In Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, the building survey found that 25 percent of the buildings in the project area were deteriorated or dilapidated. But "the definition of dilapidation is overbroad. Peeling paint, dry rot, and lack of maintenance need not by themselves result in an unsafe or unhealthy building. The breadth of the definition used in the building survey prevented the town council from determining whether the Project Area could truly be characterized as containing buildings unsafe for human occupancy due to their deteriorated or dilapidated condition." ( Id. at p. 551.) "In short, the town council could not determine with reasonable certainty the existence or extent of buildings rendered unsafe due to deterioration or dilapidation based on the evidence in the administrative record." ( Id. at p. 552.) In Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 511, the court discussed the issue further: " 'Urban is defined as "of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking place in a city . . . constituting or including and centered on a city . . . of, relating to, or concerned with an urban and specifically a densely populated area . . . belonging or having relation to buildings that are characteristic of cities . . . ." ' The term 'urban' thus refers more to the location and 'varying characteristics' of a use than to the type of use. For example, a residential dwelling can exist either in an urban area or in a rural area. In either locale, the dwelling can be large or small and, in this era, will likely be served by many public utilities. The fact that it is a developed dwelling does not make the dwelling an urban use. Rather, it is the location and characteristics of the dwelling and its environs that may make the use an urban use." ( Id. at pp. 544-545.) Upland is not Mammoth Lakes. The City emphasizes that it is bounded by development on all sides, that it is unquestionably part of an urban area, and that it is almost entirely built out. It thus argues that these factors must be considered in making an urbanization determination for any particular parcel. It cites Mammoth, but the cited page emphasizes that "the Legislature attempted to ensure a parcel line would not be used to allow vacant nonblighted lands to be included in redevelopment project areas." ( Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 544.) Thus, the City of Mammoth misused its redevelopment power by including in its project area "undeveloped and obviously nonblighted land which is planned and approved for extensive private development." (Ibid.)