Even if it consitutes "looking a gift horse in the mouth" some Monterey Peninsula residents are asking questions in the wake of last month''s donation of the Odello ranch by Clint and Maggie Eastwood.

Despite being heralded as a significant, generous gift that will forever protect the historic 134-acre artichoke ranch from development, there are questions as to whether the dealings and use of public funds that led up to the Eastwoods'' purchase and eventual donation of the property have come with hidden and unforseen costs.

"We wanted Odello preserved, no question," says Ben Post, chair of the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, "but let''s get clear about this, there''s a lot of stuff going on here that''s not all simply clean and I really challenge the process."

Despite Eastwood''s public insistence that his purchase and subsequent donation of the Odello property was never intended as an "investment," a closer examination of the transaction suggests Eastwood took economic advantage of the property''s additional development rights and scenic value, as well as a healthy tax deduction-even as he helped the county and the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) secure a good chunk of open space.

Under the terms of the Eastwoods'' donation of the Odello property, for which the Eastwoods will receive a $6 million tax write-off, the BSLT will receive 49 acres along with 67 housing permits and the rights to 28 acre-feet of water. Monterey County will get 38 acres, part of which will be used for flood control, while the California-American Water Co. that serves the Peninsula gets the building permits for six houses-and three acres of land that will allow Cal-Am to put in wells to pump water from further down the Carmel River.

The complex and labyrinthine manuevering between the Eastwoods and state and county agencies over the sale and eventual donation of the Odello property has raised concerns on the part of some environmentalists that Monterey County officials may have misspent and misused public funds and public property; in the process giving a single, influential developer excessive influence and leverage over important public land-use decisions.

"It''s a complex situation, this whole matter of property rights versus community rights," says former Ventana Chapter Sierra Club vice chair Don Gruber, "but the so-called gift package Clint bestowed on the public is questionable at best. A gift is something you give away, but [Eastwood] extracted a lot of value from the property. It''s been a chain of dubious events I believe needs to be looked at closely."

The chain of events Gruber alludes to began in 1995 with negotiations between the Eastwoods, the BSLT and county officials to have Monterey County purchase the Eastwoods'' five-parcel, 279-acre Mal Paso property located along Highway 1 south of the Carmel Highlands near Garapata. That property had been owned by the Eastwoods since the 1960s.

Using state Prop. 70 funds set aside in part for open space acquisition, Monterey County purchased the Mal Paso property from the Eastwoods for $3.08 million- money that the Eastwoods subsequently used to purchase Odello. Although the county has no record of the Eastwoods'' purchase price for the Mal Paso property, records in the county assessor''s office show that as of July 1994, the land was valued at only $308,682.

With the proceeds of the Mal Paso sale, the Eastwoods purchased the Odello property for an undisclosed sum. Along with the 134 acres of Odello land, the Eastwoods purchased a county approved tentative map for the construction of a 76-lot subdivision on the property, as well as the rights to 196 acre-feet of water from the Carmel River.

According to BSLT Executive Director Zad Leavy, the county has been required to put a conservation easment on the Mal Paso property in perpetuity. Leavy says there is currently no public access on the property and that future limited public access remains an open question.

At the time of the sale, there was no indication what the Eastwoods intended to do with the Odello land beyond immediate plans to lower the levees along the Carmel River to protect both nearby Mission Fields residential neighborhood and Eastwood''s own Mission Ranch resort, both of which were flooded in 1994.

Soon after the purchase of the Odello property, the Eastwoods'' intentions became more clear when it was announced Clint was leveraging the property''s development and scenic protection potential to make changes to his 550-acre Ca¤ada Woods development project in Carmel Valley.

Eastwood requested-and was granted-the deletion of nine development units from Odello and 10 units from the 44-lot Ca¤ada Woods property. In exchange, he transferred those units to 19 lots adjacent to what is known Ca¤ada Woods East. The 397-acre parcel had been donated by William Cusack in 1983 to be set aside in perpetuity as a scenic easement. Eastwood purchased that parcel for $150,000, according to published newspaper reports.

According to Leavy, the sale of the land that became Ca¤ada Woods East was integral to consummating the Odello deal, with the belief that securing the preservation of Odello was of greater value than preservation of the Cusack property.

"Early on we agreed as a part of the whole process to sell the property adjacent to Ca¤ada Woods in a series of transactions which the county hoped would end up saving Odello," says Leavy. Leavy explains that while the BSLT had title to the Cusack property, it was the county that retained the actual easement and he characterizes the county''s lifting of the easement on the Cusack property as "a political decision."

Critics of the county''s decision to lift the easement contend that at the time of the deal there were never any written assurances by the Eastwoods that they would preserve Odello as open space. They also question whether the county initiated a dangerous precedent in allowing land purportedly set aside in perpetuity as open space to be sold for development.

"Do I want to give money away if the land can be shuffled around like that?" asks Gillian Taylor, conservation chair of the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club. "Odello certainly has value for everyone and we would hate to see it developed, but no one considered whether it was a good swap. The complicity of the county to remove the easement with no public input is the kind of thing people should have a voice in, that is the main issue."

Concerns over the private nature of the deal between the county and the Eastwoods and their plans for Odello were heightened in December ''95 when the Eastwoods sought an appropriative water right from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the195 acre-feet of water tied to the Odello property.

