In my experience (albeit not SFBA), people tend to support development in the abstract while loathing any specific development that is currently ongoing or proposed in their own cities. It might have something to do with the sausagemaking aspects of getting municipal approval and the back-and-forth about who pays for which infrastructure upgrades.

IMO, there is a reasonable complaint that people who live somewhere for 30 years might be continuously paying for infrastructure that's only needed because more people moved into the area. Basically, when an area needs to build a new school to accommodate new people that cost is split among everyone not just the new people. Then in 10 years when they need another school you pay for it again etc. This results in developers being able to pawn off the majority of infrastructure costs.

Currently, areas often use zoning to try and limit growth, but that just means whoever get's to build new property get's to pocket the difference which opens the way to graft etc. IMO, the reasonable solution to that problem is simply to tax people who build new property a share of the existing infrastructure costs. (Note: Bonds seem like a way to side step this, but your still splitting the costs with everyone not just immigrants.)

Of course there is also NIMBY issues where people don't want change. But, that's a separate issue.

Given how the property tax structure in California massively privileges incumbent property owners over newcomers, I'm not very sympathetic to this line of argument.

Most Bay Area cities also have rather large development fees.

You are right in this. New people will pay more property tax when purchasing their property, and thus pay a bigger share for the new infrastructure. The people who lived there before hand will be still paying around the rate that they moved in at.

Are there no development fees in the US? In Canada, municipalities will levy fees on developers to pay for all the new infrastructure. In some cities, this also helps keep taxes low for other residents by paying for operating costs as well.

We have those in California. New houses are generally built in "Mello Roos" districts, in which bonds are issued to cover things like new schools, streets, and sewers. Homeowners in those districts pay extra property taxes, which in theory go toward retiring the bonds.

That's not my experience at all. I would suggest it's the opposite.