Eureka! Ranking California’s best and worst cities for retiring

We all have fantasy of where we want to retire.

To some, it might be amid the golf courses of Palm Springs. Others might dream about the coast, whether it be the charm of La Jolla, the boating culture of Newport Beach or the celebrity glitz of Malibu. Wait. What about a mountain cabin for skiing or sunset amid the rolling hills and vineyards of wine country?

But then there is the hard reality. Many Californians have far more modest retirement hopes — whether it is simply staying put where they’ve lived for years or finding a place where their retirement income and savings goes further.

These questions are complicated by the some of the extential questions facing the state: affordability, climate change and healthcare.

California’s fastest-growing age group is people over 65, which means more senior citizens in the state are thinking about where to spend their retirement years.

While many younger residents have fled, the state’s senior citizen population is projected to grow by nearly 3 million between 2021 and 2030, according to the Department of Finance.

The Times set out to rank 367 California cities in terms of fitness for retirement. It was modeled for middle-income Californians willing to relocate in state.

This is a decidedly subjective list, and it might not be for everyone. After all, each retirement dream is unique. Each location on the list has pros and cons — and none might be as nice as living your golden years exactly where you are — around family and friends, near the parks, churches, Ralphs and Starbucks you find so familiar.

Our analysis prioritized four main factors:

• Climate: the yearly projected number of days of extreme heat based on projections for 2035 to 2064.
  
• Health and wellness: a health index combining hundreds of factors like access to hospitals, parks and air quality
  
• Recreation: the number of parks per capita
  
• Affordability: typical home prices and rental costs in the city

Because of these factors, many of our retirement spots are off the the beaten path in less populated areas where housing prices are lower than in metro areas. They also leaned into cooler locations, given how climate change is causing extreme heat waves and health risks.

Again, this might appeal to you — or it might not. Daily golfing at 100 degrees might be better than a beach stroll in a place that never reaches 100.

1. Eureka, Humboldt County

   The major city on California’s north coast, with a population of about 30,000
   Climate: 0 annual days above 100 degrees expected, 2035-2064 (1st percentile of 367 cities)
   Health and wellness: Ranks around average (top 50% of all cities) in the health index
   Recreation: Above average (top 20%) in number of parks per capita
   Affordability: Typical home value: $419,000 (8th percentile); typical rent for a single -family residence: $1,516 (3rd percentile)
   

2. Arcata, Humboldt County

   A smaller college town a few miles from Eureka, home to Cal Poly Humboldt

   Climate: 0 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Above average (top 40% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Excellent (top 10%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $510,000; typical rent: $1,700
   

   1. PROS: Coastal location, cooler temperatures, relatively affordable housing, close to breathtaking nature and beaches.

      CONS: Far from any big cities. A drive from Los Angeles would take nearly 11 hours, and that is without any traffic (good luck with that!).

      

      The Samoa Peninsula in Eureka chills in drizzle and fog as the rest of the state swelters.

      (Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

3. Benicia, Solano County

   An exurb along the Carquinez Strait nestled in the outer Bay Area

   Climate: 11 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Excellent (top 10% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Excellent (top 10%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $820,000; typical rent: $2,406

   PROS: Moderate climate, access to wilderness and the San Joaquin river, and relatively close to Bay Area population centers.

   CONS: Traffic, adjacent to sky-high Bay Area housing and living costs.
   

4. Big Bear Lake, San Bernardino County

   A mountain resort town within a relatively short drive of Los Angeles

   Climate: 0 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Above average (top 40% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Average (top 50%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $587,000; typical rent: $2,000

   PROS: Glorious mountain location, perfect for hikes, water sports and skiing. Alpine feel but less than an hour to suburbia and less than two hours from Los Angeles.

   CONS: May be a bit isolated, especially to those who move to homes outside of downtown Big Bear. Snow storms, mudslides and wildfires are a constant danger.
   

5. Signal Hill, Los Angeles County

   A hilly, 2.2 square mile town of 11,000 residents, surrounded by the city of Long Beach

   Climate: 4 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Above average (top 40% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Excellent (top 10%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $792,000; typical rent: $2,082

   PROS: Central location, great views of the harbor and city, and close to Southern California’s urban attractions.

   CONS: Small, compact location amid urban and industrial traffic.
   

6. Fair Oaks, Sacramento County

   A tony Sacramento suburb overlooking the American River and parkland

   Climate: 56 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Very good (top 15% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Good (top 40%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $616,000; typical rent: $1,992

   PROS: Access to nature with nearby Sacramento river, plenty of open space and parks.

   CONS: Exposure to extreme heat with changing climate, relatively expensive for the area.
   

7. Crescent City, Del Norte County

   The last major California coastal city before hitting Oregeon

   Climate: 0 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Poor (bottom 20% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Good (top 40%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $361,000; typical rent: $1,500

   PROS: Much lower cost of living than most California cities, easy access to redwood forests and the Pacific Ocean.

   CONS: Extremely remote by California standards, with few attractions compared to most urban and suburban areas. Faces seismic and tsunami danger.
   

8. Grass Valley, Nevada County

   A Sierra mountain town with Gold Rush history, long a popular retirement destination

   Climate: 19 annual days above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Below average (bottom 40% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Around average (top 50%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $516,000; typical rent: $1,737

   PROS: Great location for hiking, skiing, camping, history, and proximity to Lake Tahoe.

