SB 18 establishes the Food Desert Elimination Grant Program administered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to expand access to healthy foods in areas the USDA identifies as food deserts and areas at risk of becoming food deserts. The measure creates a dedicated Food Desert Elimination Fund and a California Equitable Food Access Account to receive state and nonstate money, and authorizes grants to grocery store operators for site work, store buildout, equipment, rents or downpayments, and employee wages.
The program is discretionary, subject to a legislative appropriation, allows the department to set implementing guidelines, and includes a reporting requirement and a sunset date at the end of 2030. For retailers, developers, local jurisdictions, and funders, SB 18 is a temporary, targeted subsidy mechanism intended to lower the economic barriers that have kept full-service grocery stores out of underserved neighborhoods.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 18 uses a grant program to subsidize the costs of opening or upgrading grocery stores in places the USDA’s Economic Research Service designates as food deserts. The bill defines a ‘grocery store’ threshold at 15,000 square feet and separately defines ‘small-scale grocery store’ under that threshold; the department may include small stores at its discretion. It authorizes the department to accept federal and private funds into a California Equitable Food Access Account that will be continuously appropriated for program use, and allows up to 10% of program funds to finance technical assistance.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are grocery store operators and prospective entrants (both large and small-format retailers), the California Department of Food and Agriculture as program administrator, and private or federal funders whose dollars can be deposited into the program account. Indirectly affected are local governments, real estate developers, community-based organizations that partner on projects, and residents in targeted neighborhoods.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a vehicle to reduce the upfront and operating hurdles that deter grocery investment in underserved neighborhoods, effectively blending public and private capital behind site feasibility, capital improvements, and even employee costs. It sets a finite window for experimentation (sunset in 2030) and builds in a reporting checkpoint to inform whether public dollars produced measurable grocery expansion in targeted communities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 18 creates a time‑limited grant program designed to make it financially easier to open and maintain grocery retail in areas identified by the USDA as food deserts or at risk of becoming food deserts. The Department of Food and Agriculture runs the program and can accept a mix of state, federal, and private funding; deposited nonstate funds flow into a named account that the bill makes continuously available for program disbursements once the Legislature appropriates money for the program.
The bill sets out the kinds of expenses grants can cover—feasibility studies, salaries and benefits, rents or downpayments, capital improvements, land and demolition costs, and equipment purchases—and leaves the department with discretion to designate other eligible costs, including those required by federal funding rules. While it treats grocery retailers above and below a 15,000 square‑foot cutoff differently in definition, it explicitly permits the department to award grants to small‑scale stores when appropriate.Operational details—who wins grants, how projects will be prioritized, what matching or performance requirements will apply, and whether grants are forgivable or repayable—are intentionally left to department guidelines.
The statute caps technical assistance spending at 10% of the program budget, requires a status report to legislative policy committees by January 1, 2028, and ties implementation to a legislative appropriation; the program automatically sunsets at the end of 2030. Because the bill delegates substantial rule‑making and selection authority to the department, most of the program’s practical contours will come into focus when the department issues guidelines and when the Legislature funds the program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill uses the USDA Economic Research Service’s definition of “food desert” as the geographic trigger for eligibility.
A ‘grocery store’ is defined as a retail grocery location over 15,000 square feet; a ‘small‑scale grocery store’ is any grocery retailer under 15,000 square feet.
Nonstate, federal, and private funds may be deposited into a California Equitable Food Access Account within the Food Desert Elimination Fund, and money in that account is continuously appropriated to the department once deposited.
The department may spend up to 10% of total program funding on technical assistance to support grantees or prospective grantees.
SB 18 requires the department to report grant counts and locations to legislative policy committees by January 1, 2028, and the chapter automatically repeals on December 31, 2030.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This article defines core terms the program uses: the Department of Food and Agriculture, the USDA Economic Research Service’s food desert designation, and size thresholds for grocery stores (over 15,000 sq ft) and small‑scale grocery stores (under 15,000 sq ft). Those definitions determine who is technically eligible to receive grants and which areas qualify as targets. Because the bill references an external USDA definition rather than creating its own geographic test, eligibility will track ERS geographies and change only as ERS updates its designations.
