INFORMATION RESOURCE FACILITIES
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY:
A Framework for Planning

Task Force on Facility Planning for
Library and Information Resources
April 1996

Executive Summary

Statement of the problem

Charge of the Task Force

Introduction

Planning for Integrated Information Resources

The Integrated Information Resource Facilities Planning Model

Conclusions

Appendices

A:  1991 Policies and Standards for CSU Campus Library Facilities

B:  Recommended Planning Guidelines for Integrated Information Resource Facilities

C:  Capital Outlay Estimate Comparison for Library versus Integrated Information Resource Facilities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to dramatically changing information and instructional technologies, CSU libraries are changing their focus from management of printed material to active instructional facilities providing both local and remote access to print, non-print and electronic resources. The Task Force on Facility Planning for Library and Information Resources was charged by the Commission on Telecommunications Infrastructure to develop standards for integrated facilities designed to ensure that all information technology functions operate in concert on CSU campuses. The work of the Task Force builds upon the work of previous groups and studies that have identified the elements of the 21st Century library and the broader campus information technology infrastructure.

In reviewing the existing 1991 Policies and Standards for CSU campus Libraries, the Task Force concurred that elements of the 1991 Standards should be retained and used to define maximum planning parameters for both bound volumes and space.

The Task Force proposes a model which reshapes the current standards for libraries to allow individual campuses to integrate a variety of services into library building projects, i.e., the "integrated information resource facility." The integrated information resource facility is defined as a facility not only integrating functions within a building but throughout the campus and beyond via telecommunication and information technology. Space is needed for emerging technologies that are being integrated into electronic library services and delivery. Space is needed for people to come together to learn about the emerging technologies and new information resources. Professionals in libraries, media and academic computing require facilities to provide active instruction for students and faculty.

The planning guidelines proposed herein complement the 1991 Standards by including the integration of functionality in a flexible and non-prescriptive manner. The 1991 Standards for library facilities established a formula for arriving at total assignable square feet based on FTE enrollment projections. The model proposed incorporates a framework for planning facilities that preserves the total space allowance of the 1991 Standards but also makes provision for integrating technologies for the 21st Century educational environment.

The total amount of space generated by the proposed model remains the same as that generated by the 1991 Standards. While approximately 80% of the space is for traditional library activities, now approximately 20% is for integrated facilities to support the electronic information instruction and delivery. The 20% is funded at a higher rate than the 80% because of the higher costs of infrastructure, program space, and equipment costs.

The proposed model is a fiscal and physical approach which is based on previous CSU studies. The approach allows each campus to design a facility which meets the individual campus needs and culture. It is not a prescriptive approach. The model assumes a campus wide view of information resources which integrates the computer, telecommunications and media services, and library resources. The recommendations are meant to be flexible to accommodate changing technologies.

Statement of the Problem

In response to dramatically changing information and instructional technologies, CSU libraries are changing their focus from management of printed material to active instructional facilities providing both local and remote access to print, non-print and electronic resources. Although the functions within the library facilities have shifted in emphasis, the formulas for defining space requirements within library facilities have not been adjusted to include the wide variety of instructional activities and electronic resources. Nor do any existing formulas for other technology areas such as Media Centers, Computer Centers and Telecommunications accommodate the need to integrate information resources and technology functions across the campus.

Charge of the Task Force

The Task Force on Facility Planning for Library and Information Resources was charged by the Commission on Telecommunications Infrastructure to develop standards for integrated facilities designed to ensure that all information technology functions operate in concert on CSU campuses. The work of the Task Force builds upon the work of previous groups and studies already done to identify the elements of the 21st Century library and the broader campus information technology infrastructure. The charge encompasses activities being undertaken as part of the CSU library strategic plan. That document, Transforming Libraries for the 21st Century: A Strategic Plan of the CSU Council of Library Directors, calls for the development of prototype library facilities which can adapt to rapidly changing information and technological environments.

