Two development projects and the imminent departure of a longtime working boatyard highlight a continuing tension among competing interests along the southern Marin waterfront.

County supervisors took action Tuesday that should, in part, satisfy neighbors who have said that a proposed hotel project has led to a decades-old eyesore, a nuisance and a possible environmental hazard just south of the Richardson Bay Bridge.

Developer Jack Krystal has been trying for the last 30 years to build a hotel complex on the property. Krystal's first development application, filed in 1977, called for a 12-story 300-room hotel and marine development. The project never could come close to meeting local planning guidelines. (The property is in the county's jurisdiction.)

While Krystal ostensibly was working on a re-designed project that could fall within the guidelines, he asked the county to permit uses on his property until he could start the hotel project. One condition of the use permit stated that no new uses on the 2.2-acre bayside parcel would be allowed until an illegal lumber storage yard was removed. That tussle lasted for years, as Krystal ostensibly kept working on a revised hotel proposal, expecting that during the process, he could lease out space on the property for various uses, including a solarium sales building, a contractor's storage yard, a caretaker's residential trailer, boat storage and sales, and vehicle repair.

Skip to 1987, and area neighbors are getting restless as they see the nonconforming uses on the property continuing. That year, the Board of Supervisors denied a request for a temporary use permit. But the board also allowed the existing uses to remain on the property as "interim uses" to, according to a staff report, "give the property owner some income while his master plan was in process."

In 1990, county staff said Krystal had violated the conditions of his interim use permit by installing trailers, cargo containers and sheds on the property. That same year, Krystal submitted a revised development plan for his Whaler's Point property that called for a 150-room four-story hotel. It had little chance of approval, said Krystal's critics.

Krystal withdrew the proposal one year later. Then, in 2002, he submitted a renewed proposal for a 150-room four-story hotel complex that included conference facilities and a 110-seat restaurant. No chance of that getting through the planning process. A year later, he modified the project to include a downsized hotel with 118 rooms. No go. Then, in 2007, Krystal submitted a new proposal for a six-room, four-story hotel; in 2008, he increased the proposed number of rooms to 71. The county Planning Commission rejected the proposal in January.

In April of this year, the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Planning Commission and rejected Krystal's plan, putting a cap on the process. It also put an end to the county's acquiescence in the nonconforming uses. County staff recommended that because the original hotel proposal had been rejected, the county should abate the nonconforming uses.

At Tuesday's meeting, supervisors agreed to take action, but refrained from totally shutting down the current uses. Several owners of businesses on the property said they have contributed to the southern Marin community and employ local workers. They asked supervisors to take their contributions into account.

"I do not want to be confiscatory," said Supervisor Charles McGlashan, who represents the area. "I love the kinds of businesses there. You guys are an asset. Having you close by saves people time and money. But the problem is that the place is a mess, and it's not fair to my community. We need you guys to clean it up; make it better; provide screening."

Cleaning up the property and erecting a screen are important because the nonconforming uses could be around for a while, even if Krystal gets a go-ahead to build a hotel project.

The Friday before the hearing, Krystal submitted a new hotel proposal. County staff was still reviewing it, but said the submission was closer to making it than any of Krystal's other proposals.

"We're going to give you due process and a fair shot," said McGlashan. "But as far as this old stuff and these legal gymnastics: It's got to end." McGlashan recommended that county staff return to the board with a recommendation for a new use agreement. "It is my sincere hope that all of the businesses get to stay. But if you don't have currently operating equipment, then you better get ready to move it. It can't be a junk heap. It's not fair to the community. They've put up with that for 21 years."

Under McGlashan's proposal, the county would impose restrictions on the uses on the property while Krystal's latest proposal goes through the planning process and environmental review--if it comes close enough to meet planning guidelines.

McGlashan directed staff to return to the board within 90 days with a modified interim use agreement that will specify what uses are acceptable and what mitigation measures must be taken to "protect the rest of the citizens in the district" from uses on the property. County staff suggested working with Krystal to compile a list of current uses and what might be acceptable in the future. He will have 60 days to work with staff.

"I've seen this kind of process drift on forever. I've seen these games played out over a long time," cautioned McGlashan. "We need to turn on the heat." The board will meet in January to consider the modified use agreement. McGlashan said clean up of the property should begin soon after the January meeting. The supervisors voted unanimously to approve the strategy.

