It turns out that the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), although not revised since 1997, is still applicable and available for purchase for $16.00 from the International Code Council. If you want one, see http://shop.iccsafe.org/1997-uniform-code-for-the-abatement-of-dangerous-buildings.html.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, otherwise known as the California Building Standards Code (which consists of the building, fire, URM, housing, plumbing, etc. codes) never adopted the UCADB, so each city had to adopt it separately since it would never automatically become part of the City's codes after 180 days like the CCRs.  Wherever the UCADB refers to the "Uniform" codes, it also states "as adopted by the jurisdiction" which makes the most recent CCR code adopted the controlling code.

Cities, building officials, code enforcement and city attorneys routinely utilize the UCABD and that is one of the reasons its adoption hasn’t been rescinded. It is still very good law.  Cities  use it in notice and orders to vacate and repair or to demolish and to red-tag and to bring misdemeanor charges for red-tag violations.   It is almost always used in conjunction with complaints for violations of the state housing code (codified as H&S 17920, et seq) and for non-dwelling structures and definitely in bringing Receiver Petitions.

I could see several of the conditions described in Section 302 these applying to the refinery: 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17. Certainly, based on the CSB and CalOSHA reports, a case could be made that the portion of the Refinery that failed on August 6, 2012, could have been deemed a dangerous building under Section 302. Whether other existing portions constitute conditions described in 302 is a fair question.