its operations and financials if the anticipated student demand goes not occur. However, this scenario assumes that it takes 2 sq ft to produce one meal, which shows the sensitivity of this input and the outputs needed were the district to adopt a policy where meals needed more space to be prepared.
SCENARIO 3: FLEXIBLE GROWTH
SCENARIO PARTICIPATION RATE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
60%
14,954
MEAL EQUIVALENTS NEEDED PER DAY PRODUCED BY SNS
PERCENT OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
22,600 sq ft at 2.0 sq ft/meal
KITCHEN STAFF NEEDED
Lincoln HS Galileo HS Denman MS Washington HS Aptos MS Asawa HS Visitacion Valley MS Marshall HS
13 staff 7 staff 8 staff 8 staff 8 staff 8 staff 7 staff 7 staff
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
$92,000
$4,248,000
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (KITCHEN RENOVATION)
$19,243,000 AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE
$12,940,000
ANNUAL AVERAGE AND FIXED COSTS AND REVENUE 30 M 25 M 20 M
Total Participation Revenue Versus Toal Costs (Assets, Operations, and Delivery)
YEAR 4
YEAR 0
10,393 75% POTENTIAL REGIONAL KITCHEN LOCATIONS
20
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
15 M 10 M 5M 0 -5 M -10 M Total Revenue
-15 M -20 M
Fixed Costs Operating Costs Delivery Costs
-25 M -30 M 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
all content is proprietary
57
SCENARIO THREE MAP - PHASE 1 PHASE 1 (YEARS 1 - 4)
Marina 244
Galileo 570
Francisco 266
Presidio 230
Roosevelt 265 Washington 41 3
Civic Center 18
Wallenberg 246 Wells 32
Everett 153
Marshall 249 Downtown High 23
Independence High 33
ISA 1 09
Mission 392 O'Connell 155
SF International 161 Giannini 1 84
Hilltop 37
Lick 1 55 Lincoln 409
Hoover 272
Asawa 1 07
MLK 130 Lowell 629
Aptos 264
Gateway to College 17
Denman 202
Balboa 41 6
June Jordan 220
Burton 276 Vis Valley 1 44
MAP OF REGIONAL KITCHEN SITES AND DESIGNATED RECEIVER SITES FOR PHASE 1 OF SCENARIO 3
58
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Abraham Lincoln High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
4,400 sq ft 2,100 meals 8
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,800 sq ft 1,400 meals 6
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
3,000 sq ft 1,500 Meals 7
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,500 sq ft 1,300 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,600 sq ft 1,300 meals 8
Galileo High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
James Denman Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
George Washington High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Aptos Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Asawa School of the Arts School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Thurgood Marshall High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Visitacion Valley Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
all content is proprietary
59
SCENARIO THREE MAP - PHASE 2 PHASE 2 (YEAR 5 AND BEYOND)
Marina 351
Presidio 331
Galileo 820
Francisco 382
Gateway 295 Roosevelt 382
Washington 594
Wallenberg 354
Civic Center 26 Wells 45
Marshall 358
Everett 220 Independence High 47
Downtown High 34 ISA 1 57
Mission O'Connell 223
Giannini 265
Hilltop 53
Lick 223 Lincoln 589
Hoover 391
SF International 231
Asawa 1 55
MLK 1 87 Gateway to College 25 Lowell 905
Aptos 379 Denman 291 Balboa 599
June Jordan 31 7
Burton 396 Vis Valley 207
MAP OF REGIONAL KITCHEN SITES AND DESIGNATED RECEIVER SITES FOR PHASE 2 OF SCENARIO 3
60
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
Abraham Lincoln High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
4,400 sq ft 2,100 meals 3
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,800 sq ft 1,400 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served Fixed Cost
3,000 sq ft 1,500 Meals 3
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,500 sq ft 1,300 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,600 sq ft 1,300 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,500 sq ft 1,300 meals 4
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,300 sq ft 1,200 meals 5
Kitchen Area Production Capacity Schools Served
2,300 sq ft 1,200 meals 5
Galileo High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
James Denman Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
George Washington High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Aptos Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Asawa School of the Arts School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Thurgood Marshall High School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
Visitacion Valley Middle School Regional Kitchen Site
Receiver Kitchen Site
all content is proprietary
61
SCENARIO FOUR
SCENARIO [4]:
Streamlined Growth
Scenario 4 tests one central kitchen. It uses the same student participation growth rate (up to 60%) and SNS meal production growth rate (up to 75%) over a nine year period, and an assumption of 1.5 sq ft to produce one meal. It also assumes that a rate of 25 meals per labor hour will be achievable in a kitchen of this size (15,600 sq ft). This scenario holds steady many of the assumptions and inputs used in the regional kitchen scenarios (Scenarios 2 and 3). It illustrates a small difference in delivery costs, as this kitchen would be responsible for delivering to all of the school sites in the district. The increased infrastructure costs shown in this scenario are due to the necessity to build a brand new kitchen for central operating purposes, and new build costs are higher per sq ft than renovation costs per sq ft. Operating costs are only marginally increased, in part because the meals per labor hour have decreased with a larger, 62
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
more efficient kitchen space. However, in a larger kitchen, the number of management personnel has increased, increasing the overall operating costs in comparision to the regional kitchen scenarios. While this scenario presents initially a larger fixed infrastructure investment in order to build the central kitchen, it would provide the district the opportunity to expand production and subsequently increase its revenue stream over the longer term.
