[5]*5Opinion
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in cross-actions for declaratory relief concerning the rights and obligations of the parties arising under conditions imposed on the approval of incorporation of a new city.
The City of Shasta Lake (the City) and the Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency (the City RDA) filed an action seeking declaratory relief concerning the conditions of incorporation, naming as defendants the County of Shasta (the County) and the Shasta County Redevelopment Agency (the County RDA). The County in turn cross-complained for declaratory relief and breach of contract concerning similar issues.
The parties stipulated that a retired superior court judge, Judge James E. Kleaver, would try the matter under the rules of evidence applicable to a trial by the court and that his decision “will have the same force and effect as a Superior Court judgment and will be appealable as such.” The superior court approved the stipulation. The stipulation characterizes this arrangement as “binding arbitration [of] all issues raised in the complaint.” Judge Kleaver rendered a decision in favor of the City, filed as a judgment in the action, which apportions the property tax revenue between the City and the County and provides for the payment of the costs of services arising out of the incorporation of the City.
The County appeals from the judgment.
In the published portion of this opinion1 we decide we have appellate jurisdiction as this is de facto an appeal from a judgment of a temporary judge under California Constitution, article VI, section 21. Accordingly, we use the term “trial court” in referring to the actions of Judge Kleaver.
On the merits, we decide the trial court correctly construed an incorporation condition, condition Y, requiring payments from the City RDA to the County measured in part by “the amount of property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city . . . .” The trial court construed this provision to mean the net property tax benefit accruing to the County from the new city territory, after deducting the property tax revenues diverted to the state and adding revenues which replaced the diverted property tax revenues (the replacement revenues).
We also decide the trial court correctly determined the City’s payment for services provided the City by the County during the first year of incorporation should be offset by the replacement revenues retained by the County [6]*6which would have been allocated to the City pursuant to Government Code section 300542 had it been incorporated in the 1993-1994 fiscal year.
In the unpublished portion of the opinion we find merit in the claim the City owes interest for amounts due under the contract for services the County rendered the City.
We will reverse the judgment insofar as it denies interest to the County. In all other respects we will affirm the judgment.
Facts and Procedural Background
We begin with a brief survey of the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Cortese-Knox Act), a detailed statutory scheme which governs, inter alia, the incorporation of new cities. (§ 56000 et seq.) It vests authority in the local agency formation commission (LAFCO) in each county (§ 56325) to approve a proposal for the incorporation of a city within the county.3 (§§ 56375, 56021.)
In passing on a proposal LAFCO determines the property tax to be exchanged by the affected local agencies pursuant to section 56842. (See also § 56375, subd. (q).) Under section 56842 a county must allocate to the new city a portion of the property taxes collected by the county measured by the ratio (the Assessor’s ratio) of all such taxes to the total amount of revenue available for general purposes times the total net cost of county services which the new city will assume. (§ 56842, subd. (c)(1)-(3).) This is called the “base year amount.” In effect the new city is allocated an amount which is less than the cost of services it will assume.
LAFCO may impose conditions on the approval of an incorporation as prescribed in section 56844, including for example, the transfer of property, payments for the transfer of property, and the allocation of debt. (§ 56843.) If LAFCO determines the current expenditures made by the county for services assumed by the new city are not substantially equal to the current revenues received by the county that would otherwise accrue to the city, it can approve the proposal if either: (1) the county and all of the “subject agencies” (see §§ 56077, 56021) agree or (2) the negative fiscal effect on the county is adequately mitigated by terms and conditions under section 56844. (§ 56845, subd. (c)(1), (2).)
In 1992, the Shasta County LAFCO (the Shasta LAFCO) began proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Act to incorporate the City. The Shasta [7]*7LAFCO approved the incorporation predicated on the following pertinent conditions, among others: (1) the County provides services within the newly incorporated territory for the remainder of the 1993-1994 fiscal year or until the City takes action to discontinue the services; (2) the City pays for such services at the County’s net cost (see § 57384, subd. (b)); (3) the property tax revenue to be transferred to the City is $685,000, except as adjusted by condition W.
