You're describing small pockets of wealth that are scattered all over, surrounded by poverty.
Look at the surface area and the percentages of the population. That's what the article is about.
It's pretty clear that it's hard to live on even 100K as a family in the Bay Area, and if you look at the median incomes for most of the cities around the Bay Area they're nowhere near that.
I don't see how you counter that by naming off a few more rich microclimates.
--
Also, I wrote the article, and I'm born and raised here. I didn't drive down a street and come up with this. I've been here for four decades, watching it change, and this is what I'm seeing. Sorry you didn't like it. :)