California’s Housing Incentives and the Limits of Infrastructure: Rethinking Growth through Carrying Capacity

California’s housing crisis dates back to the 1970s, when housing production began to slow relative to population growth. As construction lagged, the imbalance between housing supply and demand tightened and prices kept rising. Over time, home prices in California moved from roughly 30 percent above the national average to more than 80 percent above it, and they have largely stayed at that elevated level. This long running pattern has not been reversed, and California remains one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, placing heavy pressure on households across income levels (Legislative Analyst’s Office [LAO], 2015; Public Policy Institute of California [PPIC], 2023). The central question follows: if the core problem has been recognized for decades, why has the crisis remained unresolved for more than fifty years?

In response, the Legislature has passed a series of bills designed to accelerate production. These measures focus on increasing allowable density, streamlining approval processes, limiting local discretion, and pushing more units into areas that are already urbanized. This approach can generate new supply, but it relies on an assumption that adding units in dense or transit adjacent places is always the most efficient way to restore affordability. In practice, growth has often moved forward without proportional expansion of transportation, water, energy, and basic services. When unit approvals outpace infrastructure delivery, systems become stressed: congestion worsens, service reliability falls, and the energy grid becomes more fragile under peak demand conditions (Deakin & Cervero, 2008). The gap between legal permission to build and the actual capacity to support those new residents is now one of the defining risks in California’s housing strategy (Gordon, Auxier, & Rueben, 2020; PPIC, 2023).

This paper argues that California’s production first housing strategy is structurally unstable because it does not require transportation, water, and energy systems to scale at the same pace as entitlement, which produces congestion, service unreliability, environmental risk, and political backlash (Deakin & Cervero, 2008; Gordon, Auxier, & Rueben, 2020). Using carrying capacity and Sustainable Development Goals 11 and 12 as a frame, I evaluate how housing policy should be tied to infrastructure timing, resource limits, and social resilience, and I use Japan’s vacancy pattern as a comparative warning. I conclude that California should redirect part of its growth to underdeveloped and less congested regions where infrastructure can be planned in tandem with housing and that future housing incentives should be conditioned on proof of service capacity rather than unit count alone (Haberl et al., 2006; PPIC, 2023).

Theoretical and Comparative Frameworks

Carrying Capacity and System Resilience

Carrying capacity refers to the maximum population or level of activity that a system can sustain without degrading its functionality. When growth exceeds that capacity, the system begins to experience stress and eventually fails. In an urban context, this failure shows up as congestion, resource scarcity, degraded public services, and a decline in quality of life. That decline can ultimately discourage new households from settling and can even produce long term vacancies (Haberl et al., 2006). In this paper, I approximate urban carrying capacity through three indicator families: transit load factors and effective access, drought constrained water availability, and peak grid reliability under heat and wildfire stress.

California’s housing approach has largely emphasized unit production and has treated other systems as if they will adapt automatically. When housing production is prioritized and surpasses capacity in transportation, water, energy, and services, the result is predictable: scarcity, unreliability, and reduced livability. These service failures are not temporary inconveniences. They are signals that growth has overshot carrying capacity. In a setting where infrastructure is already strained, especially in dense metropolitan areas, carrying capacity should not be an afterthought. It should be embedded in how, where, and when housing incentives are applied. Aligning new housing with infrastructure expansion at the front end is more effective than retrofitting later under crisis conditions (Haberl et al., 2006).

Current statewide solutions often miss this alignment between housing production and infrastructure capacity. Many legislative actions define success through abstract production targets (number of units built, acres upzoned, dollars invested) while overlooking whether transportation service can absorb added riders, whether the water system can sustain additional demand during drought, or whether the grid can reliably serve peak loads during heat waves. Policymakers have pushed density in already saturated areas, which can overload existing systems, generate politically sensitive vacancies, and weaken local government authority over approvals. A more human-centered approach would not treat production as an end in itself. It would pair job creation and housing in places that have room to grow, rather than concentrating pressure in the same limited set of urban cores. It would also allow communities to articulate needs, constraints, and mitigation priorities instead of eliminating discretionary reviews simply to speed construction.

Sustainable Development Goals and Spatial Redistribution

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a useful policy lens for connecting housing to infrastructure and resilience. Sustainable Development Goal 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities, calls for settlements that are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. It emphasizes integrated planning, accessible and affordable housing, reliable transportation, and robust physical systems. SDG 11 effectively demands that approvals for new housing be coordinated with funded, timed investments in transit, water, and energy systems and that these investments reach historically under resourced neighborhoods, not just high growth corridors (United Nations [UN], 2015).

Sustainable Development Goal 12, Responsible Consumption and Production, focuses on reducing resource use and environmental harm by improving efficiency and managing demand. In housing terms, SDG 12 implies that new development should remain within the ecological and operational capacity of the systems that serve it. It ties growth to responsible water use, energy reliability, and climate resilience (PPIC, 2023; UN, 2015).

Taken together, SDG 11 and SDG 12 expose gaps in California’s current model. The state has prioritized legalization and entitlement of units in infill locations, but has not consistently required proof that transportation, water, and energy systems can support that growth at acceptable service levels. For California, applying these goals would mean tying housing allocations and state funding to demonstrated transit, water, and energy capacity in each region, rather than assuming that any already urbanized area is inherently sustainable. Strategic expansion in underdeveloped or mid-sized cities and in new planned districts can help avoid overloading balanced neighborhoods, reduce retrofit costs, and let new communities build transit, water, and energy systems that match their intended density from day one (Haberl et al., 2006; PPIC, 2023; UN, 2015).

Comparative Warning: Japan and Demand Shifts

Japan offers a cautionary comparative case. After World War II, the national government promoted aggressive housing construction to meet rapid urbanization. The focus was on quantity rather than coordinated planning. The strategy succeeded in producing large volumes of suburban housing, but over time several forces converged: population aging, migration toward different regions, and infrastructure that did not match long term demand. The result has been widespread vacancies and underused housing stock (Zhang, 2020).

California faces a related risk, even if the demographics differ. Remote and hybrid work arrangements have reduced the need for many households to live next to central business districts, and a recent analysis documents sustained net domestic outmigration from high cost coastal counties to inland regions and other states (Christopher & Tobias, 2024; PPIC, 2023). Many households now value space, reliability, and service quality as much as proximity. They are willing to move to less congested areas when core urban locations feel overcrowded, expensive, or under serviced (PPIC, 2023). If policy continues to drive high density production only in already stressed cores without matching infrastructure, some of those units may end up under occupied in the long term. This is not just an economic inefficiency. It is a resilience problem: capital gets sunk into places that may not be able to retain residents because the service experience cannot keep up with promised density (Zhang, 2020).

In both Japan’s case and California’s current trajectory, the core lesson is similar. Producing units faster than infrastructure, or in places where demand will not persist, creates stranded assets and weakens social and physical resilience (Zhang, 2020). The analogy has limits because Japan faces absolute population decline while California’s risk is driven more by migration and shifting preferences, but in both contexts the demand signals that matter are reliability, travel time, and perceived quality of life rather than formal zoning capacity (PPIC, 2023; Zhang, 2020).

Legislative Landscape and Cultural Dynamics

Legislative Tools and Production Logic

California has known for decades that housing supply is constrained, and lawmakers have attempted to remove the main procedural and zoning bottlenecks. The principal legislative instruments used to expand housing supply include:

SB 9. Allows ministerial approval of lot splits and duplex construction in many single-family residential zones. SB 9 reduces local discretion, limits subjective review, and simplifies parcel subdivision (California Legislature, 2021a).

SB 10. Allows cities to adopt ordinances that permit up to ten housing units on parcels in rich or infill areas. SB 10 gives local governments a clearer path to increase density in selected locations where services already exist or can be extended efficiently (California Legislature, 2021b).

