1 ORDINANCE NO. 1156
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 2.64
(CITY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS) TO TITLE 2 OF THE
LANCASTER MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH
VIEWPOINT-NEUTRAL, CONDUCT-BASED STANDARDS
FOR THE MODERATION OF OFFICIAL CITY SOCIAL
MEDIA ACCOUNTS, AND RATIFYING AND
CONTINUING THE CITY’S INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City operates official social media accounts and other digital communication channels to inform the public about City programs, services, meetings, and activities, and opens the interactive portions of certain of those accounts to comment by members of the public; and
WHEREAS, under controlling federal authority, moderation of the interactive portions of official government social media accounts is state action subject to the First Amendment, and the City may not remove, hide, restrict, or block expression on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2026, the City adopted, through its Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, an Internal Social Media Policy and an External Social Media Policy governing the administration of City social media accounts, employee use, comment standards, and records practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to codify in the Lancaster Municipal Code the standards governing moderation of public comment on City accounts, so that the grounds for moderation are fixed, public, exhaustive, and amendable only by ordinance, while operational administration remains in the administrative policies; and WHEREAS, the City has substantial, viewpoint-neutral interests in the orderly operation of its communication channels; in protecting staff, officials, and members of the public from true threats, doxing, impersonation, and fraud; in preventing automated spam, duplicate flooding, and account evasion that crowd out ordinary civic participation; and in maintaining cybersecurity, records integrity, and operational continuity; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted to secure those interests through conduct-based, viewpoint-neutral standards, documentation, appeal rights, training, and audits. It is not adopted to suppress, and shall not be applied to suppress, criticism of the City, its officials, or its policies; identical substantive standards apply to supportive and critical expression alike; and WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment (Cal. 2 Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378(b)(5)), and, independently, it is exempt under the common-sense exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3)).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this ordinance as findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Addition of Chapter 2.64. Chapter 2.64 (City Social Media Accounts) is added to Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Lancaster Municipal Code to read in full as set forth in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein.
SECTION 3. Conforming Amendments to the Social Media Policies. The City Manager is directed to present to the City Attorney, within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this ordinance, conforming amendments to the Internal Social Media Policy and the External Social Media Policy that (a) remove or conform the comment categories authorizing removal of “defamatory or slanderous” comments and comments that “advocate illegal activity,” (b) conform the election-period comment provisions to Section 2.64.140 of the Lancaster Municipal Code as adopted, (c) conform the off-topic comment standard to Section 2.64.060.C.10, and (d) conform the spam and external-link provisions so that a link, without more, is not a ground for removal. Until so amended, the policies remain in effect except to the extent inconsistent with Chapter 2.64, in which case Chapter 2.64 controls.
SECTION 4. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378(b)(5)) and, independently, is exempt under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3). Staff is directed to file a notice of exemption.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof irrespective of the invalidity of any other portion.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 36937.
SECTION 7. Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published in accordance with applicable law.
2 3
I, Andrea Alexander, of the City of Lancaster, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading on the __________ day of ________________, 2026, and placed upon its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ____ day of ________________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ ______________________________ ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES }ss
CITY OF LANCASTER }
CERTIFICATION OF ORDINANCE
CITY COUNCIL
I, ________________________________, ___________________________________ City of Lancaster, California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. 1156, for which the original is on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this _________ day of ________________, ________.
(seal)
3 A-1
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 2.64
CITY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS
Sections:
2.64.010 Purpose and construction.
2.64.020 Definitions.
2.64.030 Applicability.
2.64.040 Forum designation.
2.64.050 Social media policies.
2.64.060 Prohibited conduct.
2.64.070 Moderation actions—Graduated response.
2.64.080 Documentation, records, and preservation.
2.64.090 Appeals.
2.64.100 Public notice on city accounts.
2.64.110 Actions requiring city attorney approval.
2.64.120 Coordinated comment incidents.
2.64.130 City council members—Brown Act.
2.64.140 Election-period suspension of comments.
2.64.150 Training, audits, and reports.
2.64.160 Relationship to other laws.
2.64.010 Purpose and construction.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate conduct, not viewpoint, on city accounts. This chapter shall be construed to: (1) preserve lawful expression, including criticism, political advocacy, recall advocacy, factual dispute, accusations, sarcasm, and disagreement with the mayor, the city council, city staff, city policy, candidates, elections, recalls, fees, assessments, lawsuits, or alleged misconduct, except where such expression independently falls within a conduct category described in Section 2.64.060; (2) ensure consistent treatment of supportive, hostile, and neutral expression, applying identical substantive standards to each; (3) authorize graduated, least-restrictive enforcement that escalates only as needed to address an identified conduct violation; (4) require documentation, retention, training, public notice, and an accessible appeal procedure for every moderation action; and (5) establish a coordinated comment incident protocol that distinguishes protected coordination from prohibited conduct.
