MENDOCINO CO., 6/24/25 — Recently, Mendocino County Department of Social Services contracted with outside consultant ICF to evaluate the performance of the three publicly funded emergency shelters in the county, two in Ukiah and one in Fort Bragg. The report found that the shelters are operating effectively but are constrained by a lack of funding, staff turnover and an increasing number of unhoused people needing help.
The three shelters serve different populations, and because of this, their metrics are hard to compare. Redwood Community Services’ Building Bridges center serves adults only under a Housing First philosophy; Ford Street Project’s Unity Village serves families with children; while the Mendocino Coast Hospitality Center’s Hospitality House serves anyone who is homeless.
The three shelters were evaluated on their adherence to the county’s homeless services written standards, fidelity to their contracts with the county, and analyses of data, interviews and surveys of residents, staff, and community members. All three shelters met federal standards and also met their contracts with the county.
ICF, in its report delivered to the Mendocino County Homeless Services Continuum of Care Board on June 16, felt that each shelter was overly dependent on county funding, with little or no additional funding. Each shelter’s leadership said the funding was insufficient to offer expected services or additional services they wanted to provide.
The consultant also noted that it was unusual for a rural, low population county to operate three emergency shelters: “Generally, this size [county] would have one or no year-round emergency shelter available,” said the report. And yet, the most frequently stated need was more beds.
More people are finding permanent housing
The report contained some good news: the number of people exiting the shelters to permanent housing has increased over the past two years. For example, at Ukiah’s Building Bridges, in fiscal year 2022, 77% (331 individuals) returned to the streets, with only 9% (39 people) finding permanent housing. By fiscal year 2024, 16% (87 people) found permanent or temporary housing, while 59% (311 individuals) departed to become homeless once again.
Building Bridges uses a Housing First framework, which means the program prioritizes finding housing for individuals and families without requiring that the person get sober, free of drugs or engage in mental health or employment services as a condition of aid. The theory is that once a person is housed, that person can more successfully tackle challenging issues and behaviors.
The community feedback was unsurprisingly mixed: some supported that philosophy, others believed the program should require sobriety or be in another location. Building Bridges is located on South State Street, between Talmadge and Gobbi streets, in a commercial/residential neighborhood.
Ford Street Project’s Unity Village does not operate on a Housing First basis, as its goal is to reunify families, which demands sober adults. It serves a much smaller population than Building Bridges. In fiscal year 2024, 69% (25 households) moved on to permanent housing while 10 returned to homelessness. ICF reported a community “wholly supportive” of the shelter’s outcomes and residents.
On the coast, finding housing for anyone is a difficult mission. The consultants also noted a great deal of staff turnover, with few qualified workers available. While Hospitality House is Housing First-focused, maintaining residence requires working with staff to try to find permanent housing. In fiscal year 2022, Hospitality House served 218 individuals, of whom 149, or 68%, went back to the streets, while two years later, 35% found permanent or temporary housing with 57% (91 people) once again becoming homeless.
The report concludes that each shelter is meeting a clear need, though the number of people becoming homeless is increasing.
“Mendocino County’s emergency shelter system is moving people into permanent housing, but it cannot keep up with the demand for shelter beds and the wait times for appropriate permanent housing solutions available,” the report said. ICF recommends that the county take a broader approach to funding based on data and unmet needs.
On Wednesday, the county is convening a public meeting in Fort Bragg. Billed as a community input session, the county says attendees “are invited to provide input on strategies and approaches to resolving homelessness” for the county’s Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness. Everyone is welcome. The meeting is at Mendocino Coast Hospitality Center, 101 N. Franklin St., Fort Bragg, 4-5:30 p.m. Anyone with questions can contact Veronica Wilson at wilsonv@mendocinocounty.gov.
Ive been on Building Bridges housing list since 2020. They kept removing me from it when I didn’t stay at the shelter. As for Hospitality house, many days with no avail. Including today. Although there was one for female open. Pick n choose. Their loss, not mine.
