Noel v. City Of New York

Opinion

USDC SDNY | DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED:_ 08/15/2019 SHAUNANOEL@tal SSS Plaintitts, OPINION AND ORDER -against- 15-cv-05236 (LTS) (KHP) CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. anno KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiffs commenced this action to challenge a New York City policy regarding affordable housing lotteries. The City’s policy allocates 50% of units in affordable housing lotteries to individuals who already reside in the community district where the new affordable housing units are located. This policy is referred to herein as the “Community Preference Policy.” Plaintiffs allege that the Community Preference Policy violates the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq., because it perpetuates racial segregation and disparately impacts racial minorities. They also claim that the City’s decision to establish, expand, and maintain the policy constitutes intentional discrimination. Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ motion challenging privilege designations on 350 documents in the City’s privilege log. (ECF Nos. 729, 747.) The City asserts that the documents are protected from disclosure based on one or more of the following reasons: (1) attorney-client privilege, (2) work product protection, (3) deliberative process

privilege, and (4) legislative privilege. This Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the factual background of this case based on its many decisions in this action and does not repeat it here. See, e.g., Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 WL 5664852, at *1-6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017); Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 WL 2880556, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2017), aff’d, 2017 WL 5054727, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2,

2017); Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (DCF), 2016 WL 6208564, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016). The City submitted for in camera review a detailed privilege log with hyperlinks to all 350 documents and, in some cases, cover emails for the documents providing greater context for the creation and purpose of the communication and the basis for the privilege assertion. The City also submitted declarations from Leila Bozorg, Deputy Commissioner of the New York

City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”), and Eric Enderlin, current Commissioner of HPD, providing greater detail as to the basis for the assertion of privilege as to certain documents and categories of documents. Bozorg attests that she has reviewed the documents withheld on the basis of deliberative process privilege and that they involve pre- decisional deliberations by officials at HPD and/or other City agencies. She attests that these documents reflect deliberations on the Housing New York Plan (“HNY”), which was publicly

announced on May 5, 2014 and deliberations on updates to the plan, announced as HNY 2.0 in November 2017. Other documents reflect deliberations on Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (“MIH”), which was an amendment to the City zoning law. The MIH application submitted by the administration was completed on September 21, 2105 and ultimately approved by the City 2 Planning Commission on February 3, 2016 and the City Council on March 22, 2016. Some of the documents relate to deliberations on changes to the so-called 421-a homeless preference policy, which was announced on October 14, 2016, and the “Where We Live NYC” plan (“WWL”), which is a planning process that the City is using to better understand how challenges like segregation and discrimination impact New Yorkers’ lives and to identify ways to improve

the City’s fair housing policies. Other documents pertain to deliberations on various neighborhood plans for East New York (“ENY”), Jerome Avenue, Inwood, East Harlem, the Bay Street Corridor and the Far Rockaways.1 Final versions of the above-described housing policies are publicly available, as is documentation about public review and zoning amendment processes. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Antidiscrimination Center, was invited to stakeholder meetings and is thus independently knowledgeable about the WWL planning

process. This Court does not repeat the legal standards for a claim of privilege, as those were previously set forth by this Court in earlier decisions. See ECF Nos. 259, 655. It has, however, reviewed each of the 350 documents consistent with these legal standards in determining

1 The ENY plan was finalized April 20, 2016 after the City Council approved zoning changes. The Jerome Avenue plan was finalized on March 22, 2018 after the City Council approved zoning changes. The Inwood plan was finalized on August 8, 2018 after City Council approved it. The East Harlem plan was approved by the City Council on Novmeber 30, 2017. The Bay Street Corridor plan, which includes zoning changes, is currently in the public review process and not yet final. HPD was involved in developing the plan’s and putting them forth for public review and City Council vote on necessary zoning changes. Thus, the initial proposals were developed before the City Council votes and in some cases there were deliberations on changes to the plans after the public review period and before the zoning votes. However, contrary to what the City has suggested, deliberations post- announcement of the policy and pre-City Counsel approval are not necessarily protected. The Court has been mindful of the various dates applicable to identified policies when evaluating whether a document is pre- or post- decisional. 3 whether the City has met its burden in demonstrating privilege.2 The Court also has been mindful that privileges must be construed narrowly insofar as they are contrary to the “search for truth.” Kaufman v. City of New York, 98 Civ. 2648(MJL)(KNF), 1999 WL 239698, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 1999). This is particularly important in civil rights cases such as this, where fundamental rights are at issue. King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1988); Skibo v. City

of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). A brief discussion of the Court’s ruling is set forth below. I. Deliberative Process Privilege The majority of the documents in the review set were withheld on the basis of deliberative process privilege. Under this privilege, the document must be pre-decisional and deliberative. Noel v. City of New York, 357 F. Supp. 3d 298, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). To

demonstrate the former, the City must point to a specific decision to which the communication correlates. Id. This does not mean, as Plaintiffs suggest, that current deliberations of a non- final policy are not subject to the privilege. General open-ended discussions would not be protected, but deliberations for the purpose of arriving at a specific policy or plan would be protected. Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[T]he privilege does not protect a document which is merely peripheral to actual policy formulation,” and “the

record must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment.” (quoting Ethyl

