SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — California is opening three new state parks and expanding others. The move is the largest growth of the state parks system in decades.

One new park is along the Feather River in Yuba County, another along the San Joaquin River near Fresno, and the third at a historic labor camp outside Bakersfield.

The state is also adding about 30,000 acres — a space about the size of San Francisco — to other parks.

A new park will also be added near Pigeon Point in San Mateo County.

MORE: Alcatraz Island closed through Friday for dock repairs; tours, cruises refunded

It’s all part of “State Parks Forward,” and the governor said California is pushing to protect and preserve state parks for future generations.

“For me, surfing is a chance to connect with the ocean and the marine wilderness out there,” said Nick Strong-Cvetich, Executive Director of Save the Waves. He is elated by the new announcement.

Pigeon Point Light Station State Historic Park in San Mateo County will triple in size.

The Peninsula Open Space Trust, aka POST is donating 132 acres of land to the park.

“It’s a really important announcement and we’re thrilled,” said Strong-Cvetich. “It gives a gift to future generations. And for us it opens the access so people can experience the ocean.”

MORE: What travelers should know about visits to national parks in 2026

Pigeon Point Park is one of several state parks expanding thanks to new state legislation. The new law adds 30,000 acres to existing state parks.

“Thanks to state parks new fast track process, POST was able to quickly donate this $5 million property to state parks for the management in perpetuity,” said Ezekiel Schlais, Peninsula Open Space Trust. “I know there are hundreds of thousands of people who visit this coastline every year and having access to additional bluff and coastal trails. And eventually having a California coastal trail is going to be an amazing benefit.”

Governor Gavin Newsom explained the importance of preserving and expanding parks in the Golden State.

“We are celebrating our history, celebrating culture, celebrating our diversity, celebrating a sense of space,” said Governor Newsom.

Newsom also said, “doubling down on protecting the Golden State’s natural beauty as Trump sells out on America’s national parks.”

A 13-page assessment released today by the San Francisco Department of Public Health confirms Mission Local reporting last month that protocol failures contributed to a social worker’s fatal stabbing in December, and that hospital workers, not a sheriff’s deputy, were first to intervene in the attack. 

The DPH has hired four additional staff members to its security team to ensure around the clock threat management coverage, and committed an additional $15 million a year to “support a fundamentally strengthened and modernized approach to safety and security” across its facilities. 

After a period of increasingly threatening behavior toward his doctor at General Hospital’s Ward 86 HIV clinic, Wilfredo Tortolero Arriechi, 35, arrived on Dec. 4 and was intercepted by his social worker, Alberto Rangel. He stabbed Rangel, 51, to death in the hallway. 

According to today’s report, the DPH immediately took action: installing a weapons detection system at Buildings 80-90 where the attack occurred, launching a 24/7 threat management team to triage and respond to concerns and establishing a formal threat escalation protocol which “balances safety measures with trauma-informed, patient-centered approaches.”  

The report also identified a need for better processes to respond to emergencies that occur within the DPH system. Although Rangel was stabbed at Ward 86, a clinic on the grounds of San Francisco General Hospital, and witnesses on the scene called 911 immediately, EMS workers did not arrive to take over Rangel’s care until 11 minutes after his stabbing. A full 26 minutes elapsed between the 911 call and Rangel’s arrival in the emergency room, only a block away. 

Today’s report also confirmed Mission Local reporting that a Ward 86 employee first intervened in the attack on Dec. 4 — a direct contradiction to claims from the sheriff’s union that a sheriff’s deputy assigned to the site had “saved Ward 86 from a rapid mass casualty stabbing.” 

The deputy had been assigned to the area that day after Tortolero Arriechi had made threats against his doctor, who worked there. According to today’s report, the doctor was in a different hallway at the time of the stabbing. 

Hospital staff had repeatedly raised alarm bells with DPH security specifically about Tortolero Arriechi’s threatening behavior, but today’s assessment confirmed that no additional safety measures were taken until the day of the incident. 

Mission Local reported that Tortolero Arriechi posted increasingly erratic messages on his social media in the weeks leading up to the stabbing, including a photo of his doctor’s note pinned to a wall with a knife. 

The DPH assessment includes a timeline, which shows that Tortolero Arriechi had to be escorted out of City Clinic in SoMa as early as Nov. 13 after he appeared seeking out his Ward 86 doctor, who also worked there. 

A week later, on Nov. 20 and 21, Tortolero Arriechi exhibited “elevated behaviors” at an appointment with the doctor, who reported his behavior to DPH security. The next week, between Nov. 24 and 26, security “attempted multiple times” to reach Tortolero Arriechi by phone, with no success. Security leadership at General Hospital “discussed” the case, but apparently took no further action. 

On Dec. 4, the morning of the stabbing, Tortolero Arriechi went to both the City Clinic and Ward 86. 

