AMB PROPERTY LP - 10-K Annual Report

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K


(Mark One)
þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
		or

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 001-13545

AMB Property, L.P.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)


Delaware		94-3285362
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(IRS Employer Identification No.)

Pier 1, Bay 1, San Francisco, California (Address of Principal Executive Offices)		94111 (Zip Code)

(415) 394-9000

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes þ No o

No market exists for the registrant’s partnership units and, therefore, an aggregate market value for such units cannot be determined. Due to the market capitalization of AMB Property Corporation, the registrant’s general partner, the registrant is filing as an accelerated filer.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III incorporates by reference AMB Property Corporation’s, the registrant’s general partner, Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders which the registrant anticipates will be filed no later than 120 days after the end of its fiscal year pursuant to Regulation 14A.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Some of the information included in this annual report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, which are made pursuant to the safe-harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, there are important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, and you should not rely on the forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events or circumstances reflected in forward-looking statements might not occur. You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “intends,” “plans,” “pro forma,” “estimates” or “anticipates,” or the negative of these words and phrases, or similar words or phrases. You can also identify forward-looking statements by discussions of strategy, plans or intentions. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties and you should not rely upon them as predictions of future events. There is no assurance that the events or circumstances reflected in forward-looking statements will occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements are necessarily dependent on assumptions, data or methods that may be incorrect or imprecise and we may not be able to realize them.

The following factors, among others, could cause actual results and future events to differ materially from those set forth or contemplated in the forward-looking statements:


	•	changes in general economic conditions or in the real estate sector;

	•	non-renewal of leases by customers or renewal at lower than expected rent;

	•	difficulties in identifying properties to acquire and in effecting acquisitions on advantageous terms and the failure of acquisitions to perform as we expect;

	•	risks and uncertainties affecting property development and renovation (including construction delays, cost overruns, our inability to obtain necessary permits and financing);

	•	risks of doing business internationally, including unfamiliarity with new markets and currency risks;

	•	a downturn in California’s economy or real estate conditions;

	•	losses in excess of our insurance coverage;

	•	our failure to divest of properties on advantageous terms or to timely reinvest proceeds from any such divestitures;

	•	unknown liabilities acquired in connection with acquired properties or otherwise;

	•	risks associated with using debt to fund acquisitions and development, including re-financing risks;

	•	our failure to obtain necessary financing;

	•	changes in local, state and federal regulatory requirements; and

	•	environmental uncertainties.

Our success also depends upon economic trends generally, various market conditions and fluctuations and those other risk factors discussed under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Business Risks” in this report. We caution you not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect our analysis only and speak as of the date of this report or as of the dates indicated in the statements. We assume no obligation to update or supplement forward-looking statements.

PART I


Item 1.	*Business*

General

AMB Property, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, acquires, develops and operates primarily industrial properties in key distribution markets throughout North America, Europe and Asia. We commenced operations as a fully integrated real estate company effective with the completion of AMB Property Corporation’s initial public offering on November 26, 1997. Our strategy focuses on providing properties for customers who value the efficient movement of goods in the world’s busiest distribution markets: large, supply-constrained locations with close proximity to airports, seaports and major freeway systems. As of December 31, 2004, we owned or managed properties or had renovation and development projects comprised of 1,108 buildings in 38 markets within eight countries totaling 110.7 million square feet (10.3 million square meters).

As of December 31, 2004, AMB Property Corporation owned an approximate 94.6% general partnership interest in us, excluding preferred units. As our sole general partner, AMB Property Corporation has the full, exclusive and complete responsibility for and discretion in our day-to-day management and control.

Our investment strategy generally targets customers whose businesses are tied to global trade, which, according to the World Trade Organization, has grown more than three times the world gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate during the last 20 years. To serve the facilities needs of these customers, we seek to invest in major distribution markets, transportation hubs and gateways, both domestically and internationally. Our investment strategy seeks target markets that are generally characterized by large population densities and typically offer substantial consumer bases, proximity to large clusters of distribution-facility users and significant labor pools. When measured by annualized base rents, 94.2% of our industrial properties are concentrated in our target U.S., on-tarmac and international markets. Of this 94.2%, 65.3% is derived from eight U.S. hub and gateway distribution markets: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, Northern New Jersey/ New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle. Other U.S. target markets account for 16.2% of our annualized base rents. Our portfolio of properties located on-tarmac at airports and in international target markets comprised 8.3% and 4.4% of our consolidated annualized base rents, respectively. Much of our portfolio is comprised of industrial buildings in in-fill submarkets. In-fill locations are characterized by supply constraints on the availability of land for competing projects as well as physical, political or economic barriers to new development.

We focus our investment strategy on High Throughput Distribution®, or HTD® facilities, which are buildings designed to facilitate rapid distribution of our customers’ products rather than store them. Our investment focus on HTD assets is based on what we believe to be a global trend toward lower inventory levels and expedited supply chains. HTD facilities generally have a variety of characteristics that allow the rapid transport of goods from point-to-point. Examples of these physical characteristics include numerous dock doors, shallower building depths, fewer columns, large truck courts and more space for trailer parking. We believe that these building characteristics represent an important success factor for time-sensitive customers such as air express, logistics and freight forwarding companies and that these facilities function best when located in convenient proximity to transportation infrastructure such as major airports and seaports.

As of December 31, 2004, we owned and operated (exclusive of properties that we managed for third parties) 984 industrial buildings and four retail and other properties, totaling approximately 90.8 million rentable square feet, located in 33 markets throughout the United States and in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. As of December 31, 2004, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, LLC, we also managed, but did not have an ownership interest in, industrial buildings, totaling approximately 0.4 million rentable square feet. In addition, as of December 31, 2004, we had investments in operating industrial buildings, totaling approximately 10.3 million rentable square feet, through investments in unconsolidated joint ventures. As of December 31, 2004, we also had investments in industrial development projects, some of which are part of our development-for-sale program, totaling approximately 9.2 million square feet.

During 2004, our property acquisitions totaled $695.2 million, including expected capital expenditures, and we increased our market presence primarily in targeted metropolitan markets including Amsterdam, Chicago, Northern New Jersey, Paris and Tokyo. As of December 31, 2004, we had 25 industrial buildings and one undeveloped land parcel held for divestiture. Our dispositions during 2004 totaled $200.3 million, including assets in markets that no longer fit our investment strategy and properties at valuations that we considered to be at premium levels. While we continue to sell assets, we believe that we have substantially achieved our near-term strategic disposition goals. Additionally, we contributed $71.5 million of operating assets to a private capital joint venture as part of our continuing strategy to increase the proportion of our assets owned in co-investment joint ventures.

Our own employees perform our corporate administrative and management functions, rather than relying on an outside manager for these services. We manage our portfolio of properties in a flexible operating model which includes both direct property management and our Strategic Alliance Program® in which we have established relationships with third-party real estate management firms, brokers and developers that provide property-level administrative and management services under our direction.

Our principal executive office is located at Pier 1, Bay 1, San Francisco, California 94111; our telephone number is (415) 394-9000. We also maintain regional offices in Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Shanghai and Tokyo. As of December 31, 2004, we employed 234 individuals, 148 at our San Francisco headquarters, 52 in our Boston office, and the remainder in our other offices. Our website address is www.amb.com. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Information contained on our website is not and should not be deemed a part of this annual report or any other report or filing filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “we,” “us” and “our” refer to AMB Property, L.P. and our controlled subsidiaries. The following marks are the registered trademarks of AMB Property Corporation: AMB®; Development Alliance Partners®; HTD®; High Throughput Distribution®; Management Alliance Program®; Strategic Alliance Partners®; Strategic Alliance Programs®; and UPREIT Alliance Program®.

Operating Strategy

We base our operating strategy on a variety of operational and service offerings, including in-house acquisitions, development, redevelopment, asset management, leasing, finance, accounting and market research. Our strategy is to leverage our expertise across a large customer base and complement our internal management resources with long-standing relationships with entrepreneurial real estate management and development firms in our target markets, which we refer to as our Strategic Alliance Partners®.

We believe that real estate is fundamentally a local business and best operated by local teams in each market comprised of AMB employees, local alliance partners or both. We intend to increase utilization of internal management resources in target markets to achieve both operating efficiencies and to expose our customers to the broadening array of AMB service offerings, including access to multiple locations worldwide and build-to-suit developments. We actively manage our portfolio, whether directly or with an alliance partner, by establishing leasing strategies, negotiating lease terms, pricing, and level and timing of property improvements.

Growth Strategies

Growth Through Operations

We seek to generate long-term internal growth through rent increases on existing space and renewals on rollover space by working to maintain a high occupancy rate at our properties and controlling expenses by capitalizing on the economies of scale inherent in owning, operating and growing a large, global portfolio.

However, during 2004, our average industrial base rental rates decreased by 13.2% from the rent in place at expiration for that space on leases entered into or renewed during the period. This amount excludes expense reimbursements, rental abatements, percentage rents and straight-line rents. Since 2001, as the industrial market weakened, we have focused on maintaining occupancy levels. During 2004, cash-basis same-store net operating income (rental revenues less property operating expenses and real estate taxes for properties included in the same-store pool, which is set annually and excludes properties purchased or developments stabilized after December 31, 2002) decreased by 0.9% on our industrial properties. Since AMB Property Corporation’s initial public offering in November 1997, we have experienced average annual increases in industrial base rental rates of 6.9% and maintained an average quarter-end occupancy of 94.9% in our industrial operating portfolio. While we believe that it is important to view real estate as a long-term investment, past results are not necessarily an indication of future performance. See Part IV, Item 15: Note 16 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for detailed segment information, including revenue attributable to each segment, gross investment in each segment and total assets.

Growth Through Acquisitions and Capital Redeployment

We believe that our significant acquisition experience and our network of property management and acquisition resources will continue to provide opportunities for external growth. We have long-term relationships with third-party local property management firms, which we believe will give us access to additional acquisition opportunities, as such managers frequently market properties on behalf of sellers. We believe that our operating structure also enables us to acquire properties through our UPREIT Alliance Program® in exchange for our or AMB Property II, L.P.’s limited partnership units, thereby enhancing our attractiveness to owners and developers seeking to transfer properties on a tax-deferred basis. Going forward, we believe that our newly-formed open-ended co-investment partnership, AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P., will serve as our primary source of capital for acquisitions of operating properties within the U.S. In addition, we seek to redeploy capital from non-strategic assets into properties that better fit our current investment focus.

We are generally engaged in various stages of negotiations for a number of acquisitions and dispositions that may include transactions involving individual properties, large multi-property portfolios or other real estate companies. There can be no assurance that we will consummate any of these transactions. Such transactions, if we consummate them, may be material individually or in the aggregate. Sources of capital for acquisitions may include retained cash flow from operations, borrowings under our unsecured credit facilities, other forms of secured or unsecured debt financing, issuances of debt or limited partnership unit offerings (including issuances of limited partnership units by our subsidiaries), proceeds from divestitures of properties, assumption of debt related to the acquired properties and private capital from our co-investment partners. See Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Key Transactions in 2004.”

Growth Through Development

We believe that development, renovation and expansion of well-located, high-quality industrial properties should continue to provide us with attractive investment opportunities at a higher rate of return than we may obtain from the purchase of existing properties. We believe we have the in-house expertise to create value both through new construction and acquisition, conversion and management of value-added properties. Value-added conversion is typically characterized as property with available space or near-term leasing exposure, undeveloped land acquired in connection with other property that provides an opportunity for development or property that is well-located but requires redevelopment or renovation. Both new development and value-added conversions require significant management attention and capital investment to maximize returns. Completed development properties may be held in our portfolio, sold to third parties or contributed to our co-investment joint ventures. We believe our global market presence and expertise will enable us to continue to generate and capitalize on a diverse range of development opportunities.

We believe that the multidisciplinary backgrounds of our employees should provide us with the skills and experience to capitalize on strategic renovation, expansion and development opportunities. Many of our general

partner’s officers have specific experience in real estate development, both with us and with national development firms, and over the past year, we have expanded our development staff. We pursue development projects directly and in joint ventures with our Development Alliance Partners®, which provides us with the flexibility to pursue development projects independently or in partnerships, depending on market conditions, submarkets or building sites.

Growth Through Global Expansion

By 2007, we plan to have approximately 15% of our portfolio (based on consolidated annualized base rent) invested in international markets. As of December 31, 2004, our international operating properties comprised 4.4% of our consolidated annualized base rent. Our North American target markets outside of the United States currently include Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey and Toronto. Our European target markets currently include Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, London, Lyon, Madrid and Paris. Our Asian target markets currently include Beijing, Nagoya, Osaka, the Pearl River Delta, Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo.

We believe that expansion into target international markets represents a natural extension of our strategy to invest in industrial markets with high population densities, close proximity to large customer clusters and available labor pools, and major distribution centers serving global trade. Our international expansion strategy mirrors our domestic focus on supply-constrained submarkets with political, economic or physical constraints to new development. Our international investments will extend our offering of High Throughput Distribution® facilities for customers who value speed-to-market over storage. Specifically, we are focused on customers whose business is derived from global trade. In addition, our investments target major consumer distribution markets and customers. We believe that our established customer relationships, our contacts in the air cargo and logistics industries, our underwriting of markets and investments and our Strategic Alliance Programs with knowledgeable developers and managers will assist us in competing internationally.

There are many factors that could cause our entry into target markets and future capital allocation to differ from our current expectations, which are discussed in this report under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Business Risks — Risks Associated with Our International Business.” Further, it is possible that our target markets will change over time to reflect experience, market opportunities, customer needs and changes in global distribution patterns. For a discussion of the amount of our revenues attributable to the United States and international markets, please see Part IV, Item 15: Note 16 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Growth Through Co-Investments

We co-invest in properties with private-capital investors through partnerships, limited liability companies or joint ventures. Our co-investment joint ventures are managed by AMB’s private capital group and typically operate under the same investment strategy that we apply to our other operations. Typically we will own a 20-50% interest in our co-investment joint ventures. In general, we control all significant operating and investment decisions of our co-investment entities. We believe that our co-investment program will continue to serve as a source of capital for acquisitions and developments; however, there can be no assurance that it will continue to do so. In addition, our co-investment joint ventures typically allow us to earn acquisition and development fees, asset management fees and priority distributions as well as promoted interests and incentive fees based on the performance of the co-investment joint ventures. As of December 31, 2004, we owned approximately 40.8 million square feet of our properties (36.8% of the total operating and development portfolio) through our co-investment joint ventures.

BUSINESS RISKS

See Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Business Risks” for a complete discussion of the various risks that could adversely affect us, including risks related to our international operations.


Item 2.	*Properties*

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

As of December 31, 2004, we owned 984 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 90.3 million rentable square feet, located in 33 markets throughout the United States and in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. Our industrial properties accounted for $552.2 million or 99.3% of our total annualized base rent as of December 31, 2004. Our industrial properties were 94.8% leased to 2,784 customers, the largest of which accounted for no more than 3.4% 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 type and characteristics of our industrial buildings and each type’s percentage of our total portfolio based on square footage at December 31:


Building Type	Description	2004		2003

Warehouse	Customers typically 15,000-75,000 square feet, single or multi-tenant		41.4%		40.7%
Bulk Warehouse	Customers typically over 75,000 square feet, single or multi-tenant		38.9%		39.3%
Flex Industrial	Includes assembly or research & development, single or multi-customer		7.1%		7.3%
Light Industrial	Smaller customers, 15,000 square feet or less, higher office finish		5.9%		6.1%
Trans-Shipment	Unique configurations for truck terminals and cross-docking		2.3%		2.2%
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		1.2%		1.3%

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 rental increases. Lease terms typically range from three to ten years, with an 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 domestic metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, Northern New Jersey/ New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle. Our international industrial facilities are located in major distribution markets, including Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Guadalajara, Mexico City, Paris, Singapore and Tokyo.

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, 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.

Industrial Market Operating Statistics ⁽¹⁾

As of December 31, 2004, we held investments in operating properties in 33 markets in our consolidated portfolio and an additional two markets in our unconsolidated portfolio throughout the United States and in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. The following table represents properties in which we own a 100% interest or a controlling interest (consolidated), and excludes properties in which we only own a non-controlling interest (unconsolidated) and properties under development:


																													Total
																													U.S. Hub
														No. New															and			Total
								Dallas/			Los			Jersey/			San Francisco									On-			Gateway			Other			Total/ Weighted
		Atlanta			Chicago			Ft. Worth			Angeles ⁽²⁾			New York			Bay Area			Miami			Seattle			Tarmac ⁽³⁾			Markets			Markets			Average

Number of buildings			45			100			40			150			125			139			49			64			38			750			234			984
Rentable square feet			5,132,333			9,345,110			3,799,444			13,288,870			9,258,334			11,104,642			5,170,909			6,857,569			2,941,345			66,898,556			23,380,247			90,278,803
	% of total rentable square feet		5.7	%		10.4	%		4.2	%		14.7	%		10.3	%		12.3	%		5.7	%		7.6	%		3.2	%		74.1	%		25.9	%		100.0	%
Occupancy percentage			92.4	%		94.2	%		91.8	%		98.3	%		94.5	%		93.8	%		93.1	%		96.7	%		96.3	%		95.0	%		94.2	%		94.8	%
Annualized base rent (000’s)			$19,062			$41,483			$13,258			$81,890			$63,590			$71,966			$34,495			$34,916			$45,848			$406,508			$145,669			$552,177
	% of total annualized base rent		3.5	%		7.5	%		2.5	%		14.8	%		11.5	%		13.0	%		6.2	%		6.3	%		8.3	%		73.6	%		26.4	%		100.0	%
Number of leases			163			204			119			419			377			407			239			267			250			2,445			892			3,337
Annualized base rent per square foot			$4.02			$4.71			$3.80			$6.27			$7.27			$6.91			$7.17			$5.27			$16.19			$6.40			$6.61			$6.45
Lease expirations as a % of ABR: ⁽⁴⁾
	2005		15.6	%		21.9	%		18.1	%		13.8	%		9.4	%		18.5	%		22.2	%		14.6	%		16.4	%		16.1	%		16.9	%		16.3	%
	2006		20.4	%		23.1	%		15.2	%		21.3	%		14.5	%		10.7	%		16.2	%		18.4	%		11.7	%		16.6	%		9.8	%		14.8	%
	2007		13.6	%		25.0	%		14.5	%		14.1	%		14.5	%		16.5	%		22.0	%		18.9	%		5.9	%		16.0	%		16.1	%		16.0	%
Weighted average lease terms:
	Original		5.8 years			5.6 years			5.4 years			6.1 years			6.6 years			5.2 years			6.0 years			5.7 years			8.2 years			6.0 years			6.5 years			6.1 years
	Remaining		3.2 years			2.3 years			3.5 years			3.2 years			3.8 years			2.9 years			3.1 years			3.0 years			4.4 years			3.2 years			3.6 years			3.3 years
Tenant retention:
	Quarter		56.1	%		74.8	%		94.5	%		67.1	%		31.1	%		65.5	%		72.5	%		76.5	%		78.1	%		67.3	%		69.5	%		68.1	%
	Year-to-date		62.6	%		60.1	%		76.6	%		61.7	%		65.9	%		65.3	%		72.0	%		66.7	%		75.4	%		65.4	%		71.4	%		66.8	%
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers:
	Year-to-date		(12.4)	%		(5.9)	%		(13.1)	%		(3.0)	%		(3.9)	%		(43.1)	%		(5.1)	%		(7.8)	%		(2.7)	%		(15.3)	%		(3.6)	%		(13.2)	%
	Same Space SF leased		1,218,861			2,263,609			1,181,607			2,749,944			1,032,006			2,411,216			1,031,103			1,376,509			667,358			13,932,213			3,553,563			17,485,776
Same store cash basis NOI growth:
	Year-to-date		(4.2)	%		1.9	%		0.9	%		2.8	%		(3.1)	%		(9.4)	%		(2.6)	%		3.0	%		5.1	%		(1.8)	%		1.9	%		(0.9)	%
Sq. feet owned in same store pool ⁽⁵⁾			4,943,591			7,254,655			3,532,884			11,778,861			6,182,388			10,696,621			4,348,139			4,857,434			2,404,378			55,998,951			18,517,476			74,516,427
Our pro rata share of square feet			2,770,126			6,095,983			2,752,701			8,779,575			5,194,776			8,555,870			4,296,915			3,409,892			2,359,531			44,215,369			19,248,213			63,463,582
Total market square footage ⁽⁶⁾			6,066,769			13,893,317			4,708,441			17,320,438			10,793,255			11,563,682			5,791,707			7,033,554			–			77,171,163			33,550,535			110,721,698


(1)	Includes all industrial consolidated operating properties and excludes industrial developments and renovation projects.