2 To the extent the City has suggested there is a presumption in favor of withholding deliberative documents or that the Plaintiffs have the burden to show why a document should be disclosed, the Court rejects these suggestions. It is well established that the party withholding a document has the burden of establishing a privilege attaches. Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 4 Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir. 1994))). The Court has taken notice of the dates when certain policies were finalized versus when they were released for public comment and City Council vote in its evaluation of the documents and determination of whether a communication is pre-decisional. See supra, n.1. Because factual information is not protected, the Court has ordered production of some

documents on the log in redacted form where appropriate. Noel v. City of New York, 15-cv- 5236(LTS) (KHP), 2018 WL 6649969, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018). Likewise, post-decisional explanations and implementation of policies are not protected by the privilege. Davis v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 0699 SAS, 2011 WL 1742748, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2011) (noting that the privilege “does not extend to materials related to the explanation, interpretation or application of an existing policy, as opposed to formulation of a new policy” (quoting Resolution

Trust Corp. v. Diamond, 137 F.R.D. 634, 641 (S.D.N.Y.1991))). Nor are communications reflecting routine self-evaluation of a policy protected. Noel, 2018 WL 6649969, at *4; Marisol A. v. Giuliani, No. 95 CIV. 10533 (RJW), 1998 WL 132810, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998). Accordingly, the Court has declined to find privilege as to some of the documents on the City’s log for these reasons. Where the Court has found that deliberative process privilege does apply, it has applied

the balancing test set forth in Rodriguez v. Pataki in the manner prescribed by Judge Swain. 280 F. Supp. 2d 89 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 293 F. Supp. 2d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Specifically, this Court has construed relevance broadly for purposes of weighing the relevance factor, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Noel v. City of New 5 York, No. 15-cv-5236-LTS-KHP, 2018 WL 6786238, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018). In this regard, the Court has found documents pertaining not just to the Community Preference Policy, but pertaining to the City’s knowledge of and responses to resistance to or fear of neighborhood racial change, knowledge of the nature of opposition to affordable housing development, discussions about methods for combatting displacement other than the Community Preference

Policy, segregation within the City, and other topics to fall within the broad definition of relevance. The Court has considered communications with City Council members about neighborhood plans and affordable housing generally (and preparations for or reporting of same) to be relevant as well. In other words, the Court credits Plaintiff’s argument that they must be able to probe circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination and has found most of the documents on the City’s log to be relevant even if they do not discuss the Community

Preference Policy. The weight of the relevance factor in this Court’s final balancing of the Rodriguez factors, however, varied from document to document. As to the second Rodriguez factor, this Court took into consideration Plaintiffs’ arguments about their access to documents and information. It also has considered Plaintiffs’ contention that they need drafts of documents to ascertain options that were considered and rejected. For the most part, however, this Court found that the balance of Rodriguez factors

did not warrant production of the drafts on the City’s privilege log because of the weight given to the relevance of the particular changes between drafts and final documents in the balancing analysis, along with Plaintiffs’ access to final versions of policies and other extensive discovery on the topics in the drafts and considerations informing final policies and plans. 6 Consistent with its prior decisions and reviews of documents in camera, the third and fourth Rodriguez factors – the seriousness of the issues involved and the role of the government in the litigation – weighed in favor of disclosure as to each document this Court reviewed and in the balancing analysis. In other words, these factors were additive in the Court’s determination on disclosure.

Finally, this Court analyzed each Rodriguez factor separately in the first instance and then weighed them against the fifth factor– the potential chilling effect disclosure would have on government employees. Noel, 2018 WL 6786238, at *5. To the extent that the City has suggested that the fifth factor will nearly always outweigh the first four factors, the Court rejects this suggestion. Rather, the Court conducted a balancing analysis as to each document, and the fifth factor did not tip the scales against disclosure as to a fair number of the

documents. Its rulings on the individual documents based on the above-described balancing process are reflected on Attachment A to this Opinion and Order. II. Attorney-Client Privilege The attorney-client privilege applies to: (1) a communication between government counsel and their clients, (2) that was intended to be and was in fact kept confidential, and (3) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. See In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d

413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). As to factor 3, the key inquiry is whether the “predominant purpose” of the communication is to solicit or provide legal advice. Id. at 419-20 (collecting cases). When legal advice is the predominant purpose, “other ‘considerations and caveats’ are not severable and the entire communication is privileged.” Fox News Network, LLC 7 v. US Dep’t of Treasury, 739 F. Supp. 2d 515, 560 (citing In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d at 420). On the other hand, if the legal advice is merely “incidental to the nonlegal advice that is the predominant purpose of the communication,” then the legal portions of the document may be redacted. In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d at 420 n.8. For the most part, where asserted, the City demonstrated applicability of attorney-client privilege. As to these documents, the Court’s

review confirmed that they involve communications and draft documents exchanged between attorneys for the City and their clients for the predominant purpose of seeking or conveying legal advice. Where the privilege was not established, the Court notes this in Attachment A. III. Work Product The work product doctrine protects a broader category of documents and communications than the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, it protects documents and

other tangible things “that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Where a document was created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been prepared in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation,” it is protected as work product. United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1195 (2d Cir. 1998). “Conversely, protection will be withheld from ‘documents that

are prepared in the ordinary course of business or that would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of litigation.’” Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202). In those instances where the City established work

8 product protection, this Court found that the document would not have been created in the same manner irrespective of anticipated or pending litigation. The Court also considered, with respect to these documents, whether Plaintiffs have shown (1) substantial need for the material; and (2) an inability to obtain its substantial equivalent from another source without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); Obeid v.

