Menu

Trestle History Page 6

A Timeline of the Many and Varied Attempts to

Restore the Petaluma Trestle

Date	Event or Document	Image or PDF
10/7/2011	Preservation Architecture determines Trestle is historic but this is never announced to the public. See part of their report below at November 2011	See document at Nov 2011
10/14/11	Wood report from Flynn & Assoc., Inc. - Wood Science & Technology, to Winzler & Kelly. Though dated 10/14/11 this report was not made available to public review until 2012 Pg 2-3 Piles: The inter-tidal zone of the piles was heavily attacked by marine borers and most piles had lost approximately 2 ½ to 3 inches in radius (5-6 inches in diameter). The tops of some piles suffered decay damage but the pile cap covered the upper surface, limiting access. Pg 6 Pile damage in the inter-tidal zone is relatively extensive and this section will require reinforcement and protection. The original section from each pile, even those suffering from decay or attack, is typically sound below the permanent water table. A lack of oxygen limits biological growth because of the anaerobic environment below the mud. The piles can be protected in several ways. Treatments include encapsulation with concrete jackets, impermeable high density polyethylene wraps, or fiber reinforced composite shells. Protection by jacketing should be extended several feet below the mud Pg 3 Pile Bent Caps: The Pile Bent Caps typically appeared sound Pg 4 Sway and Sash(sill) Bracing: Some of the bracing members were missing or had failed, and others were in a relatively sound condition.” Stringers: Many of the stringers were accessible from above and below. Records indicated that many of the stringers (in Bents 16 or 17 to 30 or 31) were replaced during repairs to the structure in 1969. The shore side stringer between bents 32 & 33 was heavily decayed. Deck Boards: The deck assembly suffered extensive damage. The visible and accessible deck boards were degraded and should be replaced Pg 4-5 Railroad Ties: The railroad ties were not generally accessible due to safety concerns, but could be seen from the floating dock. Most of the ends appeared sound, with few indications of degradation noted. Approximately 20 percent of the ties are likely to need replacement, but a more thorough survey should be completed when the ties are accessible.
11/1/11	Chris protests to council members Theresa Barrett & Mike Healy that stakeholders have never been invited to participate as originally promised
November 2011	Historic Resource Evaluation Report Mark Hulbert (Preservation Architecture). From Appendix E of Winzler & Kelly’s Conceptual Design & Plan Document [Under] Evaluation of Historic Significance The Petaluma Trestle … appears eligible for the National and California registers as an individual historic resource. It also appears eligible as a contributing structure to the National Register-listed Petaluma Historic Commercial District. [Under] National Register Evaluation The Petaluma Trestle is [potentially] significant at the national level under National Register Criteria A and B. [Under Criterion A,]...the Petaluma Trestle is historically significant because of its association with Petaluma's time of great economic expansion when it was declared the "World's Egg Basket."...The Petaluma Trestle is a surviving symbol of the agricultural and commercial might that made the city a prosperous regional transportation center… [Under NR Criterion B,]... the Petaluma Trestle qualifies... for its association with George P. McNear, whose family has left behind an impressive legacy of elegant historic buildings, public open spaces, and even the configuration of the Petaluma River itself. California Register Evaluation The California Register of Historical Resources [CR] essentially adopts the National Register criteria for determining eligibility. [Under CR Criterion 1,]... the Petaluma Trestle appears eligible for the CR for its association with Petaluma's time of greatest growth as the "World's Egg Basket," under the themes of agriculture, industry, commerce and transportation. [Under] City of Petaluma Historic Resource Evaluation The Petaluma Historic Commercial District encompasses an area bounded by Prospect Street to the north, "D" Street to the south, the Petaluma River to the east, and Kentucky and Fourth streets to the west. Still, the Trestle structure appears to be an appropriate contributor to the Downtown Commercial Historic District. …this evaluation concurs with prior evaluations that the Trestle appears to be eligible as a contributor to both the NR and the CP Downtown Commercial Historic District.
11/30/11	Stakeholders get their first opportunity to participate with invitation to the Apple Box Restaurant to see the three design Alternatives.
11/31/11	Larry Zimmer tries to discourage Chris from attending the upcoming presentation to the City Council in February, 2012, re: the Trestle project, “we have your interests covered.” Zimmer makes it sound like Public Works has no preferred Alternative, but in reality, they had already decided on Alternative 3
12/1/11	Legal notice of Apple Box meeting runs in Argus Courier
12/7/11	Chris Stevick and Lauren Williams get preview of completed Alternatives (First time made public) Reports were supposed to be available online but were difficult to get to. However, even if you found them there was a formatting problem that made the text into gibberish. Made it look like the City was not interested in making the documents accessible to the public.
12/8/11	Second Legal notice of Apple Box meeting runs in Argus Courier

