Another good point brought up above is that you indeed need to make sure you like the location you live in, not just judge its proximity. After all, you spend most of your time around your home.

Luciano136 wrote:Bottom line for the OP, if you like Yosemite and the northern Sierra, Sacramento is a good choice. If you like the High Sierra in the LP/Bishop area better, you should stick to the LA area.

Meanwhile, I spend by far the majority of my high elevation time in the nearby San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, no more than two hours from OC. In the summer, I do a weekend backpacking trip nearly every weekend.

I wouldn't do that if I had to drive three or four hours each way every time.

redneck wrote:

Luciano136 wrote:Bottom line for the OP, if you like Yosemite and the northern Sierra, Sacramento is a good choice. If you like the High Sierra in the LP/Bishop area better, you should stick to the LA area.

Meanwhile, I spend by far the majority of my high elevation time in the nearby San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, no more than two hours from OC. In the summer, I do a weekend backpacking trip nearly every weekend.

I wouldn't do that if I had to drive three or four hours each way every time.

Good point! I didn't even give credit to the local mountains!

redneck wrote:OC is highly congested (Luciano and I aren't the only people who like it here). If I didn't work walking distance from my home, I doubt I would be able to stay here. YMMV[/color]

Honestly, that is also relative to where you are. Inland OC gets pretty packed but around the coastal areas is not bad at all. When I drive to work in the morning, the streets in HB are relatively empty; it's when I get more north that it gets busier.

Then again, for Socal in general, pick your home/work location wisely and you'll be a happy camper. If not, you'll hate life LOL

Dingus Milktoast wrote:See NorCal and SoCal are really 2 different states. They offer a very different lifestyle and climbing style too, for that matter.

IMO its really important to understand the OPs mind. If he likes desert climbing So Cal is the place to be. If he's tried of heat and needs something completely different - San Francisco, proper.

If he wants to be close to Sierra, Sacramento or East Bay.

Ski? Nor Cal.
Surf? So Cal.
Down to earth? Nor Cal.
Idealistic and vain? KIDDING! JUST KIDDING!!!1111

Cheers
DMT

I'd go +1 on this sentiment.

Also like to note that many of us have mentioned driving times from some location to some activity. OK, sure, that matters. For us (Oakland/SF), the quality of the city we live in is much more important than how long it takes us to get someplace else when we leave. Afterall, we live here, and even in months when we're in the Sierra every weekend, we still spend more time at home. Most weeks, we don't use our cars at all except for the ~3 hours to the east side.

No matter what, congrats on the move.

1000Pks wrote:

One more thing to factor in...

When you buy property, I wouldn't worry much about quakes. Building code and such are that unless it's another huge one, you will probably be safe enough. Only a few structures collapsed during Loma Prieta, those were built on dubious unstable ground. Similar with L.A. quakes.

More deadly are wildfires. Then mudslides, floods (a potentially disasterous probability in much of lower Sac), and daily, almost, crime. Get the history of the property, and do some research. Lots of fools in the homebuying business, and insurance is no doubt sky high, but indispensable.

Couldn't disagree more about earthquakes--at least where DMT was talking about. Take the east bay (we're closing on a house today in Oakland ) where a huge percentage of the population lives near the Hayward Fault, and/or built on bay fill, often in soft-story buildings. Modern building codes are fine and dandy, but only if what you're buying is built up to them. Most of the homes in my neighborhood were built in the 20s-50s. They don't perform the same way at all.

By the way, Loma Prieta is in the boonies. So, we all felt it, but the reason it wasn't more devastating (and it was devastating), was location, location, location.

Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).

Can you buy a nice safe home in SF or Oakland? Of course! Some are just "more equal".

The Defiant One wrote:Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).

If you live in the hills down here, you will burn a lot faster than your house will be devastated from a major quake. As a matter of fact, you run the risk of burning EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

Luciano136 wrote:

The Defiant One wrote:Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).

If you live in the hills down here, you will burn a lot faster than your house will be devastated from a major quake. As a matter of fact, you run the risk of burning EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

That's what I'm sayin.

