The EPS (Economic and Planning Systems) projection that Village Farms would add about 701 new students to the Davis Joint Unified School District has drawn immediate criticism from some community members who believe the figure is exaggerated.
But when examined closely, the estimate is grounded in district-approved methodology, based on real-world results in Davis, and—if anything—leans conservative rather than optimistic.
The key point often missed in the public debate is that EPS did not create its own projection.
The company simply applied the district’s officially adopted Student Yield Factors, developed by Davis Demographics MGT, to the specific housing mix proposed for Village Farms.
Those numbers were presented in the spring by DJUSD during a school board meeting as the board discussed boundary drops, declining enrollment and potential school closures.
More importantly, the SYFs themselves are derived from actual Davis households, not national models or statewide assumptions. They are based primarily on the Cannery, the most recent master-planned development in the city, where nearly 300 TK–12 students now live.
The Cannery’s numbers are important because they establish a local baseline. With roughly 600 units, the development has produced almost 300 students, an enrollment gain mapped directly through geocoded student data tied to housing parcels.
MGT used those observations to determine how many students different housing types generate in Davis.
The resulting Student Yield Factors show that single-family detached homes produce the highest number of children, followed by apartments and then multi-family attached units.
For DJUSD, the current SYFs are 0.723 students per single-family home, 0.333 per apartment, and 0.157 per attached unit.
Those numbers describe Davis today—not the 1990s, not regional averages, and not theoretical future trends. They describe how many students currently live in newly-built Davis homes. Applying these factors to Village Farms, which includes a large share of single-family detached homes, produces the estimate of 701 students.
Some residents have argued that the number seems too high, pointing to statewide declines in birth rates or changing family structures.
While those broader trends are real, they do not negate what the SYFs show.
The Cannery yielded nearly 300 students despite occurring during the same period of demographic contraction and despite criticism that the costs of those homes priced middle class families out of the market.
However, they clearly demonstrate that the underlying theory still works: When Davis builds family-oriented housing, families move in.
That relationship is not speculative; it is observable.
The skepticism also overlooks the fact that Village Farms is roughly three times larger than the Cannery.
If 600 Cannery units generate about 300 students, it is not unreasonable that 1,800 units—depending on mix—would generate around 700. One could argue that the estimate might even be higher because Village Farms includes a higher percentage of single-family homes, the housing type with the strongest student yield.
EPS did not attempt to push the projection upward; it simply applied existing district data.
The larger issue behind the debate is that DJUSD’s enrollment decline is structural and long-term.
District officials have been clear about this.
Superintendent Matt Best warned that “the pipeline has slowed,” pointing out that, without new housing, the district is “heading into a prolonged decline.” Best and Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton have stated that without new housing, DJUSD will face school closures, staffing cuts, and reductions in programming.
Clayton said the district is not advocating for a specific project but wants the community to understand the consequences of inaction and that the connection between housing and school enrollment is “immediate,” “financial,” and “human.”
Enrollment projections are not academic exercises. They determine whether schools remain open, whether programs continue, and whether DJUSD can maintain staffing levels.
Even if Village Farms produced fewer than 701 students—say 500—the effect on district stability would still be substantial. Even a figure similar to the Cannery’s yield, scaled up, would bring enrollment back into healthier territory.
The debate over whether 701 is the exact right number misses the larger and more urgent point. Davis cannot stabilize its schools without adding the very type of housing that brings families. The Cannery proved it. The district’s own data confirms it. The EPS estimate reflects it.
The real question facing Davis is not whether the projection is off by a small margin but whether the city intends to rebuild its school-age population at all. Village Farms represents the scale of housing needed to make that possible. Whether the exact number is 650, 700, or 750, the trajectory is the same.
Davis has a choice to reverse its enrollment decline—but not infinite time to act.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
And the kids from the Cannery keep on coming. Our friends, a young couple who bought at the Cannery, have two preschoolers who were both born while the parents were living at the Cannery.
Anecdotal!
