Are truncated domes allowed on stair landing?

[Yikes]

I have a client in California that wants a stair to emerge down onto their parking lot, and the only place to put the detectable warning (truncated domes) is in the bottom landing area. Such domes are usually too tall to comply in areas where the code says a surfaces must not have vertical changes of height.
Is there anything in CBC chapter 10 or 11B/ ADAS that prohibits changes in level (such as truncated domes) on stair landings?

 

[arwat23]

The only section that I've found that could affect this is CBC 1011.7.1 (Stairway Walking Surface).

There is language in CBC 11B / 2010 ADAS that does explicitly says that detectable warnings cannot be placed in RAMP landings (11B-405.7.1), but the lack of that language in the stair sections (1011.6 and 11B-504) leads me to believe that there is no specific restriction for that. Which makes sense since stairs are not part of accessible routes.

There is restrictions for tread surfaces (11B-504.4), but the word "landings" is not used in that section.

Also, see 11B-705.1.2 and 11B-247.1 for location requirements (nothing here forbids stair landings in these sections either).

 

[mtlogcabin]

Which makes sense since stairs are not part of accessible routes.

I don't know if CA has this section or something similar, remember truncated domes are for the visually impaired.
Personally, IMH they are a PIA in winter and are a hazard for those walking across them.

1009.3 Stairways.
In order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, a stairway between stories shall comply with Sections 1009.3.1 through 1009.3.3.

 

[arwat23]

I don't know if CA has this section or something similar, remember truncated domes are for the visually impaired.
Personally, IMH they are a PIA in winter and are a hazard for those walking across them.

1009.3 Stairways.
In order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, a stairway between stories shall comply with Sections 1009.3.1 through 1009.3.3.

CA has that section with a DSA-AC amendment attached to the end. To me, none of the sections referenced (1009.3.1 through 1009.3.3., and 11B-210 and 11B-504) would necessarily restrict detectable warnings in a stair landing area:

1009.3 doesn't have any specific language about landings, ground surfaces, or detectable warnings.
11B-210 is a scoping section and does not mention landings.
11B-504 is the technical requirements for stairs, but do not list any requirements for landings.
I don't see landings for stairs mentioned anywhere in these sections (which honestly seems a little odd to me...). I don't think 11B/ADAS mentions stair landings at all... Maybe I'm missing something?

Regarding my use of "accessible routes", CBC defines an "accessible route" as "A continuous unobstructed path connecting accessible elements and spaces of an accessible site, building or facility that can be negotiated by a person with a disability using a wheelchair, and that is also safe for and usable by persons with other disabilities. Interior accessible routes may include corridors, hallways, floors, ramps, elevators and lifts. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles, curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways, walks, ramps and lifts."
By definition, a stairway is not an accessible route since it cannot be used by someone in a wheelchair, at least according to DSA-AC and HSD-AC (public buildings, public accommodations, commercial buildings, public housing, and covered multi family housing). "Accessible means of egress" is defined differently.

Lastly, an accessible means of egress are not required in existing buildings per 11B-207.1, exception 3 and Ch10 does not address detectable warnings directly as far as I see. No idea if OP is working on an existing building, but wanted to throw that out there just in case.

California really likes to make things confusing...

 

[Inspector Clouseau]

The 2022 CBC is silent on detectable warnings on stair landings, and, detectable warnings are not a change in elevation per se, if so, then diamond plate on stair treads might also be considered a change in elevation. Coincidentally, CBC §11B-406.5.4 (ramp surfaces) points the code user to §11B-405.4 which states, as with stair treads, changes in level are not permitted except for running and cross slopes on ramps- however, there is a requirement to install detectable warnings on ramps. By that logic I would not consider truncated domes as a "change in elevation" but rather a textured ground surface. If possible, it would be advisable to install detectable warnings outside the perimeter of the required landing dimension.

 

[Yikes]

In this case there is no room to install it outside of the landing, because the bottom riser will be only 4' from the vehicular way. Yes, it is an existing building, with a new stair being added.
I agree that I can't find anything in either Chapters 10 or 11 that prohibits changes in level on an landing, and a landing is not a "stairway tread".

...detectable warnings are not a change in elevation per se... I would not consider truncated domes as a "change in elevation" but rather a textured ground surface...

Truncated domes are 0.2" high (ADAS/11B 705.1).
ADAS / 11B-303.2 allows up to 0.25" of elevation change "where changes in level are permitted in floor or ground surfaces". So a truncated dome could be allowed with 0.05" to spare where "changes in level are permitted".
This implies that no truncated domes are allowed at locations where changes in level are not permitted. A client of mine got an ADA nuisance lawsuit on this basis several years ago. They got a little eager and put truncated domes in an area where no change in level is allowed.

Such changes are not permitted in the following locations:

• Turning spaces (304.2)
• Clear floor or ground space (305.2), which occurs at many appliances, sinks, lavatories, etc.)
• Maneuvering clearances at doors (404.2.4.4)
• Ramp landings (405.7.1)
• Stair tread surface (504.4)

As other posters have now confirmed, the landings can have the domes.