SB 35. Creates a ministerial approval process for qualifying housing projects in jurisdictions that have not met state assigned housing goals. SB 35 reduces discretionary review, sets predictable timelines, and accelerates approvals for projects that meet objective standards (California Legislature, 2017).

SB 330. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 limits downzoning, caps certain fees, and restricts procedural delays. SB 330 expedites approvals and prevents local governments from using drawn out hearings and rule changes to stall development (California Legislature, 2019).

SB 1069. Reforms accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules by easing parking requirements, limiting minimum lot standards, and restricting local barriers. SB 1069 makes it easier for homeowners to build ADUs in single family areas, expanding gentle density options (California Legislature, 2016).

SB 478. Prohibits local governments from using restrictive floor area ratio and lot coverage standards to block small multi-unit housing. SB 478 protects missing middle housing types by making sure that zoning that nominally allows two to ten units results in realistic buildable capacity (California Legislature, 2021c).

Taken together, these laws rest on a plausible assumption: if the state legalizes and speeds production, added supply will eventually lower prices. But two omissions are especially consequential. First, infrastructure capacity is not expanding at the same pace as entitled housing. Housing approvals often run ahead of transportation upgrades, water reliability investments, hazard mitigation, and energy resilience. Second, policy focuses heavily on infill growth in established urban cores while overlooking underdeveloped regions that might be able to absorb growth more easily. This disconnect undermines affordability goals and creates pressures that become expensive and politically difficult to correct after the fact. Long term solutions require explicit integration of infrastructure capacity into housing policy, not just faster approvals (Lens & Monkkonen, 2016; PPIC, 2023).

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reinforces this production first orientation in the way it evaluates local compliance. HCD treats unit creation as the main indicator of progress on affordability (California Department of Housing and Community Development, n.d.). That approach, combined with incentive-based legislation, has helped accelerate approvals. But infrastructure review is rarely integrated at the same level of rigor. In the push to streamline projects, attract developers, and deliver units quickly, the state has weakened the early capacity screens that are used to surface water, energy, transportation, and service constraints before entitlement. This reduces meaningful opportunities for communities to identify gaps and shape mitigation measures (Chapple et al., 2021; Lens & Monkkonen, 2016). Taken together, these statutes and HCD’s compliance practices frame housing primarily as a throughput problem to be solved by removing procedural obstacles, rather than as a capacity constrained system that must be co-planned with infrastructure (Chapple et al., 2021; Gordon et al., 2020).

Cultural and Market Dynamics

Cultural dynamics shape demand and resistance. Many Californians have strong attachments to detached single family homes and to the idea of personal space, privacy, and control over one’s property. That preference is deeply rooted and continues to influence long term demand (Deakin & Cervero, 2008; Pfeiffer & Pearthree, 2018). Policies that encourage infill, lot splits, ADUs in backyards, and small multi-unit buildings inserted into established neighborhoods can clash with these preferences. Neighbors often see such changes as direct intrusions into yards, parking, and perceived neighborhood character.

As a result, even when the state legalizes higher density, some of the new units may be politically unpopular, socially contested, or less attractive to future residents compared to alternatives in less crowded locations. Households that can relocate sometimes choose lower cost, lower congestion areas with more space and more reliable services. Recent work by PPIC (2023), for example, documents sustained domestic outmigration from high-cost coastal counties, much of it toward inland metros where housing and everyday services are more affordable. That same dynamic appears in Japan’s post growth vacancy pattern: a policy strategy that focused on legalizing more units in existing urban areas eventually collided with demographic change and shifting preferences, leaving certain neighborhoods with growing numbers of empty homes (Zhang, 2020). The lesson is that cultural, behavioral, and demographic factors interact with legal capacity. Legal permission alone does not guarantee stable, long-term demand for a specific form of building in a specific place.