The point isn’t the number of students; the point is that the school district’s problem (an oversized district) shouldn’t be driving city decisions.
The student population will ultimately stabilize (within a range) with, or without any new housing. But truth be told – if it disappeared entirely – so would the DJUSD parcel tax. And there’d be that much more space for infill housing on the site of former campuses.
(That is, unless the district wanted to act on their “land acknowledgements” – and given them back to a tribe. (Isn’t there a tribe named Patwin?)
That might be your point. But other people have raised the question about how it was calculated.
It’s not just “my” point.
But regarding “your” point, the number at any of these developments would also reduce to a stable range over a period of time, as the initial families age-out of the school system (but don’t immediately move out).
What do you think of my land acknowledgement idea? And if the district passes on that idea, what meaning do their land acknowledgements actually have?
Towards your point in paragraph two, it seems like there is a sweet spot for building just enough house over time to stabilize the student population and meet statewide mandates. More on this later.
You seem to have missed the part where I noted that the student population will stabilize REGARDLESS of whether or not more housing is built.
It’s called “turnover” of existing housing.
As far as the fake housing targets are concerned, they’re not even addressed by these developments in regard to affordable housing. (But that’s an entirely different issue.)
Ultimately, continued growth is by definition not sustainable. (That’s also a different issue, in regard to how much more can be “forced” in before limits become even more apparent. Certainly, there’s room for the moment to make things worse, if that’s the choice that’s made. Actually, that choice has already been made – just look around the area and beyond.)
If turnover alone worked, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
“If turnover alone worked, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
I know that you don’t believe that, as it doesn’t make any sense. You’re stating that a school district is forever dependent upon continued growth.
If that’s the case, then the entire school district might as well plan for a complete shutdown, if more housing isn’t built. And if that occurs in every locale, then you’re also claiming that the human species will come to an end. There will be no turnover of housing, and every man-made structure will disintegrate back into the earth.
You already know that there is always a residual need, due to turnover. That’s largely what’s kept a lot of schools in San Francisco from closing. All of the schools I attended 50 years ago are still open, despite a relatively stable city population.
I personally witnessed new families moving into existing housing in that city, even as prices skyrocketed. Granted, they were generally smaller, wealthier families than the family I came from. (Not sure where this idea came from that only poor people start families.)
“I know that you don’t believe that, as it doesn’t make any sense. You’re stating that a school district is forever dependent upon continued growth.”
I don’t go forever. But in terms of the next decade, I think the city of Davis is so far behind on housing production since 2000 that for the foreseeable future, that’s probably the case. Bottom line is that the last 25 years in Davis shows that relying on turnover is not a solution. Whether that means forever growth, I don’t think is particularly helpful – we need to plan for the next 10 to 25 years, not 1000 years from now.
David says: “But in terms of the next decade, I think the city of Davis is so far behind on housing production since 2000 that for the foreseeable future, that’s probably the case.”
“So far behind” compared to what? Other nearby communities which actively pursue sprawl?
David says: “Bottom line is that the last 25 years in Davis shows that relying on turnover is not a solution.”
A “solution” to what, exactly? (You are correct, if you’re implying that the “problem for which you seek a solution” is an oversized school district which miscalculated the need.)
Mistakes happen – I support the school district in fixing the one they created. It is not a crisis, a catastrophe, or an end to human civilization. It’s not even an end to the school district (though there’s starting to be a part of me that’s hoping for that, entirely).
How did Davis manage to exist BEFORE all of these schools were built? Was it a crisis, then?
I feel like asking how the Patwin tribe got by without ANY schools, but will hold off on that.
Ron O
Davis is far behind as shown by 1) the housing price premium over neighboring communities, 2) the large number of commuters into Davis while an equal number commute outward and 3) the large number of interdistrict transfers showing that parents would prefer to live here but can’t because of (1). Housing supply is not keeping up with housing demand. This is Father Sarducci land, it’s so basic…
DG, “But other people have raised the question about how it was calculated.”
