San Francisco committee pauses vote on Bay Area homeland security grants amid Urban Shield concerns

San Francisco’s Budget and Finance Committee on Jan. 31 paused action on a resolution that would allow the city to apply for federal and state homeland security grants on behalf of the Bay Area region, after supervisors pressed officials about the city’s role as fiscal agent and dozens of residents urged excluding Urban Shield from regional funding.

Chair Supervisor Malia Cohen and Supervisor Katie Tang led questioning of Department of Emergency Management (DEM) officials, who said San Francisco serves as the Bay Area fiscal agent and applies for the Urban Area Security Initiative grants to pass funds through to 12 counties. Kristen Hogan, DEM’s government affairs manager, said, “Every jurisdiction gets a certain amount of money based on their individual risks,” and that San Francisco uses most of its allocation for emergency preparedness positions and equipment upgrades.

Tristan Livardo, CFO for the Bay Area management team, described the compliance and vetting process for proposed projects and said an approval authority and regional management team review proposals for grant compliance. Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the committee DEM’s role is limited: it applies for and administers grants but does not set policy for how other counties spend their allocations.

Public commenters — including organizers with the Stop Urban Shield coalition, the Ella Baker Center and the Buddhist Peace Fellowship — urged supervisors to amend the resolution to bar funding for Urban Shield, a controversial multi‑agency training exercise hosted by Alameda County. One speaker, identified as a coalition member, said the exercise “propels militarization and has notably included racist rhetoric” and called for “funding for disaster preparedness and community health instead.” Another speaker noted that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors had recently reaffirmed its role administering regional training but that community oversight mechanisms should be strengthened.

Supervisor Tang asked whether San Francisco, as fiscal agent, could place conditions on other jurisdictions’ use of funds; DEM and the city attorney explained that the region’s approval authority, not DEM alone, would have to amend the interjurisdictional agreement. Supervisor Cohen said San Francisco has a “moral responsibility” tied to its fiscal agent role and asked staff to pursue additional review and possible language changes. Supervisor Norman Yee moved to continue the item; the committee agreed to continue the matter to the Feb. 1 Budget and Finance Committee meeting.

Next steps: DEM and city staff offered to report back with any federal‑level changes to grant terms and to brief the board on options for amending the regional agreement; the committee continued the item for further consideration.