Menu

Trestle History Page 2

A Timeline of the Many and Varied Attempts to

Restore the Petaluma Trestle

Date	Event or Document	Image or PDF
8/4/04	Argus-Courier Article, "River Promenade Taking Shape" describes Marangella's preferred plan (requiring demolition of the Trestle) “The old wooden railroad trestle that begins at the intersection of Western Avenue and Water Street will be torn out due to rotting pillars at the waterline, Marangella said. ‘They're just too far gone,’ he said. ‘It cannot be salvaged.’
8/12/04	A letter to Dusty Resneck (Petaluma Pedestrian& Bicycle Advisory Committee) from Joyce Clark, PE, Program Manager, Economic Development and Redevelopment, City of Petaluma, asking for clarity in reference to the Argus article of 8/4/04 about the Trestle being unsalvageable. Her reply was forwarded to a member of Heritage Homes. The letter states that the design process has begun, assuming the old structure will be removed. This is the first suggestion that Marangella's plan would be a "win/win" just because the new structure will follow the original footprint and also retain the existing railroad tracks (the possibility of running a trolley was still being considered). It's clear that the destruction of the original Trestle was considered a "done deal" within the Economic Development and Redevelopment Department.
10/13/04	Chris, in his role as president of the Petaluma Heritage Homes association (2001-2004), had several private meetings with Paul Marangella. Trying to convince HH to give up on trying to restore it, Marangella insists the downtown Trestle can’t be saved. In support of his argument he makes several assertions that Chris, in turn, sought evidence to refute. (though made often, most of the following statements come from Chris’s notes made at a meeting with Paul Marangella and John FitzGerald on October 10, 2004) Statement 1. “The rotten piles are too far gone." Chris's Reply: Since the wooden piles are driven a minimum of 30 feet into the soil below the low water line where the conditions are anoxic (no oxygen can get to them so they cannot deteriorate) all rot & decay occurs only above that low water line. Only the upper rotten portion need be reinforced or replaced and connected securely to the intact lower piling, by one of several possible methods approved by structural engineers and with a history of successful use in other locations. Some type of sleeve or tube sufficient to support the load, connect securely to the good lower portion of the pile, and provide a form for cement or other aggregate to fill in the decayed portions. There are currently 5 pilings supporting each of the 36 “bends” that in turn support the old railroad tracks, but only 3 pilings in each bend need be repaired as no heavy locomotives will ever roll on the tracks again. These would provide more than adequate support for a deck promenade. Of course all deck boards and any rotten railroad ties that support them will have to be replaced but these can be made from readily available solid wood and are the easiest to deal with, literally only the surface of the Trestle.
10/13/04	Statement 2. “No engineer would put his stamp on a wooden trestle" Chris's Reply: Chris Stevick consulted several independent engineers who stated that many wooden trestles were currently being approved around the US. As further proof, Chris hired MKM Associates, a structural engineering firm, to come up with an official, stamped set of timber Trestle drawings that clearly show the possibilities and refute Marangella's assertion.
10/13/04	Statement 3. “The State Coastal Conservancy would not allow it.” Chris's Reply: The State Coastal Conservancy actually required that any trestle redevelopment include preserving as much of the original structure as possible, maintaining the original design and that replacement materials should be the same as the original or from the most similar available materials.
10/13/04	Statement 4. “SMART sees trestle as a liability”. Chris's Reply: Chris Stevick was on the "Friends of SMART" committee, consisting of local people interested in promoting the proposed train system, so he was familiar with SMART activities. At the time SMART was completely unconcerned with the Trestle, which was included when they purchased the right of way to the tracks from Larkspur landing to Cloverdale. They didn't need the Trestle and would be glad to sell it to Petaluma for a nominal fee.
10/13/04	Statement 5. "Not a historic site, not included in the Historic Downtown District" Chris's Reply: Marangella's logic is that the Trestle is not worth restoring because it isn't historically significant, which is directly contradicted by statements in the letter from Cassandra Chattan, of ARS, dated 1/28/02 (see above). The Trestle is already a Historic Structure by California standards, which require it to be rebuilt in a manner as similar to the original as possible. It is within the boundary of the Historic District, and more importantly, constructed by McNear during that period in Petaluma History that later legitimized the Historic District as worthy of protection. Marangella’s logic is an inversion of the fact that it would actually be eligible for the National Historic Register (formal, National recognition of its Historic significance) on the condition that it be restored.
10/13/04	When Chris was still unwilling to go along with the Trestle demolition, Marangella resorted to threats to withdraw support for the Trolley project and attempted to intimidate him into approving the plan. At the time, Chris was trying to get the Petaluma Trolley project off the ground using the existing tracks to support a restored 100 year-old trolley as a kind of historic novelty that would go up and down the Petaluma River (He later abandoned the Trolley idea as not economically viable). Marangella was supporting the Trolley concept (at least verbally) but was dead set on demolishing the trestle. In fact he threatened Chris that he would withdraw his support for the Trolley if Chris and Heritage Homes failed to get in line with the removal of the trestle. He tried to discourage Chris by declaring he wouldn't have any impact on the City Council or SPARC.
11/23/04	C.V. Larsen Co. sends letter to Chris, reviews exiting Trestle and estimates cost of rehab at between $1,000 and $2,000 per lineal ft. Trestle is approximately 500 ft long, so high estimate = $1,000,000.
12/17/04	Paul Marangella presents plans and concept drawings of how nice the River would look with Trestle gone. Described as “win/win.” The concept drawings are just 3D renderings of what the replacement for the trestle might look like, based on redirected tracks and the rough footprint of the old trestle. These are just artist's conceptions, no architect involved, they were undated and unsigned, just to give a rough idea without specifics.

