ag davis rotary table pricelist

The ULTRARON is a precision-engineered rotary table, produced entirely at A.G. Davis - AA Gage, with applications for inspection, tool room and/or production machining. The ULTRARON"s accuracy is made possible by the use of precision lapped balls and integral ground races. The ULTRARON has a standard concentricity accuracy of 30 millionths T.I.R. (0.000030) and a wobble or rotating parallelism is held within 100 millionths (0.0001) on sizes to 24" in diameter.

The A.G. Davis - AA Gage Precision Broach Rotary Tables are high precision rotary systems manufactured for precision broaching applications. The Broach Rotary Tables can be supplied with stand-alone or rack-mounted controller, or can be interfaced to your operational Rotary Axis Control.

The Precision Rotary Tables are designed for use in Metrology, Inspection, and other precision applications. The Rotary Tables can be supplied with stand-alone or rack-mounted controllers, or can be interfaced to your operational Rotary Axis Control. The control is a solid-state, closed-loop system incorporating the latest State-of-the-Art concepts and can include IEEE or RS232 interface for remote program control.

The Air Float Rotary Table consists of hardened steel faceplate, which is floated on air in the thrust plane and centered by preload ball bearings radially during rotation. After an index move is completed the Air float is shut off allowing the faceplate to rest on the base of the rotary table producing excellent wobble characteristics. This action also friction locks the Air Float Rotary Table. A high-grade meehanite base casting is used to support the faceplate. Standard faceplate mounting pattern is by threaded hole patterns with other configurations available. The Air Float Type Precision Rotary Table can only be used with the faceplate in the horizontal plane.

The Ball Bearing Rotary Table consists of hardened steel faceplate supported by a maximum diameter preloaded angular contact ball bearing. The large diameter ball bearing produces excellent wobble characteristics. The preloaded ball bearing along with the closed loop servo system provides for continuous as well as point-to-point measuring. A high-grade meehanite base casting is used to support the ball bearing. Standard faceplate mounting pattern is by threaded hole patterns with other configurations available.

The Air Bearing Rotary Table consists of hardened and stabilized stainless steels and/or high-grade steels with corrosion resistant coatings. The base is made from high-grade meehanite castings. The Rotary Table employs a fully trapped gas bearing for both radial and thrust planes. The gas bearing jets are manufactured of precision machined gemstones. The air bearing along with the closed loop servo system provides for continuous as well as point to point measuring. Standard faceplate piece part hold down consists of threaded hole patterns, or special configurations are optionally available.

Air bearings require small clearances between rotating members. The possibility of these surfaces contacting each other during rotation is a major concern of air bearing users. Typically when this touch down does occur conventional air bearings will seize up and require major repairs. A.G. Davis-AA Gage has eliminated this possibility. The air orifice manifold detail is constructed from hardened stainless steel. The opposing surfaces are constructed from high-grade hardened steel and coated with a proprietary material. This construction permits the air bearing to lose air pressure while rotating even under maximum rated load and not damage the air bearing thrust and radial precision surfaces. After the air pressure is reinstated the bearing will freely operate as before.

The servo drive utilizes a capstan type friction wheel drive system. This drive system eliminates backlash (lost motion) between the servo motor and the Rotary Table it must position. The zero backlash condition provides an excellent foundation for a servo system which positions accurately without instability over a wide range of payload conditions.

The drive is constructed to eliminate any side loading of the rotary table bearings. Tangential loading only. This is accomplished by mounting the entire capstan drive package on a pivot which is tangent to the table drive rim. The main capstan drives on the O.D. of the drive rim while an opposing wheel bearing runs on the I.D. of the drive rim. The drive force required to engage the main capstan is provided by the opposing wheel bearing which creates a pinching action on the drive rim. This pinching action along with the pivot allow the drive to follow the drive rim"s motion without imparting any force to the rotary tables precision bearings. Note -unwanted side loading of the rotary table bearing will cause an increase

The base of the rotary table can be provided with air jet pads. These pads when actuated allow the rotary table to float on a level continuous flat surface. This feature is particularly convenient to CMM users who often move the rotary table to other locations on the CMM for various applications. The Air Ride is actuated by a dead man switch (automatically turns off when released). The switch is located adjacent to the drive cover.

A micro switch can be provided to close approximately 10° to 15° before the encoder"s marker pulse. The approach direction can be either clockwise or counterclockwise. Specify the desired approach direction when ordering. The encoder marker pulse will be located within 5° of the rotary tables zero position (the RT outline drawing shows the rotary table at it"s zero position).

A switch (DISENGAGE/ENGAGE DRIVE) can be provided adjacent to the drive cover. This toggle switch actuates a cylinder that alternately disengages and/or engages the drive. This switch also turns the Air Float Bearing on and off. This permits freewheel rotation of the face plate for faster centering and complete manual operation.

The ULTRARON is of compact design and rugged construction. The table is actually a large bearing assembly constructed with two rows of precision lapped balls, preloaded against each other, near the outer diameter. The base of the table is the outer race and the inner race is attached to the tabletop. Locating the precision lapped balls near the outer diameter assures maximum table stability and enables the ULTRARON to withstand heavy axial and radial loading. It also allows large through holes where the application requires it. The ULTRARON is stiff enough to be used for machining operations.

The manual ULTRARON operates freely whether in horizontal or vertical position. It is available in 6" to 48" base diameters with special top plates to 84" in diameter. Digital readouts can be adapted to all ULTRARON tables.

A. G. Davis - AA Gage has been the industry leader in providing the design and manufacture for precision gages of all types, from small attribute (go/no go) gages, variable (data) gages, standard gages and components, to transfer line, gantry loaded semi-automatic and fully automatic inspection machines.

Custom manufacturer of gaging systems & components including automatic gaging systems. Gages, indexing tables & workholding devices are available. Design & build capabilities include PC-based programmable statistical process control & control programs with customized software. Other capabilities include surface grinding & jig boring.

I meet Quinn on a Monday night at the weekly meeting of the Rotary Club of Big Sandy. Quinn’s connection to the club runs as deep as his connection to the town itself: His father, Mack, was a founding member. Quinn joined in 1979 after he returned from earning a PhD in plant biochemistry at the University of California at Davis. With crinkly blue eyes, a full head of silver hair, and a face that’s weathered without being quite craggy, Quinn looks as if he could have stepped out of the pages of a Zane Grey novel.