   CONS: Cold, snowy winters (though some retirees prefer such conditions), and long distance from major cities. Fire danger
   

9. Emeryville, Alameda County

   The city between the Bay Bridge and Oakland has a suburban feel

   Climate: 1 annual day above 100 degrees expected

   Health and wellness: Excellent (top 10% of all cities) in health index

   Recreation: Excellent (top 10%) in parks per capita

   Affordability: Typical home value: $524,000; typical rent: $2,935

   PROS: Proximity to population centers and workable public transit and access to San Francisco Bay.

   CONS: Often foggy, windy and cold, with exposure to Bay Area cost of living.
   

10. Belmont, San Mateo County

    A small Silicon Valley/Peninsula suburb with superb ratings on health and quality of life factors

    Climate: 2 annual days above 100 degrees expected

    Health and wellness: Stellar (top 5% of all cities) in health index

    Recreation: Very good (top 15%) in parks per capita

    Affordability: Typical home value: $2,145,000; typical rent: $2,731

    PROS: Access to Bay Area cities, excellent quality of life metrics such as schools and health care. Close to San Francisco airport.

    CONS: High cost, and exposure to Silicon Valley traffic.

Deciding on the best retirement destinations in California is a subjective and possibly foolhardy exercise. This analysis assumes that practical factors like affordability are most salient, and that less tangible factors like culture or entertainment are less important. Still, this ranking takes all of those factors into consideration.

The bottom five cities were mostly in Southern California, with high housing costs, far too expensive for a typical California retiree.

• La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles County - a quiet LA suburb in nearby foothills with pricey homes
  — 17 annual days above 100 degrees expected; top 10% in health index; top 40% in parks per capita; typical home value: $2,333,000; typical rent: $4,596
• Palos Verdes Estates, Los Angeles County - a coastal community within reach of LA
  — 0 annual days above 100 degrees expected; top 5% in health index; top 5% in parks per capita; typical home value: $2,706,000; typical rent: $6,882
• Montecito, Santa Barbara County - an exclusive beach locale near Santa Barbara
  — 0 annual days above 100 degrees expected; top 10% in health index; bottom 40% in parks per capita; typical home value: $4,921,000; typical rent: $9,400
• Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County - a small beach community north of San Diego
  — 12 annual days above 100 degrees expected; top 20% in health index; bottom 20% in parks per capita; typical home value: $4,198,000; typical rent: $14,291

• Malibu, Los Angeles County - a famously luxurious beach town north of Los Angeles
  — 2 annual days above 100 degrees expected; top 10% in health index; top 40% in parks per capita; typical home value: $3,402,000; typical rent: $15,739

  PROS: some of Southern California’s premier real estate markets, mostly coastal and with many amenities.

  CONS: $$$$$

Though retirement preferences can vary greatly person to person, those choosing a retirement locale would do well to accommodate change as they age, said Hal Hershfield, an associate professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

Psychologically, “we don’t really know what our preferences are until we jump into something and then they change,” he said. “Life is very different between 65 and 75 compared to 85 and 95,” so planning for retirement requires accommodation for flexibility.

Proximity to family is often a “huge factor” for retirees, he said. Additionally, “people start prioritizing emotionally meaningful goals” like a sense of community, he said, so moving far from home could be a challenge without real infrastructure for building connections.

There is “real diversity in health and well-being” for retirees, Hershfield said, noting that some people are sedentary at 65, and others are running marathons into their nineties.

With that in mind, we adjusted the rankings to emphasize two factors which might be of outsize importance to retirees: price and health.

Giving more weight to home prices and rental rates in California cities adds new cities to the fold. Eureka and Arcata are still at the top of the list, but they are joined by smaller towns like Coalinga (Fresno County), Oroville (Butte County), Ridgecrest (Kern County), Anderson (Shasta County) and Ukiah (Mendocino County).

Housing costs are an important factor for senior citizens as more than 17 million (or roughly 1 in 3) adults over the age of 65 are economically insecure, with incomes below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, according to the National Council on Aging.

Prioritizing the health performance of each city -- a metric informed by factors like access to parks, prevalence of disease and much more - also yields a different outlook. This approach adds more expensive cities to the list, including Albany (Alameda County), Sausalito (Marin County), Burlingame (San Mateo County), Walnut Creek (Contra Costa County), Larkspur (Marin County), San Carlos (San Mateo County) and Alameda.

The top city in this ranking, Eureka is a coastal city of 30,000 residents, known for its old-growth redwood forest. The weather is typically cool and foggy by California standards. The city is relatively remote and is located near a number of national parks.

High temperatures also factor into health. Heatwaves are most harmful to senior citizens and children, according to the California Department of Public Health. A September 2022 heat wave killed around 500 Californians, excess mortality analysis from the department revealed.

This analysis was based on data from the Health Performance Index, a metric devised by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California.

Glossary of metrics: The extreme heat data comes from the California Healthy Places Index: Extreme Heat Edition. It relies on a projection of the state’s climate from 2035 to 2064. The percentile listed for health index is taken directly from the CHPI, an index combining hundreds of variables for each city, including the park access metric which was taken from the CHPI data set. The typical home values come from Zillow’s Home Value Index for all residences and reflect the 35th to 65th percentile. The typical rent values come from Zillow’s Observed Rent Index, which estimates the average of all rental properties in an area, listed and rented.