(2)	We also own a 19.9 acre parking lot with 2,720 parking spaces and 12 billboard signs in the Los Angeles market immediately adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport.

(3)	Includes on-tarmac air cargo facilities at 14 airports.

(4)	Annualized base rent is calculated as monthly base rent (cash basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31, 2004, multiplied by 12.

(5)	Same store pool excludes properties purchased or developments stabilized after December 31, 2002. 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)	Total market square footage includes industrial and retail operating properties, development properties, unconsolidated properties (100% of the square footage), properties managed for third parties and reallocation of on-tarmac properties into metro markets.

Industrial Operating Portfolio Overview

As of December 31, 2004, our 984 industrial buildings were diversified across 33 markets throughout the United States and in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. The average age of our industrial properties is approximately 20 years (since the property was built or substantially renovated). The following table represents properties in which we own a fee simple or leasehold interest or a controlling interest (consolidated), and excludes properties in which we only own a non-controlling interest (unconsolidated):


					Number		Rentable		% of Total						Annualized		% of Total					Annualized
					of		Square		Rentable			Occupancy			Base Rent		Annualized			Number		Base Rent per
					Buildings		Feet		Square Feet			Percentage			(000’s)		Base Rent			of Leases		Square Foot

Domestic Hub Markets						750		66,898,556		74.1	%		95.0	%	$	406,508		73.6	%		2,445	$	6.40

Other Markets
	Domestic Target Markets
		Austin				10		1,656,254		1.8			99.5			11,125		2.0			36		6.75
		Baltimore/ Washington, D.C.				64		4,245,420		4.7			95.9			33,663		6.1			287		8.27
		Boston				36		4,309,262		4.8			93.0			27,781		5.0			100		6.94
		Minneapolis				38		3,942,806		4.4			95.4			17,047		3.1			172		4.53

			Subtotal/ Weighted Average			148		14,153,742		15.7			95.3			89,616		16.2			595		6.64

	Domestic Non-Target Markets
		Charlotte				21		1,317,864		1.5			85.1			5,720		1.0			66		5.10
		Columbus				1		240,000		0.3			90.0			547		0.1			10		2.53
		Houston				1		410,000		0.5			100.0			2,172		0.4			1		5.30
		Memphis				17		1,883,845		2.0			85.9			8,292		1.5			45		5.13
		New Orleans				5		410,839		0.5			96.8			1,998		0.4			50		5.02
		Newport News				1		60,215		0.1			76.8			566		0.1			2		12.24
		Orlando				16		1,424,748		1.6			99.5			7,046		1.3			76		4.97
		Portland				5		676,104		0.6			98.0			3,148		0.6			10		4.75
		San Diego				5		276,167		0.3			91.4			1,955		0.4			20		7.75

			Subtotal/ Weighted Average			72		6,699,782		7.4			91.7			31,444		5.8			280		5.12

	International Target Markets ⁽¹⁾
		Amsterdam, Netherlands				2		302,091		0.3			100.0			3,572		0.6			2		11.82
		Frankfurt, Germany				1		166,917		0.2			100.0			1,587		0.3			1		9.51
		Mexico City, Mexico				1		120,251		0.1			0.0			–		0.0			0		–
		Paris, France				4		1,022,063		1.2			100.0			8,148		1.5			4		7.97
		Tokyo, Japan				6		915,401		1.0			99.2			11,302		2.0			10		12.44


			Subtotal/ Weighted Average			14		2,526,723		2.8			95.0			24,609		4.4			17		10.25


			Total Other Markets			234		23,380,247		25.9			94.2			145,669		26.4			892		6.61


				Total/ Weighted Average		984		90,278,803		100.0	%		94.8	%	$	552,177		100.0	%		3,337	$	6.45


(1)	Annualized base rent for leases denominated in international currencies is translated using the currency exchange rate at December 31, 2004.

Industrial Lease Expirations

The following table summarizes the lease expirations for our industrial properties for leases in place as of December 31, 2004, 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 Rent		Annualized
	Feet ⁽¹⁾		(000’s) ⁽³⁾		Base Rent

2005 ⁽²⁾		14,200,643	$	94,933		16.3%
2006		13,835,724		86,126		14.8%
2007		14,814,005		93,156		16.0%
2008		12,130,342		74,372		12.8%
2009		11,265,930		69,045		11.9%
2010		6,500,185		51,201		8.8%
2011		3,826,000		30,917		5.3%
2012		3,301,422		29,505		5.1%
2013		1,080,898		12,466		2.2%
2014 and beyond		4,748,401		39,831		6.8%

Total		85,703,550	$	581,552		100.0%


(1)	Schedule includes in-place leases and leases with future commencement dates.
(2)	The schedule also includes leases in month-to-month and hold-over status totaling 2.7 million square feet.
(3)	Calculated as monthly base rent at expiration multiplied by 12. Non-U.S. dollar projects are converted to U.S. dollars based on the Bloomberg (Screen FRD) forward exchange rate at expiration.

Customer Information

Largest Property Customers. As of December 31, 2004, our 25 largest industrial property customers by annualized base rent are set forth in the table below:


						Percentage of				Percentage of
				Aggregate		Aggregate		Annualized		Aggregate
		Number of		Rentable		Leased		Base Rent		Annualized
Customer Name ⁽¹⁾		Leases		Square Feet		Square Feet ⁽²⁾		(000’s) ⁽³⁾		Base Rent ⁽⁴⁾

United States Government ⁽⁵⁾⁽⁶⁾			50		1,120,408		1.2%	$	18,767		3.4%
FedEx Corporation ⁽⁵⁾			24		1,264,178		1.4%		13,869		2.5%
Deutsche Post World Net ⁽⁵⁾			30		985,081		1.1%		8,233		1.5%
Harmonic Inc.			4		285,480		0.3%		6,424		1.2%
La Poste			2		854,435		0.9%		6,121		1.1%
Worldwide Flight Services ⁽⁵⁾			17		358,389		0.4%		4,225		0.8%
International Paper Company			7		525,893		0.6%		4,100		0.7%
Exel, Inc.			12		480,779		0.5%		3,817		0.7%
BAX Global Inc. ⁽⁵⁾			8		256,877		0.3%		3,805		0.7%
Panalpina, Inc.			8		646,636		0.7%		3,682		0.7%
Wells Fargo and Company			7		280,494		0.3%		3,498		0.6%
Forward Air Corporation			7		462,714		0.5%		3,314		0.6%
County of Los Angeles ⁽⁷⁾			11		213,230		0.2%		3,157		0.6%
Eagle Global Logistics, L.P.			8		520,243		0.6%		3,122		0.6%
Expeditors International			7		666,045		0.7%		3,093		0.6%
Ahold NV			7		680,565		0.8%		2,880		0.5%
UPS			15		416,496		0.5%		2,832		0.5%
Aeroground Inc.			5		208,867		0.2%		2,741		0.5%
Nippon Express USA			3		367,707		0.4%		2,695		0.5%
United Air Lines Inc. ⁽⁵⁾			5		118,825		0.1%		2,426		0.4%
Elmhult Limited Partnership			4		661,149		0.7%		2,318		0.4%
Intel International B.V.			1		183,892		0.2%		2,241		0.4%
Integrated Airline Services ⁽⁵⁾			6		233,656		0.3%		2,229		0.4%
Applied Materials, Inc.			1		290,557		0.3%		2,152		0.4%
Tokyo Nohin Daiko Co Ltd.			1		177,434		0.2%		2,105		0.4%

	Total				12,260,030		13.6%	$	113,846		20.6%


(1)	Customer(s) may be a subsidiary of or an entity affiliated with the named customer. We also have a lease with Park’N Fly at our Park One property, a parking lot, adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport with an annualized base rent of $6.7 million, which is not included.
(2)	Computed as aggregate leased square feet divided by the aggregate leased square feet of the industrial and retail properties.
(3)	Annualized base rent is calculated as monthly base rent (cash basis) per the lease, as of December 31, 2004, multiplied by 12.
(4)	Computed as aggregate annualized base rent divided by the aggregate annualized base rent of the industrial and retail and other properties.
(5)	Airport apron rental amounts (but not square footage) are included.
(6)	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)	County of Los Angeles includes Child Support Service’s Department, the Fire Department, the District Attorney, the Sheriff’s Department and the Unified School District.

OPERATING AND LEASING STATISTICS

Industrial Operating and Leasing Statistics

The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for all of our industrial properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002:


Operating Portfolio ⁽¹⁾				2004			2003			2002

Square feet owned ⁽²⁾					90,278,803			87,101,412			84,203,022
Occupancy percentage					94.8	%		93.1	%		94.6	%
Weighted average lease terms:
	Original				6.1 years			6.1 years			6.2 years
	Remaining				3.3 years			3.2 years			3.3 years

Tenant retention					66.8	%		65.3	%		74.2	%

Same Space Leasing Activity ⁽³⁾:
	Rent increases (decreases) on renewals and rollovers				(13.2)	%		(10.1)	%		(1.0)	%
	Same space square footage commencing (millions)				17.5			17.3			14.7

Second Generation Leasing Activity ⁽⁴⁾:
	Tenant improvements and leasing commissions per sq. ft.:
		Renewals		$	1.73		$	1.39		$	1.30
		Re-tenanted			2.70			2.13			2.45

			Weighted average	$	2.27		$	1.77		$	1.90

	Square footage commencing (millions)				22.5			22.7			19.0


(1)	Includes all consolidated industrial operating properties and excludes industrial development and renovation projects. Excludes retail and other properties’ square footage of 0.5 million with occupancy of 71.4% and annualized base rents of $3.8 million as of December 31, 2004.
(2)	In addition to owned square feet as of December 31, 2004, we managed, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, LLC, 0.4 million additional square feet of industrial and other properties. As of December 31, 2004, we also had investments in 10.3 million square feet of industrial operating properties through our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures.
(3)	Consists of second generation leases renewing or re-tenanting with current and prior lease terms greater than one year.
(4)	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.

Industrial Same Store Operating Statistics

The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for our same store properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002:


			2004			2003			2002

Square feet in same store pool ⁽¹⁾				74,516,427			71,985,575			67,998,585
	% of total industrial square feet			82.5	%		82.6	%		80.8	%
Occupancy percentage at period end				95.3	%		93.0	%		94.6	%
Tenant retention				66.4	%		65.1	%		73.3	%
Rent increases (decreases) on renewals and rollovers				(14.7)	%		(10.6)	%		(1.4)	%
	Square feet leased (millions)			16.2			16.2			13.8
Growth % increase (decrease) (excluding straight-line rents):
		Revenues		(0.8)	%		(3.6)	%		3.9	%
		Expenses		(0.5)	%		2.7	%		5.1	%
		Net operating income		(0.9)	%		(5.6)	%		3.5	%
Growth % increase (decrease) (including straight-line rents):
		Revenues		(0.7)	%		(3.8)	%		3.6	%
		Expenses		(0.5)	%		2.7	%		5.1	%
		Net operating income		(0.8)	%		(5.7)	%		3.1	%


(1)	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 building has been substantially complete for at least 12 months).

Retail and Other Property Summary

Our remaining retail and other properties, aggregating approximately 0.5 million square feet, were 71.4% leased and had an annualized base rent of $3.8 million at December 31, 2004.

DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES

Development Pipeline

The following table sets forth the properties owned by us as of December 31, 2004 which were undergoing renovation, expansion or development. No assurance can be given that any of these projects will be completed on schedule or within budgeted amounts.

Industrial Development and Renovation Deliveries


									Estimated
									Square			Estimated Total			Our
							Estimated		Feet at			Investment			Ownership
Project				Location	Developer		Stabilization		Stabilization			(000’s) ⁽¹⁾			Percentage

2005 Deliveries
		1. Dulles Commerce Center — Bldg 100		Dulles, VA		Seefried Properties		Q1		50,030		$	4,000			20	%
		2. Nicholas Warehouse		Elk Grove Village, IL		AMB		Q1		131,728			12,500			100	%
		3. Patriot Distribution Center ⁽³⁾		Mansfield, MA		National Development		Q2		429,897			23,500			20	%
		4. Agave Bldg 1 ⁽⁵⁾		Mexico City, Mexico		G.Accion		Q2		397,210			20,100			90	%
		5. Somerville Distribution Center ⁽³⁾		Somerville, MA		Campanelli		Q2		197,384			17,900			20	%
		6. MIA Logistics Center ⁽³⁾		Miami, FL		AMB		Q2		147,182			10,100			20	%
		7. Airport South Bldg 500		Atlanta, GA		Seefried Properties		Q2		116,280			5,600			20	%
		8. Sterling Distribution 2 ⁽⁴⁾		Chino, CA		Majestic Realty		Q2		490,000			17,100			40	%
		9. Interstate Crossdock ⁽³⁾		Teterboro, NJ		AMB		Q3		616,992			53,600			100	%
	10. Beacon Lakes 9			Miami, FL		Codina Development		Q3		206,656			10,200			79	%
	11. Sterling Distribution 3 ⁽⁴⁾			Chino, CA		Majestic Realty		Q4		390,000			14,100			50	%
	12. Spinnaker Logistics ⁽³⁾			Redondo Beach, CA		AMB-IAC		Q4		279,431			28,900			39	%
	13. Encino Distribution Center ⁽⁵⁾			Mexico City, Mexico		G.Accion		Q4		571,267			31,000			90	%
	14. Narita Air Cargo 1 — Phase 1 Bldg B ⁽⁵⁾			Narita, Japan		AMB Blackpine		Q4		576,842			70,900			100	%
	15. AMB West O’Hare Bldg 1			Elk Grove Village, IL		AMB		Q4		189,240			14,400			20	%
	16. AMB Amagasaki Distribution Center ⁽⁵⁾			Osaka, Japan		AMB Blackpine		Q4		973,037			100,700			100	%

			Total 2005 Deliveries							5,763,176			434,600			76	%

			Leased/Funded-to-date							48	%	$	274,800	⁽²⁾
			Weighted Average Estimated Stabilized Cash Yield ⁽⁵⁾										8.7	%
2006 Deliveries
	17. Dulles Commerce Center — Bldg 150			Dulles, VA		Seefried Properties		Q1		71,880			5,800			20	%
	18. AMB Layline Distribution Center ⁽³⁾			Torrance, CA		AMB		Q1		250,000			26,300			100	%
	19. Nash Logistics Center			El Segundo, CA		AMB — IAC		Q1		75,000			12,000			50	%
	20. Narita Air Cargo 1 — Phase 1 Bldg A ⁽⁵⁾			Narita, Japan		AMB Blackpine		Q1		108,005			13,300			100	%
	21. AMB West O’Hare Building 2			Elk Grove Village, IL		AMB		Q1		119,708			8,800			20	%
	22. Highway 17 — 50 Broad Street ⁽³⁾			Carlstadt, NJ		AMB		Q2		120,000			8,700			100	%
	23. Highway 17 — 55 Madison Street ⁽³⁾			Carlstadt, NJ		AMB		Q2		150,446			11,900			100	%
	24. AMB Ohta Distribution Center ⁽⁵⁾			Tokyo, Japan		AMB Blackpine		Q2		816,866			195,100			100	%
	25. Singapore Airport Logistics Center Bldg 2 ⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾			Changi Airport, Singapore		Boustead Projects PTE		Q2		254,267			11,800			50	%
	26. Dulles Commerce Center — Bldg 200			Dulles, VA		Seefried Properties		Q2		97,232			7,300			20	%
	27. Beacon Lakes 6			Miami, FL		Codina Development		Q2		203,720			11,100			79	%
	28. Northfield Bldg 700			Dallas, TX		Seefried Properties		Q3		108,640			6,000			20	%

			Total 2006 Deliveries							2,375,764			318,100			89	%

			Leased/ Funded-to-date							0	%	$	195,900	⁽²⁾
			Weighted Average Estimated Stabilized Cash Yield ⁽⁵⁾										7.7	%
2007 Deliveries
	29. MAD Logistics Center ⁽⁵⁾			Madrid, Spain		Codina/Torimbia		Q2		454,779			31,700			80	%

			Total 2007 Deliveries							454,779			31,700			80	%

			Leased/Funded-to-date							0	%	$	1,800	⁽²⁾
			Weighted Average Estimated Stabilized Cash Yield ⁽⁵⁾										8.3	%
2008 Deliveries
	30. AMB Fokker Logistics Center 3 ⁽⁵⁾			Amsterdam, Netherlands		Delta Group		Q1		313,229			44,300			50	%

			Total 2008 Deliveries							313,229			44,300			50	%

			Leased/Funded-to-date							0	%	$	17,300	⁽²⁾
			Weighted Average Estimated Stabilized Cash Yield ⁽⁵⁾										8.3	%
Total Scheduled Deliveries ⁽¹⁾										8,906,948		$	828,700			80	%

			Leased/Funded-to-date							31	%	$	489,800	⁽²⁾
			Weighted Average Estimated Stabilized Cash Yield ⁽⁵⁾										8.3	%


(1)	Represents total estimated cost of renovation, expansion or development, including initial acquisition costs, third-party developer earnouts and associated carry costs. The estimates are based on our current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change. Excludes 1,263 acres of land held for future development representing a potential 22.2 million square feet and other acquisition-related costs totaling $224.8 million. Non-U.S. dollar investments are translated to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate at December 31, 2004.
(2)	Our share of amounts funded to date for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 deliveries was $209.9 million, $173.4 million, $1.5 million and $8.6 million, respectively, for a total of $393.4 million.
(3)	Represents a renovation project.
(4)	Represents projects in unconsolidated joint ventures.
(5)	The yields on international projects are on an after-tax basis.

