Menu

Trestle History - 5/20/10 to 12/8/11

Date	Event or Document	Image or PDF
5/20/10	City staff prepared a more detailed Project Work Plan and Project Budget detailing activities and their costs necessary to be completed before actual rehabilitation of the Trestle could begin. This was begun in January of 2010, before the City even applied for the State Coastal Conservancy grant, then revised in May, 2010, According to the estimate Phase 1 (Planning & Schematic Design) and Phase 2 (Detailed Design & Construction Documents) would cost a total of $500,000 in 2010 dollars. This left nothing for Phase 3 (Construction Administration) and it is marked NIC - Not In Contract.
8/2/10	Petaluma City Council approves budgeting $25,000 (5% of $500,000 project cost) for co-funding the State Coastal Conservancy Grant needed for planning and design of Trestle Rehabilitation Pg 1 - It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending the FY 10/11 Budget to include the Trestle Rehabilitation Project and committing 5% of project cost as local match to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program Grant. Pg 5 - RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 10/11 BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE TRESTLE REHABILITATION PROJECT AND COMMITTING 5% OF PROJECT COST AS LOCAL MATCH TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CONSERVANCY PROGRAM GRANT. 1. Upon award of grant from the Coastal Conservancy, amends the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted CIP Budget to include the Trestle Rehabilitation Project; and 2. Commits to funding 5% of the project cost, as local match, to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program Grant.
10/21/10	State Coastal Conservancy approves and funds the Grant ($475,000) for planning and design of Trestle Rehabilitation "RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $475,000 to the City of Petaluma to complete analysis, engineered designs and permits for the rehabilitation of the historic trestle on the Petaluma River for public access in downtown Petaluma, Sonoma County."
10/28/10	ARGUS COURIER Article “Trestle rehabilitation grant approved”
12/6/10	Petaluma City Council formally accepts State Coastal Conservancy Grant ($475,000) for design and planning of Trestle Rehabilitation. The remaining $25,000 necessary for the project will be provided by Petaluma and SMART each contributing $12,500. "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COASTAL CONSERVANCY FUNDING FOR DESIGN OF THE DOWNTOWN RAILROAD TRESTLE REHABILITATION PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE GRANT-RELATED DOCUMENTS" "the City of Petaluma is desirous to complete a project to rehabilitate this historically significant structure;" "the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit agency, the owner of the Trestle, is supportive of the rehabilitation project and has committed to provide in-kind staff services to serve as one half of the e grant match (equivalent to $12,500)." 1. Accepts the Coastal Conservancy Grant funding in the amount of $475, 000; and 2. Authorizes the City Manager to sign the Coastal Conservancy Grant Agreement and all other associated documents required for this project, in order to receive grant funding allocation.
1/20/11	Scope of Work Document by City staff, roughs out list of actions to be completed with the State Coastal Conservancy Grant. Does not include any dates or a timeline, but does refer to "input from stakeholders". From Item 13: "Facilitate input from stakeholders, including three separate meetings, one with each of the following: 1) develop working agreement with SMART; 2) facilitate public workshop for community input; 3) facilitate workshop for input from local business owners"
2/16/11	Chris Stevick makes a presentation about saving the Trestle to the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission The first thumbnail on the right is linked to the video archived at the City of Petaluma website, and will open in a new window. The second thumbnail on the right is linked to a complete transcript of Chris' presentation. The PDF will open in a pop--up.	Archived Video: Transcript
2/24/11	City publishes final draft of the RFP for design and planning of Trestle project to be paid for from the State Coastal Conservancy grant
2/27/11	Diane Ramirez, Capital Improvements Project Manager, shares a document with Chris. It is a schedule prepared by the City for designing and planning the Trestle project. Dated 2/2/11, it shows all tasks and milestones necessary to complete the work funded by the SCC grant, all plotted on a timeline between June, 2011 and January 2012. These are all required to be completed by the company with the winning proposal. This document is similar to the Scope of Work Document (1/20/11) but with an actual schedule with date ranges for completion. The SCC Grant funded work to begin 6/1/11 and finish by 8/31/12. Important dates: a. “Facilitate Project Stakeholder Feedback” 8/2/11 to 10/3/11 b. “Project Design Criteria Document” 7/19/11 to 7/29/11 c. “Develop Trestle Rehabilitation Alternatives (3)” 7/25/11 to 9/30/11 Editor's note: Though Diane trusts Chris enough to give him a copy of this document, she says, and even writes on it, “please don’t share.” Why the secrecy? It makes you wonder why are they so afraid of transparency? Maybe because the first real opportunity for feedback came in December, 2011, after three alternative plans were already completed, despite that Stakeholder Feedback was scheduled for August, 2011 in this document but never really happened. There's definitely a pattern of staff talking about welcoming community feedback while actually avoiding it unil after plans are finalized.

