Prologis 8-K Other Events

EXHIBIT 99.1

Item 2.Properties

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

     As of December 31, 2006, we owned and managed 964 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 100.7 million rentable square feet (on a consolidated basis, we had 820 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 80.3 million rentable square feet), excluding development and renovation projects and recently completed development projects available for sale or contribution, located in 34 markets throughout the United States and in China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. Our industrial properties were 96.1% leased to 2,633 customers, the largest of which accounted for no more than 3.1% of our annualized base rent from our industrial properties. See Part IV, Item 15: Note 16 of “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for segment information related to our operations.

     Property Characteristics.Our industrial properties, which consist primarily of warehouse distribution facilities suitable for single or multiple customers, are typically comprised of multiple buildings.

     The following table identifies types and characteristics of our industrial buildings and each type’s percentage, based on square footage, of our total owned and managed operating portfolio, which we define as properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.

		December 31,
Building Type	Description	2006			2005(1)
Warehouse	Customers typically 15,000-75,000 square feet, single or multi-customer		48.4	%		44.2	%
Bulk Warehouse	Customers typically over 75,000 square feet, single or multi-customer		38.3	%		40.0	%
Flex Industrial	Includes assembly or research & development, single or multi-customer		4.5	%		5.9	%
Light Industrial	Smaller customers, 15,000 square feet or less, higher office finish		3.5	%		4.6	%
Trans-Shipment	Unique configurations for truck terminals and cross-docking		1.5	%		1.7	%
Air Cargo	On-tarmac or airport land for transfer of air cargo goods		3.2	%		3.1	%
Office	Single or multi-customer, used strictly for office		0.6	%		0.5	%
			100.0	%		100.0	%

(1) The information for 2005 is presented on a consolidated basis while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned and managed basis. Management believes that the difference in comparability between 2006 and 2005 is not significant.

     Lease Terms.Our industrial properties are typically subject to lease on a “triple net basis,” in which customers pay their proportionate share of real estate taxes, insurance and operating costs, or are subject to leases on a “modified gross basis,” in which customers pay expenses over certain threshold levels. In addition, most of our leases include fixed rental increases or Consumer Price Index-based rental increases. Lease terms typically range from three to ten years, with a weighted average of six years, excluding renewal options. However, the majority of our industrial leases do not include renewal options.

     Overview of Major Target Markets.Our industrial properties are typically located near major airports, key interstate highways and seaports in major U.S. metropolitan areas, which currently comprise Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Northern New Jersey/New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Seattle. Our other U.S. target markets include Austin, Baltimore/Washington D.C., Boston, Houston, Minneapolis and Orlando. Our non-U.S. industrial properties are located in major distribution markets, including Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Guadalajara, Hamburg, Lyon, Mexico City, Osaka, Paris, Queretaro, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo and Toronto.

     Within these metropolitan areas, our industrial properties are generally concentrated in locations with limited new construction opportunities within established, relatively large submarkets, which we believe should provide a higher rate of occupancy and rent growth than properties located elsewhere. These in-fill locations are typically near major airports, seaports or convenient to major highways and rail lines, and are proximate to large and diverse labor pools. There is typically broad demand for industrial space in these centrally located submarkets due to a diverse mix of industries and types of industrial uses, including warehouse distribution,

1

light assembly and manufacturing. We generally avoid locations at the periphery of metropolitan areas where there are fewer constraints to the supply of additional industrial properties.

2

Owned and Managed Market Operating Statistics⁽¹⁾

     As of December 31, 2006, we held investments in operating properties in 34 markets in our owned and managed operating portfolio throughout the United States and in China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. The following table represents properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term:

																												Total
				No. New			San																					Principal
	Southern			Jersey/			Francisco						U.S.			South												Global
	California(7)			New York			Bay Area			Chicago			On-Tarmac (2)			Florida			Seattle			Tokyo			Paris			Markets
Rentable square feet		14,858,376			10,538,097			10,499,059			11,321,419			2,681,328			5,678,594			7,430,006			2,849,618			1,885,532			67,742,029
Occupancy percentage		95.8	%		98.7	%		97.4	%		95.1	%		96.3	%		97.9	%		96.0	%		88.8	%		96.2	%		96.3	%
ABR (000’s)(3)	$	92,562		$	75,719		$	70,466		$	56,603		$	46,402		$	42,148		$	34,913		$	31,179		$	15,179			465,171
% of total ABR(3)		14.3	%		11.7	%		10.9	%		8.7	%		7.2	%		6.5	%		5.4	%		4.9	%		2.3	%		71.9	%
ABR per square foot	$	6.50		$	7.28		$	6.89		$	5.26		$	17.96		$	7.58		$	4.89		$	12.32		$	8.37		$	7.13
Lease expirations as a % of ABR:(3)
2007		9.4	%		10.8	%		13.7	%		26.3	%		16.0	%		22.5	%		18.9	%		3.5	%		2.0	%		10.3	%
2008		19.1	%		13.2	%		16.7	%		15.2	%		13.8	%		11.1	%		13.2	%		7.7	%		0.7	%		10.2	%
2009		13.7	%		15.3	%		22.8	%		13.9	%		6.5	%		16.3	%		21.2	%		18.1	%		5.9	%		11.3	%
Weighted average lease terms:
Original		5.9			6.9			5.6			4.8			8.6			5.6			6.0			5.5			9.0			6.0
Remaining		3.3			3.8			2.4			2.6			4.6			3.4			2.8			4.5			5.1			3.2
Trailing four quarter tenant retention:		78.5	%		75.6	%		71.2	%		69.7	%		90.8	%		77.0	%		76.2	%		33.9	%		0.0	%		73.5	%
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers:
Quarter		13.9	%		11.2	%		(21.0	%)		3.9	%		4.9	%		10.2	%		13.5	%		1.0	%		0.0	%		5.4	%
Same space square feet leased		990,934			305,275			317,314			557,402			85,242			155,519			155,385			20,744			—			2,587,815
Year-to-Date		7.5	%		3.4	%		(13.2	%)		(5.4	%)		4.1	%		5.2	%		4.1	%		1.0	%		0.0	%		0.3	%
Same space square feet leased		2,842,876			2,175,615			1,505,411			2,270,278			418,545			1,083,300			1,080,155			192,391			—			11,568,571
Same store cash basis NOI % change:(4)
Quarter		(1.4	%)		(7.5	%)		6.5	%		0.0	%		1.9	%		15.6	%		(1.1	%)		(5.2	%)		9.9	%		0.7	%
Year-to-Date		2.6	%		(1.2	%)		2.1	%		2.3	%		3.5	%		16.8	%		0.0	%		(7.2	%)		4.7	%		2.3	%
Same store square feet as % of aggregate square feet(5)		81.9	%		83.7	%		93.7	%		74.9	%		95.6	%		82.4	%		82.4	%		32.4	%		54.2	%		80.6	%
AMB’s pro rata share of square feet(6)		9,633,159			5,571,416			7,849,682			6,761,965			2,494,569			4,480,180			3,880,944			569,924			1,885,532			43,127,371
AMB’s pro rata % share of square feet(6)		64.8	%		52.9	%		74.8	%		59.7	%		93.0	%		78.9	%		52.2	%		20.0	%		100.0	%		63.7	%

3

(1)	Our owned and managed portfolio excludes development and renovation projects and recently completed development projects available for sale or contribution. The markets included here are a subset of our regions defined as East, Southwest, and West Central in North America and Europe and Asia.
(2)	Includes domestic on-tarmac air cargo facilities at 14 airports.
(3)	Annualized base rent, or ABR, is calculated as monthly base rent (cash basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31, 2006, multiplied by 12.
(4)	See Part II Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Supplemental Earnings Measures” for a discussion of why management believes same store cash basis NOI is a useful supplemental measure for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure when assessing the Company’s financial performance, and the limitations of the measure as a measurement tool.
(5)	Same store pool excludes properties purchased and developments stabilized after December 31, 2004. Stabilized properties are generally defined as properties that are 90% leased or properties for which we have held a certificate of occupancy or where building has been substantially complete for at least 12 months.
(6)	Our pro rata share of square feet is calculated on the owned and managed portfolio only and no longer includes non-managed operating properties.
(7)	We also own a 19.9 acre land parcel, which is leased to a parking lot operator in the Los Angeles market immediately adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport.

4

Owned and Managed Operating Portfolio Overview⁽¹⁾

     As of December 31, 2006, our 964 industrial buildings were diversified across 34 markets throughout the United States and in China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. The average age of our industrial properties is approximately 23 years (since the property was built or substantially renovated). The following table represents our owned and managed properties which we define as properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the asset or property manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.

	Rentable		AMB’s Pro Rata
	Square		% Share of			Occupancy					% of Total			ABR per
	Feet		Square Feet			Percentage			ABR(2)		ABR(2)			Square Foot(2)
Principal Global Markets		67,742,029		63.7	%		96.3	%	$	465,171		71.9	%	$	7.13
Other Global Target Markets
North America Markets
Atlanta		4,622,651		51.0	%		92.7	%	$	19,016		2.9	%	$	4.44
Baltimore		3,046,324		88.6	%		99.6	%		20,580		3.2	%		6.78
Boston		5,188,593		73.5	%		92.5	%		31,452		4.9	%		6.55
Dallas		4,843,064		59.0	%		97.8	%		22,387		3.5	%		4.73
Mexico City		1,803,973		20.0	%		95.1	%		10,481		1.6	%		6.11
Minneapolis		3,886,858		83.4	%		96.2	%		17,216		2.7	%		4.61
Other Markets(3)		6,099,858		56.2	%		95.4	%		32,030		4.8	%		5.50
Subtotal/Weighted Average		29,491,321		63.6	%		95.4	%	$	153,162		23.6	%	$	5.44
Europe Markets(4)
Amsterdam, Netherlands		964,039		100.0	%		100.0	%	$	8,377		1.3	%	$	8.69
Brussels, Belgium		166,917		100.0	%		100.0	%		2,669		0.4	%		15.99
Frankfurt, Germany		959,214		98.2	%		98.9	%		7,931		1.2	%		8.36
Hamburg, Germany		262,491		100.0	%		100.0	%		1,758		0.3	%		6.70
Subtotal/Weighted Average		2,352,661		99.3	%		99.5	%	$	20,735		3.2	%	$	8.85
Asia Markets(4)
Osaka, Japan		965,155		20.0	%		90.3	%	$	7,546		1.2	%	$	8.66
Shanghai, China		151,749		100.0	%		100.0	%		550		0.1	%		3.62
Subtotal/Weighted Average		1,116,904		30.9	%		91.6	%	$	8,096		1.3	%	$	7.91
Owned and Managed Total		100,702,915		64.1	%		96.1	%	$	647,164		100.0	%	$	6.69
Other(5)		7,510,779					96.7	%
Total Stabilized Portfolio(6)		108,213,694					96.1	%
Development Projects(7)		16,617,487
Total Portfolio(7)		124,831,181