The following table sets forth completed development projects that we intend to either sell or contribute to co-investment funds as of December 31, 2004:

Completed Development Projects Available for Sale or Contribution ⁽²⁾


					Estimated					Our
					Square Feet		Estimated Total			Ownership
Projects ⁽¹⁾			Market	Developer	at Completion		Investment (000’s) ⁽³⁾			Percentage

1. Wilsonville Phase II			Watsonville, OR	Trammell Crow Company		249,625	$	11,000			100	%
2. O’Hare Industrial - 701 Hilltop Drive			Itasca, IL	Hamilton Partners		60,810		2,900			100	%
3. Central Business Park Bldgs A,C,D			SF Bay Area	Harvest Properties		55,123		5,300			100	%
4. Singapore Airport Logistics Center Bldg 1			Changi Airport, Singapore	Boustead Projects PTE		230,432		10,000			50	%

	Total Available for Sale or Contribution					595,990	$	29,200

		Funded-to-date					$	25,400	⁽⁴⁾


(1)	Represents build-to-suit and speculative development or redevelopment.
(2)	We intend to sell these properties or contribute them into a co-investment joint venture within two years of completion. Non-U.S. dollar investments are translated to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate at December 31, 2004.
(3)	Represents total estimated cost of renovation, expansion or development, including initial acquisition costs, carry and partner earnouts. The estimates are based on our current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change.
(4)	Our share of amounts funded as of December 31, 2004 was $21.0 million.

Properties held through Joint Ventures, Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships

Consolidated:

As of December 31, 2004, 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, 2004:

Co-investment Consolidated Joint Ventures


													JV
			Our						Gross				Partners’
			Ownership		Number of		Square		Book		Property		Share
Joint Ventures			Percentage		Buildings		Feet ⁽¹⁾		Value ⁽²⁾		Debt		of Debt

Co-Investment Operating Joint Ventures:
	AMB/ Erie, L.P. ⁽³⁾			50%		26		2,502,052	$	134,875	$	50,338	$	25,169
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P. ⁽⁴⁾			21%		100		5,829,368		415,191		223,704		177,313
	AMB Partners II, L.P. ⁽⁵⁾			20%		100		7,599,176		472,442		258,179		207,036
	AMB-SGP, L.P. ⁽⁶⁾			50%		73		8,589,823		418,129		245,454		122,382
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P. ⁽⁴⁾			20%		69		7,531,342		462,114		231,858		182,922
	AMB-AMS, L.P. ⁽⁷⁾			39%		30		1,218,592		74,498		34,977		21,504
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. ⁽⁸⁾			20%		36		4,459,565		514,142		258,164		203,704

	Total Co-Investment Operating Joint Ventures			27%		434		37,729,918		2,491,391		1,302,674		940,030
Co-Investment Development Joint Ventures:
	AMB/ Erie, L.P. ⁽³⁾			50%		–		–		14,369		–		–
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P. ⁽⁴⁾			21%		–		–		–		–		–
	AMB Partners II, L.P.⁽⁵⁾			20%		7		841,754		43,758		6,136		4,860
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P. ⁽⁴⁾			20%		2		538,537		30,573		5,940		4,752
	AMB-AMS, L.P. ⁽⁷⁾			39%		1		279,431		25,545		9,429		5,797
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. ⁽⁸⁾			20%		1		147,182		8,895		–		–

	Total Co-Investment Development Joint Ventures			27%		11		1,806,904		123,140		21,505		15,409

		Total Co-Investment Consolidated Joint Ventures		27%		445		39,536,822	$	2,614,531	$	1,324,179	$	955,439


(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, 2004. Development book values include uncommitted land.
(3)	AMB/ Erie, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 1998 with the Erie Insurance Company and certain related entities.
(4)	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P. and AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P. are co-investment partnerships with institutional investors, which invest through private real estate investment trusts.
(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, a real estate investment subsidiary of the government of Singapore Investment Corporation.

(7) AMB-AMS, L.P. is a co-investment partnership with three Dutch pension funds advised by Mn Services NV.

(8) 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.

Other Consolidated Joint Ventures


													JV
					Our				Gross				Partners’
					Ownership		Square		Book		Property		Share of
Properties			Market		Percentage		Feet		Value ⁽¹⁾		Debt		Debt

Other Industrial Operating Joint Ventures				Various		92%		2,403,711	$	218,821	$	49,869	$	2,493
Other Industrial Development Joint Ventures				Various		81%		2,026,726		122,170		21,104		9,149

		Total Other Industrial Consolidated JointVentures				88%		4,430,437	$	340,991	$	70,973	$	11,642

Retail Joint Ventures:
	1. Around Lenox			Atlanta		90%		125,222	$	22,273	$	8,933	$	893
	2. Springs Gate Land			Miami		100%		–		6,767		–		–

		Total Retail Consolidated Joint Ventures				92%		125,222	$	29,040	$	8,933	$	893


(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, 2004. Development book values include uncommitted land.

Unconsolidated Joint Ventures, Mortgage Investments and Other Investment:

As of December 31, 2004, we held interests in 11 equity investment joint ventures that are not consolidated in our financial statements. The management and control over significant aspects of these investments are held by the third-party joint-venture partners and the investments do not meet the variable-interest entity consolidation criteria under FASB Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. In addition, as of December 31, 2004, we held mortgage investments, from which we receive interest income.

Unconsolidated Joint Ventures,

Mortgage Investments and Other Investment


										Our Net		Our		Our
								Square		Equity		Ownership		Share of
Unconsolidated Joint Ventures				Market		Alliance Partner		Feet		Investment		Percentage		Debt

Co-investment Joint Ventures
	1. AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC ⁽¹⁾				Various		N/A		1,256,165	$	9,467		20%	$	3,214

		Total Co-investment Joint Ventures							1,256,165		9,467				3,214
Other Industrial Operating Joint Ventures
	2. Elk Grove Du Page				Chicago		Hamilton Partners		4,046,721		33,664		56%		37,826
	3. Pico Rivera				Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		855,600		676		50%		17,751
	4. Monte Vista Spectrum				Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		576,852		236		50%		9,302
	5. Industrial Fund I, LLC				Various		Citigroup		2,326,334		3,612		15%		9,735
	6. Singapore Airport Logistics Center Bldg 1				Singapore		Boustead Projects		230,432		2,633		50%		2,390
	7. Sterling Distribution Center Bldg 1				Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		1,000,000		550		40%		13,982

		Total Other Industrial Operating Joint Ventures							9,035,939		41,371		52%		90,986
Other Industrial Development Joint Ventures ⁽²⁾
	8. Sterling Distribution Center Bldg 2				Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		490,000		707		40%		5,327
	9. Sterling Distribution Center Bldg 3				Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		390,000		620		50%		3,800
10. Nash Logistics Center					Los Angeles		AMB-IAC		75,000		1,412		50%		2,502
11. Singapore Airport Logistics Center Bldg 2					Singapore		Boustead Projects		254,267		1,589		50%		–

		Total Other Industrial Development Joint Ventures							1,209,267		4,328		48%		11,629

			Total Unconsolidated Joint Ventures						11,501,371	$	55,166		46%	$	105,829

Our

Mortgage

Ownership

Mortgage Investments

Market

Maturity

Receivable

Rate

Percentage ⁽³⁾

1. Pier 1 ⁽⁴⁾

SF Bay Area

May 2026

12,938

13.0%

100%

2. Platinum Distribution Center

No. New Jersey

November 2006

800

12.0%

20%

13,738

Our

Gross

Ownership

Other Investment

Market

Property Type

Investment

Percentage

1. Park One

Los Angeles

Parking Lot

75,497

100%


(1)	AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC is an unconsolidated co-investment joint venture formed in 2004 with Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte Ltd, a real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. Includes $8.1 million of shareholder loans outstanding at December 31, 2004 between us and the co-investment partnership and its subsidiaries, $5.0 million of which we expect to replace with third party debt in the second quarter of 2005.
(2)	Square feet for development alliance joint ventures represents estimated square feet at completion of development project.
(3)	Represents our ownership percentage in the mortgage investment.
(4)	We also have a 0.1% unconsolidated equity interest (with a 33% economic interest) in this property and an option to purchase the remaining equity interest beginning January 1, 2007 and expiring December 31, 2009.

Secured Debt

As of December 31, 2004, we had $1.9 billion of secured indebtedness, net of unamortized premiums, secured by deeds of trust or mortgages. As of December 31, 2004, the total gross consolidated investment value of those properties secured by debt was $3.3 billion. Of the $1.9 billion of secured indebtedness, $1.4 billion was joint venture debt secured by properties with a gross investment value of $2.4 billion. For additional details, see Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” and Part IV, Item 15: Note 6 of “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” included in this report. We believe that as of December 31, 2004, the fair value of the properties securing the respective obligations in each case exceeded the principal amount of the outstanding obligations.


Item 3.	*Legal Proceedings*

As of December 31, 2004, there were no pending legal proceedings to which we were a party or of which any of our properties was the subject, the adverse determination of which we anticipate would have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


Item 4.	*Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders*

None.

PART II


Item 5.	*Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities*

There is no established public trading market for our partnership units. As of December 31, 2004, we had outstanding 93,519,785 partnership units, consisting of 87,319,229 general partnership units (consisting of 83,019,229 common units, 2,000,000 6¹/2% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units and 2,300,000 6³/4% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units) held by AMB Property Corporation and 6,200,556 limited partnership units (consisting of 4,600,556 common units, 800,000 7.95% Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units and 800,000 7.95% Series K Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units). The series M preferred units were issued on November 25, 2003 to AMB Property Corporation for total consideration of $57.5 million. The series L preferred units were issued on June 23, 2003 to AMB Property Corporation for total consideration of $50.0 million. Subject to certain terms and conditions, the common limited partnership units are redeemable by the holders thereof or, at our option, exchangeable on a one-for-one basis for shares of the common stock of AMB Property Corporation. As of December 31, 2004, there were 83 holders of our common partnership units (including AMB Property Corporation’s general partnership interest). As of the same date, AMB Property Corporation was the only holder of the 6¹/2% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units and the 6³/4% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units. There was one holder of the 7.95% Series J Cumulative Redeemable Units and one holder of the 7.95% Series K Cumulative Redeemable Units.

During 2004, we redeemed 17,686 common limited partnership units for the same number of shares of AMB Property Corporation’s common stock. Set forth below are the distributions per common limited partnership unit paid by us during the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004:


Year		Distribution

2003
	1st Quarter	$	0.415
	2nd Quarter		0.415
	3rd Quarter		0.415
	4th Quarter		0.415
2004
	1st Quarter	$	0.425
	2nd Quarter		0.425
	3rd Quarter		0.425
	4th Quarter		0.425


Item 6.	*Selected Financial Data*

SELECTED OPERATING PARTNERSHIP FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA ⁽¹⁾

The following table sets forth our selected consolidated historical financial and other data on a historical basis as of and for the years ended December 31:


			2004		2003		2002		2001		2000

			(Dollars in thousands, except per unit amounts)
Operating Data
	Total revenues		$	665,689	$	586,629	$	563,231	$	510,505	$	415,172
	Income before minority interests and discontinued operations			140,094		135,028		138,809		174,890		144,467
	Income from continuing operations			87,851		81,761		97,477		124,851		114,376
	Income from discontinued operations			50,665		65,328		41,577		25,421		21,056
	Net income available to common unitholders attributable to general partner			118,340		116,716		113,035		120,100		113,282
	Net income from continuing operations per common unit:
		Basic ⁽²⁾		0.86		0.68		0.89		1.15		1.11
		Diluted ⁽²⁾		0.83		0.66		0.87		1.13		1.12
	Net income from discontinued operations per common unit:
		Basic ⁽²⁾		0.58		0.76		0.47		0.28		0.24
		Diluted ⁽²⁾		0.56		0.75		0.46		0.28		0.23
	Net income per common unit:
		Basic ⁽²⁾		1.44		1.44		1.36		1.43		1.35
		Diluted ⁽²⁾		1.39		1.41		1.33		1.41		1.35
	Distributions declared per common unit			1.70		1.66		1.64		1.58		1.48
Other Data
	Funds from operations		$	207,314	$	186,666	$	215,194	$	186,707	$	202,751
	Funds from operations per common unit:
		Basic		2.39		2.17		2.44		2.09		2.26
		Diluted		2.30		2.13		2.40		2.07		2.25
	Cash flows provided by (used in):
		Operating activities		294,378		264,463		291,265		288,562		261,175
		Investing activities		(728,431)		(340,930)		(246,854)		(363,152)		(726,499)
		Financing activities		409,705		112,022		(28,150)		127,303		452,370
Balance Sheet Data
	Investments in real estate at cost		$	6,526,144	$	5,491,707	$	4,922,782	$	4,527,511	$	4,026,597
	Total assets			6,386,943		5,409,559		4,983,629		4,763,614		4,433,207
	Total consolidated debt			3,257,191		2,574,257		2,235,361		2,143,714		1,843,857
	Our share of total debt ⁽³⁾			2,395,046		1,954,314		1,691,737		1,655,386		1,681,161
	General partners’ capital			1,671,140		1,657,137		1,579,265		1,747,389		1,767,930


(1)	Certain items in the consolidated financial statements for prior periods have been reclassified to conform with current classifications with no effect on net income or partners’ capital.
(2)	Basic and diluted net income per weighted average unit equals the net income available to common unitholders divided by 82,133,627 and 85,368,626 units, respectively, for 2004; 81,096,062 and 82,852,528 units, respectively, for 2003; 83,310,885 and 84,795,987 units, respectively, for 2002; 84,174,644 and 85,214,066 units, respectively, for 2001; 83,697,170 and 84,155,306 units, respectively, for 2000.
(3)	Our share of total debt is the pro rata portion of the total debt based on our percentage of equity interest in each of the consolidated ventures holding the debt. We believe that our share of total debt is a meaningful

supplemental measure, which enables both management and investors to analyze our leverage and to compare our leverage to that of other companies. In addition, it allows for a more meaningful comparison of our debt to that of other companies that do not consolidate their joint ventures. Our share of total debt is not intended to reflect our actual liability should there be a default under any or all of such loans or a liquidation of the joint ventures. For a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure, please see the table of debt maturities and capitalization in Part II, Item 7: “Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Capital Resources.”


Item 7.	*Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations*

GENERAL

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our consolidated financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with the notes to consolidated financial statements.

We commenced operations shortly before the consummation of AMB Property Corporation’s initial public offering on November 26, 1997.

Management’s Overview

We generate revenue and earnings primarily from rent received from customers under long-term (generally three to ten years) operating leases at our properties, including reimbursements from customers for certain operating costs, and from partnership distributions and fees from our private capital business. We also derive earnings from the strategic disposition of assets and from the disposition of projects under our development-for-sale or contribution program. Our long-term growth is dependent on our ability to maintain and increase occupancy rates or increase rental rates at our properties and our ability to continue to acquire and develop new properties.

National industrial markets improved significantly during 2004 when compared with market conditions in 2003. The positive trend in demand began in the second quarter of 2004 and reversed 14 prior quarters of negatively trending, or rising, space availability. We believe the protracted period of rising availability created a difficult leasing environment; however investor demand for industrial property (as evidenced by our observation of strong national sales volumes and declining acquisition capitalization rates) has remained consistently strong. We believe we capitalized on the demand for acquisition property by accelerating the repositioning of our portfolio through the disposition of non-core properties. We plan to continue selling selected assets on an opportunistic basis but believe we have substantially achieved our repositioning goals. Property dispositions result in reinvestment capacity and trigger gain/loss recognition, but also create near-term earnings dilution if the capital cannot be redeployed effectively. We experienced such near-term dilution in 2004. However, we believe that the repositioning of our portfolio will benefit our unitholders and noteholders in the long-term. The table below summarizes our leasing activity for 2004 and 2003:


		U.S. Hub and			Total Other			Total/Weighted
Property Data		Gateway Markets ⁽¹⁾			Markets ⁽²⁾			Average

For the year ended December 31, 2004:
	% of total rentable square feet		74.1	%		25.9	%		100.0	%
	Occupancy percentage at year end		95.0	%		94.2	%		94.8	%
	Same space square footage leased		13,932,213			3,553,563			17,485,776
	Rent increases (decreases) on renewals and rollovers		(15.3)	%		(3.6)	%		(13.2)	%
For the year ended December 31, 2003:
	% of total rentable square feet		75.0	%		25.0	%		100.0	%
	Occupancy percentage at year end		93.5	%		91.9	%		93.1	%
	Same space square footage leased		13,636,050			3,636,967			17,273,017
	Rent increases (decreases) on renewals and rollovers		(12.7)	%		1.7	%		(10.1)	%


(1)	Our U.S. hub and gateway markets include on-tarmac and Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Northern New Jersey/ New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Miami and Seattle.
(2)	Our total other markets include other domestic target markets, other non-target markets, international target markets and retail.

We observed two positive trends nationally for industrial real estate during the year ended December 31, 2004, supported by data provided by Torto Wheaton Research. First, national industrial space availability declined 70 basis points during the year from 11.6% to 10.9%. This decrease in national industrial space availability occurred in the last three quarters of 2004, reversing the trend of the prior 14 quarters in which national industrial space availability increased on average 36 basis points per quarter. Second, national absorption of industrial space, defined as the net change in occupied stock as measured by square feet of completions less the change in available square feet, totaled approximately 175 million square feet in the year ended December 31, 2004, substantially exceeding the 20 million square feet of space absorbed in 2003 and well above the ten-year historical average of 132 million square feet of space absorbed annually.

In this improved environment, our industrial portfolio’s occupancy levels increased to 94.8% at December 31, 2004 from 93.1% at December 31, 2003, which we believe reflects higher levels of demand for industrial space generally and in our portfolio specifically. During the year ended December 31, 2004, our lease expirations totaled approximately 21.4 million square feet while commencements of new or renewed leases totaled approximately 24.3 million square feet, resulting in an increase in our occupancy level of approximately 170 basis points.

Rents on industrial renewals and rollovers in our portfolio decreased 13.2% during the year ended December 31, 2004 as leases were entered into or renewed at rates consistent with what we believe to be current market levels. We believe this decline in rents on lease renewals and rollovers reflects trends in national industrial space availability. We believe that relatively high levels of national industrial space availability have caused market rents for industrial properties to decline between 10% and 20% from their peak levels in 2001 based on our research data; 47% of the space that rolled over in our portfolio in 2004 had commenced between 1999 and 2001. Rental rates in our portfolio declined at successively lower rates in each of the four quarters during 2004, which we believe indicates a stabilization of market rental rate levels. While the level of rental rate reduction varied by market, we achieved occupancy levels in our portfolio 570 basis points in excess of the national industrial market, as determined by Torto Wheaton Research, by pricing lease renewals and new leases with sensitivity to local market conditions. During periods of decreasing or stabilizing rental rates, we strove to sign leases with shorter terms to prevent locking in lower rent levels for long periods and to be prepared to sign new, longer-term leases during periods of growing rental rates. When we sign leases of shorter duration, we attempt to limit overall leasing costs and capital expenditures by offering different grades of tenant improvement packages, appropriate to the lease term.