B. This chapter shall be liberally construed to afford the fullest opportunity for lawful expression consistent with the conduct-based standards herein, and shall not be construed to authorize viewpoint-based removal, restriction, or blocking of any comment.
2.64.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
“City account” or “official account” means any social media account, channel, page, group, profile, board, comment thread, or other digital communication channel operated by, on A-2
behalf of, or using the name, seal, branding, or apparent authority of the city, including accounts operated by city staff or contractors in their official capacity. “Comment” means any user-generated content, including text, image, video, link, reaction, or reply, posted by a member of the public to a city account. “Coordinator” means the city manager, or such other officer or employee designated by the city manager in writing as the principal administrator of this chapter. “Days” means calendar days, unless “business days” is expressly used, in which case it means days on which the city’s principal administrative offices are open for general public business.
“Documentation” means the preservation, contemporaneous where practicable, of the comment text, URL, timestamp, account identifier (including display name and platform identifier), prior moderation history if any, the conduct category invoked under Section 2.64.060, the moderator’s identity, the action taken, and any contemporaneous official reply or pinned notice.
“Indefinite restriction” or “block” means a moderation action removing or substantially disabling an account’s ability to interact with a city account for a period extending beyond thirty (30) days, or that the city does not reasonably expect to lift upon the account’s compliance with published standards.
“Lawful expression” means expression that is not independently within a conduct category described in Section 2.64.060, including criticism, insults, sarcasm, accusations, political advocacy, recall advocacy, election-related speech, claims of official misconduct, factual disputes, and unrelated commentary.
“Moderation” or “content moderation” means any official action affecting the visibility, accessibility, or posting status of a comment or account on a city account, including leaving visible, responding, hiding, removing, restricting, blocking, escalating, or referring to a platform, law enforcement, or the city attorney.
“Platform” means any third-party operator of a social media service on which a city account is hosted.
“Social media policies” means the Internal Social Media Policy and the External Social Media Policy adopted through the city’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual effective May 29, 2026, as they may be amended from time to time consistent with Section
2.64.050.
“Temporary restriction” means a defined-duration moderation action under Section
2.64.070, the lifting of which is reasonably tied to the account’s compliance with published standards within a stated period.
“Viewpoint neutrality” means the principle that the city shall apply the same substantive rule to a comment supporting the city that it would apply to a comment criticizing the city, and shall not remove, hide, restrict, or block a comment on the basis of the viewpoint, identity, political purpose, or affiliation of the speaker.
A-3
2.64.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter applies to every city account and to every moderation action taken on a city account. Each city account shall be inventoried, assigned to a responsible moderator or moderators, and made subject to the moderation action log described in Section 2.64.080.
B. This chapter does not regulate expression by city employees or officials acting in their personal capacity on personal accounts, and shall not be construed to authorize or restrict expression by any person other than through moderation taken on a city account.
C. City contractors and vendors operating a city account or performing moderation on behalf of the city are subject to this chapter as a material condition of engagement, and shall be bound in writing to comply with the viewpoint neutrality standard, the documentation requirements, and the prohibitions on viewpoint-based removal.
2.64.040 Forum designation.
A. The city’s own posts and responses on city accounts are government speech. The interactive comment portions of city accounts that permit public comment are limited public forums, devoted exclusively to posts by the city concerning city programs, services, meetings, activities, and current issues, and to comments from members of the public relevant to the subject matter of the post to which they respond.
B. Nothing in this chapter creates a right to post commercial solicitations or advertising on a city account, obligates the city to open or to keep open any comment feature, or limits the city’s discretion to operate accounts that do not accept public comment.
2.64.050 Social media policies.
A. The city manager is authorized and directed to adopt and maintain, through the city’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, internal and external social media policies governing the operational administration of city accounts, including account creation and approval, the account registry and credentials, employee authorization and conduct, boilerplate response protocols, records preservation practices, and training.
B. The Internal Social Media Policy and the External Social Media Policy effective May 29, 2026, are ratified and continued in effect. If any provision of the social media policies conflicts with this chapter, this chapter controls, and the conflicting provision is inoperative to the extent of the conflict.
