Given your equipment options and your travel restraints, I'd take the 24-105 and nothing else. Perhaps take the 40mm if you want to tighten up and lighten your burden some days. Here's my thinking:
1. I can't think of much that a 200mm is going to help with, given that you've already got 105mm reach. If you had a 100-400, for example, that would be different. The vistas out there can be vast (and that's an understatement.)
2. The "low light" lenses you mention are really eclipsed by the high-ISO capabilities of a camera like the 6D. Remember, when you'll be there, you have light 15 hours each day, and inside and at night you can just ramp up the ISO and keep the 24-105 clicking away. You've already got the focal lengths covered, and the low light is not relevant -- so leave the others at home.
3. I know people travel for different reasons, but I'm not spending my time in a foreign land sticking a lens deep into buttercups. Leave the 100 home. It's a fine lens, but again, the focal length is covered.
4. The UWA suggestions are great -- that's a way to get pictures you can get no other way. And that area does cry out for it. But it's not in your options. Make the most of your 24mm capability.
As for what to see when you're there, you can't see it all. You could move to northern CA today and in the rest of your life you wouldn't see everything worth seeing.
After San Francisco (and I'm presuming Napa Valley and wine country, etc.) go over to Sacramento, California's capital city. Then take Rt. 49 south through gold rush country. I used to live there. See the little towns like Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Murphys (and the beautiful Ironstone Winery), Sonora (where most of the American western movies have been filmed), and Columbia State Historic Park. By then you're close to Yosemite and can work your way through that tourist bloated wonder. If you're out after dark there, be ready for mosquitoes.
It's a visually amazing area. Enjoy!!