CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 27, 2011, be modified in the following particulars:
On page 11, after partial paragraph ending "supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 195.)", add the following three paragraphs:
The District argues, belatedly,1 that the de novo standard of review enunciated in Sequoia is inapplicable here. Rather, it contends that—because the matter was decided below on disputed facts—this court must review whether the trial court's findings and judgment "`are supported by substantial, credible and competent evidence.' [Citation.]" (Environmental Charter High School, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 145.) We disagree with the District that such a review standard applies here.
It is true that where a court's ruling on a traditional writ of mandate is founded on a resolution of conflicting evidence, the appellate court's inquiry [is] whether the findings and judgment of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence." (Saathoff v. City of San Diego (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 697, 700.) "`However, the appellate court may make its own determination when the case involves resolution of questions of law where the facts are undisputed.' [Citation.]" (Agosto v. Board of Trustees of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 330, 336; see Cal. Civil Writ Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2011) § 11.16, pp. 256-257.) The interpretation of a statute is a question of law subject to independent review. (Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1491; see also Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 914, 933.)
Notwithstanding the District's belated attempt in its rehearing petition to characterize the trial court's decision as one involving a resolution of disputed facts, it is clear that the matter here involves an interpretation of Proposition 39 and its implementing regulations, and their application to the District's Facilities Offer.2 The principal issues, as discussed, post, concern the propriety of the methodology employed by the District in the creation of the Facilities Offer—i.e., the exclusion of non-classroom space of the comparison group schools, the inclusion among the facilities offered to the charter school of a soccer field used by Bullis only two days a week without proration due to its shared use, the failure to consider site size of the comparison group schools, the use of standard room sizes for certain rooms at the comparison group schools, and the failure to consider certain facilities (such as before — and after-school child care facilities) available at each of the comparison group schools. The District confuses disputes over the appropriate methodology for a Proposition 39 facilities offer that did exist and are at the heart of the controversy with disputes as to material facts (e.g., the objective measurements of the comparison group schools and the Egan site) which did not exist. The de novo standard of review enunciated in Sequoia, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at page 195 is therefore appropriate here.
There is no change in judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Duffy, J.* and Rushing, P.J. Grover, J.** concurs.