Like the high plains figure Quinn cuts, and like the town he calls home, the meeting seems a step back in time. Held in the senior citizens center at the end of the two-block downtown, it features on this night a dinner of fried chicken, cottage cheese, and potato salad, doled out from aluminum foil trays. There are cold pitchers of lemonade, and a seemingly bottomless stainless steel urn dispenses piping-hot coffee.

Fourteen people, including a visitor from Germany who uses Quinn’s grain, gather around a table where, after passing around worn copies of Rotary songs, they sing “Home on the Range” and “You’re a Grand Old Flag” before reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Quinn joined Rotary, he says, for reasons bigger than wanting to continue the family legacy. He finds that the organization’s Four-Way Test — with its emphasis on truth and fairness, goodwill and friendship, and a mutual concern for the well-being of all — dovetails with his own way of thinking. “My philosophy in work is ‘everybody wins,’” he says. “The most successful businesses are the ones that are profitable but that also help improve the lives of other people.”

Today Quinn, at 72, travels the world spreading his gospel, which has as its premise that the way food is grown and produced — the Big Agriculture approach of making as much as possible as cheaply as possible, with a heavy emphasis on chemical pesticides and fertilizers — is destructive to the land, to communities, to farmers, and to our health. He also preaches the corollary: that organic farming not only is the right thing to do by consumers, but also is highly profitable for the farmer and a prescriptive for towns like Big Sandy that have found themselves struggling for survival.

Examples of Quinn’s entrepreneurial spirit, and the greater-good benefits that derive from it, bloom like apple blossoms across his property. On the occasional tours he gives, which draw workaday farmers and ivory-tower agriscientists, Quinn refers to his land as his laboratory. It’s clear why: There are his experimental gardens, of course, where he tries to see which fruits and vegetables can thrive in Montana’s notoriously fickle climate — if only, he says, “to show people we can do something other than wheat and barley.”

And then there is the ancient grain. Known as khorasan and rechristened — and trademarked — by Quinn as Kamut (pronounced kuh-MOOT), it likely originated centuries ago in the Fertile Crescent, that agriculturally rich region in the Middle East that gave birth to several ancient civilizations. Quinn was introduced to the grain at a county fair when he was in high school and an old man thrust a fistful of kernels in his hand and claimed they were “King Tut’s wheat.”

Today, Kamut International is a global operation that, while promoting organic farming and healthful eating, also serves as a model for struggling farmers and small towns searching for a return to prosperity. “If you look at what Bob has pushed for and what he’s done, it’s not conventional,” allows Tester. “I mean, it’s not stuff that the university system would say, ‘Go do this.’ For example, in a time when [corporate farms] were shipping grain out in 52-car unit trains, he was setting up a cleaning plant to ship wheat out in 25-kilogram bags. He had a different vision for how you could market grain and make a few bucks off it and employ people.”

“He’s the most incredible idea generator I’ve ever met,” adds Bruce Maxwell, a professor of agroecology at Montana State University. “He has one after another — ways to make his own farm more sustainable and more profitable — but he’s also got a real dedication to his community.”

In July of 2004, the city council voted to approve the Covell Village development proposal, to annex a ~400 acre plot north of Covell Blvd., between Pole Line Road and F Street, into the City and rezone it from agricultural land into residential and commercial sites. The development planned to add 1884 living units to Davis in phases through 2017 or later.

The development required a Measure J vote by the community as the land was outside the Davis city limits. Measure J requires a citizen vote on any project that requires annexation of agricultural land into the City. The baseline could not change without another vote by the people. However, changes outside of the scope of the baseline may occur without a vote, with approval from the City of Davis Planning Department or City Council. The Covell Village measure was called Measure X, it failed to pass with "No" 58.7% and 41.3% "Yes."

Supporters of Covell Village say that the project will meet some of the growth that Davis is required to meet in slow, planned, environmentally-friendly manner. The project was developed over 10 years, hand-in-hand with the City of Davis. The partners and planners are respected long-time Davis locals, including Citizens of the year. It is innovatively designed to avoid the kind of sprawl we"ve seen in the valley due to bad planning. The project is surrounded by the City of Davis on 3 sides (see last page of the following booklet for an aerial photo http://www.covellvillage.com/factsheets/Booklet.pdf)

Covell Village is in line with Davis culture, and it adds a tremendous amount to the community. The Davis Enterprise has endorsed the project, saying"amenities are so valuable and so wide-ranging that we believe Covell Village will have a profoundly positive impact on our community"s quality of life." Amenities of the proposed plan include solar panels on every home, a retail center, a new fire station, an 82-acre educational organic farm, a community recreation building, a performing arts outdoor amphitheater and sites for the school district, a Rotary Hall, Yolo Hospice, Davis Parent Nursery School, and 124 acre wetland wildlife habitat, 8 miles of bikepaths, and a 776 acre farmland buffer that can never be developed. In addition, 48% of the housing units will have a price restriction. The Enterprise editorial states "Covell Village comes as close as we believe possible to providing the kind of workforce housing our community has been clamoring for. The mix of housing types and sizes offers opportunities for all: singles, couples, young families, growing families, empty-nesters, retirees, the elderly."

Community leaders believe that this project will acheive worldwide acclaim for its new-urbanist plan and its environmental aspects. They also warn that this may be the last time a project of this immense value is offered to the city. One observer asked, "Who in their right mind would try to go through this process, considering the millions of dollars necessary, if Davis votes such a great project down?" Instead, out-of-town developers will surely bypass the City and go straight to the County, which can approve a project on our borders with 3 votes. Helen Thompson, Yolo County Supervisor for Davis, warns of this possibility. Sacramento developer Steve Gidaro, who has a history of illegally funding elections, has been pushing for an 800-acre development called Mace-Curve that jets out of the outskirts of Davis, and is truely "sprawl". (Get more information on Steve Gidaro at http://www.gidaroelectionwatch.org/)

Covell Village is not another Village Homes; it is neither slow growth nor smart growth. Six times larger and twice as dense as Village Homes, Covell Village would be a massive concentration of very big, expensive homes on tiny lots. If approved by voters in November, it would be the largest subdivision ever built in Davis, consisting of 1,864 units on over 420 acres of prime farmland, almost half of which is in the 100-year floodplain.

