Building Ban Lifted on Land Meant for Park : Ruling: Laguna Niguel failed to hold a fact-finding hearing when imposing the moratorium, so a judge throws it out.

A judge Thursday lifted a controversial Laguna Niguel building moratorium that had halted construction of at least 65 homes on property once set aside for parkland.

Superior Court Judge Floyd H. Schenk ruled that Laguna Niguel failed to hold a fact-finding hearing before imposing the freeze in July, 1990, on part of Marina Hills.

The ruling marked the first round in a legal dispute between the city and Marina Hills developer Taylor Woodrow Homes California Ltd., which are suing each other over how 96 acres designated as public parkland wound up in the developer’s hands.

“It certainly is a victory in the sense that the moratorium was illegally issued, and the judges’ order is that the moratorium is vacated and has no further effect,” said Taylor Woodrow Homes’ attorney L. Allan Songstad Jr.

The City Council voted to impose the moratorium after disclosures that the county district attorney’s office was investigating whether the land had been improperly transferred to Taylor Woodrow Homes.

The developer argues that the land transfer and development approvals had been properly granted by both city and county agencies.

No criminal charges were filed, but the Orange County Grand Jury issued a scathing report criticizing city officials and the developer.

Taylor Woodrow Homes chairman Gordon Tippell said: “Our position still remains exactly the same. We did everything in the proper fashion, we got all the necessary approvals from the County Planning Commission and the county staff in 1985. . . . We didn’t do anything wrong.”

The moratorium prevented the completion of 65 homes under construction and indirectly affected scores more.

Laguna Niguel City Atty. Terry Dixon downplayed the judge’s decision, suggesting outside the courtroom that the moratorium had served its purpose.

“The lawsuit is pending,” he said. “We all know what the lawsuit says. . . . If they want to go ahead and try and build those houses and then sell them, I don’t know if they can do that.

“I think there’s a serious question as to their ability to meaningfully build and sell those houses, anyway. . . . So I don’t know as a practical matter that there needs to be anything more done at this point.”

Dixon said the City Council will hold a closed-door session in coming days to discuss whether to appeal the ruling, hold a public hearing to impose another moratorium or ask the judge for an injunction if the developer attempts further construction.

After the ruling, company officials said they would proceed in “a normal fashion” to develop the land.