The Defiant One wrote:

Luciano136 wrote:

The Defiant One wrote:Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).

If you live in the hills down here, you will burn a lot faster than your house will be devastated from a major quake. As a matter of fact, you run the risk of burning EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

That's what I'm sayin.

HAHAHA!! I completely misread that sentence. That's what I get for being in a hurry

OK narrowing this deal down here you guys have been great so far>>>

The SF/ sac territory is basically San Rafael to Santa Rosa then Napa and I80 over to Davis and west Sac. The southern part is Vallejo and the big delta thing running east west.

Looking for good schools, restaurants, some culture and trying to avoid the subdivison trackhousing hell.

I echo what Ksolem said. I live just north of Pasadena in Altadena and it is a great location and I am right at the base of the foothills so it hardly seems like living in a big city, but we are not far from the city or culture. J-tree and Tahquitz are just over 2 hours, big bear 2 hours, Mt. Baldy for mountaineering when you are too lazy to drive to the Sierra is an hour, and Southern Sierra is around 3.5 hours.

The are several train lines running in and around Pasadena and a hub of freeways that connect to get you most anywhere. It isn't exactly cheap where I live but it really isn't all that much worse than a lot of other areas. The difference in a mortgage of 400k vs 500k is not very much a month so I wouldn't let that dissuade you from SoCal. The San Gabriels are often overlooked but really contain a vast amount of hiking and mountaineering possibilities.

Coastal OC vs inland OC makes a huge difference so choose the spot wisely. I have relatives near Sacramento and that is a pretty good location as well, but I think SoCal offers more variety of rock climbing and mountaineering than Sac-town. The closer you get to San Fran, Santa Rosa etc significantly increases your drive time to the mountains.

You're considering the following counties: Yolo, Solano, Sonoma, Napa, Marin

Marin county has all the best school districts, is close to culture and has the most beautiful setting, but also the most expensive. A bit far from the mountains, but closest to the ocean. Best road/mountain biking areas.

The next best school district is in Davis, Yolo county. It's in the middle of the valley, so the climate is not favorable and it's far from SF, but it has a lot going for it in terms of the university, culture, and closeness to the Sierra.

The best school district in Solano county is in Benicia. It's on the shore of the Bay and has ferry link to SF via Vallejo. Has a quaint waterfront area. It's close to I-80 so traveling to mountains is relatively easy. Real estate prices are mid-range.

Napa and Sonoma counties are the famous wine country, have a beautiful setting, fairly expensive, and don't seem to have great school districts. Traveling to both mountains or SF aren't easy. Probably won't be your first choices.

Other than the above, potentially you can look at the East bay (Contra Costa and Alameda counties), much closer to SF, a few good school districts, a bit less expensive than Marin but still high, and surprisingly closer to Yosemite than the other counties.

see school district rankings below:
http://www.ap.org/California/schools/counties/index.html

I was checking out Davis which looks nice and am getting a little sticker shock on the housing. Is $300/ SF pretty typical of the region or is Davis on the high side? Welcome to CA i suppose...

1000Pks wrote:Ironic that such an Ag school is situated in an area well known for swallowing up Ag land! Development is rampant nearby in mostly Vacaville, Fairfield, and by Dixon. They envisioned a strip city built along I-80, mainly commuters tired of Bay Area home prices and high rent.

Actually, it is ironic that ag land around such ag school is being developed. The school was founded as a farm in 1905.

scottmitch wrote:The SF/ sac territory is basically San Rafael to Santa Rosa then Napa and I80 over to Davis and west Sac. The southern part is Vallejo and the big delta thing running east west.

The Northbay is great, and you can hike year-round, but be warned that if you live in Sonoma County it can be a real pain getting to the main transportation arteries in the Central Valley. There is no direct route other than Highway 37 and this is in Marin.

Also, skip the Delta unless you want to buy dirt cheap in the ghetto. If that is what you want, let me know. I work in foreclosures and I can hook you up (in the Delta or anywhere else, for that matter). Business in booming.

By the way, has anyone ever been to Al the Wop's?