LUCERNE – This past week the Board of Supervisors – sitting jointly as the Lake County Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors – agreed to purchase seven vacant parcels from the Lucerne Christian Conference Center, which also is attempting to sell the historic Lucerne Hotel.

The decision was preceded by a discussion in which board members decided it also was necessary to do a regular review of redevelopment's land holdings.

Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely took the proposal to the board.

The seven parcels vacant parcels are part of the nearly seven-acre hotel property holdings. They sit on Country Club Drive and are separated from the other two main parcels by Hotel Road.

Currently zoned for residential – or R1 – use, the Shoreline Communities Plan will change them to “planned development commercial” zoning.

Last December, the hotel's owners decided to sell the property. They're asking $4,990,000 for the historic building, which is 75,000 square feet, and its surrounding land.

Seely said the land's owners have found it necessary to start selling off pieces of the property. “The agency has been given first right to purchase these vacant parcels,” he said.

The board previously had indicated approval for buying the land to prevent it from being sold to a separate owner, Seely said. “Our intent would be to sell these parcels to the future owner of the hotel.”

Seely said the seven parcels have been appraised at $150,000, which he said is in the redevelopment agency's existing budget.

He said the county has had multiple meetings with potential investors about the property. The land's owners also were looking at selling two residential properties, containing manufactured homes, along 14^th Avenue, and were trying to do a property split to accommodate that sale.

Seely said redevelopment's preference is to buy the vacant land now, which will put the county in a stronger position to negotiate with a potential buyer.

Board Chair Denise Rushing said if the land is sold off piece by piece, it will be less attractive to an investor.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said it made sense that the county also might look at the modulars. Seely said the county has an option at the end of the year to purchase those properties.

Farrington said he was “borderline” on the property buy. He said they've taken similar actions in other places on the Northshore, but he felt it wasn't likely that a new buyer for the land was going to come along soon.

“In these trying times there's a balance of how much property we're going to acquire as an agency,” he said.

Seely said the highest and best use of the property, in redevelopment's opinion, is a conference center and hotel, with the vacant parcels slated for parking.

He said the ultimate development could be a grand one, with the agency focusing on efforts to create a promenade on the lakefront, which would be connected to the hotel by 13^th Avenue, which would be a “nice, vibrant business district.” Seely said the plans “could be pretty bold or it could be scaled back.”

Farrington said the property is an asset to the community, but his pragmatic side wondered if they can attract the necessary capital for the land, which he said is surrounded by a lot of blight.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said that, knowing they're planning to turn the land over at some point, the worst case scenario is that the county would hold the land and then sell it off. He said redevelopment now needs to preserve the land in a package.

“I think it's a good investment on our side,” he said. “This could be a deal breaker for some development opportunity on that hill.”

Smith suggested that the right developer would looking at the surrounding blighted properties, pick them up and resell them.

“Every time we look at properties it's difficult,” said Supervisor Rob Brown.

Brown was concerned about the government become a real estate speculator.

He noted Seely has done a good job of negotiating. “This is a pretty good deal,” said Brown.

However, he said the plan was expanding, with an ambitious vision of a development down to the lake that he didn't feel was realistic.

Rushing pointed out, “Actually, it's part of the redevelopment plan.”

“It's pie in the sky,” said Brown. “It just won't happen,” unless a developer comes in or the government decides to come in and spend more than they have.

Brown said he wanted a time line on how long they should hold the land, which he said shouldn't be indefinitely.

Rushing said she thinks that a five-year deadline was reasonable. “If we can't get something to happen in five years, it's not going to happen.”

“I've learned that five years isn't very long,” said Brown. “If a developer is going to come in and buy property, now is the time to do it.”

He said he was willing to support it if there was a time line, which should be included in the purchase resolution. At some point the land needs to go back on the tax rolls.

Smith said the deadline concerned him because it might cause a potential buyer to wait. “I think we should discuss a deadline but not have a figure about what it is,” he said, with the board revisiting the holdings from year to year and making a decision about what to do with the land.

During the discussion, Smith suggested they should bring back all redevelopment properties for annual review.

Farrington moved to approve the purchase with the annual review added, which the board approved 5-0.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews .