After two years of tireless fundraising, intensive construction and nearly $8 million in costs, the 324,000-gallon Richmond Plunge swimming pool is now open to all.

No one has a richer perspective on the pool, originally built in 1926, than June Albonico. She first visited the Plunge with her father during the early years of the Great Depression, later becoming a lifeguard in 1956.

Albonico, 83, frequently visited the site during its re-construction, and shared her memories during a video interview with Richmond Confidential in April.

“I have waited for the day for so long,” Albonico then said of the Plunge’s re-opening. “When it comes, I’ll know that I’ll never have to be without it again, and so many others will be able to enjoy it like I have.”

While the pool is a throwback to an era when huge, urban public swimming pools were hailed as major social and economic benefits to American communities, it is also outfitted with modern technology.

Solar panels will generate heat to keep the water warm, provide lighting and power operable windows and pumps.

The pool’s long hiatus was precipitated by the Loma Prieta quake of 1989, which heavily damaged the Plunge. Inspectors recommended closure, and a ballot measure to fund repairs was nixed by voters.

The pool closed in 2001.

The Save the Richmond Plunge Trust and other resident fundraising efforts helped revive hope for the pool and drew additional public and private funds. The 60-by-160-foot pool re-opened to the public on August 14, 2010.

Despite the not-yet-distant memory of the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in the San Francisco Bay, and the ongoing worries about the spill that continues to gush gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico after an April explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig off the coast of Louisiana, a pair of oil disaster-response experts had a fairly simple message for the dozen or so Richmond residents gathered Wednesday at a Point Richmond Neighborhood Council meeting: Don’t worry, we’re prepared.

Heather Kostecki, a U.S. Coast Guard commander with the San Francisco Planning and Force Readiness division, and Matt Kelly, Chevron’s head of emergency services and spill response for Richmond, both assured the neighborhood group that the lessons learned both in Louisiana this year, and through the Cosco Busan spill three years ago, have served local disaster crews well, and that in the event of a future spill here, a more streamlined approach to coordinating containment and clean-up should spare the Bay Area many of the problems it experienced in the past.

“We didn’t do enough to engage local stakeholders, local NGOs [non-governmental organizations],” Kostecki said of the Coast Guard’s response to the Cosco Busan spill. Citizen groups like the San Francisco-based Baykeeper often have an intimate knowledge of sensitive local environments that government agencies lack, she said. “We didn’t do a good job here. But we’re working hard to partner with them now.”

Matt Kelly, the head of emergency services and spill response for Chevron in Richmond, addresses a citizen group Wednesday in Point Richmond. Photo by Ian Stewart.

The Cosco Busan spill resulted in 53,000 gallons of bunker fuel being released into the Bay after the ship, navigating through a thick fog, struck one of the towers of the Bay Bridge. Because of typically strong currents in the bay, the oil reached several beaches, causing closures in Marin, San Francisco and the East Bay and killing thousands of birds and fish. The cleanup effort was estimated to cost more than $70 million.

Additionally, the Coast Guard was heavily criticized at the time for grossly underestimating the amount of oil released into the bay, and for how long it took to communicate the extent of the spill to O’Brien’s Group, which was contracted by the ship’s parent company to handle the clean-up.

“We took our lumps here,” Kostecki said.

However, she said, the Coast Guard has since updated its Geographic Response Plan for the San Francisco Bay, with detailed maps of the shorelines, harbors, eddies, currents and wind patterns that should help oil spill cleanup crews better contain a spill should another one occur.

Chevron, which operates its largest West Coast refinery in Richmond and is the city’s leading importer of petroleum and crude oil, is also well prepared for a spill, Kelly said. The company conducts test drills four times a year, and is in constant contact with other cleanup agencies that can lend support to containment efforts.

“There’s a lot of connectivity here between Chevron and local and state agencies,” he said. “We’re actually resource-rich here.”

Richmond is home to 32 miles of coastline – the most of any city in the Bay Area – leaving the city’s shores, and particularly Point Richmond’s, vulnerable to a spill. The city owns five port terminals and contracts out another 10, of which liquid bulk – primarily petroleum – is the largest import. The Port of Richmond handles the greatest tonnage of liquid commodities of any port in the Bay Area.

In other news from Wednesday’s neighborhood meeting, it appears that some designs plans at the soon-to-be-reopened Plunge swimming pool are undergoing a last-minute change.

