I spent 35 years in the Bay Area. Despite the one comment above that it's overrated, there are 7 million people who disagree. All of these people have cars, so if you choose the Bay, I recommend living really close to work.
True, but by that logic So-Cal is even better since it's more populated. ;)
Someone's opinion who spent 23 years in the South Bay: Ungodly expensive (moreso than anywhere else is the US because real estate is so pricy AND you still need a car to get anywhere AND taxes are high; I'm saving quite a bit more in NYC), you can't easily live within 40 minutes of the beach because that's not where the settlement is along the peninsula, very spread out and suburban (the upside is there is less crime and poverty than most places), not a lot of buzz/excitement or nightlife, and highly tech oriented (a good thing in OP's case). I am in a small minority on this but the weather is also boring, the average temp is in the 50's for 6 months a year. I'd rather somewhere warmer to go to the beach or hell, I'm really enjoying the four seasons living in New York. Give me a few years and maybe I'll be jaded.
Now LA: Way too spread out but at least there's tons of lively, urban areas to explore. There are also quite a few beach communities still close to jobs. Warmer, more tropical climate. Cheaper than the Bay.
Denver I've only been to briefly but it's way cheaper, just as urban if you're not in SF, closer (and better) mountain activities, and four seasons. I'd like to try it.
YMMV, I think the Bay Area is a great place to raise a family on a high income, not a great place to spend your twenties unless you're in the heart of SF. The "beach living" stereotype is a misnomer because most people only go a few times a year, as you have to drive over the Santa Cruz mountains to get there. So-Cal is much better for that. But this is from someone who loves the car-less, apartment-living, urban lifestyle.