HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6k - Adopt A Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Records Retention Policy and Schedule to reflect non-retention of certain Incidential Video Footage and Images Item 6k
Department: Attorney
Cost Center: 1501
For Agenda of: 7/15/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK AND CITY
ATTORNEY TO AMEND THE RECORDS RETENTION POLICY AND
SCHEDULE TO REFLECT NON-RETENTION OF CERTAIN INCIDENTAL
VIDEO FOOTAGE AND IMAGES NOT RETRIEVED FOR CITY BUSINESS
USE BY CITY STAFF (NOT RELATED TO FO
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a draft Resolution entitled “ A Resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
Authorizing the City Clerk and City Attorney to Amend the Records Retention Policy and
Schedule to Reflect Non-retention of Certain Incidental Video Footage and Images Not
Retrieved for City Business Use by City Staff.” (Attachment A) This policy clarification
does not alter in any way the statutorily mandated retention requirements applicable to
footage of police in-vehicle camera, body-worn camera, or routine video monitoring.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City uses video and imaging technology for a variety of reasons , across a variety of
departments. Some types of video footage, including that from body-worn cameras, in-
vehicle (“dash”) cameras, and routine video monitoring (i.e., of City buildings and City -
owned parking structures) must be retained under state law and the City’s record
retention policy. Other sources of video/imaging – specifically, fixed and mobile “pod”
cameras, aerial drones, and license plate readers (LPR) – mostly capture only incidental
footage and images not necessary for conducting City business . Staff are recommending
the Council authorize a clarification to the City’s Records Retention Policy and Schedule
that such incidental images and video are not a “record” that requires retention for any
period of time, unless and until the video/images are retrieved and held by City staff .
Page 153 of 251
Item 6k
POLICY CONTEXT
Under Resolution No. 9174 (2001 Series), the City Clerk, in consultation with the City
Attorney, is directed to review annually state and federal regulations and to update the
Records Retention Schedule and/or policy as necessary.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City is not required to video record or video monitor anything. However, the City
recognizes there are significant benefits of using video recording and/ or monitoring, such
as providing greater efficiency, transparency, accountability and accuracy in government.
These benefits can be realized by recording public meetings, recording interactions
between citizens and their police department and other field staff , or recording the
operations of various departments. Video recording or monitoring can also be an effective
tool in law enforcement investigations or in deterring damage to public buildings and
facilities. Once created, certain video and images are required to be retained for a
specified length of time as determined by state statutes and City policies (such as footage
from in-vehicle/dash cameras, body worn camera, and video monitoring of City buildings)
and the action being recommended here does not reduce or otherwise alter those
retention requirements. However, video applications throughout the City’s public spaces
capture an extraordinarily large amount of incidental footage not necessary or useful for
any public purpose (e.g., hours of incidental footage of nothing happening on a public
street or other public park area). It is the non-retention of that incidental footage being
recommended to City Council for clarification; that the City Records Retention Policy
(“Retention Policy”) be amended to expressly state specific incidental footage/imagery is
outside the definition of a record, unnecessary for any public purpose and, therefore,
outside the control of the Retention Policy.
While there are arguably benefits to universal retention of all video footage generated by
City controlled devices, that “keep everything” idea must be measured against the high
costs of retaining non-useful imagery that is captured but never needed nor intended for
use in any governmental purpose (“incidental”). Due to the amount of electronic storage
space required for retention of incidental imagery, the average, annual cost to store all
video footage, and to retrieve recordings from storage, is about $100,000 for the Police
Department and an additional $150,000 for the rest of the City (these are smoothed
annual costs based on capital purchases made by the City approximately every five
years). These amounts are the storage costs for both statutorily required retention as well
as a significant amount of incidental recordings.
As mentioned previously, some video footage, such as body-worn cameras and in-vehicle
(“dash”) cameras, are records that, once created, must be retained pursuant to and in
accordance with state statute. The Retention Policy clarification being recommended by
Page 154 of 251
Item 6k
staff to the City Council is not intended to and does not affect or alter the City’s obligations
under state law. The types of incidental footage that are subject to the clarification, and
which will be discussed further below, do not qualify for designation as “records” of
government business requiring retention.
Legal Framework for Video Record Retention
California Government Code (“Government Code”) section 34090 allows cities, with
approval of the legislative body and t he city attorney, to destroy city “records” that are
over two years old, unless they are “records affecting the title to real property or liens
thereon,” court records, the minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or
city commission, or “records required to be kept by statute.” This means that unless a
different retention period is specified, videos that are deemed to constitute “city records”
must be retained for at least two years.