Infrastructure Limits and Equity Impacts

Transportation and Mobility

Owning a car is essential for daily life in most of California. Less than three percent of the workforce uses public transit for commuting (Deakin & Cervero, 2008). Much of the new housing capacity that state policy tries to unlock sits in locations that still lack fast, frequent, reliable transit. When more housing is added in places that remain car dependent, vehicle miles traveled increase, congestion worsens, and emissions rise. That outcome undercuts statewide climate goals even as it makes daily mobility more time consuming and expensive. The geography of production is not aligned with the geography of practical access, which weakens the promise of “transit oriented” upzoning in many areas. For example, many parcels counted as transit oriented in housing plans sit more than half a mile from the nearest rail station or do not have bus service more frequent than every fifteen minutes at peak (Deakin & Cervero, 2008; PPIC, 2023).

Water and Energy Systems

Water and energy systems face similar strain. California experiences recurring drought intensified by climate stress, with climate model projections showing more frequent multiyear shortages and declining snowpack (Lynam & Piechota, 2021). Higher unit counts can increase total demand for water even when individual buildings are efficient. Without parallel investments in supply, conservation, storage, and conveyance, adding housing elevates scarcity risk and increases the likelihood of localized shortages that have to be managed through emergency restrictions (Lynam & Piechota, 2021; PPIC, 2023).

The electric grid is also fragile. Much of the system is run by investor owned utilities that operate under a complex mix of market incentives, safety mandates, and cost recovery rules. Even though new homes are often required to include rooftop solar, the broader system that delivers electricity is still centralized and stressed. During heat waves, wildfire shutoffs, or other emergencies, this fragility becomes visible. Over reliance on a stressed grid amplifies exposure to outages at precisely the moments when power is most critical (Rilinger, 2024).

System Gaps and Retrofit Costs

Transportation, water, and energy capacity are not consistently integrated into housing policy. Investment in core systems has not kept pace with the plan to increase housing production. Where upgrades do occur, they often follow the units rather than lead them. That means entire neighborhoods can fill in before transit frequency is increased, before the water system is reinforced, or before local distribution infrastructure is hardened against fire, heat, or flood. The result is vulnerability in basic service delivery for both new and existing households, and an adaptation burden that becomes more expensive each year (Gordon, Auxier, & Rueben, 2020).

Trying to fix these gaps after people are already living in newly dense areas is costly, politically difficult, and slow. Retrofitting streets, pipes, substations, and drainage in built out neighborhoods requires disruptive construction windows, high public expense, and long lead times. Gordon et al. (2020), for example, estimate that deferred maintenance and upgrade needs across California’s core systems run into the tens of billions of dollars, and that retrofit projects in dense corridors can cost several times more per mile than building new infrastructure in planned districts (Gordon et al., 2020; LAO, 2024). By contrast, channeling some growth toward underdeveloped regions or new planned districts allows infrastructure to be built efficiently with modern standards, clear rights of way, and full climate resilience from the start. That approach aligns production with realistic delivery schedules and service capacity (LAO, 2024; PPIC, 2023).

Unequal Burden

The burden of infrastructure strain is not shared evenly. Marginalized and historically under resourced communities are the most affected by inadequate services. They experience longer commutes, weaker transit options, and less reliable water and energy systems, even as they face higher exposure to climate and environmental risk. In contrast, households with more financial flexibility can often move to areas with better services and lower stress while lower income households get concentrated in neighborhoods where infrastructure is already failing. That dynamic recreates inequality and compounds affordability pressure over time (Goh & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2019; PPIC, 2023).

In other words, infrastructure misalignment is not just a technical planning issue. It is an equity issue. A capacity aligned strategy would therefore prioritize targeted state infrastructure grants and reliability upgrades in under resourced neighborhoods, tied to affordable housing commitments, so that added units are accompanied by tangible service improvements (Goh & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2019; PPIC, 2023).

Discussion and Synthesis

California’s housing strategy produces three interlocking problems: policy misalignment, structural barriers, and systemic risk.

