The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, were read on this motion to/for Article 78 (Body or Officer).DECISION AND ORDER Petitioners commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of respondents City of New York, New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) (with other City-related respondents, collectively City) to open a homeless shelter in the building located at 158 West 58th Street in the County, City and State of New York (the building). Petitioners argue that the decision is arbitrary, capricious, and irrational because the building is unsafe and not in compliance with current building and fire safety codes. Petitioners also claim that the City failed to perform a proper fair share and environmental review, did not give the public an opportunity to be heard, and that the shelter would give rise to a public nuisance.1 “In reviewing an administrative agency determination, [the Court] must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Gilman v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144, 149 [2002]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (Peckham v. Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009], citing Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). “If the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency” (Peckham, 12 NY3d at 431; see Flacke v. Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355, 363-64 [1987]).The Court finds that the decision to open a homeless shelter at the premises has a rational basis and is therefore not arbitrary and capricious.With respect to safety, petitioners claim that the building must be brought up to current building and fire safety code requirements because there is a change in occupancy. Any alternations in compliance with the 1968 building code would only be permissible “provided the general safety and public welfare are not thereby endangered” (NYC Admin Code §27-118 [c]); and that certain alteration work must be brought up to code, irrespective of grandfathering. The City contends that the building is grandfathered and that compliance with current codes is not required.The applicable codes depend, in part, on the classification. The Court finds that there is a rational basis to find that the building is a Class A Multiple Dwelling with an R-2 classification under the applicable laws because DHS claims that the residents of this shelter would stay for 30 days or more (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 118 [hereinafter Gittens affidavit] at 3,