Mack, No. 14-cv-6498 (LTS) (HBP), 2016 WL 7176653, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016). Plaintiffs did not meet this showing as to any of the protected documents. First, the documents on the log related to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) compliance review all involved discussions about possible changes to the Community Preference Policy to settle concerns HUD expressed. Plaintiffs have questioned or had an opportunity to question witnesses about alternatives to the olicy and potential changes to the

policy considered and that could be considered. To the extent HPD Commissioners considered these changes outside of settlement discussions, Plaintiffs were permitted to question them on this topic. Thus, they have had a full opportunity in discovery to vet alternatives to the Community Preference Policy considered or that could have been considered by the City. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not persuasively articulated why they have a substantial need for these few communications. Plaintiffs likewise have not shown a substantial need for Housing

Connect data analysis done in connection with this lawsuit. Plaintiffs have been provided the data themselves and information about non-privileged analyses conducted. They also have been permitted extensive discovery on the data. IV. Legislative Privilege 9 The legislative privilege protects communications integral to a person’s determination whether to vote for or against a proposal or law. See Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 (1975); Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54-55 (1988). Examples include “delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or haranguing in debate; proposing legislation; voting on legislation; making, publishing, presenting, and using legislative reports; authorizing

investigations and issuing subpoenas; and holding hearings and introducing material at committee hearings.” S.E.C. v. Comm. On Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives, 161 F. Supp. 3d 199, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 10-11 (D.C. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The legislative privilege also protects formal and informal fact and information-gathering activities about the subject of potential legislation, as well as documents regarding or reflecting the fruits of this

research. See id. at 236-37, 245; see also United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89, 102-03 (2d Cir. 1988); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 438 U.S. 189 (1978). The privilege does not attach to activities concerning the administration of a law, speeches delivered outside of the legislative body and preparation for the same, the making of appointments with government agencies, and newsletters and press releases to constituents. See U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S.

111, 130-33 (1979). Very few documents on the log were designated withheld under this privilege. In most instances where noted, this Court found that the City did not establish applicability of the privilege. In the few instances where this Court found the privilege might

10 apply, it conducted the same Rodriguez balancing analysis described above in arriving at its rulings. Conclusion The Court appends a spreadsheet reflecting the Court’s rulings on the 350 documents. The City is directed to re-review its privilege log consistent with this ruling and determine whether there are additional documents on its log that must be de-designated as privileged. The City shall complete this task by September 30, 2019 and provide Plaintiffs with a supplemental production by that date. To the extent there are objections to this ruling, or Plaintiffs believe that the Court should re-evaluate the balance of Rodriguez factors or wish to make a substantial need argument as to a specific document protected by the work product doctrine, this Court requests that the parties first file a motion for reconsideration with this Court. The parties shall notify the Court by letter if they intend to request reconsideration of a ruling as to a particular document by September 6, 2019. The Court will then set a briefing schedule as to any such motion. To the extent the City does not dispute this Court’s ruling with respect to documents deemed non-privileged, it shall produce such documents by September 30, 2019.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 15, 2019 New York, New York Ss x Kad haut Hf f KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge 11

NP; communication concerns explanation/application of policy and announcement of new policy re: AMI; not 001 NYCPRIV00550 Deliberative deliberative regarding new policy DPP; Rodriguez factors weigh in favor of disclosure; near final draft; contains description of planning policies in various neighborhoods; likely chilling effect does not outweigh other factors in favor of 002 NYCPRIV02116 Deliberative production 003 NYCPRIV05333 Attorney Client A/C; legal advice requested and conveyed WP only on p. 1, item 2 - may redact parenthetical in title of 4th bullet and first sub-bullet to 4th bullet/redacted text would not have been created/aded to document but for anticipation of litigation; remainder of document not DPP because draft responses more akin to explanations of policies and not in aid of arriving at 004 NYCPRIV00787 Work Product;Deliberative policy decision. Not DPP for the most part; this is an email preparing draft responses to a reporter's questions about the Flushing West project; first paragraph on top of p. 3 of email chain can be redacted because it reveals ongoing deliberative considerations for implementing MIH in neighborhood & balance of Rodriguez factors does not 005 NYCPRIV00882 Deliberative weigh in favor of unredacting DPP in part; text in emails between and among internal HPD personnel on pp. 1 and 2 may be redacted as DPP insofar as it reflecs deliberation on East NY plan which was not yet finalized; remainder of document not DPP because it includes member of The Coalition for Community Advancement; balance of Rodriguez factors does not weigh in favor of 006 NYCPRIV05465 Deliberative unredacting portion that is DPP DPP; preliminary discussions concerning position/policy regarding East Harlem and potential legislation to propose on relocation and reentry; balance of Rodriguez does not weigh in favor of disclosure except as to second to last sentence on last page of document that simply reports on an issue raised by community groups; sentence identified above should be produced with remainder 007 NYCPRIV04223 Deliberative of document redacted DPP in part; the emails on p. 1 and the first 2 emails on p. 2 should be produced as they are not DPP because it concerns scheduleing; the emails at the bottom of p. 5 to the end of the document between V. Lopez and J. Press should also be produced and are not DPP because it does not reflect internal policy deliberations; the remaining emails between and among HPD personnel is DPP because they reflect policy deliberations about new unit creation under IZ and funding ANCPs and can be redacted; balance of Rodriguez factors 008 NYCPRIV05559 Deliberative weighs against disclosure All but last 3 pages of document are DPP because they concern policy proposal and deliberative dscussion; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce last 3 pages and redact 009 NYCPRIV00734 Deliberative remainder Not DPP because does not reveal internal deliberations of administration about a 010 NYCPRIV05448 Deliberative policy DPP because reveals deliberations about features and costs of anti-harassment legal services and community outreach program; balance of Rodriguez factors 011 NYCPRIV04287 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP because reveals initial policy analysis and proposals for improvements to mobility counseling program; balance of 012 NYCPRIV01024 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Not DPP on top 4 emails in chain because it reveals existing policy; DPP applies to remainder of document because it discusses pending policy; however, balance of Rodriguez factors favors disclosure; 013 NYCPRIV04303 Deliberative whole document should be produced DPP because draft decision memo about considerations for making policy decision on homeless unit commitment; balance of 014 NYCPRIV00185 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP because emails constitute deliberations on possible policy changes as proposed by BBP; balance of Rodriguez 015 NYCPRIV01466 Deliberative factors weighs in favor of disclosure DPP because it is draft document of non- final policy; balance of Rodriguez factors 016 NYCPRIV00192 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP because reveals deliberations about policy positions to advocate at upcoming legislative session; balance of Rodriguez 017 NYCPRIV01574 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure Not DPP; except contains a paragraph Attorney protected by A/C on p. 6 where request for 018 NYCPRIV00214 Client;Deliberative legal advice is discussed Not DPP; does not reveal internal 019 NYCPRIV01739 Deliberative deliberations about Inwood rezoning policy WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement 020 NYCPRIV01068 Work Product strategezation; no substantial need

WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement strategy; no substantial need; DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential changes to 021 NYCPRIV01099 Work Product;Deliberative CPP for purposes of settling with HUD WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement strategy; no substantial need; DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential changes to 022 NYCPRIV01105 Work Product;Deliberative CPP for purposes of settling with HUD top email DPP b/c reveals deliberations about position/policy on neighborhood preservation plan; blance of Rodriguez factors weighs against production; bottom emails in the chain are not DPP or LP; 023 NYCPRIV05518 Legislative;Deliberative produce in redacted form DPP b/c reveals deliberations on policy regarding change to CPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 024 NYCPRIV04390 Deliberative production DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood preservation plan not yet implemented; balance of Rodriguez factors 025 NYCPRIV01274 Deliberative weighs against production DPP b/c reveals deliberations on East New York rezoning plan not yet finalized; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 026 NYCPRIV01284 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c Memorandum reveals deliberations on East New York rezoning plan not yet finalized; balance of Rodriguez 027 NYCPRIV01350 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure 028 NYCPRIV04423 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reveals deliberations about not yet finalized MIH policy; balance of 029 NYCPRIV00177 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about displacement strategies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 030 NYCPRIV04426 Deliberative production WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD 031 NYCPRIV01393 Work Product litigation and for settlement strategezation DPP b/c reveals deliberations about changes to CPP; balance of Rodriguez 032 NYCPRIV04445 Deliberative factors weighs in favor of disclosure Attorney A/C and DPP; draft marketing guidelines 033 NYCPRIV01748 Client;Deliberative reflecting advice of counsel WP-no substantial need; DPP b/c prepared in connection with settlement discussions with HUD about potential changes to the CPP and reflects deliberations about those 034 NYCPRIV00252 Work Product;Deliberative changes DPP b/c draft of not yet finalized MIH policy and report; balance of Rodriguez 035 NYCPRIV00277 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals internal deliberations regarding neighborhood planning and rezoning planning; balance of Rodriquez factors weighs in favor of production insofar as it identifies neighborhoods of 036 NYCPRIV05864 Deliberative opportunity DPP; draft marketing guidelines; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 037 NYCPRIV01768 Deliberative production DPP because reveals deliberations about proposal for Compstat/Housingstat; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 038 NYCPRIV00327 Deliberative against disclosure Not WP; DPP because discusses possible changes to CPP in relation to Culver El affordable housing development; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 039 NYCPRIV00333 Work Product;Deliberative disclosure WP b/c discusses analysis of CPP for purposes of strategizing about this 040 NYCPRIV04470 Work Product litigation; no substantial need

