The Governing Body makes the following findings:
A.
The roadways within the City are intended and designed for the primary purpose of safely facilitating vehicular movement.
B.
Certain features within or adjacent to the roadways, such as medians and other traffic control features are designed and intended for the primary purpose of facilitating vehicular movement and may secondarily facilitate safe pedestrian movement.
C.
Sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways within the right-of-way and adjacent to the roadway serve the dual purposes of protecting pedestrians from traffic and of facilitating pedestrian movements and other constitutionally protected activities, including the expression of free speech.
D.
Some forms of solicitation and pedestrian activities have the effect of creating an unsafe or threatening environment to both vehicles and pedestrians.
E.
The City has a significant governmental interest in facilitating the safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
F.
The state municipal code, NMSA (1978), § 3-49-1, which authorizes a municipality to regulate streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and public grounds, specifically authorizes a municipality to:
(1)
Regulate their use and use of structures under them;
(2)
Provide for and regulate crosswalks, curbs and gutters;
(3)
Regulate and prohibit their use for signs, signposts, awnings, awning posts, telegraph poles, horse troughs, posting handbills and advertisements;
(4)
Regulate and prohibit the exhibition or carrying of banners, placards, advertisements or handbills in the streets or upon the sidewalks;
(5)
Regulate traffic and sales upon streets, sidewalks and public places.
G.
The provisions of NMSA (1978), § 3-49-1 that authorize restrictions on speech represent the legislature's implicit recognition that not all streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and public grounds are suitable as traditional public forums and that municipalities may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech in such places according to the municipality's determination of the type of public or nonpublic forum involved.
H.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in the case of Evans v. Sandy City, 944 F.3d 847 (2019), held that a City may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech without reference to content if narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of information.
I.
The Governing Body finds that the regulations and prohibitions on solicitation contained herein are narrowly tailored in that they are limited by reasonable spatial specifications related to vehicle-pedestrian safety and by time limitations, allowing ample alternative channels for communication immediately outside the restricted areas and during all daylight hours and within all traditional public forums.