C. Amendments to the social media policies shall be reviewed by the city attorney before adoption. The social media policies and any administrative guidance may implement, but shall not enlarge, narrow, or add to, the conduct categories in Section 2.64.060.
2.64.060 Prohibited conduct.
A. The city may, but is not required to, take moderation action against a comment or account where the comment or account independently satisfies a conduct category enumerated in subsection C of this section. Each category shall be construed narrowly and shall not be construed to authorize viewpoint-based removal. The city’s exercise of discretion not to remove a comment within any category does not constitute approval of the comment or waiver of the city’s authority under this chapter.
A-4
B. Lawful expression that incidentally resembles a prohibited conduct category — for example, sharp political disagreement that an uninformed observer might describe as “harassment,” or coincident use of similar language by critics that an uninformed observer might describe as “duplicate flooding” — is not, by reason of such resemblance, within the category.
The city shall document the actual conduct relied upon for any moderation action and shall not rely on categorical appearance alone.
C. Enumerated categories.
1. Threats. A serious, credible, or repeated statement threatening violence, criminal conduct, unlawful harm, or other conduct the city is legally obligated to refer to law enforcement. Mere insults, hyperbolic political rhetoric, sarcasm, and figurative speech are not threats. 2 Doxing. Unauthorized disclosure of personal identifying information — such as home address, personal telephone number, personal email address, social security number, financial account information, or location data — of city staff, council members, or private individuals, where the disclosure is intended to facilitate harassment, harm, or unwanted contact.
3. Impersonation. Use of a city account or a closely similar account to impersonate city officials, staff, contractors, candidates, or other identifiable persons in a manner that misleads the public or facilitates fraud.
4. Fraudulent solicitations and scams. Posts or messages soliciting money, account credentials, identity information, or other valuables under the false pretense of representing the city or a city account.
5. Malicious links, malware, and phishing. Links or attachments designed to compromise device security, harvest credentials, distribute malicious software, or conduct phishing.
6. Unlawful targeted harassment. A pattern of conduct directed at a specific person or family that crosses the line from robust criticism into unlawful targeted harassment. The city does not moderate robust criticism, and may act under this category only where the conduct satisfies the standard of harassment in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6(b)(3), or constitutes stalking under Cal. Penal Code § 646.9, harassment by electronic communication under Cal. Penal Code § 653.2, or a criminal threat under Cal. Penal Code § 422.
7. Duplicate flooding. Repetitive posting of identical or substantially identical comments by one or more accounts in a manner that, by volume, repetition, or timing, materially disrupts the operation of the city account.
The city shall preserve where practicable one representative comment to avoid suppression of the underlying expression.
8. Automated posting. Use of bots, scripts, or other automated means to post comments, including high-volume scripted activity and coordinated automated responses.
A-5
9. Account evasion. Creation of a new account, or use of an existing account, for the purpose of circumventing a prior moderation action, including circumvention of a temporary restriction.
10. Materially off-topic disruption. On a city account clearly designated by public notice as a topic-restricted channel for a limited transactional purpose, comments that are materially off-topic and that, by volume or persistence, materially disrupt that purpose. On any other city account, a comment may be moderated as off-topic only where it bears no reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the post to which it responds within the forum designated by Section 2.64.040, the determination is documented, and the standard is applied identically to supportive and critical comments. This category shall be narrowly construed.
11. Mandatory-referral content. Content that the city is legally obligated to remove or refer, including content depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor (Cal. Penal Code § 311.11; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252, 2252A) and any content the removal or referral of which is required by state or federal law or by lawful order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
12. Coordinated inauthentic conduct. Activity conducted through two or more accounts that materially misrepresent the identity, number, or independence of the persons speaking — including networks of fabricated, purchased, or automated accounts operated by or at the direction of a common source — where the activity satisfies a verified-incident threshold documented pursuant to Section 2.64.120. The published standards of a platform, however denominated, do not supply the standard for moderation under this category. The mere presence of multiple critics, shared talking points, or organized political opposition does not, standing alone, satisfy this category.
13. Lawful orders and required referrals. Takedowns and referrals required by lawful court order, records-seal order, election-interference referral, or subpoena.
D. The categories in subsection C are exhaustive of the conduct grounds that may support moderation under this chapter. The city shall not maintain or apply any categorical rule not enumerated in this section, and any extension, amendment, or interpretation of a category shall be effected by amendment of this chapter. Falsity of a comment, standing alone, is not a ground for moderation under this chapter.