That request had some environmentalists concerned that the Eastwoods intended to use that right to provide additional water to an expanded Ca¤ada Woods project that included portions of the Monterra Ranch development he owns off of Highway 68 near the Monterey Airport.

At the time of the request, Eastwood business partner Alan Williams didn''t rule out the possibility the water would be used at some future date for development on the Odello property itself, and suggested the "active" subdivision on the southeast corner of the former Odello property would likely be developed. (A request for an interview with Williams went unanswered by Coast Weekly''s press deadline.)

After a public hearing on the request held by the SWRCB at Eastwood''s Mission Ranch, Eastwood, along with Williams and their attorney Tony Lombardo, insisted the request for an appropriative right was being made solely to establish the value of the Odello property for tax purposes in order to donate the land, possibly with the water right itself, to the Big Sur Land Trust.

In explaining the purpose of the approriation request, Eastwood acknowledged the mistrust that exists between developers and environmentalists, but insisted there was no connection between the Odello request and Ca¤ada Woods.

"Maybe the non-trust is justifiable in some ways," said Eastwood at the fall ''96 hearing, "but this will come out well. We''re working with the [BSLT] to find a way to make the [Odello] property open space and not build housing units. I''m putting my name on [the project] and I''m not in this for an investment."

While Eastwood''s assurances have been borne out by the donation of Odello to the BSLT and the county, the Eastwoods purchase of Odello has nonetheless proved a sound "investment," with the land''s presumed development potential and water appropriation contributing to the $6 million valuation of the Odello property.

Whether Odello was worth $6 million to taxpayers is a question that is difficult to answer. Leavy confirms that at the time of the sale to the Eastwoods, the Odellos only had a tentative map filed with the county to build 82 units on 46 acres of their property, and had not started to satisfy the conditions necessary for a final map. Given the scenic and critical environmental value of the Odello property, many question whether the Eastwoods could ever have gotten approval to build on the land.

"Our biggest issue in the whole process is the way every phase of it was sugarcoated, and the game that was played by acquiring water rights and inflating the property value," says Post.

The Odello property, located at the mouth of the Carmel River, has long been recognized for its scenic and historic value, as well as its development potential. The long, drawn out history of the Odello property highlights how development pressures artifically raise property values and compromise the ability of individual land owners to preserve and/or donate their land to protect it from potential development.

The 300-acre parcel was first leased in 1924 by Battista Odello, who converted what was essentially swamp land into a highly productive artichoke farm. The Odellos eventually purchased the property for roughly $900 an acre.

The Odellos had tried to develop the land as early as 1962. In 1971, the Monterey County Planning Commission approved a development proposal for 1,352 units on the entire parcel. That approval was immediately overturned by the board of supervisors on the grounds that such a project was too excessive.

In1972, the Odellos proposed and were given approval for a revised and downsized project of 598 units, including 298 individual residential parcels and the remainder of a hotel and spa. This proposal was approved by the county in April 1972.

In 1973, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District talked about purchasing the eastern, 135-acre portion of the ranch for a little over $2 million. A group called the Odello Land Acquisition Fund had proposed buying the western acreage for $1.7 million for preservation.

The Odello''s were eventually forced to sell 156 acres of the western portion of the ranch in 1974 to the state as open space for $1.5 million in order to pay estate taxes. Although the property had never been developed, the value of the property had escalated in part because of increasing development and rising property values on land adjacent to the ranch. As part of the sale, the Odello''s leased the 156 acres back from the state to continue farming the land.

According to Leavy, the BSLT had been looking at the purchase and preservation of Odello since 1980. In 1993, the BSLT bought a $1 million option to buy the property from the Odellos for $5.6 million but a bond act to provide funding for state parks for land acquisition did not pass, leaving the BSLT without funds to exercise their option.

Although the Odello property appears secure from any future development, the Eastwoods have retained a 40-acre middle portion of the ranch that includes farmerworker housing along with approximately 16 acre-feet of water. One of the questions that remains is what the Eastwoods intend to do with their remaining acreage and water rights.

"Eastwood can''t take the water off the property without approval by the [SWRCB]," says Leavy, "and we would not favor that. Part of our deal in accepting the subdivision is that the water rights remain on sight. There was no promise in writing but it was made pretty clear."

Whether the deal with the Eastwoods represents an unholy alliance between developers and preservationists, or merely a necessary reality given limited public funding for open space acquisition is an open-ended question. Nonetheless, as far as Leavy is concerned, the deal with the Eastwoods was consummated to everyone''s ultimate benefit.

"If you look at the big picture the Supreme Court has handed down a decision that soldifies the concept of property rights, and there is little you can do to regulate those property rights," says Leavy. "If Clint Eastwood owns property he has the right to put some economic development on it. Given that concept, we''ve got to work with property owners.

"What [the Eastwoods] have done through a series of transactions is a positive situation for the community," adds Leavy. "They preserved 134 acres along the gateway to the Big Sur coast and preserved 85 percent of the Cusack property. If you look at the whole deal it''s clearly positive. We got something out of it and saved something for the community. Yes [Eastwood] got a major deduction and taxpayers across the country paid for it, but it could have been a lot worse for the community. The total result was a positive one."