Condition W was adopted in anticipation the Legislature would enact legislation to transfer property taxes from the County to the State of California (the State). It provides the base year amount should be reduced proportionally if the State reduces the property tax revenue to the County derived from the City territory for the fiscal years 1991-1992 through 1993-1994 without providing actual replacement revenues. Condition W also specifies an adjustment for property taxes transferred to the State for a prior fiscal year, 1991-1992, in the amount of $36,000.
The Shasta LAFCO approved the incorporation of the City with these conditions. The fiscal analysis accompanying the approval noted that as a result of the transfer of the obligation to the City to pay for services formerly assumed by the County there would be a net gain to the County general fund of approximately $200,000 per year. For that reason it said that “[bjased on the cost and revenue estimates contained in [the fiscal analysis] the incorporation more than meets this criterion of fiscal neutrality” under section 56845. It concluded: “Since LAFCO relied on the agreement reached by the two parties [the County and the public utilities district], rather than on strict fiscal neutrality, the Commission did not require that the County benefit be reduced.”
After the initial approval of incorporation, at the request of the County the Shasta LAFCO reconsidered its approval and imposed condition Y. Condition Y calls for a written agreement between the County and a predecessor to the City, the Shasta Dam Area Public Utilities District (the PUD), consistent with an attached document entitled “Conceptual Agreement Between County of Shasta and Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District.” The conceptual agreement, inter alia, acknowledges the creation of the City RDA and its assumption of the obligations of the County RDA.4 It calls for the payment by the City RDA to the County of the difference between the “property tax base transfer amount” and “the amount of property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city and allocated to the new city.” The conceptual agreement says the purpose of the payment is to reimburse the [8]*8County “for the cost of certain specified public improvements constructed in the redevelopment project area by the County if territorial jurisdiction over the redevelopment project is transferred to the redevelopment agency of the new city.”
However, contrary to the fiscal analysis, it also recites that the condition provides “a mechanism whereby the negative fiscal effect of the reorganization on the county, measured by the amount of property tax losses resulting to the County from the exchange of property tax revenues for the incorporation in excess of the amount of property taxes actually generated within the city and allocated to the city, will be fully mitigated.”
The County and the PUD entered into a mitigation agreement (the Mitigation Agreement). It provided the new City RDA shall reimburse the County for public improvements, constructed in the new City territory by the County RDA, in annual payments measured by the amount by which the “property tax base transfer amount” exceeds “the amount of property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city . . . .’’It deleted the phrase “and allocated to the new city” contained in the conceptual agreement.5
On March 8, 1993, the Shasta LAFCO again approved the incorporation, subject to the Mitigation Agreement and the City succeeded to the PUD.
Disputes arose concerning the meaning of conditions and the rights and obligations of the City and the County. This litigation was commenced. Thereafter the parties stipulated, in pertinent part, as follows. They submitted to “binding arbitration [of] all issues raised in the complaint and cross-complaint” before “Retired Siskiyou County Superior Court Judge James Kleaver.” The arbitration would be conducted under “the rules of evidence applicable to a trial by court . . . .” “[T]he decision of Judge Kleaver will [9]*9be binding on all parties and filed with the Superior Court and will be treated as a judgment and will have the same force and effect as a Superior Court judgment and will be appealable as such.”
A trial was conducted pursuant to this stipulation. During the proceedings various stipulations and case management reports were filed in Superior Court of Shasta County. Following the trial a “Judgment Following Arbitration,” signed by Judge Kleaver, was filed in the action in the superior court.
The evidence adduced shows that, as anticipated, in both fiscal years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the Legislature transferred local property tax revenues from the County to the State to balance the state budget. In 1993 this revenue reduction was alleviated partially by the passage of Proposition 172, which established a .5 percent sales tax to be used for public safety services by local agencies. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 35.) The County and the City agreed, and the trial court found that, for purposes of condition W, the Proposition 172 funds were “actual replacement revenues.” The funds replaced approximately 70 percent of the property taxes transferred to the State. Accordingly, they were used in determining the “property tax base transfer amount.” The County and the City stipulated the Proposition 172 moneys were replacement revenues and would be retained by the County.