This county, state, and country doesn’t have a homeless problem. It has a drug problem which makes it impossible for people to be productive members of society and house themselves. Wake up! You’ll never solve the problem when you refuse to acknowledge the main root cause. There will just be the next generation and the generation after that of alcohol and drug addicted homeless. It’s unbelievable that being in a sobriety program is not a requirement because that’s too strict. No wonder no matter how much we pay in taxes, it’s never enough. You can’t spend it as fast as it comes out of our paychecks. I’d like to know how many people in these shelter waiting for free housing are actually from here. It seems that all of these new shelters and thousands of free apartments are filled up as fast as they are built and it’s just attracting more and more non tax paying people who want the free housing and services paid for by the apparently generous Mendocino County tax paying citizens. The County keeps talking about how the tax revenue from the County Citizens is down the past several years. Has anyone noticed a shift? Has anyone thought that the scales might be shifting as the working class and retirees exodus this county for cheeper property taxes, housing prices, and a better quality of living where they don’t have to worry about all of the violent and property crimes coming from as you call it, the “unhoused drug dependent”? What will the county do when the working class taxpayers leave and what is left is the unemployable drug addicted non taxpayers? I wish the BOS gave a little more thought to the taxpayer citizens of this county’s personal experience as they are trying to raise their family and working hard to provide a good quality of life instead of always being so hyper-focused on the homeless alcohol and drug addicted persons personal experience in life. How do you think alcohol and drug addiction within the homeless population is financially supported? It is supported with crime. Local crime against us MC citizens. It might be robbery, car break ins, stolen purses in shopping carts, shoplifting, cycles stolen from your kids, property from your yard or garage and what about all of the prostitution in all of the shady crime infested motels on every Main Street in this county? You keep attracting the crime with your freebies and you can’t even figure it out. You can’t even require sobriety for the freebies you give away from our property taxes, sales taxes, and every other tax.
Not all homeless are on drugs. Try using more than two brain cells.
I think it is fair to say that the housing first model is a failure. There is no way to maintain housing if you do not deal with underlying mental health / drug addiction. Of the people that successfully transitioned from the shelter to permanent housing how many are still housed a year later? Those are stats they don’t want to release because the numbers are terrible.
I say this not out of hate for the homeless community (I work in the social work field) but out of frustration with the work to success ratio we have in this county. We have to get realistic. Also out of frustration that I pay an outrageous premium to live in a 1 bedroom shoebox while a revolving door of folks get access to the only affordable and modern apartments in the area at my expense.
I am just pissed at the state of things in this community.
Another halfwit weighs in with their two brain cells’ worth of “common sense”.
And maybe people should look into the reality of the situation that there is people within this system that aren’t properly approaching it they’re abusing the systematic process and they are forcing people back out so they can keep pay coming in so they’re exchanging people housing and comfort for profit and I know this from personal experience
Within these programs in these apartments that are being built they’re only allowed 10% vacancy at all times and I do believe that there’s probably more than that because they are requesting funding and funding and more funding for all this help that they need to give to people while claiming there’s a 77% ratio going back to homelessness and I guarantee you that most people would rather have a roof over their head than to be homeless so maybe you should look at the fact that people are gaining funding and how much of that building is really filled with people you can’t say from out of town I’d like you to know exactly and how many are literally being forced back out to the streets so they can keep a job so they can keep them rotating through different programs to keep more funding coming in and more money aligning their pockets because if I’m not mistaken from my personal experience I was illegally evicted I had been denied reasonable accommodation I was given 24-hour notice to vacate the property with two children and an emotional support pet with a emotional support pet letter from a therapist but they still wanted me to sign a release for them to speak to the therapist because they didn’t they didn’t accept the letter alone from the therapist even though all the legal obligations were met in it so they got the release they requested and then they still did not meet their obligation to give me the reasonable accommodation or to allow me to continue to have my pets without giving me I could say hell the whole time and then they ended up over a process or no over a period of two and a half months harassing me on a regular basis and repeatedly letting me know how I needed to leave and telling me I had no tenant rights and at the same time threatening me the police and all over an emotional support that I had a letter for because of the fact my pet had puppies that were two weeks old when I moved in they are miniature poodles by the way so they weren’t that big so they didn’t take up too much room they were brand new babies and all I needed was the reasonable accommodation so that they could be able to stay on the property long enough for them to be weaned from their mother they still harass me and insisted that I was violating rules with all they really needed was right there and I’d already given them everything they needed and then they legally evicted me refuse to take my rent before an unlawful detainer was actually filed but let’s say State a minute and look up top and see exactly the numbers that they’re calling as successful did you see those numbers now if you were working for me and 59% or 77% of my garden died and I had you be the one taking care of it I really wouldn’t want to keep dishing you out funding if for a garden that you’re killing 77% of my plants okay I would look for somebody with better outcomes in their approaches to the whole entire situation and with the higher success rate I may not have worded that all 100% properly but you get my point and that’s what these people are saying they still need more money for calling it a success so you make your own judgment is it really the people that are homeless are you sure?