(1)	Includes our owned and managed operating and development properties, investments in operating properties through non-managed unconsolidated joint ventures, and recently completed developments that have not yet been placed in operations but are being held for sale or contribution.
(2)	Annualized base rent is calculated as monthly base rent (cash basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31, 2006, multiplied by 12.
(3)	Other Markets includes other target markets (Austin, Guadalajara, Houston, Orlando and Querétaro) and non-target markets (Columbus and New Orleans).
(4)	Annualized base rent for leases denominated in foreign currencies is translated using the currency exchange rate at December 31, 2006.

5

(5)	Includes investments in 7.4 million square feet of operating properties through our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures that it does not manage which it excludes from our owned and managed portfolio and 151,606 square feet for our investment in AMB Pier One, LLC.
(6)	Properties that are 90% leased or properties for which we have held a certificate of occupancy or building has been substantially complete for at least 12 months.
(7)	Total Portfolio includes recently completed development projects available for sale or contribution totaling ten projects and 3.0 million square feet.

Lease Expirations⁽¹⁾

     The following table summarizes the lease expirations for our owned and managed operating properties for leases in place as of December 31, 2006, without giving effect to the exercise of renewal options or termination rights, if any, at or prior to the scheduled expirations:

			Annualized		% of
	Square		Base		Annualized
	Feet		Rent (000’s)(2)		Base Rent
2007		15,946,335	$	96,962		14.3	%
2008		14,987,948		93,720		13.8	%
2009		15,580,437		101,672		15.0	%
2010		13,056,478		96,569		14.2	%
2011		13,193,485		97,473		14.3	%
2012		7,813,704		66,080		9.7	%
2013		3,379,973		26,803		3.9	%
2014		5,326,305		41,105		6.0	%
2015		2,706,554		20,209		3.0	%
2016 and beyond		4,925,182		39,118		5.8	%
Total		96,916,401	$	679,711		100.0	%

(1)	Schedule includes leases that expire on or after December 31, 2006. Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which we define as properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.
(2)	Calculated as monthly base rent at expiration multiplied by 12. Non-U.S. dollar projects are converted to U.S. dollars based on the forward exchange rate at expiration. Amounts represent 100% of the annualized base rent of the owned and managed operating properties.

6

Customer Information⁽¹⁾

     Largest Property Customers.As of December 31, 2006, our 25 largest property customers by annualized base rent, on an owned and managed basis, are set forth in the table below:

				Percentage of			Percentage of
		Aggregate		Aggregate	Annualized		Aggregate
	Number of	Rentable		Leased Square	Base		Annualized
Customer Name (2)	Leases	Square Feet		Feet (3)	Rent (000’s) (4)		Base Rent (5)
United States Government(6) (7)	47		1,407,748	1.5%	$	20,295	3.1%
Deutsche Post World Net (DHL)(6)	41		1,977,650	2.0%		17,791	2.7%
FedEx Corporation(6)	30		1,361,619	1.4%		14,455	2.2%
Nippon Express	12		967,039	1.0%		9,636	1.5%
Sagawa Express	7		726,235	0.8%		9,008	1.4%
Harmonic Inc.	4		285,480	0.3%		8,907	1.4%
BAX Global Inc/Schenker/Deutsche Bahn(6)	16		711,117	0.7%		7,067	1.1%
La Poste	2		854,427	0.9%		6,332	1.0%
City and County of San Francisco	1		559,605	0.6%		5,714	0.9%
Panalpina, Inc.	7		870,156	0.9%		5,585	0.9%
Expeditors International	8		1,003,939	1.0%		4,836	0.7%
Worldwide Flight Services(6)	14		327,622	0.3%		4,694	0.7%
Eagle Global Logistics, L.P.	10		758,121	0.8%		4,424	0.7%
Forward Air Corporation	9		547,544	0.6%		4,290	0.7%
FMI International	3		764,343	0.8%		4,240	0.7%
UPS	15		559,994	0.6%		3,911	0.6%
United Air Lines Inc.(6)	6		191,085	0.2%		3,408	0.5%
World Logi K.K.	10		343,883	0.4%		3,178	0.5%
Ahold NV	6		693,280	0.7%		2,970	0.5%
Elmhult Limited Partnership	5		760,253	0.8%		2,686	0.4%
Virco Manufacturing Corporation	1		559,000	0.6%		2,566	0.4%
UTi United States Inc.	11		314,029	0.3%		2,494	0.4%
Menzies Aviation(6)	4		183,867	0.2%		2,323	0.4%
Integrated Airline Services(6)	4		198,262	0.2%		2,284	0.4%
Kintetsu World Express	7		180,027	0.2%		2,278	0.4%
Total			17,106,325	17.8%	$	155,372	24.2%