Policy Misalignment

California’s housing policies prioritize the rapid approval of units, especially in fill and transit adjacent units, through measures such as SB 9, SB 10, SB 35, SB 330, SB 1069, and SB 478. These laws accelerate entitlements and suppress local procedural delays, but they do not require proof that transportation, water, and energy capacity can support the added units. This disconnects between housing growth and infrastructure investment creates structural stress within the urban system (Chapple, Loukaitou-Sideris, & Ong, 2021). The absence of an integrated planning mechanism reflects a short term production mindset. To correct that, housing approvals should be tied to carrying capacity assessments based on the indicators introduced earlier: transit load factors and access, drought constrained water availability, and peak grid reliability, so that growth is limited to locations where these measures meet or exceed specified thresholds or where funded upgrades are already in motion (Gordon et al., 2020; Haberl et al., 2006).

Structural Barriers

Even when the state legalizes more housing, three deep barriers limit resilience.

First is cultural inertia. Californians have long attached status, stability, and autonomy to detached single family homes. Policies that introduce backyard units, lot splits, or small multi-unit buildings can conflict with those expectations and trigger local resistance (Deakin & Cervero, 2008; Pfeiffer & Pearthree, 2018).

Second is political fragmentation. State law preempts local reviews to force approvals through, but that same preemption can also reduce opportunities for communities to shape mitigation and identify capacity gaps. The result is mistrust, which slows implementation and makes long term partnership harder (Chapple, 2021).

Third is infrastructure underinvestment. Transportation, water, and energy systems in California have absorbed decades of deferred maintenance and incremental funding. That backlog increases vulnerability to shocks such as drought, wildfire driven outages, or extreme heat. It also raises the cost of backfilling service gaps after dense infill projects are already occupied (Gordon et al., 2020).

In the short term, political fragmentation and infrastructure underinvestment are the binding constraints because they determine whether projects can move forward and whether basic services keep up, while cultural inertia operates over a longer horizon by shaping which built forms households are willing to accept.

Systemic Risk

These pressures compound into systemic risk. Under resourced communities are asked to absorb the longest commutes, the least reliable utilities, and the thinnest safety nets. Over time, this produces inequality and economic segregation (Gordon et al., 2020). At the same time, as costs rise and infrastructure strain worsens in dense core areas, and as remote work makes location more flexible, households with options relocate to less congested regions. That pattern increases the chance that some high density infill units in stressed cores may sit underused in the long term, echoing Japan’s experience with oversupply in areas that no longer matched demand (PPIC, 2023; Zhang, 2020). The outcome is stranded housing, stranded infrastructure, and eroded resilience. State and regional agencies could monitor emerging vacancy risk in these cores by tracking long term changes in utility usage, sustained increases in days on market, and clusters of tax delinquency or repeated property turnover in high density districts (PPIC, 2023; Zhang, 2020).

Toward Coordinated Capacity Planning

To avoid that trajectory, the state needs a coordinated capacity expansion plan that links housing incentives with water, energy, and transportation investments. The SDG 11 and SDG 12 framework, described earlier, is directly relevant here. One option would be to charge the California Strategic Growth Council or a new interagency infrastructure council with defining capacity thresholds and reviewing regional infrastructure plans, while the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) conditions housing element compliance and eligibility for streamlined approvals on meeting those thresholds (PPIC, 2023; UN, 2015). Embedding those principles in state housing policy would encourage spatial redistribution, directing growth into underdeveloped or mid-sized regions where infrastructure can be built alongside new homes, and would move California away from a default strategy of reactive retrofit in already overburdened cores (UN, 2015).

Conclusion

Policy Recommendations

California has relied heavily on increasing density in already built up urban cores to address its housing shortage. However, this approach has failed to fully resolve affordability issues and has placed additional pressure on transportation, energy, and water systems in the most congested regions. The housing crisis persists not because of a lack of legislative action, but because state policy has prioritized unit counts in dense urban centers without proportionate infrastructure investment. This creates structural vulnerabilities in service delivery, congestion, and environmental resilience. Continuing to push for higher density in infrastructure strained areas compounds systemic risk. By contrast, channeling development toward underdeveloped or less congested cities and regions can ease pressure on urban cores, allow for more rational infrastructure planning, and distribute growth more evenly.

