Solvang’s legal advisors have until Aug. 3 to respond to a civil lawsuit after a judge rejected the city’s argument to throw out the case.
In mid-July, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James F. Rigali overruled Solvang’s petition to dismiss local developer Ed St. George’s suit against the city for issuing a stop work order at the site of an unfinished hotel and commercial project on Mission Drive.
St. George accused the order—which halted the project’s construction in late 2025—of being politically motivated.
As part of the order, Solvang cited deviations between the incomplete project as it stands and its city-approved plans. In court documents, the city argued that St. George refused to correct the deviations and didn’t follow the proper steps to appeal the order.
“He should have appealed [the order] by submitting written notice to the City Council within 10 days of receipt of the order. Petitioner failed to do so,” Zoe Liebeskind, attorney for Solvang, said in court documents.
“Petitioner disregarded the administrative appeal process entirely, opting to file an action directly with this court. [St. George] failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,” Liebeskind continued, “and has not sufficiently pled any valid excuse for that failure.”
St. George’s attorney, Robert B. Forouzandeh, argued that any hypothetical attempt from his client to undergo the city’s administrative appeal process would be “futile” because the council allegedly already showed bias against St. George.
“The unlawful and improper [stop work order] was issued to further respondents’ political agenda,” Forouzandeh wrote. “Members of the City Council do not agree with [St. George’s] political positions and beliefs, … [he’s] been informed by various members of city staff that he is being singled out, and the project is being singled out for scrutiny.”
The complaint alleges that when St. George received the stop work order in August 2025, members of city staff indicated to him “that they did not agree with the decision and would have handled it differently, and that the project and petitioner had been … treated poorly by the city in a fashion they had never seen before.”
At one point when construction was still active, Forouzandeh wrote, St. George allegedly observed a clear example of Solvang Councilmember Claudia Orona’s bias against the hotel and commercial development.
“One of the proposed tenants at the project, once it is completed, is an ice cream parlor, [which] will compete directly with Councilwoman Orona’s ice cream parlor,” the complaint states, before noting that Orona’s family also owns the Solvang Trolley.
“On multiple occasions while the trolley has been parked in front of the project, the [tour] narrator … comments about the project using derogatory terms,” the complaint alleges, “including that the project is ugly and that the owner of the project has done everything wrong.”
Solvang’s defense referred to this claim and similar allegations as part of “a vague conspiracy theory” that fails to show that St. George’s only legal remedy was to sue the city for damages due to construction delays, which St. George anticipates would exceed $1 million.
However, Judge Rigali concluded that “futility has been adequately alleged,” he explained in his ruling to deny Solvang’s demurrer.
“Whether petitioner will be able to demonstrate this at trial is an entirely different matter, but the allegations as made are sufficient to withstand demurrer,” Rigali wrote. “Administrative review to challenge a decision made earlier by the final decision-maker where the decisionmaker will not be called upon to consider different evidence on the ultimate issue is truly a waste of time.”
This article appears in July 30 – August 6, 2026.