(1)	Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which we define as properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.
(2)	Customer(s) may be a subsidiary of or an entity affiliated with the named customer. We also own a 19.9 acre land parcel, adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport which is leased to a parking lot operator with an annualized base rent of $7.5 million, which is not included.
(3)	Computed as aggregate leased square feet divided by the aggregate leased square feet of operating properties.
(4)	Annualized base rent is calculated as monthly base rent (cash basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31, 2006, multiplied by 12.
(5)	Computed as aggregate annualized base rent divided by the aggregate annualized base rent of operating properties.
(6)	Airport apron rental amounts (but not square footage) are included.
(7)	United States Government includes the United States Postal Service, United States Customs, United States Department of Agriculture and various other U.S. governmental agencies.

7

OWNED AND MANAGED OPERATING AND LEASING STATISTICS

Owned and Managed Operating and Leasing Statistics⁽¹⁾

     The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for all of our owned and managed operating properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004:

Operating Portfolio	2006			2005 (2)			2004 (2)
Square feet owned (3) (6)		100,702,915			87,772,104			90,278,803
Occupancy percentage(6)		96.1	%		95.8	%		94.8	%
Weighted average lease terms:
Original	6.1 years			6.1 years			6.1 years
Remaining	3.3 years			3.3 years			3.3 years
Tenant retention		70.9	%		64.2	%		66.8	%
Same Space Leasing Activity (4):
Rent increases (decreases) on renewals and rollovers		(0.1	)%		(9.7	)%		(13.2	)%
Same space square footage commencing (millions)		16.2			13.6			17.5
Second Generation Leasing Activity (5):
Tenant improvements and leasing commissions per sq. ft.:
Retained	$	1.41		$	1.60		$	1.73
Re-tenanted		3.19			3.03			2.70
Weighted average	$	2.20		$	2.34		$	2.27
Square footage commencing (millions)		19.1			18.5			22.5

(1)	Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which we define as properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. This excludes development and renovation projects and recently completed development projects available for sale or contribution.
(2)	The information for 2005 and 2004 is presented on a consolidated basis while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned and managed basis. Management believes that the difference in comparability between 2006, 2005 and 2004, is not significant.
(3)	In addition to owned square feet as of December 31, 2006, we managed, but did not have an ownership interest in, approximately 0.2 million additional square feet of properties. As of December 31, 2006, one of our subsidiaries also managed approximately 1.1 million additional square feet of properties representing the IAT portfolio on behalf of the IAT Air Cargo Facilities Income Fund. As of December 31, 2006, we also had investments in 7.4 million square feet of operating properties through our investments in non-managed unconsolidated joint ventures.
(4)	Consists of second generation leases renewing or re-tenanting with current and prior lease terms greater than one year.
(5)	Second generation tenant improvements and leasing commissions per square foot are the total cost of tenant improvements, leasing commissions and other leasing costs incurred during leasing of second generation space divided by the total square feet leased. Costs incurred prior to leasing available space are not included until such space is leased. Second generation space excludes newly developed square footage or square footage vacant at acquisition.
(6)	On a consolidated basis, we had approximately 80.3 million rentable square feet with an occupancy rate of 97.0% at December 31, 2006.

8

Owned and Managed Same Store Operating Statistics⁽¹⁾

     The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for our owned and managed same store operating properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004:

Same Store Pool (2)	2006			2005 (3)			2004 (3)
Square feet in same store pool (4)		77,291,866			72,452,609			74,516,427
% of total industrial square feet		76.8	%		82.5	%		82.5	%
Occupancy percentage(4)		97.0	%		95.6	%		95.3	%
Weighted average lease terms:
Original	6.0 years			5.9 years			6.0 years
Remaining	3.0 years			3.0 years			3.1 years
Tenant retention		72.5	%		63.7	%		66.4	%
Rent increases (decreases) on renewals and rollovers		(0.4	)%		(9.8	)%		(14.7	)%
Square feet leased (millions)		15.7			13.0			16.2
Growth % increase (decrease) (including straight-line rents):
Revenues(5)		2.1	%		(0.7	)%		(0.7	)%
Expenses(5)		3.5	%		(0.2	)%		(0.5	)%
Net operating income(5)		1.6	%		(0.8	)%		(0.8	)%
Growth % increase (decrease) (excluding straight-line rents):
Revenues(5)		2.8	%		0.0	%		(0.8)	%
Expenses(5)		3.5	%		(0.2	)%		(0.5)	%
Net operating income(5)(6)		2.6	%		0.1	%		(0.9)	%