The Commissions studied the analyses. The contrast between their advice and the Council’s push to develop is troubling—and underscores the Council’s failure to respect the citizens’ vision for Davis.

Covell Village would cost the City money. The Finance and Budget Commission rejected the project, citing the “magnitude of the risk that this project poses to the City Council’s goal of fiscal stability.” Because Covell Village would require annexation, the City would get 30% less property tax than if it developed parcels within the city limits like Hunt -Wesson. Recently, the County has made it clear it wants an even greater share of the project’s property tax, and won’t approve the annexation unless the new arrangement is to its liking. Each 1% increase in the County’s share will cost the City an extra $3 million annually—making Covell Village an even greater tax burden.

In addition, the City’s fiscal analysis assumes home prices will double over the next 15 years. If housing prices level off or decline as many economists predict, Covell Village would generate huge deficits for the City.

Finally, the impact fees charged to the developers do not address infrastructure needs likely to be triggered by Covell Village, such as the widening of roads or that the subdivision would contribute significantly to the premature exhaustion of the capacity of our wastewater treatment plant. Public Works has stated that expansion of the plant would cost at least $100 million over and above water quality improvement costs.

The developers’ illusory promise of affordable housing is equally disturbing. The original rationale for Covell Village was to provide “workforce” housing for our teachers, firefighters, new UCD faculty and staff, Davis renters wishing to buy—and our children. Instead, housing will be largely unaffordable to these and similar target groups. Although the developers claim that 2/3 of the subdivision will be affordable, city projections indicate the average for-sale house will cost $683,945.

The negative impacts of Covell Village go well beyond dollar calculations; according to the City’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), we will all be spending a lot more time in traffic. The subdivision will double traffic on Covell to 39,440 cars /day and on Pole Line to 26,900 cars/day, and use up 97% of the capacity on the Mace Overcrossing. The analysis finds that Level of Service “F” results, triggering “high delays, high volumes and extensive queuing” on many streets and intersections including L Street, Moore and the Pole Line Overcrossing to South Davis. According to the EIR, “Conditions are intolerable for most drivers,” with traffic backing up on neighborhood streets, causing all the associated safety and pollution issues for children, seniors and those with respiratory conditions.

Opposition to the Covell Village subdivision does not equate with a “no change” or “no growth” philosophy. Covell Village is not inevitable; we have alternatives.

Proponents want us to believe that if we don’t approve the project, we will get something worse. However, in Davis voters have the final say on any Council approved peripheral projects. As for the County approving development on its own without our input, the fear is unfounded—for two reasons. First, under the terms of a recently revised agreement with the County, City approval is required for development on our borders; for this veto power we give the County a share of our property tax revenue. This “pass-through” agreement runs for another 20 years. Withdrawing from the agreement would cost the County millions in guaranteed revenues.

Second, to be feasible, urban-scale development in the County would require use of the City’s sewer system, wastewater treatment facility, and other city utilities—we would have to agree.

Instead of Covell Village, Davis can choose change on a more manageable scale—change that will allow us to augment our diversity by building truly affordable housing without undermining city finances and services or our quality of life. The 100-acre site of the old Hunt-Wesson Cannery and the 27-acre PG&E site at 5th and L are prime candidates for redevelopment. The PG&E site, for example, is within walking distance of the downtown and the S.P. Depot.

Rather than respect the legacy created by citizens and councils over the last three decades and reflected in our General Plan—of Davis as a small, safe, neighborhood-oriented community—this Council majority has chosen sprawl instead.

By saying “no” to a large peripheral subdivision at this time, voters will be affirming the Davis they love and envision. They will be reminding the Council of the value of sustainable city financing, affordable housing, farmland preservation, and sensible traffic and infrastructure planning.

A letter from Helen Thompson, Davis"s Yolo County Supervisor, warns that if Davis does not meet the growth requirements from the State, 3 votes from the County Board of Supervisors could approve a development on our borders. Currently, a development this is much larger than Covell Village has been proposed, that would jet out on the border of Davis, called Mace Curve. In this case, the citizens of Davis would not be able to vote on its future, and would give up all of the additional benefits and innovative planning that Covell Village would bring to the city. Helen claims that a "no on X" vote would allow "Sacramento developers to decide how Davis grows."

Contrary to Helen Thompson’s assertion, if Covell Village is not approved, other developments will not built on our borders. This is a myth and simply untrue. Measure J prohibits peripheral growth without a vote of the public. Additionally, the "Pass through Agreement" between Yolo County and the City of Davis prevents this scenario. In summary the agreement states that Yolo County has agreed not to unilaterally approve growth on the borders of Davis. The County can choose to vote to void the agreement and give up the million plus it receives from the City. However, no subdivision can be built without the City of Davis" cooperation to provide utilities and city services such as sewage treatment and water. Davis can refuse to allow access to city water and sewer services, which the County cannot afford to provide alone. In addition, three Yolo County Supervisors have given their assurances that they will not vote for development on the fringes of Davis.

10/30/2005 - Yolo County Supervisors, Duane Chamberlain and Mariko Yamada ran a full page ad in the Davis Enterprise. In an open letter to Davis citizens, they assured the Davis Community the senario that Helen Thompson describes is unlikely. The County cannot afford to forfeit the millions of dollars that the City pays to the County per the "Pass Through Agreement", Guidaro"s project has received a "Level C" ranking and has been halted and won"t even be considered for years, and the longstanding commitment and track record that Yolo County Supervisors for farmland preservation. They went on to urge citizens to vote "based on facts, not fear.

Covell Village partners, Guidaro and other developers can always try to go to the County for approval of their projects on the edge of Davis over the protests of the Davis community. They need three votes in their favor along with the Counties commitment to provide utilities and public safety services. The City needs to support its representatives (Helen Thompson & Mariko Yamada) to stave off these threats and hold the line. Most likely other Supervisors will not want a precident set that will affect planning issues for their own regions and cities. Eventually, these developments may happen and will be the subject of much debate when the City develops its General Plan for the years after 2010 and the County completes its General Plan update. Each of these steps will take years (Go to www.yolocounty.org Board Agendas and Minutes for April 5 and 26, 2005 to see for yourself.)

