When San Jose City Councilman Raul Peralez spoke to residents of his downtown district last week about a developer’s proposal to build an apartment complex to permanently house homeless people in their neighborhood, he implored them to keep an open mind.

“I don’t have a position on this development yet,” Peralez said at the outset of the informal neighborhood meeting last Monday where the developer Seven Hills Properties outlined — sometimes cryptically — its plan for 447 N. 1st Street.

But just a couple of days later, Peralez penned a blunt email to the developer indicating he’s made up his mind about the proposal and isn’t a fan.

“I recommend you drop this location and choose a new site,” he wrote.

The meeting was contentious, with most residents expressing anger at the idea of housing what could ultimately amount to more than 100 people at the site, which sits just several blocks from a similar development already under construction.

Want to find more housing coverage and connect with our journalists?

Click here to join our new Facebook group

While Peralez thanked the developer’s spokeswoman Elizabeth Brady and company partner Thomas Rocca for attending the meeting and for “their interest and passion” for addressing what he called a “dire need” for permanent supportive housing, he also lambasted their conduct at the gathering.

“The Q&A was ill-prepared,” he said. “A lot of tough questions were asked which should have been expected, and Elizabeth, at times it was evident that you were going in circles or dodging the questions. Although these are difficult projects to win over community support, it does more harm than good to be vague and indirect.”

The councilman also blasted the developer for appearing to make light of the work done by nonprofit organizations that might be brought on board to serve residents.

“The comment made by Elizabeth that the service providers are more like a ‘teddy bear’ was honestly insulting,” Peralez said. “Helping formally homeless, mentally ill and addicts adapt into a level of success in a brand new controlled environment is not a teddy bear hug, it’s the hardest and most important job.”

He then urged Seven Hills to consult with him, as well as both the city’s and county’s housing departments, before selecting a new site and to partner with a service provider immediately. If the developer accepts his suggestions or shifts focus to the type of traditional affordable housing development it has a history of success building, he continued, he would be open to supporting the project.

But, he warned, “If you decide to continue down the current process of a [Permanent Supportive Housing] site then you will be doing so without my support.”

“Seven Hills does not have a desire to pursue homeless housing at this location if the council member is not in support,” Brady wrote in an email Monday afternoon. “There are many types of affordable housing, and homeless was our first proposal based on our perception of need. We continue to feel the project site is well suited for affordable housing. We thank everyone for their leadership and collaborative participation.”

It’s unclear if and in what form Seven Hills plans to move forward with a proposal at the site. Ordinarily, opposition from the district’s representative would carry some weight, but the council has in the past approved housing for homeless people despite objections from the area’s council member. In 2016, the council approved a similar housing proposal in District 7 despite objections from Councilman Tam Nguyen, who serves the area and had fielded concerns from local residents.