max miization of densities, reduced or eliminated parking requirements, creatively addressing open space requirements, floor-to-area ratio exemptions and concentration of housing in neighborhood commercial areas. an adequate e.i.r. must describe a reasonable range of alternatives which can lessen or avoid impacts. in this e.i.r. fails to do so. it considers a no project alternative which is continued reliance on the 1990 element. alternative b is the 2004 element without the changes in policies that were struck down by court. thus, the policies that are left in b are those that are carried forward unchanged from the 1990. so b is substantially the same as a, carrying forward 1990 policies. alternative c is an intensified version of the 2009 element that would make the effects worse by requiring development to full allowable building envelope and grand administrative exemptions over the counter for required parking spaces in rh2 districts or greater. since c would aggressively promote more growth and increase density, it would not lessen effects. under ceqa, an e.i.r. should consider a re