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...