DPP b/c draft reveals non-final conclusions about proposed develoment project in and around Essex Street Market; balance of 041 NYCPRIV02183 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP because reveals discussions about preparation of report/findings for NY-CT Sustainable Communities Initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in 042 NYCPRIV04480 Deliberative favor of disclosure DPP because reveals discussions about preparation of report/findings for NY-CT Sustainable Communities Initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in 043 NYCPRIV04487 Deliberative favor of disclosure DPP because reveals discussions about preparation of report/findings for NY-CT Sustainable Communities Initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in 044 NYCPRIV04493 Deliberative favor of disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about onenyc policy; balance of Rodriguez factors 045 NYCPRIV00360 Deliberative weighs against disclosure WP only as to text on 2d to last page referencing this lawsuit; produce in 046 NYCPRIV01857 Work Product redacted format DPP b/c reveals deliberations about use CPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 047 NYCPRIV05599 Deliberative in favor of disclosure Not A/C; LP and DPP b/c reveals deliberations about 421a legislation; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in Attorney favor of producing in redacted form with Client;Legislative;Deliberat section on p. 2 on Community Preference 048 NYCPRIV05600 ive unredacted DPP b/c reveals deliberation about application of CPP in Jamaica rezoning area; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 049 NYCPRIV01873 Deliberative in favor of producing not A/C; DPP b/c reveals deliberation about application of CPP in Greenpoint/Williamsburg; balance of Attorney Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 050 NYCPRIV04497 Client;Deliberative producing no A/C; DPP because reveals deliberations about New Housing Market Place program; Attorney balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 051 NYCPRIV01881 Client;Deliberative against disclosure Not A/C b/c no legal advice conveyed or 052 NYCPRIV04501 Attorney Client sought DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 053 NYCPRIV02938 Deliberative against disclosure 054 NYCPRIV02983 Attorney BEING PRODUCED DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding position to take with HUD on AFFH assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez 055 NYCPRIV04581 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 056 NYCPRIV03044 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 057 NYCPRIV03145 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 058 NYCPRIV03242 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 059 NYCPRIV03252 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 060 NYCPRIV03267 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 061 NYCPRIV03288 Deliberative against disclosure 062 NYCPRIV03298 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE First 6 pages are DPP b/c reveals pre- planning for MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce 063 NYCPRIV03309 Deliberative pp. 7-12 b/c factual Not A/C; DPP b/c non-final draft of non- Attorney final MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors 064 NYCPRIV01897 Client;Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c draft of non-final neighborhood plan for Bay St., Staten Island; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 065 NYCPRIV03329 Deliberative production Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from 066 NYCPRIV05641 Deliberative CM Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from 067 NYCPRIV05642 Deliberative CM Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from 068 NYCPRIV04690 Deliberative CM and communications with CM DPP b/c non-final draft of non-final plan for East New York reflecting deliberations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 069 NYCPRIV03409 Deliberative against disclosure A/C b/c requesting meeting with counsel on topics in email and deliberations about Attorney policies about fostering economic diversity 070 NYCPRIV04708 Client;Deliberative in neighborhoods generally A/C & DPP because reveals internal discussions about potential steps to mitigate displacement in Greenpoint/Williamsburg and advice Attorney sought; balance of Rodriguez factors 071 NYCPRIV04712 Client;Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberatoins and analysis regarding Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors 072 NYCPRIV04713 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding position to take with HUD on AFFH assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez 073 NYCPRIV04765 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding position to take with HUD on AFFH assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez 074 NYCPRIV04766 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 075 NYCPRIV03435 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 076 NYCPRIV04775 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 077 NYCPRIV04810 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 078 NYCPRIV03501 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 079 NYCPRIV03594 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 080 NYCPRIV04886 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 081 NYCPRIV04890 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 082 NYCPRIV03724 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 083 NYCPRIV04959 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 084 NYCPRIV03922 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 085 NYCPRIV03924 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 086 NYCPRIV05003 Deliberative against disclosure Not DPP b/c not internal deliberations on 087 NYCPRIV05051 Deliberative policy DPP in part; bottom email in chain is not deliberation but merely reporting of input from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce in 088 NYCPRIV05742 Deliberative redacted format DPP in part; bottom email in chain is not deliberation but merely reporting of input from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce in 089 NYCPRIV05746 Deliberative redacted format DPP b/c reveals deliberations on MIH and 421-a; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 090 NYCPRIV05115 Deliberative against disclosure Top 2 emails in chain DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against producing; remainder of emails in chain DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from 091 NYCPRIV05764 Deliberative CM A/C b/c conveys legal advice; DPP b/c Attorney reflects deliberations about policy around 092 NYCPRIV05125 Client;Deliberative 421-a 093 NYCPRIV02038 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE 094 NYCPRIV05210 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE Not DPP b/c concerns response to press question about existing policy; sentence regarding this litigation in first paragraph in 095 NYCPRIV05221 Work Product;Deliberative 3d email in chain can be redacted as WP 096 NYCPRIV05226 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 097 NYCPRIV05227 Deliberative in favor of disclosure DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 098 NYCPRIV05228 Deliberative in favor of disclosure DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 099 NYCPRIV05246 Deliberative in favor of disclosure DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs A/C and DPP insofar as reveals deliberations re: potential MIH/ZQA policy Attorney (does not mention CPP); balance of 102 NYCPRIV05797 Client;Deliberative RAo/Cd raignude Dz PfaPc itnosrosf ware aigsh rse vaegaalisn st disclosure Attorney deliberations re: potential MIH/ZQA policy 103 NYCPRIV05798 Client;Deliberative (does not mention CPP); balance of 104 NYCPRIV05824 Deliberative Not DPP 105 NYCPRIV05825 Deliberative Not DPP 106 NYCPRIV02516 Work Product WP; no substantial need 107 NYCPRIV02532 Work Product WP; no substantial need 108 NYCPRIV02547 Work Product;Deliberative WP; no substantial need 109 NYCPRIV02624 Work Product WP; no substantial need 110 NYCPRIV02652 Work Product WP; no substantial need 111 NYCPRIV02722 Work Product WP; no substantial need DPP as to top 4 emails in chain but remainder not DPP; bottom emais in chain is not deliberation but merely reporting of input from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure of top 4 112 NYCPRIV05834 Deliberative emails; produce in redacted format Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals recommendations about how to build suport for Administration's policy proposal 113 NYCPRIV05310 Deliberative on affordable housing DPP b/c reveals deliberations about policy regarding private applications subject to MIH fir /Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez 114 NYCPRIV05845 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure A/C b/c reveals subject of legal advice 115 NYCPRIV05323 Attorney Client sought on topic of AMIs in ENY DPP b/c reveals deliberations on various policy options; balance of Rodriguez 116 NYCPRIV02470 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure 117 NYCPRIV02456 Deliberative Not DPP Attorney A/C because reveals advice regarding CPP 118 NYCPRIV05883 Client;Deliberative and AFFH A/C communication aspect not made clear by City; WP because prepared for this Attorney Client;Work litigation and reveals strategy as to 119 NYCPRIV05885 Product defenses; no substantial need A/C b/c reveals request for legal advice and response; DPP because reveals deliberations about possible Attorney policy/legislation around AFFH; balance of Client;Legislative;Deliberat Rodriguez factors weighs against 120 NYCPRIV05900 ive disclosure; not clear how legislative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 121 NYCPRIV05932 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 122 NYCPRIV05933 Deliberative against disclosure Not clear how legislative; DPP in part b/c reveals non-final deliberations on Jerome Ave. rezoning plan; balance of Rodriguez 123 NYCPRIV05934 Legislative;Deliberative factors weighs in favor of disclosure DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 124 NYCPRIV05966 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 125 NYCPRIV05978 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 126 NYCPRIV05992 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 127 NYCPRIV05993 Deliberative weighs against disclosure A/C because reveals discussion with counsel about 421-a; DPP b/c reveals Attorney discussion about strategy/planning on 421- 128 NYCPRIV06048 Client;Deliberative a policy A/C b/c reveals discussion with counsel re: regulatory compliance and pending Attorney legislation and impact on policy; no need 129 NYCPRIV06135 Client;Deliberative to reach DPP LP & DPP & A/C; communications with Attorney counsel re: proposed fair housing bills; Client;Legislative;Deliberat balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 130 NYCPRIV06137 ive against disclosure Attorney Client;Work A/C b/c reveals legal advice on 421-a policy 131 NYCPRIV06159 Product and CPP; don't need to reach WP LP & DPP & A/C; communications with Attorney counsel re: proposed fair housing bills; Client;Legislative;Deliberat balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 132 NYCPRIV06193 ive against disclosure A/C because draft communicaton with counsel, among others, seeking legal 133 NYCPRIV06208 Attorney Client advice on presentation DPP b/c reveals internal deliberations regarding plan to maximize funds/grants for certain housing; balance of Rodriguez 134 NYCPRIV06213 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure A/C b/c communication with consel and others re: request to include prior 135 NYCPRIV06277 Attorney Client residents in community preference A/C b/c communication with consel and 136 NYCPRIV06285 Attorney Client others re: REBNY and positions to take DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for Brownsville & reveals deliberations about same; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 137 NYCPRIV06329 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about prospective plan for Brownsville; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 138 NYCPRIV06331 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for homeless unit; balance of Rodriguez 139 NYCPRIV06332 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for homeless unit; balance of Rodriguez 140 NYCPRIV06334 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Brownsville affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 141 NYCPRIV06335 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Brownsville affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 142 NYCPRIV06342 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Brownsville affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 143 NYCPRIV06378 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 144 NYCPRIV06382 Deliberative against disclosure LP not clear; DPP as to top emails b/w and among administrative employees b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; bottom email not DPP b/c reflects questions from CM; 145 NYCPRIV06386 Legislative;Deliberative produce in redacted format DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 146 NYCPRIV06393 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 147 NYCPRIV06396 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez 148 NYCPRIV06401 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 149 NYCPRIV06418 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 150 NYCPRIV06421 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 151 NYCPRIV06423 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 152 NYCPRIV06429 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 153 NYCPRIV06438 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 154 NYCPRIV06439 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 155 NYCPRIV06451 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 156 NYCPRIV06452 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 157 NYCPRIV06464 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 158 NYCPRIV06472 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 159 NYCPRIV06475 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 160 NYCPRIV06487 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 161 NYCPRIV06488 Legislative;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 162 NYCPRIV06489 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential mobility needs assessment and planning; balance of Rodriguez factors 163 NYCPRIV06561 Deliberative weighs against disclosure Not DPP or LP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations about policy, rather, this is 164 Legislative;Deliberative draft communication to CM WP b/c prepared to evaluate strategy in this litigation and in advance of potential HUD litigation; no substantial need; do not 165 Work Product;Deliberative need to reach DP DPP b/c reveals deliberations about HPD marketing process; balance of Rodriguez 166 NYCPRIV00537 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals internal discussions about various policy proposals; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 167 NYCPRIV01475 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 168 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential policy on center for faith and community partnership; balance of 169 NYCPRIV05826 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential ENY rezoning; balance of 170 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 171 NYCPRIV05569 Deliberative Not DPP WP b/c prepared for this litigation; no 172 NYCPRIV02505 Work Product substantial need A/C not demonstrated; not DPP b/c does Attorney not refect policy discussions, rather it 173 Client;Deliberative reflects existing policy Top email is DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; remainder not DPP b/c does not reflect deliberatons on potential policy; rather, discussion of existing positions and facts to DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of 175 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for 176 NYCPRIV05353 Attorney Client comment/legal advice A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for 177 NYCPRIV04129 Attorney Client comment/legal advice A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for 178 NYCPRIV04155 Attorney Client comment/legal advice A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for Attorney comment/legal advice; do not need to 179 NYCPRIV05438 Client;Deliberative reach DPP DPP b/c reveals draft and non-final deliberations on housing plan; balance of 180 NYCPRIV04180 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential rezoning areas and neighborhood planning projects; balance of Rodriguez 181 NYCPRIV04182 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure Attorney Client;Work A/C and WP; prepared in anticipation of 182 NYCPRIV04247 Product litigation Attorney Client;Work A/C because it is a draft sent to counsel for 183 NYCPRIV04249 Product comment/legal advice Attorney Client;Work A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for 184 NYCPRIV04251 Product comment/legal advice Attorney Client;Work A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for 185 NYCPRIV04253 Product comment/legal advice DPP b/c reveals preliminary thoughts on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 186 NYCPRIV05444 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals preliminary thoughts on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 187 Deliberative weighs against disclosure 188 Deliberative Not DPP 189 NYCPRIV05446 Deliberative Not DPP Attorney A/C and DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors 190 NYCPRIV04187 Client;Deliberative weighs against disclosure A/C b/c reflects legal advice; DPP b/c reflects deliberations about potential Attorney rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors 191 NYCPRIV04207 Client;Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberatios about potential neighborhood strategies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 192 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberatios about potential neighborhood strategies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 193 NYCPRIV05462 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about potential preservation program; balance of 194 NYCPRIV05466 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals recommendations about how to build suport for Administration's policy proposal 195 NYCPRIV04214 Deliberative on affordable housing Attorney A/C b/c reflects legal advice; no need to 196 NYCPRIV04220 Client;Deliberative reach DPP DPP b/c reflects deliberations on potential changes to housing policy and study; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 197 NYCPRIV04283 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations on 10-year housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 198 NYCPRIV04296 Deliberative weighs against disclosure WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in litigation; DPP and balance of Rodriguez 199 NYCPRIV04310 Work Product;Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in 200 NYCPRIV04311 Work Product litigation; WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in litigation; DPP and balance of Rodriguez 201 NYCPRIV04314 Work Product;Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about various potential policies for affordable housing; balance of Rodriguez 202 NYCPRIV05487 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about various potential policies for affordable housing; balance of Rodriguez 203 NYCPRIV05492 Deliberative factors weighs in favor of disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez 204 NYCPRIV04371 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez 205 NYCPRIV04388 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure 206 NYCPRIV05527 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential new areas for rezoning and affordable housing projects; balance of 207 NYCPRIV05533 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure A/C not demonstrated; DPP b/c reflects Attorney discussions about MIH policy; balance of 208 NYCPRIV04413 Client;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure A/C not shown; DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; Attorney balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 209 NYCPRIV04419 Client;Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez 210 NYCPRIV04424 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez 211 NYCPRIV04425 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects discussions/planning on various policies; balance of Rodriguez 212 NYCPRIV04433 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals internal discussions on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 213 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals internal discussions on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 214 NYCPRIV04442 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential loan program to rehabilitate certain home/building loans; balance of 215 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about Multifamily program; balance of Rodriguez 216 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential loan program to rehabilitate certain home/building loans; balance of 217 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential tax credit; balance of Rodriguez 218 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussion about potential programs to combat landlord harassment; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 219 NYCPRIV04232 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez 220 NYCPRIV04299 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure 221 NYCPRIV05580 Deliberative Not DPP b/c merely describing process DPP b/c reveals deliberations about ZQA and MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors 222 NYCPRIV04465 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about ZQA and MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors 223 Deliberative wDPePig bh/sc a rgeafilnesctt sd idsicslcoussusrieon about potential rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors Attorney Client;Work weighs against disclosure; A/C and WP not 224 NYCPRIV04475 Product;Deliberative apparent DPP b/c reflects discussion about potential rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; A/C and WP not 225 NYCPRIV04495 Deliberative apparent DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on Con plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 226 NYCPRIV04516 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 227 NYCPRIV04527 Deliberative against disclosure Attorney 228 NYCPRIV04533 Client;Deliberative A/C and DPP DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 229 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 230 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 231 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 232 NYCPRIV04598 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 233 Deliberative against disclosure Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals recommendations about how to build suport for Administration's policy proposal 234 NYCPRIV04644 Deliberative on affordable housing DPP b/c draft of non-final neighborhood plan for Bay St., Staten Island; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 235 NYCPRIV04656 Deliberative production 236 NYCPRIV04705 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reveals deliberations on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 237 NYCPRIV04710 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 238 NYCPRIV05023 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 239 NYCPRIV05047 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 240 Deliberative against disclosure 241 NYCPRIV05096 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 242 NYCPRIV05747 Deliberative against disclosure 243 NYCPRIV05748 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reflects deliberations about community planning; balance of Rodriguez 244 NYCPRIV05751 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Faith and Community Partnership; balance of 245 NYCPRIV05112 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Faith and Community Partnership; balance of 246 NYCPRIV05113 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 247 NYCPRIV05765 Deliberative against disclosure