During the hearing about his property, Krystal told supervisors that the houseboat community has deposited some of the unsightly trash on his site, and he has cleaned it up at his own expense. The argument failed to carry much weight, but it did recall the tension over live-aboards in Richardson Bay. A few decades ago, the situation over illegal live-aboards flared into what were called The Houseboat Wars. The situation is much calmer now. Only about 40 boats are live-aboards now, but the Bay Conservation and Development Commission wants them gone.

McGlashan proposed a plan to create a mooring field with about 100 to 120 mooring buoys. Boats could hook onto the buoys instead of dropping anchor and harming the marine environment. McGlashan says he's proud of the plan, but BCDC stopped him cold, saying the mooring field might be a good idea, but first the county has to remove the 40 live-aboards. The law allows boaters to stay for three days in the bay.

The county sheriff has said that if the county forces the live-aboards to move, they can simply up anchor, move and drop anchor again for another three days, all legal. It would take about $5,000 per live-aboard to force the marine residents to move, without really accomplishing much except perhaps blaring headlines.

McGlashan says that for now talks with BCDC are stalled, but he's trying to work on a plan to return to the agency. The mooring field would provide safe harbor for the 40 live-aboards, he says, and the county would know who and where they are. No new live-aboards would be allowed, and their numbers would gradually decline. For now, BCDC remains unconvinced.

The live-aboards are low-income residents, says McGlashan, and forcing them off the bay would push them onto the street adding to the homeless population. "I find that inappropriate from a moral standpoint."

One of the latest changes on the waterfront is the imminent departure of Anderson's Boat Yard, which after about 41 years must close its facilities at 400 Harbor Drive by the end of the year. The property owner has refused to renew the boat yard's lease, according to Tom Anderson.

Concern has been flowing along the waterfront that the boat yard might be replaced by a non-maritime use or go upscale. But property owner Ken Pederson says there's no truth to the rumors and he's in the process of submitting plans for permits that will continue use of the property as a working compliant boat yard.

"I was very saddened to hear that Anderson's Boat Yard would be leaving Sausalito," says City Councilwoman Linda Pfeifer. "It's really critical that we maintain that diversity that is Sausalito. We have a working waterfront. We have light industrial zoning in our Marinship. We have that because residents have supported it. It's also the reason why we have artists who still can afford to rent studio space in Sausalito." Pfeifer has a longstanding reputation for pushing to protect the interests of maritime workers and artists in Sausalito.

In February, the city launched a plan to buy a foreclosed 16-acre waterfront parcel near Dunphy Park. It presented a nice opportunity to expand the park and protect the waterfront. The city submitted a bid for $4 million, more than one-fourth of the total Sausalito budget. But developer Dan Morgan topped the city's offer with a $4.1-million bid. Morgan says he bought the property in February and during meetings with the city, staff asked him if he wanted to sell. He got an appraisal, which he says "was well above my purchase price" for the property, which is home to the Sausalito Marine Harbor. The previous owner had proposed various development projects over the years, but none came to fruition.

Morgan worked on the site, improving it, and then, he says, "the market came to me." He means he started getting offers from people who wanted to lease space. Currently, he adds, he's in solid negotiations with several possible tenants, including "a good restaurant group."

At the end of August, Morgan met with city staff and outlined what he had done on the property and said he had tenants. Did the city now want to buy? Obviously, the price is higher because of the improvements on the property and the prospective tenants. (No firm dollar figures are flowing from Morgan.) At that meeting, according to Morgan, the city manager told him he might want to check out the next City Council session because the city was about to discuss the possibility of eminent domain proceedings on his property.

The city is still thinking about it. Pfeifer says the city should "solicit resident input. Any action needs to be driven by residents in this economic climate."

Pfeifer, a staunch proponent of keeping a lid on development in the downtown waterfront area, says a proposal came into City Hall in July that called for extending the ferry pier to accommodate private yachts and tour boats.

"There's a push from developers to build up our waterfront for tourist activities. The kind of change I want is to build up our infrastructure, our sewer system, our streets, our parks. We have more important fish to fry than to build another Fisherman's Warf."

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.