The Trestle Restoration Project
This page is intended as an introduction to the Trestle History that makes up most of this website. The Trestle History is a list of relevant events, developments and documents arranged in chronological order, starting with the oldest up to the most recent. Many of these items are from Chris Stevicks' personal files, mostly emails, but also copies of videos, announcements and charts published on the City of Petaluma website, some difficult to locate, and many that are no longer available to the public. Chris obtained some documents from other stakeholders, like members of Heritage Homes, the Petaluma Historical Library & Museum, and local historians. You'll find newspaper articles, blog posts, and reports prepared by contractors for the City Council about Trestle conditions and proposals for its rehabilitation. We have tried to call attention to where the various plans adhere to or violate California legal requirements for restoring historic structures. We've highlighted crucial information that might be contained in a single paragraph within a 90 page document so you won't have to comb through the whole thing to find it, but we've included the full document so you can see it in context as well.
At the bottom of this page (and all pages of the Trestle History) are links to six different periods, identified by starting and ending dates, so you can jump to a particular date without having to scroll through all items. In the main central column after the title of the document or event we've added quotes from the item (in blue), and our comments (in red). If you click on the icons in the right column the full document will appear in a pop-up and you'll be able to see our quotations highlighted in yellow in their original context, so you can judge their relevance for yourself.
BACKGROUND
The Petaluma Railroad Trestle was built in 1921-1922 by the Petaluma & Santa Rosa Railroad for the convenience of George P. McNear's Feed Mill where the Great Petaluma Mill shops are today. It became part of the rails and right-of-way of several successive railroad companies, and even after the old Feed Mill was converted for alternative uses the Trestle was still carrying locomotives into the mid 90s . Eventually it was purchased by SMART as part of the right-of-way needed to build the light rail line between Marin and Sonoma. Maintenance of the trestle fell between the cracks as the City of Petaluma didn't own it, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad didn't care about it and SMART, after purchasing it as part of the right of way didn't need it. As the decking continued to rot it became a safety hazard and since no one volunteered to repair or replace it the City fenced it off from pedestrian use. Though still picturesque (it appears in numerous photos, brochures, promotions as part of the historic downtown) up close below the rotting deck it looked ugly. The pilings were being gnawed away between the high and low tide lines by ship worms. However, locals dedicated to historic preservation could see that by shielding the piles and replacing the deck boards the Trestle was still salvageable as a pedestrian promenade.
Chris Stevick, a contractor with expertise in restoring historic buildings, and other groups like Heritage Homes, could see that enough of the original structure was actually intact and restoration would be possible. They thought the trestle should be recognized as part of the Historic Downtown, and even if never used for locomotives it would extend the public walkway and create more space for outdoor events as it had in the past. They started lobbying the City of Petaluma to do something about it and were instrumental in obtaining a $500,000 grant in 2010 from the California Coastal Commission for an engineering study of the trestle to determine the true condition of the existing structure and determine what would be required to transform it from a hazardous eyesore into a safe, permanent promenade for walking along the river.
A summary of important steps forward and set-backs to restoration efforts
While going through the various documents and events related to the Trestle that Chris Stevick has accumulated over 25 years that are collected in this Trestle History, two inferences can be drawn.
- The historic significance of the Trestle as part of the historic downtown, and to the economic vitality of early 20th century Petaluma, and its association with pioneering Petaluma families has been established by qualified historians as early as 2002 and reaffirmed by other experts over the ensuing years.
- The Department of Public Works, when directed by the City Council to implement a project to restore the Trestle, has repeatedly been determined to demolish the Trestle and replace it with a modern structure with no historic value, despite the higher cost and the preferences of historians and the majority of Petaluma citizens, and that a completely new 'replica' would eliminate any possibility of funding from institutions promoting the preservation of historic California structures.
2000 - 2005
January 28, 2002 -
Archaeological Resource Service produced a report on the Trestle pointing out its location in the middle of the historic district, its significance to Petaluma's early commercial success, and its iconic identity.
In the early 2000s Public Works was developing the Theater District and the City of Petaluma had set aside funds for developing Trestle solutions. The engineering firm, CSW[St]2, hired to come up with several alternate plans for the Trestle had originally been instructed to make at least one alternative based on reusing as much as possible of the original structure and repairing or replacing original parts with equivalent materials. Despite opposition from community groups, Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment, had no interest in repairing or restoring the Trestle. He preferred complete demolition and replacing it with a modern steel and concrete structure.
March 9, 2004 - Leter from CSW[St]2 to Marangella acknowledging his request that ALL alternatives begin with demolition. He tried to cajole or bully historic preservationists and other stakeholders into accepting his plan without success. In the resulting stalemate the City withdrew funds for dealing with the Trestle, Marangella was fired for mismanaging $4 million in cost overruns when developing infrastructure for the Theater District and not much happened for a few years.
2009 - 2012
Early 2009 – City Council and stakeholders establish goals for grant and application. Mayor Pamela Torliatt leads City Council to pursue grant from State Coastal Conservancy for Trestle restoration.
October 21, 2010 – SCC approves and funds the $475,000 grant ($25,000 will be provided by City of Petaluma and SMART). The city goes through the elaborate process of selecting consultants to put together the plans for restoring the Trestle. By February of 2011 Winzler & Kelley receive the contract. Though stakeholder input is scheduled for summer of 2011, there are no opportunities to do this until December 2011, and the alternatives have all been pre-determined.
