CASp Exam Preparation Built For California Access Professionals

I. JURISDICTION: I. JURISDICTION: Under the California Building Standards Code (Title 24), a parking lot with 50 standard spaces and 2 accessible van-accessible spaces totals 52 spaces. According to Table 11B-208.2, 51-75 total spaces require 4 accessible spaces. Section 11B-208.3.1 requires at least 1 van-accessible space for every 8 accessible spaces, so 4 accessible spaces need at least 1 van-accessible space. The existing 2 van-accessible spaces can count toward this requirement if they meet current code dimensions. Option A incorrectly states that existing van spaces are insufficient without evidence. Option C incorrectly assumes 56 total spaces and misapplies the van requirement. Option D incorrectly states no van requirement for lots under 100 spaces.

II. SCOPING: Under CBC Table 11B-208.2 and Section 11B-208.3.1, the total number of parking spaces on site determines the required number of accessible spaces, and a proportion of those must be van-accessible. Here, the 52-space lot falls into the 51-75 space bracket, triggering a 4-space accessible parking requirement, at least 1 of which must be van-accessible.

III. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: There is no conflict between the 2025 CBC and the 2010 ADA Standards on this point; both frameworks scale the number of required accessible and van-accessible spaces to the total parking count, and the 2025 CBC governs the specific space-count thresholds applicable in California.

IV. CODE VALUES — VERBATIM: Table 11B-208.2 sets the number of required accessible spaces by total parking count, and Section 11B-208.3.1 requires at least 1 van-accessible space for every 8 accessible spaces provided (or fraction thereof), meaning 4 accessible spaces still only require 1 van-accessible space.

V. DISTRACTORS: Option A is incorrect because it assumes the existing van spaces are non-compliant without any stated evidence of dimensional deficiency. Option C is incorrect because it miscounts the total spaces as 56 and misapplies the van-accessible ratio, requiring an inflated result. Option D is incorrect because the code does not exempt lots under 100 spaces from the van-accessible space requirement. Therefore, option B is correct.

I. JURISDICTION: I. JURISDICTION: The renovation adds 50 new spaces to an existing parking lot. Under CBC 2022, when a parking facility is altered, only the altered area (the new 50 spaces) must comply with current accessibility standards, unless the alteration affects the facility's usability. The existing 200 spaces, which comply with 2010 ADA Standards, are not required to be upgraded. For 50 new spaces, Table 11B-208.2 requires 2 accessible spaces, and at least 1 must be van-accessible (per Section 11B-208.2.4). Option B correctly states this. Option A incorrectly applies the total count to the entire lot. Option C incorrectly requires both to be van-accessible. Option D incorrectly requires upgrading all existing spaces.

II. SCOPING: Alteration scoping under CBC applies current accessible parking requirements only to the newly added portion of a parking facility, unless the alteration triggers a path-of-travel or usability upgrade to the existing facility. Here, only the 50 new spaces trigger new accessible parking counts under Table 11B-208.2.

III. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: No conflict arises between federal and state standards here; the existing 200 spaces retain their 2010 ADA Standards compliance status, while the new 50 spaces must independently meet the current CBC 2022 accessible parking requirements applicable to new construction.

IV. CODE VALUES — VERBATIM: Table 11B-208.2 requires 2 accessible spaces for a 50-space addition, and Section 11B-208.2.4 requires at least 1 van-accessible space among those 2 accessible spaces.

V. DISTRACTORS: Option A is incorrect because it wrongly applies the accessible space count to the full 250-space total rather than just the new addition. Option C is incorrect because it requires both new accessible spaces to be van-accessible, which exceeds the code minimum. Option D is incorrect because it requires retrofitting all 200 existing compliant spaces, which is not mandated absent a triggering alteration. Therefore, option B is correct.

I. JURISDICTION: I. JURISDICTION: The question asks about accessible parking requirements for a transient lodging facility under 2025 CBC Section 11B-208. The correct answer is B because Section 11B-208.2.3 and related provisions require that accessible parking spaces be provided in sufficient number based on the total parking provided (e.g., a percentage or number per accessible dwelling unit) and that each accessible parking space be served by an accessible route to the facility entrance (Section 11B-208.3). Option A is incorrect because not all parking spaces must be accessible; only a specified number. Option C is incorrect because employee parking is not the sole focus; accessible parking must serve all users. Option D is incorrect because the CBC does not exempt facilities with fewer than 10 parking spaces from providing accessible parking; the requirements apply regardless of size.

II. SCOPING: Section 11B-208 scopes accessible parking based on the total parking provided at the facility, and Section 11B-208.3 requires an accessible route connecting each accessible parking space to the accessible entrance serving the transient lodging facility.

III. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: No conflicting standard applies here; the 2025 CBC scoping for transient lodging parking is the controlling requirement for California facilities, consistent with the general principle that accessible parking must be proportional and connected to accessible routes.

IV. CODE VALUES — VERBATIM: Section 11B-208.2.3 sets the required number of accessible spaces relative to total parking, and Section 11B-208.3 mandates an accessible route from each accessible space to the facility entrance.

V. DISTRACTORS: Option A is incorrect because the code requires only a proportionate number of accessible spaces, not universal accessibility of all spaces. Option C is incorrect because accessible parking must serve guests and the public, not just employees. Option D is incorrect because there is no blanket exemption for lots under 10 spaces. Therefore, option B is correct.

I. JURISDICTION: I. JURISDICTION: Under Civil Code Section 55.53 and the CASp Professional Standards, the required elements of a valid CASp inspection report include a description of the property inspected (A), a list of observed barriers (B), and the date of inspection (D) as mandated by SB 269. A cost estimate for remediation (C) is not a required element; it is optional and may be included as a best practice but is not mandated by statute or regulation.

II. SCOPING: Civil Code Section 55.53 and related CASp program standards define the mandatory report contents for a valid CASp inspection report, focusing on property description, barrier identification, and inspection date documentation.

III. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: There is no conflicting statute; the CASp report content requirements are set exclusively by Civil Code Section 55.53 and CASp Professional Standards, which do not mandate a remediation cost estimate.

IV. CODE VALUES — VERBATIM: Civil Code Section 55.53 requires a description of the property, identification of observed access barriers, and the date of inspection as core elements of a valid CASp report.

V. DISTRACTORS: Options A, B, and D are incorrect distractors because each is an explicitly mandated report element under Civil Code Section 55.53. Option C, a cost estimate for remediation, is optional and not statutorily required. Therefore, option C is correct.

I. JURISDICTION: I. JURISDICTION: Under 2010 ADA Standards Section 217 and Section 308, public pay phones must have operable parts within reach ranges. For a forward or side reach, the highest operable part must be no higher than 48 inches (ADA 308.2.1, 308.3.1). Option A has the highest operable part at 54 inches, exceeding the maximum. Options B, C, and D relate to counters and tables, not communication features. Therefore, A is the violation.

II. SCOPING: ADA Standards Sections 217 and 308 scope reach-range requirements for operable parts of communication features such as public pay phones, requiring compliance with the applicable forward or side reach maximum height.

III. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: No conflicting standard applies; the 2010 ADA Standards reach-range requirements for communication features are the controlling technical criteria for public pay phone operable part height.

IV. CODE VALUES — VERBATIM: Sections 308.2.1 and 308.3.1 establish a maximum reach height of 48 inches for the highest operable part of an element requiring a forward or side reach, such as a public pay phone.

V. DISTRACTORS: Options B, C, and D describe counters, desks, and tables, which are governed by different reach and clearance provisions and are not communication features, so they do not violate Section 217 or 308. Therefore, option A is correct.

I. JURISDICTION: I. JURISDICTION: Under both the 2010 ADAS and 2025 CBC, Table 208.2 requires 6 accessible spaces for a parking facility with 151-200 total spaces. The question states 150 commercial spaces, but the total parking facility has 200 spaces. Since the code requires calculation based on the total number of spaces provided in the parking facility (not per use), the commercial portion's accessible spaces are derived from the overall total. Option A (4) corresponds to 1-25 spaces, B (5) to 26-50, and D (7) to 201-300, all incorrect for a 200-space facility. Therefore, the correct answer is C: 6.

II. SCOPING: Table 11B-208.2 scopes the number of required accessible parking spaces based on the total number of parking spaces provided in a facility, rather than allocating the count separately by use type within a mixed-use parking facility.

III. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: No conflict exists between the 2010 ADAS and 2025 CBC on this point; both apply the same total-space-based accessible parking count for a 151-200 space facility, requiring 6 accessible spaces.

IV. CODE VALUES — VERBATIM: Table 11B-208.2 (and the corresponding 2010 ADAS Table 208.2) requires 6 accessible parking spaces for facilities providing 151 to 200 total parking spaces.

V. DISTRACTORS: Option A (4 spaces) corresponds to a much smaller facility bracket (1-25 spaces) and is incorrect. Option B (5 spaces) corresponds to the 26-50 space bracket and is incorrect. Option D (7 spaces) corresponds to the 201-300 space bracket and overstates the requirement for a 200-space facility. Therefore, option C is correct.