INTRODUCTION

The current planning standards, published in the 1991 document Policies and Standards for CSU Campus Library Facilities, are inadequate to allow for the diversity of electronic services, the increasing instructional component in libraries and the integration of other types of related services on the campuses. In addition, the recent review of telecommunications infrastructure planning (Leveraging the Future: The Telecommunications Plan for the CSU  highlights the need for detailed and comprehensive plans within the CSU. None of the infrastructure requirements needed to support the networked and remote electronic resources, portable computer equipment brought into the building by users, and instructional classrooms are provided for in the formulas. All of the services being provided by libraries today require upgraded infrastructures, and thus a higher cost for ASF (Assignable Square Feet) in the formulas. The current cost formulas are insufficient to support the new functionality within the library facilities or information resource centers with libraries incorporated.

After reviewing the 1991 policies and standards for library facilities, the Task Force concluded that elements of those standards should be retained and used to define the overall planning parameters for both library volumes and area. Reports and studies done subsequent to the 1991 standards address the dramatic change in the library and information technology environments but have resulted in no changes in the basic space standards. The planning guidelines developed by the Task Force retain the defined volume holdings and total assignable square feet that are contained in the 1991 standards (see Appendix A).

On many campuses there is a convergence, organizationally and physically, of many different types of technologies and services within the library. Exhibit 1 illustrates variety of resources, facilities and services that have been integrated into several CSU library facilities.

The Task Force proposes a model which reshapes the current standards for libraries to allow individual campuses to integrate a variety of services into library building projects, i.e. "integrated information resource facility." The integrated information resource facility is defined as a facility not only integrating functions within a building but throughout the campus and beyond via telecommunication and information technology. An integrated facility permits partnering and collaboration among all involved in the delivery of instruction and information resources and services. The professionals in the library, media and academic computing have assumed a stronger and more active role in teaching students and training faculty in the use of technology. An integrated facility supports this active role and helps to better meet the needs of the student.

The proposed model presents new guidelines that provide the basis for a new planning approach building upon previous CSU studies. The model allows each campus to design a facility which meets its campus needs and reflects its culture. The model assumes a campus-wide view of information resources which integrates the computer, telecommunications, media services, and library resources.

Background

Previous CSU studies and task force reports reflect a continual review of the changing library environment. Among the documents used by this Task Force are the following:

Policies and Standards for CSU Campus Library Facilities (1991)

"Future CSU Library Building Programs: Report of a Five-Campus Task Force" (1993)

"Materials Access Options: A Study for the California State University" (1993 consultants' report)

Leveraging The Future: The Telecommunications Plan for the CSU (1994)

Transforming CSU Libraries for the 21st Century: A Strategic Plan of the CSU Council of Library Directors (1994)

The 1991 Policies and Standards document contains the existing CSU policies for planning future CSU libraries, articulated standards for the different types of library space, and provides an overview of the impact of these standards on the future projected library space needs of each CSU campus. The 1991 standards address the needs of print collections, including compact storage, but do not adequately emphasize the electronic and instructional spaces that have been emerging within the library facilities.

The 1993 five-campus task force, chaired by Michael Gorman, Dean of Library Services at CSU Fresno, identified the following central tenet:

"New library buildings must incorporate all applicable new and developing information technologies into the delivery of recorded knowledge and information. Further, as far as can be done, the library should be positioned to take advantage of future and, as yet unknown, technological and service developments."

The task force listed many technologies and services which need to be included in the planning of library buildings. The use of technology, electronic information resources and telecommunications are major elements of the new services such as electronic reserve book rooms, universal access workstations, services to distant learners, electronic reference services, and training facilities.

Leveraging the Future focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of the telecommunications infrastructure in the CSU (both internal and external to the campuses), the changes required to support campus telecommunications needs in the future, and the policy and technical decisions which would facilitate that process. The plan highlights the needs to enhance and upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure. The ability of the library to deliver electronic services as identified in the 1993 Task Force report is dependent upon this infrastructure. Library planning in the previous documents did not clearly define the needs outlined in Leveraging the Future; adequate funding for infrastructure requirements has not been included in facilities planning.

