FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco (493 S.W.3d 238, 2016)

OPINION

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, CHIEF JUSTICE

This is an appeal from a final judgment granting the City of Frisco, Texas’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing with prejudice all of the claims of appellants FLCT, Ltd. and Field Street Development I, Ltd. (collectively, Owners) against the City. In four issues, Owners contend that the trial court erred by granting the plea to the jurisdiction because (1) their case is ripe for adjudication, (2) they properly alleged a regulatory takings claim for which the City is not immune, (3) they pled sufficient facts to show that a December 2012 zoning ordinance amendment enacted by the City is “null and void” because the City did not deliver them proper notice under local government code section 211..007(c), and (4) the City’s immunity from suit is .waived as to Owners’ declaratory judgments act claims because they asserted valid claims under chapter 245 of the local government code. We affirm in part and reverse and. remand in part.

I. Background

Owners are two partnerships that own adjacent property in Frisco, Denton County, ■ at the southeast corner of Teel Parkway and Eldorado Parkway. FLCT’s tract is located on the actual corner where the two streets meet (the hard corner); Field’s tract is located directly east of FLCT’s and abuts both Eldorado and Teel. FLCT bought its tract in 2006, and Field bought its tract in 2007. At the time, Stephen Williamson was the president of the general partners of FLCT and Field.

The two tracts are located in the City’s Commercial-1 (C-l) district. In both 2006 and 2007, the City’s zoning ordinance permitted property owners in the C-l district to sell beer and wine “by right,” subject to certain restrictions. Of concern in this case, beer and wine package- sales were prohibited within three hundred feet of a public school. However, no public school was located within three hundred feet of PLCT’s or Field’s tracts in either 2006 or 2007.

In 2008, Owners submitted a preliminary site plan application for the two tracts to the City. The plan included a proposed convenience store with gas pumps on the hard corner and “[s]ix medical office buildings, a restaurant, a bank, a retail building, [and] a car was[h]” on the remainder. Nothing on the application indicated that beer and wine sales were contemplated on either of the two tracts.

After Owners submitted the preliminary site plan, also in 2008, Frisco ISO began negotiating with Owners to purchase the southernmost part of FLCT’s and Field’s tracts for an elementary school. Williamson was concerned about whether, after the sale, the sale of beer and wine at a convenience store located on the remaining part of the two tracts would be prohibited. Williamson and Frisco ISD’s representative, Richard Wilkerson, agreed that Wilkerson would meet with a City representative to confirm whether the City would allow a convenience store to sell beer and wine on Owners’ remaining property (hereinafter referred to as the Property) if a school was built on the property . to be sold to Frisco ISD. On January 22, 2009, the City’s then Development Coordinator, Scott Ingalls, sent Wilkerson a letter stating that he understood the convenience store “does plan, on-selling beer and wine in addition to fuel and other items” and recognizing that “there is a concern about whether or not the store would be able to sell beer and wine if a school were built on the adjacent property.” Ingalls stated that “[i]t becomes a matter of which use is in for approval first.” Thus, he continued, “[sjince there is an application for a preliminary .site plan for the [convenience] store they become the first use in for approval^] [a]s long as they continue to move forward with site plan approval and construction they will retain the ability to sell beer and wine at the [convenience] store.”

Before Owners closed on the sale to Frisco ISD, they filed an amended preliminary site plan application -with the City, which deleted the property to be sold to Frisco ISD and on which the medical office buildings were to have been built. The City approved the amended preliminary site plan application on February 24, 2009. The description of the plan stated, “A restaurant with a drive-thru, a bank, a car wash, and a convenience store with gas pumps, on .4,2 ± acres on the southeast corner . of Eldorado Parkway and Teel Parkway. Zoned Commercial-1. Neighborhood #45.” On March 24, 2009,-the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conveyance plat for the George & Debra Purefoy Elementary School, which' showed the division between the Property and the Frisco ISD tract. Owners executed a deed to Frisco ISD on March 25, 2009, which was recorded in the Denton County property records.

Also on March 25, 2009, Owners and Frisco ISD entered into a Development Agreement and Restrictive 'Covenants, which was likewise recorded in the Denton County property records. In the development agreement, beer-and wine sales are addressed as follows: “The Parties acknowledge that [Owners] intend[ ] to' sell, and the City of Frisco, Texas will allow the sale of, alcoholic beverages on Tract B [the Property].” The City issued a building permit for the school in April 2009.

In late August 2009, the City Council amended the zoning ordinance regarding alcohol sales. It deleted the definition of beer and wine package sales and replaced it with the following: “Package Sales — an establishment principally for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, as defined in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, as amended, to the general public for off-premise consumption and rendering services that are incidental to the sale of such goods.” [Emphasis added.] It further amended the former restriction on beer and wine package sales within three hundred feet of a school to provide that “[a] Package Sales Establishment shall not be located within ... [t]hree hundred (300) feet from a ... public school.”

Owners subsequently began negotiating with Racetrac to purchase the hard corner of the Property for a convenience store and gas station. The City accepted an application for a site plan and conveyance plat for the Racetrac development on November 9, 2009. But on November 11, 2009, 'Ingalls told Williamson that the City would not allow the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Property “due to the close proximity of [the] elementary school that is under construction.” Ingalls documented this conversation in a letter dated November 17, 2009. Ingalls had a similar conversation with counsel for Racetrac on November 13, 2009. As a result, Racetrac terminated negotiations with Owners and eventually bought property at the northwest corner of Teel and Eldorado, just over three-hundred feet from the school. The City issued a certificate of- occupancy for the school on August 3, 2010, and it has been in continuous operation ever since.

