louistraveler5

My DH and I have our travel plans set for 2009. Now the wheels are turning for a 2010 destination!

A little background information: we are in our late twenties and live in Austin, TX. We have never been to California and have always wanted to go.
The plans: my two biggest highlights would be San Francisco and Los Angeles. I would like to fly from Austin to San Francisco, spend a few days in SF then drive to LA, spend a few days and fly home from LA. Our trip will be for one week and I'm thinking late April/early May 2010.

The questions:
1) Is late April/early May a good time to visit each destination?

2) How many days should we spend at each location? I want to see the "typical" sights in each city. In the Los Angeles area I am also interested in Santa Monica.

3) What should NOT be missed in either city?

4) Is it a good plan to fly into San Francisco then take the drive to Los Angeles? Any suggestions for alternatives?

5) Any place we should visit in between or should not miss?

Thanks for any advice for this first time visitor to California!

Suzanne2

There are numerous sights to see between LA & SF. Big Sur, Monterey, Carmel, San Luis Obispo, Heart Castle, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Solvang, Santa Barbara, Ventura. These are a few of my favorite places.

montereybob

I agree with Suzanne's list of stops between SF and LA. Those sights are much more interesting than LA itself. You could easily spend 1 whole week just seeing these sights and SF. La is an enormous, sprawling, congested city. What draws you to LA?

Suzanne2

I can't think of many reasons to spend time in LA. Some come for the Getty Museum or Griffith Park I suppose. I live in Orange County where you will find Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm. The LA basin is not know for being all that pretty.

Linny1951

Although I do not agree that there is nothing to do or see in L.A., I think that trying to divide only one week between there and San Francisco is pushing it - especially if you drive between the two. There is A LOT to see in San Francisco and the surrounding area that could easily take at least a week.

Don't underestimate the driving time between the two: 6 hours if you take the ultra-boring I5 and 8+ if you take the more scenic Hwy 1/101.

MomDDTravel

I agree Linny. I would maybe just stay in the SF area...

MichelleY

With only a week, choose either Northern Cal/SF or S. Cal/LA.

MY

sf7307

Another California here who would vote for picking either NorCal or SoCal for a week, and not trying to do both. You could easily do San Francisco and combine it with trips to, Monterey/Carmel/Big Sur, or Napa/Sonoma, or Lake Tahoe or Mendocino (all depends on your interests), or you could do LA and combine it with Orange County (Disneyland), the beach (many choices, although the water will not be warm in April/May) and Santa Barbara.

nanabee

Are you thinking of flying into San Francisco and then doing a road trip down the coast? It is do-able and I've done that and it's a lot of fun. You don't get to spend a great deal of time in any one place but you do get to see the beautiful coastline. I would recommend Monterey, Santa Barbara for sure.
I love the old California Missions.
Others may know better, but I think the trip from SF to LA is less than 5-6 hours.
The ocean water will be cold that time of the year, but that's why they invented wet-suits

cferrb

I've lived in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. I generally agree with other posters who urge you not to spend a lot of time here in LA. If you really want to see Santa Monica you could plan your drive down here so that you arrive in Santa Monica on the day before you fly home, then just spend the rest of that day and the following morning hanging out at the beach, the Santa Monica Pier and Promenade. San Francisco has so much more to see and do, and there are plenty of places to stop at on the way down here.

Then, you can always come back and visit LA some other time (like between Christmas and New Year when we are frequently waaay warmer than the rest of the country)