We believe that development, renovation and expansion of well-located, high-quality industrial properties should generally continue to provide us with attractive investment opportunities at a higher rate of return than we may obtain from the purchase of existing properties. We believe that our development opportunities in Mexico and Japan are attractive given the current lack of supply of modern distribution facilities in the major metropolitan markets of these countries. Globally, we have increased our development pipeline from a low of $107.0 million at the end of 2002 to approximately $828.7 million at December 31, 2004. In addition to our committed development pipeline, we hold a total of 1,263 acres for future development or sale, of which 1,015 acres, 199 acres, 39 acres and ten acres in North America, Mexico, Asia and Europe, respectively, could support an aggregate of approximately 22.2 million square feet of additional development.

Going forward, we believe that our co-investment program with private-capital investors will continue to serve as a significant source of revenues and capital for acquisitions and developments. Through these co-investment joint ventures, we typically earn acquisition and development fees, asset management fees and priority distributions, as well as promoted interests and incentive distributions based on the performance of the co-investment joint ventures; however, there can be no assurance that we will continue to do so. Through contribution of development properties to our co-investment joint ventures, we expect to recognize value creation from our development pipeline. As of December 31, 2004, we owned approximately 40.8 million square feet of our properties (36.8% of the total operating and development portfolio) through our co-investment joint ventures. We may make additional investments through these joint ventures or new joint ventures in the future and presently plan to do so.

By 2007, we plan to have approximately 15% of our portfolio (based on consolidated annualized base rent) invested in international markets. Our North American target markets outside of the United States currently include Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey and Toronto. Our European target markets currently include Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, London, Lyon, Madrid and Paris. Our Asian target markets currently include Beijing, Nagoya, Osaka, the Pearl River Delta, Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo. It is possible that our target markets will change over time to reflect experience, market opportunities, customer needs and changes in global distribution patterns. As of December 31, 2004, our international operating properties comprised 4.4% of our consolidated annualized base rent.

For our general partner to maintain its qualification as a real estate investment trust, AMB Property Corporation must pay dividends to its stockholders aggregating annually at least 90% of its taxable income, which is essentially the same as our taxable income. As a result, we cannot rely on retained earnings to fund our on-going operations to the same extent that other corporations whose parent companies are not real estate investment trusts can. We must continue to raise capital in both the debt and equity markets to fund our working capital needs, acquisitions and developments. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a complete discussion of the sources of our capital.

Summary of Key Transactions in 2004

During the year ended December 31, 2004, we completed the following capital deployment transactions:


	•	Acquired 64 buildings in the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square feet, for $695.2 million, including $261.0 million invested through four of our co-investment joint ventures;

	•	Commenced 19 development projects in the United States, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands, totaling 6.1 million square feet with an estimated total investment of approximately $648.5 million (using exchange rates in effect at applicable quarter end and year end dates);

	•	Acquired 640 acres of land for industrial warehouse development in various U.S. markets and Mexico City for approximately $68.3 million;

	•	Sold seven land parcels and six development projects available for sale, aggregating approximately 0.3 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $40.4 million; and

	•	Divested ourselves of 21 industrial buildings, two retail centers and one office building, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $200.3 million.

See Part IV, Item 15: Notes 3 and 4 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for a more detailed discussion of our acquisition, development and disposition activity.

During the year ended December 31, 2004, we completed the following capital markets and other financing transactions:


	•	Obtained long-term secured debt financings for our co-investment joint ventures totaling $243.5 million at an average rate of 5.0%;

	•	Obtained $129.2 million of debt (using exchange rates in effect at applicable quarter end dates) with a weighted average interest rate of 4.5% for international acquisitions, net of the financing for the AMB Ohta Distribution Center development;

	•	Completed the early renewal of our senior unsecured revolving line of credit in the amount of $500.0 million. The three-year credit facility includes a multi-currency component under which up to $250.0 million can be drawn in Yen, Euros or British Pounds Sterling;


	•	Entered into an unsecured revolving credit agreement through AMB Japan Finance Y.K., our subsidiary, providing for loans or letters of credit in a maximum principal amount outstanding at any time of up to 24 billion Yen (approximately $233.8 million in U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2004);

	•	Closed on a 20 billion Yen financing (approximately $195 million U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2004) for the AMB Ohta Distribution Center development project in Japan, of which 14 billion Yen ($136 million U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2004) has been funded. We locked in the interest rate on 65% of the financing for the full eight-year term at closing. During construction, the fixed rate portion is locked at 1.9% and upon stabilization, the fixed rate will be 2.4%;

	•	Formed AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P., an open-ended co-investment joint venture, with $136.5 million of equity from co-investment partners to invest in properties in the United States; and

	•	Formed an unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC, with Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte Ltd, a real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, with an equity commitment of $200 million to invest in properties in Mexico, in which we retain a 20% interest. We contributed $71.5 million of operating properties and recently completed development projects in Mexico and when combined with our equity commitment and leverage, the venture has an investment capacity of approximately $715 million. This is our first international co-investment joint venture.

See Part IV, Item 15: Notes 6, 9 and 11 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for a more detailed discussion of our capital markets transactions.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and contingencies as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our assumptions and estimates on an on-going basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements:

Investments in Real Estate. Investments in real estate are stated at cost unless circumstances indicate that cost cannot be recovered, in which case the carrying value of the property is reduced to estimated fair value. We also record at acquisition an intangible asset or liability for the value attributable to above or below-market leases, in-place leases and lease origination costs for all acquisitions. Carrying values for financial reporting purposes are reviewed for impairment on a property-by-property basis whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a property may not be recoverable. Impairment is recognized when estimated expected future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) are less than the carrying amount of the property. The estimation of expected future net cash flows is inherently uncertain and relies on assumptions regarding current and future market conditions and the availability of capital. Examples of certain situations that could affect future cash flows of a property may include, but are not limited to: significant decreases in occupancy; unforeseen bankruptcy, lease termination and move-out of a major customer; or a significant decrease in annual base rents of that property. If impairment analysis assumptions change, then an adjustment to the carrying amount of our long-lived assets could occur in the future period in which the assumptions change. To the

extent that a property is impaired, the excess of the carrying amount of the property over its estimated fair value is charged to earnings.

Revenue Recognition. We record rental revenue from operating leases on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases and maintain an allowance for estimated losses that may result from the inability of our customers to make required payments. If customers fail to make contractual lease payments that are greater than our allowance for doubtful accounts, security deposits and letters of credit, then we may have to recognize additional doubtful account charges in future periods. We monitor the liquidity and creditworthiness of our customers on an on-going basis by reviewing their financial condition periodically as appropriate. Each period we review our outstanding accounts receivable, including straight-line rents, for doubtful accounts and provide allowances as needed. We also record lease termination fees when a customer has executed a definitive termination agreement with us and the payment of the termination fee is not subject to any conditions that must be met or waived before the fee is due to us. If a customer remains in the leased space following the execution of a definitive termination agreement, the applicable termination fees are deferred and recognized over the term of such customer’s occupancy.

Property Dispositions. We report real estate dispositions in three separate categories on our consolidated statements of operations. First, when we divest a portion of our interests in real estate entities or properties, gains from the sale represent the interests acquired by third-party investors for cash. Second, we dispose of value-added conversion projects and build-to-suit and speculative development projects for which we have not generated material operating income prior to sale. The gain or loss recognized from the disposition of these projects is reported net of estimated taxes, when applicable. Lastly, beginning in 2002, SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, required us to separately report as discontinued operations the historical operating results attributable to operating properties sold and the applicable gain or loss on the disposition of the properties. The consolidated statements of operations for prior periods are also adjusted to conform with this classification. There is no impact on our previously reported consolidated financial position, net income or cash flows. In all cases, gains and losses are recognized using the full accrual method of accounting. Gains relating to transactions which do not meet the requirements of the full accrual method of accounting are deferred and recognized when the full accrual method of accounting criteria are met.

Joint Ventures. We hold interests in both consolidated and unconsolidated joint ventures. Our joint venture investments do not meet the variable interest entity criteria under FASB Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. Therefore, we determine consolidation based on standards set forth in EITF 96-16, Investor’s Accounting for an Investee When the Investor Has a Majority of the Voting Interest but the Minority Shareholder or Shareholders Have Certain Approval or Veto Rights, and Statement of Position 78-9, Accounting for Investments in Real Estate Ventures. Based on the guidance set forth in these pronouncements, we consolidate certain joint venture investments because we exercise significant control over major operating decisions, such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, asset management, investment activity and changes in financing. For joint ventures where we do not exercise significant control over major operating and management decisions, but where we exercise significant influence, we use the equity method of accounting and do not consolidate the joint venture for financial reporting purposes.

Our General Partner’s Status as a Real Estate Investment Trust. As a real estate investment trust, AMB Property Corporation, our general partner, generally will not be subject to corporate level federal income taxes in the U.S. if minimum distribution, income, asset and shareholder tests are met. However, not all of AMB Property Corporation’s underlying entities, which are also our subsidiaries, are qualified REIT subsidiaries and may be subject to federal and state taxes. In addition, foreign entities may also be subject to the taxes of the host country. An income tax allocation is required to be estimated on our taxable income arising from our taxable REIT subsidiaries and international entities. A deferred tax component could arise based upon the differences in GAAP versus tax income for items such as depreciation and gain recognition. However, deferred tax is an immaterial component of our consolidated balance sheet due to our general partner’s status as a real estate investment trust.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The analysis below includes changes attributable to same store growth, acquisitions, development activity and divestitures. Same store properties are those that we owned during both the current and prior year reporting periods, excluding development properties prior to being stabilized subsequent to December 31, 2002 (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).

As of December 31, 2004, same store industrial properties consisted of properties aggregating approximately 74.5 million square feet. The properties acquired during 2004 consisted of 64 buildings, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square feet. The properties acquired during 2003 consisted of 82 buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet. During 2004, property divestitures and contributions consisted of 29 industrial buildings, two retail centers and one office, aggregating approximately 4.4 million square feet. In 2003, property divestitures consisted of 48 industrial buildings and two retail centers, aggregating approximately 5.3 million square feet. Our future financial condition and results of operations, including rental revenues, may be impacted by the acquisition of additional properties and dispositions. Our future revenues and expenses may vary materially from historical results.

For the Years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in millions)


Revenues				2004		2003		$ Change		% Change

Rental revenues
	U.S. industrial:
		Same store		$	531.8	$	535.4	$	(3.6)		(0.7)%
		2003 acquisitions			47.8		14.6		33.2		227.4%
		2004 acquisitions			25.9		–		25.9		–%
		Development			7.8		7.8		–		–%
		Other industrial			10.3		6.3		4.0		63.5%
	International industrial				25.6		6.1		19.5		319.7%
	Retail				3.6		3.1		0.5		16.1%

		Total rental revenues			652.8		573.3		79.5		13.9%
Private capital income					12.9		13.3		(0.4)		(3.0)%

			Total revenues	$	665.7	$	586.6	$	79.1		13.5%

The decrease in U.S. industrial same store rental revenues was primarily driven by decreased rental rates in various markets. Across the portfolio, these and other factors accounted for approximately $6.9 million of the change from the prior year. This decrease was partially offset by a decrease in allowances for doubtful accounts of approximately $3.3 million. Industrial same store occupancy was 95.3% at December 31, 2004 and 93.0% at December 31, 2003. For the year ended December 31, 2004, rents in the same store portfolio decreased 14.7% on industrial renewals and rollovers (cash basis) on 16.2 million square feet leased due to decreases in market rates. The properties acquired during 2003 consisted of 82 buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet. The properties acquired during 2004 consisted of 64 buildings, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square feet. Other industrial revenues include rental revenues from divested properties that have been contributed to an unconsolidated joint venture, and accordingly are not classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements, and development projects that have reached certain levels of operation and are not yet part of the same store operating pool of properties. In 2003 and 2004, we continued to acquire properties in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands, resulting in increased international industrial revenues. The decrease in private capital income was due to greater incentive fees earned in the prior year.


Costs and Expenses				2004		2003		$ Change		% Change

Property operating costs:
	Rental expenses			$	94.7	$	84.7	$	10.0		11.8%
	Real estate taxes				73.8		67.3		6.5		9.7%

		Total property operating costs		$	168.5	$	152.0	$	16.5		10.9%


Property operating costs
	U.S. industrial:
		Same store		$	141.1	$	141.4	$	(0.3)		(0.2)%
		2003 acquisitions			11.0		3.6		7.4		205.6%
		2004 acquisitions			6.9		–		6.9		–%
		Development			1.5		3.6		(2.1)		(58.3)%
		Other industrial			1.8		1.8		–		–%
	International industrial				4.9		0.4		4.5		1,125.0%
	Retail				1.3		1.2		0.1		8.3%

		Total property operating costs			168.5		152.0		16.5		10.9%
Depreciation and amortization					160.0		132.2		27.8		21.0%
Impairment losses					–		5.3		(5.3)		(100.0)%
General and administrative					59.0		46.4		12.6		27.2%
Fund costs					1.7		0.8		0.9		112.5%

			Total costs and expenses	$	389.2	$	336.7	$	52.5		15.6%

Same store properties’ operating expenses showed a decrease of $0.3 million from the prior year due to decreased non-reimbursable expenses. The 2003 acquisitions consisted of 82 buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet. The 2004 acquisitions consisted of 64 buildings, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square feet. Other industrial expenses include expenses from divested properties that have been contributed to an unconsolidated joint venture, and accordingly are not classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements, and development properties that have reached certain levels of operation and are not yet part of the same store operating pool of properties. In 2003 and 2004, we continued to acquire properties in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands, resulting in increased international industrial property operating costs. The increase in depreciation and amortization expense was due to the increase in our net investment in real estate. The 2003 impairment loss was on investments in real estate and leasehold interests. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to increased stock-based compensation expense of $2.3 million and additional staffing and expenses for new initiatives, including our international and development expansions. Fund costs represent general and administrative costs paid to third parties associated with our co-investment joint ventures. The increase in fund costs was due to additional formation of co-investment joint ventures in 2004.


Other Income and (Expenses)		2004		2003		$ Change		% Change

Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures, net		$	3.8	$	5.5	$	(1.7)		(30.9)%
Interest and other income			4.0		4.0		–		–%
Gains from dispositions of real estate interests			5.2		7.4		(2.2)		(29.7)%
Development profits, net of taxes			8.5		14.4		(5.9)		(41.0)%
Interest expense, including amortization			(157.9)		(146.2)		11.7		8.0%

	Total other income and (expenses), net	$	(136.4)	$	(114.9)	$	21.5		18.7%

The $1.7 million decrease in equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures was primarily due to decreased occupancy at a property held by one of our joint ventures and increased non-reimbursable expenses.

This decrease was offset by the receipt of a lease termination fee at the above-mentioned property in Chicago in the first quarter of 2004. The gains from dispositions of real estate (not classified as discontinued operations) in 2004, resulted from our contribution of $71.5 million in operating properties to our newly formed unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC. The gains from disposition of real estate (not classified as discontinued operations) in 2003, resulted from our contribution of $94.0 million in operating properties to our unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, Industrial Fund I, LLC. The decrease in development profits, net of taxes, resulted from delayed gains on development sales. The increase in interest expense, including amortization, was due to the issuance of additional unsecured debt under our 2002 medium-term note program, increased borrowings on the unsecured credit facilities, and additional secured debt borrowings in our co-investment joint ventures.


Discontinued Operations		2004		2003		$ Change		% Change

Income attributable to discontinued operations, net of minority interests		$	5.9	$	20.0	$	(14.1)		(70.5)%
Gains from dispositions of real estate, net of minority interests			44.7		45.4		(0.7)		(1.5)%

	Total discontinued operations	$	50.6	$	65.4	$	(14.8)		(22.6)%

During 2004, we divested ourselves of 21 industrial buildings, two retail centers and one office building, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $200.3 million, with a resulting net gain of $42.0 million. During 2003, we divested ourselves of 24 industrial buildings and two retail centers, aggregating approximately 2.8 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $272.3 million, with a resulting net gain of $42.9 million. The decrease in income attributable to discontinued operations reflects the fact that properties were held for only a partial period in 2004 versus an entire year in 2003.


Preferred Units		2004		2003		$ Change		% Change

Preferred unit distributions		$	(13.5)	$	(18.2)	$	(4.7)		(25.8)%
Preferred unit (issuance costs or premium)			–		(5.4)		(5.4)		(100.0)%

	Total preferred units	$	(13.5)	$	(23.6)	$	(10.1)		(42.8)%

The decrease in preferred unit distributions resulted primarily from the redemption of all 1,300,000 of our outstanding 8⁵/8% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units in November 2003. Accordingly, we recognized a reduction of income available to common unitholders of $1.7 million for the original issuance costs. In July 2003, we redeemed all 3,995,800 of our outstanding 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units and recognized a reduction of income available to common unitholders of $3.7 million for the original issuance costs.

For the Years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 (dollars in millions)


Revenues				2003		2002		$ Change		% Change

Rental revenues
	U.S. industrial:
		Same store		$	535.4	$	529.2	$	6.2		1.2%
		2003 acquisitions			14.6		–		14.6		–%
		Development			7.8		3.9		3.9		100.0%
		Other industrial			6.3		13.1		(6.8)		(51.9)%
	International industrial				6.1		0.7		5.4		771.4%
	Retail				3.1		5.1		(2.0)		(39.2)%

		Total rental revenues			573.3		552.0		21.3		3.9%
Private capital income					13.3		11.2		2.1		18.8%

			Total revenues	$	586.6	$	563.2	$	23.4		4.2%

The increase in U.S. industrial same store revenues were primarily driven by increased rental revenues in our on-tarmac and Los Angeles markets. These increases were partially offset by decreased rental income in our San Francisco Bay Area market and an increase in our allowances for doubtful accounts of $4.0 million across the portfolio. The properties acquired during 2003 consisted of 82 buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet. The development revenue increase reflects the timing of the stabilization of properties in the development pipeline. Other industrial revenues include rental revenues from divested properties that have been contributed to an unconsolidated joint venture, and accordingly are not classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements, and development projects that have reached certain levels of operation and are not yet part of the same store operating pool of properties. In 2003, we acquired properties in Mexico and France, resulting in increased international industrial revenues. The increase in private capital income was primarily due to incentive distributions earned from AMB Partners II, L.P.