Date	Event or Document	Image or PDF
Feb. 2011	City chooses Winzler & Kelly to execute the Trestle Design and Plan (to be paid for by the SCC Grant) Editor"s Note: Chris was one of the judges who evaluated presentations from several engineering firms. All the judges (mostly City employees) voted and Winzler & Kelly won the vote. Chris was disappointed with this result, mostly because W & K, though they have supervised enormous and ambitious projects around the state, had little or no experience with railroads and more importantly, no experience in restoration of historic structures. Their presentation had been vague and lackluster compared to several other smaller firms that did have experience in the relevant fields. But W & K had the advantage of previous contracts with City of Petaluma departments, and as most of the judges were City employees, W & K was a familiar contractor. They were expected to be cooperative and easy to work with. (Chris would say they’d gladly lean towards solutions favored by Public Works, just to maintain their relationship with the City).
3/9/11	Diane reveals to Chris that the Trestle studies had been completed some months earlier, but did not share them, even though the State Coastal Commission required they be available for stakeholder and public review.
3/10/11	Chris prepared a banner to be posted near the Trestle announcing planned work, with names and logos of supporting groups, SCC, Heritage Homes, Petaluma History Museum and others. Without explanation, Diane Ramirez asked Chris to remove the W & K logo from the banner. Editor's note: Omitting W & K was puzzling, and a little troubling, since they had just won the contract, wouldn’t they have wanted their name on it? As it turned out, W & K were bought out and absorbed by the GHD Group in October of 2011, and they continued with the project under the new name. In March, 2011, W & K and Public Works staff must have known the name would soon change, but it was not yet official. By not explaining the deletion it makes Public Works look secretive and appears to be another instance of avoiding transparency.
3/10/11	ARGUS COURIER Article - “Chris Stevick declared “Good Egg” for 2011” "I am impressed with Christopher's unwavering commitment to saving the Water Street Trestle and promoting the trolley project," said local historian Katherine Rinehart. "In the last decade, Christopher has surely donated thousands of hours of his time toward these causes as well as to other historic preservation efforts. For that, Petalumans and those who visit our wonderful city benefit."
4/4/11	No Stakeholder Input so far. Despite several reminders from Chris and others, no opportunities for the required stakeholder input had been offered by W & K or the City From Scope of Work Document (1/20/11) 1) "Facilitate input from stakeholders,... From the Trestle Rehabilitation Schedule of 2/2/11 marked "Do Not Share" Facilitate Project Stakeholder Feedback is scheduled to begin 8/2/11 2) facilitate public workshop for community input"
8/21/11	Three alternative solutions were developed by W & K and Public Works without any stakeholder input. Editor's note: Development of the three alternatives took place on schedule – completed between 7/25 and 9/30/11 But Stakeholder Feedback, scheduled 8/2 to 10/31/11, was ignored and no meetings were scheduled. These dates come from the Trestle Rehabilitation Schedule of 2/2/11, the one marked "Do Not Share".
8/27/11	Trestle studies done and design criteria dated as finished but still not published
9/21/11	Chris protests to council members and City Manager that no Stakeholder participation had been allowed.
9/23/11	Chris requests wood report Editor's note: Studies were not released until spring of 2012, six months later
Oct. 2011	W & K were bought out and absorbed by the GHD Group in October of 2011. They proceed with their contract with Petaluma, but are now referred to in documentation as “GHD"

Date	Event or Document	Image or PDF
10/7/11	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. Approximately 20 percent of the ties are likely to need replacement, but a more thorough survey should be completed when the ties are accessible. 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.
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.” Editor's note: Mr. Zimmer makes it sound like Public Works has no preferred Alternative, but in reality, they had already decided to favor Alternative 3. Another instance of Public Works making the appearance of openness and nutrality when their minds are already made up.
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). Editor's note: Reports were now 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