Crews that had been pulling the old fiberglass off a mushroom-shaped fountain that was once located inside the pool’s kiddie area stumbled into some interesting local history over the weekend.

The architectural firm handling the pool rehabilitation had presumed that there wasn’t any archival record of what the old tile that adorned the fountain looked like, since the fountain was covered in fiberglass during a renovation sometime in the 1970s. Instead, the design team had planned to simply re-imagine a tile mosaic for the fountain, which will now be placed outside the Plunge, in a front yard. The re-imagined design was going to feature a colorful underwater scene complete with red and orange seahorses.

A drawing of the original tile design on a mushroom-shaped fountain at the Plunge swimming pool shows the fountain's original design. Image courtesy of Todd Jersey Architecture.

But in the course of removing the fiberglass, crews actually found, to their great surprise, the original tile. “We pulled the fiberglass off, and low and behold, the tile’s there,” Todd Jersey, the lead architect, told the crowd. “This changes the whole game. Now we know exactly what the tile looked like, and where it was.”

In keeping with the historical faithfulness of the project, Jersey said he’ll likely scrap the seahorse design on the fountain. The Save the Richmond Plunge Trust will have final say on the design switch-a-roo, but with opening day scheduled for Aug. 14, there isn’t much time for debate. The Point Richmond Neighborhood Council, which has some informal say in the matter, didn’t formally vote on the change in plan, but a straw poll showed unanimous support for moving forward with the historic version of the fountain.

June Albonico walked briskly into the building, pivoted right and climbed the stairs, negotiating the winding electrical chords and scattered work equipment.

She gazed down from the upstairs terrace, surveying the cavernous, empty pool.

“How are those tiles coming?” she hollered down to a construction worker knelt down in what will soon be the pool’s deep end.

“They’re coming,” he said, craning his head upward.

Albonico was born in 1926, the same year workers finished erecting tons of wood and concrete into the facility in which she stood.

The Point Richmond Plunge’s entrance, with its regal, refinished, classic Greek columns, greeted Albonico Thursday, just like they had when her father first took her to swim at the Point Richmond Plunge around 1930.

She still has the run of the place.

“I come by sometimes just to see how the work is going,” she said.

June Albonico, a local swim teacher since 1956, at the Plunge.

The Plunge, Point Richmond’s historic pool facility, will reopen this year. It was closed in 2001, when city leaders determined they could not afford costly retrofits to the building, which was structurally unsound after the 1989 Bay Area earthquake. Since the closure, private money from local community groups has been leveraged with public funds to refurbish the facility.

A controversial component of the restoration, a $350,000 bulkhead approved by a divided council late last year, along with work delays, have marked the project. Councilman Tom Butt, a stalwart ally of the Plunge, said he can’t be sure when it will reopen.

“Last I heard it would be ready in April, but I don’t think they’re going to make it,” Butt said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it was done in May or June.”

Workers on Thursday labored on the concrete floor of the dry, 300,000-plus gallon capacity pool. Overhead shower pipes hung in the locker rooms. New toilets were mounted in the walls. The wood skeleton of the greeting kiosk stood firm in the lobby.

Albonico wandered through the unfinished project, stopping at one point on what will soon be the pool-side deck. She was a swim teacher for more than four decades at the Plunge beginning in 1956, and she vows to be teaching children there yet again on Opening Day 2010.

“Back in the ’60s, this whole pool, all the way around, would be lined with children, just so many you couldn’t believe,” Albonico said, smiling and looking across the empty pool. “There probably won’t be that many this time, but I’m really looking forward to it.”

The City Council on Dec. 15 affirmed an earlier vote to install a bulkhead – an apparatus which divides a pool in two for separate activities – at the soon-to-be-restored Plunge in Point Richmond.

City Engineer Rich Davidson has said the bulkhead could cost as much as $390,000.

Before the final vote, City Councilmember and bulkhead proponent Tom Butt visited UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism to discuss local issues with Richmond Confidential student reporters.

During the 90-minute roundtable, Butt explained his support of the project, which has spurred some local opposition.

Butt dismissed the allegations of some opponents that the expenditure would mostly benefit affluent residents in Point Richmond.

“Is the Plunge, is it or was it, a neighborhood pool for rich white people in Point Richmond?” Butt said. “And the answer is absolutely not… probably 90 percent of Plunge use was for minority people in the Iron Triangle.”

Butt also said the expenditure was relatively small within the overall scope of the Plunge restoration project and questioned its projected costs. At one point, he referred to the bulkhead as a $200,000 investment.