Costs and Expenses				2003		2002		$ Change		% Change

Property operating costs:
	Rental expenses			$	84.7	$	72.6	$	12.1		16.7%
	Real estate taxes				67.3		63.9		3.4		5.3%

		Total property operating costs		$	152.0	$	136.5	$	15.5		11.4%


Property operating costs
	U.S. industrial:
		Same store		$	141.4	$	127.5	$	13.9		10.9%
		2003 acquisitions			3.6		–		3.6		–%
		Development			3.6		3.2		0.4		12.5%
		Other industrial			1.8		4.2		(2.4)		(57.1)%
	International industrial				0.4		–		0.4		–%
	Retail				1.2		1.6		(0.4)		(25.0)%

		Total property operating costs			152.0		136.5		15.5		11.4%
Depreciation and amortization					132.2		121.1		11.1		9.2%
Impairment losses					5.3		2.9		2.4		82.8%
General and administrative					46.4		45.1		1.3		2.9%
Fund costs					0.8		1.0		(0.2)		(20.0)%

			Total costs and expenses	$	336.7	$	306.6	$	30.1		9.8%

The $13.9 million increase in same store properties’ operating expenses was primarily due to increases in common area maintenance expenses of $12.0 million and real estate taxes of $2.9 million, partially offset by a decrease in insurance expenses of $1.0 million. The 2003 acquisitions consist of 82 buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet. Other industrial expenses include expenses from divested properties that have been contributed to an unconsolidated joint venture, and accordingly are not classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements, and development properties that have reached certain levels of operation and are not yet part of the same store operating pool of properties. The increase in depreciation and amortization expense was due to the increase in our net investment in real estate, partially offset by a reduction of $2.1 million for the recovery, through the settlement of a lawsuit, of capital expenditures paid in prior years. The 2003 impairment loss was on investments in real estate and leasehold interests. The 2002 impairment included losses for lease cost write-offs of $1.7 million and an impairment on a portion of our planned property contributions of $1.2 million. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to increased stock-based compensation expense of $2.8 million, partially offset by decreased personnel costs and taxes. Fund costs represent general and administrative costs paid to third parties associated with our co-investment joint ventures.


Other Income and (Expenses)		2003		2002		$ Change		% Change

Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures, net		$	5.5	$	5.7	$	(0.2)		(3.5)%
Interest and other income			4.0		9.4		(5.4)		(57.4)%
Gains from dispositions of real estate interests			7.4		8.8		(1.4)		(15.9)%
Development profits, net of taxes			14.4		1.2		13.2		1,100.0%
Interest expense, including amortization			(146.2)		(142.9)		3.3		2.3%

	Total other income and (expenses), net	$	(114.9)	$	(117.8)	$	(2.9)		(2.5)%

The decrease in interest and other income was primarily due to the repayment in full of a $74.0 million 9.5% mortgage note receivable in July 2002. Gains from dispositions of real estate (not classified as discontinued operations) in 2003 resulted from our contribution of $94.0 million in operating properties to our unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, Industrial Fund I, LLC, in February 2003. We recognized a gain of $7.4 million on the contribution, representing the portion of our interest in the contributed properties acquired by the third-party investors for cash. During 2002, we sold two industrial buildings and one retail center, aggregating approximately 0.8 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $50.6 million, with a resulting loss of $0.8 million. In June 2002, we also contributed $76.9 million in operating properties to our consolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP, L.P. We recognized a gain of $3.3 million, representing the sale of our interests in the properties acquired by the third-party investors for cash. In November 2002, our joint venture partner in AMB Partners II, L.P. increased its ownership from 50% to 80% by acquiring 30% of our interest in AMB Partners II, L.P. We recognized a gain of $6.3 million on the sale of our 30% interest. The increase in development profits, net of taxes, resulted from an increased sales volume of $57.8 million in 2003.


Discontinued Operations		2003		2002		$ Change		% Change

Income attributable to discontinued operations, net of minority interests		$	20.0	$	30.0	$	(10.0)		(33.3)%
Gains from dispositions of real estate, net of minority interests			45.4		11.5		33.9		294.8%

	Total discontinued operations	$	65.4	$	41.5	$	23.9		57.6%

During 2003, we divested ourselves of 24 industrial buildings and two retail centers, aggregating approximately 2.8 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $272.3 million, with a resulting net gain of $42.9 million. During 2002, we divested ourselves of 56 industrial buildings, one retail center and an

undeveloped land parcel, aggregating approximately 4.9 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $193.4 million, with a resulting net gain of $10.6 million.


Preferred Units		2003		2002		$ Change		% Change

Preferred unit distributions		$	(18.2)	$	(19.8)	$	(1.6)		(8.1)%
Preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs or premium)			(5.4)		0.4		5.8		1,450.0%

	Total preferred units	$	(23.6)	$	(19.4)	$	4.2		21.6%

The decrease in preferred unit distributions is due primarily to the redemption of all 3,995,800 of our 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units in July 2003. This decrease was offset by the issuance of 2,000,000 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units in June 2003 and 2,300,000 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units in November 2003. The redemption of our 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units resulted in a reduction of income available to common unitholders of $3.7 million for the original issuance costs. In addition, on November 26, 2003, we redeemed all 1,300,000 of our 8⁵/8% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units and recognized a reduction of income available to common unitholders of $1.7 million for the original issuance costs.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Balance Sheet Strategy. In general, we use unsecured lines of credit, unsecured notes, preferred units and common units (issued by us and/or our subsidiaries) to capitalize our 100%-owned assets. Over time, we plan to retire non-recourse, secured debt encumbering our 100%-owned assets and replace that debt with unsecured notes. In managing our co-investment joint ventures, in general, we use non-recourse, secured debt to capitalize our co-investment joint ventures.

We currently expect that our principal sources of working capital and funding for acquisitions, development, expansion and renovation of properties will include:


	•	retained earnings and cash flow from operations;

	•	borrowings under our unsecured credit facilities;

	•	other forms of secured or unsecured financing;

	•	proceeds from debt or limited partnership unit offerings (including issuances of limited partnership units by our subsidiaries);

	•	net proceeds from divestitures of properties;

	•	private capital from co-investment partners; and

	•	contribution of properties and completed development projects to our co-investment joint ventures.

We currently expect that our principal funding requirements will include:


	•	working capital;

	•	development, expansion and renovation of properties;

	•	acquisitions, including our global expansion;


	•	debt service; and

	•	distributions on outstanding common and preferred limited partnership units.

We believe that our sources of working capital, specifically our cash flow from operations, borrowings available under our unsecured credit facilities and our ability to access private and public debt and equity capital, are adequate for us to meet our liquidity requirements for the foreseeable future. The unavailability of capital could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

Capital Resources

Property Contributions. In December 2004, we contributed $71.5 million in operating properties, consisting of eight industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 1.3 million square feet, to our newly formed unconsolidated joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC, with Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte Ltd, a real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, and recognized a gain of $7.2 million representing the partial sale of our interest in the contributed properties acquired by the third-party co-investor for cash.

Property Divestitures. During 2004, we divested ourselves of 21 industrial buildings, two retail centers and one office building, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $200.3 million, with a resulting net gain of $42.0 million.

Development Sales and Contributions. During 2004, we sold seven land parcels and six development projects as part of our development-for-sale program, aggregating approximately 0.3 million square feet for an aggregate price of $40.4 million, resulting in an after-tax gain of $6.5 million. During 2004, we also contributed one completed development project into a newly formed unconsolidated joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC, and recognized an after-tax gain of $2.0 million representing the partial sale of our interest in the contributed property acquired by the third-party co-investor for cash.

Properties Held for Divestiture. As of December 31, 2004, we held for divestiture 25 industrial buildings and one undeveloped land parcel, which are not in our core markets, do not meet our current strategic objectives or which we have included as part of our development-for-sale program. The divestitures of these properties are subject to negotiation of acceptable terms and other customary conditions. As of December 31, 2004, the net carrying value of the properties held for divestiture was $87.3 million. Expected net sales proceeds exceed the net carrying value of the properties.

During 2004, we formed AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. with $136.5 million of equity from co-investment partners to invest in properties in the United States. During 2004, we contributed $71.5 million in operating properties, consisting of eight industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 1.3 million square feet, to our newly formed unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC.

Third-party equity interests in the joint ventures are reflected as minority interests in the consolidated financial statements. As of December 31, 2004, we owned approximately 40.8 million square feet of our properties (36.8% of the total operating and development portfolio) through our consolidated co-investment joint ventures and 4.6 million square feet of our properties through our other consolidated joint ventures. We may

make additional investments through these joint ventures or new joint ventures in the future and presently plan to do so.

Our co-investment joint ventures at December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):


			Our
			Approximate			Original
			Ownership			Planned
Consolidated co-investment Joint Venture		Joint Venture Partner	Percentage			Capitalization ⁽¹⁾

	AMB/ Erie, L.P.	Erie Insurance Company and affiliates		50	%	$	200,000
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P.	AMB Institutional Alliance REIT I, Inc. ⁽²⁾		21	%	$	420,000
	AMB Partners II, L.P.	City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System		20	%	$	500,000
	AMB-SGP, L.P.	Industrial JV Pte Ltd ⁽³⁾		50	%	$	425,000
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P.	AMB Institutional Alliance REIT II, Inc. ⁽⁴⁾		20	%	$	489,000
	AMB-AMS, L.P. ⁽⁵⁾	PMT, SPW and TNO ⁽⁶⁾		39	%	$	200,000
	AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. ⁽⁷⁾	AMB Institutional Alliance REIT III, Inc.		20	%		N/A


(1)	Planned capitalization includes anticipated debt and both partners’ expected equity contributions.
(2)	Comprised of 16 institutional investors as stockholders as of December 31, 2004.
(3)	A subsidiary of the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
(4)	Comprised of 13 institutional investors as stockholders as of December 31, 2004.
(5)	AMB-AMS, L.P. is a co-investment partnership with three Dutch pension funds advised by Mn Services NV.
(6)	PMT is Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek, SPW is Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Woningcorporaties and TNO is Stichting Pensioenfonds TNO.
(7)	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.

Our

Approximate

Original

Ownership

Planned

Unconsolidated co-investment Joint Venture

Joint Venture Partner

Percentage

Capitalization ⁽¹⁾

AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC

Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte Ltd ⁽²⁾

715,000


(1)	Planned capitalization includes anticipated debt and both partners’ expected equity contributions.
(2)	A real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.

Partners’ Capital. As of December 31, 2004, we had outstanding 83,019,229 common general partnership units; 4,600,556 common limited partnership units; 800,000 7.95% series J cumulative redeemable preferred partnership units; 800,000 7.95% series K cumulative redeemable preferred partnership units; 2,000,000 6.5% series L cumulative redeemable preferred partnership units and 2,300,000 6.75% series M cumulative redeemable preferred partnership units.

On June 23, 2003, AMB Property Corporation issued and sold 2,000,000 shares of 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock at a price of $25.00 per share. Dividends are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.625 per annum. The series L preferred stock is redeemable by AMB Property Corporation on or after June 23, 2008, subject to certain conditions, for cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the redemption date. AMB Property Corporation contributed the net proceeds of approximately $48.0 million to us, and in exchange, we issued to AMB Property Corporation 2,000,000 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units. We used the proceeds, in addition to proceeds previously contributed to us from other equity issuances, to redeem all 3,995,800 of our 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units from AMB Property Corporation on July 28, 2003. AMB Property Corporation, in turn, used those proceeds to redeem all

3,995,800 of its 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock for $100.2 million, including all accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, to the redemption date.

On July 14, 2003, AMB Property II, L.P., one of our subsidiaries, repurchased, from an unrelated third party, 66,300 of its series F preferred units for $3.3 million, including accrued and unpaid dividends.

On November 25, 2003, AMB Property Corporation issued and sold 2,300,000 shares of 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock at $25.00 per share. Dividends are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.6875 per annum. The series M preferred stock is redeemable by AMB Property Corporation on or after November 25, 2008, subject to certain conditions, for cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the redemption date. AMB Property Corporation contributed the net proceeds of $55.4 million to us, and in exchange, we issued to AMB Property Corporation 2,300,000 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units.

On November 26, 2003, we redeemed all 1,300,000 of our outstanding 8⁵/8% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units, for an aggregate redemption price of $65.6 million, including accrued and unpaid dividends.

On September 24, 2004, AMB Property II, L.P., a partnership in which Texas AMB I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and AMB Property Corporation’s indirect subsidiary, owns an approximate 1.0% general partnership interest and we own an approximate 99% common limited partnership interest, issued 729,582 5.0% Series N Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units at a price of $50.00 per unit. The series N preferred units were issued to Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc. in exchange for the contribution of certain parcels of land that are located in multiple markets to AMB Property II, L.P. Beginning September 25, 2006 and until and including September 25, 2009, the series N preferred units may be redeemed by AMB Property II, L.P. at a redemption price equal to 99.5% of the original $50.00 per unit capital contribution, plus all accrued and unpaid distributions to the date of redemption, which shall be paid solely out of capital contributed to AMB Property II, L.P. by us or Texas AMB I, LLC (other than with respect to the accumulated but unpaid distributions). Pursuant to a Put Agreement, dated September 24, 2004, by and between us and Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc., beginning on June 1, 2005 and until January 15, 2006, the holders of the series N preferred units will have the right to sell all, but not less than all, of such units to us (or to certain designees) at a price equal to $50.00 per unit, plus all accrued and unpaid distributions to the date of such sale.

As of December 31, 2004, $90.8 million in preferred units with a rate of 7.75%, issued by us, were callable under the terms of our partnership agreement.

In December 2003, AMB Property Corporation’s board of directors approved a new two-year common stock repurchase program for the repurchase of up to $200.0 million of its common stock. AMB Property Corporation did not repurchase or retire any shares of its common stock during the year ended December 31, 2004.

In December 2001, AMB Property Corporation’s board of directors approved a stock repurchase program for the repurchase of up to $100.0 million worth of its common and preferred stock. In December 2002, AMB Property Corporation’s board of directors increased the 2001 repurchase program to $200.0 million. The 2001 stock repurchase program expired in December 2003. During 2002, AMB Property Corporation repurchased 2,651,600 shares of its common stock for $69.4 million, including commissions, and we retired the same number of common general partnership units. In July 2002, AMB Property Corporation also repurchased 4,200 shares of its series A preferred stock for an aggregate cost of $0.1 million, including accrued and unpaid dividends, and we retired the same number of series A preferred units.

During 2003, we redeemed 226,145 of our common limited partnership units for cash and 2,000 of our common limited partnership units for shares of AMB Property Corporation’s common stock. During 2002, we redeemed 122,640 of our common limited partnership units for shares of AMB Property Corporation’s common stock.

In November 2003, AMB Property II, L.P., one of our subsidiaries, also issued 145,548 of its class B common limited partnership units in connection with a property acquisition.

Debt. In order to maintain financial flexibility and facilitate the deployment of capital through market cycles, we presently intend to operate with an our share of total debt-to-our share of total market capitalization ratio of approximately 45% or less. As of December 31, 2004, our share of total debt-to-our share of total market capitalization ratio was 37.8%. Our definition of “our share of total market capitalization” is our share of total debt plus preferred equity liquidation preferences plus market equity. See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratio table contained in Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation — Liquidity and Capital Resources” for our definition of “market equity” and footnote 2 to such table for our definition of “our share of total debt.” However, we typically finance our co-investment joint ventures with secured debt at a loan-to-value ratio of 50-65% per our joint venture partnership agreements. Additionally, we currently intend to manage our capitalization in order to maintain an investment grade rating on our senior unsecured debt. Regardless of these policies, however, our organizational documents do not limit the amount of indebtedness that we may incur. Accordingly, our management could alter or eliminate these policies without stockholder approval or circumstances could arise that could render us unable to comply with these policies.

As of December 31, 2004, the aggregate principal amount of our secured debt was $1.9 billion, excluding unamortized debt premiums of $10.8 million. Of the $1.9 billion of secured debt, $1.4 billion is secured by properties in our joint ventures. The secured debt is generally non-recourse and bears interest at rates varying from 0.7% to 10.4% per annum (with a weighted average rate of 6.3%) and has final maturity dates ranging from April 2005 to November 2022. As of December 31, 2004, $1.8 billion of the secured debt obligations bears interest at fixed rates with a weighted average interest rate of 6.5% while the remaining $96.6 million bears interest at variable rates (with a weighted average interest rate of 2.5%).

As of December 31, 2004, we had issued an aggregate of $1.0 billion in unsecured senior debt securities, which bore a weighted average interest rate of 6.6% and had an average term of 4.6 years. These unsecured senior debt securities include $400.0 million in notes, issued in June 1998, $400.0 million of medium-term notes, which were issued under our 2000 medium-term note program, and $225.0 million of medium-term notes, which were issued under our 2002 medium-term note program. As of December 31, 2004, our 2002 medium-term note program has a remaining capacity of $175.0 million. We intend to continue to issue medium-term notes, guaranteed by AMB Property Corporation, under the 2002 program from time to time and as market conditions permit.

In August 2000, we commenced a medium-term note program and subsequently issued $400.0 million of medium-term notes with a weighted average interest rate of 7.3%. These notes mature between December 2005 and September 2011 and are guaranteed by AMB Property Corporation.

In May 2002, we commenced a new medium-term note program for the issuance of up to $400.0 million in principal amount of medium-term notes, which will be guaranteed by AMB Property Corporation. On November 10, 2003, we issued $75.0 million aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes to Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America under the 2002 medium-term note program. AMB Property Corporation guaranteed the principal amount and interest on the notes, which mature on November 1, 2013, and bear interest at 5.53% per annum. Teachers has agreed that until November 10, 2005, we can require Teachers to return the notes to us for cancellation for an obligation of equal dollar amount under a first mortgage loan to be secured by properties determined by us, except that in the event the ratings on our senior unsecured debt are downgraded by two ratings agencies to BBB-, we will only have ten days after the last of these downgrades to exercise this right. During the period when we can exercise our cancellation right and until any mortgage loans close, Teachers has agreed not to sell, contract to sell, pledge, transfer or otherwise dispose of, any portion of the notes. On December 9, 2004, AMB Property Corporation returned $21.1 million of these senior unsecured notes for cancellation and Teachers issued a first mortgage loan in this principal amount that is secured by certain properties in one of our joint ventures.

In June 1998, we issued $400.0 million of unsecured senior debt securities. Interest on the unsecured senior debt securities is payable semi-annually. The 2015 notes are putable and callable in September 2005.

AMB Property Corporation guarantees our obligations with respect to our senior debt securities. If we are unable to refinance or extend principal payments due at maturity or pay them with proceeds from other capital transactions, then our cash flow may be insufficient to pay distributions to our unitholders in all years and to repay debt upon maturity. Furthermore, if prevailing interest rates or other factors at the time of refinancing (such as the reluctance of lenders to make commercial real estate loans) result in higher interest rates upon refinancing, then the interest expense relating to that refinanced indebtedness would increase. This increased interest expense would adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

Credit Facilities. On June 1, 2004, we completed the early renewal of our senior unsecured revolving line of credit in the amount of $500.0 million. AMB Property Corporation remains a guarantor of our obligations under the credit facility. The three-year credit facility includes a multi-currency component under which up to $250.0 million can be drawn in Yen, Euros or British Pounds Sterling. The line, which matures in June 2007 and carries a one-year extension option, can be increased up to $700.0 million upon certain conditions, and replaces our previous $500.0 million credit facility that was to mature in December 2005. The rate on the borrowings is generally LIBOR plus a margin, based on our long-term debt rating, which is currently 60 basis points with an annual facility fee of 20 basis points, based on the current credit rating of our long-term debt. We use our unsecured credit facility principally for acquisitions, funding development activity and general working capital requirements. The total amount available under the credit facility fluctuates based upon the borrowing base, as defined in the agreement governing the credit facility, which is generally based upon the value of our unencumbered properties. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on the credit facility was $235.1 million and the remaining amount available was $251.0 million, net of outstanding letters of credit of $13.9 million (excluding the additional $200.0 million of potential additional capacity). The outstanding balance included borrowings denominated in Euros and Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, would equal approximately $114.6 million and $92.5 million in U.S. dollars, respectively. As of December 31, 2004, we had an additional outstanding balance of $27.8 million on other credit facilities.