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Attorney Client;Work neighborhood rezonings; balance of 248 NYCPRIV05131 Product;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 249 NYCPRIV05133 Deliberative Not DPP 250 NYCPRIV05134 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of 251 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Attorney Client;Work neighborhood rezonings; balance of 252 NYCPRIV05140 Product;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals delibeations on East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 253 Deliberative weighs against disclosure Not LP or DPP; email does not reflect 254 Legislative;Deliberative deliberatons of administration 255 NYCPRIV05770 Deliberative Not DPP 256 NYCPRIV05181 Deliberative Not DPP DPP re: homeless initiative; balance of 257 NYCPRIV05774 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP re: homeless initiative; balance investment Rodriguez faccommentsrs 258 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflectd deliberations about HNY; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 259 NYCPRIV05255 Deliberative against disclosure WP b/c prepared in part because of this 260 Work Product litigation; no substantial need WP to extent prepared because of this litigaiton; no substantial need; remainder Attorney Client;Work DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors 261 NYCPRIV05801 Product;Deliberative weigh against disclosure A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Attorney Client;Work neighborhood rezonings; balance of 262 NYCPRIV05284 Product;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Attorney Client;Work neighborhood rezonings; balance of 263 NYCPRIV05040 Product;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 264 NYCPRIV05809 Deliberative against disclosure 265 NYCPRIV05810 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reveals deliberations on homeless unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez 266 NYCPRIV05812 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on homeless unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez 267 NYCPRIV05813 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about neighborhood rezonings; balance of 268 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Attorney Client;Work neighborhood rezonings; balance of 269 NYCPRIV05821 Product;Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on faith and community partnership; balance of 270 NYCPRIV05823 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 271 NYCPRIV05828 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c non-final draft of plan for ENY; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 272 NYCPRIV05331 Deliberative against disclosure 273 Deliberative Not DPP A/C communication aspect not made clear by City; WP because prepared for this Attorney Client;Work litigation and reveals strategy as to 274 Product defenses; no substantial need DPP b/c reflecting planning for new report of AFFH to HUD; balance of Rodriguez 275 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberation on rent- setting policy; balance of Rodriguez factors 276 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects discussion on Homeowner Repair Assistance program; balance of 277 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals internal discussions about HPD PR plans and goals; balance of 278 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals inernal affordable housing- related policy deliberations; balance of 279 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