“$200,000 compared to $8 million is just a tiny fraction of the total cost of the project,” Butt said.

Even though the bulkhead isn’t quite here yet, its arrival is all but assured.

After weeks of rancorous debate following a Nov. 17 vote to allot $350,000 for the massive public pool dividing wall, the council on Tuesday voted 5-3 to end debate. The vote affirms the past decision and thwarts a push by opponents to stop the purchase.

The moveable bulkhead will allow The Plunge pool in Point Richmond to be divided in two for separate, simultaneous aquatic activities.  Supporters of the purchase hailed Tuesday’s decision as an economical enhancement of the nearly-restored pool facility, which was closed in 2001.

Opponents responded to the defeat with continuing complaints that the expenditure was wasteful, unnecessary and misappropriated during a time of fiscal constraints and reduced services throughout the city.

“We need to move forward now,” said Bart Hackworth, 42, one of at least a dozen people who addressed the council in support of the bulkhead. “(The bulkhead) will broaden the use of the Plunge.”

In addition to allowing dual use of the pool, which is set to reopen next year, installation will increase residents’ visits, supporters of the bulkhead argued.

Councilman Tom Butt, a staunch supporter of the purchase who delivered a presentation in its defense – often over the heckles of residents in attendance – cited a consulting firm’s estimate that the divider could generate annual revenue gains of $40,000 to $66,000 though increased usage.

“It could easily pay for itself in a short period of time, maybe 5 years,” Butt said.

Opponents disagreed. In addition to questions about the bulkhead’s effectiveness, many questioned how the council could allocate $350,000 on a non-essential item while core services like police, fire and parks face continued budget cuts.

“We must prioritize our funds, and a bulkhead is not a priority,” Texanita Bluitt, 60, told the council. Bluitt also said that public safety cuts are having direct impacts on poorer neighborhoods, a sentiment that was echoed several times by other speakers.

“We need to use this money in other ways,” said 65-year-old Kokoye Sande. “How can we justify this (purchase)?”

The meeting was often raucous and was standing room only, with more than 150 people packed into the council chambers. Councilmembers were repeatedly shouted down while speaking. Some audience members exchanged sharp words and cross stares.

The divisions among attendees fell broadly along racial and geographic lines. The majority of bulkhead supporters were white residents in the Point Richmond area where The Plunge is located, a neighborhood more affluent on average than the rest of the city.

In another tense council meeting on Dec. 1, dozens of children from area soccer leagues held up signs in protest of the bulkhead. They alleged that area parks have fallen into disrepair due to budget cuts while the council considers financing the $350,000 bulkhead.

Most of the opponents who spoke were black or Latino and lived in other neighborhoods throughout the city.

The battle over whether to purchase the bulkhead had devolved into a geographic tug of war to bring scarce dollars to communities, Sande said.

“It’s us against them,” Sande said. “Those who live near the plunge, and those who don’t.”

Butt tried to quell neighborhood tensions. During his Power Point-assisted presentation, Butt used maps created by Richmond Confidential to show the location of local homicides. He noted that The Plunge was the closest pool to some of the crime hot spots.

Butt has often argued that poor and minority residents in the “Iron Triangle,” a high crime sector of the city, would benefit greatly from the installation of a bulkhead. That claim is questioned by opponents, who counter that the biggest beneficiaries would be seniors and competitive swimmers in Point Richmond.

The three votes in favor of further scrutinizing the bulkhead purchase were Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and councilmembers Jim Rogers and Nathanial Bates. Bates was the lone vote against the purchase on Nov. 17, a meeting which McLaughlin did not attend. Rogers voted for the bulkhead on Nov. 17, but pulled back his previous support, which he said was based on scant technical information supplied by city staff.

City Manager Bill Lindsay recommended against the installation of the bulkhead on Nov. 17, saying there were risks due to untested modifications in the installation plans.

On Tuesday, Bates called on Parks and Recreation Director Keith Jabari to address the council. Jabari said repeatedly that he did not oppose the bulkhead, but questioned its usefulness.

“We don’t see that it’s going to enhance anything that we’re able to do,” Jabari said.

City Engineer Rich Davidson said he was ready to mobilize contractors to install the stainless steel bulkhead, which he said would be brought into the indoor pool in pieces through still unfinished double-doors. When questioned by the council, Davidson said the project could potentially run up to $390,000.