2.64.070 Moderation actions—Graduated response.
A. The moderation actions authorized under this chapter are: (1) leaving the comment visible; (2) responding once, through an official city response addressing a legitimate question or a material factual error by reference to an official document, video, budget, staff report, audit, or service channel; (3) hiding, by withdrawal of public visibility without deletion of the underlying record; (4) removing, by deletion of the comment from public view while preserving the documentation required by Section 2.64.080; (5) a temporary restriction, with stated conditions for reinstatement; (6) an indefinite restriction, permitted only with city attorney A-6
approval under Section 2.64.110 and subject to appeal under Section 2.64.090; and (7) escalating or referring, by internal escalation to the city attorney, referral to law enforcement, or referral to the relevant platform for violation of the platform’s terms of service supported by a consolidated evidence package.
B. The city shall employ the least-restrictive effective response for any identified conduct violation, proceeding in the order of increasing restrictiveness set forth in subsection A.
The city may depart from graduated escalation only where the conduct falls within category 1, 2, 5, 6, or 11 of Section 2.64.060.C, where urgent safety or legal obligations so require, or where the conduct is otherwise subject to a mandatory-referral category; the reasonableness of any departure shall be documented in the moderation action log.
C. Where, in the reasonable judgment of city staff, a comment poses an imminent threat to safety, a clear doxing exposure, an active fraud, or another emergency condition, moderation action may be taken without prior city attorney approval. City attorney confirmation, not exceeding three business days absent exigency, shall be obtained and logged.
2.64.080 Documentation, records, and preservation.
A. For every moderation action other than leaving a comment visible without response, the moderator shall create, before the action where practicable, the documentation defined in Section 2.64.020, and shall record the action in the moderation action log not later than the end of the moderator’s shift.
B. The city shall maintain a centralized, access-controlled moderation action log capturing, at minimum: account identifier; URL; timestamp; comment text or a faithful transcription; the conduct category invoked; moderator identity; supervisor review status; city attorney approval status where required under Section 2.64.110; the outcome of any appeal under Section 2.64.090; and any subsequent restoration, reversal, or further restriction.
C. The moderation action log, supporting documentation, and related records shall be retained consistent with the city’s records retention schedule and Cal. Gov’t Code § 34090.
Nothing in this chapter shortens any retention period or limits any obligation of the city under the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.000 et seq.
D. Preservation precedes removal. Hiding, removal, blocking, or referral shall not be undertaken before the documentation is captured in the moderation action log, except in emergency conditions under Section 2.64.070.C, in which case post-action documentation shall be promptly created.
2.64.090 Appeals.
A. Any person whose comment has been hidden, removed, or restricted, or who has been subject to a temporary restriction, indefinite restriction, or other adverse moderation action under this chapter, may file a written appeal. The appeal is not the exclusive remedy of the appellant and does not limit any other legal remedy.
B. An appeal shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk, or through such other appeal channel as is published pursuant to Section 2.64.100, within thirty (30) days of the appellant’s notice of the moderation action.
A-7
C. Appeals shall be reviewed by the city manager, or by a designee who did not participate in the original moderation decision. Where the city manager participated in or directed the original decision, the appeal shall be reviewed by the city attorney or the city attorney’s independent designee.
D. The reviewer shall defer to the moderator’s contemporaneous factual findings but shall not defer to any moderation action taken on the basis of viewpoint, and shall err on the side of restoration unless the underlying conduct independently falls within a category in Section
2.64.060.C as applied through the viewpoint neutrality standard.
E. The reviewer shall issue a written decision, retained in the moderation action log, identifying the basis for the decision, the steps ordered, and the date of the decision. The appellant shall receive a copy through the channel through which the appeal was submitted.
2.64.100 Public notice on city accounts.
A. Every city account shall display, in a manner reasonably visible to ordinary visitors, a standardized comment policy notice linking to the External Social Media Policy, to this chapter, and to the appeal channel established under Section 2.64.090. Notice text shall be reviewed and updated at least annually.
B. City accounts designated by public notice as topic-restricted channels shall display notice text describing the limited transactional purpose of the channel and the consequences of materially off-topic disruption under Section 2.64.060.C.10.
C. The form of notice shall be prescribed by the External Social Media Policy. The coordinator may update the form of notice administratively from time to time, consistent with this chapter.