The passthrough agreement is money that the City of Davis pays the county on a yearly basis, basically to bribe them not to approve another Sacramento-type project on our borders — BUT an out of town developer can easily offer the county double, triple, or more. If Davis is considered to be too elitest to accept a great plan with an extremely slow rate of grown (less than 1%), the county will be much more likely to take the better offer. In addition, there is an election for new Board of Supervisors next year; nobody can guarantee that future Supervisors whose own communitites are taking all the growth won"t vote for Davis to take a bit of its share. The Covell Village land will probably be sold to an out of town developer if this does not pass. A project as special as Covell Village will never be offered to Davis again.

The pass-through agreement between the County and the City is not a bribe. I think that Council members and County Supervisors who created the agreement would find this statement defametory. Covell Village, Guidero and others can offer double, triple or more, but then these would be a true bribes, wouldn"t it? If this is truely an issue, don"t you know that with the next County Supervisor election the citizens will be questioning candidates closely about their committment to preserving ag land in Yolo County and allowing cities to choose their own destiny in terms of growth. Davis has been a slow-growth community for many decades. This is nothing new.

According to solar-energy expert Tobin Booth, Covell Village will generate at least twice as much solar electricity as any solar neighborhood in the nation existing today, doubling the previous record for solar-powered homes.There will be a minimum one-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system on every single-family home in Covell Village to provide electric power to residents. Power generated by photovoltaic panels will supply each single-family home with an average of 30% of the electricity it requires. Homeowners will have the option of adding more photovoltaic panels to their home, so the percentage will be higher than 30% in some cases; owners of affordable units will be able to add additional panels that won"t count against the home price limits. The total solar energy production at Covell Village will be at least 2.04 million kilowatt hours annually. Every year, it would take 4,278,000 pounds of coal to produce that much power. The most expensive part about solar is the infrastructure- something built in to the housing development. People wanting more solar would just need to add panels.

The proposed solar units are only a fraction of the average-sized units already in Davis and are not to be included on commercial or apartments. Advocates for solar power, such as Covell Village is slated to have, ignore the price of solar panels, solar panel replacement schedules, and the effect on property values that the liens associated with the panels may have.

Davis has one of the country"s leading affordable housing programs. Covell Village meets and exceeds these requirements. 286 - Multi-Family, 64 - CO-OPs, 43 - Non-profit apartments, 63 - Mutual housing, 144 - Town House residences starting at $198,000 (average $267,000), 30 - Co-housing residences., (average price $395,000), 400 Middle Income Residences - Tier 1 - 100 starting at $325,000 (average price $341,000), Tier 2 - 100 starting at $377,000 (average price $404,000), Tier 3 - 100 starting at $426,000 (average price $463,000), Tier 4 - 100 starting at $506,000 (average price $591,000)

Covell Village meets all smart growth principles. o Mixed use o Design discourages automobile use and promotes walking, cycling o Community design encourages more physical activity, community socialization thus overall better health. o Distinct and aesthetic design, manifests a desired sense of place and purpose o Preservation of open space and agricultural land as well as wildlife habitat o Provides a variety of transportation choices o Usability and aesthetics are mutually compatible

According to the fiscal analysis, if house prices in Covell Village are not at least twice as high as current 2005 levels by the end of the project, the City will lose money.

There are no Level F intersections considering the cumulative effects of Davis and Woodland. At build-out, 12 years from now in 2017, Covell Village will put only 1 more car on the road citywide for every 15 now and Pole Line Rd. and Covell Blvd., 2 more cars for every 8 now. This does not approach gridlock.

Response: Here are the directly quoted facts from the actual Covell Village EIR Report: http://www.cityofdavis.org/covell/pdfs/eir/appendix_A.pdf GRADE F ROADWAYS AT COVELL VILLAGE COMPLETION: • Covell Boulevard, F Street to J Street • Covell Boulevard, J Street to L Street • Covell Boulevard, L Street to Pole Line Road • Pole Line Road, north of Covell Boulevard • Pole Line Road, I-80 Overcrossing • Pole Line Road, Loyola to Eighth Street • Pole Line Road, Covell Boulevard to Loyola Drive

Covell Village will pay for all of its own infrastructure. In addition it will provide a $4.2 Million Fire Station, donate $470,000 for fire trucks and a police vehicle, donate $12.1 million for city public safety operating costs, donate $2.75 million for city community center building, acquire and donate Nugget Fields to the City, donate 776 acres of agricultural easements to the City. Provide $24 million in development fees and construction taxes for citywide projects. 60 Million from Covell Village contributions and taxes will go to the school district for new school facilities

Covell Village has no flood threat. As with much of Davis, when the streets and lots are graded and the natural habitat ponds and natural corridor are built, the drainage condition no longer exists. This is clearly stated in both the EIR and development agreement.

Paul Navazio, City of Davis Finance Director said, "Covell Village will produce a positive cash flow on the avg. of $464,388 per year. In addition, the libraries will receive $90,000 a year."

Instead of 15.33%, the city will get 17.48% of all Covell Village property taxes. According to City Councilmember Don Saylor, the City can expect to see a residual of about $3.6 million over 15 years. The agreement also requires the Covell Village partners to donate up to $500,000 of matching funds for the South Davis Library, a 7,000 square foot site for a mental health group home in the Village Center, and a Village Center site to Davis Community Television, suitable for the construction of a two-story, 10,000 square foot Media Center. Measure X also guarantees that the Covell Village partners will purchase the district-owned parcel of land in Wildhorse, Nugget Soccer Fields, for $4.2 million, and then donate the fields to the City for permanent recreational use. Under the agreement, sports groups will continue to take care of field maintenance. The school district projects that new revenues from Community Facilities Districts will total $59,286,000.

Measure X guarantees that the Covell Village partners will donate to the school district $1 million and ten acres of land, in a prime location. The development will fully mitigate all school impacts. At the present time, the school district is anticipating that the site may be needed for a Davis High School satellite campus.

"$60 million for schools" is clearly designed to give the impression the developers are making a gift to the schools. In truth, the money would come from taxes levied on Covell Village homes. Not one dime is for existing students, teachers or programs.

The old Hunt-Wesson site cannot be developed without Covell Village to solve access and drainage problems. PG&E has not shown interest in developing their site on L St. and the site does not have the capacity to provide more than two years housing supply. The 500-acre Mace Gateway project proposed by Steve Gidaro whether built in the County or the City, does not reach the standards of design set by Covell Village. Gidaro"s project plus all the other development sites around Davis are not infill.