The trial court construed “property tax revenues actually generated within the City” in the Mitigation Agreement to mean the amount of such property tax revenue minus the net amount of revenue transferred to the State. In determining the net amount, it offset the amount of property taxes transferred to the State by the Proposition 172 replacement revenues.
The trial court ruled inter alia that:
“5. . . . For fiscal year 1997-98 and thereafter, except as provided in paragraph 6 . . . , the County’s Proposition 172 related payment shall continue to be that amount representing (i) the percentage of the total property tax revenue shifted from the County’s gross property tax revenues to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (‘ERAF’) that is replaced by Proposition 172 revenues received by the County, (ii) to be multiplied by the total gross amount of the City property tax revenues shifted to ERAF from gross collections within the City for each affected year.”
“6. . . . The City and the County shall share future property tax growth, or property tax increment, equally in accordance with Condition ‘V’ . . . , including real property tax and Proposition 172 sales tax growth otherwise to be paid to the City, and the City RDA mitigation payments pursuant to [10]*10LAFCO Condition ‘Y’ shall not be required, when net property taxes from collections within the City that are apportioned to the City, plus Proposition 172 related revenues to be transferred to the City, equal or exceed $655,164...."
The County appeals from the judgment entered and filed by Judge Kleaver pursuant to the stipulation.
Discussion
I
The Arbitration Agreement Provides for a Trial by the Court
In view of the characterization of the stipulation for trial before Judge Kleaver as an arbitration agreement we asked the parties to brief the question of appellate jurisdiction.
The parties suggest the matter may be treated as an appeal from a judgment following a trial to the court and seek review of the merits of the decision in that light. We agree with the parties.
Our jurisdiction depends upon the status of the “Judgment Following Arbitration,” filed in the superior court. Only if it is a judgment do we have jurisdiction. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1.)
A paper filed in an action does not become a judgment merely because it is so entitled; it is a judgment only if it satisfies the criteria of a judgment. A judgment is a judicial act and must be rendered by á judge. (See 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Judgment, § 44, pp. 575-576.) An arbitration award is not a judgment; one must petition the court to confirm the award in order to obtain a judgment. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1285, 1287.4.)
However, just as the decision of Judge Kleaver does not become a judgment merely because it was called that, it may be a judgment notwithstanding that the parties called it a “Judgment Following Arbitration.” The appeal from the judgment is proper if Judge Kleaver can properly be characterized as a temporary judge and his decision a judgment entered after a court trial by a temporary judge. That turns on whether the proceeding meets the criteria of a temporary judge proceeding.
California Constitution, article VI, section 21 provides: “On stipulation of the parties litigant the court may order a cause to be tried by a temporary [11]*11judge who is a member of the State Bar, sworn and empowered to act until final determination of the cause.” A judgment entered by a temporary judge is a judgment subject to appeal.6 (See 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure supra, Courts, § 353, pp. 423-424.)
The parties commenced this litigation in the Superior Court of Shasta County. They are parties litigant. They stipulated for a decision of all the issues in the proceeding by a retired superior court judge after discovery and a hearing conducted under the rules of evidence that would apply at a court trial. They stipulated Judge Kleaver’s decision would have the effect of a judgment after a court trial and would be subject to appeal on that basis. The superior court ordered the stipulation into effect. From all that is made to appear, this satisfies the remaining criteria of a court order on a stipulation that “a cause to be tried by a temporary judge who is a member of the State Bar, sworn and empowered to act until final determination of the cause.”
The law aspires to respect substance over formalism and nomenclature. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 3528; see generally, In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 265, 872 P.2d 1190], calling a similar situation a “hybrid” and Kauffman v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 809, 811 [180 Cal.Rptr. 566], same terminology, affirming as a judgment retired judge’s award of costs.)7 Despite the fact the parties labeled their proceeding an arbitration, we treat it as a temporary judge proceeding. [12]*12We conclude the decision of Judge Kleaver is a judgment from which the parties may appeal.
