When a contract contains ambiguous language, does the contract have to be interpreted as ambiguous language?

When the meaning of words used in a contract is disputed, the trial court must, however, provisionally receive any proffered extrinsic evidence that is relevant to show whether the contract is reasonably susceptible of a particular meaning. (Wolf v. Superior Court (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1350.) If, in light of the extrinsic evidence, the court decides the language is reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged, the extrinsic evidence is admitted to aid in interpreting the contract. (Id. at p. 1351.) The trial court's determination of whether an ambiguity exists is a question of law, subject to independent review on appeal. (Ibid.)