On June 29, 2004, AMB Japan Finance Y.K., one of our subsidiaries, entered into an unsecured revolving credit agreement providing for loans or letters of credit in a maximum principal amount outstanding at any time of up to 24 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, equaled approximately $233.8 million U.S. dollars. We, along with AMB Property Corporation, guarantee the obligations of AMB Japan Finance Y.K. under the revolving credit facility, as well as the obligations of any other entity in which we directly or indirectly owns an ownership interest, and which is selected from time to time to be a borrower under and pursuant to the revolving credit agreement. The borrowers intend to use the proceeds from the facility to fund the acquisition and development of properties and for other real estate purposes in Japan. Generally, borrowers under the revolving credit facility have the option to secure all or a portion of the borrowings under the revolving credit facility with certain real estate assets or equity in entities holding such real estate assets. The revolving credit facility matures in June 2007 and has a one-year extension option, which is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions and the payment of an extension fee equal to 0.25% of the outstanding commitments under the facility at that time. The rate on the borrowings is generally TIBOR plus a margin, which is based on the current credit rating of our long-term debt and is currently 60 basis points. In addition, there is an annual facility fee, payable in quarterly amounts, which is based on the credit rating of our long-term debt, and is currently 20 basis points of the outstanding commitments under the facility. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on this credit facility, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, was $88.8 million in U.S. dollars.

On November 24, 2004, AMB Tokai TMK, one of our Japanese subsidiaries, entered into a secured multi-advance project financing, providing for loans in a maximum principal amount outstanding at any time of up to 20 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, would equal approximately $194.9 million U.S. dollars. The financing agreement is among AMB Tokai TMK, us, AMB Property Corporation, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and a syndicate of banks. We, along with AMB Property Corporation, jointly and severally guarantee AMB Tokai TMK’s obligations under the financing agreement,

pursuant to a guaranty of payment executed in connection with the project financing. The financing is secured by a mortgage on certain real property located in Tokai, Tokyo, Japan, and matures on October 31, 2006 with a one-year extension option. The rate on the borrowings will generally be TIBOR plus a margin, which is based on the credit rating of our long-term debt and is currently 60 basis points per annum, except that AMB Tokai TMK has purchased from Sumitomo an interest rate swap, which has fixed the interest rate payable on a principal amount equal to 13 billion Yen at 1.32% per annum plus the applicable margin. In addition, there is an annual commitment fee based on unused commitments, payable quarterly, which is based on the credit rating of our long-term debt, and is currently 20 basis points of the amount of unused commitments. The financing agreement contains customary and other affirmative covenants, including financial reporting requirements and maintenance of specified financial ratios, and negative covenants, including limitations on the incurrence of liens and limitations on mergers or consolidations. In addition, we, Sumitomo and AMB Tokai TMK signed a commitment letter on November 24, 2004, pursuant to which Sumitomo committed to purchase bonds that may be issued by AMB Tokai TMK in an amount between 10 billion Yen and 15 billion Yen (such amount to be determined by AMB Tokai TMK). The bonds would be secured by the AMB Ohta Distribution Center and would generally accrue interest at a rate of TIBOR plus 1.10% per annum; because the swap purchased by AMB Tokai TMK from Sumitomo is coterminous with the maturity date of the proposed bonds, AMB Tokai TMK will have fixed the interest rate payable on, in general, a principal amount equal to 13 billion Yen at 2.42% per annum. The bonds, if issued, would mature on October 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on this financing agreement was 14 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, equaled approximately $136.4 million U.S. dollars.

Mortgages Receivable. Through a wholly-owned subsidiary, we hold a mortgage loan receivable on AMB Pier One, LLC, an unconsolidated joint venture. The note bears interest at 13.0% and matures in May 2026. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on the note was $12.9 million. We also hold a short-term mortgage on a sold property totaling $0.8 million with an interest rate of 12.0%. The mortgage matures in November 2006.

The tables below summarize our debt maturities and capitalization as of December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):


Debt

				Our			Joint			Unsecured
				Secured			Venture			Senior Debt			Unsecured			Credit
				Debt ⁽⁴⁾			Debt ⁽⁴⁾			Securities			Debt			Facilities ⁽¹⁾			Total Debt

2005				$	43,398		$	65,802		$	250,000		$	647		$	–		$	359,847
2006					80,641			72,184			75,000			698			27,826			256,349
2007					16,386			70,920			75,000			752			323,873			486,931
2008					42,091			174,431			175,000			810			–			392,332
2009					5,644			119,163			100,000			873			–			225,680
2010					71,471			149,960			75,000			941			–			297,372
2011					80,319			412,055			75,000			1,014			–			568,388
2012					133,781			177,833			–			1,093			–			312,707
2013					1,985			117,346			53,940			920			–			174,191
2014					2,105			3,777			–			616			–			6,498
Thereafter					7,108			33,358			125,000			664			–			166,130

	Subtotal				484,929			1,396,829			1,003,940			9,028			351,699			3,246,425
	Unamortized premiums				3,510			7,256			–			–			–			10,766

			Total consolidated debt		488,439			1,404,085			1,003,940			9,028			351,699			3,257,191
	Our share of unconsolidated joint venture debt ⁽²⁾				–			105,829			–			–			–			105,829

			Total debt		488,439			1,509,914			1,003,940			9,028			351,699			3,363,020
	Joint venture partners’ share of consolidated joint venture debt				–			(967,974)			–			–			–			(967,974)

		Our share of total debt ⁽³⁾		$	488,439		$	541,940		$	1,003,940		$	9,028		$	351,699		$	2,395,046

Weighed average interest rate					5.3	%		6.4	%		6.6	%		7.5	%		1.9	%		5.8	%
Weighed average maturity (in years)					5.4			6.1			4.6			9.8			2.4			5.1


(1)	Includes Euro, Yen and Singapore dollar-based borrowings translated to U.S. dollars using the functional exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2004.
(2)	The weighted average interest and maturity for the unconsolidated joint venture debt were 5.3% and 4.9 years, respectively.
(3)	Our share of total debt is the pro rata portion of the total debt based on our percentage of equity interest in each of the consolidated ventures holding the debt. We believe that our share of total debt is a meaningful supplemental measure, which enables both management and investors to analyze our leverage and to compare our leverage to that of other companies. In addition, it allows for a more meaningful comparison of our debt to that of other companies that do not consolidate their joint ventures. Our share of total debt is not intended to reflect our actual liability should there be a default under any or all of such loans or a liquidation of the joint ventures. The above table reconciles our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure. For the calculation of the joint venture partners’ share of consolidated joint venture debt used in the above table, please see Part 1, Item 2: “Properties held through Joint Ventures, Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships — Co-investment Consolidated Joint Ventures.”

(4) Our secured debt and joint venture debt include debt related to international assets in the amount of $269.5 million. Of this, $195.2 million is associated with assets located in Asia and the remaining $74.3 million is related to assets located in Europe.


Market Capital

		Units		Market		Market
Security		Outstanding		Price ⁽¹⁾		Value ⁽¹⁾

Common units			83,019,229	$	40.39	$	3,353,147
Common limited partnership units ⁽²⁾			4,746,104	$	40.39		191,695

	Total		87,765,333			$	3,544,842


(1)	Assumes that our general partnership units are exchanged for AMB Property Corporation’s common stock on a one-for-one basis because there is no public market for our units.
(2)	Includes 145,548 class B common limited partnership units issued by AMB Property II, L.P. in November 2003.


Preferred Units

		Distribution			Liquidation		Redemption
Security		Rate			Preference		Provisions

Series D preferred units			7.75	%	$	79,767		May 2004
Series E preferred units			7.75	%		11,022		August 2004
Series F preferred units			7.95	%		10,057		March 2005
Series H preferred units			8.13	%		42,000		September 2005
Series I preferred units			8.00	%		25,500		March 2006
Series J preferred units			7.95	%		40,000		September 2006
Series K preferred units			7.95	%		40,000		April 2007
Series N preferred units			5.00	%		36,479		September 2009
Series L preferred units			6.50	%		50,000		June 2008
Series M preferred units			6.75	%		57,500		November 2008

	Weighted average/total		7.29	%	$	392,325


Capitalization Ratios as of December 31, 2004

Total debt-to-total market capitalization ⁽¹⁾			46.0%
Our share of total debt-to-our share of total market capitalization ^(1)(2)(3)			37.8%
Total debt plus preferred-to-total market capitalization ⁽¹⁾⁽³⁾			51.4%
Our share of total debt plus preferred-to-our share of total market capitalization ^(1)(2)(3)			44.0%
Our share of total debt-to-our share of total book capitalization ⁽¹⁾⁽⁴⁾			54.0%

(1)

Our definition of “total market capitalization” is total debt plus preferred equity liquidation preferences plus market equity. Our definition of “our share of total market capitalization” is our share of total debt plus preferred equity liquidation preferences plus market equity. Our definition of “market equity” is the total number of outstanding shares of our general partner’s common stock and our common limited partnership units multiplied by the closing price per share of our general partner’s common stock as of December 31, 2004.

(2) Our share of total debt is the pro rata portion of the total debt based on our percentage of equity interest in each of the consolidated ventures holding the debt. We believe that our share of total debt is a meaningful supplemental measure, which enables both management and investors to analyze our leverage and to compare our leverage to that of other companies. In addition, it allows for a more meaningful comparison of our debt to that of other companies that do not consolidate their joint ventures. Our share of total debt is not intended to reflect our actual liability should there be a default under any or all of such loans or a liquidation of the joint ventures. For a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure, please see the table of debt maturities and capitalization on the preceding page in “— Liquidity and Capital Resources — Capital Resources.”

(3) Our definition of “preferred” is preferred equity liquidation preferences.

(4) Our share of total book capitalization is defined as our share of total debt plus minority interests to preferred unitholders and limited partnership unitholders plus partners’ capital.

Liquidity

As of December 31, 2004, we had $109.4 million in cash and cash equivalents (of which $69.0 million was held by our consolidated co-investment joint ventures), and $418.3 million of additional available borrowings under our credit facilities. As of December 31, 2004, we had $37.2 million in restricted cash (of which $21.2 million was held by our consolidated co-investment joint ventures).

We announced our intention to pay a regular cash distribution for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 of $0.425 per common unit. The distributions were payable on January 7, 2005 to unitholders of record on December 23, 2004. The series L and M preferred unit distributions were payable on January 17, 2005 to our general partner, AMB Property Corporation, as the sole unitholder. The series E, F, J and K preferred unit quarterly distributions were payable on January 17, 2005. The series D, H and I preferred unit quarterly distributions were payable on December 27, 2004.

The following table sets forth the distributions paid or payable per unit for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002:


Paying Entity		Security		2004		2003		2002

	Operating Partnership		Common limited partnership units	$	1.70	$	1.66	$	1.64
	Operating Partnership		Series B preferred units		n/a	$	3.71	$	4.31
	Operating Partnership		Series J preferred units	$	3.98	$	3.98	$	3.98
	Operating Partnership		Series K preferred units	$	3.98	$	3.98	$	2.96
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Class B common limited partnership units	$	1.70	$	0.22		n/a
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series D preferred units	$	3.88	$	3.88	$	3.88
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series E preferred units	$	3.88	$	3.88	$	3.88
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series F preferred units	$	3.98	$	3.98	$	3.98
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series G preferred units		n/a		n/a	$	2.14
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series H preferred units	$	4.06	$	4.06	$	4.06
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series I preferred units	$	4.00	$	4.00	$	4.00
	AMB Property II, L.P.		Series N preferred units	$	0.70		n/a		n/a

The anticipated size of our distributions, using only cash from operations, will not allow us to retire all of our debt as it comes due. Therefore, we intend to also repay maturing debt with net proceeds from future debt or limited partnership unit offerings (including issuances of limited partnership units by our subsidiaries), as well as property divestitures. However, we may not be able to obtain future financings on favorable terms or at all. Our inability to obtain future financings on favorable terms or at all would adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

Capital Commitments

Developments. In addition to recurring capital expenditures, which consist of building improvements and leasing costs incurred to renew or re-tenant space, during 2004, we initiated 14 new industrial development projects in the United States and Mexico with a total estimated investment of $235.4 million, aggregating an estimated 3.1 million square feet, four new industrial developments in Japan and Singapore with a total expected investment of $368.8 million, aggregating approximately 2.7 million square feet, and one new industrial development in Europe with a total expected investment of $44.3 million, aggregating approximately 0.3 million square feet. As of December 31, 2004, we had 30 projects in our development pipeline representing a total estimated investment of $828.7 million upon completion, of which four industrial projects with a total of 1.2 million square feet and an aggregate estimated investment of $55.0 million upon completion are held in unconsolidated joint ventures. In addition, we held four development projects available for sale, representing a total estimated investment of $29.2 million upon completion. Of this total, $515.2 million had been funded as of December 31, 2004 and an estimated $342.7 million was required to complete current and planned projects. We expect to fund these expenditures with cash from operations, borrowings under our credit facilities, debt or limited partnership unit issuances (including issuances of limited partnership units by our subsidiaries), net proceeds from property divestitures and private capital from co-investment partners, which could have an adverse effect on our cash flow.

Acquisitions. During 2004, we acquired 64 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square feet for a total expected investment of $695.2 million, of which we acquired 48 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 4.2 million square feet through three of our co-investment joint ventures, for a total expected investment of $261.0 million. We generally fund our acquisitions through private capital contributions, borrowings under our credit facilities, cash, debt issuances and net proceeds from property divestitures.

Lease Commitments. We have entered into operating ground leases on certain land parcels, primarily on-tarmac facilities and office space with remaining lease terms from two to 58 years. These operating lease payments are amortized ratably over the terms of the related leases. Future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable operating leases in effect as of December 31, 2004 were as follows (dollars in thousands):


2005		$	10,810
2006			11,320
2007			11,280
2008			11,310
2009			11,169
Thereafter			222,437

	Total	$	278,326

Co-investment Joint Ventures. We enter into co-investment joint ventures with institutional investors. These co-investment joint ventures are managed by our private capital group and provide us with an additional source of capital to fund acquisitions, development projects and renovation projects, as well as private capital income. As of December 31, 2004, we had investments in co-investment joint ventures with a gross book value of $2.6 billion, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes, and investments in an unconsolidated co-investment joint venture of $9.5 million. As of December 31, 2004, we may make additional capital contributions to current and planned co-investment joint ventures of up to $47.9 million. From time to time, we may raise additional equity commitments for AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P., an open-ended consolidated co-investment joint venture formed in 2004 with institutional investors, which invest through a private real estate investment trust. Pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement of this fund, we are obligated to contribute 20% of the total equity commitments to the fund until such time our total equity commitment is greater than $150 million, at which time, our obligation is reduced to 10% of the total equity commitments. We expect to fund these contributions with cash from operations, borrowings under our credit facilities, debt or limited partnership unit

issuances (including issuances of limited partnership units by our subsidiaries) or net proceeds from property divestitures, which could adversely effect our cash flow.

Captive Insurance Company. In December 2001, we formed a wholly-owned captive insurance company, Arcata National Insurance Ltd., which provides insurance coverage for all or a portion of losses below the deductible under our third-party policies. We capitalized Arcata National Insurance Ltd. in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Arcata National Insurance Ltd. established annual premiums based on projections derived from the past loss experience of our properties. Annually, we engage an independent third party to perform an actuarial estimate of future projected claims, related deductibles and projected expenses necessary to fund associated risk management programs. Premiums paid to Arcata National Insurance Ltd. may be adjusted based on this estimate. Premiums paid to Arcata National Insurance Ltd. have a retrospective component, so that if expenses, including losses and deductibles, are less than premiums collected, the excess may be returned to the property owners (and, in turn, as appropriate, to the customers) and conversely, subject to certain limitations, if expenses, including losses, are greater than premiums collected, an additional premium will be charged. As with all recoverable expenses, differences between estimated and actual insurance premiums are recognized in the subsequent year. Through this structure, we believe that we have more comprehensive insurance coverage at an overall lower cost than would otherwise be available in the market.

Potential Unknown Liabilities. Unknown liabilities may include the following:


	•	liabilities for clean-up or remediation of undisclosed environmental conditions;

	•	claims of customers, vendors or other persons dealing with our predecessors prior to our formation transactions that had not been asserted prior to our formation transactions;

	•	accrued but unpaid liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business;

	•	tax liabilities; and

	•	claims for indemnification by the officers and directors of our general partner’s predecessors and others indemnified by these entities.


	*Overview of Contractual Obligations*

The following table summarizes our debt, interest and lease payments due by period as of December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):


		Less than						More than
Contractual Obligations		1 Year		1-3 Years		3-5 Years		5 Years		Total

Debt		$	359,847	$	743,280	$	618,012	$	1,525,286	$	3,246,425
Debt interest payments			25,154		30,438		36,117		108,280		199,989
Operating lease commitments			10,810		22,600		22,479		222,437		278,326

	Total	$	395,811	$	796,318	$	676,608	$	1,856,003	$	3,724,740

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Standby Letters of Credit. As of December 31, 2004, we had provided approximately $33.6 million in letters of credit, of which $13.9 million was provided under our $500.0 million unsecured credit facility. The letters of credit were required to be issued under certain ground lease provisions, bank guarantees and other commitments.

Guarantees. Other than parent guarantees associated with our unsecured debt, as of December 31, 2004, we had outstanding guarantees in the aggregate amount of $34.7 million in connection with certain acquisitions and lease obligations of which $8.3 million was backed by standby letters of credit. As of December 31, 2004, we guaranteed $4.8 million on outstanding construction loans on two of our unconsolidated joint ventures. Additionally, we provided a take out guarantee after the completion of construction on the aggregate construction loan amount of $30.2 million for another of our unconsolidated joint ventures, of which $20.9 million was outstanding as of December 31, 2004. In connection with this construction loan, our joint venture partner provides an underlying construction loan guarantee up to the completion of construction.

Performance and Surety Bonds. As of December 31, 2004, we had outstanding performance and surety bonds in an aggregate amount of $1.2 million. These bonds were issued in connection with certain of our development projects and were posted to guarantee certain tax obligations and the construction of certain real property improvements and infrastructure, such as grading, sewers and streets. Performance and surety bonds are commonly required by public agencies from real estate developers. Performance and surety bonds are renewable and expire upon the payment of the taxes due or the completion of the improvements and infrastructure.

Promoted Interests and Other Contractual Obligations. Upon the achievement of certain return thresholds and the occurrence of certain events, we may be obligated to make payments to certain of joint venture partners pursuant to the terms and provisions of their contractual agreements with us. From time to time in the normal course of our business, we enter into various contracts with third parties that may obligate us to make payments or perform other obligations upon the occurrence of certain events.