(1)	Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which we define as properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. This excludes development and renovation projects and recently completed development projects available for sale or contribution.
(2)	Same store properties are those properties that we owned during both the current and prior year reporting periods, excluding development properties prior to being stabilized (generally defined as properties that are 90% leased or properties for which we have held a certificate of occupancy or where building has been substantially complete for at least 12 months).
(3)	The information for 2005 and 2004 is presented on a consolidated basis while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned and managed basis. Management believes that the difference in comparability between 2006, 2005 and 2004, is not significant.
(4)	On a consolidated basis, we had approximately 71.2 million square feet with an occupancy rate of 96.9% at December 31, 2006.
(5)	On a consolidated basis, the percentage change was 2.1%, 4.7% and 1.2%, respectively, for revenues, expenses and NOI (including straight-line rents) and 2.4%, 4.7% and 1.6%, respectively, for the revenues, expenses, and NOI (excluding straight line rents).
(6)	See Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Supplemental Earnings Measures” for a discussion of same store net operating income and a reconciliation of same store net operating income and net income.

9

DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES

Development Pipeline

     The following table sets forth the properties owned by us as of December 31, 2006, which were undergoing development, renovation or expansion. We cannot assure you that any of these projects will be completed on schedule or within budgeted amounts.

Industrial Development and Renovation Deliveries

								Estimated
					Estimated			Total			Our
				Estimated	Square Feet			Investment(1)			Ownership
	Projects	Market	Developer	Stabilization(6)	at Stabilization(6)			(000's)			Percentage
	2007 Deliveries
1.	Beacon Lakes Village - Phase 1 Bldg E1	Miami	Flagler	Q1		52,668		$	6,100			50	%
2.	AMB Annagem Distribution Centre	Toronto, Canada	AMB	Q1		198,169			13,800			100	%
3.	AMB Des Plaines Logistics Center	Chicago	AMB	Q1		126,053			18,600			100	%
4.	AMB DFW Logistics Center 1	Dallas	AMB	Q1		113,640			5,900			100	%
5.	AMB Turnberry Distribution VI(7)	Chicago	AMB	Q1		179,400			10,600			20	%
6.	Beacon Lakes - Bldg 6	Miami	Flagler	Q1		206,464			13,300			79	%
7.	AMB Fokker Logistics Center 2A	Amsterdam, Netherlands	Delta Group	Q2		118,166			15,900			100	%
8.	AMB Riverfront Distribution Center - Bldg B	Seattle	AMB	Q2		388,000			22,800			100	%
9.	AMB Forest Park Freight Terminal	Atlanta	AMB	Q2		142,000			11,200			100	%
10.	AMB Gonesse Distribution Center	Paris, France	GEPRIM	Q2		598,161			55,400			100	%
11.	AMB Douglassingel Distribution Center	Amsterdam, Netherlands	Austin	Q3		148,714			22,800			100	%
12.	AMB Port of Hamburg 1	Hamburg, Germany	BUSS Ports + Logistics	Q3		414,701			36,800			94	%
13.	AMB Pearson Logistics Centre 1 - Bldg 200	Toronto, Canada	AMB	Q3		205,518			16,800			100	%
14.	AMB Tres Rios Industrial Park - Bldg 3	Mexico City, Mexico	G. Accion	Q3		628,784			34,900			98	%
15.	AMB Tres Rios Industrial Park - Bldg 4	Mexico City, Mexico	G. Accion	Q3		315,156			17,800			98	%
16.	AMB Arrayanes - Bldg 2	Guadalajara, Mexico	G. Accion	Q4		473,720			17,800			90	%
17.	AMB Aurora Industrial(4)	Minneapolis	AMB	Q4		125,200			7,100			100	%
18.	AMB Milton 401 Business Park - Bldg 2	Toronto, Canada	AMB	Q4		281,358			21,700			100	%
19.	AMB Sagamihara Distribution Center	Tokyo, Japan	AMB	Q4		543,056			87,100			100	%
20.	AMB Pearson Logistics Centre 1 - Bldg 100	Toronto, Canada	AMB	Q4		446,338			31,700			100	%
21.	AMB Dublin(3)	San Francisco Bay Area	AMB	Q4		—			13,600			100	%
22.	AMB Hathaway(3)	San Francisco Bay Area	AMB	Q4		—			16,500			100	%
23.	AMB Valley Distribution Center	Seattle	AMB	Q4		749,970			43,600			100	%
24.	AMB Redlands - Parcel 2	Los Angeles	AMB	Q4		1,313,470			57,200			100	%
25.	Platinum Triangle Land - Phase 1(3)	Los Angeles	AMB	Q4		—			15,400			100	%
26.	AMB Fokker Logistics Center 3	Amsterdam, Netherlands	Delta Group	Q4		324,725			44,900			50	%
27.	AMB Isle d'Abeau Logistics Park Bldg C	Lyon, France	GEPRIM	Q4		277,817			21,800			100	%
28.	AMB Torrance Matrix	Los Angeles	AMB	Q4		161,785			28,000			100	%
	Total 2007 Deliveries					8,533,033		$	709,100			94	%
	Leased or Under Contract For Sale/Funded-to-date					34	%	$	516,800	(2)
	Weighted Average Estimated Yield(5)								8.0	%
								Estimated
					Estimated			Total			Our
				Estimated	Square Feet			Investment(1)			Ownership
	Projects	Market	Developer	Stabilization(6)	at Stabilization(6)			(000's)			Percentage
	2008 Deliveries
29.	AMB Steel Road	Los Angeles	AMB	Q1		161,000		$	10,400			100	%
30.	Beacon Lakes Bldg 7	Miami	Flagler	Q1		193,090			14,400			79	%
31.	AMB Amagasaki Distribution Center 2	Osaka, Japan	AMB	Q2		981,679			105,900			100	%
32.	Agave - Bldg 5	Mexico City, Mexico	G. Accion	Q2		103,204			7,100			98	%
33.	AMB Le Grand Roissy Distribution - Mitry	Paris, France	SIRIUS	Q2		37,954			4,600			100	%
34.	AMB Shinkiba Distribution Center	Tokyo, Japan	AMB	Q2		328,764			90,000			100	%
35.	AMB Theodore Park Logistics Center	Dusseldorf, Germany	Delta Group	Q2		140,566			17,000			100	%
36.	AMB Narita Distribution Center 1 - Bldg C	Tokyo, Japan	AMB	Q2		348,891			43,500			100	%
37.	AMB Barajas Logistics Park	Madrid, Spain	AMB	Q2		427,133			39,500			80	%
38	AMB Funabashi Distribution Center 5	Tokyo, Japan	AMB	Q2		469,254			57,500			100	%
39.	AMB Palmetto Distribution Center	Orlando	AMB	Q2		406,400			20,800			100	%
40.	Platinum Triangle Land - Phase 2(3)	Los Angeles	AMB	Q2		—			30,100			100	%
41.	AMB Franklin Commerce Center	New Jersey	AMB	Q3		366,896			26,700			100	%
42.	AMB Pompano Center of Commerce - Phase 1	Miami	AMB	Q3		218,835			21,400			100	%
43.	AMB Lijnden Logistics Court 1	Amsterdam, Netherlands	Keystone Vasgoed	Q3		96,520			16,800			100	%
44.	AMB Nanko Naka Distribution Center	Osaka, Japan	AMB	Q3		402,313			48,700			100	%
45.	AMB Siziano Business Park - Bldg 1	Milan, Italy	Redilco	Q4		436,916			34,000			50	%
	Total 2008 Deliveries					5,119,415		$	588,400			95	%
	Leased or Under Contract For Sale/Funded-to-date					7	%	$	297,700	(2)
	Weighted Average Estimated Yield(5)								7.1	%
	Total Scheduled Deliveries					13,652,448		$	1,297,500
	Leased or Under Contract For Sale/Funded-to-date					24	%	$	814,500	(2)
	Weighted Average Estimated Yield(5)								7.6	%