2.64.110 Actions requiring city attorney approval.
The following moderation actions shall not be taken without contemporaneous written approval of the city attorney, recorded in the moderation action log. Pre-action approval is required except where emergency conditions under Section 2.64.070.C justify prompt action followed by prompt post-action confirmation:
1. An indefinite restriction, or any restriction extending beyond thirty (30) days.
2. Closing comments on an account category, or on a specific post after comments have begun, where the post is, or is reasonably foreseeable to be, controversial, except as provided in Section 2.64.140.
3. Public identification of any individual or organization as engaged in coordinated inauthentic conduct under Section 2.64.060.C.12.
4. Referral of political speech to law enforcement where the threat is not, on its face, credible or unambiguous.
5. A takedown or restriction on the basis of copyright, confidentiality, court order, election-interference referral, or alleged defamation.
A-8
6. Deployment of broad keyword filters capable of capturing political criticism, including filters keyed to candidate names, party affiliations, ideological terms, recall-related terms, or pending litigation parties.
7. Any moderation decision involving pending litigation; a known claimant or party adverse to the city; a declared candidate for public office; a recall proponent; a journalist; or any person whose viewpoint is reasonably foreseeable to be material to a forthcoming public controversy affecting the city.
2.64.120 Coordinated comment incidents.
Where the city observes a sudden or recurring cluster of substantially identical comments, synchronized activity, suspected fake accounts, repeated cross-posting, account cycling, automated posting, or coordinated attempts to overwhelm city discussion, the city shall:
1. Open an incident log and assign one lead moderator.
2. Capture the full comment thread, including timestamps, profile links, repeated wording, replies, and reactions, before taking any moderation action.
3. Separate protected coordination from prohibited conduct; similar political opinions are not a violation, while duplicate flooding, fake identities, threats, doxing, automation, and evasion may be.
4. Preserve where practicable one representative lawful comment and remove only duplicates.
5. Post one pinned factual response rather than debating each account individually.
6. Refer suspected fake-account networks, impersonation, or automated activity to the relevant platform with a consolidated evidence package.
7. Refer credible threats, stalking, doxing, fraud, hacking, or false emergency reports through the escalation chain established by the social media policies.
8. Not publicly accuse named individuals of operating an inauthentic network absent substantial evidence and city attorney approval under Section 2.64.110.
9. Prepare an after-action report within five business days of incident closure, retained in the moderation action log.
2.64.130 City council members—Brown Act.
Members of the city council may use social media platforms to communicate with members of the public regarding matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city, subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 54950 et seq. No member shall respond directly to, or use a digital icon to react to, any communication regarding city business made, posted, or shared on a social media platform by another member of the city council (Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952.2(b)(3)), and a majority of the members shall not use a series of communications of any A-9
kind, directly or through intermediaries — including comments, replies, or reactions on a city account — to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of city business (Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952.2(b)(1)). The training required by Section 2.64.150 shall address this section.
2.64.140 Election-period suspension of comments.
A. To ensure the impartial and orderly administration of city communication channels during election periods, the comment feature on all city accounts shall be suspended, uniformly and without regard to the content or viewpoint of any comment, beginning ninety (90) days before any local election and continuing until the election results are certified. The suspension shall apply identically to every post and every account, shall be announced by the notice required by Section 2.64.100 before it takes effect, and shall not be extended, shortened, or applied selectively by reference to any pending controversy. During a suspension the city continues to publish information, and the public retains the service channels identified in the External Social Media Policy.
B. This section is the exclusive authority for an election-period suspension, and a suspension under this section does not require the approval described in Section 2.64.110.
2.64.150 Training, audits, and reports.
A. The coordinator shall ensure initial moderator training is completed within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and annually thereafter.
Training shall, at minimum, address viewpoint neutrality, off-topic analysis, duplicate flooding, threats, doxing, impersonation, account evasion, records preservation, the appeal procedure, coordinated incident handling, and the Brown Act standards in Section 2.64.130.
B. The coordinator shall cause a quarterly audit comparing the treatment of substantively identical supportive and critical comments. Audit findings and corrective actions shall be reported to the city manager and, where appropriate, to the city attorney.
C. The coordinator shall present to the city council an annual report summarizing moderation volume, reversals, complaints, records-retrieval issues, and incident responses during the preceding year. The report is a public record.
2.64.160 Relationship to other laws.
This chapter supplements, and does not supplant, applicable federal and state law, including the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, article I, section 2 of the California Constitution, the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.000 et seq.), the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 54950 et seq.), the Elections Code, the City Charter, and any labor obligations applicable to city employees. Where any provision of this chapter conflicts with applicable federal or state law, the provision shall be interpreted to comply with applicable law, and the city attorney shall promptly propose a curative amendment.