Sierra club said The Environmental Council of Sacramento called project “Sprawl” Not True "The Environmental Council of Sacramento" (ECOS) sent a letter to the Davis Enterprise stating that the Sierra Club"s accusations were “Unfounded.” The country"s leading New Urbanist Andreas Duany said, " The Covell Village plan is as good as it gets." Head of SACOG Mike McKeever said, "Covell Village meets SACOG"s goals for smart growth." Covell Village meets the Sierra Clubs own smart growth guidelines.

The Sierra Club (both local and regional chapters) opposes Covell Village because it is "too big and it violates environmentally-friendly development guidelines." The Management Committee of the Sierra Club Yolano Group has voted to oppose the Covell Village proposal. In the past months the Yolano Group has hosted four publicly announced meetings to solicit input from membership and the community. There was overwhelming opposition to the project among members of the public who attended the meetings. After considering public input and relevant documents, the Management Committee determined that Covell Village would impose too many adverse impacts on our community and the environment. In approving the project, the City Council disregarded the recommendations of six of its commissions, including the Planning Commission and the Finance and Budget Commissions, which studied the issues and could not support the proposal. The Council ignored key environmental findings and serious financial risks for the city. City documents also show that the project would fail to provide promised affordable housing while generating serious traffic impacts and infrastructure and operational costs.

Trader Joes has inked an agreement with Covell Village. If measure X passes, a Trader Joes will be built, probably across the street from Nugget. See Davis Enterprise http://davisenterprise.com/articles/2005/10/07/news/086new1.txt,

Trader Joes was already in negotions with two locations in Davis. Alhambra Center at Mace & Alhambra which has not yet been approved and with the Interland/South Davis Center which has been approved and is nearing construction. To state that the only way Davis will get a Trader Joe"s is to approve CV is simply false.

The City of Davis Planning Commission did not vote to endorse the development due to concerns about over-burdening the city"s water system and waste water treatment plant. The City of Davis Finance and Budget Commission voted against the development due to strong concerns about "financial risk" to the City budget.

Will Covell Village overburden our sewage system? No. According to City Engineer Pat Fitzsimmons, Davis" wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to accommodate Covell Village. Fitzsimmons estimates that even after Covell Village is completely occupied, the plant will still have capacity for the wastewater generated by an additional 8,000 people.

"The long and short of it is there is the capacity for Covell Village and there is capacity for the General Plan build-out, and then some," said Fitzsimmons. Davis" plant capacity is 7.5 million gallons per day, and today the city generates 6.25 million gallons per day. Covell Village will add only .46 million gallons per day upon completion, leaving capacity for .79 million gallons per day.

People have claimed that there could never be a better project proposed. Please look at the contributions made to the city of Livermore by a a development called Livermore Trails: http://livermoretrails.com/about_livermoretrails_questions.htm It dwarfs the bonuses that Covell Village is offering.

Mike Corbett is not a financial partner in Covell Village. He is an employee hired in a planning capacity. The Covell Village investors are building Covell Village. However well meaning his intentions, the actually implementation of the subdivisions features ultimately rest with the full partners of Covell Village Company not Mike Corbett. There is no assurance that Covell Village will look like Village Homes if Mike Corbett is involved. In addition to Village Homes Mike Corbett helped plan a few other neighborhoods in Davis. These neighborhoods look nothing like Village Homes. The "buck stops" with a handful of Covell Village investors not Mr. Corbett. Davis voters should beware that Covell Village represents another compromise on the original Village Homes concept.

The Sierra Club (both local and regional chapters) opposes Covell Village because it is "too big and it violates environmentally-friendly development guidelines."

The conversion of the farmland to residential at this specific site is special in that it involves paving over some of the most productive soils in the nation. The Yolo and Brentwood soils are ranked as class 1 in the Land Capability Class system for irrigated agriculture. These soils are highly regarded by land users for an ideal high water holding capacity, nutrient supply, and good tilth. The soils map illustrates the areal extent of class one soils (red polygons) at the proposed location of Covell Village. While not nearly as productive, the other soils within the proposed development may be of interest to any potential home gardeners, as they can have high salt levels and clay pans at depth (See map symbols Pb and Rg).

Maybe they don"t want to encourage an increase in college students. I don"t know if this is really the case with Davis, but often in college towns the townspeople regard the students as a nuisance rather than as bona-fide community members. —KenjiYamada

While I don"t think it"s the duty of the town to supply plentiful housing for students, I think too many people in the town ignore the University"s contributions. In addition, the number of students admitted is largely determined by the UC Regents. The University will be growing, whether the citizens of Davis like it or not. The best thing they can do is control how that growth will be handled. I think too many people think they can stop the growth, when it is clear that they can"t. —MattCzarnowski

Well, the citizens of Davis can control new housing developments within their boundaries, but they certainly have very little say outside of those boundaries. UCD can build more housing on their own land. The county can approve housing just outside of the city limits (similar to the Mace Rance debacle). The fact is that more people will be going to school and working in Davis, and thus the effective population will be increasing, regardless of what the residents would like. —MattCzarnowski

This is all not the point. I am not anti-growth, I"m against building million dollar homes in a town where a lot of the workforce is already forced to commute from Woodland, Dixon, and Sacramento. The against is not full of old people that hate growth but engineers, architects, and city planners that see this as a strategical nightmare and a bad idea where responsibility and practicality is second to maximized profits. —ChristopherMcKenzie

2005-06-27 16:56:49   This development is not intended for student housing. It is supposed to be a solution for work-force housing, assuming that West Village will handle student growth. —SharlaDaly

That is EXACTLY the problem. So we have affordable student housing, like The Lexington, where apartments cost $1800/month. What about Allegre or any of the other new housing developments for the spendthrift low budget student. Davis is an unfettered orgy for real-estate developers. These proposed student housing developments are simply more dense (but nowhere close to dense enough) developments with the same ridiculous price range. I dunno if you come from a family that had a stable with wild horses and a 50 acre garden in their backyard, but most people can barely afford this stuff. It"s not like there is an ocean or a lovely mountainside nearby. I guess that UC school means "free to rape" for any developer that comes by. 2 bedroom/2 bath in Woodland: ~$700 - Davis: ~$1050. Any questions? —ChristopherMckenzie