Transforming CSU Libraries for the 21st Century proposes a vision for the CSU libraries of the future. This strategic plan addresses broad direction and policy concerns and incorporates specific strategies for implementation. The following exerpts convey key concepts from the plan's Vision Statement:

The library will function as the hub of a full-service information and instruction network designed to facilitate the delivery of recorded knowledge and information.

Library facilities will be 'intelligent' structures; their rich technical infrastructures will support on-site and remote use of recorded information and knowledge. They will utilize a variety of storage techniques appropriate to the variety of formats of recorded information and knowledge.

Educational opportunities represented by information technologies such as telecommunication networks and integrated multimedia systems are enormous. Print materials and classroom lectures can be electronically augmented with expert advisors from around the world.

The library facility will provide a teaching and learning environment for the use of information technologies and resources.

Policies and Standards for CSU Campus Library Facilities issued in 1991 provides the quantitative information needed to identify space and costs for library facilities. The 1993 and 1994 documents redefine the needs but do not specify the quantitative information needed to identify space and costs for the integrated library facilities. This Task Force proposes additional guidelines, built on the information presented in those earlier documents, to expand the 1991 Standards to incorporate the needs of the integrated information resource facility.

PLANNING FOR INTEGRATED INFORMATION RESOURCES

Functional integration of information technologies permits access to the full range of campus information resources independent of time and place. Access to campus information resources should be available from on-campus locations such as student housing, classrooms, faculty offices, counseling centers and administrative offices, and from off campus as well. Integrated information technologies and services are thus not facility-bound; planning for functional and organizational integration includes multiple buildings or locations.

This report focusses on planning guidelines for the core integrated information resources facility. Incorporating additional functions into the facility (e.g. telecommunications and computing centers) is encouraged but will require funding beyond that provided in the recommended planning model. Even where physical integration is not possible, functional integration needs to be considered as part of a holistic plan.

The recommended planning model allows the campus the ability to seek adequate funding to develop a hub for the functional integration of campus information resource facilities. As part of that integration, there may need to be a comprehensive review of the media, telecommunications, and academic computing organizations. Each campus will determine the appropriateness of physical and organizational integration of these units, but functional integration must be addressed, not only for the integrated information resource facility, but for all the information resources.

Planning Assumptions for the Integrated Information Facility

Space is needed for emerging technologies that are being integrated into electronic library services and delivery. Space is needed for people to come together to learn about the emerging technologies and new information resources. Professionals in libraries, media and academic computing need facilities to provide active instruction for students and faculty. Training and teaching are increasingly important library services and there is a corresponding shift in the focus of the facility from print-based activities to instructional training.

The following assumptions were developed by the Task Force to provide a basis for a quantitative model for defining integrated library facilities.

• The pace of change in technology and information environments will continue to accelerate.
  
  
• While continuing to provide space for existing library services and physical collections and information media, facilities will need to address increasingly distributed (less place- and time-bound) instructional, computing and information environments.
  
  
• Integrated facilities will be designed to foster collaboration and team-building among faculty, librarians, and media, telecommunications and computing specialists in the design and delivery of instruction and information resources.
  
  
• The telecommunications infrastructure must be integral to the basic planning and funding of the facility rather than an add-on component.
  
  
• Given increasing reliance on sophisticated and costly equipment, security must also be integral to planning and funding.
  
  
• Print collections will continue to grow, but at a slower pace, for the foreseeable future.
  
  
• Use of compact storage technology for housing print collections will increase.
  
  
• ADA requirements will have space implications.
  
  
• Remote access to databases will increase.
  
  
• Integrated facilities will provide access to student services; they will be part of the overall campus plan for information technology for administrative student services via the campus-wide network.
  
  
• Local campus considerations will determine the mix of space within the facility devoted to instructional media and multi-functional facilities.
  