The analysis points to five main policy directions. First, California should rebalance development incentives by tying housing legislation such as SB 9, SB 10, and SB 35 to strategic geographic targeting that steers growth into underdeveloped cities and planned districts where infrastructure can be built in tandem. Second, the state should advance infrastructure first planning by pairing approvals with proactive investments in water, energy, and transportation systems and by requiring localities to demonstrate carrying capacity through standardized assessments before state incentives are applied (Gordon et al., 2020; Haberl et al., 2006). Third, embedding SDG 11 and SDG 12 into state guidance and strengthening regional collaboration through targeted infrastructure grants would help mid-sized cities absorb a larger share of housing targets while maintaining reliable services (PPIC, 2023; UN, 2015).

In the near term, the state could pilot a simple capacity screen for projects seeking SB 35 streamlining in one or two regions and create a small infrastructure grant program for under resourced, high opportunity communities. Over the longer term, the Legislature could rework housing element and RHNA law so that regional housing allocations are bundled with multi decade infrastructure plans and funding commitments, making capacity alignment a core condition of compliance rather than an afterthought.

Further work should explore how spatial redistribution of housing can lower infrastructure costs, reduce congestion in urban cores, and support more equitable regional growth. Comparative studies with polycentric models in other countries (e.g., Germany, Japan’s regional towns) may offer useful guidance for California’s next phase of policy making.

References

California Department of Housing and Community Development. (n.d.). Addressing a variety of housing challenges. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges

California Legislature. (2016). S.B. 1069: Land use: Accessory dwelling units (Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1069

California Legislature. (2017). S.B. 35: Planning and zoning: Affordable housing: Streamlined approvals (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35

California Legislature. (2019). S.B. 330: Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330

California Legislature. (2021a). S.B. 9: Housing development: Approvals (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9

California Legislature. (2021b). S.B. 10: Planning and zoning: Housing development: Density (Chapter 163, Statutes of 2021). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10

California Legislature. (2021c). S.B. 478: Planning and Zoning Law: Housing development projects (Chapter 363, Statutes of 2021). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB478

Chapple, K., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Ong, P. (2021). Urban growth without equity: California’s housing crisis in context. Urban Affairs Review, 57(5), 1257-1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087420905381

Christopher, B., & Tobias, M. (2024, October 15). Californians: Here’s why your housing costs are so high. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-housing-costs-explainer/

Deakin, E., & Cervero, R. (2008). The challenge of urban transportation in California. Access, 30(6), 10-17.

Goh, K., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2019). Infrastructure, inequality, and housing affordability in Los Angeles. Urban Studies, 56(16), 3405-3423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019843482

Gordon, T., Auxier, R. C., & Rueben, K. S. (2020). California’s infrastructure challenges. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/californias-infrastructure-challenges

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2024). California’s housing accountability and infrastructure lag report. https://lao.ca.gov

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2015). California’s high housing costs: Causes and consequences. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.pdf

Lens, M. C., & Monkkonen, P. (2016). Do strict land use regulations make metropolitan areas more segregated by income? Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1111163

Lynam, L., & Piechota, T. (2021). California drought outlooks based on climate change models’ effects on water availability. Water, 13(22), 3211. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223211

Pfeiffer, D., & Pearthree, G. (2018). A slow death of single-family neighborhoods? Exploring housing production trends in California. Housing Policy Debate, 28(6), 875-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1476895

Public Policy Institute of California. (2023). California infrastructure capacity and growth pressures. https://www.ppic.org

Rilinger, G. (2024). Failure by design: The California energy crisis and the limits of market planning. University of Chicago Press.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Zhang, B. (2020). Why is Japan’s housing vacancy rate so high? A history of postwar housing policy. Social Science Japan Journal, 23(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ssjj/jyz040