Date	Document or Event	Image or PDF
12/12/11	Lauren and Chris are invited as Stakeholders to the first presentation of Alternatives 1, 2 & 3, but with no opportunity for input
12/14/11	Stakeholders attended the first and only public presentation of the Three Alternative plans at the Applebox Restaurant (at B St. & 2^nd St., currently occupied by the Riverfront Café) that faces onto the Trestle. (No transcript of this meeting was available but the following descriptions of the Three Alternatives from the letter submitted by Larry Zimmer to the City Council on 2/6/12, are essentially the same.) • Alternative 1 was favored by some, since it maintained more of the original materials. Some were of the opinion this alternative made the structure "ugly" by wrapping the piles and adding additional structural members. Based on a citizen's comments, this alternative would be modified from the schematic in the presentation to uniformly treat the piles to create a consistent appearance. Any added structural members would be hidden as much as possible behind existing materials. Pile repairs would be done to minimize the adding to the diameter of the piles. • Alternative 2 appeared to be the least popular since it added new bents between the existing ones and as the original structure continued to decay, disappearing over time, a completely new trestle differing in appearance from the original would be left in its place. • Alternative 3 was well supported, provided the new materials were made to look as much like the original wooden structure as possible. Opponents to this alternative wanted to make clear that this alternative builds a "replica" with no authenticity, and does not maintain any of the historical integrity. (More detail about the 3 Alternatives is available in the transcriptions of the City Council meeting on 2/6/12, see below. Craig Lewis’s statements and PowerPoint that night are essentially the same presentation as made to the stakeholders on 12/14/11)	Letter 2/6/12 Power point slides used in presentation:
12/15/11	At the Applebox presentation attendees could sign up for further information. Chris photographed the sign-up sheets so he could contact all the stakeholders who attended the meeting. Chris mentions to Diane Ramirez (Public Works) that he has photographed these contacts and she reacts as though he has stolen classified documents. These sheets were laid out in the open for all to see, there was nothing secret or private to be protected. Her upset about copying this information does make the City or Public Works look secretive, a bit paranoid and afraid of stakeholders actually communicating with each other. It's not a good look.
12/21/11	Chris’s meeting with Larry Zimmer and Diane Ramirez (taken from Larry’s summary of the meeting from email dated 1-4-12)
12/27/11	Stringer report from the Wood Report of Flynn & Assoc., Inc - Wood Science & Technology to Craig Lewis of Winzler & Kelly (Later of GHD) Stringers: Many of the stringers were accessible from above and below. Two groups of three were located with one group under each rail. Records indicated that many of the stringers (in Bents 16 or 17 to 30 or 31) were replaced during repairs to the structure in 1969. The shore side stringer between bents 32 & 33 was heavily decayed, having a large void within. Decay damage was noted in the top surface and at the interface between members in other areas. Holes, drilled for hardware that was either not used in these locations or was no longer present, were also noted	Excerpt:
1/4/11	Letter from Larry Zimmer to Chris, summarizing Chris’s position at a meeting with Larry and Diane Ramirez around 12-21-11. Chris responds in detail in email dated 2-13-12 (see below) 1. You strongly prefer wood piles to steel. You also prefer the idea of sleeving the piles with steel rather than the concrete jacket when needed, and providing a uniform approach to the pile repair. 2. You felt alternative 2 is unattractive. You believe it is an unrealistic alternative that forces the choice between alternative 1 and 3 3. You believe Alternative 3 is "not an option to be funded". You are concerned that this alternative will eliminate any historic restoration type grants. Diane's research has not revealed any feasible grants that we would make ourselves ineligible for. If you can provide any additional information that would be great. 4. You stated in general that "if it doesn't look old, it is a problem".
1/23/12	Letter from Larry Zimmer to Chris Stevick In response to an earlier letter from Chris. In this email he tries to summarize Chris’s preferences for Trestle rehab, then points out problems with the various solutions under Alt 1. “You wish for as much of the original material as possible to be saved. You want any treatment to the piles (and elsewhere) to be uniform and/or symmetrical. You want the final product to look as much like the original as possible.” “You suggested cutting the existing pile below low water mark (where sound) and using steel pipe "sleeves" to splice on new timber piles… …Splicing in this manner works fine for the vertical loading, but it would not be able to handle lateral or seismic loads.” (and require additional steel reinforcement down to a deeper part of each pile, therefore more expensive, maybe ugly too) Chris notes the lateral loads could be handled by tying the structure to solid structures above the embankment, but below surface of deck. “We also discuss the City's assumption that the majority of the joists and many of the stringers are no longer useful and would be replaced.” (and push up cost of implementing Alt 1.) Editor's note: Chris doubts that all of the stringers are as deteriorated as the one picked as an example in the staff report. Inspection of individual stringers will be required to determine whether to re-use or replace each unit.
2/6/12	Letter written by Larry Zimmer (Capital Improvements Division Manager, Public Works Department) to City Council members before the meeting of 2/6/12 began. It summarizes the presentation to be made and emphasizes the Staff preferences. (Quotes taken from Larry Zimmer’s letter to CC) • Alternative 1 was favored by some, since it maintained more of the original materials. Some were of the opinion this alternative made the structure "ugly" by wrapping the piles and adding additional structural members. Based on a citizen's comments, this alternative would be modified from the schematic in the presentation to uniformly treat the piles to create a consistent appearance. Any added structural members would be hidden as much as possible behind existing materials. Pile repairs would be done to minimize the adding to the diameter of the piles. • Alternative 2 appeared to be the least popular since it added new bents between the existing ones and as the original structure continued to decay, disappearing over time, a completely new trestle differing in appearance from the original would be left in its place. • Alternative 3 was well supported, provided the new materials were made to look as much like the original wooden structure as possible. Opponents to this alternative wanted to make clear that this alternative builds a "replica" with no authenticity, and does not maintain any of the historical integrity. He also states “No action needed by City Council” Editor's note: Larry wasn't expecting much push back from stakeholders or the public at this presentation, except for a few comments limited to 3 minutes each.

Trestle History Page 6

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