2005-07-17 02:21:13   If they DO go out full fledged with this Village, they better re-arrange their blueprints and dedicate a park to The Jagged Tree!! That park, if made cool enough and preserved the tree, could be on par with Slide Hill! —AndreHarris

I like historic artifacts, and I think a society should do what it can to preserve the best of what we do, but they should then bury the rest and build something new on top of the ruins. Lets save future acheology jobs. That way, you don"t have to sprawl the settlements outward. Sure, there will always be people who want the wild wild west home in East, West, North (though shrinking), and South of Davis, but I bet a whole bunch of people would happily live in "high" rises downtown. If you are going to call yourself a city, act like one and build up. Leave the damn owls and farmers at peace. Wayne Schiller

2005-09-19 15:24:40   I"m a reporter for the Davis Enterprise doing a series of stories on Covell Village. If anyone who visits this page wants to buy a house in Davis, or is hoping Covell Village passes in November so they can buy a house there or has any thoughts at all on Covell Village that they"d like to share, please write to me at [email protected]. Is it okay to solicit here? Anyway, I"d like to have the voices of real residents in my articles, as well as City Council, etc. Thanks. —ClaireStJohn

2005-10-06 12:22:51   I had a pro-Covell Village door-to-door propagandaist drop by my house last night. He asked me if I was voting for or against Covell Village. I told him against. He asked why, and I bought up the traffic concerns. He tried to rebut, but really had nothing, so he left. I find it kind of sad that they"ve resorted to canvassing the streets. Someone obviously stands to make a lot of money (and it ain"t me). —AlexPomeranz

2005-10-06 14:26:19   Not sure where to integrate this right now: Approximately 180 units will be dedicated for low income (less than $48,000 a year) housing, as recently decided by the City Council. They will be "64 cooperative units, 63 municipal low-income units and 40 low-income apartments, all in central locations within the village." (Mike Corbett)

Another really interesting development is that the developers inked a deal to place a Trader Joe"s in Covell Village if the project is approved. Pro-Covell Village individuals claim this is a great opportunity to get one of the most desired stores to come to town. Anti-Covell Village folks think that Davis could attract a Trader Joe"s without Covell Village and cite evidence of Trader Joe"s investigation into a Davis location that has existed for some time. Covell Village supporters respond that the unique location of Covell Village was most attractive to the Trader Joe"s corporation. —PhilipNeustrom

2005-10-06 14:29:44   I"ve been hit twice by the Yes on X people. They have slick brochures and printed newspapers. Someone"s going to make a lot of money if this passes, and it ain"t us! For the residents, we get air pollution, traffic, more cars and fewer bikes (yes -more cars automatically means fewer bikes), higher sewer costs, etc. These people will not be university students, so this changes the "character" of the town too. As far as "affordable", don"t make me gag. How many of us could buy a home there? This whole thing is all about money for the developers, and nothing at all about what would actually benefit our community. Remember, it was the developers who proposed it -it"s not as if we all got together and said "let"s plow under that field and put apartments there" to make Davis a nicer place. —SteveDavison

2005-10-06 15:08:22   It"s not really less bikes. I don"t think they"ll start taking and hiding peoples bikes. It"s not necessarily that horrible for the town though - I mean, there’s more then just developers. Think of all the massive tax money that will be coming in, not just from the construction and possible new shops but from the influx in population - a whole lot could be done. It would also fare very well for most of the businesses in the town. I think I saw something about a school or two as well? It is growth and development yes, but there are positives in it too. It"s inevitable that the city of Davis will change. Be it more students or more families moving here, you can"t keep it as a small town with a farm school forevah. Some people think it"s a little arrogant to spend four years here and then decide that is the best time and way to keep it. I work with people who graduated from UCD in the 60"s, and they can"t believe how much the town has changed. I don"t think the term suburban wasteland need necessarily apply either. If it"s well planned, it can work. You can keep it well spaced, keep parks and green space without being forcibly obvious and surrounded by roads. I think Danville in the east bay area is a good example of that. Or the newer parts of San Ramon in the hills. The problem for that stuff comes down to how most of core Davis wasn"t well planned for much growth. Hence stuff like the crappy intersection. The point of it isn"t affordable housing for college students either. I see a lot of houses being completely remodeled and rennovated around town. I"m sure that"s also pretty expensive, but there are people who can/do shell out the money for a bigger or newer house (instead of one built anywhere from 10 to 50 years ago). Maybe some people just want a more "respectable" neighborhood away from places students can rent, something nice and new in a great place like Davis. Or people working in Sac who just love Davis, but can afford bigger/(potentially) nicer houses. I don"t think the prices are absolutely crazy outrageous for Davis though. Especially for families wanting to come in from more expensive places. Likewise, I may not like the prices I have to pay for an apartment here, but I damn sure appreciate it once I visit friends at UCLA and see what they have to pay. But ever go out on Mace to the Country Club? Driven through it? There are tons of homes in the millions. Really nice ones too. I saw just a single one of them on a listing downtown for 1.75 million. 1.75 million. And it wasn"t even for the biggest and newest of those. I don"t know enough about the entire issue, but just wanted to throw out way too many quick observations/comments from glancing at everyone elses. -ES

2005-10-06 15:52:38   "sad that they"ve resorted to canvassing the streets" and "hit twice by the Yes on X people"? I would be so glad if that"s how poliitical campaigns were generally run. An effective canvassing operation requires lots of people who believe in something enough to make an effective argument for it - so it"s a much less money-biased way for campaigns to be run. (Yes someone could hire lots of people to canvass, but they won"t be effective.) A democracy works on the free exchange of ideas, and this doesn"t only mean letting people say what they want - it also means citizens need to listen fairly to those they might disagree with. I know Davis is far too big for this, but i would feel sooo much more comfortable if this was decided in a town meeting where people would feel a small amount of shame about voting without having heard a good chunk of the debate, and maybe some attempts at compromise to be made, and the whole thing could be tabled for a few months for more discussions if there was a lot of disagreement. This comment should not be construed as an argument for or against the measure, but merely as an observation about how we think about our democracy. —AlexanderWoo