On August 5, 2010, Owners’ engineer submitted a request to extend the expiration date on the site plan for the Property, which the City granted until February 28, 2011. Owners directed the engineer to prepare a final site plan application for the Property, which he submitted on February 21, 2011. The City approved the final site plan, which was consistent with the preliminary site plan that the City had approved earlier, on May 10, 2011, effective until February 21, 2013. The final site plan showed proposed fuel tanks and a canopy on the side of the Property located closest to Eldorado and a proposed gas station on the southern side of the Property, with ingress and egress to both Eldorado and Teel.

When the engineer submitted the final site plan application, FLCT was negotiating to lease the hard corner to 7-Eleven, Inc. for the operation of a convenience store with gas pumps and beer and- wine sales. In March 2012, FLCT and 7-Elev-en signed a ground lease, for which FLCT filed a substantially conforming site plan, similar to the final site plan, on June 25, 2012. The City approved the plan on July 19, 2012, effective until. February 21, 2013. 7-Eleven applied for a building permit before the expiration of the substantially conforming and final site plans. The continued validity of the ground lease was conditioned on 7-Eleven’s being able to obtain all permits, licenses, , and approvals necessary to sell “beer, wiñe and alcoholic products.”

In late September 2012, 7-Eleven Beverage Company, Inc. completed a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) permit application to sell beer and wine on its proposed premises. The application form required a certification from the City Secretary that the location was either in a wet or dry area and whether the sale of beer and wine is prohibited by charter or ordinance. Owners presented as evidence an affidavit in which Williamson stated that 7-Eleven also submitted the application to the City Secretary in September 2012, but the City presented evidence that 7-Eleven did not submit the application to the City Secretary until around November 5, 2012.

Around October 1, 2012, counsel for Owners sent a demand letter to the City attorney contending that they and 7-Elev-en had the right to. sell beer and wine on the Property. Counsel for Owners and the City, as well as the City’s Planning Director, John Lettelier, met on October 10, 2012. According to an affidavit of Owners’ counsel, Lettelier “experienced surprise that the City’s current ordinances did not prohibit alcohol sales at convenience stores on properties similar to” the Property.

On October 23, 2012, the City Council enacted a new ordinance, which amended chapter 10 of the City Code — not the City’s zoning ordinance — by adding a paragraph prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages within three hundred feet of a church, school, or public hospital.

On December 4, 2012, counsel for the City sent an email to counsel for Owners informing him that the City Secretary would not be signing the certification on 7-Eleveris off-site permit application. Counsel for the City followed with a letter the next day in response to Owners’ October 2012 demand letter. In it, he noted that “[i]t has always been the intent and goal of Frisco to prohibit such sales close to schools, churches and hospitals. Any failure to do so would be an oversight and inadvertent error.” He further explained the City’s position that the certification is not a permit required by the City of Frisco and, thus, not subject to chapter 245 of the local government code.

On December 18, 2012, effective December 28, 2012, the City amended its zoning ordinance to change the definition of Package Sales to Alcoholic Beverage Sales: “Alcoholic Beverage Sales .,. shall mean any establishment, place of business or person engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverages, as defined in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, as amended, to the general public for off-premise personal or household consumption.” It amended the paragraph that formerly related to Package Sales to state that “Alcoholic Beverage Sales shall not be located within ... [t]hree hundred (300) feet from a church, public school, and/or private school.”

As of January 2013, the City Secretary had still not completed the certification part of 7-Eleven’s permit application; counsel for the City indicated to counsel for 7-Eleven that the City had taken the position that the certification was not needed for the TABC permit application process to continue. Counsel for 7-Eleven sent an email to counsel for the City clarifying that 7-Eleven was not asking the City Secretary to certify that the area was wet, just that the City Secretary certify either one option or the other.

7-Eleven eventually sued the City under section 11.37(d) of the alcoholic beverage code seeking an order requiring the City Secretary to make the statutory certification. Tex. Aleo. Bev.Code Ann. § 11.37(d) (West Supp.2015). On March 27,2013, the trial judge found that “the Frisco City Secretary was required by statute to sign 7-[Eleven]’s TABC Off-Premises Prequa-lification Packet after it was presented” and ordered the City Secretary to complete the certification within ..thirty days. The City Secretary signed the certification on May 3, 2013, stating that “the location is prohibited by the Ordinances of the City of Frisco, Texas, individually and collectively.”

7-Eleven’s suit against the City continued, and in August 2013, Judge Garcia held a hearing on 7-Eleven’s application for a beer and wine permit. The appellate record does not include the pleadings in the Denton County Court at Law Number Two case, nor does it show whether the TABC had any direct involvement with the permit application. At the hearing, 7-Eleven argued that the City Secretary should be required to change her certification to state that beer and wine sales were permitted on the Property because — since the Owners began development of the Property before the school began its development — the three-hundred-foot restriction did not apply. During the hearing, Judge Garcia clarified his understanding of the issue as it was presented to him:

The only thing I’m considering is the only thing I’m required to consider and hopefully nothing else, and that is on the day that [the City Secretary] was asked to certify whether or not this was wet or dry for the purposes of the application process that that particular — that there was something in place that would require her to attest to something other than what she attested to.

In other words, I believe my sole issue on the beer and. wine permit application is when [the City Secretary] received the application was there an ordinance in place. And all the other collateral issues that we’re dealing with right now I think are a little bit different than what in this particular hearing I’m required to do.

I think the only thing they’ve asked me to do is did [the City Secretary] attest to it correctly. They believe it’s incorrect. You believe that she ... attested to it correctly. Because, even when I ,, asked her to sign it on that date, in fact, the ordinance-was, in place, I don’t know if I can go back, and say, no, it wasn’t in place at the time that you attested to. it and therefore your signature was vvrong; .1 don’t think I can do that, tp fie honest, with you. I really don’t think I can do that because on the ■ day. that she signed it that’s what her— that’s what the ordinance says.

.. .And whether or not that'gets you to .where you needed, to where you want me to go back and say she shouldn’t have done it because the application process was started a long time ago on .vested rights argument, I’m not sure that’s valid in a beer and wine permit application.... ,I just don’t know if that’s something.that I can do on a beer ■ .and wine application. That’s for another matter, another day, another court-to decide that issue that you’ve brought before me, okay?

