02 - Laserfiche WebLink

California Constitution but instead desires to enact reasonable content-neutral time, place and manner regulations that address the need to prevent dangerous and hazardous situations from arising and to promote pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicular safety as well as the welfare and safety of the public using the City's public right-of-ways. Q. The City Council in enacting this Ordinance does hereby take legislative notice of the various decisions regarding content-neutrality, regulation of activity in the public right-of-ways, such as streets and medians, regulation of nonpublic fora, and regulation of activity on private property, including but not limited to the following: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218(2015) [regulations are content based if they apply to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed]; Cutting v. City of Portland, 802 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2015) [prohibition against standing on medians was content-neutral but was overbroad as it applied to all medians regardless of size or location]; Norton v. City of Springfield, 806 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2015) [finding that in the wake of Reed regulations restricting the oral request for an immediate donation of money was content-based]; The Contributor v. City of Brentwood, 726 F.3d 861 (6th Cir. 2013) [prohibition against solicitation from occupants of vehicles was constitutional as solicitors' audience was general public and this audience could be reached through alternative channels of communication]; Houston Chronicle v. City of League City, 488 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2007) [prohibition on soliciting or selling material to the occupant of cars stopped in obedience to traffic lights was constitutional as it was narrowly tailored to the most congested locations with the highest traffic and safety concerns]; Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) [prohibition against solicitation on streets and highways was geographically over-inclusive]; Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) [finding certain solicitation regulations for public park content-based and not narrowly tailored]; Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators'Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) [nonpublic forum is a place that does not, by tradition or designation, serve as a forum for public communication and thus content- based restrictions in nonpublic fora need only be "reasonable and viewpoint neutral"]; United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [finding that postal sidewalk was not a traditional public forum and that regulations met with the reasonableness test for a nonpublic forum]. R. The City Council recognizes the free speech rights of those engaged in solicitation and panhandling. At the same time, the City Council always strives to take necessary steps to protect the health and safety of the motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians who use the City's public right-of-ways and to insure their safety. This ordinance is the least restrictive means to achieve the City's important interest in accomplishing these traffic safety goals. S. The ordinance applies to all forms of activities that result in lingering and loitering regardless of the speech involved, including leafleting, vending, performing, panhandling, soliciting, and campaigning. T. These restrictions are content-neutral and are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, but still provide alternative avenues of communication. The reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions of these regulations avoid the negative effects of lingering or loitering on narrow medians and on medians and corner islands in high-volume intersections without targeting the message or topic of speech and also allow ample alternative means of communicating including on sidewalks, public parks, and at other public forms. Page 3