Menu

Trestle History - 12/12/11 to 9/24/12

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 anchortest
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 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. Editor's note: 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.
12/27/11	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.

Date	Document or Event	Image or PDF
2/6/12	Overview of City Council meeting, main subject: Trestle Rehabilitation. This document is taken directly from a full transcript of the official video from the CIty Archives. It has been edited to summarize and paraphrase the actual presentation by staff questions from CC members and comments from Chris Stevick, John Fitzgerald, Paul Siri, Kevin Kelley, and Marie McCusker, all relevant to the Trestle rehabilitation project. Included in the text are Editor’s comments, and time code notations for each speaker that correspond to the video of the meeting. Main speakers in order: 1. Larry Zimmer (Capital Improvements Division Manager) 2. Craig Lewis (consultant project manager). 3. Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architecture 4. Chris Stevick, Historic Restoration Specialist 5. Brief comments by John Fitzgerald, Paul Siri, Kevin Kelley, and Marie McCusker	Summarized from full transcript:
2/6/12	Larry Zimmer begins by summing up the process of planning and designing the Trestle rehabilitation completed so far, with a brief sketch of each of the 3 Alternatives. The thumbnail to the right is linked to the letter Zimmer wrote to the City Council the day of the meeting telling them what he planned to say. Craig Lewis (GHD) gives a more detailed view of the 3 Alternatives with a PowerPoint slideshow, same as shown to Stakeholders on December 14, 2011 (see attached PDF	Power point slides used in presentation:
2/6/12	Mark Hulbert ( Preservation Architecture) states that the Trestle could be interpreted as historic but technically speaking, “The trestle structure is not an historic resource.” Editor's note: This seems to contradict the spirit of what he said in his own earlier report (see attached PDF, dated 11-00-2011) where he states "...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." and he downplays availability of historic grants in current economic climate. This makes sense in light of Mr. Zimmer and staff’s preference for Alternative 3 (demolishing and replacing the Trestle with modern materials) which would destroy any “historic integrity” so they need to downplay its historic significance, even if in a narrow, legalistic manner, to get around CEQA.
2/6/12	Chris Stevick (stakeholder) was not invited to speak, did not know in advance what would be presented, but he (and a few friends who donated their time to Chris) signed up for the short public comment opportunities and presented a very different view of the three Alternatives. Chris states that rehabilitation of historic wooden trestles is commonplace. He points out the durability of pilings below mudline and capacity of Trestle to support up to 200 tons. Recommends only replacing what is rotten, avoiding inappropriate materials, retaining historic significance, as historic grants are best source of funding for re-construction. Council members Tiffany Reneé, Teresa Barrett, Mike Healy, and Mayor Glass, as well as stakeholders John Fitzgerald and Paul Siri clearly prefer Alternative 1 (with modifications) and reject both Alternatives 2 and 3. Mayor Glass wants to know if Alternative 1 is possible from an engineering standpoint, regardless of cost or difficulty. Larry Zimmer replies rather sardonically, "There's a saying in engineering that, 'I can build anything if you give me enough money'." Editor’s note: Larry frequently implies Alternative 1 will be costly to scare parsimonious council members, but this is only inuendo, not a good faith argument, because by the department’s own calculations, Alternatives 2 & 3, including steel pipe torque piles (screw piles), both cost more than Alternative 1 (see last page of 08-16-2012-Memo-from-D-Ramirez-to-Staff.pdf for a cost comparison)
2/6/12	Link to official City Council video on 2/6/12 http://petaluma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=31&clip_id=1295 - .VFmb92V6JkM.email	Full Transcript:
2/6/12	Chris McCarthy letter to Mayor & City Council, received too late to be included in meeting agenda. Report on Trestle assumes a restored Trolley to use the tracks on the Trestle but McCarthy doubts if funds to develop Trolley can be found and the economic viability of operating the Trolley. Thinks making it into an “event plaza” would be much more practical.
2/13/12	Chris Stevick responds to Larry’s summary of 12-21-11 meeting (email of 1-4-12). Larry had summarized Chris's positions on each of 4 points as he understood them. Chris quotes each of these 4 points and adds his own comments under each to expand and explain his position.
2/13/12	Letter to City Council from Chris Stevick points out staff are over-engineering structure of Trestle as though it would have to take standard freight trains rather than a light trolley. He states none of the three alternatives are acceptable to historic preservationists as presented. The city’s engineers are (unnecessarily) redesigning the trestle to fit current freight and commuter rail standards, wiping out historic characteristics and eligibility for future grants. Details of the Flynn wood report indicate only the visible deck must be completely replaced, most of the major wood structural components are still sound and intertidal damage to the wood piles can be repaired without replacing them.
2/18/12	Chris meets with Larry and suggests splicing all pilings with steel sleeves and filling space left by deteriorated wood with cement (or mortar) or high density plastic sleeves. His point is to make it consistent so all pilings look alike.
4/9/12	THE PETALUMA TRESTLE Standards Evaluation are posted on City of Petaluma website. Editor's note: Unfortunately, they were very difficult to get to, and once downloaded they would print gibberish. (see attached sample). It may just have been a glitch but it leads stakeholders to believe they were being ‘gaslighted’. Eventually the problems were corrected.

