through statutes designed to protect small licensed facilities, which provide higher levels of support and care that require state licenses.19 These statutes specifically apply to licensed facilities, not to unlicensed group homes. In effect, the City is inappropriately transforming state laws designed to prevent local constraints on small, licensed facilities into constraints on group homes that do not provide services requiring state licenses.
Moreover, the City is imposing more restrictions on group homes with six or fewer residents than state law allows it to impose on licensed facilities with similar numbers of residents. To avoid imposing overly costly and burdensome constraints on group homes, the best practice is to apply the same general building, fire, and other health and safety codes that apply to other residences, subject to state health and safety code provisions specific to certain types of licensed facilities and to reasonable accommodations requirements.20
Separation Requirement
MC 13-322, 13-323, and 13-324 require 650 feet of separation between group homes, sober living homes, or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities, new and existing.
These spacing requirements have a particularly severe impact on group homes, severely limiting where they can locate, causing group homes to close, and preventing others from opening. Yet the City has not shown that these spacing requirements are necessary or that there are health, safety, or similar justifications for the spacing requirements, or that if these were actual issues, that the City could not address them through less restrictive and discriminatory policies.
Pages 27-29 of the Group Home TA provides additional guidance illustrating why the City’s spacing requirements conflict with its duties under state housing law (e.g., Gov.
Code, §§ 8899.50, 65008, 65583, subds. (c), (1), (5), (10)), as does the Amicus Brief.
Vehicle and Parking Requirements
The City imposes special vehicle and parking requirements on group homes. MC 13- 311(a)(5) states that each dwelling resident is limited to one vehicle that must be used as the resident’s primary form of transportation. MC 13-311(a)(5) requires each dwelling resident to park their vehicle on dwelling premises or within 500 feet of the dwelling.
Concerns about parking and traffic should be addressed through generally applicable rules instead of restrictions that target housing for persons with disabilities. 21 19 See Group Home TA at pp. 25-26.
20 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, § 13113 (requiring sprinkler systems in certain licensed facilities).
21 See Adamson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 133; Group Home TA at p 31.
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
Examples of Other Permitting and Operational Requirements
The City imposes the following restrictions on group homes but not on other residences:
• MC 13-311(a)(4) requires a manager to be present during all hours, seven days a week.
• MC 13-311(a)(14)(vi) requires that the operator must have a good neighbor policy directing residents “to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit.” • MC 13-311(b) requires group homes applying for a permit to provide notice to the owner of record and all occupants within 500 feet of the group home.
Singling out group homes for restrictions like these can burden group homes with additional, unjustified costs, while perpetuating fears and stereotypes about persons with disabilities. Pages 30-33 of the Group Home TA provide additional guidance on how to avoid these and other restrictions in Costa Mesa’s group home ordinances that conflict with the City’s duties under Government Code sections 8899.50, 65008, 65583, subds. (c)(1), (c)(5) and (10), among others.
22 Reasonable Accommodations
Failing to make reasonable accommodations to rules or policies, in order to allow persons with disabilities the opportunity to access housing, is a form of discrimination. 23 Making reasonable accommodations is also necessary to fulfill the City’s AFFH duties and its duties to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.24
The City should review its reasonable accommodation policies in Municipal Code section 13-200.62, along with its application of these policies, to ensure compliance with state law.
25 For example, the City: (i) must avoid denying requested accommodations based on fears or prejudicial assumptions about people with disabilities, such as that group home residents somehow uniquely cause problematic traffic, noise, or activity; (ii)
22 See also Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir. 2002) 300 F.3d 775, 783 (finding that house manager requirement is discriminatory because it effectively mandates an “institutional” arrangement that is not “on par with” housing policies for those who are not disabled); Potomac Group Home Corp. v.
Montgomery County, Md. (D. Md. 1993) 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1296 (finding that notice requirements discriminate against and stigmatize persons with disabilities). 23 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 12927, subd. (c)(1).
24 See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 8899.50, 65583, subds. (a)(6), (c)(3), (5). 25 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 12176-12185; Group Home TA at pp. 18-20; Amicus Brief at pp. 21-25.