Judge Garcia signed an order denying 7-Eleven’s “request to direct the City of Frisco City Secretary to' dertify that the Ideation for which the TAB C‘Off-Premise Prequalification Packet (Form L-OFF) is sought is in a wet area.” 7-Eleven thus ceased its development of the Property, and the transaction with Owners terminated.

On November 22, 2013, Owners submitted a vested rights petition to the City under section 9.03 of the City Code and chapter 245 of the local government code. Tex. Loe. Goy’t Code Ann.. §§ 245.001-.007 (West 2005). In their, petition,: Owners contended that they ■

have the right to sell beer and wine on the Property in accordance with City ordinance' and ■ state law because" the original preliminary site plan application was submitted (with subsequent site ‘plans approved) prior to (a) the school " construction being approved by the City, and (b) the City enacting an ordinance imposing separation criteria applicable to the sale of beer and wine at a convenience stor.e. [Emphasis added.]

The City dehied the petition" on January 6, 2014, and Owners filed this suit in the Denton County probate court. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted on October 13, 2014 after an evidentiary hearing, dismissing all of Owners’ claims with prejudice.

II. Plea to the Jurisdiction Standard of Review

We review the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction under a de novo standard of review. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex.2004); City of Wichita Falls v. Jenkins, 307 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied). The plaintiff has the burden of alleging facts that affirmatively establish the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex.1993); Eden Cooper, LP v. City of Arlington, No. 02-11-00439-CV, 2012 WL 2428481, at *3 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth June 28, 2012, no pet.) (mem.op.). We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of -the plaintiff, look to the pleader's intent, and accept the pleadings’ factual allegations as true. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. Whether undisputed evidence of jurisdictional facts establishes a trial court’s jurisdiction is a question of law. Id.; Jenkins, 307 S.W.3d at 857.

If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges' the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court is required to do. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227; Jenkins, 307 S.W.3d at 857. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding the jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the factfinder. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28; Jenkins, 307 S.W.3d at 857. But if the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue," the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law.-. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228; Jenkins, 307 S.W.3d at 857. 'This standard generally mirrors that of a traditional summary judgment. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228; Jenkins, 307 S.W.3d at 857; see Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c).

III. Owners’ Fifth Amended Petition

In their Fifth Amended Petition, Owners first raised a regulatory takings claim under Penn Central and Sheffield: “The City’s intentional refusal to allow the Owners to use their Property in accordance with the Owners’ investment-backed expectations to sell.beer and wine is a temporary or permanent taking of [their] property rights in violation of Art. I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution.” Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); Sheffield Dev. Co. v. City of Glenn Heights, 140 S.W.3d 660 (Tex.2004); see also Tex.R. Civ. P. 45, 47 (providing for liberal, “fair notice” construction of pleadings); Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 601 (Tex.1993) (op. on reh’g) (acknowledging same). They also sought several declaratory judgments: (1) that in accordance with local government code chapter 245, the project commenced in 2008, or alternatively in 2011, for purposes of their vested rights; (2) that the City is prohibited from applying or enforcing beer and wine sales distance requirements to the Property under chapter 245; (3) that the December 2012 zoning ordinance amendment is void for lack .of .proper notice to Owners under chapter 211 of the local government code; and (4) alternatively, that the December 2012 zoning ordinance amendment is not one of the enumerated “municipal zoning regulation^]” to which chapter 245 expressly does not apply. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 211.007(c) (West Supp. 2015) (providing for individual notice to property owners upon change in zoning classification), § 245.004(2) (exempting certain types of municipal zoning regulations from scope of chapter 245). Owners also pled for attorney’s fees under the declaratory judgments act. See Tex. Civ. Prac. <& Rem.Code Ann. § 37.009 (West 2015).

As supporting facts, Owners alleged (1) that their “reasonable investment-based property expectations at the time of [the] land purchase were for future development of uses in accordance with the C-l District zoning, including a convenience store with gas pumps which could sell beer and wine as an incidental use on the [Property]” and (2) that “[t]he initial permits for the Owner[s’] development project were submitted and" approved prior to the enactment of City ordinances prohibiting beer and wine sales at the site in accordance with Chapter 245, Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code.” They also alleged that when Frisco ISD bought its tract, “the City ordinances did not include a separation requirement for convenience stores selling beer and wine within 300 feet of public schools” and that because counsel for Frisco ISD was the same as counsel for the City, the City had constructive notice of the agreement between Owners and Frisco ISD. Additionally, Owners alleged that the City had actual notice of the terms of their agreement with Frisco ISD because of the Ingalls' letter. Owners further alleged that the City’s zoning ordinance did not prohibit the sale of beer and wine on their tracts in February 2009 when the City approved the preliminary site plan for the Property that showed the school district as the adjacent property owner.

According to Owners, the Racetrac deal fell through because the City erroneously informed Racetrae that beer and wine sales were not permitted on the Property even after the 2009 amendment to the zoning ordinances. Further, “[i]n reliance upon the representations and acknowl-edgement of the parties that beer and wine could be sold on [Owners’] property, [Owners] spent over $220,000.00 to construct public improvements that would benefit the City.” Finally, Owners contend that

[t]he ... project for a convenience store selling beer and wine predates the school’s site plan, and the City’s 2012 ordinances prohibiting beer and wine sales cannot be applied to Owners. In 2009 and subsequently until 2012, the City did not have an ordinance which imposed a separation requirement between a school and a convenience store which sells beer and wine.

