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,
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.
There is no change in judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.