  
• Facilities planning will be characterized by a dynamic quality rather than rigid quantitative standards to respond to change, including the continual review and upgrade of equipment and infrastructure.
  

THE INTEGRATED INFORMATION RESOURCE FACILITIES PLANNING MODEL

In considering a model for facility planning, it is important to note that the existing standards for library space planning are predicated primarily on print, while new planning guidelines must focus on integrated facilities.

The 1991 standards lack the telecommunications infrastructure needed to deliver instruction and electronic information capacity. The model introduced below is non-prescriptive, allows for campus individuality, builds on previous studies and reports, and includes provisions for the electronic infrastructure. The model assumes that when other instructional resource components are being planned, a global view of information resources integration will be taken.

The 1993 Task Force chaired by Michael Gorman recommended that the "campus pursue the planning, designing, and construction of smaller library buildings (with a goal of a space reduction of no less than 20%)". The goal was to reduce the space but maintain the construction funding level based on the 1991 Standards in order to "build the technological infrastructure necessary to meet the challenges of the future." Traditional library services may occupy less space; however, by integrating other functional activities into the facility the overall building costs remain the same. Overall costs remain the same since the savings from the 20% are applied to new technologies that require a higher level of funding than provided for in the past.

The 1993 task force recommendation supports the role of the library as an instructional component that can function as a hub and deliver information resources in a distributed environment. Given the impact of electronic information, the necessity of extensive print warehousing is diminished. More information is now resident in the library in an electronic format with additional electronic information resources accessible at off-campus locations.

The planning guidelines proposed herein complement the 1991 Standards by including the integration of functionality in a flexible and non-prescriptive manner. The 1991 Standards for library facilities (Appendix A) establish a formula for arriving at total assignable square feet based primarily on FTE enrollment projections and the size of the collection. The model proposed (Appendix B) incorporates a framework for planning facilities that preserves the total space allowance of the 1991 Standards but also makes provision for integrating technologies for the 21st Century educational environment.

The total amount of space generated by the proposed model remains the same as that generated by the 1991 Standards. While approximately 80% of the space is for traditional library activities, now approximately 20% is for integrated facilities to support the electronic information instruction and delivery. The 20% is funded at a higher rate than the 80% because of the higher costs of infrastructure, program space, and equipment costs. In return of higher costs, higher functionality will be achieved. The facility will be far more comprehensive and adaptable to changing technologies. Appendix C displays a comparison of capital outlay estimates for a library versus an integrated facility at a hypothetical campus.

The model for the integrated information facility incorporates the following features.

• While quantitative in display, the model is non-prescriptive in its detail; within the overall ASF (Assignable Square Feet) allowance, the campus may design a facility to accommodate local program needs.
  
  
• The model assumes that an average of 2 ASF per FTE will be devoted to instructional technology and multi-functional uses.
  
  
• The model assumes optimal use of compact storage to reduce open stack space requirements.
  
  
• The model assumes that if the local space requirement for accommodating instructional technology and multi-functional use exceeds the 2 ASF per FTE (Full Time Equivalent student) allowance, additional space could be generated by some combination of: (a) a reduction in the number of library study carrels within the library footprint and/or (b) an increased percentage of collections in compact storage. If library study carrels are reduced, it is expected that campus-wide self-instruction computer workstations will be increased in number to offset the reduction and to maintain the total provided for in the 1991 standards.
  
  
• A campuses can expand upon the model by including space for integrating other entities such as the campus computing center and telecommunications facilities. Additional space will be allowed for integrating those entities, but the campus is responsible for justifying the proposed additions and obtaining funding separate from that provided for the integrated facility. The campus computing center and telecommunications are not included in the integrated facility ASF.
  

CONCLUSIONS

The Task Force proposes a model for redefining the programming aspects of libraries, allowing individual campuses to integrate a variety of services into the library facility. An integrated facility permits partnering and collaboration among all involved in delivery of instruction and information resources. Professionals in the library, media and academic computing have assumed a stronger and more active role in teaching students and training faculty in the use of technology. An integrated facility supports the active role and helps to better meet the needs of the student.