So what? I agree with RO it’s not about that, and I agree with DG that the exact numbers don’t matter. Quibbling over numbers isn’t the point, nor anyone’s argument.
And why DG do you ignore RO’s point on land acknowledgements? It does indeed seem quite insincere to acknowledge that land is taken, and then not give it back. What is the point: “we feel guilty, but are still gonna keep it” ?
“So what? I agree with RO it’s not about that, and I agree with DG that the exact numbers don’t matter. Quibbling over numbers isn’t the point, nor anyone’s argument.”
A lot of people asked where the numbers came from.
Unfortunately the consultant who conducted the study for the District extrapolated from a tiny sample data set within a single development to find that single family housing produced more students. The Cannery has only four (4!) acres of multifamily units, and those are aimed at a particular demographic that has fewer children. This approach borders on malpractice.
Instead the consultant should have gone around to other cities with ranges of new housing and gathered the number of students per household and per acre of development by housing type and housing density. All of the surrounding communities have large amounts of new housing developments.
It’s also disappointing that EPS didn’t point out this fundamental flaw in the MGT study. That oversight points to bias in the purported “peer review.” EPS didn’t necessarily need to publish findings criticizing the MGT study but EPS could have advised the District to walk back its study and then revise the methodology.
Richard says: “Unfortunately the consultant who conducted the study for the District extrapolated from a tiny sample data set within a single development to find that single family housing produced more students.”
Single family housing absolutely “houses” families with children (more than any other type), but no housing “produces” children. Unless, for example, you’re proposing some kind of government-required love nests within said housing. (And even then, it has to be the correct pairing – regardless of perceived/self-proclaimed gender. There’s also biologically-imposed “age requirements” regarding reproduction – despite any potential age-discrimination lawsuits or complaints to the EEOC.)
Your young, less-wealthy heterosexual couples are ending up in Woodland – where they can get (wait for it) – new single family housing at a lower price.
Ron O
Where’s your evidence for you statement? I’ve posted studies earlier showing the number of children per housing unit is much more dependent on the housing cost burden. This is the type of study that MGT should have done instead of the simplistic one based on a tiny sample data set that it presented.
“…but no housing “produces” children. ”
An old joke from the 60’s:
Doctor: Your daughter has a venereal desease.
Mother: Could she have gotten it in a public bathroom?
Doctor: Yes, but it would’t have been very comfortable.
Richard McCann: “Instead the consultant should have gone around to other cities with ranges of new housing and gathered the number of students per household and per acre of development by housing type and housing density. ”
An issue that I see with that is that other cities may not have the same kind of housing market as Davis. I see UCD students as potentially living in some of the same kinds of housing as families & young adults who are looking to settle. A Student Yield Factor from another city may not be applicable to the Davis market.
Hiram
Does the Cannery house a large number of students? My understanding is that it does not. If that’s the case, then studies from other cities would clearly be applicable. The answer is an empirical question that the consultant should have addressed directly.
Richard, “Does the Cannery house a large number of students?”
When you refer to ‘students’ here, do you mean UCD students or K-12 students?
The thing that I found surprising, and didn’t expect, but upon reflection makes sense was the finding that multi family apartments delivered the most students to the public schools.
My friends, both professionals, who bought a single family home in the Cannery bought there because when they were planning a family one worked in Vallejo and the other worked in Sacramento and Davis had decent schools and was sort of in the middle.
One has since relocated to Davis employment. These are two young professionals, family people who love their children, educated, employed, tax payers and all I want to say preemptively is anyone who says we shouldn’t make room in our community for people like that can go to hell.
And for all the complaining about the Cannery, by people who don’t live there, they say they like living there.
This is useful data but there are some unfortunate errors in the unit allocation and resulting student yields.
SFD Zone 5 (83 units) should be 30 MFA units (townhomes) and 53 SFD units.
SFD Zone 6 (102 units) should be 32 MFA (townhomes) and 60 APT units.
Ignoring the errors, one interesting takeaway is that the APT student yield is the highest of the 3 unit types when accounting for density and land consumption.