2005-10-09 08:37:50   Now that I"ve had time to look more deeply into this project my feelings have changed. The arguments which are being talked about aren"t the important ones, just the knee-jerk emotional ones. Many things are beyond the developer"s control, such as "affordability". No matter who does what, they"re still going to be "unaffordable" because they hit market rate which in Davis is "unaffordable". We all want something for nothing, but alas... So the real question is what"s good for the community -and what are our options. 1. Leave it as farm land (but for how long?), 2. Split it into individual lots and sell individually for people to build homes on, 3. Have a planned development -and what type (Village Homes or Mace Ranch)? Davis is growing 1.8% (or such) per year, regardless. If that is the case, then the issue becomes what kind of growth -planned or unplanned (as a division). People don"t buy lots and build their own houses like in the old days, so that is probably unrealistic. Looking at the plans and talking with Mike directly I"ve decided that it really is as good as one can get for a planned development. I was fascinated to hear that Village Homes had "enormous" opposition to its creation too. Now I believe that if this fails, there will just be more "stupid structures" instead and a great opportunity will have been lost. Mike said something like "if this fails, I"m going somewhere people will actually appreciate my work". Now I believe the choice isn"t between growth or no-growth, but between a "green" type division and a "concrete" type division. "It"s become about "winning", not about what"s best for Davis" —SteveDavison

2005-10-09 21:21:42   What is missing from the comments of opponents of Covell Village is a rational alternative. While many of the negatives that they point out — such as traffic problems, pollution, etc — have merit, they really don"t offer a better choice. After all, Covell Village looks like an extremely nice neighborhood to live in. It has more open space and more ammenities than any other neighborhood in town. And Davis is going to grow over the next decade — we have an agreement with SACOG that we will grow by 250 houses a year, which is 70 more units a year than Covell Village adds. So the question that must be asked of opponents is this: if not in Covell Village, where do you propose adding the 1,864 units that will be built, plus the other 636 houses we have agreed to? And what will the development of the houses and neighborhoods you propose cause in terms of traffic and so on? It is mindless to just think that the rejection of Covell Village will mean that Davis will not grow any more. —RichRifkin

It"s not a matter of making Davis not grow. It"s a matter of making it grow as the "City of Davis" and not as "The Wealthy Suburb of Sacramento". That is the traffic problem. The workers of Davis living in Sacramento because Sacramento is affordable and the workers of Sacramento living in Davis because Davis is upscale. So every day people do a city switch to work. That is a direct product of bad and irresponsible planning. The people that are no on X are not "no on new homes" or a bunch of environmentalists that want to save the tree squirrel. They are, once again, people that don"t think a sequel to Mace Ranch is a bright idea at this time.I disagree. The people who I have talked to (and my wife was very involved with the "no on covell village" stuff earlier this year, are anti any sort of growth, except infill development, which they also oppose if it is near existing development. (i.e., they are opposed to development of any kind that is not one home at a time) — rocksanddirt

2005-10-10 12:09:01   As a future neighbor of Covell Village (live across pole line from it), I would consider voting no if it were possible to build infill development in Davis without Lawsuits. People say Trader Joes will come, I disagree unless they are in a new devleopment. There is no exisiting space in Davis suitable for them. —RocksandDirt

2005-10-10 12:45:00   "where do you propose adding the 1,864 units that will be built, plus the other 636 houses we have agreed to?" Knee-jerk response, without much thought except some calculation as to how to get to 2000 units: raise downtown (meaning say between C and H and 1st and 5th) to a uniform height of 7 stories, and a few neighboring blocks by a couple of stories (keeping the parks). Negate the traffic problems by putting a deed restriction against registering a car at the address. Put in better public transportation (which can come close to paying for itself from fares) around Davis and also to Sacramento and the Bay Area for these people to use. —AlexanderWoo

2005-10-10 23:36:58   Alexander, your solution would do what I asked. However, there are a number of problems with it. First, the area of downtown that you suggest should be 7 stories is owned by (I"m guessing) hundreds of separate people. I can"t imagine that there would be any public support for condemning those properties or taking them through eminent domain. And so you would just have to wait — perhaps 30 years or more — until they were for sale. And while most remained one-story buildings, the remaining residents would likely object to living next to a 7 story building. I think it might be possible to do what you say on a block that has only one owner, if you limit the new buildings to say 4 stories. But politically, I think your idea would be quite unpopular. And second, it might not provide the kind of housing that people in Davis really want to live in. If so, it would also be uneconomical. —RichRifkin

I agree my idea is unlikely to work, even if I overestimated the current height of downtown and only 5 stories are needed. It really does have to be done something like all at once, because the public transportation won"t work without having that many people living close to each other. If the zoning allowed for it, a developer could probably get it done by offering slightly above market prices to buy out most of a block, and threatening hold-outs with having a five story building next to them. This would be politically impossible and economically questionable though. Sadly, I think most Davis residents would prefer two new Covell Villages over a 5 or 7 story downtown, even though the 5 story downtown would be much better for maintaining town identity, not to mention how much it would help small local businesses. This doesn"t mean Covell Village will pass - since people can always hope that neither will happen. —AlexanderWoo

2005-10-12 04:39:55   There has been an ad circulating around this week that"s clearly student-targeted. It states that "If you want to live in a cutting edge, solar-powered neighborhood with new entertainment options and affordable housing for students, then Covell Village is for you." The design of the advertisement is clearly geared toward students, as well. The back lists, among other items, "Affordable Housing" and under that it states that "Covell Village will be the only place in Davis where students can qualify for affordable housing." What is going on here? Covell Village is not intended to be student housing, as far as I know, and all debate on the project has centered around other topics. I think they are using the phrase "affordable housing" in a technical sense, in that you get tax breaks, etc? What do they mean it"s the only place students can qualify? Do they mean it"s the only place where students can get some slack if they want to purchase a home? Can someone please elaborate on what they mean by affordable housing for students? (Buying a house is never an affordable option for a student unless they have a parent willing to throw in and buy it then rent it out once they"re gone, etc). —PhilipNeustrom

Basically, students can"t apply for section 8 housing (housing for people with low incomes). Covell Village includes houses as well as townhouses and apartments. So CV would pretty much just be offering section 8 rates to students that qualified without actually being official section 8 housing. —JennySoares

2005-10-12 12:28:59   Covell Village is going to be built immediately adjacent to the old Yolo County landfill. When that thing lets off gas, it smells like death. —NikolaiBraun

That"s not likely from the old landfill, but rather from the protected open space drainage area adjacent to the landfill and adjacent to the proposed development. —RocksandDirt

2005-10-13 10:28:59   Trader Joe"s has made it clear that they did not want to move in to any of Davis" vacant spaces, but they were already in discussions with two new shopping areas about coming.

