| Date | Document or Event | Image or PDF |
| 2000-2005 | Since the early 2000s, Public Works and their engineering consultants have preferred plans requiring the demolition of the existing Trestle and replacing it with a new structure, rather than restoring the original. - Paul Marangella (Director of Redevelopment 2000-2005) said the Trestle was beyond repair and that no engineer would sign off on a wooden trestle in the U.S.
- Link to Argus article quoting Marangella
- Link to Wood Trestle plans by structural engineers at MKM & Associates
- CSW[St]2, the engineering firm hired to plan the Trestle rehabilitation, wrote a letter to Marangela acknowledging his prior instructions to only consider plans that require complete demolition. Apparently the decision to demolish was made in advance, without thorough structural analysis or community input.
- Link to letter.
| |
| 2/6/12 | February 6, 2012 - Staff Report to City Council on Trestle Rehabilitation.
Larry Zimmer, Capital Improvements Division Manager, and GHD, the engineering firm hired to come up with three alternatives for Trestle rehabilitation, present the alternatives to the City Council. - Zimmer and GHD referred to Option 3 (requiring demolition) as “strongly supported”.
- Mark Hulbert, Historic Architect, on contract to Public Works, explains how the Trestle is not actually a registered historic structure. His testimony contradicted his own earlier report which said the Trestle is eligible to be listed once it is repaired. It seems his change of heart reflected the wishes of his Public Works employers who were laying the groundwork for persuading CEQA to accept the demolition of the Trestle.
- Quote from Hulbert’s statements to 2/6/12 City Council meeting.
- Hulbert v Hulbert - Critique of Hulbert’s statements v. paper of 2011
- Option 1 of the three alternatives, specifying the repair of the existing Trestle and not requiring demolition, was preferred by historic preservationists and in a resolution by the City Council. Option 1 is the method later referred to as the 2013 Option in the Foth report of 2025.
- Link to Resolution
Staff and GHD ‘strongly supported’ Options 2 and 3 after making Option 1 look bad by presenting it as a hodgepodge of different pile repair methods which resulted in an ‘ugly’ solution. However, these problems could be remedied easily: - The ‘ugliness’ of Option 1 (some piles needed bulkier jacketing, others could just be wrapped with thin material, screw piles were steel) was easily remedied by making the several methods appear similar.
- The helical screw piles aren’t even necessary as the existing piles only need to be repaired above mudline, the parts below mudline are in the anaerobic zone and still intact (think Venice’s 1000-year-old wood piles that support the city in a lagoon). The tilt of piles in the ‘failure zone’ are no longer being pushed or threatened by the reinforced river embankment, and tilted piles are commonplace in marine docks and trestles and can be stabilized and repaired like the rest.
| |
5/9/25 | History Repeats Itself
On May 9, 2025, Foth presented the document:
“Petaluma Trestle Renovation – Design Concept Options Analysis – Final” to Petaluma Department of Public Works. Foth came up with nine methods for renovating the Trestle. - The 2013 Option, the first on the list, is the only one to maintain the historic integrity of the Trestle and is the least expensive of the nine. This option retains as much of the wooden superstructure as possible, and repairs and reinforces the damaged portions of the piles.
- Options 1-8 all require the complete demolition of the Trestle before replacing it with a replica made from a variety of modern materials. Replicas would retain the footprint and rough shape of the original.
- Options 1-8 do not maintain historic integrity.
There is a major obstacle to pursuing any of those eight options:
CEQA requires that any project that would have an “adverse effect” on an historic resource under Section 106 cannot proceed until an Environmental Impact Report is submitted showing measures to minimize, avoid, or mitigate the adverse effects. - Link to:
Quote from Foth report, page 41, last paragraph
“Design Options 1 through 8 would involve the demolition of the existing Petaluma Trestle and the construction of a new structure that is intended to mimic the historic structure to varying extents. Due to the demolition of the existing Petaluma Trestle, the Petaluma Trestle renovation project may result in a finding that the project would have a “significant and unavoidable” impact to the historic resource, the Petaluma Trestle, under CEQA and an “adverse effect” on the historic resource under Section 106 of the NHPA.”
- Complete demolition of the Trestle would be an extremely “adverse effect” on a historic resource.
Demolition would destroy eligibility for grants from any agencies promoting historic preservation (for example the State Coastal Conservancy) limiting the pool of potential funding sources. Demolition is too drastic for CEQA to approve. Demolition would destroy eligibility for grants from any agencies promoting historic preservation (for example the State Coastal Conservancy) limiting the pool of potential funding sources.
| Click to see the FOTH Report 
Links in text go to individual pages of this document |
5/9/25
Defense of the 2013 Option | The 2013 Option (Option One from the GHD plan, the option not requiring demolition) is the least expensive and the only method that maintains historic integrity. - Quote from Foth report, page 41, second to last paragraph “The 2013 design option includes the preservation and reuse of portions of the existing Trestle. This option has the potential to be constructed in a manner that conforms with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties under the Treatment of Rehabilitation, which is defined as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”
Despite these important advantages, the Foth report (5/9/25) deprecates the 2013 Option and supports the other eight, all requiring demolition. The rather weak argument used for deprecating the 2013 Option is that its Service Life is (supposedly) only 25-30 years. We dispute the weak short service life assumptions (see next section below), and think it’s a bad faith argument, similar to the weak, bad faith argument Staff and GHD used in 2012 against Option 1.
Over the years Public Works repeatedly chooses expensive methods that won't pass CEQA requirements and that are hard to fund. We can only conclude that they do not want to deal with restoring and rebuilding the existing Trestle for their own undisclosed reasons.
| |
5/9/25
Questioning Service Life assumptions | The Service Life of the components used in the 2013 Option have been drastically underestimated.
Table 2-2, Pg 15 from the FOTH Report: 
- Jacketing to repair eroded piles, either Fiberglas or PVC, plus epoxy or concrete grout, are warrantied for 25-30 years but are expected to last 50 years or more. Jacketed piles are guaranteed to be twice as strong as the original. All pilings below the mudline are in the anaerobic zone and not subject to decay, so all repairs have to extend down to the still solid portions.
- Quote from info provided by DENSO, manufacturer of Sea Sheild Marine Systems
- The Bent Caps, stringers, joists and ties are all ‘Softwood timber’, in this case Redwood and treated Douglas Fir that are never submerged in the river. Considering that they successfully carried 200-ton locomotives with minimal maintenance for about 70 years, it seems reasonable that the ‘softwood’ superstructure, when the damaged portions (estimated at 20%) are replaced, will last another 70 years for pedestrian use only.
- Quote from Craig Lewis’s Power Point presentation to City Council 2/6/12 re: Option 1
- Quote from Porter & Associates 7/14/23 “Wood Condition Assessment" about why quality of unrated timber from early 20th century is underestimated.
| |
5/9/25
2013 Option is least expensive | The 2013 Option is also the least expensive solution.
Table 7-4, pg.44 from the Foth Report shows that the 2013 Option has the highest cost effectiveness ranking and most aligns with the City Goal. | |
| Conclusion | What will it take to convince the City Council to override the Public Works staff and their engineers and pursue the 2013 Option, as it is clearly the best option? - Will clear CEQA and Section 106 requirements
- Will retain the Trestle’s historic integrity
- Most cost-effective option
- The only option eligible for Historic structure related grants
Most Petaluma residents, council members and even staff agree the Trestle is symbolic of Petaluma and its history, as indicated by the repeated use of its image in promotional materials from the Downtown Association, the City of Petaluma, even phone book and map covers.
|
|