II
The Trial Court Did Not Err in Determining the Proposition 172 Payments Retained by the County Must Be Treated as Property Tax Revenues for Purposes of Condition Y
The County challenges the trial court’s finding the share of Proposition 172 sales tax allocations attributed to the City territory and retained by the County should be considered as “property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city” in determining the mitigation payment required under condition Y. The question is the proper construction of the language of the Mitigation Agreement.8 As appears we discern no error in the resolution of that question by the trial court.
The effect of condition Y is to lower the base year amount paid by the County to the City. The reduction is the amount by which the property tax base transfer amount (the base year amount) exceeds “the amount of property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city . . . .” It can be seen that the larger the latter amount the smaller the reduction in the base year amount.
The County argues that by allowing consideration of the Proposition 172 payments as property tax revenues, the trial court improperly rewrote the Mitigation Agreement to provide the payment due the County is: “the difference between (i) the property tax base transfer amount determined by LAFCO in accordance with Government Code Section 56842, and (ii) the amount of property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city plus any ‘actual replacement revenue recognized under Condition [13]*13W.’ ” (Emphasis added by County.) The County argues the language of both the Mitigation Agreement and condition Y is clear and unambiguous, and the calculation of the amount to be paid to the County refers only to actual property taxes, not to property taxes plus replacement revenues.
In ascertaining the meaning of written language we consider the text and context. We ascribe meaning based on the text and the purposes that were apparently to be achieved, in light of the circumstances. Unfortunately, in this case, the purposes to be achieved by condition Y and the derivative mitigation agreement are unclear. The text of the conceptual agreement annexed to condition Y says the payment is called for to reimburse the County “for the cost of certain specified public improvements constructed in the redevelopment project area by the County . . . .” However, there is nothing in the record which explains how the cost of these improvements (which have not been specified in the record), is reasonably compensable by the payment formula. The only suggestion of the source of the payment formula is the statement that the purpose of the payment is “to fully mitigate the negative fiscal effect of the proposed incorporation on the County, generally measured by the amount of property tax losses resulting to the County from the exchange of property tax revenues . . . .” Nor does the record show how condition Y meshes with the statement in the fiscal analysis that the County fiscally benefited from the incorporation and that “LAFCO relied on the agreement reached by the two parties [the County and the PUD], rather than on strict fiscal neutrality . . . .” The effect of condition Y was to lower the amount which the County would pay the City.
The County’s request for a plain reading of the phrase “the amount of property taxes actually generated within the boundaries of the new city” is ironic. Read literally, the phrase would require that all of the property taxes actually generated in the territory be subtracted from the base year amount, including those taxes diverted to the State. This would result in a lower payment by the City to the County than that proposed by the City.
The County implicitly adds a qualification “and retained by the County.” But this is the circumstance which led to the explicit provision of condition W that directed a reduction in the base year amount if the State reduces the property tax revenue to the County derived from the City territory for the fiscal years 1991-1992 through 1993-1994 without providing actual replacement revenues.
Since making sense of the text requires the implication of a qualification in condition Y in light of the State diversion of property tax revenue, the content of the implicit qualification is in play. The court must determine [14]*14whether the measure of the payment is the amount of property taxes which the County retains, as the County contends, or the amount of property tax benefit which the County receives, i.e., the property tax retained by the County plus replacement revenue given in lieu of property tax diverted by the State.
Since the declared purpose of the payment is to mitigate the so-called negative fiscal effect occasioned by property tax losses resulting from the incorporation, the City’s candidate is the more reasonable. There is no incremental negative fiscal effect on the County attributable to the diversion of property tax revenue by the State to the extent that it receives either property taxes or replacement revenues.
Ill
The Cost of Services
Section 57384 provides that a county “shall” continue to furnish services to the previously unincorporated area for the remainder of the fiscal year during which incorporation occurs or “until the city council requests discontinuance of the services, whichever occurs first.” If the county requests reimbursement, the city must pay the county the net cost of the services. (§ 57384, subd. (b).) “Net cost” is defined as the “total direct and indirect expense to the county of providing services . . . less any revenues which the county retains that were generated from the formerly unincorporated territory during the period of time the services are furnished . . . .” (§ 57384, subd. (b).)
