Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF COLTON <br />AGENDA REPORT (CONTINUED) <br />FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF—September11 R ,1_4Q _ <br />SUBJECT: City Council Approval of Change Orders #7 & #8 for <br />Hutton/Luctue Community Centers Expansion Prosect. <br />2. Add new beam not shown on drawing. (Luque Center) <br />Demolition work at the site uncovered the need for a beam to <br />span the length of the new Game Room, (located at old stage <br />location) due to the demolition of existing bearing elements. <br />3. Double wall to accomodate electrical. (Luque Center) <br />An erroneous dimension on the Plan caused misplacement of the <br />below floor conduit risers. The walls were furred to enclose <br />the electrical. <br />4. Tie walls together at Reception area. (Hutton Center) <br />To stablize the top of the non-bearing wall at the reception <br />desk, the wall was tied back to the existing beam with joists, <br />the ceiling tile was attached to the joists. <br />5. Add 2x6 wall in Reception area. (Hutton Center) <br />Required to match previously approved retrofit finish work at <br />the access opening to the new addition. <br />6. Repair existing roof at Hutton Building. <br />When the roofing over the existing Assembly Room was stripped, <br />two isolated areas of dry rot were located. The affected wood <br />elements (paneling, joist) were removed and replaced. <br />7. Relocate crawl hole: Raise catwalk. (Luque Center) <br />Per City Inspector's direction the access crawl hole and catwalk <br />to the in -attic H.V.A.C. was relocated, cost for additional <br />labor and materials. <br />B. Masonry extras <br />1. Field Work Order #5. (Luque Center) <br />The masonry gable ends were required to be raised one foot (12") <br />to match the other structural components, i.e. trusses and <br />existing parapet. The plan's dimensions did not reflect this. <br />2. Field Work Order #6. (Hutton/Luque Centers) Credit. <br />The contractor omitted the joint reinforcement mesh as speci- <br />fied per contract documents. It should be noted that even with <br />the omission the masonry walls are sufficient in strength and <br />performance capability per the structural engineer and for <br />code purposes. <br />Page 2 —of_ 4 Item No <br />