DPP b/c reveals discussions about how to prepare for and comply with new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 280 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals discussions about how to prepare for and comply with new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 281 Deliberative against disclosure Attorney 282 Client;Deliberative A/C not apparent; not DPP DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 283 Deliberative against disclosure Attorney 284 Client;Deliberative A/C b/c draft for legal review 285 Deliberative not DPP 286 Deliberative not DPP non-profits and community organizations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 287 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c prospectus of plan a partnering with non-profits proposed community organizations; balance of Rodriguez factors 288 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects discussion on Homeowner Repair Assistance program; balance of 289 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects discussion on community stabilization program; balance of Rodriguez 290 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects discussion on community stabilization program; balance of Rodriguez 291 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure 292 Deliberative Not DPP 293 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reflects deliberations about submissions to HUD re: AFFH; balance of 294 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 295 Attorney Not DPP DPP b/c includes deliberations on certain policies; balance of Rodriguez factors 296 Deliberative weighs against disclosure Attorney A/C b/c draft for legal review; do not need 297 Client;Deliberative to reach DPP DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on various policies related to Inwood rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors 298 Deliberative weighs in favor of disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors 300 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors 301 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors 302 Deliberative weighs against disclosure 303 Legislative;Deliberative Not DPP; not LP for City Administration 304 Attorney A/C not aparent; not DPP Draft report re: Anti-displacement 305 Deliberative strategies DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on various rezoning and other housing projects; balance of Rodriguez factors 306 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on non-profit and faith based developers; balance cons Rodriguez facnonrs weighs 307 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re: Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors 308 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re: Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors 309 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re: Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors 310 Deliberative weighs in favor of disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations re: Partners in Preservation program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 311 Deliberative disclosure 312 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reflects deliberations on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 313 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors 314 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Browsvill plan; balance of Rodriguez 315 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Browsvill plan; balance of Rodriguez 316 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential rezoning areas and neighborhood planning projects; balance of Rodriguez 317 Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure DPP in part insofar as it reveals internal discussions re: various planning and proposals for lower East Side development; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce in 318 Deliberative redacted format DPP b/c reflects planning discussions on Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors 319 Deliberative weighs against disclosure 320 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reflects planning discussions on Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors 321 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 322 Deliberative in favor of disclosure 323 Deliberative Not DPP 324 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 325 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 326 Legislative;Deliberative against disclosure; LP not apparent DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 328 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 329 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 330 Legislative;Deliberative disclosure; LP not apparent DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 331 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on research needed to assist in policy formulation on housing; balance of Rodriguez factors 332 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberations on potential creation of neighborhood stabilization unit; balance of factors weighs against 333 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 334 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on plan to work with non-profit developers; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of 336 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on perservation locations; balance of 337 Deliberative Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 338 Deliberative Not DPP DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 339 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals planning on potential partners in preservation initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against 340 Deliberative disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 341 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 342 Deliberative against disclosure DPP b/c reveals planning on ENY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs 343 NYCPRIV02199 Deliberative against disclosure WP b/c prepared in anticipation of potential HUD litigation and for settlement Attorney Client;Work strategy; no substantial need; not A/C; do Not DPP or LP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations about policy, rather, this is 345 NYCPRIV01898 Legislative;Deliberative notes of a meeting A/C b/c reflects leagal advice requested 346 NYCPRIV04729 Attorney Client and conveyed DPP b/c reflect discussions on con plan planning; balance of Rodriguez factors 347 NYCPRIV05930 Deliberative weighs against disclosure DPP b/c reflect discussions on con plan planning; balance of Rodriguez factors 348 NYCPRIV05945 Deliberative weighs against disclosure Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals work 349 NYCPRIV05955 Deliberative assignments A/C b/c reveals discussion with counsel re: regulatory compliance and pending Attorney legislation and impact on policy; no need 350 NYCPRIV06065 Client;Deliberative to reach DPP