mr. holden mentioned and it had to happen on the shortened time line because if c.h.p. was going to acquire the site, we were going to do so on the time line they negotiated with the former owner. so it was not possible for us to complete the review in time for that. so we changed the source of funds to a local funding source. again, to reiterate, that money will be paid back when the project is complete by the equity investors. supervisor mar: ok. thank you so much for being here and thank you drirktser lee, for being here as well. >> thank you. supervisor mar: i was just going to ask if miss gillman or miss adams have any responses to the testimony by folks, and i know one good recommendation came from mr. bardle from the golden gate valley neighbors that there be a community advisory commit dwroy really oversee and monitor this front so the residents have a strong say on how this is implemented and developed but also just generally how if you worked with the neighbors to address their concerns. >> sure. so over the course of the last 18 months have i been working on

mr. holden who spoke i think second or third mentioned that half of the units are for foster care and half come from mental health funds. i think he also said that we were disqualified for hud funding. can you just address those two issues that he raised? >> ok. so when originally proposed, the project had a number of funding sources including the mental health services act fund, which comes to san francisco from the state. that's no longer part of the financing plan. the project plan also had a number of youth who would be utilizing the t.h.p.-plus program, which is a tenant-based subsidy for youth coming out of foster care. there was supposed to be four or six or eight youth using that funding source. we also removed that. it was too complicated to have too many funding sources in the project with 24 units. so the mental health project funding and t.h.p.-plus program were removed from the financing plan. supervisor mar: you did mention the state funding and so there is federal funding but mr. holden mentioned something about the project being disqualified for hud, housing and urban devel

holden, fired after this incident is now suing wallgreen's. basically he says for wrongful termination. i want to you listen to what his attorney says about this case. . >> mrllgreen's right it fire him for exercising his right of self-defense. >> let me bring in sunny hostin. just so i get this straight wp citizens have a right to defend themselves. mr. hoven is saying, wallgreen's violating his rights of self-defense by firing him. wallgreen's says, he violated company policy. what do you make of this? >> yeah, that's about it in a nutshell. he certainly is suing them for firing him. he is saying this was wrongful termination. a federal lawsuit. and it is very true that in michigan, you have to have a permit to have a concealed gun, and he had that permit. so brooke, this is really odd case. i mean, bottom line is wallgreen's says they have a policy. their policy a nonescalation policy. that is a policy we see all over the country. statistical statistically, that's the safest route. we have a statement from wallgreen's. what it says is our policies in this area are designed to maintain the maximum safety of our customers and employees. store employees rec