A proposal to build homes on private open space near San Jose’s Almaden Lake Park has ignited a debate among neighbors, environmentalists, city officials and developers.

Some proponents of the project call it an opportunity to preserve a natural landscape and open it up to the public, while others counter it will make buying open space more expensive and difficult for local government down the road and set a bad precedent.

The 20-acre parcel is located at 6100 Winfield Blvd., next to eight acres recently purchased by the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, and is owned by Valley Christian Schools.

If the San Jose City Council approves the plan submitted by developer Bill Myers, 19 of those acres would become dedicated open space for the public and one acre would be rezoned to residential to allow for eight to 10 housing units. A trail connecting Almaden Lake Park to Santa Teresa County Park would also be developed as part of the project.

Land use consultant Jerry Strangis, who spoke on behalf of the developer at a Sept. 12 Almaden Valley Community Association meeting, said the city has an “opportunity to create San Jose’s version of Central Park” and that so far, he’s gotten mostly positive feedback.

“What I’m hearing from the community is they like the proposal; they like the idea of a park trail connection,” Strangis said. “The question becomes how do you do it, so that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

The Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association said preserving more open space and building a connecting trail has been one of its “key goals” since 2000, calling the project a “win-win” in a letter of support.

Environmentalist Dave Poeschel, who lives near the site, doesn’t see it that way. “It’s not the end of the world, but it’s death by a thousand cuts,” he said about allowing any development on designated open space. He said the city should stick to the land-use guidelines in its General Plan instead of laying the groundwork for more development of designated open space.

“What the city’s General Plan is, is to build higher density in the urban core, and if we expect people to live in urban cores, we have to protect the natural environment around them so it’s still a desirable place to live,” Poeschel said in an interview.

Poeschel said he also is concerned that other landowners may be tempted to try striking similar deals with the city, making it more difficult for land preservation organizations to buy property for public use.

“It’s just going to raise the cost,” he added. “It increases the cost of the properties to the public, and it’s not necessary. It takes political will to stand up against the developer, that’s all.”

Councilman Johnny Khamis, who represents District 10 where the project is proposed, said in an interview, “We’d be foolish to not consider building a couple homes and then preserving 18 to 20 acres.”

Khamis said passing up on the current proposal could result in an even larger development being built there someday after he’s out of office.

“The question of setting precedent, it’s not a great argument because people have always made exceptions to the rule on any project,” Khamis said.

He said it’s much harder to make exceptions for publicly owned land than for privately owned property. “If it’s a public park, it will never get converted, it will never be converted to housing ever again so the question to me is, is it worth it?”

The city council is expected to vote on the General Plan change by the end of the year.