MEETING

DATE: 11 April 2002
LOCATION: Engineering Services, 1387 Marina Way South, Rich-mond, CA
PROJECT: Richmond Municipal Natatorium (The Plunge)
BY: Nancy Malone, Siegel & Strain Architects
ATTENDEES:
Rich McCoy, CoR
Paul Elwood, CoR
Ellie Strauss, Save the Plunge
Bob Strauss, Save the Plunge, Historic Review Board
Tom Butt, City Council
Ron Gammill, Gammill Architecture
Firas Jandali, JEDCO Engineering
Tania Swartz, Recreation and Parks, CoR
Rosemary Fonseca, Recreation and Parks, CoR
Burton Edwards, Siegel & Strain
Nancy Malone, Siegel & Strain

NOTES:

I. MEETING NOTES
> Meeting Notes from the 3/14/02 meeting will be reviewed at the next TF meeting.

II. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
> City Council has approved the purchase of the parcel from the railroad for approximately $9000. The sale has not been com-pleted.

III. PERMANENT STRUCTURAL RETROFIT
Nancy presented two updated design schemes: one for Option A and one for Option B.

OPTION A
> The Option A floor plans are essentially the same as at the 3/14 meeting.
> The Lobby remains the same as the last meeting.
> The pool shows how the children’s pool can be combined with the main pool so that it will not require a separate mechanical sys-tem.
> The locker rooms have been zoned to show how much area will be allotted to each of the restrooms, showers, dressing and groom-ing areas.
> The balconies and second floor are the same as they were at the last meeting

Comments form others:
> It was noted that the children’s pool is not the same depth as adjacent main pool. This will need to be addressed if the pools are combined.

OPTION B
> The Lobby is similar to that shown at the last meeting, ex-cept, there is no longer a door separating the stair and restroom from the rest of the lobby. Some kind of pull down security gate will be investigated to secure the stair.
> On the east side, the exit stair has been moved to the south of the staff rooms.
> This plan shows a single tank swimming pool.
> Other facilities on the first floor are the same as they were at the last meeting.
> The second floor is substantially the same, except that the storage in the east balcony has been reduced to provide sub-stantially more open balcony. The stair moved south to accommodate this configuration.

OPTION B w/ 2 POOLS
> A second first floor plan shows Option B with two pools: a warm water therapy/recreation pool and a regulation lap pool, at a cooler temperature.
> The warm water pool has a beach (zero-depth) entry; a wide stair; a level area at 24-inches deep with mushroom in the middle; a water (current) channel for therapy and play; and lap lanes that would accommodate six people if they were splitting lanes. This pool can accommodate lessons, exercise classes, therapy sessions, and water play.
> The lap pool has eight lanes, and can therefore accommodate sixteen swimmers who are splitting lanes, or more if the swimmers circle swim.

Comments from others:
> Rosemary – multi-purposing of the pool was a relatively recent innovation at the Plunge; it began a few years ago. They often held six programs at once in the one pool.
> Rosemary also noted that the kayak program had increased in re-cent years, including national events, for which the larger pool is needed – the larger pool is needed to draw these high level events. Kayak polo is interested in starting a youth program.
> Ellie suggested that someone look at the revenue figures for kayaking to see how much it actually contributes to the total revenues. These are important, and it would help if TSMG could clarify this for the TF.
> Bob asked about parking for the kayakers if the kayak entrance is at the south end. There might not be enough parking on the street.
> Paul noted that there is a plan developing so that the parking in front of the Plunge would increase from 8 to 20 stalls.
> Tania suggested that if the Plunge remained one pool, it could be the warm water pool, with the RSC providing cool water pool. She also wondered who has had input in the therapy configuration and suggested that Physical Therapy Innovations have input.
> Tania and Rosemary both feel that the fence or railing separating the pool deck from the dry circulation should be higher than the existing fence to help prevent people from hopping the fence.

3-D VIEWS OF BUILDING
S&S also showed the group a PowerPoint presentation that can be shown to City Council.
> The show includes the plans described above.
> It then shows several 3-D views of the building which show, very schematically, how various additions might look. The views include: 1) the existing building; 2) the existing building with a restored monitor; 3) Option B addition to the west, as viewed from W. Richmond Ave.; 4) Option B addition to the south, as viewed from Garrard Ave..
> The show then illustrates two interior views of the natatorium in Option B, one showing one pool and the other showing two pools.

Comments from others:
> It was suggested that views of the pool/pools from the balcony be added to the slide show.

General discussion of schemes and approach to proceeding:
> Tom is inclined to support the design that generates the most uses and revenues. He feels that the additions fit in, and that the TF needs to focus on the economic justifications for the project.
> Ellie thinks it will be difficult to have users get used to having it open, only to close it again for a renovation. It would also be difficult to staff the facility for a short time. She feels that the swimmers will remain interested and supportive even if the temporary scheme does not happen, but they know that other planning is continuing. This suggests that we should consider just planning for the long term scheme.
> Ellie also asked if the temporary and permanent solutions are being integrated, and what the schedule would be if the temporary scheme were built. It seems like the schedule has slipped.
> Burton summarized the issues, based on the assumption that the majority of the TF supports design Option B
o Should there be on pool or two?
o Should the fix be accomplished in one building campaign or two?
> Tom responded that the only way to find out is to go to council. Council will need to see the design and programming options, the construction cost, and the cost-benefit analysis.
> Rich said that we need to come up with a tentative cost.
> Tom suggested that $1.5m could be used for the temporary scheme. Meanwhile, we could try to get the project added to the 5-year capital improvement plan, due to be adopted in June.
> Rich thinks that we need to do a cash flow analysis so that we will know what will come in each year for the project.
> Tom prefers the approach of going for the entire package at once. He said that we would need cost estimates by the end of April in order to go the finance committee.

It was decided that the TF would aim for the following:
> Go to the Finance Committee Thursday May 2.
> Present to a study session of the City Council the following Tuesday, May 7. The Council presentation would consist of a 15 minute presentation plus questions. The presentation should include program and revenues by TSMG.
> Rich will let TF know when the dates have been confirmed.

> Tom thinks that the TF should rally folks to come to both meetings and that the supporters should represent the diversity of the users and of the city.


IV. UPCOMING MEETINGS
> Tentative Finance Committee Meeting the Thursday, May 2.
> Tentative study session of the City Council Tuesday, May 7.
> No date was set for this Task Force to meet.


End of Notes:
If these Notes do not reflect your understanding of the events of this meeting, please notify the author immediately. Notes will be deemed approved if corrections are not received within 5 days.