Kaddis found guilty on 11 of 13 counts
By Kelly Feser Eells

Despite state-registered geologist William Girolamo's testimony to the contrary, the bulldozing of 301 oak trees on William Kaddis' Lake Casitas-area property did, in fact, illegally alter a streambed and violate county and state hillside erosion laws - two of the 13 counts with which Kaddis had been charged.

Girolamo, owner of a Los Angeles-based environmental consulting firm and "an expert in wetlands identification, environmental assessment and remediation," produced four separate reports related to the charges, submitted as evidence by Kaddis' attorney, Roger Diamond.
"As to the evaluation of the streams and wetlands report," said Girolamo, "we, another registered geologist -certified engineer Drew Haney - and myself, went on site and saw no evidence of any stream course.

What we did identify was something that may have been a stream or river course in the 1980s or early '90s, but appears to be more of an area where drainage occurs. And the definition of a stream, well, any body of flowing water, by definition, has to be somewhat channelized."

Continuing, Girolamo said, "We could tell from personal observation that when Mr. Kaddis bought the property, in July 2001, there was no streambed. But we went and found all the aerial photos we could, all of them taken prior to July 2001, which further verified (this)."
Diamond asked Girolamo if he'd made any determinations or evaluations with respect to hillside erosion.

"Yes; we concluded that there was no visible sign of substantial erosion - just the sort you'd have on hillsides where vegetation had been removed and replanted. But as long as something's planted, there's no danger of erosion. And I don't know what Mr. Kaddis planted, but there was lush growth everywhere (the oaks had been removed)."

Girolamo further explained that, "per the Unified Building Code, any excavating, filling, or combination thereof constitutes grading (contributing to erosion), and there's no evidence that this property has been graded. Removing trees and brush is not, by definition, grading."
During cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold determined that, not only was Girolamo "... unfamiliar with the county's tree and environmental health ordinances, but hadn't reviewed the Dept. of Fish and Game's sections (on same), which take jurisdiction over them."

After a short break in the proceedings, Judge Kevin McGee ruled all four reports inadmissible and "threw them out."
Wold called Mary Lou Stearns, a field supervisor with the Department of Animal Regulation, to the stand.

"Are you familiar with the (Kaddis) property?" Wold asked.
"Yes," said Stearns, explaining that she had visited it three to four times in the last year and half, investigating neighbor complaints - "including several from Joe Macaluso (from whom Kaddis purchased the property ) about all the non-stop barking."

Stearns said that, on Dec. 12, 2001, "I left a pre-seizure notice in the gate, a notice of intent to seize the dogs because, as far as we knew, they were abandoned. It didn't appear as if anyone was living there."
Stearns noted that, "while the dogs had plenty of food and water, they had no shelter, just trash cans and a blue tarp. Also, there were four or five of them to a run, and in situations like that, dogs get bored. Then they start challenging each other, and, well..."

Diamond asked Stearns if, "as an expert on dogs, it's your opinion that the trash cans and the tarp are insufficient? That it would be better for the dogs if Mr. Kaddis could build a permanent shelter?"
Stearns agreed that it would.

"And do you see any connection," he added, "between cutting down an oak tree and providing a permanent shelter for dogs?"
Wold's objection that the question was irrelevant was overruled, McGee confirming with Diamond that it was the "basis for his legal argument."

"In your 24 years experience," Diamond asked, "have you ever had a situation where someone went straight to trial, was prosecuted in criminal court for a civil violation like this - operating a dog kennel without a license - bypassing any administrative hearings?"
Again Wold's objection was overruled.
Diamond said, "One of our defenses, your honor, is that this is a vindictive, arbitrary case."

Kaddis, who did not take the stand, was found guilty of 11 of the 13 original charges against him, including violating the county's tree protection and hillside erosion ordinances; illegally altering a streambed; maintaining an illegal dog kennel; and filing a false police report. McGee threw two charges of "creating a nuisance" out.
Sentencing, which could include up to three years' jail time and will likely include several million dollars in fines, has been set for June 20.

© 2003 The Ojai Valley News

Back to the news