Shana Charles. Liar?

Yes, apparently so, at least according to the Gingerwood Homeowners Association.

It’s only a lie if you get caught…

The topic of this alleged prevarication is the proposed reconfiguration of Associated Road that would remove a lane of auto traffic and permit on-street parking. I’ll be writing about the details of this “project” in a bit.

This proposal seems to have germinated within the walls of City Hall and was presented to affected parties along the road. One of them is the Gingerwood community HOA that wasn’t real pleased with comments made by their councilmember, Shana Charles.

Uh, oh. It appears the good doctor has been telling stories in order to pedal this project past wary homeowners who don’t want cars blocking their sight lines when they emerge onto the fast traffic of Associated.

Lying to constituents to push a project you like but they don’t suggests a moral and ethical vacuum.

16 Replies to “Shana Charles. Liar?”

  1. Typical staff stooge behavior. Pushing a totally unnecessary scheme that her constituents don’t want and lying about it to make it happen.

    She’s fast catching up to the lies told by Zahra.

  2. I am on the board for my condo complex on Associated and can attest to the fact that in no way has she reached out to our association regarding this project. We are hating this new project, by the way…

  3. In a May 8th article in the Daily Titan, Andrew Torres interviewed an HOA board member who had this to say:


    Fullerton resident Jeff Hazard said he has been living on Associated Road for over 30 years and is displeased with the lack of communication between the city and the residents who will be affected.

    “I’m on the board of the Craig Park homeowners association, we have not been contacted at all about that. All of the homeowners that I have talked to, and that’s a lot because I’m one of the board members, they all are against the idea adamantly,” Hazard said.

    Hazard said he believes the lane reduction will make it harder for first responders to get to an emergency, or exit onto the street and overall make the area less safe due to the projected increased number of people in the area.

    “I just don’t see the logic in this major of a change when there really isn’t a need. For 33 years, we’ve gotten by without it, I don’t see the need,” Hazard said.


  4. This proposal came from Staff, not the City Council. It’s been heard by the Traffic Commission and Bicycle Task Force, but not the Council which has final say. Every property owner along the route was notified–that’s why the large turnout at the May 4 community meeting.

    As Traffic Commissioner, I voted to recommend it to the City Council for 5 reasons:
    Traffic: Historic traffic counts on Associated (north of Bastanchury) don’t justify 4 lanes. Traffic volumes are about half of what they are south of Bastanchury, where 4 lanes will remain.
    Speeds: The proposed reconfiguration will reduce traffic speed.
    Parking: On-street parking will improve access to Craig Park and for apartment-dwellers.
    Precedence: Rolling Hills (between St. College & Brea) and Valencia (between Highland & Dale) were also originally designed as 4-lane highways, but were reduced to 2 lanes when traffic counts didn’t justify 4 lanes. On-street parking was allowed without ill-effects.
    Bike Safety: Reconfigured bike lanes will be better protected.

    Gingerwood & Craig Park HOA residents already have ample dedicated on-site parking, and expressed their opposition at the March 4 meeting. There are concerns about students and strangers parking along the street, including those using their property as a short-cut to the park. Fair enough. Of those who’ll benefit by the parking (Craig Park patrons & apartment renters) few showed up. Not surprising.

    Associated will be repaved soon, so the Council can adopt any restriping plan it wants without added costs. Parking can be banned along those stretches where residents don’t want it, while allowing it along the park and apartment frontage. It’s not all-or-nothing.

    Instead of personal attacks, look at the merits of the plan itself. Is the current configuration of Associated optimal? Can it be improved? All designs are on the table until the City Council has the final say. The Council can keep the status quo or look at ways to improve it. That’s their job.

    I welcome dialog on this or any other traffic issues at 714-813-5899.

    1. The purpose of this post was not to discuss the merits (if any) of this proposal but the fact that a City Councilmember has apparently lied to her 3rd District constituents.

      Didn’t you used to be a County Supervisor?

    2. Did you bother to read the post? A city council creature is accused by an HOA of an outright lie. This doesn’t bother you?

      Good thing you’ll never get elected anything again.

  5. The hidden agenda lies within the definition of Class 2 vs Class 4 bicycle lane. The existing bike lane is Class 2 and is similar to most all the other bike lanes in the city. The proposed Class 4 bike lane requires a physical barrier between the car traffic and the bike lane. Hence the parking… The idea is to put bikes next to curb and use parked cars to create the barrier required for a Class 4. I’m not aware of any Class 4 bike lanes in the city, and quite frankly, this stinks of bicycle users subcommittee liberalism.
    The city traffic engineer himself stated that the Class 4 physical barrier would be cost prohibitive without the parked cars.
    I’m hoping the Harpoon can get to the bottom of this boondoggle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *