## 2 Methods
### Mapping  
Based on new urban lands dominating the discussion at the workshop, we chose to focus solely on new urban growth. Transitions from existing development types to higher intensity development were not considered because of time constraints and the uncertainty of future densification in the existing developed areas. While we acknowledge that changes within the current urban area will occur, like high density re-development, we assumed they would be small, based on the preservation of the existing residential area structures [44]. Thus, our model only allows new urban land cover to replace agriculture and natural vegetation types, and there are no shifts in the patterns of the remaining agriculture and natural vegetation lands. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Scenario** & **Area** & **Ann. Pop.** & **Future Jobs** & **Total Jobs** & **Future** & **Total Households per Ha** & **Total Households** \\  & & **Growth** & **per Ha** & **per Ha** & **Ha** & **per Ha** \\ \hline Current & Urban & & & & & \\ (NLCD 2006) & Urban & & & & & 8.8 \\ Current & Rural & & & & & \\ (NLCD 2006) & Rural & & & 95.3 & & 3.2 \\ Future Low & Urban & 0.57\% & 86.5 & 83.5 & 42.0 & 10.4 \\ Future Low & Rural & 0.03\% & 96.4 & 95.4 & 6.2 & 3.2 \\ Future & Urban & 1.43\% & 86.5 & 84.3 & 42.0 & 13.3 \\ Future & Rural & 0.08\% & 96.4 & 95.4 & 6.2 & 3.2 \\ Future High & Urban & 1.90\% & 86.5 & 84.7 & 42.0 & 14.4 \\ Future High & Rural & 0.10\% & 96.4 & 95.4 & 6.2 & 3.3 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* The required area is based on the assumed future jobs and households per ha. The total jobs and households per ha are the density of increase averaged over both current and future urban land cover. Current land cover is based on NLCD 2006.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Summary of the metrics used to calculate area of new urban land cover by the year 2050. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Scenario** & & **High Dev.** & **Medium Dev.** & **Low Dev.** & **Open Dev.** \\ \hline Low & Urban & 1250 (37\%) & 603 (5\%) & 944 (5\%) & 260 (5\%) \\  & Rural & 34 (12\%) & 5 (1\%) & 40 (1\%) & 64 (1\%) \\ Medium & Urban & 3046 (91\%) & 1805 (16\%) & 2823 (16\%) & 777 (2\%) \\  & Rural & 41 (14\%) & 13 (2\%) & 108 (4\%) & 173 (2\%) \\ High & Urban & 4331 (129\%) & 2665 (24\%) & 4168 (23\%) & 1148 (23\%) \\  & Rural & 44 (15\%) & 18 (2\%) & 146 (2\%) & 234 (4\%) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
*Land use categories are based on NLCD 2006.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary of growth in each developed land cover category in each future scenario expressed as total new hectares and percent increase from the USGS NCLD 2006 dataset*. The GIS process, implemented in ArcGIS 10.1 [45], used the combination of a spatial mask based on protected areas and a spatial weight map based on the regulation criteria identified by the stakeholders (Figure 4). The storyline data acquired from the workshop was not sufficiently detailed to address all the assumptions and required parameters. We interpreted the workshop discussion by identifying the criteria that were most emphasized, but also had to use the researchers' own judgment. Weight assignment was performed through a two-stage process. In the first stage, the variables within each criterion were ranked using values from nine, the highest conversion potential, to one, the lowest conversion potential. For example, the UGB criteria layer included the current UGB, URAs, undesignated lands adjacent to the UGB and RRAs. They were ranked nine, eight, five and one, respectively (Figure 4). We included a distance band from the current UGB criterion based on our judgment to preferentially assign new urban map pixels to lands closest to the UGB. Measure 49 claims were incorporated by randomly placing a small group of pixels in a claimed tax lot. This technique is likely overestimating the effect of Measure 49 claims, even though their fraction of the study area is small (\(\sim\)0.15%).