Houston is in exactly the opposite situation of SF regulation wise. It is famously unregulated, which did lead to massive sprawl into the flood plains. So maybe we should aim for a middle ground. Clearly letting people build housing communities in areas that are expected to flood every 10-20 years is not good, but stifling construction under a mountain of red tape is also bad. It shouldn't be hard to find examples of sensible growth with reasonable regulation.
Nobody is suggesting Houston levels of deregulation. People want to change zoning to allow for more housing, they don't want to get rid of zoning altogether.
