Plan for Low-Income Units Denied : Housing: The City Council votes to keep present zoning on all vacant land, which may violate a state law for affordable residences.

The City Council has flatly rejected a Planning Commission proposal to construct 141 apartment and condominium units in the city, a move that may violate a state law that requires cities to provide affordable housing for very-low and low-income residents.

The council instead voted Tuesday night to keep all vacant land as it is now zoned, which is mostly low-density residential and commercial.

Councilman Bob Kuhn called the decision a straw vote intended to show residents where the council stands on the land use and housing elements of the city’s revised General Plan. After city staff members make wording changes, the updated General Plan will be finalized at the council’s next meeting, Jan. 28, or the first meeting in February, Kuhn said.

The rejected proposal was the product of a plan formulated in October by a citizens committee and forwarded to the Planning Commission. It called for 243 low-income housing units scattered throughout the city at eight sites. In November, the commission modified the proposal--reducing the number of units to 141 on two sites--and recommended that the council approve it.

Tuesday, the council backtracked, however, and instead voted on the eight original sites designated for affordable housing and recommended that the zoning remain the same. The council did approve some sections of the General Plan, including matters involving open space, conservation, noise and safety.

Hundreds of residents have turned out at city meetings to oppose the affordable-housing proposal because, they say, the resulting increase in population would crowd schools and increase traffic and crime.

The city, however, is required by state law to provide for its regional fair share of affordable housing. That is determined by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, a regional planning agency.

Glendora has until 1994 to provide 338 housing structures for very-low and low-income residents.

City officials, assessing the penalty for noncompliance, maintain that the state would merely withhold federal funds for any new dwellings in the city, or prohibit issuance of building permits for them.

“Let the state sue us,” Kuhn said after the meeting.

According to SCAG, low-income housing advocates and developers could also sue the city.

Kuhn said the city will seek other ways to satisfy the state requirements--including putting subsidies on existing homes that would become low-income housing.

City officials say a recently completed senior citizens’ home includes 47 affordable housing units.