the Ordinance is in fact “narrowly tailored” to further that interest. See, e.g., Edwards v. City of Santa Barbara, 150 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.1998) (“A single legitimate government interest may be sufficient to sustain a content-neutral regulation.”) (citing Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 650 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court so finds. First, it is virtually axiomatic that the City has a “significant” interest in traffic flow and safety. Accord, Heffron, 452 U.S. at 650, 101 S.Ct. 2559 (“As a general matter, it is clear that a State’s interest in protecting the ‘safety and convenience’ of persons using a public forum is a valid governmental objective”); see also ACORN, 798 F.2d at 1268 (<HOLDING>). The City’s interest in crime prevention is
recognizing the substantial risk of disruption in crowd or traffic control that may be presented by solicitation of contributions as compared to other forms of expression holding that there is no difference between financial contributions to reduce the mortgage principal and those to improve the property itself and that both types of active contributions entitle the marital estate to a proportionate return on its investment holding that an improper traffic control device may create a dangerous condition for which the governments immunity from liability is waived holding that a prison official may be held liable under the eighth amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it recognizing that object code may be copyrighted as expression under 17 usc  102b