Measure H and Measure I both passed on November 4, 2008. City employees believe that Fillmore could be sued as a result. Land owners' opinions are extremely varied.

For development to occur, sometimes the land owner submits a building proposal to the City. More usually a developer purchases an option to buy from the landowner, submits a building proposal to the City, and waits until the City has approved the proposal before buying the property. The City has to review the proposal to ensure that it meets City and State codes, including environmental regulations. Changes can be made and the proposal resubmitted as necessary. Community Development Director Kevin McSweeney stated that only one development in North Fillmore had been approved before the election: the Reider development. That development approval was rescinded by Measure H. The Reider development had been under review for more than five years before the City was satisfied.

Measure I modifies the North Fillmore Specific Plan (NFSP) to set a maximum of 350 housing units in North Fillmore instead of a maximum of 700. It also reduces the potential density of development. Measure I modifies the Land Use Element of Fillmore's General Plan. The State requires those two plans to comply with Fillmore's Housing Element. The Housing Element must be and has been approved by State agencies. The State requires Fillmore to have plans allowing for 985 new housing units by 2014. The Fillmore Redevelopment Agency requires that 15% of the new homes built within its domain be affordable. The City's Housing Element is updated every five years. The current update is under development, and a public workshop is scheduled for November 18th. The latest draft of the Housing Element is available on the City's website at http://www.fillmoreca.com/planning_download.htm#he

City and State plans relied upon the ability of North Fillmore to contain 700 housing units, including an appropriate number of affordable housing units. McSweeney said that the housing units which would qualify to be built in the North Fillmore area under Measure I are less likely to be affordable to moderate or low income households. The density level described in Measure I goes beyond what Fillmore usually designates as "Residential Low Density". As the Housing Element reads, "This designation provides for low-density neighborhoods with detached single-family dwellings with private yards at a density of up to 7 units per acre." Measure I sets the maximum density level at 5 units per acre. The City will have to find an alternate plan for constructing 52 affordable units previously allocated to North Fillmore. McSweeney mentioned that rezoning other areas in Fillmore is a possibility. According to Fillmore's Housing Element: "On January 17, 2002, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). The purpose of this ordinance is to establish an urban boundary for the City of Fillmore that accommodates a reasonable amount of future growth for the City of Fillmore, but limits additional urbanization outside of the CURB line without a vote of the citizens of Fillmore." Jamey Brooks, a proponent of Measure I, said that building outside the CURB line would have been a better idea than allocating so many units to North Fillmore, but, as McSweeney noted, a vote is required for that to happen.

City Attorney Ted Schneider had written a "Supplement to North Fillmore Area Initiative Report" which presents the legal ramifications of Measure I. Land owners in other cities have successfully sued those cities when development projects were denied on account of laws that did not comply with the approved Housing Element. As a result, those laws were overturned. Schneider wrote: "If a particular measure appears to preclude a city from meeting its housing element obligations, [the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)] will report that, in its opinion, the housing element does not comply with state law. Such a finding can serve as evidence in a legal action seeking a judgment that the City's General Plan is inadequate." Schneider explained: "The California courts have held that an initiative may not be inconsistent with, or make internally inconsistent, the City’s General Plan. . . . Providing 'housing that is affordable to all economic segments of the community' is one of the goals of the housing element contained in Fillmore’s General Plan." Measure I calls for all portions of the General Plan which are in conflict with Measure I to be modified so that there will not be inconsistencies. However, Schneider points out that courts have traditionally compared similar measures to the General Plan at the time of the election rather than to the General Plan after it is adjusted to fit the measure.

Jamey Brooks was a proponent and one of the initiators of Measure I. Brooks said that Meaure I had been reviewed by at least two lawyers who work with initiatives before it was put on the ballot. He said that traffic on A St. and Central Ave. would have become horrendous if Measure I had not passed and Hillside Drive had been built. He claimed 700 units would have been too many for a bottlenecked area like North Fillmore. The 1 to 5 units per acre density required by Measure I is in keeping with much of middle and eastern Fillmore, and is a common suburban ratio, according to Brooks. When asked how the proponents arrived at the unit limit number of 350, Brooks said that one major factor was the response to an informal poll in which people said 700 units was too many and about half that sounded more reasonable. Another factor was the need to keep the total number of units low enough to avoid building Hillside Drive.

Bill Steiger and his business partner own 20 acres in North Fillmore, and are planning to develop 80 single family houses. Steiger said that Measure I was a good idea, and he is very pleased that it passed. He stated that Measure I takes Fillmore in the right direction: it promotes a reasonable density projected to match the surrounding area. He claimed that it aligns with the City's Vision 2020 plan. He mentioned that his proposed development's tentative tract map not only meets the Measure I requirements, but has more parks per acre than any other development in Fillmore.

Roger Keller, a North Fillmore land owner and women's clothing manufacturer, said that Measure I is terrible. His land was originally designated for Industrial use. When Griffin Industries built the Hometown development across the street from his property, he realized that it was unlikely that additional industrial activity would be tolerated. The City later changed the designation of that area to Residential use. Keller has been trying to sell the vacant six and a half acres since 2002. So far, potential buyers have refused to close a deal while the land's possible uses remain undetermined. His deal with one developer fell through on account of the uncertainty. He said that he met with City employees and Patti Walker in an attempt to receive guidelines for development plans. He had plans drawn up for single family homes that a policeman or teacher could afford, but he believes the plans would not be acceptable under Measure I due to the density factor. According to him, Measure I will benefit big developers, but hurt small owners. There are 101 acres in North Fillmore. Developer SunCal has divided 30 acres into approximately 80 lots. Keller fears that after SunCal and Steiger have submitted their tract maps, there will not be enough housing unit allocations left for small land owners out of the 350 allowed by Measure I. He calculated that 30 acres must remain undeveloped due to Measure I's 350 unit limit. As he put it, "A bunch of grumpy old guys who already own homes will not have neighbors." Those 30 acres, which he thinks will include his 6.5 acres, will be essentially worthless. He had employed 80 people, and his business has suffered as a result of his inability to sell the land. He expects the bank to foreclose on his property before he finds a buyer.

Keller said that Measure I was unnecessary, because the landowners and developers generally do not develop the maximum number of units allowed, and the area could have maintained a reasonably low density without Measure I. Keller said that the new Hometown development had a positive impact on the neighborhood. The adjoining houses have fixed up their yards and crime has gone down. He said the North Fillmore Specific plan was well thought out and should not have been modified. He claimed that the proponents of Measure I proposed the Measure to get elected and prevent Hillside Drive from being built. He said that Fillmore's traffic circulation would have improved if Hillside Drive were built, but he could understand that people living on north Central Ave. would not want additional traffic there.

Measure I could be modified or overturned only by another vote or a court ruling resulting from a lawsuit. The possibilities of this are unclear. No one has yet announced an intent to sue. The next election will be in November 2010, unless a special election is called. No one has suggested that a modification of Measure I be placed on the ballot.