AB 1674 establishes a Food Desert Elimination Grant Program administered by the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to subsidize the opening, retention, or stabilization of grocery stores in mapped "food deserts" and areas at risk of becoming food deserts. The bill creates a Food Desert Elimination Fund and a California Equitable Food Access Account to receive appropriations and nonstate federal and private funds, and authorizes continuous appropriation of deposited nonstate funds for the program.
The measure also conditions local approval of new housing projects in food deserts on demonstrations that those projects will not reduce site capacity for a large grocery store — or that they will provide equivalent mitigation — and requires annual reporting by local governments to CDFA. Grants carry recoupment risk if a newly funded grocery closes within two years, CDFA must report on awards by January 1, 2028, and the statutory program sunsets on January 1, 2031.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a competitive grant program under CDFA to fund developers and grocery operators who open or sustain grocery stores in defined food deserts; establishes a dedicated fund and a separate account to accept appropriations and nonstate money and allows continuous appropriation of deposited nonstate funds.
Who It Affects
Developers of mixed-use and housing projects in identified food deserts, grocery store operators (both entrants and incumbent 'large' stores), local governments reviewing housing approvals, and CDFA as program administrator.
Why It Matters
This ties food-access subsidies to land-use approvals, making supermarket siting a factor in housing project reviews and signaling state-level intervention in grocery market gaps; it creates new compliance, reporting, and funding channels that could reshape mixed-use development in underserved neighborhoods.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1674 directs the Department of Food and Agriculture to run a new Food Desert Elimination Grant Program aimed at expanding healthy food access in neighborhoods the bill defines as food deserts or as being at risk. The department can award grants to two principal groups: (1) developers or grocery operators that propose to locate a grocery store in those areas, and (2) existing large grocery stores that currently provide essential food access to those communities, to support retention, stabilization, or continued operation.
To fund the program the bill creates the Food Desert Elimination Fund and a California Equitable Food Access Account within it. The department may spend money from the fund only upon appropriation, but nonstate, federal, and private moneys deposited into the Account are continuously appropriated to CDFA for program purposes.
CDFA may also adopt implementing guidelines to run the grant application, award, monitoring, and recoupment processes.Grant conditions include a clawback mechanism: if a developer or operator receives a grant to open a grocery in a food desert and the store closes within two years of opening, the recipient must return any unused grant monies to the department. The bill prioritizes grant applicants who include a grocery as part of a new housing development project and requires CDFA to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028, on the number and location of awarded grants.On the land-use side, AB 1674 amends the Government Code to require local governments to impose a condition on approvals of new housing development projects in food deserts (or areas at risk): applicants must demonstrate the project will not reduce site capacity for a large grocery store or, if capacity is reduced, provide equivalent mitigation.
Local governments must also file annual reports with CDFA listing projects subject to this requirement. Because these are new requirements on local approval processes, the bill includes statutory language treating the measure as a statewide concern and notes potential reimbursement procedures if the Commission on State Mandates finds a state-mandated local program.The program is temporary: the statute and the Government Code amendment are set to be repealed on January 1, 2031.
That sunset shapes the investment and compliance calculus for developers, grocery operators, and local governments planning projects or retention strategies over the next five years.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1674 creates a Food Desert Elimination Grant Program under CDFA and establishes a Food Desert Elimination Fund plus a California Equitable Food Access Account to hold program moneys.
CDFA may award grants both to developers/grocery operators opening new grocery stores in food deserts and to existing large grocery stores for retention or stabilization.
Recipients that use a grant to open a grocery and then close within two years must return any unused grant moneys to the department (clawback for early closure).
Local governments must require, as a condition of approving new housing projects in food deserts or at-risk areas, that applicants show they do not reduce site capacity for a large grocery store or provide equivalent mitigation.
CDFA must report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028, on grants awarded and recipient locations, and the program statutory provisions sunset on January 1, 2031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates the Food Desert Elimination Grant Program
This chapter formally establishes CDFA's new grant program and sets the program's purpose: expanding access to healthy foods in defined food deserts and areas at risk. Practically, it authorizes CDFA to create application processes, award criteria, and priority rules for grants to developers and grocery operators. The provision centralizes program administration in CDFA rather than a housing or local government agency, which shapes how project feasibility and commercial viability will be assessed.
Creates dedicated funding streams and appropriation rules
The bill sets up a named fund and an account to receive appropriated state dollars and to accept nonstate, federal, and private monies. Moneys from the general fund or other state appropriations require legislative appropriation before CDFA spends them; however, the bill makes deposited nonstate funds (federal, private) continuously appropriable to CDFA via the California Equitable Food Access Account. That structure allows CDFA to administer privately and federally sourced capital without recurring legislative appropriation but preserves legislative control over state dollars.
