City Council approves 2,600-acre 'Dog's Head' development in East Austin
KUT 90.5 | By Andrew Weber
Published May 22, 2026 at 10:03 AM CDT
https://www.kut.org/austin/2026-05-22/austin-tx-city-council-dogs-head-development
Austin City Council approved an agreement to develop more than 2,600 acres along the Colorado River known as the “Dog’s Head” tracts.
Austinites largely testified against the deal Thursday, which cropped up on the council agenda just last week — and wasn’t vetted by city commissions ahead of the vote.
After hours of testimony, council members moved ahead to annex the site that’s roughly the size of downtown, kicking off a development process that would bring a mixed-use development to the East Austin tracts.
The 45-year deal would incorporate the 2,600-acre site into city limits and allow for a mixed-use development with the possibility of housing, along with commercial or industrial use.
The plot, which was previously an industrial site, is owned by an LLC with ties to Endeavor Real Estate Group, which would develop the land.
Neighbors living on the tracts say they hadn’t heard about the plan until this week, while other people reamed City Council for not properly vetting the Dog’s Head plan before rushing it to a vote.
Lee Edwards called the city’s push to develop the land “problematic.” He and other neighbors were caught off guard by the plan and called for more transparency from the city.
“I didn't find out about it until two days ago — not from Endeavor … not from the city — from a friend,” he said. “I didn't know any of this existed. We have an officially registered neighborhood association. It was not contacted.”
Lawyer Richard Suttle, who represents Endeavor, told council Tuesday that the project would be similar to the firm’s development of the Domain, which it gradually acquired and then later developed with the city’s help.
“We've been working on it for seven years now, and it needs to be in the city,” he said. “Frankly, it's a better project for the developer if it's in the city. So, it's a mutually beneficial deal.”
City staff estimate the property would bring as much as $3.5 billion in tax revenue over the next 30 years.
Suttle told council a "Fortune 100" company would be the first tenant at the site. He was limited in what he could say because of a non-disclosure agreement, but Suttle said the firm wanted to "move fast." He added that plans did not include a data center or a defense contractor, as some residents speculated.
The tracts’ geography, hemmed in by a meandering section of the Colorado River just east of U.S. Highway 183 and north of State Highway 130, also raised environmental and potential flooding concerns.
Bobby Levinski, an attorney and environmental advocate with Save Our Springs Alliance, said the deal doesn’t allow for typical land-use and zoning protections. Rather than going through city commissions and council, zoning changes could be approved by city staff with little oversight, he said.
“You are going to make changes to one of the most ecologically sensitive stretches of an urban river in the entire state of Texas,” Levinski said. “And you're going to prevent any future council for 45 years from correcting this mistake with one week's notice.”
The agreement would also allow developers to completely pave over the land, if they wanted. The contract has no limit on impervious cover, which could be problematic in a flood plain, opponents argued. Suttle estimated 20% of the site would be paved and that the plan aims to build out more parkland and bike trails.
Ahead of the vote, Mayor Kirk Watson said the city’s hands weren’t completely tied on the deal.
The developer would be required to submit a design plan, along with a list of possible uses for the land, to the city before Austin City Council approved a taxing district to get the project off the ground. On top of that, Watson argued, the city needs the tax money that would come from developing the land.
"My guess is none of us are going to consider this to be a perfect development, but it creates an opportunity, again, a unique one," he said. "There's no question it will be better than what it could be — and probably would be — if it's on the outside of our jurisdiction, if for no other reason, we wouldn't get any of the tax base."
Prev
Linear Mode