IV. The City’s First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction

The City raised numerous grounds in its first amended plea to the jurisdiction. Generally, the City asserted that Owners failed to allege facts to support their claims. As to Owners’ declaratory judgment claims, the City asserted that there is no real or live controversy between the parties because no TABC permit proceeding is pending; therefore, the City has not denied Owners anything. Additionally, the City asserted that even if a live controversy exists, the declaratory relief requested would not resolve the controversy because the City has no power to issue a TABC permit and because the TABC would not be bound to issue a permit even if Owners were to prevail on their declaratory judgment claims. The City’s remaining grounds, which we will discuss in detail in our discussion of Owners’ issues, challenged whether immunity from suit has been waived for both the declaratory judgment claims and the regulatory takings claim.

Factually, the City pointed out that the adjacent school was built and operating two years before the City issued a building permit for the convenience store. It noted that the separation requirements existed when Owners first purchased their tracts and filed their first permit application and when 7-Eleven submitted the TABC permit for the City to certify. The City also pointed out that beer and wine sales were not included in Owners’ preliminary site plan and initial development permit filed with the City on July 28, 2008 or on “any of the other development permits submitted to the City for approval submitted over the next five (5) years.”

V. Existence of Justiciable Controversy

In their first issue, Owners challenge the City’s claim that there is no justiciable controversy over which the trial court can assert jurisdiction because (1) the City has not denied any permit to Owners upon which a chapter 245 claim could be based and (2) even if there were a live controversy, the declaratory relief requested would not resolve that controversy.

The general test for standing in Texas courts requires that there be a real controversy between the parties that actually determines the judicial declaration sought. Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446. Thus, for a court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit requires that there be a live controversy between the parties. State Bar v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex.1994). Any decision rendered in the absence of a live controversy is advisory only and, thus, prohibited by Texas law. Id.

The declaratory judgments act allows a person whose “rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a ... municipal ordinance” to “have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the ... ordinance” and to “obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 37.004(a) (West 2015). But the act does not create or enlarge a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; it is “merely a procedural device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction.” Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. KCS Res., LLC, 450 S.W.3d 203, 210 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (quoting Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444). Thus, a declaratory judgment is appropriate only if a jus-ticiable controversy exists as to the rights and status of the parties and the declaration will resolve the controversy. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 37.008 (West 2015) (“The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree if the judgment or decree would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.”); Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex.1995); Devon Energy, 450 S.W.3d at 210. In other words, the act “gives the court no power to pass upon hypothetical or contingent situations, or determine questions not then essential to the decision of an actual controversy, although such questions may in the future require adjudication.” Riner v. City of Hunters Creek, 403 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.).

Here, even though there is no current application for a TABC permit pending, Owners have alleged that the City!s enforcement of the October and December 2012 ordinances- — as evidenced by Ingalls’s communications to Racetrac and Williamson in 2009, the City Secretary’s prior certification that the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Property was prohibited by City ordinance, and the City’s denial of their vested rights petition — has resulted in the inability of Owners, their prospective tenants, or both to sell beer and wine from any proposed convenience store development or use and that they had intentions to pursue this development or use. Thus, a declaration that those ordinances are void and unenforceable against the Property because of the operation of chapter 245 would resolve the controversy with respect to whether the City can continue' to impose its own local ordinance restrictions as to alcohol sales on the Property, including with respect' to certifications on any future permit applications. See, e.g., City of Anahuac v. Morris, 484 S.W.3d 176, 179 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. filed); Cont’l Homes of Tex., L.P. v. City of San Antonio, 275 S.W.3d 9, 20 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied); see also City of Ingleside v. City of Corpus Christi, 469 S.W.3d 589, 592 (Tex.2015) (noting .in context of boundary dispute declaratory judgment claim involving interpretation of city ordinance that “[ interpreting and applying an ordinance is also well within judicial authority”). As the City acknowledged in its plea to the jurisdiction, Owners “plead four (4) requests for declaratory relief, the purpose of which, if successful, would allow them to reapply to the TABC for a permit to sell beer and wine on their Property.” [Emphasis added.]

Owners’ suit is not seeking to force the City to perform a duty that may arise at some future time;’ rather, Owners are seeking a determination of the existence and extent of their rights under chapter 245 to develop and use the Property. Moreover, chapter 245 itself provides the authority for a declaratory judgment action to enforce a landowner’s rights. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 245.006(a). Accordingly, we conclude and hold that the trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the ■ Owners’ declaratory judgment claims because the controversy is justiciable and ripe for adjudication. We sustain that part of Owners’ first issue that challenges the trial court’s ruling on justiciability grounds.

VI. Waiver of Immunity from Suit

In the remainder of their first issué, and in their second through fourth issues, Owners challenge the City’s allegations in its plea to the jurisdiction that its immunity from suit has not been waived regarding Owners’ regulatory takings and declaratory judgment claims. For convenience of the analysis, we will discuss the issues out of order, addressing the issues regarding the declaratory judgment claims first.

A. Chapter 245 Declaratory Judgment Claims

In the remainder of their first issue, Owners contend that the trial court erred by concluding that the City is immune from suit on Owners’ chapter 24 declaratory judgment claims because the alcoholic beverage code does not pre-empt chapter 245 and the section 11.37(d) appeals process in the alcoholic beverage code is not an exclusive remedy.

1. Alcoholic Beverage Code Does Not Pre-empt Claims

The City argues that the alcoholic beverage code exclusively governs the process for a TABC permit application; thus, Owners are limited to the remedies, if any, set forth in that code regarding alcoholic beverage permits and licenses.

Home-rule cities have the full power of self-government and look to the Texas Legislature, not for grants of power, but only for limitations on their powers. S. Crushed Concrete, LLC v. City of Houston, 398 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex.2013). The legislature may pre-empt a subject matter normally within a home-rule city’s broad powers only if it does so with unmistakable clarity. Id.

Article XVI, section 20(b)-(c), of the Texas Constitution provides as follows:

(b) The Legislature shall enact a law or laws whereby the qualified voters of any county, justice’s precinct or incorporated town or city, may, by a majority vote of those voting, determine from time to time whether the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes shall be prohibited or legalized within the prescribed limits; and such laws shall contain provisions’ for voting on the sale of intoxicating liquors of various types and various alcoholic content.