The proposed planning guidelines retain the overall space-generating elements of the 1991 standards but provide a more flexible approach to programming Libraries of the Future. The space remains the same as that provided in 1991 standards but the organization of the space entitlements (ASF) are changed to meet the new demands. The approach is flexible, allowing each campus to design a facility which meets the individual campus needs and culture. The model assumes a campus-wide view of information resources which integrates the computer, telecommunications, media services, and library resources. The recommendations are meant to be flexible to accommodate changing technologies. Rather than providing a set of standards, this model offers guidelines to shape planning of facilities that are being funded today to serve students and faculty in the 21st century.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Following the CSU Trustees' audit of 1983 and the library space consultant (HBW) report of 1984, the CSU initiated a long range planning project for its CSU Library Program. One facet of that three year planning effort involved taking a comprehensive look at future campus library facility needs. The result of that planning project was a plan entitled Library Planning in The California State University: 1986/87-1996/97. The Library Plan, which was accepted by the Board of Trustees in November, 1987, as the policy framework for the future development of library capabilities throughout the CSU, became the basis for the facility policies, standards and projected campus plans presented in this document.

The development of these new library space policies and standards has taken the last four years and has involved: widespread consultation with the CSU academic community; negotiated agreements with the staff members of the California Postsecondary Education Commission, the Legislative Analyst and the Department of Finance; and, the recent approval of the CSU Academic Senate and endorsement of the CSU Executive Council.

The new CSU library space policies and standards were developed using the following assumptions:

• CSU's mission of teaching and research related to the instructional mission will require a sufficient quantity and variety of immediately available library resources.
  
  
• CSU's emphasis on research related to the instructional mission will require the acquisition of basic research materials, but not in sufficient quantities to justify special policy provisions for long term storage of such materials.
  
  
• Growth and development of library collections and access to information must be coordinated and managed to achieve the academic program goals of the campus.
  
  
• The library facilities on each campus must support and enhance the campus' academic mission, not hinder it.
  
  
• Future CSU campus library facilities should be designed for the campus' projected enrollment ceiling, thus reducing the number of times a campus needs to request a Capital Outlay Project for library construction.
  
  
• Campus library facilities should be designed to keep in step with the economy and rapidly changing technologies.
  
  
• Long range growth and development of the library collections will need to be managed within the total projected library space provided by the standards for each campus when it reaches its projected FTES enrollment ceiling.
  
  
• Existing CSU library space standards should serve as the foundation upon which to develop the new standards.
  

Using these assumptions, planning proceeded on the new CSU library space policies and standards with the intent of keeping them consistent, to the degree possible, with existing CSU standards and with the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) standards. Currently, there are no ACRL standards regarding limiting "open stack" space, providing for high density shelving or non-book library space areas. Also, there are no ACRL space standards for Library Telecommunications Computer Workstations.

In addition to using the ACRL standards as a benchmark, current library literature and surveys on national trends in library services, space standards, publishing, technology, and networking technology were carefully studied. CSU research on the issue of library standards found that national library space standards have not kept up with the rapidly changing library environment which has been significantly affected by new and emerging technologies.

In Appendix A, the comparison between the ACRL Formula C standards, adopted in 1986, and the new CSU policies and standards shows a close alignment where ACRL standards exist.

The purposes of the remainder of this document are to: (1) set forth the CSU policies for planning future CSU libraries; (2) articulate the new standards for the different types of library space; and (3) provide an overview of the impact of these standards on the future projected library space needs of each CSU campus.

II. POLICY GUIDELINES

The following policy guidelines establish the planning horizon to be used in developing plans for new CSU library facilities; the types of space to be included in planning for and alteration of library facilities; the appropriate uses of standards and official data in calculating space needs for such facilities; the need to plan for the long range development and management of the collections; and, the authority for each campus to develop its library resources to meet its academic program needs. In part, these policy guidelines are derived from Library Plan, pages 15-19, and, in part, they are the normal extension and expansion of CSU existing policies, standards, and practices.