SCENARIO 4: STREAMLINED GROWTH
SCENARIO PARTICIPATION RATE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
60%
14,954
MEAL EQUIVALENTS NEEDED PER DAY PRODUCED BY SNS
PERCENT OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
15,600 sq ft at 1.5 sq ft/meal MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
30
10,393 75% KITCHEN STAFF NEEDED
43
staff
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
$132,000
$3,761,000
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (KITCHEN RENOVATION)
$12,940,000
$16,213,000
ANNUAL AVERAGE AND FIXED COSTS AND REVENUE 30 M 25 M
Total Participation Revenue Versus Toal Costs (Assets, Operations, and Delivery)
20 M 15 M 10 M 5M 0 -5 M -10 M Total Revenue
-15 M -20 M
Fixed Costs Operating Costs Delivery Costs
-25 M -30 M 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
all content is proprietary
63
SCENARIO FIVE
SCENARIO [5]:
Lighthouse Scenario
Scenario 5 tests only one central kitchen, and the same assumptions as Scenario 4 with the exception of the student participation rate, which in this scenario grows to 100%. This scenario uses an assumption of 35 meals per labor hour, which differs from Scenario 4. This is based on the economies of scale that result from having a larger central kitchen and greater efficiency. This scenario illustrates the solution to the district’s ideal situation, the lighthouse glimmering on the night horizon as a beaconed to be reached. While 100% participation is an ambitious target, this scenario would provide the flexibility were the district need to expand its meal provision and production services.
64
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
While the initial fixed infrastructure costs are higher for this scenario due to the large new building the district would be required to construct*, over time this scenario could accommodate elementary school meal production if needed, and potential to change and simplify its supply chain.
SCENARIO 5: LIGHTHOUSE SCENARIO
SCENARIO PARTICIPATION RATE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING
KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
100%
24,759
MEAL EQUIVALENTS NEEDED PER DAY PRODUCED BY SNS
PERCENT OF MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
25,800 sq ft at 1.5 sq ft/meal MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
35
17,206 75% KITCHEN STAFF NEEDED
61
staff
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
$211,000
$5,230,000
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (KITCHEN RENOVATION)
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE
$25,752,000
$26,842,000
ANNUAL AVERAGE AND FIXED COSTS AND REVENUE 30 M 25 M
Total Participation Revenue Versus Toal Costs (Assets, Operations, and Delivery)
20 M 15 M 10 M 5M 0 -5 M -10 M Total Revenue
-15 M -20 M
Fixed Costs Operating Costs Delivery Costs
-25 M -30 M 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
all content is proprietary
65
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY Scenario 1
Scenario 2
PARTICIPATION RATE
Scenario 3
PARTICIPATION RATE
40%
PARTICIPATION RATE
60%
60%
TOTAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
TOTAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
TOTAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
10,003
14,954
14,954
SQ FT PER MEAL
1.5
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
50%
20
SQ FT PER MEAL
1.5
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
75%
20
SQ FT PER MEAL
2.0
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
75%
20
TOTAL KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
TOTAL KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
TOTAL KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
7,000 sq ft
15,600 sq ft
22,600 sq ft
KITCHEN LOCATIONS
KITCHEN LOCATIONS
KITCHEN LOCATIONS
Lincoln HS Galileo HS
$6,108,000
Lincoln HS Denman HS Galileo HS Washington HS Aptos MS Asawa HS
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY + OPERATING COSTS
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
$1,804,000
$15,233,000
Lincoln HS Denman HS Galileo HS Washington HS Aptos MS Asawa HS Marshall HS Visitacion Valley MS
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY + OPERATING COSTS
$4,333,000
66
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
19,242,000 AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY + OPERATING COSTS
$4,340,000
SCENARIOS OVERVIEW
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
PARTICIPATION RATE
PARTICIPATION RATE
60% TOTAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
14,954
1.5
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
TOTAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
24,759 MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
SQ FT PER MEAL
100%
75%
30
MEALS PRODUCED BY SNS
SQ FT PER MEAL
1.5
MEALS PER LABOR HOUR
75%
35
TOTAL KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
TOTAL KITCHEN AREA NEEDED
15,600 sq ft
25,800 sq ft
KITCHEN LOCATION
KITCHEN LOCATION
Central Kitchen
Central Kitchen
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
$16,213000
$26,842,000
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY + OPERATING COSTS
AVERAGE ANNUAL DELIVERY + OPERATING COSTS
$3,893,000
$5,441,000
all content is proprietary
67
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY $80 M Scenario 1 $75 M
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
$70 M
Scenario 4 $65 M
Scenario 5
Cumulative Costs (Infrastructure, Operations, and Delivery)