(c) In all counties, justice’s precincts or incorporated towns or cities wherein the sale of intoxicating liquors had been prohibited by local option elections held under the laws of the State of Texas and in force at the time of the taking effect of Section 20, Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas, it shall, continue to be unlawful to manufacture, sell, barter or exchange in any such county, justice’s precinct or incorporated town or city, any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors or medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication or any other intoxicants whatsoever, for beverage purposes, unless and until a majority of the qualified voters in such county or political subdivision thereof voting in an election held for such purpose shall determine such to be lawful; provided that this subsection shall not prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages containing not more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight in cities, counties or political subdivisions thereof in which the qualified voters have voted to legalize such sale under the provisions of Chapter 116, Acts'of the Regular Session of the 43rd Legislature.

Tex. Const, art. XVI, § 20. Thus, the Texas constitution allows municipalities to hold elections within their- city limits to determine whether the sale'' of alcoholic beverages will be permitted within those boundaries. - See id. Chapter 501 of the election code and chapter 251, subchapter D of the alcoholic beverage code effectuate these constitutional requirements. In re Davis, 269 S.W.3d 581, 583-84 (Tex.2008) (orig.proceeding).

The alcoholic beverage code provides that “[ujnless otherwise specifically provided by the terms of th[e] code, the manufacture, sale, distribution, transportation, and possession of alcoholic beverages shall be governed exclusively by the provisions of th[e] code.” Tex. Aleo. Bev.Code Ann. § 1.06 (West 2007). Regarding regulation of businesses that sell alcohol by state governmental entities, section 109.57 of the alcoholic beverage code provides as follows:

(a) Except as is expressly authorized by this code, a regulation, charter, or ordinance promulgated by a governmental entity of this state may not impose stricter standards on premises or businesses required to have a license or permit under this códe than are imposed on similar premises or. businesses that are not required to have such a license "or permit.

,(b) It is the intent of the legislature that this code shall exclusively govern th.e regulation of alpoholic beverages in this state, and.that.except, as permitted by this code, a governmental entity of this state may not discriminate against a business holding a license or permit under this code.

(c) Neither this section nor Section 1.06 of this code affects the validity or invalidity of a zoning-regulation that was formally enacted before June 11, 1987, 'and that is otherwise valid, or - any amendment to such a regulation enacted after June 11, 1987, if the amendment lessens the restrictions on the licensee or permittee or does not impose additional restrictions on the-licensee or per-mittee. For purposes of this subsection, “zoning regulation” means any charter provision, rule, -regulation, or other enactment governing the location and use of buildings, other structures, and land.

(d) This section does not affect the authority of a governmental entity to regulate, in a manner as otherwise permitted by law, the location of:

(1) a -massage parlor, nude modeling studio, or other sexually oriented business;

(2) an establishment that derives 75 percent or more of the establishment’s gross revenue from the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages; or

(3) an establishment that:

(A) derives 50 percent or more of the establishment’s gross revenue from the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages; and

(B) is located in a municipality or county, any portion of which is located not more than 50 miles from an international border.

(e) A municipality located in a county that has a population of 2.2 million or more and that is adjacent to a county with a population of more than 600,000 or a municipality located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more and that is adjacent to a county with a population of 2.2 million or more may regulate, in a manner not otherwise prohibited by law, the location of an establishment issued a permit under Chapter 32 or 33 if:

(1) the establishment derives 35 percent or more of the establishment’s gross revenue from the on-premises sale or service of alcoholic beverages and the premises of the establishment are located in a dry area; and

(2) the permit is not issued to a fraternal or veterans organization or the holder of a food and beverage certificate.

Id. § 109.57 (West Supp.2015) (emphasis added). Construing section 109.57, the Texas Supreme Court has held that under most circumstances, the alcoholic beverage code pre-empts an ordinance of a home-rule city that regulates where alcoholic beverages are sold. Dallas Merchant’s & Concessionaire’s Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 852 S.W.2d 489, 492 (Tex.1993) (holding that alcoholic beverage code pre-empted city ordinances to the extent of a conflict).

But section 109,57 itself acknowledges that state governmental entities may regulate the locations of certain types of enumerated establishments that sell alcohol, and the emphasized language in section 109.57(a) and (b) contemplates that other provisions of the code might allow a state governmental entity to impose such regulations. Tex. Aleo. Bev.Code Ann. § 109.57(a), (b). Therefore, we look to other provisions of the code to determine if the City’s application of its distance requirements as to the Property is pre-empt-ed.

Section 109.33(a)(1) of the alcoholic beverage code, originally enacted in 1935 as part of the Texas Liquor Control Act, provides that “[t]he governing board of an incorporated city or town may enact regulations applicable in the city or town, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages, by a dealer whose place of business is within: (1) 300 feet of a church, public or private school, or public hospital.” Id. § 109.33(a)(1) (West 2007); see Act of Nov. 8, 1935, 44th Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 467, art. 1, § 25(e), 1935 Tex. Gen. Laws 1795, 1818, 1842. In addition, section 109.32 provides that an incorporated city may by ordinance “regulate the sale of beer and prescribe the hours when it may be sold, except [that it] may .not permit the sale of beer when its sale is prohibited” by the code. Id. § 109.32 (West 2007). And subsections (e) and (h) of section 109.33 provide that

(e) The commissioners court of a county or the governing board of a city or town that has enacted a regulation under Subsection (a) of this section may also allow variances to the [distance] regulation if the commissioners court or governing body determines that enforcement of the regulation in a particular instance is not in the best interest of the public, constitutes waste or inefficient use of land or other resources, creates an undue hardship on an applicant for a license or permit, does not serve its intended purpose, is not effective or necessary, or for any other reason the court or governing board, after consideration of the health, safety, and welfare of the public and the equities of the situation, determines is in the best interest of the community.