Consistent with section 57384, LAFCO condition G required the County to “furnish to the incorporated area all services furnished to the area prior to incorporation for the remainder of the fiscal year during which the incorporation becomes effective or until the city council requests discontinuance of the services, whichever occurs first.” Condition G also states: “If the city desires any increase in the level of such services during the fiscal year in which incorporation becomes effective or if the city desires continuation of such services in subsequent years, it shall enter into a mutually acceptable agreement with the County to obtain the desired increases in service levels and/or continuation of services.”
LAFCO further required that the payments for services be made in four annual installments, and that interest be paid on the amount owing at the rate of interest equivalent to the rate of interest earned by the Shasta County treasury pool.
[15]*15Approximately one month after incorporation, the City and the County entered into a law enforcement services agreement (LEA). The LEA provided the City would pay the entire cost of the services specified under the agreement. The LEA called for payments to be made quarterly. It contained no provision for interest on unpaid amounts.
LAFCO incorporated the terms of section 57384 into the resolution approving incorporation subject to conditions G and H. These conditions state:
“G. The Board of Supervisors shall continue to furnish to the incorporated area all services furnished to the area prior to incorporation for the remainder of the fiscal year during which the incorporation becomes effective or until the city council requests discontinuance of the services, whichever occurs first. If the city desires any increase in the level of such services during the fiscal year in which incorporation becomes effective or if the city desires continuation of such services in subsequent years, it shall enter into a mutually acceptable agreement with the County to obtain the desired increases in service levels and/or continuation of services.
“H. The new city shall reimburse the County for the net costs of the services provided pursuant to the first sentence of Condition ‘G.’ . . .”
The LEA became effective August 1, 1993, just one month after incorporation. It increased the services to be provided by the County Sheriff’s Department.9 It provided the City would pay the County the entire cost of providing services under the agreement, despite the fact that by statute the County could only charge the City for the net cost of services during fiscal year 1993-1994 unless the City requested a discontinuance of the services.
The County rendered the services specified in the written agreement, but the City maintains it is entitled to a credit for the revenues generated from the City territory and retained by the County. In other words, the City maintains it should only be required to pay the net cost of services. The County claimed the terms of the LEA, not section 57384, control and that the [16]*16County was entitled to be paid the entire cost rather than the net cost of services.
The trial court found in favor of the City, allowing the City to credit the revenues it generated during fiscal 1993-1994 against the amount owed the County for services. In reviewing extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent, the trial court: found “that responsible personnel for both sides had little real awareness of the impact of the agreement . . . ,”10
The issues on appeal with regard to payment for services are: (1) whether the City is entitled to pay only the net cost of services, i.e., to set off tax revenues generated within the city for the remainder of fiscal year 1993-1994; (2) whether Proposition 172 funds should be included in any such set-off; and (3) whether the County is entitled to interest under the LEA.
A.
The Net Cost of Services
On appeal the County argues the LEA had the same effect as a request for discontinuance of services by the city council. Therefore, the County argues, the setoff provisions of section 57384 and conditions G and H were no longer effective. The County further argues the services were not rendered pursuant to section 57384, but pursuant to the LEA, thus the setoff provisions of section 57384 are not applicable.
The statute forms the backdrop against which the contract must be construed. “Generally, all applicable laws in existence when an agreement is made necessarily enter into the contract and form a part of it, without any stipulation to that effect, as fully as if they were expressly referred to and incorporated in its terms. [Citation.]” (Grubb v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 526, 529 [143 Cal.Rptr. 558].) Our construction of the contract necessarily must take into consideration the terms of the applicable statute— section 57384. We thus construe “entire cost” to mean “entire cost as allowed by statute.” In this case, that amount is the net cost for fiscal year 1993-1994.
[17]*17Although both the statute and the LAFCO conditions allow the City to opt out of the payment-for-services scheme set forth in section 57384 before the end of the initial fiscal year, they provide the City must request that the County discontinue services. There is no such request in the LEA and we do not view the LEA as operating as a request for discontinuance. Instead, the LEA provided for a continuation of the same services as well as the addition of new services.
