The road was a long established as public access. Khosla claimed all access to the beach. Basically he wanted it to be a private beach. However the public easement was well established by at least 80 years and maybe even 100s of years of access. Khosla bought all the surrounding property, closed off access and hired some goons to run off the surfers and picnickers. Access to beaches is well established precedent in California, Khosla was just hoping he get his way. Unfortunately he neglected to appreciate the legal resources of the surfriders foundation...its not a vanilla property rights situation, article X of the state constitution asserts prior right. Khosla’s attorney tried to argue the property was founded in a Spanish land grant and couldn’t be superseded by the state constitution, but this didn’t carry as it had been a public access beach for many decades. The previous owners only charged for parking, not access, so beachgoers were not paying to access and the right was well established. And Khosla is a globalist d**k anyways, but of course that only established his motivation, not a his rights...
so, it appears the road is his, but was used "since 1918" with permission of previous owners for access, and is the only safe access for that area. In California, the property lines end at high-water's edge. I guess that's the same for people who live on lake lots maybe? According to the SF article, the next step is eminent domain vs Mexican Land Grant.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-wants-30-million-for-Martins-Beach-6847689.php