(h) Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to the holder of:

(1) a license or,permit who also holds a food and, beverage certificate covering a premise that is located within 300 feet of a private school; or

• (2) a license or permit covering a premise where minors are prohibited from entering under Section 109.53 and that is located within 300 feet of a private school.

M§ 109.33(e), (h). Thus, not only does the alcoholic beverage code permit a city to enact distance regulations falling'within the scope of section 109.33 — with only two enumerated exceptions under subsection (h) — it also allows the city to grant variances as to enforcement of those distance requirements. See id. Accordingly, the code does not pre-empt the City’s enactment and enforcement of the distance requirements in this case.

The City argues that the separation requirements are “designed to implement a state regulatory scheme.” But nothing in the alcoholic beverage code requires the City to enact- such separation standards; the code merely allows a city to enact them by charter or ordinance rather than by a city-wide vote such as must be done for a city to be designated wet or dry. As the City acknowledged in its plea to the jurisdiction, “the City’s certification process [on a retailer’s permit application] entails the application of a local regulation authorized by a statutory scheme.” Own-ex’s are not challenging the alcoholic beverage code provision but rather the City’s local regulation by ordinance. We therefore conclude and hold that the alcoholic beverage code does not pre-empt claims under local government code chapter'245 with respect to city ordinances enacted under the authority of section 109.33(a)(1). See Dallas Merchant’s & Concessionaire’s Ass’n, 852 S.W.2d at 491 (noting that a general law and a city ordinance will not be held repugnant to each other if any other reasonable construction leaving both in effect can be reached); Pak-a-Sak, Inc. v. City of Perryton, 451 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2014, no pet.) (holding that city did not act outside authority of alcoholic beverage code by passing ordinance prohibiting sale or' delivery of alcohol in residential area when prohibition in ordinance mirrored prohibition in alcoholic beverage code); cf. Aero Meridian Assocs. DP v. City of Denison, No. 4:06cv457, 2007 WL 2900536, at *5-7 (ED.Tex. Sept. 28, 2007) (holding that alcoholic beverage code did not pre-empt city’s denial of a specific-use alcohol permit for private club in shopping center because of public health and welfare concerns related to increased traffic.and nuisance); State v. DeLoach, 458 S.W.3d 696, 699-700 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2015, pet. refd) (op. on reh’g) (holding that Texas Towing and Booting Act did not pre-empt city ordinance regulating nonconsent tows because part of the Act granted authority to governing bodies to regulate nonconsent tow fees so long as the regulation was consistent with other .parts of the Act); Secured Envtl. Mgmt., Inc. v. Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n, 97 S.W.3d 246, 256 (Tex.App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) (applying preemption principles to conclude that section 361.114 of the health and safety code is not pre-empted by federal law); cert. denied, 541 U.S. 902, 124 S.Ct. 1601, 158 L.Ed.2d 244 (2004); B & B Vending Co. v. City of Garland, 711 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1986, writ refd n.r.e.) (upholding part of ordinance imposing similar distance requirements from public schools for the operation of coin operated amusement machines but holding that remainder of ordinance prohibiting operation of such machines within 300 feet of residentially zoned property conflicted with governing statute).

••The City urges that Guitar Holding Co. v. Hudspeth County Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 compels a different holding. 209 S.W.3d 172 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2006), rev’d, 263 S.W.3d 910 (Tex.2008). In that case, the court considered whether a property owner could bring a chapter 245 claim against a water conservation district for holding the property owner to permitting standards.implemented after the property owner’s claimed rights vested. 209 S.W.3d at 189-91. The water code provides that a water conservation district'“may not impose more restrictive permit conditions on transporters than the district imposes on existing in-district users” and contains an exception providing that such a district may. impose more restrictive conditions on new users than historic users but only if it does so uniformly and reasonably so as “to protect existing use.” Tex. Water Code Ann. §§ 36.113(e), 36.122(c), (e) (West Supp.2015); Guitar Holding, 209 S.W.3d at 185. The court of appeals held that the water code regulatory scheme pre-empted any chapter 245 claim because intervening provisions of the water code, such, as a provision requiring a district to consider permits according to a water management plan, mandated that the district apply its newer permitting requirements. Guitar Holding, 209 S.W.3d at 190-91. - Additionally,’ the old rules in which Guitar., Holding claimed a vested right directly violated section 36.122(c), which, prohibits a district from applying more restrictive permit conditions on transporters than in-distriet users. Id. at 191.

The application and scope of the water code provision in Guitar Holding is different from the application and scope of the alcoholic beverage code to this case. Here, unlike the water code , provisions, section 109.33(a)(1) of the alcoholic beverage code delegates the right to — but does not imposé a responsibility on — a city to impose three hundred foot distance re-strictiohs via ordinance or charter. And the only two exceptions to that grant, contained in section 109.33(h), are not applicable here. Thus, Guitar Holding’s analysis and discussion are not applicable to this case. We thus consider the City’s other pre-emption related argument.

2. Exclusivity of Remedy/Collateral Estoppel

.Owners also challenge the.City’s contention that. the alcoholic . beverage code’s.remedy for the denial of a permit is exclusive and precludes a chapter 245 action as to the City’s distance ordinance. Thus, the City contends that instead of bringing a declaratory judgment claim on their chapter 245 claims, Owners were limited to appealing the County Court at Law Number Two’s judgment denying 7-Elev-en’s permit application.

In other cases in which the supreme court has determined whether a legislative scheme provides the exclusive remedy for a cause of action, .the supreme court has considered “the purposes, policies, procedural requirements, and remedies of [those acts] to determine whether the Legislature intended to effectively provide two different remedies.” Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430, 441 (Tex.2012) (op. on reh’g). The purpose of and public policy behind the alcoholic beverage code is “an exercise of the police power of the state for the- protection of the welfare, health, peace, temperance, and safety of the people of the state. It shall be liberally construed to accomplish this purpose.” Tex. Alco. Bev.Code Ann. § 1.03 (West 2007); F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 691 (Tex.2007) (op. on reh’g).