Funding for the project will come from $1.9 million in city reserves. The council opted to use the city reserve money to reimburse redevelopment funds, which were borrowed for the city’s civic center project.

Bulkhead supporters said they were hopeful the wounds would heal and the bulkhead would be installed for the Plunge’s reopening next year.

“It’s interesting that this is the issue that has divided the community,” said Councilman Jeff Ritterman. “I’m going to continue to support the bulkhead. I want the best pool for Richmond.”

Richmond City Councilmember Tom Butt has long fancied himself as a blunt straight shooter.

Butt mostly lived up to his reputation during a recent meeting with student journalists, who barraged him with questions about the city he represents.

The four-term councilman took on a range of key local issues during a 90-minute roundtable interview with Richmond Confidential staff and professors Dec. 9. The interview was held at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Councilman Butt reiterated his support for a casino at Point Molate during his Dec. 9 visit.

During the session, Butt took on controversial topics including the development of the Point Molate casino project, the purchase of a bulkhead for a city swimming pool, Richmond’s portrayal in local media and the politics of neighborhood and race.

In addition to 16 Richmond Confidential staff members, a handful of professors and other observers attended the meeting. The interview was set up by the community Web site’s leaders as an opportunity to probe local issues and open dialogue with Butt, 65, the longest-serving member of the City Council.

Butt bemoaned the lack of attention Richmond commands from area media, and the strains on newspapers in general.

“They’re constrained, they don’t have the time and budget to provide any depth,” Butt said of local media. “There’s a lot of people frustrated out there (in Richmond).”

On Point Molate, Butt struggled at times to explain his support to build a casino at the waterfront site, but was firm in his belief that a casino project was the best iteration of the development proposals he’s seen. Butt said the project was probably a “net benefit” to the community.

When pressed to explain how he came to that conclusion, Butt paused for several seconds, then said, “You know, I’ve read a lot of stuff and talked to a lot of people, like everybody else has, and it’s mainly kind of come down to just intuition.”

Butt was, however, clear in detailing his outlook on gambling as a broader issue. He said gambling would occur elsewhere if not in Richmond and compared the practice to playing the lottery, buying tickets to a professional football game, and the housing and stock markets.

“Everything’s a gamble,” Butt said.

More than a dozen Richmond Confidential reporters attended. From left: Lecturer Kat Snow, student Alexa Vaughn, student Josh Wolf

When asked by students whether approval for the casino by the City Council was assured, Butt said, “I don’t think that’s true. I think that it’s still a huge question whether it’s going to happen or not.”

On the topic of a controversial $350,000-plus bulkhead at the soon-to-be restored city Plunge, Butt said the expenditure was worthwhile. The bulkhead, a moveable dividing wall for a pool, was met with resistance at recent council meetings.

Butt dismissed the opposition as being part of a small, but vocal, coalition and rejected complaints that the bulkhead was a wasteful expenditure benefitting the city’s more affluent residents, while poorer neighborhoods suffer from deteriorating facilities. The Plunge is located in the city’s Point Richmond neighborhood.

“Probably 90 percent of Plunge use is from minority people in the Iron Triangle,” Butt said, mentioning one of the city’s poorest and most crime-addled corridors.

He also defended the considerable price tag, saying the expenditure was small within the context of the multimillion-dollar Plunge restoration. He did admit, however, that delays and inaction on the project have caused the projected costs of the bulkhead to soar.

Butt later transitioned from discussions about the bulkhead into a broader explanation of his philosophy of economic development. He said he is focused on civic and facility improvement in order to attract private investment, as opposed to an approach focused on luring businesses and jobs in the short-term, which he called “totally wrong.”

“You can’t go out and get people and convince them to come in and do business in the city,” Butt said. “What you have to do is make your city attractive enough so that people will want to come here.”

The veteran councilman’s visit was received with sharp focus and muted enthusiasm by the student reporters, who peppered him with a steady volley of questions.

Some said they found Butt’s answers vague, but virtually all welcomed the opportunity for open dialogue and establishing a contact for future articles about the diverse city.

“A few months ago we were having a hard time getting people to call us back, so it was a big step forward for Richmond Confidential to have a city councilmember come speak to us,” said Phoebe Fronistas, a first-year student at UC Berkeley and Richmond Confidential reporter. “But I’m not sure we gained any extra insights about Richmond issues.”

Alexa Vaughn, who has covered crime and other community news in Richmond during the past three months, hailed Butt’s visit as a success.

