He locked the gate at the entrance. He doesn't have to allow parking, but he has to allow people to get to the beach somehow.
His argument seems to be that he HAS to maintain the beach and parking lot, which he doesn't want to do because it loses money.. but I am not sure where that idea comes from. He could just close the parking lot and leave the road open. I am not sure about the liability concerns.
I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review.
He's rich. Someone will find an excuse to sue him, public easement or not. (Not saying they'll win, but they will sue.)
I actually not on Khosla's side of this issue, but in the current lawsuit-as-lottery-ticket climate, liability concerns are in fact a reasonable issue.
Is it really better to be sued by a bunch of people plus the state of California like he currently is than to potentially at some point in the future be sued by some idiot with a very weak case?
I also do not think that it is a good thing to make an enemy of the state government if he wins the current set of lawsuits.
His argument seems to be that he HAS to maintain the beach and parking lot, which he doesn't want to do because it loses money.. but I am not sure where that idea comes from. He could just close the parking lot and leave the road open. I am not sure about the liability concerns.