Government Code section 34090.6 creates an exception to the two-year retention rule by
authorizing destruction of “recordings of routine video monitoring” after one year, unless
they are evidence in a pending claim or litigation. Importantly, this section states that
“routine video monitoring” is a “record” that must be retained. “Routine video monitoring”
is defined as “recording by a video or electronic imaging system designed to record the
regular and ongoing operations of the departments described in subdivision (a), including
mobile in-car video systems, jail observation and monitoring systems, and building
security recording systems.” (emphasis added; Govt. Code §34090.6(c).) Records of
routine video monitoring, as defined above, are and will continue to be retained for one
year under the Retention Policy, in accordance with state law.
The term “records” is not defined in these record retention statutes. However, the
California Attorney General has opined that a “record” in the context of retention by public
agencies is “a thing which constitutes an objective lasting indication of a writing, event or
other information, which is in the custody of a public officer .” (emphasis added; 64
Ops.Atty.Gen. 317.)
By approval of the clarification to the Retention Policy being recommended here, the City
would make the distinction that incidental video of non-events is not a record; that only
when video monitoring or other cameras captures an image with potential value related
to the conduct of public business, and that image is flagged for retention by staff, does it
qualify as a “record” of the event recorded and then must be retained for the period
required by applicable law. (e.g., Govt. Code § 34090.) That is the point at which video
becomes “an objective lasting indication of a writing, event, or other information which is
in the custody of a public officer and is kept either (1) because a law requires it to be kept
or (2) because it is necessary or convenient to the discharge of the public officer’s duties
and was made or retained for the purpose of preserving its information content for future
reference.” (64 Cal.Ops. Atty.Gen. 317 at p. 11; see also People v. Tomalty (1910) 14
Page 155 of 251
Item 6k
Cal.App.224, 231 [“In order that an entry or record of the official acts of a public officer
shall be a public record it is not necessary that such record be expressly required by law
to be kept, but it is sufficient if it be necessary or convenient to the discharge of his official
duty”].) “Records,” then, would exclude video imagery that is not required by state law to
be retained and that is incidental, meaning captured for a minimal period of time and
thereafter automatically deleted on a regular, repeating schedule if not flagged or
bookmarked for retention.
The recommended action only affects four categories of incidental video/images
captured by the City, as follows:
1. Mobile “Pod” Camera Footage
The Police Department and other City departments utilize mobile “pod” cameras for
security/monitoring and other purposes. Video recordings frequently capture hours of
incidental video footage with no public business value, are not taken into the custody of
any public officer or flagged for retention, and, therefore, do not create a “record” of
anything necessary or convenient to the conduct of the public’s business. The footage is
stored temporarily on the cameras, not on City servers, for roughly 90 days unless and
until it is flagged and saved by City staff. As discussed above, at all times preceding the
moment City staff flags a video or a portion of a video for use or future reference, the
video is not a “record” of anything, but simply an incidental capture.
2. Stationary “Pod” Camera Footage
City staff also utilize “pod” cameras fixed to a single public location for security/monitoring
purposes. Because these cameras are in public places such as the Mission Plaza and
the Railroad Safety Trail, and not located at a specific City department or
operation/facility, the footage recorded is not “routine video monitoring,” as defined in
Government Code 34090.6 as “video recording by a video or electronic imaging system
designed to record the regular and ongoing operations of the departments described in
subdivision (a), including mobile in-car video systems, jail observation and monitoring
systems, and building security recording systems.” As with the mobile pod cameras, the
footage frequently does not create a record of anything related to the City’s business. The
footage is likewise stored on the cameras for a period of roughly 90 days. Unless and
until the footage is flagged for review or retention (aka, “kept” by the City), the footage is
not a record.
3. Aerial Drone Footage
Police utilize aerial drones for a variety of reasons, such as live monitoring of large events.
When used to monitor live events, the footage captured does not generally create a record
of anything requiring preservation, nor does it record the regular and ongoing operations
Page 156 of 251
Item 6k
of a City department. Drones are not used to record the fact that an event happened, nor
to create a record of the fact that nothing of interest occurred. Unless the City becomes
aware of an event, crime or incident having occurred and possibly recorded on the drone
footage, there is nothing in the incidentally captured drone footage necessary or
convenient to the discharge of any public officer’s duties and no reason to retain it as a
“record.” A peripheral benefit of the recommended policy clarification as to this type of
footage may be the alleviation of emerging concerns about the retention, production and
use of such video in a manner that could raise concerns about chilling First Amendment
peaceful assembly rights.