SFD = 5.27 TK-12/Acre
MFA = 3.48 TK-12/Acre
APT = 5.57 TK-12/Acre
The comment regarding Zone 6 should read 42 MFA units and 60 APT units. I need to check my own math, too!
Multi-family housing houses more PEOPLE per acre, than single-family housing.
Wondering if Affordable multi-family housing results in the highest amount of kids of any housing. (The people who can’t afford to have kids in the first place, without a subsidy.) The type of housing that also pays no property/parcel tax, to my knowledge.
Remind me again why Davis wants to purposefully attract poor families? Davis isn’t already experiencing fiscal challenges that EXISTING residents don’t want to pay for? And you want to add more people who can’t pay the bill?
The other day, I suggested you look up the income requirements. You still haven’t done that. Also, there’s that pesky state law that you keep wanting to ignore.
If you have a point to make, make it. I already know there are different income limitations depending on the program.
Regarding the state requirements, I already know about those. Enough to know that they’re fake, as noted by YIMBY themselves.
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
(Also, the state never intended those “requirements” to be fulfilled by sprawl in the middle of the Sacramento valley – aka, farmland outside of Davis.) If they ever cross that line, they’ll lose the remainder of any credibility they might have.
They’d probably be pretty close to setting off a citizen-based revolution now, if their targets were actually realistic. They’re probably catching a break due to the unachievable nature of those “requirements” in the first place.
The revolution is not going to come from Davis, however. It would be from wealthy coastal cities (e.g., forced to abandon urban limit lines, etc.).
The people who run Davis ARE YIMBYs.
But getting back to my point (that I believe was related to David’s point), I’d personally rather be surrounded by people wealthier than I am, than people poorer than I am.
And so should any city.
Why the effort to make Davis struggle more than it already is (fiscally)? Again, the EXISTING residents (who are apparently viewed as “wealthy” be envious 30 year olds – who think someone owes them a cheap house) don’t even want to pay the EXISTING costs to run Davis.
What chance is there that a student-loan debtor, who makes a combined income of maybe $120K per year (with their significant other) are going to want to pay Davis’ ongoing expenses, after paying a minimum of $750K for a house? These people are a further DRAIN on city finances. In addition, that population (young families) is among the most-demanding cohort there is, regarding schools, libraries, etc. (And they don’t/can’t pay for it.)
Get yourself somebody who can pay the bills, at least (e.g., Bay Area transplants).
Ron’s comment is actually a perfect illustration of why you don’t let out-of-town Malthusians dictate a city’s housing or fiscal policy. His worldview treats people as fiscal liabilities rather than residents, ignores actual municipal finance, and assumes a city should optimize for the comfort of the already-comfortable rather than for long-term sustainability.
Would you have said the same thing when I was IN town? (I was probably “worse” in your view, at that time.)
Pretty sure that it’s you, however, who doesn’t understand what the word “sustainable” means.
In any case, I’m willing to show support for the school district, when it has to deal with a dozen or so parents wearing purple T-shirts who think it’s the end of the world that “their” school might close. (Note how that’s occurring in the OLDER section of town – which is always the case – even in Woodland. That’s because people rightfully don’t move as often as a school district would prefer them to.)
But seriously – why the effort to house people who aren’t really in a position to HELP the city, itself?
In any case, it is true that I’m pretty comfy. As are the younger families in Woodland, who paid significantly less than they would have in Davis (while still sending their kids to Davis schools – without paying those pesky parcel taxes).
Your shoebox living will appeal to UCD students, some singles and some couples. That’s all it would appeal to.)
Oh – and did I mention the number of cars, that young families have? One for Dad, one for Mom, and one for each kid (eventually).
THOSE are the people you want to attract to Davis? (Well, maybe they’d have a little disposable income after paying for their student loan debt, kids, day care, house, insurance, pets, utility bills, income and property taxes/Mello Roos, etc.).
How do you spell “FISCALLY BANKRUPT” – did I get it right? (Maybe ask Vallejo or Stockton how to spell it.)
How many cars do you own?