This was a illegal constructive eviction and here is my grounds for my eviction
Respondents:
Rural Community Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC)
Ashley Hathaway, Heather Criss, Megan Van Sant
Project Homekey / Project Roomkey, Mendocino County, California
Dates of Incident: March 12, 2025 – June 30, 2025
Location: Live Oaks Apartments, 555 South Orchard Avenue #115/117, Ukiah, CA 95482
1. Nature of Claim
Claimant asserts unlawful constructive eviction, procedural mismanagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of civil rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fair Housing Act. Claimant also asserts violation of HUD program obligations related to federally funded Project Homekey and Project Roomkey housing programs, including improper denial of reasonable accommodation for emotional support animals and refusal to accept rent without a signed lease.
2. Statement of Facts
Claimant moved into the Live Oaks Apartments under the Bridges Program / Project Homekey on March 12, 2025.
Upon move-in, claimant provided two therapist letters: one documenting claimant’s and her children’s history of abuse and need for emotional support animals.
Within seven days, claimant received improperly posted violation notices related to ESA animals. Notices provided only 3 days to cure, in violation of program agreements requiring a 10-day cure period.
Claimant received a Termination of Program notice and 24-hour notice to vacate on March 24, 2025, followed by additional improperly posted notices on March 26, April 7-11, 2025.
Claimant paid rent on April 2, 2025, which was refused, stating the claimant did not have a lease and payments would be considered a “program fee,” in violation of HUD and program regulations prohibiting rent collection without a lease.
During this period, claimant’s male Chihuahua/miniature poodle mix was killed in front of her and her children, causing extreme emotional distress.
Respondents shredded claimant’s and her daughter’s therapist letters (spoilation of evidence), denying proof of legally approved ESA.
Respondents failed to properly complete UD-101 forms regarding rental assistance, filed notices of default improperly, and misrepresented dates and amounts related to move-out and program termination.
Claimant vacated the premises voluntarily on June 30, 2025, prior to any sheriff-enforced eviction, despite continuing harassment and threats.
3. Legal Violations
Violation of Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619): Discrimination based on disability; failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794): Failure to ensure program accessibility and respond to reasonable accommodation requests.
Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000d): Discrimination in federally funded programs.
Violation of HUD Program Regulations (Project Homekey / Project Roomkey): Charging rent or program fees without a valid lease; procedural mismanagement of notices and terminations.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Pattern of coercive, controlling, and harassing conduct causing severe emotional harm to claimant and her children.
Spoilation of Evidence: Destruction of therapist letters critical to ESA approval.
4. Impact on Claimant
Forced displacement and homelessness assistance required immediately following departure.
Severe emotional trauma, including witnessing the death of a pet integral to emotional well-being of claimant and children.
Ongoing harassment through conflicting notices, threats of police involvement, and denial of transparent communication.
Deprivation of legally protected rights to ESA, reasonable accommodation, and civil rights protections.
5. Relief Sought
Claimant requests that respondents:
Fully acknowledge violations of federal civil rights and HUD program obligations.
Cease all unlawful actions regarding ESA, communication, and program termination.
Provide administrative relief, including reinstatement or formal recognition of legal entitlements under HUD programs, to be determined through mediation or administrative review.
Any additional remedies deemed appropriate by the reviewing agency, consistent with federal and state law.
6. Exhibits (Summary)
Exhibit A1-A4: Therapist letters, reasonable accommodation requests, proof of spoilation.
Exhibit B1-B5: Pet policy notices, termination notices.
Exhibit C1-C4: Rent payment records, program fee communications, income worksheets.
Exhibit D1-D9: Conflicting and non-transparent communications, violation notices, confirmation notices.
Exhibit E1-E11: Personal letters detailing circumstances.
Exhibit F: Attorney UD-100/UD-101 filings demonstrating procedural mismanagement.
Exhibit G: Homeless assistance documentation post-displacement.
Exhibit H: Itemized repair and charge documentation, showing improper billing.
Submitted by:
Sherlynn Mehtlan
Date: 12/23/2025