HALF MOON BAY — One week after a San Mateo County Superior Court judge ordered Vinod Khosla to reopen a private road leading to Martins Beach, the gate off Highway 1 remains locked, and a new round has begun in the fight over the public’s right to access the cove.

The conflict stems from an ambiguous phrase in the ruling of Judge Barbara Mallach, who last Friday instructed the Silicon Valley magnate to keep Martins Beach Road open “to the same extent” as the previous owner, a farming family that sold Khosla the 89-acre beachfront property in 2008 for $32.5 million.

Those words could be interpreted in different ways, based on the trial testimony of Rich Deeney, patriarch of the family that owned Martins Beach for more than a century. He told the court in May that his family periodically closed the beach, particularly during bad winter weather.

There is no question Khosla was justified in closing the beach on Thursday during the wild storm that battered Northern California, but the weather over the previous five days was mild and dry.

Khosla’s opponents in the public access showdown argue the billionaire investor is defying Mallach’s ruling. Joe Cotchett and Mark Massara, attorneys for the Surfrider Foundation, which sued Khosla over his 2010 decision to bar public access, said they are mulling further legal action.

“It’s clear he’s going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” Cotchett said of Khosla, “and we

welcome that decision. In the meantime, California laws and the Coastal Act must be followed.”

The California Coastal Commission has also jumped into the fray. On Monday, commission staff sent Khosla’s attorneys a letter saying he was violating the Coastal Act and threatening daily fines of $11,250. They gave Khosla 30 days to respond.

The letter cites Mallach’s final order from Dec. 1, when she determined Khosla violated the act by changing the public’s ability to get to ocean at Martins Beach, regardless of the fact that the land is privately owned. Mallach instructed him to seek a coastal development permit if he wishes to bar vehicle access.

Khosla’s attorneys responding to the latest furor Thursday with a statement on behalf of Martins Beach LLC, the listed owner of the property.

“The owner of Martins Beach intends to comply with the court’s order and unlock and open the gate to the same extent it was unlocked and open in 2008 when the property was purchased,” the statement read. “The gate was operated in that manner until the county and Coastal Commission demanded that the property be operated pursuant to 1972 standards. It has always been, and continues to be, the intent of the owner of Martins Beach to comply with the law on the issues surrounding the property.”

The letter refers to the county’s insistence back in 2009 that Khosla keep the beach open year-round and charge just $2 a vehicle, the price in 1972 before California’s coastal development laws took effect. Khosla argues the county and commission are trying to force him to operate a money-losing business.

The Deeneys allowed people to drive across their property to visit the beach for decades, charging a modest parking fee. Khosla continued that practice for two years before abandoning it.

Rich Deeney told the judge in the Surfrider case that his family did not maintain written records for when the beach was open and closed, so his testimony earlier this year is essential to interpreting Mallach’s order. But the language he used appears to leave some wiggle room.

Deeney testified his family closed the beach during poor winter weather, for occasional private parties, and whenever a member of the family wasn’t available to collect parking fees.

“If there was bad weather conditions that I didn’t like down there, or if we had other things to do, we would just close it up and not open it up at all,” he told the court, adding later, “We would just close it down for any period we felt like closing it.”

Massarra said Khosla’s legal strategy has no merit.

“They have repeatedly asked the judge to keep the gates closed for however many years they’re able to drag the litigation out. And the judge explicitly rejected that,” Massara said. “They’re thumbing their nose now, not just at surfers and the state of California, but the judicial system as well.”

Contact Aaron Kinney at 650-348-4357. Follow him at Twitter.com/kinneytimes.