Drone footage obtained and saved by City staff for other purposes, such as capturing
video of open space or for mapping/topography, would continue to be retained as a record
for the City’s applicable retention period.
4. License Plate Recognition Images
License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology is used by the Police Department for a
variety of investigatory purposes, including locating stolen vehicles and developing
vehicle profiles (which can match a victim or witness’s description of a vehicle to a license
plate number). Imaging captured by these LPR cameras is stored on-camera by the
Police Department’s third-party vendor for a period of 30-60 days. That period of time
should be sufficient to determine whether foota ge may have captured an event rising to
the level warranting retrieval and retention. Unless and until a particular image is flagged
for retention and kept by the City for use in discharging a public duty or to preserve the
image for future reference, including for either of the purposes stated above , or for
retention as evidence, the image is not a “record” requiring retention for any period of
time. Once an image is retrieved by Police staff, it is retained by the Police department
for the applicable record or evidence retention period.
LPR technology is also used by Parking Services in Parking enforcement vehicles and in
the City-owned parking structures. Images are used to verify license plates and/or valve
stem locations (to determine whether the vehicle has moved) for paid parking, permit, or
time limit parking enforcement. If a citation is issued, the LPR image is attached to the
citation file in the Parking division’s citation processing system along with any other
photos or evidence associated with the citation. The image remains on the citation for the
life of the citation (five years.) As with Police department use of LPR technology, unless
and until a particular image is flagged for retention and kept by the City for use in
discharging a public duty or to preserve the image for future reference (i.e. issuing a
citation), the image is not a “record” requiring retention for any period of time.
LPR cameras in City-owned parking structures are used for access of vehicles into and
out of the garages, and recording entry/exit times, but are not used for issuing citations in
Page 157 of 251
Item 6k
the garage. If a particular image is saved because of its relevance to a non -parking
violation or a crime, it will be retained in accordance with the Retention Policy.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council authorize an amendment to the Retention Policy clarifying
that incidental video and images described above, which are not necessary or convenient
to the conduct of City business and not actually held and retained for staff for some City
business purpose, need not be retrieved and retained as a City “record.” To reiterate, the
recommended action is not intended to affect retention policies for video records that must
be retained according to state law, such as in-vehicle (“dash” cam) footage, footage from
body-worn cameras, recordings of routine video monitoring as statutorily defined (which
the City has interpreted to also include security cameras within City-owned parking
structures), and video footage retained as evidence.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
In the 2001 revision to the Retention Policy, the City Council authorized, “the City Clerk,
in consultation with the City Attorney, to review annually state and federal regulations and
to update the Records Retention Schedule and /or policy as necessary,” (Resolution No.
9174 (2001 Series)) pursuant to delegated authorization under Government Code §
34090.
The City Clerk, in coordination with the City Attorney’s office, recently revised the City’s
Records Retention Policy and Schedule. It was published to the City’s website on March
10, 2025.
Public Engagement
The recommended action is an administrative modification to City procedures or process
and therefore does not require specific public engagement. The item is a consent item for
the July 15, 2025, City Council meeting and will follow all required postings and
notifications. The public will have an opportunity to comment on this item at or before the
meeting.
CONCURRENCE
The Police Department and Information Technology division concur with this
recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 158 of 251
Item 6k
The California Environmental Protection Agency does not apply to the recommended
action because it is not a “project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $0 $0 $0 $0
The recommended action could lead to potential savings in storage costs if staff are no
longer required to keep hours of incidental footage not required to be retained as “record.”
As stated above, storage of video footage costs the Police Department approximately
$100,000 annually, and the Information Technology division estimates that the City
spends an additional $150,000 annually in storage of non-Police generated video.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could terminate the use of certain cameras . Since the City has no obligation
to record or capture the incidental video/imagery subject to this Resolution, and given the
exorbitant cost of prolonged storage, Council could direct staff to terminate use of the
cameras generating the incidental video/imagery.
Council could decide not to approve the Resolution. Should Council pursue this
alternative, staff would be required to retain significant volumes of incidental footage that
is not required to be retained by statute and which does not constitute a City “record,”
incurring unnecessary and burdensome ongoing storage costs.
Council could decide to exclude one or more types of identified incidental video
from the Resolution. Should Council opt to exclude one or more types of identified
footage, staff requests that Council clarify their reasons for finding that such non-event,
unflagged footage constitutes a City “record.”