10

(1)	Represents total estimated cost of development, renovation or expansion, including initial acquisition costs, prepaid ground leases and associated carry costs. Estimated total investments are based on current forecasts and are subject to change. Non-U.S. dollar investments are translated to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate at December 31, 2006.
(2)	Our pro rata share of amounts funded to date for 2007 and 2008 deliveries was $489.0 million and $288.5, respectively, for a total of $777.5 million.
(3)	Represents a value-added conversion project.
(4)	Represents a renovation project.
(5)	Yields exclude value-added conversion projects and are calculated on an after-tax basis for international projects.
(6)	Stabilization is generally defined as properties that are 90% leased or properties for which we have held a certificate of occupancy or where building has been substantially complete for at least twelve months.
(7)	Represents projects in unconsolidated joint ventures.

     The following table sets forth completed development projects that we intend to either sell or contribute to co-investment funds as of December 31, 2006:

Completed Development Projects Available for Sale or Contribution⁽¹⁾

				Estimated
		Estimated		Total		Our
		Square Feet		Investment		Ownership
Projects(1)	Market	at Completion		(000’s) (2)		Percentage
1. Agave — Bldg 4	Mexico City, Mexico		217,514	$	14,200		98	%
2. AMB BRU Air Cargo Center	Brussels, Belgium		102,655		12,900		100	%
3. AMB Fengxian Logistics Center — Bldgs 2, 4 & 6(3)	Shanghai, China		1,040,633		41,500		60	%
4. AMB Fokker Logistics Center 1	Amsterdam, Netherlands		236,203		30,300		100	%
5. AMB Jiuting Distribution Center 2	Shanghai, China		187,866		7,300		100	%
6. AMB Layline Distribution Center(3)	Los Angeles		298,000		30,200		100	%
7. AMB Milton 401 Business Park — Bldg 1	Toronto, Canada		375,241		21,100		100	%
8. Frankfurt Logistics Center 556 — Phase II	Frankfurt, Germany		105,723		15,800		100	%
9. Highway 17 — 55 Madison Street(3)	New Jersey		150,446		12,900		100	%
10. Singapore Airport Logistics Center — Bldg 2(4)	Singapore City, Singapore		250,758		13,000		50	%
Total Available for Sale or Contribution			2,965,039	$	199,200		88	%