Defines who can get money, how it may be used, and recoupment rules
Grants can go to developers or grocery operators proposing new supermarkets in food deserts and to incumbent large grocery stores providing essential access. Uses include site acquisition, buildout, equipment, or stabilization activities. The statute explicitly requires recipients that open a store with grant support to return unused grant funds if the store closes within two years — a built-in recoupment designed to limit windfalls and encourage durability, but it also creates program risk for marginal projects.
Conditions on local approval of new housing projects in food deserts
This Government Code addition requires local governments, when approving new housing development projects in designated food deserts or at-risk areas, to demand applicants demonstrate the project will not reduce site capacity for a large grocery store or provide equivalent mitigation if capacity is reduced. Localities must report annually to CDFA on projects that triggered the requirement. Because the provision directs local land-use processes, the bill explicitly treats this as a state-mandated local program and references reimbursement mechanisms under the Commission on State Mandates framework.
CDFA reporting obligation and guideline authority
CDFA must report to the relevant Legislature policy committees by January 1, 2028, with the number and locations of grants awarded. The department also may adopt implementing guidelines, which will determine application timelines, scoring, required documentation, and monitoring/recoupment protocols. Those implementing rules will be the practical place where priorities (for example, projects tied to new housing) are made operational.
Sunset date and state-level applicability
All new statutory provisions created by AB 1674 are set to be repealed on January 1, 2031. The bill contains findings asserting the subject is of statewide concern, not a municipal affair, to make the measure apply to all cities including charter cities. It also notes that if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs imposed on local governments, reimbursement should follow existing statutory procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents in identified food deserts (low-income urban and rural neighborhoods): gain higher likelihood of nearby full-service grocery options and potentially improved access to fresh produce and staple foods.
- Developers of mixed-use or housing projects in targeted areas: receive grant priority and financial support when incorporating grocery space, improving project feasibility for including retail that otherwise might be marginal.
- Grocery operators and incumbent large stores serving underserved communities: become eligible for stabilization grants to keep doors open, supporting operations that private-sector margins alone may not sustain.
- Local public-health and community organizations: can leverage new retail infrastructure to expand nutrition programs, SNAP/WIC partnerships, and community food access initiatives.
- Regional food suppliers and produce growers: may gain new retail channels as new or stabilized supermarkets increase purchasing of local agricultural products.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments: must add review steps, collect and submit annual reports to CDFA, and enforce mitigation conditions during housing project approvals — tasks that create administrative costs and potential added delay.
- Developers and housing applicants: may need to preserve site capacity for large grocery footprints or pay for equivalent mitigation, raising project costs or constraining site layouts and density.
- Grocery operators receiving grants: face recoupment risk (returning unused funds if a store closes within two years), potential program conditions, and monitoring obligations tied to grant awards.
- Department of Food and Agriculture: takes on program administration, monitoring, and enforcement obligations; while nonstate funds are continuously appropriated, CDFA may still need staffing and implementation resources.
- State budget/taxpayers: if the Legislature appropriates public funds into the program, state dollars will be committed to capital and stabilization grants that might otherwise go to other priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the state should induce grocery investment in underserved neighborhoods by attaching obligations to housing approvals and providing subsidy capital — an approach that can secure food access but risks constraining housing development, raising costs, or displacing other community priorities. In short: prioritize durable grocery access and risk slowing housing supply, or prioritize faster housing approvals and risk losing grocery retail in vulnerable neighborhoods.
AB 1674 combines grant financing with land-use conditions; that hybrid raises several implementation questions. First, the bill depends on clear, defensible maps and definitions for "food deserts" and "areas at risk." The choice of metric (travel time, store size, income thresholds, vehicle ownership, etc.) will determine who qualifies and which neighborhoods attract investment.
If CDFA adopts broad or narrow definitions, it will materially change program reach and political appetite.
Second, the housing-side mitigation requirement hinges on how jurisdictions measure "site capacity for a large grocery store" and what counts as "equivalent mitigation." Those concepts are flexible by design but operationally difficult: requiring preservation of a large contiguous footprint can conflict with higher-density housing goals, while mitigation that simply pays an in-lieu fee or provides off-site retail may not replicate the public-good value of an actual supermarket. The two-year clawback is another blunt instrument: it protects public dollars from short-lived projects but may deter private investors from deploying capital in marginal markets or compress project timelines in ways that affect long-term viability.
Third, the funding architecture mixes legislative appropriation with continuously appropriated private and federal funds. Continuous appropriation of nonstate funds speeds deployment but raises governance questions about transparency, third-party conditions on funds, and CDFA's oversight capacity.
Finally, the statute's sunset (January 1, 2031) constrains the program's time horizon: supermarkets and retail ecosystems often need a longer runway to reach profitability, so five years may be too short to guarantee sustained access without ongoing support or a clear exit strategy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.