requirements, and some with no notice requirements at all. Id. (citing cases with notice requirements of no more than two days). The five-day notice requirement restricts a substantial amount of speech that does not interfere with the city’s asserted goals of protecting pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and minimizing inconvenience to the public. Accordingly, we conclude that the parade ordinance is not narrowly tailored. We are also concerned about the application of the permit requirement to groups of ten or more persons. We entertain doubt whether applying the permit requirement to such a small group is sufficiently tied to the City’s interest in protecting the safety and convenience of citizens who use the public sidewalks and streets. See Cox, 312 U.S. at 576, 61 S.Ct. at 765-66 (<HOLDING>). See also Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1207 n. 13
holding that significant state involvement satisfies public participation requirement because it serves the identical purpose that the public notice provision seeks to effectuate recognizing that permit requirement applied to a parade or procession of five groups of fifteen to twenty persons serves the government interest of public convenience recognizing the public interest exception holding the separate classification of one purported administrative convenience claim can never be reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience recognizing as well that such uninhibited communication serves the public interest by facilitating the administration of appropriate treatment