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
may not place the burden on reasonable accommodation applicants to demonstrate that their requested accommodations would not create undue burdens on the City or fundamental alterations to its zoning code; (iii) may not require applicants to show that they could not find any other housing within the city that would meet their disability- related needs; and (iv) must engage in good faith with reasonable accommodation requests and avoid delay or burdensome procedural requirements.26
Costa Mesa May Still Address Problems that Might Arise at Indiv idual Group Homes
The City has resources to legally address problems that might occur at individual group homes. If group home operators are engaging in activities that constitute public nuisances; violating generally applicable building, housing, or other health and safety laws; committing fraud; or engaging in other illegal activities, the City can address these issues through the same code enforcement and other legal processes it applies to others who violate municipal codes and other laws. If the City has evidence that a group home operator is providing services that require a license without obtaining one, it can contact the state’s Department of Social Services or Department of Health Care Services, which can initiate investigations and take remedial action if appropriate. 27 This may still require considering if reasonable accommodations are appropriate in some circumstances. And the City should avoid overbroad or discriminatory applications of nuisance laws, such as those basing civil nuisance actions on 911 calls for emergency services.
28 But if a group home is found to have violated local or state law, the City may, for example, seek equitable relief that could include more stringent oversight and other affirmative relief to prevent further violations.
Focusing on individual group homes that are actually causing problems is a better practice than adopting overly broad, constraining, and unlawful regulations for all group homes.
26 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 12177-12179; 28. C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3). 27 See Group Home TA at pp. 33-36, 37.
28 See. e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12162, subd. (a); see also California Attorney General Rob Bonta letter to all Cities and Counties in California re Crime Free Hosing Policies (Apr. 21, 2023), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press- docs/Crime%20Free%20Housing%20Guidance_4.21.23.pdf.
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
Conclusion
Costa Mesa’s ordinances are blocking new group homes from opening, forcing existing ones to close, and imposing costs, administrative burdens, and fees that make it difficult for group homes to operate, while displacing persons with disabilities and disrupting their lives. The City is creating these restrictions and problems in the context of a shortage of adequate housing for persons with disabilities, which is a particularly acute issue within California’s broader housing crisis.
HCD has reviewed the City’s group home ordinances and found that they violate Government Code sections 65008, 65583, and 8899.50. The City must stop enforcing these ordinances, repeal them, change its reasonable accommodation policies and practices, and review other zoning practices in light of HCD’s guidance to ensure that the City is complying with state law. These actions are necessary for the City to comply with its duties under Government Code sections 65008, 65583, and 8899.50, and are among the things that the City must do to bring its 6th cycle housing element into substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.
For technical assistance regarding the City’s 6th Cycle housing element, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui at [email protected]. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Bentley Regehr at [email protected].
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Enclosures: Letter from HCD regarding City of Costa Mesa’s 6 th Cycle (2021-2029)
Adopted Housing Element (May 9, 2023)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 9, 2023
Lor
i Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Dear Lori Ann Farrell Harrison:
RE: City of Costa Mesa’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Costa Mesa’s (City) housing element that was adopted on November 15, 2022 and received for review on March 10, 2023. In addition, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) considered technical modifications from its prior review authorized by Resolution Number 2022-67.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), HCD is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Costa Mesa First pursuant to Government Code section 65588, subdivision (c).
The adopted housing element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). However, the housing element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed necessary rezones to make prior identified sites available and address the shortfall of sites to accommodate the RHNA pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021) as described below.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that failed to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones to make prior identified sites available or accommodate a shortfall of sites, pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c) (1) (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c), are completed. As this year has passed and Programs 3B (Fairview Development Center), 3C (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan), 3D (Urban plans and Overlays), and 3N (Reused sites) have not been completed, the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the rezoning has been completed. Once the City completes the rezone, a copy of the resolution or ordinance should be transmitted to HCD. HCD will review the documentation and issue correspondence identifying the updated status of the City’s housing element compliance.
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
Additionally, the City must continue timely and effective implementation of all programs including but not limited to the following:
• Program 2A (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance)
• Program 2B (Affordable Housing Development)
• Program 2I (State Density Bonus Incentives)
• Program 2J (Transitional and Supportive Housing)
• Program 2M (Parking Standards for Residential Development) • Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation)
• Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit)
• Program 2P (Group Homes): Please note, HCD may follow up with additional technical assistance. Please see HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-communi ty/group- home-technical-advisory-2022.pdf.
