You could make that case for all regions of the world. Nobody is completely isolated. We breath the same air and everyone deals with the effects of pollution.
It's not a reason to prevent changing existing law.
See this magazine article on how NIMBYs pushed suburban sprawl on surrounding areas:
https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweek...
See this article, on how restrictive urban land use is estimated to lower America's entire national GDP by 5-15%:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use...
I suspect the impact of restrictions on SF growth at this point are large because as the parent notes, growth has been large there in the digital age. Tech businesses have had it good there for awhile. Maybe time for some change, no? At least get rid of Feinstein..
Edit: please explain down votes, thanks!!
In any case, cities will still have huge influence over what gets built, since every building under this law still has to comply with local zoning. All this law says is that cities can't pretend to allow development, and then arbitrarily block individual developers for no reason (or because they didn't pay enough bribes).