The doctor again reported to security that Tortolero Arriechi was seeking him out at City Clinic, and that Tortolero Arriechi had allegedly insisted that he would return daily until he could see the doctor. According to the report, DPH security then assigned a “safety ambassador” to the clinic. 

That same morning at Ward 86, staff contacted DPH head of security, Basil Price, and informed him that Tortolero Arriechi had once again shown up at the clinic looking for the doctor, and told them that he would be returning that afternoon. 

The DPH requested a “criminal history check” by the sheriff’s department that day, which surfaced no warrants for Tortolero Arriechi. After a sheriff’s lieutenant conducted a “threat assessment” on the situation, the sheriff’s department assigned a deputy to be “posted at Ward 86.” Staff at Ward 86 interviewed by Mission Local were under the impression that the deputy was keeping an eye out for Tortolero Arriechi, but the DPH report confirms the sheriff’s department’s assertion that the deputy was directed only to station near the specific physician that Tortolero Arriechi had threatened. 

Later in the afternoon of Dec. 4, 2025, Tortolero Arriechi again went to Ward 86 looking for the doctor, where he was directed to speak with his social worker, Rangel. Moments later, Tortolero Arriechi stabbed Rangel, who later died despite efforts by his colleagues to resuscitate him. 

Tortolero Arriechi is currently facing murder charges, and his public defender has said that he was suffering a mental health crisis. 

“No actions can undo the events of December 4, 2025,” the report said. “However, through an expertly informed re-evaluation of our current safety and security measures, we can ensure an improved approach to workplace safety and security going forward.” 

Ward 86 employee Alex Alvarez said he was frustrated at the lack of funding for mental health care and support for traumatized employees who have not yet returned to work. 

Due to the lack of protocols in place, he said, “we have to create this whole ecosystem of services, of safety protocols … why do the employees have to pay for this? Why do employees have to take the brunt of this lack of action?” 

Acquiring the land, rights and equipment needed for a public takeover of PG&E will cost nearly a billion dollars more than San Francisco had previously offered to the utility, according to the city’s newly revised estimate submitted to state regulators.

The new $3.4 billion valuation comes after the city had twice offered PG&E $2.5 billion for the utility’s assets, starting in 2019. Both times, PG&E officials dismissed the offers as too low. The utility has yet to make a counteroffer, however, maintaining a public takeover isn’t in the best interest of the utility or its customers.

In a filing to the state Public Utilities Commission on Monday, San Francisco PUC head Dennis Herrera said the new value is part of the city’s “century-long goal of providing electric service throughout San Francisco.” Herrera cites “consistent problems with PG&E’s service” as a factor in the city’s effort.

In December, there were seven blackouts alone, city officials say, including one triggered by a circuit breaker fire in the Mission substation that left parts of the city without power for three days during peak holiday shopping season.

According to Herrera, the $3.4 billion value is in line with an investment banking analysis that sets a value range for the utility of between $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion. The new value, Herrera says, is based on a final detailed accounting of PG&E’s assets and property and includes the undisclosed bid to acquire PG&E’s Martin substation that feeds most of the city’s power. Documents suggest consultants valued the facility at between $170 million and $370 million.

The city’s two previous offers for PG&E’s grid in the city didn’t include buying the facility in San Mateo County, near the Daly City border with San Francisco. Under the plan, the city would buy the station as well as pay separately to build a smaller PG&E substation next door to the Martin facility to serve PG&E customers outside San Francisco.

The new value accounts for 67 miles of underground transmission lines in the city, as well as more than 1,000 miles of underground distribution lines and 480 miles of overhead distribution lines. The value includes 50,000 enclosed vaults and other enclosed structures, 38,000 power poles, 17,500 switches and other electrical devices, as well as communications and control centers, spare parts and system records.

The cost of buying the land and property rights from PG&E would be about $600 million.

San Francisco’s bid to break up with PG&E and provide public power appears to be gaining momentum. Jaxon Van Derbeken reports.

PG&E – which has long cast doubt on the city’s ability to run its grid in San Francisco – said in a statement: “Our assets are not for sale, and a government takeover in the city would be extremely expensive and raise rates for San Franciscans for decades.”

The company says regulators will require the city to pay for everything from wildfire mitigation, energy efficiency programs and subsidizing rates for low-income customers – and that will mean higher, not lower rates.

The city’s bid, it says, “has grossly underestimated these costs.”

The utility adds the city’s estimate for its assets and property “lists a value billions of dollars below fair market value.” The city price estimate, the utility says, doesn’t factor in all the various costs of separating from PG&E’s grid.

“PG&E will thoroughly review CCSF’s filing and plans to submit its own testimony in October 2026, as the CPUC has directed,” the company said.

Small business owners and residents from San Francisco’s Sunset District on Monday said they plan to file a class action lawsuit against PG&E.