(1)	Represents projects where development activities have been completed and which we intend to sell or contribute within two years of construction completion.
(2)	Represents total estimated cost of development, renovation or expansion, including initial acquisition costs, prepaid ground leases and associated carry costs. The estimates are based on current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change. Non-U.S. Dollar investments are translated to U.S. Dollar using the exchange rate at December 31, 2006.
(3)	Renovation projects represent projects where the acquired buildings are less than 75% leased and require significant capital expenditures (generally more than 10% — 25% of acquisition cost) to bring the buildings up to operating standards and stabilization (generally 90% occupancy).
(4)	Represents a project in an unconsolidated joint venture.

11

Properties held through Joint Ventures, Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships

  Consolidated Joint Ventures:

     As of December 31, 2006, we held interests in joint ventures, limited liability companies and partnerships with institutional investors and other third parties, which we consolidate in our financial statements. Such investments are consolidated because we own a majority interest or, as general partner, exercise significant control over major operating decisions such as acquisition or disposition decisions, approval of budgets, selection of property managers and changes in financing. Under the agreements governing the joint ventures, we and the other party to the joint venture may be required to make additional capital contributions and, subject to certain limitations, the joint ventures may incur additional debt. Such agreements also impose certain restrictions on the transfer of joint venture interests by us or the other party to the joint venture and typically provide certain rights to us or the other party to the joint venture to sell our or their interest in the joint venture to the joint venture or to the other joint-venture partner on terms specified in the agreement. In addition, under certain circumstances, many of the joint ventures include buy/sell provisions. See Part IV, Item 15: Note 9 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for additional details.

     The tables that follow summarize our consolidated joint ventures as of December 31, 2006:

Consolidated Co-Investment Joint Ventures
(dollars in thousands)

	Our							Gross						JV Partners’
	Ownership			Number of		Square		Book		Property		Other		Share
Joint Ventures	Percentage			Buildings		Feet(1)		Value(2)		Debt		Debt		of Debt(3)
Co-Investment Operating Joint Ventures:
AMB Erie(4)		50	%		3		821,712	$	52,942	$	20,605	$	—	$	10,303
AMB Partners II(5)		20	%		118		9,913,375		678,796		323,532		65,000		311,470
AMB-SGP(6)		50	%		74		8,287,424		444,990		235,480		—		117,449
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II(7)		20	%		70		8,007,103		515,334		243,263		—		192,058
AMB-AMS(8)		39	%		33		2,172,137		153,563		78,904		—		48,420
Total Co-Investment Operating Joint Ventures		30	%		298		29,201,751		1,845,625		901,784		65,000		679,700
Co-Investment Development Joint Ventures:
AMB Partners II(5)		20	%		n/a		n/a		342		—		—		—
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II(7)		20	%		n/a		n/a		4,200		—		—		—
Total Co-Investment Development Joint Ventures		20	%		—		—		4,542		—		—		—
Total Co-Investment Consolidated Joint Ventures		30	%		298		29,201,751	$	1,850,167	$	901,784	$	65,000	$	679,700

(1)	For development properties, this represents estimated square feet at completion of development for committed phases of development and renovation projects.
(2)	Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated depreciation) owned by the joint venture entity and excludes net other assets as of December 31, 2006. Development book values include uncommitted land.
(3)	JV Partners’ Share of Debt is defined as total debt less our share of total debt. See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained in Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a discussion of why we believe our share of total debt is a useful supplemental measure for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure when assessing our financial performance, the limitations of the measure as a measurement tool, and for a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure.
(4)	AMB/Erie, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 1998 with the Erie Insurance Company and certain related entities.
(5)	AMB Partners II, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2001 with the City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System.
(6)	AMB-SGP, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2001 with Industrial JV Pte. Ltd., a subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte. Ltd., the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
(7)	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2001 with institutional investors, which invest through a private real estate investment trust.
(8)	AMB-AMS, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2004 with three Dutch pension funds.

12

Other Consolidated Joint Ventures
(dollars in thousands)

		Our			Number				Gross						JV Partners’
		Ownership			of		Square		Book		Property		Other		Share
Properties	Market	Percentage			Buildings		Feet		Value(1)		Debt		Debt		of Debt(2)
Other Industrial Operating Joint Ventures	Various		92	%		32		2,982,313	$	258,374	$	60,435	$	—	$	4,419
Other Industrial Development Joint Ventures	Various		81	%		16		3,930,930		320,942		63,171		98		28,095
Total Other Industrial Consolidated Joint Ventures			86	%		48		6,913,243	$	579,316	$	123,606	$	98	$	32,514

(1)

Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated depreciation) owned by the joint venture entity and excludes net other assets as of December 31, 2006. Development book values include uncommitted land.