$60 M $55 M $50 M $45 M $40 M $30 M $30 M $25 M $20 M $15 M $10 M $5 M 0 0
Year 68
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
1
2
3
4
SCENARIOS OVERVIEW - COST COMPARISON
5
6
7
8
all content is proprietary
9
69
04 REGIONAL KITCHEN STRATEGY
40
35
30
25
20
Meals Per Labor Hour
15
10
5
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250
Workers
The graph on this page and the opposite page illustrate the sensitivity of two of the factors that influence the outcomes of the regional and central kitchen models. The graph above shows the relationship between meals per labor hour and the number of workers required to produce X number of meals (this graph is based on the production of 10,000 meals). For example, it would take 50 laborers at 25 meals per labor hour to produce 10,000 meals. A central kitchen allows for a higher rate of meals per labor hour due to more streamlined and efficient production processes. This results in
70
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
economies of scale for the cost of labor, which is a major cost for the district as can be seen in the high operating costs (which includes labor costs) of the different scenarios. The economies of scale that result from these streamlined and efficient labor processes will ultimately lead to lower operating costs. Conversely, in a regional kitchen, the meals per labor hour rate will be lower as the rate of productivity is lower and less efficient when operating at a smaller scale.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
2.0
1.8
Kitchen ARea Needed To Produce One Meal (sq ft)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Required Kitchen Area
The graph above illustrates the relationship between the number of square feet needed to produce one meal and how much overall kitchen floorspace this planning metric would amount to based on X meals being produced (5,000 meals in this example).
Both graphs show that as one rate increases, another metric will decrease. This is important to bear in mind when analyzing the outcomes of the different scenarios, as metrics vary across the scenarios and have differing levels of sensitivity on costs.
With a metric of 1 sq ft needed to produce one meal and with 5,000 meals needed, the required kitchen area would need to be 5,000 sq ft. With a metric of 2 sq ft needed to produce one meal, a kitchen area of 10,000 sq ft would be required.
all content is proprietary
71
72
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
05 RECOMMENDATION
all content is proprietary
73
05 RECOMMENDATION
Recommending a scenario for growth, flexibility and efficiency The scenarios presented in this report illustrate a range of options and outcomes for the district, dependent on various factors. These scenarios showcase the sensitivity of several factors including: meals per labor hour, kitchen area needed to produce each meal (sq ft per meal), and fixed infrastructure costs. The variance between the assumed values for these factors and the district’s actual operating capacity may affect the projected cost numbers.
74
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
RECOMMENDATION
Based on both the infrastructure assessment and kitchen scenarios presented in this report, Scenario 4 presents the greatest amount of efficiency, while also future-proofing for meal participation demand that may come forward in years to come. The efficiencies gained are derived from the economies of scale that come from producing such a high volume of meals at one site (e.g. lower food costs, greater labor efficiency, less redundancy of equipment, etc.) Therefore, it is recommended that the district should develop a policy toward a central kitchen model.
The district should also develop a strategy and implementation plan for converting existing production kitchens into receiver kitchen sites. Receiver kitchens should be designed to optimize any on-site preparation of meals along with throughput. A thoughtful analysis and transformation of the district’s cuing processes and point of service systems will help SFUSD achieve higher participation rates by minimizing the amount of time students spend in line and maximizing the volume of meals sold.
The model developed for scenarios 2, 3, and 4 assume that the district’s participation rate will increase from 40% to 60% in the next ten years. While this is possible given the revenue stream diversification solutions presented in SFUSD’s Future Dining Experience report, actual growth may not materialize as projected. If the district is uncertain about the pace of participation growth, a regional kitchen model better suits its needs. In this case, MKThink recommends a phasedin approach that builds new kitchens over time as demand increases. This would allow the district to be flexible in its infrastructure investments, and minimize the possible downside by not building too much/many kitchens if demand does not materialize.
all content is proprietary
75
76
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
APPENDIX
Facilities Assessment Data Set - Appliances Facilities Assessment Data Set - Furniture Facilities Assessment Data Set - Sinks
all content is proprietary
77
APPENDIX
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT DATA SET - APPLIANCES
all content is proprietary
APPENDIX
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT DATA SET - FURNITURE
all content is proprietary
APPENDIX
SFUSD | Facilities Assessment
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT DATA SET - SINKS
all content is proprietary