February 6, 2012– Three alternatives are presented to City Council by Staff and Winzler & Kelley
(these were prepared without the stakeholder feedback that the SCC grant required)
- Alternative 1 calls for preserving the existing trestle, repairing, or replacing with equivalent materials as much as possible for historic authenticity.
- Alternative 2 appeared to be the least popular since it added new bents between the existing ones and left original pilings to continue decaying in place.
- Alternative 3 would build an entire new trestle with modern materials provided the new materials were made to look as much like the original wooden structure as possible. However, preservationists objected that this would be a "replica" with no authenticity, without any historical integrity and completely ineligible for historic preservation grants.
In the presentation, staff and engineers preferred Alternative 3. They supported this by deprecating the historic significance of the Trestle and claiming historic preservation grants weren’t available (despite the fact that a grant from SCC for historic preservation was paying for this very study). They also objected to Alternative 1 because it would look "ugly" with the hodge-podge of four different techniques for restoring the pilings. But this ‘hodge-podge’ was designed to be ugly to make stakeholders turn away from Alternative 1 (repairing and replacing) rather than the obvious solution of using fewer techniques and by making them look similar for greater consistency.
2025
May 9, 2025 - FOTH Engineering and Design was chosen by Petaluma Public Works staff to prepare the report:
'Petaluma Trestle Renovation – Design Concept Options Analysis – Final' which reflects staff preferences.
- All eight options from FOTH involve the complete demolition of the Trestle. Only the 2013 option calls for re-use and repair of existing Trestle materials
- Even though the 2013 option does a better job of maintaining historic significance and the other options all require demolition of the Trestle which will run into opposition from Section 106 and the methods used by the 2013 option are the least expensive this document goes out of its way to deprecate the 2013 option.
- The 2013 option was rated lowest in terms of service life. They rated Softwoods (both untreated Redwood and preservative treated Douglas Fir) as having a 30 Year Service Life and Protective Pile Jacketing or Encasement rated a 25 Year Service Life, much lower than new Greenwood pilings, concrete or steel.
However, the service life numbers are questionable.
These are our considerations:
- Rating Softwoods at 30 years seems very conservative based on the example of the existing Trestle. The pilings are all softwood (either untreated Redwood or treated Douglas Fir) and they supported the Trestle and 200 ton locomotives successfully for 70 years until abandoned in the 1990s, despite minimal maintenance & intertidal deterioration.
- Rating jacketing or casing methods at 25 years is highly misleading as it is based on the manufacturer’s warrantee period and the manufacturer expects the product to last much longer. Other PVC based docking materials for saline environments are expected to last 50 plus years.
- Jacketing the existing softwood piles would greatly increase their service life
- Jacketing existing treated softwood piles would also prevent the leaching of creosote into the river
- The Pile Bent Caps, Stringers, joists and ties (all treated softwoods) are always above high tide line. Most of the major components, the bent caps and stringers, are in good to excellent condition and do not leach Creosote because they are never submerged in the river.
May 19, 2025 - Steve Worrell, Public Works presents the FOTH report to the Mayor & City Council -
“Recommendation to Receive an Update on the Trestle Rehabilitation Project”
“The 2013 rehabilitation design, which proposed partial reuse and retrofit of existing timber members, was re-evaluated. However, the design was found to be constrained by a shorter anticipated service life (20–30 years) and continued environmental permitting challenges due to the retention of creosote-treated materials. For these reasons, the 2013 rehabilitation design is no longer being recommended for advancement.”
Objections from stakeholders committed to historic preservation:
As in the FOTH report of 5/9/25, the service life of the existing wood combined with PVC jacketing is under-estimated and ignores that the combination would seal in any toxics. Also, removing any treated wood just moves the environmental hazard to a new location.
If you read through our timeline you will also notice that Public Works likes to say they are willing to consider and execute whatever the City Council and the public wants. They say they will incorporate input from stakeholders and the public, but they have a habit of putting off any meetings like these where a real discussion might take place until the design process is complete. Then they can present a few finite alternatives and limit discussion to what they have to offer. And they are highly resistant to transparency, reluctant to share any information until they have made their decisions behind closed doors.
There is a repetitive pattern of Public Works avoiding low impact, low cost, historically acceptable solutions that would pass Section 106 or CEQA review and misdirecting the Council away from these viable solutions by emphasizing or exaggerating minor problems. Over the years the historic preservation solution has remained basically the same but staff keeps coming up with new objections. Rather than looking for a way to solve those problems and preserve historic integrity they throw their hands up and say, "Sorry, we just have to tear it down and build something new."
We don't know exactly why Public Works continues to be dead set against rebuilding the existing structure and preserving its historic status as recommended by the Historic Structure Report (HSR). They do lots of great work with infrastructure like providing drinking water, managing runoff, sewers and treating wastewater, maintaining parks and public spaces, and the never-ending repair of city streets. Their expertise is all about replacing old things with new things. What they don't do much of is restore or rebuild antique structures with historic significance, the task far from their comfort zone.
We have come to these conclusions having read the documents, the actual statements in emails and announcements to City Council, and then contrasted them with actual actions documented in the same way. Please dig into this comprehensive timeline and draw your own conclusions.
TRESTLE HISTORY
A complete timeline of the attempts to rehabilitate the Petaluma Railroad Trestle
including openable relevant documents, videos, and pictures from 1992 to the present.