(2)

JV Partners’ Share of Debt is defined as total debt less our share of total debt. See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained in Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a discussion of why we believe our share of total debt is a useful supplemental measure for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure when assessing our financial performance, the limitations of the measure as a measurement tool, and for a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure.

  Unconsolidated Joint Ventures:

     As of December 31, 2006, we held interests in 14 equity investment joint ventures that are not consolidated in our financial statements. Effective October 1, 2006, we deconsolidated AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. on a prospective basis. The management and control over significant aspects of these investments are held by the third-party joint-venture partners and we are not the primary beneficiary for the investments that meet the variable-interest entity consolidation criteria under FASB Interpretation No. 46(R),Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.

     The tables that follow summarize our unconsolidated joint ventures as of December 31, 2006:

Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
(dollars in thousands)

	Our			Number					Gross						Our		Our
	Ownership			of		Square			Book		Property		Other		Net Equity		Share of
Unconsolidated Joint Ventures	Percentage			Buildings		Feet(1)			Value		Debt		Debt		Investment		Debt(2)
Co-Investment Operating Joint Ventures:
1. AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC(3)		20	%		12		2,737,515		$	165,381	$	95,000	$	11,700	$	7,601	$	20,912
2. AMB Japan Fund I, L.P.(4)		20	%		12		3,814,773			602,397		368,086		82,184		31,811		90,004
3. AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P.(5)		23	%		119		13,784,406			1,313,858		615,500		60,000		136,971		160,280
Total Co-Investment Joint Ventures		22	%		143		20,336,694			2,081,636		1,078,586		153,884		176,383		271,196
Co-Investment Development Joint Ventures:
1. AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P.(5)		23	%		1		179,400			9,636		—		—		—		—
2. AMB DFS Fund I, LLC(6)		15	%		—		—			78,450		—		—		11,700		—
Other Industrial Operating Joint Ventures		53	%		48		7,684,931	(7)		295,036		184,423		—		47,955		89,262
Total Unconsolidated Joint Ventures		28	%		192		28,201,025		$	2,464,758	$	1,263,009	$	153,884	$	236,038	$	360,458

(1) For development properties, this represents estimated square feet at completion of development for committed phases of development and renovation projects.

13

(2)	See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained in Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a discussion of why we believe our share of total debt is a useful supplemental measure for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure when assessing our financial performance, the limitations of the measure as a measurement tool, and for a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure.
(3)	AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC is an unconsolidated co-investment joint venture formed in 2004 with Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte. Ltd., a subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte. Ltd., the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. Includes $5.5 million of shareholder loans outstanding at December 31, 2006 between us and the co-investment partnership and its subsidiaries.
(4)	AMB Japan Fund I, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2005 with 13 institutional investors as limited partners.
(5)	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. is an open-ended co-investment partnership formed in 2004 with institutional investors, which invest through a private real estate investment trust. Prior to October 1, 2006, the Company accounted for AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. as a consolidated joint venture.
(6)	AMB DFS Fund I, LLC is a co-investment partnership formed in 2006 with a subsidiary of GE Real Estate to build and sell properties.
(7)	Includes investments in 7.4 million square feet of operating properties through the Company’s investments in unconsolidated joint ventures that it does not manage which it excludes from its owned and managed portfolio. Our owned and managed operating portfolio includes properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.

Mortgage and Loan Receivables and Other Investments:

The tables that follow summarize our mortgage investments and other investments as of December 31, 2006:

Mortgage Investments and Other Investments
(dollars in thousands)

			Mortgage
Mortgage and Loan Receivables	Market	Maturity	Receivable (2)		Rate
1. AMB Pier One, LLC(1)	San Francisco Bay	May 2026	$	12,686		13.0	%
2. G.Accion	Various	March 2010		6,061		10.0	%
			$	18,747

					Our			Our
			Net		Ownership			Share
Other Investments	Market	Property Type	Investment		Percentage			of Debt (5)
1. Park One Land Parcel	Los Angeles	Parking Lot	$	75,498		100	%	$	—
2. G.Accion(3)	Various	Various		38,343		39	%		2,965
3. IAT Air Cargo Facilities Income Fund(4)	Canada	Industrial		2,644		5	%		—
			$	116,485				$	2,965

(1)	AMB has an 0.1% unconsolidated equity interest (with a 33% economic interest) in this property and also has an option to purchase the remaining equity interest beginning January 1, 2007 and expiring December 31, 2009.
(2)	We hold inter-company loans that we eliminate in the consolidation process.
(3)	We also have a 39% unconsolidated equity interest in G. Accion, S.A. de C.V. (G. Accion), a Mexican real estate company. G. Accion provides management and development services for industrial, retail, residential and office properties in Mexico.
(4)	We also have an approximate 5% equity interest in IAT Air Cargo Facilities Income Fund, a public Canadian real estate income trust.
(5)	See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained in Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a discussion of why we believe our share of

14

total debt is a useful supplemental measure for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure when assessing our financial performance, the limitations of the measure as a measurement tool, and for a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure.

15