The Lucerne Hotel and its future are up in the air since the building's owners announced they were going to sell the building. Now the county is looking at ways to facilitate a sale to the right buyer. Photo by Elizabeth Larson.

LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to explore several options meant to help the owners of the Lucerne Christian Conference Center – also known as the historic Lucerne Hotel – find a buyer for the property. {sidebar id=115}

The center's owners – a group of several Northern California fundamentalist Baptists churches – decided to put the property on the market last month, as Lake County News has reported.

The 75,000-square-foot, seven-story building has been run as a Christian conference center for decades, but the owners decided to put it up for sale after bookings for Christian retreats and camps in the coming year began to drop sharply.

Convening as the Lake County Redevelopment Board of Directors, supervisors heard a presentation by Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely, who explained that county officials were very concerned that the wrong buyer – someone not interested in the building's intrinsic historic value and its place at the heart of the Lucerne community – could buy it and use it for ends that wouldn't benefit the town.

He presented them with a list of options for how the county might get involved with the property (see accompanying article, “County options for the Lucerne Hotel”).

During public comment, longtime Lucerne resident Donna Christopher said she's as fond of redevelopment as she is the federal government's bank bailout. However, she said she had more faith in county officials than those in the federal government when it comes to making the right decisions for communities.

“I truly see this as our last best hope in Lucerne,” she said of the Lucerne Hotel, also known to Lucerne residents as “the Castle.”

Christopher said she's concerned about the property falling into the wrong hands – “and I think we all know who I'm talking about,” she said, referring to some land speculators who have purchased large amounts of property in Lucerne, only to let the buildings sit in ruin.

If the county's plans for the town – including a promenade along the lake – are going to succeed, “we need this property,” she said. “It's key.”

Patricia Jonas Voulgaris said the building's renovation and use as a resort “would be the making of Lake County.” She said she and her husband, who own property on 13^th Avenue in Lucerne, have stayed at a larger version of the Lucerne Hotel in Quebec.

Voulgaris suggested the county approach Jim Fetzer, who has spoken of building a hotel on the lake, to see if he's interested in the property.

Lucerne resident Lenny Matthews said Lucerne has been held hostage by individuals who have purchased property in the town, hoping to get a big payout thanks to redevelopment.

Matthews said she didn't want to see the building fall into the hands of someone who would let it become a cobwebbed wreck.

Louise Talley, a former Northshore supervisor, said having a renovated Lucerne Hotel could turn Lucerne – and the rest of Lake County – around.

Anna Rose Ravenwoode said she supported the county using redevelopment or other funds to acquire the property if need be. She said having the building renovated could “dramatically and positively” promote the goals of redevelopment on the Northshore. Ravenwood added that the Castle would provide a great opportunity to show how redevelopment can work in a community.

During the board's discussion, Supervisor Rob Brown said it's no secret how he feels about redevelopment and the county government buying private property.

“This is a very tempting proposal here because it is a very nice property,” he said.

But, Brown warned, every community has its castle, a building or property that people have attachment to and want to see safeguarded. He said people living next to Konocti Harbor may feel th same as Lucerne's residents feel about the old hotel.

He said if the county buys the Lucerne Hotel, it could open the door to demands from other communities that their important properties also be purchased by the county. That's the same concept as the much-criticized federal bailout, he suggested.

Brown questioned if the Lucerne Hotel's purchase had ever officially been part of redevelopment's plan for the community. Seely said it wasn't, although it sits at the back of 13^th Avenue, which is a plan focus.

Brown added that there are a lot of different ideas about what the “right type” of ownership for the building is. He did, however, support conducting a study of the property.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said he thought the county could help facilitate a sale to a buyer who would restore the building. “This is a prime example of what redevelopment was created to help do.”

Citing a redevelopment staff suggestion, Smith supported the idea of purchasing some of the accompanying property parcels, which the Lucerne Hotel's owners have indicated they may start to sell off.

Smith said it would be a shame to see the property broken up. However, if the county purchased the property to hold it for a buyer, he said he didn't want the county to become involved in its longterm ownership. He said he would much rather see the county help the current owners find a buyer.

Brown asked what Smith's definition of “longterm ownership” was, adding that, due to the market, the county could end up holding it for a long time, and would have maintenance costs associated with that ownership.

Smith said that, if the county purchased the building, he would want to see it turned over within a year. For him, three to five years was longterm ownership.

He added that over the years county officials – in passing – had talked about how it would be great to have the building, much as they had talked about Mt. Konocti, which the county is in the process of purchasing.

Smith said he wanted to see the county do what it could to make the Lucerne Hotel “the jewel of Lake County,” noting the county has several jewels.

He asked Seely if there were concerns about earthquake retrofitting. Seely said no, that the building is built of wood with a stucco exterior.

Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Kelly Cox – also the county's chief administrative officer – said a hearing is scheduled for next week's board meeting on using Community Development Block Grant Money for studies related to the Castle.

“Whatever we do, I'd very much like to see us act in the interest of the community of Lucerne,” said Board Chair Denise Rushing.

She suggested the Lucerne Hotel needed to become an “economic engine” for the community. The question, she said, is how to get there, and she also supported a study to look at the options.

Rushing, like her other board colleagues, felt that the ideal solution was that the right kind of buyer comes forward. She said the county needed to “tread very carefully,” because it didn't have a lot of money to put into the Lucerne Hotel facility unless the price was very low.

“In the right situation we might have a role to play,” she said.

Cox said county staff had a very good meeting with the current owners, who are facing serious financial challenges and can't retain ownership of facility for a long period of time.

“That's what generates our concern,” he said. “If they're forced to sell it because of finances, they may have to sell it to the first person who wants to buy it.”

That person, said Cox, might propose to do something with the building that's totally inconsistent with redevelopment plans and what the community wants.

Like Brown, Supervisor Jim Comstock said he wasn't a fan of the county being involved in real estate purchases such as this one.

Earlier in the meeting, county staff had noted that last year they had proposed doing a feasibility study on the building's various uses, but a representative of the owners said the group wasn't interested.

“That concerns me a lot, that they would not have seen a year ago that they would have been in this position today,” he said.

Cox noted that the board of directors for the group that owns the Castle later indicated that, while their local representative had made the statement that they weren't interested, the board actually hadn't been notified of the offer.

Agreeing with Rushing that the building could be an economic engine, Comstock asked about a purchase price. Cox said one hadn't been suggested by the owners.

Cox warned that if the county did buy the building, the board should expect to hold it for about five years before resale.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said that, from the county's perspective, they don't need a feasibility study to tell them that what's needed is a resort facility to draw visitors. He suggested the county help market the building.

Brown asked how much an appraisal and structural analysis might cost. Seely estimated $20,000 for the appraisal, with the assessment of the building's structure likely to run about $25,000.

Cox told the board that county staff had put on hold further discussions with the building's owner until it had guidance from the supervisors. He added they were very concerned about seeing the property sold off in pieces, because it would make it very hard to get a hotel developer interested.

Smith repeated his suggestion that the county purchase some of the accompanying property to help the owners until a new buyer is found.

Rushing passed the gavel Farrington, the board's vice chair, while she made the motion to authorize county redevelopment staff to explore all of the options Seely put forth, and to bring back to the board authorization to use grant funds for the appraisal and structural evaluation.

Smith seconded Rushing's motion, which was accepted by the board unanimously.

The board is expected to be given a tour of the facility in the near future.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}