Program creation and funding structure
This section creates the Food Desert Elimination Grant Program and a Food Desert Elimination Fund in the General Fund. It also creates the California Equitable Food Access Account within that fund to receive nonstate, federal, and private monies. Importantly, the bill makes funds in that account continuously appropriated to the department for program purposes once those funds are deposited, but actual spending remains contingent on a legislative appropriation for program implementation.
Eligible grant activities and small‑store discretion
These sections itemize eligible grant uses: market and site feasibility studies; salaries and benefits; rents or downpayments; capital improvements, planning, renovations, land acquisition, demolition; and equipment purchases. The department can also recognize other eligible costs, including items that federal funders require. While the primary definition centers on larger-format stores, Section 49042 explicitly permits the department to award grants to small‑scale grocery stores at its discretion, giving the agency flexibility to support different retail models.
Technical assistance, reporting, and rulemaking
Section 49043 limits technical assistance spending to no more than 10% of the program’s funds. The department must report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028, on grants and locations, and Section 49045 authorizes the department to adopt guidelines to implement the program. Section 49046 makes the program’s activation contingent on a legislative appropriation, which means authority to award grants alone does not create any immediate spending until the Legislature provides funds.
Sunset and repeal
The chapter expires and is repealed on December 31, 2030. That sunset creates a fixed evaluation window for assessing whether the program increases grocery access and informs legislative decisions about extension, modification, or termination.
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 of USDA‑designated food deserts: they stand to gain expanded physical access to full‑service grocery retail and improved local availability of healthy food.
- Grocery operators and new market entrants: grants lower the upfront capital and operating barriers—feasibility studies, buildout, rents, equipment, and even employee costs—making otherwise marginal projects more viable.
- Community organizations and local planners: technical assistance funds and grant‑backed projects can strengthen partnerships, public‑private deals, and local economic development strategies.
- Private and federal funders seeking targeted impact: the account structure lets philanthropic and federal dollars be pooled with state funds to scale projects in targeted geographies.
Who Bears the Cost
- California General Fund and taxpayers: implementing the program requires a legislative appropriation, and appropriated dollars will compete with other budget priorities.
- Department of Food and Agriculture: the agency must absorb rulemaking, application review, monitoring, and reporting responsibilities unless separately funded, increasing administrative workload.
- Existing local retailers and developers: subsidized new entrants could shift market dynamics, potentially affecting incumbents in nearby neighborhoods.
- Local governments and infrastructure owners: site upgrades, zoning changes, and utility improvements needed for new stores may impose planning costs and coordination burdens on municipalities and local agencies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus sustainability: the bill directs subsidies to remove immediate barriers to grocery entry (including capital and even labor costs), which can produce quick improvements in access, but doing so without explicit performance, matching, or long‑term sustainability rules risks using public funds to prop up ventures that may fail once subsidies end—creating temporary access at the cost of poor long‑term outcomes and fiscal inefficiency.
SB 18 packs a lot into a short, time‑limited statute but leaves significant operational choices to the department. Key design elements—grant selection criteria, whether grants are grants versus forgivable loans, performance metrics, required local matches, clawback provisions for failed projects, and anti‑displacement safeguards—are not specified in the text and will materially shape outcomes.
The continuous appropriation for deposited nonstate funds accelerates program deployment when outside money is available, but it raises oversight questions: continuous appropriation reduces the normal annual appropriation review and could complicate coordinated budgeting and audit trails unless the department establishes strong reporting and accounting controls.
The reliance on the USDA ERS definition simplifies targeting across statewide projects but risks missing neighborhood‑level nuances where residents face access problems that ERS metrics do not capture. The inclusion of salaries and benefits as eligible costs recognizes the real operating challenges new stores face, yet funding operating expenses can create moral hazard if not paired with sustainability requirements.
Finally, the sunset at the end of 2030 creates a short runway for capital‑heavy projects—projects that require multi‑year leases or large buildouts may struggle to demonstrate return on public investment within that timeframe, unless the department structures awards with longer amortization or multi‑year commitments tied to appropriation cycles.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.