SUPPLEMENTAL EARNINGS MEASURES

FFO. We believe that net income, as defined by GAAP, is the most appropriate earnings measure. However, we consider funds from operations, or FFO, as defined by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”), to be a useful supplemental measure of our operating performance. FFO is defined as net income, calculated in accordance with GAAP, less gains (or losses) from dispositions of real estate held for investment purposes and real estate-related depreciation, and adjustments to derive our pro rata share of FFO of consolidated and unconsolidated joint ventures. Further, we do not adjust FFO to eliminate the effects of non-recurring charges. We believe that FFO, as defined by NAREIT, is a meaningful supplemental measure of our operating performance because historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time, as reflected through depreciation and amortization expenses. However, since real estate values have historically risen or fallen with market and other conditions, many industry investors and analysts have considered presentation of operating results for real estate companies that use historical cost accounting to be insufficient. Thus, NAREIT created FFO as a supplemental measure of operating performance for real estate investment trusts that excludes historical cost depreciation and amortization, among other items, from net income, as defined by GAAP. We believe that the use of FFO, combined with the required GAAP presentations, has been beneficial in improving the understanding of operating results of real estate investment trusts, such as AMB Property Corporation, our general partner, among the investing public and making comparisons of operating results among such companies more meaningful. We consider FFO to be a useful measure for reviewing our comparative operating and financial performance because, by excluding gains or losses related to sales of previously depreciated operating real estate assets and real estate depreciation and amortization, FFO can help the investing public compare the operating performance of a company’s real estate between periods or as compared to other companies.

While FFO is a relevant and widely used measure of operating performance of real estate investment trusts, it does not represent cash flow from operations or net income as defined by GAAP and should not be considered as an alternative to those measures in evaluating our liquidity or operating performance. FFO also does not consider the costs associated with capital expenditures related to our real estate assets nor is FFO necessarily indicative of cash available to fund our future cash requirements. Further, our computation of FFO may not be comparable to FFO reported by other real estate investment trusts that do not define the term in accordance with the current NAREIT definition or that interpret the current NAREIT definition differently than we do.

The following table reflects the calculation of FFO reconciled from net income for the years ended December 31 (dollars in thousands):


			2004		2003		2002		2001		2000

Net income			$	138,516	$	147,089	$	139,054	$	150,272	$	135,432
Income available to common unitholders attributable to limited partners				(6,685)		(6,773)		(6,659)		(7,591)		(8,042)
Gains from dispositions of real estate				(47,224)		(50,325)		(19,383)		(41,859)		(7,044)
Real estate related depreciation and amortization:
	Total depreciation and amortization			160,026		132,167		121,069		101,455		81,523
	Discontinued operations’ depreciation			7,324		10,170		15,434		12,088		8,835
	Furniture, fixtures and equipment depreciation			(871)		(720)		(712)		(731)		(380)
	Ground lease amortization ⁽³⁾			–		–		(2,301)		(1,232)		(734)
Adjustments to derive FFO from consolidated joint ventures:
	Joint venture partners’ minority interests (Net Income)			37,817		31,726		27,320		23,731		11,086
	Limited partnership unitholders’ minority interests (Net Income)			3,318		2,890		4,004		5,322		6,676
	Limited partnership unitholders’ minority interests (Development profits)			435		344		57		764		–
	Discontinued operations’ minority interests (Net Income)			4,573		4,991		5,105		4,666		2,586
	FFO attributable to minority interests			(80,192)		(65,603)		(52,051)		(40,144)		(15,055)
Adjustments to derive FFO from unconsolidated joint ventures:
	Our share of net income			(3,781)		(5,445)		(5,674)		(5,467)		(5,212)
	Our share of FFO			7,549		9,755		9,291		8,014		7,188
Preferred unit distributions				(13,491)		(18,187)		(19,772)		(14,981)		(14,108)
Preferred unit redemption discount (issuance costs)				–		(5,413)		412		(7,600)		–

		Funds from operations	$	207,314	$	186,666	$	215,194	$	186,707	$	202,751


Basic FFO per common unit			$	2.39	$	2.17	$	2.44	$	2.09	$	2.26


Diluted FFO per common unit			$	2.30	$	2.13	$	2.40	$	2.07	$	2.25


Weighted average common units:
		Basic		86,885,250		85,859,899		88,204,208		89,286,379		89,566,375

		Diluted		90,120,250		87,616,365		89,689,310		90,325,801		90,024,511

BUSINESS RISKS

Our operations involve various risks that could have adverse consequences to us. These risks include, among others:

General Real Estate Industry Risks


	*Our performance and value are subject to general economic conditions and risks associated with our real estate assets.*

The investment returns available from equity investments in real estate depend on the amount of income earned and capital appreciation generated by the properties, as well as the expenses incurred in connection with the properties. If our properties do not generate income sufficient to meet operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, then our ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders could be adversely affected. In addition, there are significant expenditures associated with an investment in real estate (such as mortgage payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs) that generally do not decline when circumstances reduce the income from the property. Income from, and the value of, our properties may be adversely affected by:


	•	changes in the general economic climate;

	•	local conditions, such as oversupply of or a reduction in demand for industrial space;

	•	the attractiveness of our properties to potential customers;

	•	competition from other properties;

	•	our ability to provide adequate maintenance and insurance;

	•	increased operating costs;

	•	increased cost of compliance with regulations; and

	•	the potential for liability under applicable laws (including changes in tax laws).

In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession in the United States and in other countries, rising interest rates or declining demand for real estate, or public perception that any of these events may occur, would result in a general decrease in rents or an increased occurrence of defaults under existing leases, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Future terrorist attacks may result in declining economic activity, which could reduce the demand for and the value of our properties. To the extent that future attacks impact our customers, their businesses similarly could be adversely affected, including their ability to continue to honor their existing leases.

Our properties are concentrated predominantly in the industrial real estate sector. As a result of this concentration, we would feel the impact of an economic downturn in this sector more acutely than if our portfolio included other property types.


	*We may be unable to renew leases or relet space as leases expire.*

As of December 31, 2004, leases on a total of 16.3% of our industrial properties (based on annualized base rent) will expire on or prior to December 31, 2005. We derive most of our income from rent received from our customers. Accordingly, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders could be adversely affected if we are unable to promptly relet or renew these expiring leases, if the rental rates upon renewal or reletting are significantly lower

than expected. If a tenant experiences a downturn in its business or other type of financial distress, then it may be unable to make timely rental payments or renew its lease. Further, our ability to rent space and the rents that we can charge are impacted, not only by customer demand, but by the number of other properties we have to compete with to appeal to customers.


	*Actions by our competitors may decrease or prevent increases of the occupancy and rental rates of our properties.*

We compete with other developers, owners and operators of real estate, some of which own properties similar to ours in the same submarkets in which our properties are located. If our competitors offer space at rental rates below current market rates or below the rental rates we currently charge our tenants, we may lose potential tenants, and we may be pressured to reduce our rental rates below those we currently charge in order to retain tenants when our tenants’ leases expire. As a result, our financial condition, cash flow, cash available for distribution and ability to satisfy our debt service obligations could be materially adversely affected.


	*Real estate investments are relatively illiquid, making it difficult for us to respond promptly to changing conditions.*

Real estate assets are not as liquid as certain other types of assets. Further, our general partner is a real estate investment trust and the Internal Revenue Code regulates the number of properties that it can dispose of in a year, their tax bases and the cost of improvements to the properties. In addition, a portion of the properties held directly or indirectly by certain of our subsidiary partnerships were acquired in exchange for limited partnership units in the applicable partnership. The contribution agreements for such properties may contain restrictions on certain sales, exchanges or other dispositions of these properties, or a portion thereof, that result in a taxable transaction for specified periods, following the contribution of these properties to the applicable partnership. These limitations may affect our ability to sell properties. This lack of liquidity and the Internal Revenue Code restrictions may limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions and, as a result, could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

We could be adversely affected if a significant number of our tenants are unable to meet their lease obligations.

Our results of operations, distributable cash flow and the value of our common units would be adversely affected if a significant number of our tenants were unable to meet their lease obligations to us. In the event of a significant number of lease defaults, our cash flow may not be sufficient to pay distributions to unitholders and repay maturing debt. As of December 31, 2004, we did not have any single tenant account for annualized base rent revenues greater than 3.4%. However, in the event of lease defaults by a significant number of our tenants, we may incur substantial costs in enforcing our rights as landlord.

We may be unable to consummate acquisitions on advantageous terms or acquisitions may not perform as we expect.

We acquire and intend to continue to acquire primarily industrial properties. The acquisition of properties entails various risks, including the risks that our investments may not perform as we expect, that we may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate our new acquisitions into our existing operations and that our cost estimates for bringing an acquired property up to market standards may prove inaccurate. Further, we face significant competition for attractive investment opportunities from other well-capitalized real estate investors, including both publicly-traded real estate investment trusts and private institutional investment funds. This competition increases as investments in real estate become increasingly attractive relative to other forms of investment. As a result of competition, we may be unable to acquire additional properties as we desire or the purchase price may be significantly elevated. In addition, we expect to finance future acquisitions through a combination of borrowings under our unsecured credit facility, proceeds from debt or limited partnership unit offerings by us or our subsidiaries and proceeds from property divestitures, which may not be available and which

could adversely affect our cash flow. Any of the above risks could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

We may be unable to complete renovation and development projects on advantageous terms.

As part of our business, we develop new and renovate existing properties. The real estate development and renovation business involves significant risks that could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders, which include:


	•	we may not be able to obtain financing for development projects on favorable terms and complete construction on schedule or within budget, resulting in increased debt service expense and construction costs and delays in leasing the properties and generating cash flow;

	•	we may not be able to obtain, or may experience delays in obtaining, all necessary zoning, land-use, building, occupancy and other governmental permits and authorizations;

	•	the properties may perform below anticipated levels, producing cash flow below budgeted amounts;

	•	substantial renovation and new development activities, regardless of their ultimate success, typically require a significant amount of management’s time and attention, diverting their attention from our day-to-day operations; and

	•	upon completion of construction, we may not be able to obtain, or obtain on advantageous terms, permanent financing for activities that we have financed through construction loans.

Risks Associated With Our International Business


	*Our international growth is subject to special risks and we may not be able to effectively manage our international growth.*

We have acquired and developed, and expect to continue to acquire and develop, properties in international countries. Because local markets affect our operations, our international investments are subject to economic fluctuations in the international locations in which we invest. In addition, our international operations are subject to the usual risks of doing business abroad such as revisions in tax treaties or other laws and regulations, including those governing the taxation of our international revenues, restrictions on the transfer of funds, and, in certain parts of the world, property rights uncertainty and political instability. We cannot predict the likelihood that any of these developments may occur. Further, we have entered, and may in the future enter, into agreements with non-U.S. entities that are governed by the laws of, and are subject to dispute resolution in the courts of, another country or region. We cannot accurately predict whether such a forum would provide us with an effective and efficient means of resolving disputes that may arise. And even if we are able to obtain a satisfactory decision through arbitration or a court proceeding, we could have difficulty enforcing any award or judgment on a timely basis or at all.

Further, our business has grown rapidly and continues to grow through international property acquisitions and developments. If we fail to effectively manage our international growth, then our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders could be adversely affected.


	*Acquired properties may be located in new markets, where we may face risks associated with investing in an unfamiliar market.*

We have acquired and may continue to acquire properties in international markets that are new to us. When we acquire properties located in these markets, we may face risks associated with a lack of market knowledge or

understanding of the local economy, forging new business relationships in the area and unfamiliarity with local government and permitting procedures. We work to mitigate such risks through extensive diligence and research and associations with experienced partners, however there can be no guarantee that all such risks will be eliminated.


	*We are subject to risks from potential fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies of the other countries in which we invest.*

We are pursuing, and intend to continue to pursue, growth opportunities in international markets. As we invest in countries where the U.S. dollar is not the national currency, we are subject to international currency risks from the potential fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies of those other countries. A significant depreciation in the value of the currency of one or more countries where we have a significant investment may materially affect our results of operations. We attempt to mitigate any such effects by borrowing under our multi-currency credit facility in the currency of the country we are investing in and, under certain circumstances, by putting in place international currency put option contracts hedging exchange rate fluctuations. For leases denominated in international currencies, we may use derivative financial instruments to manage the international exchange risk. We cannot, however, assure you that our efforts will successfully neutralize all international currency risks. If we do engage in international currency exchange rate hedging activities, any income recognized with respect to these hedges (as well as any international currency gain recognized with respect to changes in exchange rates) may not qualify under the 75% gross income test or the 95% gross income test that our general partner must satisfy annually in order to qualify and maintain its status as a REIT.

Our performance and value are impacted by the local economic conditions of and the risks associated with doing business in California.

As of December 31, 2004, our industrial properties located in California represented 27.0% of the aggregate square footage of our industrial operating properties and 27.8% of our industrial annualized base rent. Our revenue from, and the value of, our properties located in California may be affected by local real estate conditions (such as an oversupply of or reduced demand for industrial properties) and the local economic climate. Business layoffs, downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics, and other factors may adversely impact California’s economic climate. Because of the number of properties we have located in California, a downturn in California’s economy or real estate conditions could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

We may experience losses that our insurance does not cover.

We carry commercial liability, property and rental loss insurance covering all the properties that we own and manage in types and amounts that we believe are adequate and appropriate given the relative risks applicable to the property, the cost of coverage and industry practice. Certain losses, such as those due to terrorism, windstorms, floods or seismic activity, may be insured subject to certain limitations, including large deductibles or co-payments and policy limits. Although we have obtained coverage for certain acts of terrorism, with policy specifications and insured limits that we consider commercially reasonable given the cost and availability of such coverage, we cannot be certain that we will be able to renew coverage on comparable terms or collect under such policies. In addition, there are other types of losses, such as those from riots, bio-terrorism, or acts of war, that are not generally insured in our industry because it is not economically feasible to do so. We may incur material losses in excess of insurance proceeds and we may not be able to continue to obtain insurance at commercially reasonable rates. If we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds our insured limits with respect to one or more of our properties, then we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated future revenue from those properties and, if there is recourse debt, then we would remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the properties. Moreover, as the general partner of the joint ventures, we generally will be liable for all of the joint ventures’ unsatisfied recourse obligations. Any such losses could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

A number of our properties are located in areas that are known to be subject to earthquake activity. Domestic properties located in active seismic areas include properties in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Memphis and Seattle. Our largest concentration of such properties is in California where, as of December 31, 2004, we had 289 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 24.4 million square feet and representing 27.0% of our industrial operating properties based on aggregate square footage and 27.8% based on industrial annualized base rent. International properties located in active seismic areas include Tokyo and Osaka, Japan and Mexico City, Mexico. We carry replacement-cost earthquake insurance on all of our properties located in areas historically subject to seismic activity, subject to coverage limitations and deductibles that we believe are commercially reasonable. We evaluate our earthquake insurance coverage annually in light of current industry practice through an analysis prepared by outside consultants.

We are subject to risks and liabilities in connection with properties owned through joint ventures, limited liability companies and partnerships.

As of December 31, 2004, we owned approximately 55.6 million square feet of our properties through several joint ventures, limited liability companies or partnerships with third parties. Our organizational documents do not limit the amount of available funds that we may invest in partnerships, limited liability companies or joint ventures and we intend to continue to develop and acquire properties through joint ventures, limited liability companies and partnerships with other persons or entities when warranted by the circumstances. Such partners may share certain approval rights over major decisions. Partnership, limited liability company or joint venture investments involve certain risks, including:


	•	if our partners, co-members or joint venturers go bankrupt, then we and any other remaining general partners, members, or joint venturers would generally remain liable for the partnership’s, limited liability company’s, or joint venture’s liabilities;

	•	if our partners fail to fund their share of any required capital contributions;

	•	our partners, co-members or joint venturers might have economic or other business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our business interests or goals that would affect our ability to operate the property;

	•	our partners, co-members or joint venturers may have the power to act contrary to our instructions, requests, policies, or objectives, including our general partner’s current policy with respect to maintaining its qualification as a real estate investment trust;

	•	the joint venture, limited liability and partnership agreements often restrict the transfer of a joint venture’s, member’s or partner’s interest or “buy-sell” or may otherwise restrict our ability to sell the interest when we desire or on advantageous terms;

	•	disputes between us and our partners, co-members or joint venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent AMB Property Corporation’s officers and directors from focusing their time and effort on our business and result in subjecting the properties owned by the applicable partnership or joint venture to additional risk; and

	•	we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our partners, co-members or joint venturers.

We generally seek to maintain sufficient control of our partnerships, limited liability companies, and joint ventures to permit us to achieve our business objectives, however, we may not be able to do so, and the occurrence of one or more of the events described above could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

We may be unable to complete divestitures on advantageous terms or contribute properties.

We intend to continue to divest ourselves of properties that do not meet our strategic objectives, provided that we can negotiate acceptable terms and conditions. Our ability to dispose of properties on advantageous terms depends on factors beyond our control, including competition from other sellers and the availability of attractive financing for potential buyers of our properties. If we are unable to dispose of properties on favorable terms or redeploy the proceeds of property divestitures in accordance with our investment strategy, then our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders could be adversely affected.

We also anticipate contributing or selling properties to funds and joint ventures. If we do not have sufficient properties available that meet the investment criteria of current or future property funds, or if the funds have reduced or no access to capital on favorable terms, then such contributions or sales could be delayed or prevented, adversely affecting our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.

Contingent or unknown liabilities could adversely affect our financial condition.

We have and may in the future acquire properties subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, with respect to unknown liabilities. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon ownership of any of these entities or properties, then we might have to pay substantial sums to settle it, which could adversely affect our cash flow. Unknown liabilities with respect to entities or properties acquired might include:


	•	liabilities for clean-up or remediation of undisclosed environmental conditions;

	•	accrued but unpaid liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business;

	•	tax liabilities; and

	•	claims for indemnification by the general partners, officers and directors and others indemnified by the former owners of the properties.

We are dependent on external sources of capital.

In order for our general partner, AMB Property Corporation, to qualify as a real estate investment trust, it is required each year to distribute to its stockholders at least 90% of its real estate investment trust taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends-paid deduction and by excluding any net capital gain) and it is taxed on its income to the extent it is not fully distributed. We are required to make distributions to AMB Property Corporation that will enable it to satisfy this distribution requirement and avoid tax liability. Consequently, we may not be able to fund all future capital needs, including acquisition and development activities, from cash retained from operations and must rely on third-party sources of capital. Further, in order for our general partner, AMB Property Corporation, to maintain its REIT status and avoid the payment of income and excise taxes, AMB Property Corporation may need to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the REIT distribution requirements even if the then prevailing market conditions are not favorable for these borrowings. These short-term borrowing needs could result from differences in timing between the actual receipt of cash and inclusion of income for federal income tax purposes or the effect of non-deductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves or required debt or amortization payments. Our ability, and that of our general partner, to access private debt and equity capital on favorable terms or at all is dependent upon a number of factors, including, general market conditions, the market’s perception of our growth potential, our current and potential future earnings and cash distributions and the market price of AMB Property Corporation’s capital stock.