-The full text of section 11.37 of the code provides,

■ (a) The county clerk of the county in which an application for a permit is made shall certify whether the location ' or address given in the application is in a wet area and whether the sale of alcoholic beverages for which the permit is sought is prohibited by any valid order of the commissioners court.

(b) The city secretary or clerk of the city in -which an application for a permit is made shall certify whether the location or address given in the application is in a wet area and whether the sale of alcoholic beverages for which'the permit ' • is sought is prohibited by charter or ordinance;

(c) Once a permit is issued, the certification that the location or address is in a wet area may not be changed until after a subsequent local option election to prohibit the- sale of alcoholic beverages.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, if the county clerk, city secretary, or city clerk certifies that the location or address given in the application is not in a wet area or refuses to issue the certification required by this section,' the applicant is entitled to a hearing before the county judge to contest the certification or refusal to certify. The applicant must submit a written request to the county judge for a hearing under this subsection. The county judge shall conduct a hearing required by this subsection not later than the 30th day after the date the county judge receives the written request.

Tex. Aleo. Bev.Code Ann. § 11.37 (emphasis added). • The legislative history of subsection (d) indicates that

in -the past, when an application [for a permit] was denied based on the location listed in the application, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) allowed an applicant to contest the certification at 'a hearing before a county ' judge[, but] many applicants are not currently being given this opportunity for a hearing and in some cases, if an application is denied based on the location listed in the application, the- TABC automatically refuses to issue the permit or license and refuses the applicant’s request to contest the certification. [H.B.] ■ 1959 seeks to address' this issue by entitling an applicant for such a- permit or license to a hearing before the'county judge to contest the certification of the county clerk, city clerk, or city secretary or the refusal of any of those local offi- . cials to issue the required • certification.

House Comm, on Licensing & Admin. Procedures, Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B.1959, 82nd Leg., R.S. (2011). Additionally, an applicant is entitled to appeal the TABC’s denial of a permit application to the district court located in the applicant’s county of residence or where the owner of involved real or personal property resides. Tex. Aleo. Bev.Code Ann. § 11.67 (West Supp.2015).

With respect to local separation requirements and permits, the code provides as follows:

(a) If at the time an original alcoholic beverage permit or license is granted for a1 premises the premises satisfies the requirements regarding distance from schools, churches, and other types of premises established, in this code and any other law or ordinance of the state or a political subdivision of the state in effect at that time, the premises shall be deemed to satisfy the distance requirements for all subsequent renewals of the license or permit.

(b) On the sale or transfer of the premises or the business on the premises in which a new original license or permit is required for the premises, the premises shall be deemed to satisfy any distance requirements as if the issuance of the new original permit or license were a renewal of a previously held permit or license.

(c) Subsection (b) does not apply to the satisfaction of the distance requirement prescribed by Section 109.33(a)(2) fora public school, except that on the death of a permit or license holder or a person having an interest in a permit or license Subsection (b) does apply to the holder’s surviving spouse or child of the holder or person if the spouse or child qualifies as a successor in interest to the permit or license.

(d) Subsection (a) does not apply to the satisfaction of the distance requirement prescribed by Section 109.33(a)(2) fora public school if the holder’s permit or license has been suspended for a violation occurring after September 1,1995, of any of the following provisions:

(1) Section 11.61(b)(1), (6)-(ll), (13), (14), or (20); or

(2) Section 61,71(a)(5)-(8), (11), (12), (14), (17), (18), (22), or (24).

Id. § 109.59 (West 2007). Thus, the alcoholic beverage code provides that an existing permit holder whose license has not been suspended as shown above, or that permit holder’s surviving spouse, will be entitled to renew the permit if the premises later runs afoul of any county or city public-school-distance requirements. Id. Although the TABC has discretion over whether to grant or deny a permit or license application, it may deny a permit or license for the proposed sale of alcohol within an area voted dry in a local option election. Tex. Aleo. Bev.Code Ann. § 11.43 (West 2007), § 11.46(10) (West Supp.2015); Tri-Con, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, No. 09-11-00058-CV, 2011 WL 2420992, at *3 (Tex.App.-Beaumont June 16, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The City cites Sells v. Roose, 769 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App.—Austin 1989, no writ), as authority for its position that the sole method by which a property owner- or permit applicant can challenge distance requirements such as the ones here is via a hearing before the county judge as authorized by the alcoholic beverage code and exhaustion of any related appeals. However, Sells was a direct appeal from a trial court’s grant of mandamus relief ordering a county clerk to certify premises as wet for purposes of a beer retailer’s permit. Id. at 642. The court of appeals in Sells explained — but did not hold — that because no TABC permit application was then pending, the county clerk against whom mandamus was sought to certify a location as “wet” had no present duty that the district court could have compelled her to perform. Id. at 643. But the court held that neither it nor the district court had jurisdiction to consider the case on its merits because the district court could only review issues related to the county judge’s administrative decision to deny the permit by invoking the judicial review set forth in sections 11.67 and 61.34 of the code, which Sells did not pursue, or in a suit claiming a violation of a constitutional right or vested property right, neither of which Sells raised. Id. (citing Stone v. Tex. Liquor Control Bd., 417 S.W.2d 385, 385-86 (Tex.1967)). Here, Owners have pled both a constitutional and a vested-rights claim.

In Supermercado Teloloapan, Inc. v. City of Houston, 246 S.W.3d 272, 275 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied), a grocery store operator and the city of Houston disputed the interpretation of the term “boundary line” in the city’s distance ordinance. After the city refused to certify the location as being in a wet area; the store operator sued for a declaratory judgment urging its interpretation. Id. at 274-75. In response to the dissent’s position in reliance on Sells that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case because an appeal was not taken under sections 11.37 and 61.37, the majority explained that because Supermercado was seeking a declaratory judgment to interpret an ordinance — an appropriate use of the declaratory judgments act — the alcoholic beverage code did not preclude Su-permercado’s cause of action. Id. at 275 n. 2 (citing Burgess v. Gallery Model Homes, Inc., 101 S.W.3d 550, 554 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)).

