Ignoring that fact that precedent can be overturned, this ruling still leaves open the possibility of using eminent domain to get public control of the access road (which has been mentioned as a possibility in other comments). My guess is that they are going to withhold approval until the issue is resolved. So they aren't necessarily demanding easement concessions, but they aren't going to issue permits until the dispute has either been settled in the courts, eminent domain has been used, or a settlement is reached.

EDIT: Actually, if you dig a little deeper into that case, the ruling has little impact on the Martin's Beach case. In the Nollan case, the CCC was requesting an access road/path where none had previously existed. The CCC's argument was actually pretty weak, they were claiming that the development would result in "psychological impediments to public access" which gave them the right to demand concessions. In the Martin's Beach case, the CCC should have the power to demand public access concessions if the road historically served as a public access point (assuming the federal treaty issues don't negate that power). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Co...