to be used to determine the value of the lost trees and vegetative undergrowth. 101 Cal.App.3d at 861, 869, 162 Cal.Rptr. 104, Likewise, the court in Baker v. Ramirez found that the proper measure of damages was the cost of restoration of the subject orange grove and separately found that damages to be doubled were “those determined by the trier of fact to constitute just compensation within the overall limits of reasonableness, regardless of what specific measure of damages is used.” 190 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1138, 235 Cal. Rptr. 857 (1987). After the jury has decided on the reasonable damages award, if any, the amount awarded for damage to timber, trees or underwood shall be doubled. See Kelly, 179 Cal.App.4th at 463, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 32; Heninger, 101 Cal. App.3d at 869, 162 Cal.Rptr. 104 (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons,
holding that statements are admissible in absence of showing that parents were not notified in accordance with statute holding that corporation must act in accordance with its charter and bylaws holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable holding that the court should determine reasonable damages in accordance with  3333 and then determine double damages in accordance with  3346 holding that prejudgment interest was appropriate when plaintiffs damages from securities fraud were ascertainable at the time of the sale in accordance with accepted standards of valuation