The County cites cases which have construed the term “discontinuance of service” under the Education Code to include situations where the same service continued to be performed by different personnel. These cases (Gallup v. Board of Trustees (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1571 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 289]; Fuller v. Berkeley School Dist. (1934) 2 Cal.2d 152 [40 P.2d 831]) hold that a school district’s right to terminate an employee because of a “discontinuance” of a “particular kind of service” includes situations in which some, but not all of the terminated employee’s duties are continued by another employee. These cases are not analogous.
In light of the statutory background and the surrounding circumstances, we interpret the phrase “entire cost” in the LEA as it applies to fiscal year 1993-1994 to mean net cost as defined by section 57384.
B.
Proposition 172 Funds Are Included As an Offset in the Net Cost of Services
The County claims the trial court erred in allowing the City to include Proposition 172 revenues in the amount the City could offset against the payment under the LEA for fiscal year 1993-1994.
The County maintains the City was not entitled to any portion of the Proposition 172 revenues and should not be allowed to “hijack” the revenues by way of setoff, that Proposition 172 revenues are not generated from the City because they are not allocated on the basis of situs, that the County did not retain the revenues as required by statute because it had no such revenues prior to the City’s incorporation, and that the term “revenue” as used in section 57384 must be construed with reference to section 56842, which excludes special purpose revenue.
We disagree. Whether or not the City was entitled to Proposition 172 revenues under the implementing statutes because it was not a city at the pertinent time, section 57384, subdivision (b), provides the cost of services [18]*18to the City, which the County is obligated to pay, shall be offset by “any revenues which the county retains that were generated from the formerly unincorporated territory during the period of time the services are furnished . . . This language includes Proposition 172 revenues. Such revenues were “generated” in the formerly unincorporated territory even though the allocation of Proposition 172 revenues is not situs based. Proposition 172 revenues are allocated to cities according to the amount of property tax revenue diverted to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. (§ 30054.) This is a calculable amount, and is an amount generated by the City.
We reject the County’s argument the word “retained” connotes a receipt of the revenues during a previous year. “Retained” simply means funds held by the County and not turned over to the City for whatever reason. Were the County to pay the funds to the City, they would not be retained and the City would have no right to offset such amounts from the payment for services.
It is not true, as the County contends, the term “any revenues” in section 57384 is the equivalent of the term “revenue from all sources available for general purposes” in section 56842. The County has not made a convincing argument the Legislature intended the terms to mean the same thing, or that logically the terms should be so interpreted. It is true, as the County states, that section 57384 makes reference to section 56842, but the reference is to the calculation of the expense of providing services, not the amount of revenues attributable to the City.
As originally enacted, section 57384 required a county to furnish services to the new city for the remainder of the fiscal year of incorporation and made no provision for payment to the county for services rendered. (Stats. 1985, ch. 541, § 3, p. 2014.) Shortly before the Legislature amended section 56842 to exclude special purpose revenue from the property tax allocation scheme (Stats. 1986, ch. 956, § 1, p. 3331), it amended section 57384 to allow the County to demand payment for the net cost of providing services. (Stats. 1986, ch. 700, § 1, pp. 2338-2339.)
In light of the different language employed by the two amendments, we shall assume that had the Legislature intended that “any revenues” exclude revenues “required to be used for a specific purpose” (§ 56842, subd. (c)(1)(A)) it would have used words to that effect. (Tracy v. Municipal Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 760, 764 [150 Cal.Rptr. 785, 587 P.2d 227]; Rideout Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. County of Yuba (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 214, 221 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 141]; Poway Unified School Dist. v. Chow (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1483 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 651].)
[19]*19IV
The County Is Entitled to Interest
Disposition
The judgment is reversed to the extent it does not require the City to pay interest on the amount it owed for services the County was obligated to render pursuant to section 57384 in fiscal year 1993-1994. The City does not owe interest on any amount owed for services specified in the LEA, but not required under section 57384. The amount owed shall take into consideration the offset due the City for revenues retained by the County consistent with this opinion. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. City of Shasta Lake and Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency shall recover their costs on appeal.
Raye, J., concurred.
See footnote 1, ante, page 5.