London to California (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose: insurance, low crime, houses)

[ahafinder]

Hi, I'm looking to relocate from Suburban London to California.
I began reading about San Diego, then got discouraged by the conservative experiences
written on here, and then considered SF only to reconsider a better micro climate with better weather and easier socializing.

So I thought, I had wonderful help asking about my trip to NYC on here so I'll start a more recent thread about this on here.

Here's what I'm after.

Prerequisites:
0. Low Crime (seriously this is before the list even begins).
00. Low risk of Natural disaster.

1. Sunshine, not into wind or rain or unclean air. So Hollywood or maybe a micro climate
2. Socializing (so population near and around should at least be 1million) with lots of open and like-minded people (I am ultra liberal and holistic vegan). Maybe like characters portrayed on Parenthood TV show.
3. Either urban or 45 minutes away from city (like here in London)
4. Things to do, I'm not a nightlife person but evenings, I'd like options and not feel like getting bored after 6 months.
5. Nature - Parks and pets.
6. Good local transportation, choice of shopping and services. This means I don't want to travel 2 hours just to get somewhere.

Please suggest any choices that fit this as best as possible located in/around SF, SD, Hollywood (Not LA because of air, crime and my worry of meeting too many plastic people)

If anyone wishes to challenge, synthesize or challenge any of my preconceptions go ahead.

Fire away

[nightlysparrow]

Santa Monica, and a plus is it that it also has a lot of Brits there. But you're not getting away from earthquakes anywhere in CA, sorry.

Pasadena would be another choice.

[ahafinder]

Earthquakes are near misses, I just dont want to live on a known area which always results in damages and loss of home needing to start again every year.

Santa Monica huh? Will look into then Pasadena too then.

Thank you nightlysparrow

[cephalopede]

Originally Posted by harvestthesouls

Earthquakes are near misses, I just dont want to live on a known area which always results in damages and loss of home needing to start again every year.

That's pretty much everywhere, then. California has small earthquakes pretty much daily that you'll probably never feel and very rarely result in damage. Most modern buildings in California are built to withstand a good deal of shaking. There is a risk of tsunami if you're near the beach, but again, it is small.

You'll want to be cautious of areas prone to wildfires and, in southern California, houses built on hills likely to have mudslides--my understanding is that the latter is mostly a problem for people living around Malibu with more money than sense who desperately wanted that ocean view.

I would consider places like San Jose (which is still technically the "San Francisco Bay Area") or Santa Cruz. I also like San Luis Obispo county, but it sounds like it wouldn't be urban enough for you.

Something else to keep in mind: even in the most urban areas of California, we're still very car dependent. Public transportation here lags behind other developed countries. The San Francisco Bay Area probably has the most and best public transit options. Pretty much everywhere else your options are a bus or nothing.

[LoriBee62]

If you can afford it, you'd fit right in in Marin. Ticks off everything on your list, pretty much. It's not cheap, though.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

San Francisco or Berzerkly. And just get earthquake insurance.

I prefer the SF Bay Area urban areas to LA. And I really don't see how you would get away from LA smog in Hollywood.

SF Bay Area has way better air quality. I think San Jose would feel too suburban. It started out as orchards and they just got a bunch of suburbs built on them. There's an okay downtown, but if you want urban, you need to go to SF or Berkeley.

And you'll have to brush up your street smarts as far as crime. But, I don't think there's an urban area of a million people in the entire world that could be given a blanket "safe" description.

[Morwyn_7]

I suppose you have the visa all sorted?

[saibot]

Originally Posted by harvestthesouls

Earthquakes are near misses, I just dont want to live on a known area which always results in damages and loss of home needing to start again every year.

Your perception of earthquakes is more than a little skewed. An earthquake can happen anywhere in California, but there are not any areas where a damaging quake happens every year, or even close to it.

In my own case, I've lived in roughly the same area of SoCal for 45 years and have experienced one earthquake which did slight damage to my house. Nothing even close to requiring moving or rebuilding.

I also think you don't quite visualize how the LA metro area is laid out. You don't drive out of Los Angeles and then a short time later drive into Hollywood. It's all part of the same city. The same air is everywhere (maybe a little better closer to the coast, most days). There are the same types of people--surely there aren't fewer "plastic people" in Hollywood than in other parts of Los Angeles?

Overall, I think SF is a better fit for you than LA, honestly. Not quite as much sunshine up there but surely more than you'll get in London.

[BeauCharles]

Originally Posted by nightlysparrow

Santa Monica.

Exactly. Liberal, great climate, clean air (for LA area) and thousands of British living there.

[jaypee]

Smells like Mill Valley to me.