“I think it’s great that our staff had a detailed discussion with someone who has a lot of power over how things work in Richmond,” Vaughn said.

Butt repeatedly praised Richmond Confidential, and said he was pleased to see the growth of the Web site. Butt, who maintains his own slickly-produced Web site and writes a popular e-newsletter to thousands of constituents, said both government and media had potential to become more transparent and interactive through use of the Internet.

“There’s several things that I like about it,” Butt said of Richmond Confidential. “I likes that it’s online, I like the videos and photos, I like the Richmond focus.”

Richmond Confidential is funded in part by a Ford Foundation grant, which aims to support “hyperlocal” reporting. The site began publication in October.

Several dozen people pressed the City Council Tuesday into reconsidering its support for a moveable pool wall at the Plunge. The council decided two weeks ago to dip into the city’s reserves to fund the $350,000 wall. It would divide the pool in half: one section for competitive lap swimming, and one for therapeutic exercise.

The council’s debate over the bulkhead stretches back to a meeting on Nov. 17, when families with young children living near Point Richmond advocated for a multipurpose swimming pool at the Plunge.  During Tuesday’s meeting, opponents railed at council members, questioning the city’s financial priorities and accusing the council of favoring Point Richmond residents. After more than two hours of public outrage, the council agreed to re-examine the decision to fund the wall at a future meeting. That date hasn’t been set yet.

Nathaniel Bates, the only councilmember to vote against the bulkhead, argued that the city doesn’t have the money to spare.  “Even if we do find the money to pay for it,” Bates said, “we have to ask what programs will suffer.”

There to support Bates’ point were dozens of young soccer players and parents from the Richmond Sol league. Carrying photos of dilapidated soccer fields, they asked the council to consider spending the money to improve the fields, instead of on a pool wall.

“We want to let the city know that hundreds of Richmond children are using inadequate soccer fields that have no restrooms, no field lights, and little grass.” Diego Garcia, 33, the president of Richmond Sol said, “How can they spend that much money in a time like this?”

Seniors who use paratransit, a transportation system for the elderly, criticized the council for misplacing priorities during an economic recession. “Bus drivers might get laid off and crucial public services are getting cut,” said Millie Cleveland. “How can you take it out of taxpayer’s emergency funds for a bulkhead that would only benefit a few?”

Volunteers of Save the Plunge Trust said the bulkhead is an inefficient use of money and pool.

Opponents criticized the bulkhead for more than two hours

The Plunge was built in 1926 and was a popular indoor pool in Point Richmond before it was closed in 2001 for renovation. Save the Plunge Trust was established to raise funds to restore the swimming pool to its original usage.

Rosemary Corbin, former Mayor of Richmond and supporter of Save the Plunge Trust said the bulkhead wouldn’t create a truly multipurpose pool.

The standard temperature for lap swimming is 78 or 79 degrees. But in therapeutic aquatic classes and swimming lessons, water is usually set at 84 degrees. Since the pool can only be set at one temperature, the water can’t be an ideal temperature for both activities.

In addition, placing the bulkhead in the middle of the pool would reduce the area suitable for therapeutic classes. The deep end is 7 feet and the shallow end is 2.5 feet. With a wall in the middle where the water is 4 feet, people would stand too far out of the water, which opponents argued would be inadequate for water resistance exercises.

“Adding the bulkhead would make the whole pool inferior, both the area for competitive lanes and the area for therapeutic and handicap swimming,” said Corbin.

Proponents say the bulkhead is an investment that can bring in extra revenue. “Multiple activities at the same time is the only way pools can survive,” said Jonathan Mayer, a resident in Point Richmond and a vocal supporter of the bulkhead. “The budget to restore the Plunge is $8 million.  So that’s only a couple percent of their budget.  What’s the big deal?“

Not every supporter of Save the Plunge Trust expressed concern about the bulkhead. “I love the Plunge,” said Mindy Pines. “I don’t think the Plunge should just be for seniors. The more people that use it the better.”

Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who was absent for the previous vote, said she’s against the bulkhead after hearing all the arguments that evening.

Council members Jeff Ritterman and María Viramontes stood firm in their support for the bulkhead. They see their vote as a support for opening the pool for more generations to use it. Viramontes said, “This is about the ability to plan for the future while still solving urgent problems.”

Other members, Jim Rogers and Ludmyrna Lopez requested more information and are reconsidering their vote.