After weeks of public debate and calls for more guardrails on the massive Dog’s Head development, the city seems poised to listen to those asking for assurance that a project that seems to be offering the city a financial lifeline does not harm the environment.

Some Austin City Council members are now asking the developers to take a harder look at environmental concerns after facing pressure from their constituents and receiving a formal list of recommendations from the city’s Environmental Commission. Developers, meanwhile, have begun what is likely to be a lengthy public effort to persuade Austin that Dog’s Head isn’t another example of environmental injustice on the city’s east side, but an earnest effort to rehabilitate 2,600 acres of heavily disturbed land along the Colorado River.

Following a rapid approval process, Mayor Kirk Watson and three council members have asked that “consideration be given” to protecting undeveloped areas along the bank of the Colorado River. Council Member Mike Siegel, who is among those asking the developer for more environmental protections, said the council is paying attention to community opposition as the project moves forward.

“We, 11 of us, including the mayor, are really entrusted with holding the line that development not only improves our financial condition but lives up to our values,” he said.

Developers defend their vision

Andy Pastor, managing principal of Endeavor, the development group behind the project, believes that’s exactly what Dog’s Head will do. About 80% of the property was once used to mine gravel, sand and sandy loam. Private land long inaccessible to the public could instead be used for homes, business, industry or grocery stores, he told Austin Current.

Plans also call for five or six access points to the river.

“This is a new opportunity to provide public open space, public trails, and give access to a beautiful piece of property for the future,” Pastor told Austin Current.

Dog’s Head, which runs along the Colorado River between U.S. 183 and Texas State Highway 130 in Southeast Austin, has been under scrutiny since it first went public less than two months ago.

The city gave Endeavor wide latitude for how it can use the property, exempting the company from some of the environmental review typically required and allowing it to bypass some decisions that would ordinarily go before city commissions.

Questions after approval

The questions extend beyond City Hall. Travis County Commissioners, whose financial support city officials are seeking for Dog’s Head, showed skepticism about the project at their meeting last month. Meanwhile, the city’s Environmental Commission has asked City Council to affirm the commission’s review authority over the development and accept 19 actions it wants the city to take moving forward.

Spurred by the discourse, some City Council members are now digging deeper into the project they approved. Siegel said he didn’t know the details of the Dog’s Head deal before he voted in favor of it. Instead, he said, council members relied on information from city staffers, who promoted the development as an economic lifeline for Austin.

“Absolutely we didn’t know everything but we were also told this was going to be broken into multiple decisions,” Siegel said. “We knew we hadn’t given up the leverage yet.”

A push for stronger protections

Siegel said he and Watson are tackling one of the development’s most contentious provisions: a requirement that establishes a 200-foot buffer between development and the Colorado River. They want to expand that buffer to 400 feet, Siegel said.

It’s unclear whether concerned City Council members will support the Environmental Commission’s attempt to gain more oversight of the development. The commission has become a hot spot of resident complaints and has formed a 20-person workgroup of residents and commissioners. Over several weeks, the group developed an extensive list of recommendations that ask City Council to delay a vote on the project’s funding mechanism from July 23 to January 2027 and:

• Conduct a full environmental assessment that includes flood maps and a tree survey.
• Conduct and make public an environmental survey of existing pollutants on the property.
• Require Austin Parks and Recreation to own and manage Dog Head’s parkland and trails.

“It should be noted that we would not be here today if at any point in the past two or three years the city had made any attempt to engage the public, the boards, commissions and city staff in the decision-making process,” said Environmental Commissioner Richard Brimer at the group’s July 1 meeting.

Two visions for Dog’s Head

For weeks, developers and Dog’s Head opponents have pushed two starkly different visions of what the property is today and what it should become.

Neighbors and environmental activists paint it as a scenic stretch of the Colorado River, where endangered blackland prairie, tall grasses, trees and wildlife deserve careful protection.

Endeavor, meanwhile, describes much of the property as a “bombed out” mining pit that the company will bring back to life.

Driving through the property with an Austin Current reporter this week, Pastor offered a view of land that illustrates both sides of Dog’s Head.

Clear water flowed through the Colorado River, buffered by trees. Long grass sprouted along the banks under a blue sky in a scene fit for a postcard. Sunflowers covered patches of the floodplain.

Elsewhere, the landscape changes dramatically. Parts of the property are scarred from decades of mining, with land excavated down to the water table and old pits Endeavor is filling in.

Pastor says he sees this as a chance to reclaim the land and turn it into something that people will enjoy for the environment, the housing and other amenities. He says Endeavor wants to be good stewards of the property.

For six weeks, Pastor has sat through multiple public meetings, where angry neighbors and environmental groups have sharply criticized the project. They castigated the company for not talking to the community before the City Council voted to annex the land and questioned whether the developer can be trusted to protect it.

They’ve also accused Endeavor of engaging in environmental racism, arguing the project continues a long history of undesirable development in Southeast Austin.

Pastor said he struggles to answer those accusations because he sees this as an effort to restore the land and make it useful. He points to Endeavor’s other Austin projects, including the Domain and Mueller, as examples of developments that became community assets. He also says the Colorado River and its banks will be protected.

Pastor said he knows his assurances are unlikely to change minds. Instead, people will have to see it to believe it.

“It’s a big responsibility to get it right,” he said. “It’s a big responsibility to change the opinions of those people who aren’t happy with this being developed and reclaimed.”

‘We could say no.’

Council Member Marc Duchen said he is studying the project closely and developing his own recommendations.

“My priorities include a large nature preserve, funding for affordable housing, environmental and flood protections and a careful financial arrangement that provides significant financial benefits for taxpayers,” he said.

City officials say the Dog’s Head project could generate as much $3.5 billion in tax revenue over the next 30 years. Endeavor has said a Fortune 100 company may locate to the property if the city commits to the project quickly.

It’s a lot of money, but Seigel says it’s not a done deal.

“Just in the same way that the developer can walk away, the city can walk away,” he said. “I think there’s a lot of reasons why we want to get this deal done, but that option is still there. We could say no.”