Covell Village just went in an gave them a deal they could not refuse. Trader Joe"s has said previously that the 8th street vacant space was too far from the freeway, yet Covell is even further. It just shows how desperate the Covell Village people are to entice votes. If they had confidence in their project they would not need to "sweeten the pot" to buy more votes... —BrianSolecki

2005-10-13 21:22:59   You know why I"m against Covell Village? I love Davis. I want to live here forever, but I doubt I"ll ever be able to afford to buy a home here. I resent that the new homes always have to be rediculously expensive and I resent that the only people that will be able to afford them are people commuting to Sacramento. —AnnaJones

2005-10-14 12:25:54   Hi Ya"ll. Just wanted to make sure people know that the chart above is NOT correct in terms of housing prices. It was created by the No on X people. This project was innovatively designed to avoid sprawl like we are seeing elsewhere. Thus, many of the units are high-density townhomes that are really unique and cool, placed on wildlife habitat with great views, etc. They are the kind of high-density low-cost housing that I would love to live in! It"s funny, in this campaign, it is the No side that is manipulating so many of the numbers. They say the average house will be 700k, but for some reason they took out all affordable housing for people who make less than $40K/year make in their figures. They also used future calculations assuming 5%/year appreciation. Ten years ago, $300K for an average house would have sounded ridiculously high, so why are they using future figures? That is the kind of thing that makes me wonder: if NO on X people are so sure of their stance, why manipulate people so much?

Affordable housing in Covell will start at $198K (144 townhomes for families, seniors and individuals starting at $198K and averaging about $267K) Only 52% of the housing in Covell Village has no restriction on price. I"m working on getting the chart above taken off this site, and there will probably be something in the Enterprise soon about this bc No on X is using it at their tables around town. —DavidFisher

If the above chart is incorrect then someone should make a new table that contains housing price information (TravisGrathwell tried to find out where the above stats came from and was unsuccessful). The information should be as accurate as possible, including the general information approved by the by the City Council as well as what the current developer"s figures are for house prices. There is merit in including figures on what Davis residents can afford. After all, much of the debate is surrounding affordability. The only question is how to calculate it. Someone should check the reports on house affordability and adjust them for when the homes will be available, up to inflation, etc. In fact, this page should probably have an entire "Prices" section because the issue is tricky to approach. It would take a bit of time, but it"s definitely worth it!

I have posted above the info upon which the table is based. The 2005 prices, buildout schedule, and assumption about house price appreciation are all taken directly from the City"s fiscal analysis, and the assumption that first homes are sold in 2008 is taken from a statement by Ted Puntillo at City Council during the vote on the project in June.

2005-10-14 12:49:34   The affordable/unaffordable debate is a red herring. No, they won"t be affordable. But then NO HOMES there will be. If one instead thinks, "If I could design it, what would it be like?" Then you may conclude that it really is quite good as designed. What would make it better, really? —SteveDavison

2005-10-14 19:32:16   Well, it"s not the "Davis ideal", but I have to say that the plans for Covell Village are impressive. They are far more thoughful and interesting than what you see in the quickly-developing urban sprawl to the east and south of Sacramento. Is it ideal for Davis? Well, I think the debate about impact on resources is somewhat askew since infill housing will be built which would cause similar stresses on existing infrastructure. Some people are concerned about the traffic impact, but I think it might have an interesting effect of causing less of a traffic impact on Downtown as this housing would be convenient to new business developements near South Davis. (Most people are worried about downtown it seems.) Anyway, it"s a close call, but I think Measure X is a winner in the long haul. —JaimeRaba

2005-10-14 19:55:32   A family living in Covell village needs a car, and that already makes it unaffordable to a lot of people. Let"s face it - the only ways to make affordable housing around here are (a) build housing so crappy no one wants to live there or (b) add a million (i"m exaggerating less than you think) units between Sacramento and Santa Cruz. Anything else will either see (a) homes become unaffordable on resale or (b) corruption running the sale of below-market units or (c) homes and neighborhoods degrade as people decide not to invest in them. You have to make the market work for society, not fight it. FYI, i prefer the million units approach, with taxpayer subsidized construction if necessary. —AlexanderWoo

Why exactly would a family in Covell Village need a car? While the far side of the development would be beyond easy walking distance to central Davis, and not particularly near any existing bus service, this isn"t the case for the low income areas - Unitrans and Yolobus run within a few blocks. Having lived carless a few blocks south of the proposed site and way out in South Davis, I fail to see how it would be a problem. —JessicaLuedtke

I have a small child myself :) Only one child, and old enough to ride in a bike trailer, but given that there will be schools, shopping, and public transportation nearby, I really don"t see how the situation would be worse than anywhere else in Davis. Heck, we live right downtown, and it"s still a 5 block walk to yolobus and 10 blocks to the closest grocery store. —JessicaLuedtke

2005-10-15 10:35:43   I think Covell Village is going to provide "upgrade housing" for small families — normally with at least one professional, or perhaps dual-incomes. I have a suspicion that people will move—for example—from Central Davis, and into Covell Village. This will free up less expensive housing options for those who need it. Honestly, as unaffordable as houses are said to be in Davis, they"re really spread across the spectrum. However, there"s limited availability so there"s not much room for movement. This should at least cause some of that to happen. —JaimeRaba

Comments re: the Yolo County Supervisors plans to approve the Guidaro Development and three Yolo County Supervisors assurances there are no plans to approve development per the "Pass Through Agreement: * Actually, I"m pretty sure that you"re wrong on this one... The County CAN vote in development outside the borders. The County can unilaterally void the "Pass through Agreement" by giving up the million or so bucks it receives from the City- chump change compared to how much they"d get from development taxes. In order to receive grant money from larger government entities, Davis must grow at a .9% rate per year, something they wouldn"t be doing without a development such as Covell Village or the other proposed Mace Curve. TL

The county might be able to approve development outside the borders, but who is to say they won"t do this if Covell Village is built? If they were really after development taxes independent of Davis, they could approve all sorts o