A.	Planning Horizon. When a campus library facility or addition is planned for a CSU campus in the Capital Outlay Program, the size and scope of the project shall address the amount of space needed to adequately house the library's collections, its non-book materials, reader stations, and technical processing and public service areas for the approved Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES) enrollment ceiling of the campus. While the project will be designed for the full FTES capacity, in some instances the plan may call for multiple construction phases to be consistent with the anticipated enrollment growth.
B.	Types of Space. The CSU systemwide library standards, herein described, are to be applied in determining the amount of space in a library facility to serve the needs of students and faculty and to maintain information in a diverse range of formats. Space is also to be provided for library staff to organize the information and to transmit it to students and faculty, and to allow for adequate growth of the collections to accommodate reasonable amounts of change in student, faculty, and staff populations.
C.	Calculating Needs. The library space calculations and projections used in a Capital Outlay Program are to be based upon official data maintained by the Chancellor's Office. Space for the library collections is to be based upon the projected number of volumes the campus should attain after it reaches its approved FTES enrollment level. Non-book space is to be based on a percentage of the library collections space. Reader space is to be based upon the official projections of FTES. Likewise, space for library staff is to be based upon the projected number of FTELS (FTELS is the number of full time equivalent library staff approved in the annual forecasted budget) at the approved FTES enrollment level.
D.	Collections Management. Each campus must develop a long range strategy and appropriate annual implementation plans to grow, develop and manage the library collections to meet the campus' academic program needs. The strategy must consider the development and management of the library collections within the total projected space of the facility.
E.	Campus Self-Determination. The acquisition, selection, and allocation of library collections and related information shall continue to be vested with the individual CSU campus to insure compatibility with its academic mission.
F.	Tenant Use. Before an addition can be built on an existing library the plan must make provision for recapturing any space occupied by tenants. Conversely, if a new library facility anticipates having some of its space initially used by tenants, a detailed plan for such use must be incorporated in the project plan.

III. SPACE STANDARDS

There are four types of space that must be planned as part of a Capital Outlay Program library project, including space for the collections, non-book materials, reader stations, and technical processing/public service areas. The following space standards are to be used in planning and scoping CSU library facilities:

A.	Collections Space. The space for the collections is to be comprised of "open stacks" (OS) and "movable aisle compact shelving" (MACS). The amounts of each type of collections space will change as a campus' collections grow.  1. Open Stacks (OS): Space for the collections contained in an "open stacks" area is to be planned at the 10:1 ratio. (Ten volumes per one assignable square foot.) Each campus library will be constructed to provide a sufficient "open stack" area to accommodate 40 volumes per FTES at the campus' approved enrollment level. For instance, a campus with a projected enrollment level of 25,000 FTES will have an "open stack" area to accommodate 1,000,000 volumes, or 100,000 assignable space feet (ASF). At a minimum every campus will have an "open stack" area to accommodate 400,000 volumes.  2. Movable Aisle Compact Shelving (MACS)*: Space for library materials not housed in the "open stack" area is to be designated as "movable aisle compact shelving (MACS)". The MACS is calculated at 35 volumes to the assignable square foot of library space. Each campus library will be constructed to provide sufficient MACS in addition to the "open stack" area to accommodate the projected volume count at the approved FTES enrollment level for the campus. *This standard will apply to all campuses except CSU Northridge which has just opened a new library using the Automated Storage Retrieval (ASR) technology for high density shelving. ASR is a sophisticated storage capability that will enable CSU Northridge to store over 100 volumes per ASF. While ASR has been proven in various types of warehousing this is the first time it is being used by a library. The CSU did not feel it could adopt ASR as a standard at this time.   The projected volume for various campus sizes are: Enrollment Projected Volumes in   Volumes   Approved Levels Volumes Open Stacks ASF in MACS ASF             25,000 1,775,000 1,000,000 100,000 775,000 22,143 20,000 1,500,000 800,000 80,000 700,000 20,000 18,000 1,390,000 720,000 72,000 670,000 19,143 15,000 1,225,000 600,000 60,000 625,000 17,857 14,000 1,170,000 560,000 56,000 610,000 17,429 12,000 1,060,000 480,000 48,000 580,000 16,571 10,000 940,000 400,000 40,000 540,000 15,429 8,000 840,000 400,000 40,000 440,000 12,571             The development of the collections space will involve initially providing open stack space for the first 400,000 volumes. Then the total space for the MACS will be filled. Finally, the remaining open stack space will be utilized.
B.	Non-Book Materials. Space for non-book library materials is to be calculated at 40 percent of the space allocated for "open stack" collections.
C.	Reader Stations. There are three types of reader stations to be provided including general purpose reader stations, study carrels, and library telecommunications/computer based workstations (LTCW). The LTCW has emerged in recent years as a result of the need to provide information (voice, video, text, graphics, and image) in electronic form from either on-site resources or remotely via telecommunications. In total, these three types of reader stations are to be calculated at 20 percent of the projected full time equivalent students (FTES) enrollment ceiling. The following provides the space standards for each type of reader station.  1. General Purpose Stations - 88 percent of the total projected reader stations are to be this type and are to be sized at 25 assignable square feet per station.  2. Study Carrels - 10 percent of the total projected reader stations are to be of this type and are to be sized at 35 assignable square feet per station.  3. Library Telecommunications/Computer Workstations (LTCW)* - 2 percent of the total projected reader stations are to be this type and are to be sized at 49 assignable square feet per station.
D.	Technical Processing and Public Service Space. CSU formulas have been in effect in this category for 15 years and are being retained without change. Space for the library staff is to be provided at the rate of 225 assignable square feet per projected staff member. The following is the projected staffing for various campus sizes:    Enrollment Staff       25,000    160   20,000    130   18,000    115   15,000    93   14,000    89   12,000    81   10,000    73   8,000    67

IV. PROJECTED LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS OF THE CAMPUSES

Space planning and projections utilizing the above standards are based upon the projected volumes, the FTES, and the Full Time Equivalent Library Staff (FTELS) at the approved FTES enrollment level.

Table 1.0 displays the total library space to be developed for each of the 20 campuses, applying the new space standards to the projected volumes, FTES and FTELS, at the currently approved FTES enrollment ceilings.

However, as part of the CSU's Growth Plan, increased FTES enrollment ceilings were to be considered for each of five campuses (Fresno, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and Sonoma). To date, there has been no official action taken to raise the enrollment ceilings of these campuses. In order for the new space standards to be applied to the increased enrollments discussed for these five campuses, each campus will have to have its new enrollment ceiling approved by the Board of Trustees. As part of Board approval each campus will need to have a revised Physical Master Plan and an approved Environmental Impact Report.

V. SUMMARY

These policies, standards, and projections are designed to assist the campuses in developing plans for future library facilities which will meet their long range academic program needs. The policy to employ a planning horizon based on the approved FTES enrollment ceilings will insure that each campus will not be confronted with the need to be constantly developing building plans for library facilities. In addition, it will reduce the overall long term costs to the State of California.

The Chancellor's Office divisions of Library Affairs and Physical Planning and Development are prepared to assist the campuses in initiating and developing proposed library faculty projects within the Capital Outlay Program consistent with these policies and standards.

Because of the rapid technological developments in electronically digitizing all forms of information, the CSU intends to monitor and review these policies and standards periodically to insure they are consistent with the developments of the library field in higher education. There is particular concern that the new standard for the Library Telecommunications Computer Workstation will not be adequate to meet the long range needs for access to electronically based information. Therefore, at the request of the CSU Academic Senate, such a review will take place no later than FY 1995/96.

The individual campus implementation plans will be updated and reported annually each September.