Page 159 of 251
Item 6k
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution “AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY TO AMEND
THE RECORDS RETENTION POLICY AND SCHEDULE TO REFLECT NON-RETENTION
OF CERTAIN INCIDENTAL VIDEO FOOTAGE AND IMAGES NOT RETRIEVED FOR CITY
BUSINESS USE BY CITY STAFF (NOT RELATED TO FOOTAGE OF POLICE IN-VEHICLE
CAMERA, BODY-WORN CAMERA, OR ROUTINE VIDEO MONITORING)”
Page 160 of 251
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2025 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK AND CITY
ATTORNEY TO AMEND THE RECORDS RETENTION POLICY AND
SCHEDULE TO REFLECT NON-RETENTION OF CERTAIN INCIDENTAL
VIDEO FOOTAGE AND IMAGES NOT RETRIEVED FOR CITY
BUSINESS USE BY CITY STAFF (NOT RELATED TO FOOTAGE OF
POLICE IN-VEHICLE CAMERAS, BODY-WORN CAMERAS, OR
ROUTINE VIDEO MONITORING)
WHEREAS, the City’s Records Retention Policy and Schedule (“Records
Retention Policy”) does not completely address the nature and retention periods of a ll
unretrieved and unused video monitoring or surveillance video or other imaging currently
generated or captured by the City; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for clarification in the Records Retention Policy in
contemplation of the extensive and expanding use of “pod” investigative and surveillance
cameras, aerial drones, license plate recognition (“LPR”) technology, and other types of
technology that produce incidental video and imagery that is not needed for City business
use by City staff; and
WHEREAS , the City recognizes that there are significant benefits in terms of
transparency, accountability and accuracy from video recording or monitoring, and
benefits to security from surveillance video, but these benefits must be measured against
the high costs of retaining the captured incidental and unuseful imagery for a lengthy
period of time; and
WHEREAS, the City is a charter city with constitutional authority to make all laws
relating to municipal affairs within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, state law does not specify that all video and imagery generated by a
public agency, regardless of public utility, becomes a record requiring retention at the
moment of its creation; and
WHEREAS, it is extremely expensive to retain all incidental video for a lengthy
period of time or to have dedicated staff review all video and images captured; and
WHEREAS, City staff are equipped and able to determine whether a video
recording or LPR image should be reviewed for possible retention well within 30 days of
its creation; and
WHEREAS, the Record Retention Policy, as most recently revised on April 14,
2025, requires retention of records of routine video as statutorily defined (one year), in-
vehicle (one year) and body-worn camera footage (90 days to two years, depending on
the type), audio and video recordings of City Council and Planning Commission meetings
Page 161 of 251
(ten years), parking structure video monitoring (one year), and drone/pod/event
surveillance footage preserved by staff (two years), in accordance with respective state
law and adopted City policy; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to amend its Record Retention Policy to
clarify that incidental video or imagery captured by City-operated cameras need not be
retained from the moment it is generated and to the extent footage is not necessary to
the performance of a public duty.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the above is true and that:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The above-stated Recitals are adopted and incorporated herein as findings of
the City Council.
2. The Records Retention Policy appropriately ensures retention of video records
and other images that are required by state law to be retained for prescribed
amounts of time.
3. Video and still images captured by 1) investigative/mobile “pod” cameras, 2)
fixed-location “pod” cameras, 3) aerial drones, and 4) License Plate
Recognition technology do not record the regular and ongoing operations of
the City, nor are they designed to create a public record of the fact that nothing
of interest occurred. Unless and until City staff become aware of an event,
crime, violation, or incident possibly recorded by the aforem entioned and
similar technology, there is nothing in the footage or captured imagery
necessary or convenient to the discharge of any public officer’s duties and no
reason to retain it as a “record.”
SECTION 2. Action.
1. As to the video and images described in the Finding #3 above (and similar
video/images), such video and images shall not become a City record unless
and until such time as the City becomes aware that the video or image depicts
an event, violation, crime or information and takes acti on to retrieve the video
or image. In such a case, the video or image shall become a “record” and be
retained in accordance with the applicable retention period as adopted in the
City’s Record Retention Schedule.
2. The City Clerk and the City Attorney are authorized to exclude from the City’s
Record Retention Policy and Schedule such incidental video and images
captured by City-operated technology.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:
Page 162 of 251
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2025.
____________________________________
Mayor Erica Stewart
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Page 163 of 251
Page 164 of 251