They look like a variety of Chamaecyparis obtusa to me.

I don't know much about any of this, but IMHO, there's non-native and invasive, and it may be a bit of overkill (literally) to rip out the former when the concern is more with the latter--assuming, of course, the former is not a problem in its own right (in terms of needing a lot of water or pesticides). As humans, we are forever bending nature to shape our will. There is a greater interest in and desire for native plants, and I gather the native plant store here is doing just fine. But most suburbs are loaded up with plants that are at least not native to this area, if not even the US, because that's just what the standard has been (and in some cases, what the HOAs demand). I'd be more interested in seeing people get rid of their lawns than their non-native flowerbed plants, personally. But as someone without a lawn, it's very easy for me to get on a soapbox about it. My balcony has a number of non-native plants--on a microcosm level, nothing is actually native to my balcony, LOL, except concrete. Many are not local, like the plumerias. Others are from other countries, like the mandevilla and perhaps a succulent or three. But then I read that mandevillas aren't even found in their original habitat now. Still, as some note, things move around whether you like it or not. The gecko is now found everywhere in the world, traveling about on ships, and largely fits in nicely wherever it goes. Of course, the Chinese rat flea did the same thing hundreds of years ago and was nowhere near as welcome. :-) Meanwhile, the invasives in Hawaii and Australia destroy ecosystems in a heartbeat. I guess my two cents about the OP's situation is this: If they were ripping out non-natives that weren't causing any issues on the basis of some philosophy that non-natives are inherently evil and must be destroyed, I think that's a bit messed up. On the other hand, if their goal was to create a native garden (and more or less bill it as such), it's fine. In other words, I'm looking at motive--is it to *destroy* the non-natives or is to *create* natives? For some reason, that matters to me.

Hi Steve et al, (is that right by the way, or did I just pull that out of a hat?) I had no idea that I was bringing up the question at all in my remark about A. tuberosa. I was only mentioning that I heard that A. tuberosa was not as toxic as some of the other popular milkweeds and that I had never been able to get it to grow anyway so I gave up on it years ago. I wondered whether you had it growing yourself or whether you might have been confusing it with curassavica which I have all over the place. But the question you raise is interesting though I have no knowledge of the subject and never thought about it until you mentioned it above. At this point I wouldn't lose any sleep over it at all since it seems to be used by so many people successfully with monarchs for years. But monarchs are not as easy to rear for me and I think they are susceptible to so many forms of predation that I often leave them outside when I find them because I hate to see things die. But if there is truth to the allegations about native vs. non-native I would definitely like to know. I grow two species of native milkweed but to be honest with you they are a real pain because they appear too late for the spring migration and often go dormant before the fall migration. So what good is that. So I just have at least five or so species and let the adult butterflies pick out their own choice. They definitely choose the physocarpa and curassavica over any of the others. As far as the notion that A. tuberosa might be invasive out here in CA, I seriously doubt it because tuberosa likes rich and well-drained soil and the only place you would find that out here is in bags at the local nursery and it's quite expensive. I doubt most tuberosas could afford it. On top of that tuberosa does not do well in pots or so the mail order catalog indicates. At least it never worked for me.

I'd plant it-in fact, I already have- if I was in a suitable climate. It turns out I'm not, lol! The three we planted amidst our thousands of more reliable conifers up at our tree farm have already died or present in such a way that I wish they would die and get it over with. But for you, OP, not living in an extremely cold Z4 area, I'd say go for it. Quick note to Sam MD: Fast growth=short life does indeed apply amongst broadleaved tree species. But when you make the jump into conifer land, that old cliche doesn't work. For examples, I offer you white pine, red pine, Norway spruce, coast redwood, dawn redwood, larch.....the list goes on.....all fast-growing and all capable of living lives measured in centuries. These plants I mention here also have the ability to maintain apical dominance long into their lives, thus the continued height increments over time. Just saying....I know you know what you're talking about, but I just wished to point this out-that in conifers, that relationship does not hold true. +oM