Planning commission approves White Palace upgrade to full liquor license and live entertainment with conditions, 5-0

The Planning Commission voted 5–0 to approve case number 2025‑00448, allowing the restaurant White Palace at Brookhurst Square to upgrade its alcoholic beverage license from an on‑sale beer-and‑wine license (type 41) to an on‑sale general license (type 47) and to allow live entertainment associated with occasional banquets.

Associate Planner Steph, the project planner, told the commission the restaurant occupies Units 101 through 107 in the Brookhurst Square Shopping Center and that staff recommends approval subject to the draft resolution’s conditions. Steph said the restaurant’s floor plan includes 299 dining seats and a roughly 120‑square‑foot stage/dance area; staff characterized the entertainment area as about 8 percent of the restaurant’s use. Regarding public‑safety data, the Westminster Police Department reported no calls for service at the subject site in the prior 12 months, and staff said the Police Department did not oppose the upgrade and entertainment.

Trung Vu, an authorized ABC licensing consultant representing the owners, explained the applicant’s operations and availability to answer questions; he said the restaurant has hosted roughly six to seven large banquets per year on average and smaller private parties several times per week, and that live entertainment would typically occur at larger banquets rather than for small weekday gatherings.

Commissioners asked about parking, noise, neighborhood proximity and enforcement. Staff said the site provides approximately 146 on‑site parking spaces and noted nearby medical buildings and commercial uses that serve as buffers to residential areas. A public commenter raised a potential conflict between a proposed condition that limited server‑certification record access after 11 p.m. and state law; the commenter cited California Business and Professions Code section 25682(b)(1) to argue that server‑certification records must be maintained without an arbitrary time threshold. Commissioners instructed staff to correct an inadvertent duplication in the conditions (conditions 29 and 32 both referenced the smoking prohibition) and to incorporate relevant information raised at the hearing where appropriate.

Chair Hamadi moved to approve the case with the amendment that staff may make condition changes based on information presented that evening; Commissioner Anderson seconded. The motion carried 5–0 (Commissioners Wilbert, Anderson, Tran, Vice Chair Cooley and Chair Hamadi voting yes). Staff read the standard appeal language: the commission’s action becomes effective 15 days after the decision date and may be appealed to the city council in writing within that period.

The approval includes the conditions in the staff resolution (the packet lists 46 points), with staff directed to remove the duplicated smoking condition and to ensure conditions do not conflict with state law and ABC requirements. The applicant and consultant said they will comply with licensing rules, including server‑certification requirements, and staff noted that ABC enforces licensing and that any violations could be referred to ABC for citation.