• Program 3B (Fairview Development Center)
• Program 3G (City-wide Vote Requirements)
• Program 3R (Development of Large Sites)
• Program 4A (Fair Housing)
The City must monitor and report on the results of these and ot her programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code section 65400.
Please be aware, Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i), grants HCD authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or State Housing Element Law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.
Several feder
al, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
HCD appreciates the dedication and cooperation of the City’s housing element team provided during the review and update. HCD particularly applauds the efforts of Jennifer Le and Scott Drapkin whose collaboration, communication, expertise and public service is truly commendable. HCD wishes the City success in implementing its housing element and looks forward to following its progress through the General Plan annual progress reports pursuant to Government Code section 65400. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McD
ougall
Senior Program Manager
Exhibit 5
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ( “Agreement”) is entered into as of th is 24th day of October, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and among, the Parties listed below (together with their respective successors, assigns, heirs and/or subrogees, individually, “Party” or, collectively, “Parties”).
PARTIES
The parties (“Parties”) to this Agreement, collectively and together with their successors and assigns are as follows:
1. Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY AND ADDICTION, INC, a California Corporation (“Insight”);
2. Plaintiff JANE DOE, an individual (“Ms. Doe”);
3. Defendant and Counter -Plaintiff CITY OF COSTA MESA , a general law municipal corporation (“City” or “Costa Mesa”);
4. Counter-Defendants MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO , an individual (“ Ms.
Beatificato”) and GERALD GROSSO, an individual (“Dr. Grosso”).
RECITALS
1. For multiple years, Insight provided supportive housing for adults with mental health and cognitive disabilities, such as Ms. Doe, at 2641Santa Ana Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa (the “Property”) in one of the City’s multifamily zones (R2-MD).
2. Beginning in 2015, City adopted a series of zoning ordinances, including but not limited to Ordinance Nos. 15 -11, 15 -13, 17 -05, and 17 -06 (collectively, the “Group Home Regulations”), which among other things, require group homes in the City’s multifamily zones to obtain a conditional use permit and operator’s permit.
3. On March 12, 2020, Insight filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the City, Case No. 8:20−cv−00504−MEMF−JDE (the “Action”), based on allegations that the City’s adoption, implementation, and enforcement of its regulations for group homes violate State and Federal fair housing and antidiscrimination laws, including without limitation the federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Section 11135 of the California Government Code (the “Claims”). On August 7, 2020, Ms. Doe joined the Action as a Plaintiff.
4. On October 30, 2020, the City filed counterclaims against Insight, Ms. Beatificato, and Dr. Grosso, which were later narrowed to a nuisance counterclaim against Insight, Ms.
Beatificato, and Dr. Grosso for continuing to provide supportive housing without a conditional use permit and operator’s permit after the City had denied Insight’s applications for a conditional use
permit and operator’s permit (“Counterclaim”). During the pendency of this case, Insight stopped providing its housing on the Property.
5. The Parties understand and agree that the Parties dispute liability, that litigation is expensive, and that this Agreement is a compromise and shall not be construed as an admission of liability at any time or for any purpose. Without any admission of liability or concession of the other Party’s position, the Parties want to resolve all claims in this Agreement amicably. The Parties have agreed to the material terms in this Agreement and now seek to memorialize their settlement as set forth below.
6. The Parties do not admit, and expressly deny, violation of any federal, state or local law, and deny any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the promises exchanged herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. City’s Obligations
a. Settlement Payment. The City shall pay Insight and Ms. Doe the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,750,000.00) (the “Settlement Payment”) for their attorneys’ fees, payable within fifteen (15) business days of the Effective Date. Payment shall be comprised of readily available funds made payable to Rutan and Tucker Client Trust Account.
The Settlement Payment shall remain in the Rutan and Tucker Client Trust Account until it is distributed to Insight and Ms. Doe per separate written agreement.
b. Amendment of Group Home Regulations . The City shall implement Program 2N of the City’s 6th Cycle 2021 -2029 Housing Element Update (Revised March 1, 2023) by June 30 , 2026. At the request of the City, Disability Rights California and/or the Law Office of Autumn Elliott may review and comment on revisions to the City’s Reasonable Accommodation process. In particular, before the revision required under Program 2N is submitted to the Planning Commission or City Council for review, recommendation, or adoption, City staff are encouraged (but not required) to: (a) provide a draft of that revision to Disability Rights California and the Law Office of Autumn Elliott; (b) provide them with a reasonable period to comment on and respond to the draft revision; and (c) to discuss any comments with Disability Rights California or Elliott prior to submitting any proposed recommendation to the Planning Commission.
2. Insight and Doe’s Obligations
a. Distribution of Settlement Payment . Concurrently herewith, Insight and Ms. Doe shall mutually agree in writing on the distribution of the Settlement Payment between Insight and Ms. Doe.
3. Notifying Court of Settlement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall immediately file a Joint Notice advising the Court that t he case has been settled, and the Parties shall withdraw any and all pending motions and requests, including requests for sanctions.
4. Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Claims and City’s Counterclaim . Within fifteen (15) business days of the Effective Date, the Parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting dismissal with prejudice of the Claims filed by Insight and Ms. Doe and the Counterclaim filed by the City in the Action.
5. Settlement; Mutual Releases. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Parties hereby mutually waive, release and forever discharge any and all claims against each other arising from the Action and the facts and circumstances described in th e Action, including Plaintiffs’ Claims and the City’s Counterclaim; and, the release contained herein includes a release of any and all disputes and/or claims related to the allegations of the Claims or the Counterclaim that were, or could have been, asserted in the Action, related to the facts of the Action (collectively the foregoing are the referred to herein as the “Released Claims.”)
6. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542.
The Parties understand and agree that the releases provided herein extend to all of the Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected. With respect to the Released Claims, the Parties expressly waive and relinquish any and all rights they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
“§ 1542. (General Release — Claims Extinguished.) A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasin g party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”
____ Insight ____ Ms. Doe ____ Ms. Beatificato
____ Dr. Grosso ____ City
The Parties expressly waive and release any rights and benefits which they have or may have under any similar law or rule of any other jurisdiction and pertaining to the matters released herein. It is the Parties’ intention through this Agreement and with the advice of counsel that they shall fully, finally and forever settle and release the Released Claims as s et forth above. In furtherance of such intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete release of such matters, notwithstanding the discovery of any additional claims or facts relating thereto.
2. Insight and Doe’s Obligations
a. Distribution of Settlement Payment . Concurrently herewith, Insight and Ms. Doe shall mutually agree in writing on the distribution of the Settlement Payment between Insight and Ms. Doe.
3. Notifying Court of Settlement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall immediately file a Joint Notice advising the Court that the case has been settled, and the Parties shall withdraw any and all pending motions and requests, including requests for sanctions.
4. Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Claims and City’s Counterclaim . Within fifteen (15) business days of the Effective Date, the Parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting dismissal with prejudice of the Claims filed by Insight and Ms. Doe and the Counterclaim filed by the City in the Action.
5. Settlement; Mutual Releases. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Parties hereby mutually waive, release and forever discharge any and all claims against each other arising from the Action and the facts and circumstances described in the Action, including Plaintiffs’ Claims and the City’s Counterclaim; and, the release contained herein includes a release of any and all disputes and/or claims related to the allegations of the Claims or the Counterclaim that were, or could have been, asserted in the Action, related to the facts of the Action (collectively the foregoing are the referred to herein as the “Released Claims.”)
6. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542.
The Parties understand and agree that the releases provided herein extend to all of the Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected. With respect to the Released Claims, the Parties expressly waive and relinquish any and all rights they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
“§ 1542. (General Release — Claims Extinguished.) A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”
____ Insight ____ Ms. Doe ____ Ms. Beatificato
____ Dr. Grosso ____ City
The Parties expressly waive and release any rights and benefits which they have or may have under any similar law or rule of any other jurisdiction and pertaining to the matters released herein. It is the Parties’ intention through this Agreement and with the advice of counsel that they shall fully, finally and forever settle and release the Released Claims as set forth above. In furtherance of such intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete release of such matters, notwithstanding the discovery of any additional claims or facts relating thereto.