Here, Owners have raised both a constitutional claim and a vested property rights claim in the form of a declaratory judgment, which is specifically authorized by statute. They are not seeking to appeal any action by the TABC .or any action in connection with a pending permit because 7-Eleven withdrew its application after the county judge denied the proceeding under section 11.37(d). Thus, this case is more akin to Supermercado than Sells.

Nothing in the alcoholic beyerage code indicates that the remedy available to a permit applicant in section 11.37(d) was intended to be the only remedy available to a landowner' challenging a municipality’s application of distance restrictions to its property. Although Owners’ ground lease tenant had applied for a permit, the section 11.37(d) remedy was clearly intended to apply only within the context of the processing of a permit application. Instead of pursuing this remedy through exhaustion of its appeals, 7-Eleven decided to" abandon the permit application, the ground lease, and the prospect Of constructing and operating a convenience store on the Property. The legislative history of section 11137(d) shows that the legislature intended to provide a remedy for permit applicants. But nothing in the statutory scheme indicates an intent to preclude a landowner from having its property use rights determined outside of the context of a permit application. In contrast, section 2.03(c) of the alcoholic beverage code, governing civil liability for serving alcohol to a minor, explicitly states, “This chapter provides the'exclusive cause of action for providing ah alcoholic' beverage to a person 18 years of age or older.” Tex. Aleo. Bev.Coide Ann. § 2.03(c) (West 2007).

We therefore conclude and hold that the alcoholic beverage code does not provide the exclusive remedy for Owners’ claims based on the City’s enforcement of the distance requirements with respect to the Property. Cf. Dealers Elec. Supply Co. v. Scoggins Constr. Co., 292 S.W.3d 650, 654-60 (Tex.2009) (holding that although McGregor Act provides sole remedy to laborer or materialman with respect to recovering from the surety or obligor of a public-work payment bond, it does not pre-elude suits by a laborer or materialman to recover damages independently of such a bond); Stanley v. Beef Sec., Inc., 314 S.W.3d 659, 664-65 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (construing plain language of section 153.256(d) of. business, organizations-code, which provides that charging order is exclusive remedy for satisfying judgment out of a partner’s “partnership interest,” and holding that judgment creditor of partner was not precluded from seeking turnover order as to partner’s distribution after it had been made and was already in partner’s possession).

For the first time on appeal, the City contends that Owners’ claims are barred by collateral estoppel .because of the Denton County Court at Law Number Two litigation. The City raised collateral estoppel as an affirmative defense in its answer. See Wise Elec. Coop. v. Am. Hat Co., 476 S.W.3d 671, 715 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.). As an affirmative defense, collateral estoppel is a plea in bar, not a jurisdictional plea. Hall v. City of Bryan, No. 10-12-00248-CV, 2014 WL 3724069, at *4 (Tex.App. — Waco July 24, 2014, no pet.) (mém.op.). Thus, the City’s argument that Owners are collaterally es-toppéd from bringing their chapter 245 claims would not support the trial court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See id. at *5.

We sustain the remaining part of appellant’s first issue.

3. Zoning Ordinance Not Invalid for Lack of Notice

In their third issue, Owners contend that the trial court erred by determining that the City’s immunity was not waived for their declaratory judgment claim regarding lack of notice. Specifically, Owners claim that as a matter of law, they pled a valid claim that the December 2012 changes to the City’s zoning ordinance are void for lack of individual notice to them in accordance with the local government code. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 211.007(c) (providing for individual notice to property owners of “change in a zoning classification”); Bolton v. Sparks, 362 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Tex.1962) (holding that city’s failure to provide notice and hearing mandated by -law voided ordinance); The City contends that Owners failed to plead a claim for which they could obtain relief because as' a matter of law section 211.007(c) requires notice to individual -property -owners only: when a change of zoning classification is proposed, not other types of zoning changes, and that the December 2012 distance requirements did not effect a change in the Property’s zoning classification. This issue hinges oh the meaning of the term “zoning classification?’in section 211.007(c).

a. Principles of Statutory Construction

Our primary objective when construing a statute is to ascertain, and give effect to the legislature’s intent. State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex.2006). We seek that intent first and foremost in the statutory text. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Strayhorn, 209 S.W.3d 83, 85 (Tex.2006). We rely bn the plain meaning of the text' unless a different meaning is supplied by statutory definition, is apparent from the context, or the plain meaning would lead to an absurd or nonsensical result. Beeman v. Livingston, 468 S.W.3d 534, 538 (Tex.2015); see Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.011(a) (West 2013). Further, in determining the meaning of a statute, a court must consider the entire act, its nature and object, and the consequences that would follow from each construction. Sharp v. House of Lloyd, Inc., 815 S.W.2d 245, 249 (Tex.1991); Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Bennett, 453 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. denied); see Tex Gov’t Code Aim. § 311.023 (West 2013) (providing that in construing statute, a court may consider, among other things, the “(1) object sought to be attained; (2) circumstances [of enactment]; (3) legislative history; (4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects; (5) consequences of a particular construction; (6) administrative construction of the statute; and (7) title (caption), preamble, and emergency provision.”). We presume that the entire statute is intended to be effective and that the legislature enacted it with complete knowledge of the existing law and with reference to it. Tex, Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.021(2) (West 2013); Acker v. Tex. Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex.1990).

b. Local Government Code Chapter 211

Owners contend we “squarely addressed” this issue in City of North Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd., 340 S.W.3d 900 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). But in that case, we addressed the issue of whether the appellees had standing to bring a declaratory judgment claim contending tha