If a statutory language does not yield a plain meaning, and the legislative history of the legislation is not to be considered in determining the meaning of the statute, can a court rely on the statute itself?

statutory language does not yield a plain meaning, we may consider extrinsic evidence of intent, including the legislative history. (Mejia v. Reed, supra, at p. 663.) However, "[i]n determining the proper interpretation of a statute and the validity of an administrative regulation, the administrative agency's construction is entitled to great weight, and if there appears to be a reasonable basis for it, a court will not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. [Citations.]" (Ontario Community Foundations, Inc. v. State Bd. Of Equalization (1984) 35 Cal.3d 811, 816.)