Date	Event or Document	Image or PDF
1/11/05	Historian Katherine J. Rinehart writes to Chief of San Francisco District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “to express my concerns about the proposed demolition of the historic Petaluma Trestle” “The Trestle remains the most tangible and visual link to Petaluma's important transportation and agricultural history and is a distinct component of the downtown landscape as such, I ask that prior to issuing any permits for this project that you consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and conduct a Section 106 Review”
1/26/05	Chris Stevick’s presentation to SPARC, summarized in a letter listing the extensive benefits to Petaluma stemming directly from saving the Trestle. I believe the Trestle's historic significance has been overlooked by those who propose to demolish it. It is our visual and historic connection to Petaluma's own unique past. The Trestle has been described for years as one of a kind in existence on the West coast. So far I have not been able to find any other like it. It may be completely unique. It is certainly a contributor to the uniqueness and charm of Petaluma. The "WATER STREET TRESTLE EVALUATION AND REPLACEMENT" 1/29/02, CSW [St] should have considered replacing the pilings of the existing structure. But it never did. I quote from page 3: "As stated, each of these scenarios assumes the complete removal of the existing trestle"
2/9/05	Paul Marangella's presentation to the board of Heritage Homes asserting all the reasons the trestle can’t be saved. Recorded & noted in the meeting minutes. Paul Marangella encouraged the HH Board to approve new concrete terminus of Western Street at Water Street. Plans reviewed showed a concrete deck supported by concrete piers. All studies and proposals had included demolition of historic RR trestle. After spending $107,000 on studies and proposals the City of Petaluma halted funding for design alternatives involving trestle demolition and City staff announced their intention to delete $400,000 in funding for trestle demolition from budget at February budget review.
Early 2005	Paul Marangella pressures Kit Schlich, new HH president, to “ OK” Trestle demolition. Kit Schlich, in a letter to the Heritage Homes Board and Chris Stevick, dated Aug 6, 2013, recounted her experience with Marangella in early 2005 after she became president of Heritage Homes. "When I became HH president in 2005, Paul Marangella, head of city development, invited me to his office to present a city engineer's plan to demo the trestle and replace it with a generic modern embankment topped by a walkway. He badly wanted the neophyte (me) to approve it. But I didn't. The HH board at the time backed me up and I realized that this was to be an issue of importance to the preservation community."
2005	Friends of the Water Street Trestle form an ad hoc support group to show this is not just a trolley issue This informal group of local people (including Pam Torliatt, who would later be elected mayor) were determined to preserve the Trestle, and eventually helped secure a grant from the State Coastal Conservancy for the restoration of the Trestle
5/25/05	Argus-Courier article "Downtown trolley effort still on track" “City officials maintain their information shows the Trestle is beyond repair”
9/12/05	Chris sends letter to Paul Marangella with attached drawings from structural engineers at MKM & Associates showing how Trestle could be repaired rather than demolished. To rebut Marangella’s claim that "no engineer would put his stamp on a wooden trestle" Chris hired MKM to show that a structural engineer WOULD sign off on a wood trestle, assuming it was restored properly.. Since pilings below low waterline (in the anoxic or anaerobic zone) are still solid, the only work required to salvage the pilings (and therefore the Trestle) is to repair the damaged portion between high and low waterline or replace and mechanically connect new material to the sound pilings below. The caps and sleepers supported by the pilings are still in good shape. Only the top decking would need to be replaced. Pg 1 Cover letter from Chris Stevick to Paul Marangella Pg 2 Assumptions and basic requirements Pg 3 Drawing of a possible solution Pg 4 Reproduction of “So. Pacific Lines Common Standard Method of Splicing Trestle Piles” dated 12/2/1954, showing drawings of several methods of trestle repair.
10/12/05	Argus-Courier article "Redevelopment boss leaves city hall" "Marangella, who said he was asked to resign following the discovery of $4.8 million in unpaid redevelopment bills." "informed sources said Marangella sometimes went outside of his authority while leading the city's redevelopment push, authorizing more spending on projects that the city later had to OK." Editor's note--Marangella apparently forgot to mention he had authorized $4.8 M in infrastructure costs for the Theater District development in excess of the original budgeted amount. The City of Petaluma was forced to use their budget surplus funds to cover the debt. Marangella was asked to "retire" and he accepted, effective January 1, 2006.
4/5/06	Dutra Construction provides cost estimate for restoring Trestle "36 piers with 4 piles each = 144 piles (assume 50' each) @ $80 per foot (treated and wrapped) = $576,000.00 Install Piles - 144 each @ $1200 per each = $172,800.00 Remove old deck to get access to piers = $50,000.00 (includes disposal) Replace deck after piers installed = $40,000.00 (buy decking and install) Replace Ties as necessary = $15,000.00 (will need to remove and replace at least 72 ties) Remove and dispose of old piling (180 each say $250 per each) = $45,000.00 TOTAL = $898,800.00 cost. BID would probably be in the range of $1.2 million from any contractor." .

Trestle History Page 2

Pg 1
Pg 2
Pg 3
Pg 4
Pg 5
Pg 6
Pg 7
Pg 8
Pg 9
Pg 10

© 2025 Chris Stevick

Powered by Coliminal.com

Web Design by Robert Dougherty