Kaddis tree trial prosecutor calls witnesses
By Kelly Feser Eells

William Kaddis, the Los Angeles real estate agent charged with the unauthorized removal of 301 protected oak trees on his Lake Casitas-area property, waived his right to trial by jury, so the case will be decided by Ventura County Superior Court Judge Kevin McGee.
The long-delayed trial began Tuesday, with Kaddis pleading not guilty to the 13 misdemeanor criminal violations leveled against him and McGee confirming that Kaddis had agreed "to give up his right to a jury of 12 citizens."

Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold's opening statements included a Power Point presentation that summarized the 13 counts (altering a streambed, violating an erosion ordinance, and filing a false police report among them); events leading to the county's decision to file criminal charges and anticipated testimony of corroborating witnesses.
Kaddis' attorney, Roger Diamond (who defended convicted rapist and fugitive Andrew Luster in January), had indicated earlier that he would confine his arguments to the county's "questionable" property rights and land use policies and made no opening statements.

Wold called Bruce Keller, a permit planner with Ventura County Resource Management Agency, to the stand.

Keller said he'd become familiar with the 220-acre property - Kaddis owns one of four subdivided parcels - in early 2000, "when (landowner) Joseph Macaluso came into my office to submit an application for a parcel map waiver."

Parcel map waivers, Keller explained, show where a property's subdivided boundaries are. "I sent his application to the appropriate agencies, including the Department of Fish and Game."

"Why them?" Wold asked.
"Because there may have been flora and fauna issues; it's standard procedure."

Zoning allows for no smaller than 40 acres (per parcel) in these particular cases, Keller added. Macaluso's waiver, along with a Mitigated Negative Impact Declaration "and a deed restriction that runs with the ownership of the property in perpetuity - meaning, it doesn't go away when the property is sold" was recorded in March of 2000.
The deed restriction precludes any construction, building or earthworks outside the areas where agriculture or clearing has occurred, "... and requires parcel owners to abide by the county's tree ordinance, limiting the impact on oak and other protected species."

Diamond said, "Your honor, I don't want my failure to object to this witness to be deemed as an acceptance of his testimony about county codes and ordinances in place."

McGee said, "Okay with you, Ms. Wold," who nodded her approval and then continued her line of questioning, aimed at proving that Kaddis was aware of the restrictions on the property when he bought it in July of 2001.

"Could Mr. Macaluso unilaterally revoke these restrictions?" she asked.
"No," Keller replied. "That's for the county and related agencies to decide."

Keller further noted that, "Two out of four of these parcels had archaeological restrictions," including one sold to Peter Brooks, which parallels Kaddis' parcel. "He, (Brooks) wanted an easement, and I got involved in his project because I was most familiar with the property."
Wold displayed aerial photographs taken of the property in July of 2001, which Keller identified, as well as photos taken in October of that year, "when the property was 100 percent different."

Diamond asked Keller "What additional restrictions could the county impose on a property that wasn't yet subdivided? If I'm the property owner, and I want to, say, change the doorknobs on my property, could the Coastal Commission come in and impose restrictions that wouldn't or didn't exist when the property was one, big piece? What is it about dividing parcels," he said, "that gives yours and other agencies the right to impose conditions that, presumably, didn't exist before?"
Keller indicated that he was unclear as to what, exactly, Diamond was asking.

"You're not an expert in this, are you?" Diamond said.
Wold objected, asking, "What does all this have to do with?"
Diamond smiled and said, "The field of subdivisions," before continuing.

"Are you saying that I can't do anything to a property with tons of trees on it that I own?"
"No," Keller said.

"So you agree that I could knock down some oak trees as long as the property wasn't subdivided?"

Again Keller said "no," referring Diamond to the county's tree ordinance.

"Where are all these rules and regulations?" Diamond asked.

"They're part of the Ventura County Code, where the (tree) ordinance resides."

"How can an ordinance reside within a code?" Diamond asked.
McGee said, "That's argumentative, Mr. Diamond."

Local arborist Paul Rogers, who had been hired by Brooks to conduct a tree survey study in May of 2001, testified that, out of the 145 trees he'd surveyed at that time, "71 were on the property (not yet purchased by) Mr. Kaddis."

Rogers explained that he had tagged and photographed every tree, "documenting sizes, general health, and any just cause for removal. I didn't identify any that were unhealthy or hazardous."

On Oct. 12, 2001, "I was asked, on behalf of the county, to go out and inspect the property. I met (Zoning Administration manager) Todd Collart and Code Enforcement officer Carole Aragon out there; they asked me to confirm which trees were down."

Wold asked, "Did the property look any different?"

"Oh, decidedly. The trees were no longer standing. Including many trees that I hadn't documented (in May)."

Rogers added that he had adhered to county and city ordinances when he counted the felled trees, and "didn't count any with trunk diameters of less than three inches."

"And how did you go about counting them?" Wold asked.
"Very difficultly," Rogers joked, noting that, because the trees were stacked in piles, it was "a Herculean task."

Rogers then performed an appraisal, per Collart's request, concluding that the projected value of the felled trees was $941,948.

Diamond questioned the methodology behind the assessment, saying, "Do you, the county, determine whether or not there's someone willing to buy that tree and what they'd be willing to pay for it? As I understand valuation, there needs to be a willing seller and a willing buyer, with two parties negotiating (for something.)"

Wold had previously displayed a receipt for 340 avocado trees Kaddis had bought shortly after the oaks were cleared, and Diamond wondered why these trees weren't acceptable "exchanges."

Also testifying were Aviram Soltes, the son of one of Kaddis' business associates, who had, until April of this year, denied his involvement.
Soltes admitted that he had been hired by Kaddis in August of 2001, and had bulldozed the trees at Kaddis' request.

Wold displayed photographs of the bulldozers Kaddis had rented, one of which suffered $4,000 in "tree sap damage."

Larry Rose, of Brokaw Nurseries (where Kaddis purchased the avocado trees); Greg Nicholl, of Nations Rent (where Kaddis had rented one of two bulldozers); Carole Aragon; Betty Courtney, a biologist for the Department of Fish and Game; and neighbor Mike Barnard (whose fence had been allegedly knocked down by the bulldozer) also testified.

Courtney noted that, while conducting a streambed report for (Peter) Brooks in August, 2001, " ... the property looked pristine."

However, "after getting an anonymous tip about a possible streambed alteration" in October of that year, she flew over by helicopter and saw "extensive bulldozer damage." Courtney positively identified a video that was taken on Oct. 10, 2001, as well as an aerial photo of the property, taken on Aug. 9, 2001, when it was still "pristine."
The trial is expected to conclude today.

© 2003 The Ojai Valley News

Back to the news