2. Insight and Doe’s Obligations
a. Distribution of Settlement Payment . Concurrently herewith, Insight and Ms. Doe shall mutually agree in writing on the distribution of the Settlement Payment between Insight and Ms. Doe.
3. Notifying Court of Settlement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall immediately file a Joint Notice advising the Court that t he case has been settled, and the Parties shall withdraw any and all pending motions and requests, including requests for sanctions.
4. Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Claims and City’s Counterclaim . Within fifteen (15) business days of the Effective Date, the Parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting dismissal with prejudice of the Claims filed by Insight and Ms. Doe and the Counterclaim filed by the City in the Action.
5. Settlement; Mutual Releases. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Parties hereby mutually waive, release and forever discharge any and all claims against each other arising from the Action and the facts and circumstances described in th e Action, including Plaintiffs’ Claims and the City’s Counterclaim; and, the release contained herein includes a release of any and all disputes and/or claims related to the allegations of the Claims or the Counterclaim that were, or could have been, asserted in the Action, related to the facts of the Action (collectively the foregoing are the referred to herein as the “Released Claims.”)
6. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542.
The Parties understand and agree that the releases provided herein extend to all of the Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected. With respect to the Released Claims, the Parties expressly waive and relinquish any and all rights they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
“§ 1542. (General Release — Claims Extinguished.) A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasin g party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”
____ Insight ____ Ms. Doe ____ Ms. Beatificato
____ Dr. Grosso ____ City
The Parties expressly waive and release any rights and benefits which they have or may have under any similar law or rule of any other jurisdiction and pertaining to the matters released herein. It is the Parties’ intention through this Agreement and with the advice of counsel that they shall fully, finally and forever settle and release the Released Claims as s et forth above. In furtherance of such intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete release of such matters, notwithstanding the discovery of any additional claims or facts relating thereto.
2. Insight and Doe’s Obligations
a. Distribution of Settlement Payment . Concurrently herewith, Insight and Ms. Doe shall mutually agree in writing on the distribution of the Settlement Payment between Insight and Ms. Doe.
3. Notifying Court of Settlement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall immediately file a Joint Notice advising the Court that t he case has been settled, and the Parties shall withdraw any and all pending motions and requests, including requests for sanctions.
4. Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Claims and City’s Counterclaim . Within fifteen (15) business days of the Effective Date, the Parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting dismissal with prejudice of the Claims filed by Insight and Ms. Doe and the Counterclaim filed by the City in the Action.
5. Settlement; Mutual Releases. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Parties hereby mutually waive, release and forever discharge any and all claims against each other arising from the Action and the facts and circumstances described in th e Action, including Plaintiffs’ Claims and the City’s Counterclaim; and, the release contained herein includes a release of any and all disputes and/or claims related to the allegations of the Claims or the Counterclaim that were, or could have been, asserted in the Action, related to the facts of the Action (collectively the foregoing are the referred to herein as the “Released Claims.”)
6. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542.
The Parties understand and agree that the releases provided herein extend to all of the Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected. With respect to the Released Claims, the Parties expressly waive and relinquish any and all rights they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
“§ 1542. (General Release — Claims Extinguished.) A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasin g party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”
____ Insight ____ Ms. Doe ____ Ms. Beatificato
____ Dr. Grosso ____ City
The Parties expressly waive and release any rights and benefits which they have or may have under any similar law or rule of any other jurisdiction and pertaining to the matters released herein. It is the Parties’ intention through this Agreement and with the advice of counsel that they shall fully, finally and forever settle and release the Released Claims as s et forth above. In furtherance of such intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete release of such matters, notwithstanding the discovery of any additional claims or facts relating thereto.
7. Enforcement of Agreement . This Agreement may be pleaded as a full and complete defense to any action, suit, or other proceeding by any Party hereto wherein the claims are concerning or related to the Released Claims and/or this Agreement; provided, however that any Party, as well as Disability Rights California, may move to enforce the specific terms of this Agreement by filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate and/or Complaint for Breach of Contract in Orange County Superior Court, after first meeting and co nferring with the Party alleged to have violated any term of this Agreement. If any Party, or Disability Rights California, files a Petition for Writ of Mandate and/or Complaint for Breach of Contract in the Orange County Superior Court to enforce the specific terms of this agreement, no other Party may assert that a Party or Disability Rights California lack standing.
