CRANSTON — The signs in the Hillside Farms neighborhood say it all. They can be seen on front lawns, on street corners, along the edge of the road, and they say the same thing: “Stop Phenix Terrace.”

Phenix Terrace, locals will tell you, is a bad idea that would put 192 apartments and 6 condominiums — at least a quarter of which would be deemed affordable — onto Phenix Avenue, an already busy road that backs up during the morning rush.

Traffic is the number-one concern for residents who oppose this development, but city officials have also found an opposition ally in state law.

While Cranston does not meet what is generally understood to be a universal state goal — that more than 10 percent of each community’s housing should be subsidized and income-restricted, meeting the state definition of affordable — the very law that sets the 10-percent goal also says Cranston does not have to meet it.

Because Cranston has more than 5,000 rental units, and because more than 15 percent of those rental units are affordable, the city does not have to reach 10 percent. Four other communities — North Providence, Pawtucket, Warwick and West Warwick — also qualify for the exemption.

Armed with this information, the City Council last month urged the city Planning Commission to reject the Phenix Terrace proposal.

The prospective developer, E.A. Fish Associates, of Braintree, Mass., is seeking a “fast-track” approval process that is available for affordable housing applications, but council members say E.A. Fish should be forced to go through a normal application process.

Their reasoning?

“We’ve met our obligations,” said Councilman John E. Lanni Jr., referring to a recent letter from Rhode Island Housing, an independent state agency, that confirms Cranston is exempt from the 10-percent goal.

Three years ago, as housing advocates, planners and state officials were preparing the state’s first affordable-housing plan, there was talk of doing away with the exemption. A 2007 bill attempted to do just that, but it didn’t pass.

“We ran into opposition with the five communities,” said Sen. John J. Tassoni Jr., D-Smithfield, one of the lead sponsors.

Housing advocates say there are no plans to try again, but Noreen Shawcross, executive director of the state Housing Resources Commission, said the state is counting on the exempt cities and towns to do their part. So far, they have, she said. In Cranston, where the overall affordable count is 5.6 percent, a recent project added 14 group-home beds, and another will add eight affordable apartments, she said.

The cooperation is needed if the state is going to come close to meeting the goals in its affordable-housing plan. Adopted in 2006, the plan concluded that 12,833 units were needed for all communities to meet the 10-percent goal. Combined, the five exempt cities and towns accounted for 4,349 — more than a third — of those units.

The General Assembly passed the rental exemption in 1998. Then-Rep. Richard E. Fleury, a West Warwick Republican and the lead sponsor, said people thought the 10-percent standard was unfair for communities with large numbers of rental units because they place a greater burden on local services. He said the final straw was a proposal to build 40 apartments that would have added students to the schools when local property taxes were already among the highest in the state.

“I said, ‘You can’t do that in West Warwick. You’re going to kill us,’ ” he said.

While the affordable-housing law has been on the books since 1991, only five communities — Central Falls, East Providence, Newport, Providence and Woonsocket — are above 10 percent, according to the latest count from Rhode Island Housing. Housing is generally considered affordable when no more than 30 percent of a household’s income is spent on rent or on a mortgage, taxes and insurance. To be affordable in Rhode Island, a housing unit must carry income restrictions and it must rent or sell at a below-market price made possible through a subsidy.

Peter Lapolla, Cranston’s planning director, agreed that the city needs to do its part. Of course, it also needs to weigh each application, he said.

Traffic is not the only issue with Phenix Terrace. James Molloy, a Natick Avenue resident, and Councilman Anthony J. Lupino said there is also concern about the impact on the schools. The developer has suggested the project would add 8 to 10 students to the city schools, they said, but no one seems to be buying that estimate.

E.A. Fish representatives did not return a call yesterday.

Lapolla said the ball is in E.A. Fish’s court. The company did a traffic study over the summer but has agreed to do a second now that traffic lights have been installed at the intersection of Phenix and Natick avenues, he said. After that study, the developer would appear again before the Planning Commission.

redgar@projo.com