Date	Document or Event	Image or PDF
4/9/12	Preservation Architecture presents THE PETALUMA TRESTLE Standards Evaluation. This document presents and explains CEQA requirements for historic structure rehabilitation, and compares and evaluates the three alternatives and how they would (or would not) comply with CEQA standards. (Complete CEQA rehabilitation standards are presented on pages 1 & 2 of the attached document “04-09-12-Preservation-Architects-CEQA-full-doc.pdf”) Alternative 1 – Trestle Rehabilitation Retains, repairs and selectively alters salvageable trestle components. Removes and replaces, in-kind, non-salvageable assemblies (i.e., components too deteriorated to repair). While extensive repair, alteration and selective replacement is proposed, (Alternative 1) retains historic materials and assemblies (pile bent, caps, stringers, rails) to the maximum feasible extent; replaces materials too deteriorated to repair (decking) with new to match the old; and selectively replaces original assemblies (fender piles, braces) with new materials and assemblies to replicate original forms. (All 3 Alternatives plan to completely replace the surface wood decking) Alternative 1 appears to comply with the applicable CEQA Standards for Rehabilitation (1,2,5,6, & 9). Alternative 2 – Trestle Replacement Retains all existing pile bents, pile braces and pile cap assemblies without alteration or repair/stabilization, reuses the steel rails. Adds: New structural pile bent and cap assemblies in new locations (between existing bents) Alternative 2 – Trestle Replacement – does not appear to conform to CEQA Standards 2, 5 and 6, so does not appear to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Alternative 3 - Trestle Reconstruction Salvages and reuses steel rails and selected wood components. Demolishes existing Trestle structure and replaces it with a new structure to match the design (or at least the shape and appearance) of the original. This version would substitute replacement materials that are able to convey the same visual appearance as the existing assemblies (Standards 4, 5), in addition to allowing for a contemporary re-creation (Standard 5). Otherwise, this alternative would not preserve remaining historic features (Standard 3). This might provide a successful treatment approach, yet also recognizing that the trestle reconstruction alternative requires further development to confirm applicability as well as feasibility. The report recognizes that the Trestle is a desirable structure within the City of Petaluma, and that it should be successfully reused at the very least for public access. Since little of the original structure would be reused this method would have to be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. The historic trestle itself would be gone. Treating it as a re-creation of the original might fly with CEQA but it depends on the finding that the existing trestle lacks historical, as well as structural, integrity. Editor’s note: This requires a very narrow definition of historical value.
6/14/12	“Public Notice to Owners & Occupants” published in Argus-Courier, inviting comments on “Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Trestle Project.” Before next City Council meeting scheduled for July 16, 2012
6/25/12	Diane Ramirez tells Chris, “No need to talk to the City Council” Editor's note: City staff repeatedly tried to discourage Chris from communicating with the City Council. It would seem Public Works isn't very interested in public input.
6/26/12	Staff Report recommends that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee should recommend the rehabilitation alternative approach (Alternative 1) for the Downtown Railroad Trestle Rehabilitation Project. Staff also recommends that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. What is an MND? CEQA encourages protection of all aspects of the physical environment through disclosure of potential environmental impacts and appropriate action with regard to those impacts. Lead agencies have adopted “mitigated negative declarations” (MND) that are essentially plans of actions intended to mitigate or avoid a project’s potential significant impacts. If there are no adverse effects, or if the potential effect can be reduced to a level that is less than significant through project revisions, a Negative Declaration or MND can be adopted.
7/16/12	Agenda Item 5.B -- City Council meets and makes several resolutions re: the Trestle Rehabilitation Project. Pg 6: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted. 2. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are imposed upon the Project as conditions of approval." "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that: Staff is directed to proceed with design and specification documentation for the Project, Alternative 1, Rehabilitation." Pg 7-8 Following the resolutions is a description of Alternative 1 - Rehabilitation Approach. This is basically the same as the earlier version of Alternative 1 from the presentation of 2-6-2012, with 3 scenarios for repairing or replacing rotten piles: A. Repair piles (sleeves with concrete mortar infill) B. Replace unusable wood piles with steel piles (augur type) C. Replace unusable piles with new wood piles (requires pile driving, vibration may damage nearby historic structures) In any of these scenarios there would be an effort to make all piles look consistent with each other, regardless of treatment.
7/27/12	Chris Stevick’s comments on Agenda Item 5.B from the City Council meeting of 7/16/12, pertaining to the Alternative 1 - Rehabilitation Approach 1. Understands that “screw piles” (steel auger type) would only be used for the 8 bents in the “global failure” area where the bank has subsided and pushed the piles away from the bank, for a total of 40. He figures only 3 per bent would equal 24. 2. He has observed that the displaced piles in the “global failure” area are only 5 to 8 inches away from plumb (true vertical) over a total height of 50 feet. Editor’s note: If a 50 foot pile is pushed 5” to 8” away from plumb at the top, assuming its base remains stationary, it means the pile has rotated only 0.5 to 0.75 of a degree (less than one degree) from plumb. Trestle pilings are commonly angled in slightly towards the center of the bent, so why not calculate the load bearing capacity at this slight angle to see if at least those towards the bank can be used without total replacement? 3. The only drawings of bents presented are as they exist now. Is there a cross section of a bent as planned, drawn to scale? 4. Could we see details of the cost estimates ($3.4 to $4.7 million)? 5. Advocates for a mid-span pedestrian bridge 6. Hopes a Rail Crane can be used for the restoration to minimize negative impacts to turning basin and to local businesses. 7. Considers City Council to be a de facto ‘board of review’ and hopes they give stakeholder input serious consideration as project proceeds.
7/27/12	KRCB's "Vintage Petaluma: All Aboard" video. Good two minute info about the trains that ran on the trestle when it was originally built.
8/15/12	Skip Sommer’s article with a short history of railroad development in Petaluma and why the Trestle had plywood covering the holes in the deck as a temporary solution proposed by Denman McNear, then President of Southern Pacific Railroad back in 1975 Denman McNear had been brought up in Petaluma, the youngest son of George .P. McNear and Ida Belle Denman. He told Skip, “SP was self-insured“. So, this wasn’t any kind of a problem for SP. He then instructed me, that I could put down plywood between the tracks and over the RR tie-openings at MY expense”

8/16/12	Memo from Diane Ramirez to Trestle Rehab Project File. This is essentially an updated version of the Alternative 1 - Rehabilitation Approach in the Agenda Item 5.B (July 16, 2012). This document has added repair scenarios D & E to the original 3. It also includes descriptions of the original Alternatives 2 & 3 even though the City Council has directed staff to disregard these and to only consider Alternative 1. Rehabilitation Scenario D: Three timber piles per bent would be replaced using a 16" diameter steel sleeve augured into the ground using a torque-down method with a new timber pile section extending from MHHW to the bent cap. The remaining, now non-load bearing, piles will have a 16" diameter (HDPE) sleeve installed to provide visual consistency. RECOMMENDED - Rehabilitation Scenario E: Three timber piles per bent would be replaced using a 16" diameter steel sleeve augured into the ground using a torque-down method with a new timber pile section extending from MHHW to the bent cap. The remaining, now non-load bearing, piles will have a 16" diameter steel sleeve installed to provide visual consistency. Editor’s note: In the presentation of 2/6/12 and in other in-person meetings Larry Zimmer, after alternatives 2 & 3 were shot down, keeps saying we have no preferences, yet clearly scenario E is ‘RECOMMENDED'.
9/24/12	A letter from Deborah Hirst, forwarded to Chris by Diane Ramirez, summarizing the staff’s position on methods of restoring the Trestle