8. Power and Authority . Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she has the power, and is duly authorized, to execute this Agreement on behalf of the person or entity that he or she purports to represent.
9. Reliance on Representations . The Parties each acknowledge and agree that the other Parties to this Agreement are entering into this Agreement in reliance on their respective representations set forth in this Agreement and that the failure of any such representation shall be a material breach of this Agreement without further action by any Party.
10. Agreement Entered into Voluntarily. This Agreement is entered into freely and voluntarily. Each Party has executed this Agreement with full knowledge of its significance and with the express intention of affecting its legal consequence. None of the Parties have relied upon any representation of any other Party in signing this Agreement. Each P arty has had the opportunity to retain legal counsel to review and approve this Agreement.
11. Neutral Construction. The Parties agree that this Agreement may not be altered, amended, modified or otherwise changed except by a writing executed by each Party. Each Party further agrees that because each Party has been active in the preparation and negotiation of the terms of this Agreement, it shall not be construed against any Party in the event of any dispute as to the meaning of its terms.
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been entered into and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13. Severability. In the event that, at any time after the execution of this Agreement, any portion or provision of it is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, unenforceable, non-binding, or otherwise without legal force or effect, the remaini ng portion(s) will remain in force and be fully binding.
14. Counterparts; Execution . This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts so executed shall constitute an agreement binding on all the Parties, notwithstanding that all the Parties are not a signatory to the same counterpart. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature, either of which will be deemed to have the same force and effect as an original signature. [signatures on following page]
CITY OF COSTA MESA
____________________________________
By: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Its: Interim City Manager
Signed with authorization provided in closed
session at the Regular City Council Meeting
October 21, 2025
Approved as to Form:
JONES & MAYER
__________________________________
By: Kimberly Hall Barlow
Its: City Attorney
EVERETT DOREY LLP
___________________________________
By: Seymour B. Everett, III
Its: Special Counsel
INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY &
ADDICTION, INC
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
Its: Owner and General Counsel
MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
GERALD GROSSO
___________________________________
By: Gerald Grosso
JANE DOE
___________________________________
By: Jane Doe
Signed with pseudonym to protect privacy
CITY OF COSTA MESA
____________________________________
By:
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Its: Interim City Manager
Signed with authorization provided in closed
session at the Regular City Council Meeting
October 21, 2025
Approved as to Form:
JONES & MAYER
___________________________________
By: Kimberly Hall Barlow
Its: City Attorney
EVERETT DOREY LLP
___________________________________
By: Seymour B. Everett, III
Its: Special Counsel
INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY &
ADDICTION, INC
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
Its: Owner and General Counsel
MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
GERALD GROSSO
___________________________________
By: Gerald Grosso
JANE DOE
___________________________________
By: Jane Doe
Signed with pseudonym to protect privacy
CITY OF COSTA MESA
____________________________________
By:
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Its: Interim City Manager
Signed with authorization provided in closed
session at the Regular City Council Meeting
October 21, 2025
Approved as to Form:
JONES & MAYER
___________________________________
By: Kimberly Hall Barlow
Its: City Attorney
EVERETT DOREY LLP
___________________________________
By: Seymour B. Everett, III
Its: Special Counsel
INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY &
ADDICTION, INC
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
Its: Owner and General Counsel
MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
GERALD GROSSO
___________________________________
By: Gerald Grosso
JANE DOE
___________________________________
By: Jane Doe
Signed with pseudonym to protect privacy
CITY OF COSTA MESA
____________________________________
By:
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Its: Interim City Manager
Signed with authorization provided in closed
session at the Regular City Council Meeting
October 21, 2025
Approved as to Form:
JONES & MAYER
___________________________________
By: Kimberly Hall Barlow
Its: City Attorney
EVERETT DOREY LLP
___________________________________
By: Seymour B. Everett, III
Its: Special Counsel
INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY &
ADDICTION, INC
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
Its: Owner and General Counsel
MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO
___________________________________
By: Mary Helen Beatificato
GERALD GROSSO
___________________________________
By: Gerald Grosso
JANE DOE
___________________________________
By: Jane Doe
Signed with pseudonym to protect privacy