This bill amends existing Washington law governing cannabis licensing (RCW 69.50.331) and medical cannabis cooperative registration (RCW 69.51A.250). It revises licensing procedures and standards for the Liquor and Cannabis Board, including requirements for comprehensive, impartial review of applications and renewals, authority to inspect premises, consideration of criminal history and administrative violations, fingerprinting and CHRI checks (including FBI submissions), and delegation of approval authority to staff under board rule. The board’s administrative process is adjusted to allow appointment of ALJs with authority to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, receive testimony, consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and deviate from prescribed penalties under board rules. The board must immediately suspend a license if DSHS certifies a person is not in compliance with a support order and must reissue the license automatically upon receipt of a DSHS release showing compliance if other reinstatement requirements are met. The amendments tighten and clarify local control and location restrictions: local governments may file written objections to new licenses within specified time windows, and the board must give substantial weight to objections about illegal activity associated with an applicant. The board generally may not issue licenses within 1,000 feet of listed facilities unless a local jurisdiction adopts an ordinance reducing that buffer (not less than 100 feet); a city, county, or town may also adopt zoning ordinances restricting producers and processors from residential or certain rural zones. For cannabis research licenses, local jurisdictions may permit locations inside the 1,000-foot zone down to 100 feet if the research facility meets enhanced security, is inaccessible to the public and not visible, and bears no signage; the board may issue a certificate of compliance protecting an approved location from later-disqualifying factors. The board may not license premises in Indian country without consent of the federally recognized tribe associated with that reservation. The bill also amends rules for retail licensing and social equity and cooperative provisions. The board must deny a retail license if a local legislative authority timely objects based on a preexisting local density ordinance. After January 1, 2024, non-social-equity licensees that submit a social equity plan may receive a one-time reimbursement equal to their annual renewal fee (subject to one-time and one-license-per-entity limits). For medical cannabis cooperatives, the bill sets registration and operational rules: member limits and age requirements, notification and timing rules for membership changes, plant and possession caps, distance and zoning restrictions (including a one-mile minimum from retailers and the 1,000-foot/ordinance-based restrictions), one cooperative per parcel, required on-site copies of participant recognition cards, board rulemaking authority for security, traceability, and inspections, and a requirement that the board deny registration if location requirements are not met. The provided excerpts are incomplete in places: portions of RCW 69.50.331 are cut off mid‑provision and some later subsections and definitions are not included, and certain cross-referenced text and numbering from earlier or later sections are missing. These gaps mean some details, exceptions, or procedural specifics referenced in the excerpts are not fully available in the provided facts.

If enacted, the bill gives the Liquor and Cannabis Board clearer authority to vet and inspect cannabis license applicants, use state and FBI criminal-history checks (including fingerprinting), and delegate uncontested approvals to staff, while also requiring immediate suspension for licensees certified by DSHS as noncompliant with support orders. Local governments and tribes get stronger tools to block or limit new licenses: cities/counties can object within set deadlines, adopt ordinances to restrict where businesses operate (including allowing some research facilities closer than 1,000 feet only if they meet higher security, are not open to the public, and have no signage), and tribal consent is required for licenses in Indian country. The board must give substantial weight to local objections about illegal activity, can deny retail licenses based on preexisting local density limits, and will enforce new cooperative rules limiting members, plants, locations, and distance from retailers. The people most affected are license applicants and current licensees, local governments and tribes, the Liquor and Cannabis Board, and medical cooperatives. Applicants will likely face added costs and steps (fingerprinting, higher security for some research sites, possible hearings and delays if local objections arise) and have fewer location options where local zoning or objections apply; non-social-equity licensees who choose to file a social equity plan can get a one-time reimbursement equal to their annual renewal fee, lowering their net cost once. Cooperatives face clear size, location, and record-keeping limits that could force relocations or reduce scale. Some important implementation details (additional distance exceptions and the exact changes to RCW 69.51A.250) are missing from the provided text, so the full effect on setbacks and other rules is uncertain.