What is the evidence that supports the claim that Baron provided Arao with reasonable notice of possession of an easement on his parcel?

Nor did Baron cultivate it. Baron's cactus garden and blueberry patch were near the easement, but did not encroach on it. Neither did the hedgerow he planted. (Cf. Lobro v. Watson (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 180, 184-185, 188 [land cultivated where planted with trees and flowers].)

And Baron did not improve the easement. The barn and fence he erected on his parcel did not touch the easement. The few items he placed on itsome brush and debris and plant containerscould easily be moved. His maintenance of the service road that followed the easement in places at the north end of his parcel did not improve those portions of it on the east side. (Cf. Cleary v. Trimble (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 1, 11 [road "improved" where kept in condition for customary use].) Baron thus fails to show that the evidence compels the conclusion that he provided Arao with reasonable notice of his possession.