Debt Financing Risks


	*We could incur more debt, increasing our debt service.*

It is our policy to incur debt, either directly or through our subsidiaries, only if it will not cause our share of total debt-to-our share of total market capitalization ratio to exceed approximately 45%. Our definition of “our share of total market capitalization” is our share of total debt plus preferred equity liquidation preferences plus market equity. See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratio table contained in Part II, Item 7: “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation — Liquidity and Capital Resources” for our definition of “market equity” and footnote 2 to such table for our definition of “our share of total debt.” The aggregate amount of indebtedness that we may incur under our policy increases directly with an increase in the market price per share of AMB Property Corporation’s capital stock. Further, our general partner’s management could alter or eliminate this policy without unitholder or noteholder approval. If we change this policy, then we could become more highly leveraged, resulting in an increase in debt service that could adversely affect the cash available for distribution to our unitholders.


	*We face risks associated with the use of debt to fund acquisitions and developments, including refinancing risk.*

As of December 31, 2004, we had total debt outstanding of $3.3 billion. AMB Property Corporation guarantees our obligations with respect to the senior debt securities referenced in our financial statements. We are subject to risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that our cash flow will be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest. We anticipate that we will repay only a small portion of the principal of our debt prior to maturity. Accordingly, we will likely need to refinance at least a portion of our outstanding debt as it matures. There is a risk that we may not be able to refinance existing debt or that the terms of any refinancing will not be as favorable as the terms of our existing debt. If we are unable to refinance or extend principal payments due at maturity or pay them with proceeds of other capital transactions, then we expect that our cash flow will not be sufficient in all years to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders to repay all such maturing debt. Furthermore, if prevailing interest rates or other factors at the time of refinancing (such as the reluctance of lenders to make commercial real estate loans) result in higher interest rates upon refinancing, then the interest expense relating to that refinanced indebtedness would increase.

In addition, if we mortgage one or more of our properties to secure payment of indebtedness and we are unable to meet mortgage payments, then the property could be foreclosed upon or transferred to the mortgagee with a consequent loss of income and asset value. A foreclosure on one or more of our properties could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.


	*Covenants in our debt agreements could adversely affect our financial condition.*

The terms of our credit agreements and other indebtedness require that we comply with a number of customary financial and other covenants, such as maintaining debt service coverage and leverage ratios and maintaining insurance coverage. These covenants may limit flexibility in our operations, and our failure to comply with these covenants could cause a default under the applicable debt agreement even if we have satisfied our payment obligations. As of December 31, 2004, we had certain non-recourse, secured loans, which are cross-collateralized by multiple properties. If we default on any of these loans, we may then be required to repay such indebtedness, together with applicable prepayment charges, to avoid foreclosure on all the cross-collateralized properties within the applicable pool. Foreclosure on our properties, or our inability to refinance our loans on favorable terms, could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders. In addition, our credit facilities and senior debt securities contain certain cross-default provisions, which are triggered in the event that our other material indebtedness is in default. These cross-default provisions may require us to repay or restructure the credit facilities and the senior debt securities in addition to any mortgage or other debt that is in default, which could

adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders.


	*Failure to hedge effectively against interest rates may adversely affect results of operations.*

We seek to manage our exposure to interest rate volatility by using interest rate hedging arrangements, such as interest rate cap agreements and interest rate swap agreements. These agreements involve risks, such as the risk that the counterparties may fail to honor their obligations under these arrangements, that these arrangements may not be effective in reducing our exposure to interest rate changes and that a court could rule that such agreements are not legally enforceable. Hedging may reduce overall returns on our investments. Failure to hedge effectively against interest rate changes may materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Conflicts of Interest Risks


	*Some of AMB Property Corporation’s directors and executive officers are involved in other real estate activities and investments and therefore, may have conflicts of interest with us.*

Certain of AMB Property Corporation’s executive officers and directors own interests in other real-estate related businesses and investments, including retail development projects, office buildings and de minimis holdings of the equity securities of public and private real estate companies. AMB Property Corporation’s executive officers’ continued involvement in other real estate-related activities could divert their attention from our day-to-day operations. AMB Property Corporation’s executive officers have entered into non-competition agreements with AMB Property Corporation pursuant to which they have agreed not to engage in any activities, directly or indirectly, in respect of commercial real estate, and not to make any investment in respect of any industrial or retail real estate, other than through ownership of not more than 5% of the outstanding shares of a public company engaged in such activities or through the existing investments referred to in this report. State law may limit AMB Property Corporation’s ability to enforce these agreements. We believe that these properties and activities generally do not directly compete with any of our properties. However, it is possible that a property in which an executive officer or director, or an affiliate of an executive officer or director of AMB Property Corporation, has an interest may compete with us in the future if we were to invest in a property similar in type and in close proximity to that property. We will not acquire any properties from AMB Property Corporation’s executive officers, directors or their affiliates unless the transaction is approved by a majority of the disinterested and independent (as defined by the rules of the New York Stock Exchange) members of AMB Property Corporation’s board of directors with respect to that transaction.


	*AMB Property Corporation’s duty to its stockholders may conflict with the interests of our limited partners and noteholders.*

AMB Property Corporation has fiduciary obligations to its stockholders, the discharge of which may conflict with the interests of our limited partners and noteholders.

Risks Associated with Government Regulations


	*The costs of compliance with environmental laws and regulations and any related potential liability could exceed our budgets for these items.*

Under various environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the costs of investigation, removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products at, on, under or in its property. The costs of removal or remediation of such substances could be substantial. These laws typically impose liability and clean-up responsibility without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the presence of the contaminants. Even if more than one person may have been responsible for the contamination, each person covered by the environmental laws may be held responsible for all of the clean-up costs incurred. In addition, third parties may sue the owner or operator of

a site for damages based on personal injury, property damage, or other costs, including investigation and clean-up costs, resulting from the environmental contamination.

Environmental laws in some countries, including the U.S., also require that owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos properly manage and maintain the asbestos, adequately inform or train those who may come into contact with asbestos and undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, in the event that asbestos is disturbed during building renovation or demolition. These laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements and may allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos. Some of our properties may contain asbestos-containing building materials.

In addition, some of our properties are leased or have been leased, in part, to owners and operators of businesses that use, store, or otherwise handle petroleum products or other hazardous or toxic substances, creating a potential for the release of such hazardous or toxic substances. Further, certain of our properties are on, adjacent to or near other properties that have contained or currently contain petroleum products or other hazardous or toxic substances, or upon which others have engaged, are engaged or may engage in activities that may release such hazardous or toxic substances. From time to time, we may acquire properties, or interests in properties, with known adverse environmental conditions where we believe that the environmental liabilities associated with these conditions are quantifiable and that the acquisition will yield a superior risk-adjusted return. In such an instance, we underwrite the costs of environmental investigation, clean-up and monitoring into the acquisition cost and obtain appropriate environmental insurance for the property. Further, in connection with certain divested properties, we have agreed to remain responsible for, and to bear the cost of, remediating or monitoring certain environmental conditions on the properties.

At the time of acquisition, we subject all of our properties to a Phase I or similar environmental assessments by independent environmental consultants and we may have additional Phase II testing performed upon consultant’s recommendation. These environmental assessments have not revealed, and we are not aware of, any environmental liability that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole. Nonetheless, it is possible that the assessments did not reveal all environmental liabilities and that there are material environmental liabilities unknown to us, or that known environmental conditions may give rise to liabilities that are greater than we anticipated. Further, our properties’ current environmental condition may be affected by customers, the condition of land, operations in the vicinity of the properties (such as releases from underground storage tanks), or by unrelated third parties. If the costs of compliance with existing or future environmental laws and regulations exceed our budgets for these items, then our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders could be adversely affected.


	*Compliance or failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other similar regulations could result in substantial costs.*

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, places of public accommodation must meet certain federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the award of damages to private litigants. If we are required to make unanticipated expenditures to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including removing access barriers, then our cash flow and the amounts available for distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders may be adversely affected. Our properties are also subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life-safety requirements. We could incur fines or private damage awards if we fail to comply with these requirements. While we believe that our properties are currently in material compliance with these regulatory requirements, the requirements may change or new requirements may be imposed that could require significant unanticipated expenditures by us that will affect our cash flow and results of operations.

Federal Income Tax Risks


	*Certain property transfers may generate prohibited transaction income, resulting in a penalty tax on gain attributable to the transaction.*

From time to time, we may transfer or otherwise dispose of some of our properties. Under the Internal Revenue Code, any gain resulting from transfers of properties that we hold as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business would be treated as income from a prohibited transaction subject to a 100% penalty tax. Since we acquire properties for investment purposes, we do not believe that our occasional transfers or disposals of property are treated as prohibited transactions. However, whether property is held for investment purposes is a question of fact that depends on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular transaction. The Internal Revenue Service may contend that certain transfers or disposals of properties by us are prohibited transactions. While we believe that the Internal Revenue Service would not prevail in any such dispute, if the IRS were to argue successfully that a transfer or disposition of property constituted a prohibited transaction, then our general partner would be required to pay a 100% penalty tax on any gain allocable to us from the prohibited transaction.

Risks Associated with Our Dependence on Our General Partner’s Key Personnel

We depend on the efforts of our general partner’s executive officers. While we believe that we could find suitable replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services or the limitation of their availability could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments to our noteholders. AMB Property Corporation does not have employment agreements with any of its executive officers.

Risks Associated with Our Disclosure Controls and Procedures and Internal Control over Financial Reporting


	*Our business could be adversely impacted if we have deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting.*

The design and effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting may not prevent all errors, misstatements or misrepresentations. As part of management’s on-going review of our accounting policies and internal control over financial reporting, on October 12, 2004, management determined that there was a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting related to ground lease depreciation. This weakness resulted in an understatement of depreciation expense and resulted in a restatement of depreciation expense for our results in previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 and for the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and June 30, 2004. In connection with correcting this error, management modified our system of internal control over financial reporting to remediate the material weakness. As of December 31, 2004, management had appropriately remediated this issue and the material weakness no longer existed. While management will continue to review the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, there can be no guarantee that our internal control over financial reporting will be effective in accomplishing all control objectives all of the time. Other deficiencies, including any material weakness, in our internal control over financial reporting which may occur in the future could result in misstatements of our results of operations, restatements of our financial statements, a decline in our general partner’s stock price, or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, reputation, results of operation, financial condition or liquidity.

Item 7a. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Market risk is the risk of loss from adverse changes in market prices, interest rates and international exchange rates. Our future earnings and cash flows are dependent upon prevailing market rates. Accordingly, we manage our market risk by matching projected cash inflows from operating, investing and financing activities with projected cash outflows for debt service, acquisitions, capital expenditures, distributions to unitholders and

payments to noteholders, and other cash requirements. The majority of our outstanding debt has fixed interest rates, which minimizes the risk of fluctuating interest rates. Our exposure to market risk includes interest rate fluctuations in connection with our credit facilities and other variable rate borrowings and our ability to incur more debt without unitholder or noteholder approval, thereby increasing our debt service obligations, which could adversely affect our cash flows. As of December 31, 2004, we had two outstanding interest rate swaps with aggregate notional amount of $137.1 million (in U.S. dollars). See Financial Instruments disclosure below.

The table below summarizes the market risks associated with our fixed and variable rate debt outstanding before unamortized debt premiums of $10.8 million as of December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):



	2005			2006			2007			2008			2009			Thereafter			Total

Fixed rate debt ⁽¹⁾	$	358,798		$	172,312		$	145,740		$	386,761		$	188,305		$	1,496,223		$	2,748,139
Average interest rate		7.0	%		6.6	%		6.9	%		6.7	%		4.8	%		7.2	%		6.6	%
Variable rate debt ⁽²⁾	$	1,049		$	84,037		$	341,191		$	5,571		$	37,375		$	29,063		$	498,286
Average interest rate		3.6	%		2.6	%		2.0	%		2.8	%		2.7	%		1.9	%		2.1	%
Interest Payments	$	25,154		$	13,558		$	16,880		$	26,069		$	10,048		$	108,280		$	199,989


(1)	Represents 84.7% of all outstanding debt.
(2)	Represents 15.3% of all outstanding debt.

If market rates of interest on our variable rate debt increased by 10%, then the increase in interest expense on the variable rate debt would be $1.1 million annually. As of December 31, 2004, the book value and the estimated fair value of our total consolidated debt (both secured and unsecured) was $3.4 billion based on our estimate of current market interest rates.

As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, variable rate debt comprised 15.3% and 14.7%, respectively, of all our outstanding debt. Variable rate debt was $498.3 million and $378.0 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2004 and 2003. The increase is primarily due to higher outstanding balances on our credit facilities. This increase in our outstanding variable rate debt increases our risk associated with unfavorable interest rate fluctuations.

Financial Instruments. We record all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value as an asset or liability, with an offset to accumulated other comprehensive income or income. For revenues or expenses denominated in non-functional currencies, we may use derivative financial instruments to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk. Our derivative financial instruments in effect at December 31, 2004 were two put options (buy USD/sell MXN) hedging against adverse currency exchange fluctuations of the Mexican peso against the U.S. dollar and

two interest rate swaps hedging cash flows of our variable rate borrowings based on Euribor (Europe) and Japanese TIBOR (Japan). The following table summarizes our financial instruments as of December 31, 2004:


		Maturity Dates
										Notional
Related Derivatives (in thousands)		March-05		Dec-08			October-12			Amount		Fair Value

Interest Rate Swaps:
Plain Interest Rate Swap, Japan
Notional Amount (U.S. Dollars)							$	126,669		$	126,669
Receive Floating (%)								3M TIBOR
Pay Fixed Rate (%)								1.32	%
Fair Market Value							$	–				$	(1,211)
Plain Interest Rate Swap, Europe
Notional Amount (U.S. Dollars)				$	10,437					$	10,437
Receive Floating (%)					3M EURIBOR
Pay Fixed Rate (%)					3.72	%
Fair Market Value				$	–							$	(13)
Foreign Exchange Agreements:
Option to Sell MXN/ Buy USD
Contract Amount (U.S. Dollars)		$	2,422							$	2,422
Contract FX Rate			11.50
Contract Premium		$	43									$	30

	Total									$	139,528	$	(1,194)

International Operations. Our exposure to market risk also includes foreign currency exchange rate risk. The U.S. dollar is the functional currency for our subsidiaries operating in the United States and Mexico. The functional currency for our subsidiaries operating outside North America is generally the local currency of the country in which the entity is located, mitigating the effect of currency exchange gains and losses. Our subsidiaries whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar translate their financial statements into U.S. dollars. Assets and liabilities are translated at the exchange rate in effect as of the financial statement date. We translate income statement accounts using the average exchange rate for the period and significant nonrecurring transactions using the rate on the transaction date. Losses resulting from the translation are included in partners’ capital and totaled $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Our international subsidiaries may have transactions denominated in currencies other than their functional currency. In these instances, non-monetary assets and liabilities are reflected at the historical exchange rate, monetary assets and liabilities are remeasured at the exchange rate in effect at the end of the period and income statement accounts are remeasured at the average exchange rate for the period. For the year ended December 31, 2004, gains from remeasurement included in our consolidated statements of operations were $0.5 million.

We also record gains or losses in the income statement when a transaction with a third party, denominated in a currency other than the entity’s functional currency, is settled and the functional currency cash flows realized are more or less than expected based upon the exchange rate in effect when the transaction was initiated. We believe that these gains and losses are immaterial.


Item 8.	*Financial Statements and Supplementary Data*

See Item 15: “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedule.”


Item 9.	*Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure*

None.


Item 9A.	*Controls and Procedures*


	Restatement of Depreciation Expense

On October 12, 2004, our general partner announced a restatement of depreciation expense for our prior period results relating to 39 buildings in our portfolio, 38 of which are located on-tarmac, which is land owned by federal, state or local airport authorities. As part of management’s on-going review of our accounting policies and internal control over financial reporting, management determined that we should have depreciated certain of our investments in buildings that reside on land subject to ground leases over the remaining terms of the ground leases, rather than over 40 years, which is the period used to depreciate buildings that we hold in fee simple. Management determined that the cause for this depreciation error was that there was no mechanism in place to segregate and apply appropriate depreciable lives to assets subject to ground leases. Our general ledger did not have a separate account designation for assets subject to ground leases so these assets were not segregated into a separate expected useful life category for depreciation purposes.

Management also determined that the internal control deficiency that resulted in this restatement represented a material weakness, as defined by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Auditing Standard No. 2. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has defined material weakness as “a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected.” Our conclusion that the control deficiencies surrounding ground lease depreciation constituted a material weakness means that there was a more than remote likelihood of a material misstatement in our financial statements for future periods. As of December 31, 2004, management had appropriately remediated this issue and the material weakness no longer existed.

These assets are now depreciated over the lesser of 40 years or the contractual term of the underlying ground lease. In connection with correcting the depreciation error, management modified our system of internal control over financial reporting to remediate this internal control deficiency. Specifically, we implemented the following remediation measures with respect to this material weakness:


	•	Management modified our existing property acquisition accounting checklist system to identify ground leases to the appropriate accounting and finance personnel who create journal entries in the general ledger and to communicate certain information regarding such ground leases, including lease commencement and termination dates and any contractual extension options.

	•	Management created new general ledger accounts to segregate ground lease assets from fee simple assets and reclassified all investments in buildings that reside on land subject to ground leases into the new general ledger accounts.

	•	Management modified our existing property depreciation accounting policy to include a separate category for buildings residing on land subject to ground leases, which under the policy will be depreciated over the lesser of 40 years or the contractual term of the underlying ground lease.

	•	Management designated certain finance personnel to review our quarterly depreciation calculations, which will include a review for the correct depreciable lives of ground lease assets.

Management restated our consolidated financial statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 originally filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2004 and March 15, 2004, respectively, and our Quarterly Reports on Forms 10-Q/A for the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and June 30, 2004, originally

filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2004 and August 9, 2004, respectively. Management and the audit committee of our general partner’s board of directors discussed with our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and determined that this was the proper approach.


	Disclosure Controls and Procedures and Changes to Internal Control over Financial Reporting

As required by Rule 13a-15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the chief executive officer, president and chief financial officer of our general partner, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures that were in effect as of the end of the year covered by this report. The chief executive officer, president and chief financial officer of our general partner each concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2004. In light of the implementation of the new remediation measures described above, the chief executive officer, president and chief financial officer of our general partner believe that management appropriately modified our internal control over financial reporting relating to ground lease depreciation and remediated the material weakness as of December 31, 2004. The changes in our internal control over financial reporting discussed above materially affected our internal control over financial reporting.

Except as stated above, there have been no other changes in our internal control over financial reporting during our most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.


	Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer of our general partner, and effected by our general partner’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and includes those policies and procedures that:


	(1)	Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions involving our assets;

	(2)	Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our management and directors; and

	(3)	Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Internal control over financial reporting cannot provide absolute assurance of achieving financial reporting objectives because of its inherent limitations. Internal control over financial reporting is a process that involves human diligence and compliance, and is subject to lapses in judgment and breakdowns resulting from human failures. Internal control over financial reporting also can be circumvented by collusion or improper management override. Because of such limitations, there is a risk that material misstatements may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by internal control over financial reporting. However, these inherent limitations are known features of the financial reporting process. Therefore, it is possible to design into the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk.

Our management has used the framework set forth in the report entitled “Internal Control — Integrated Framework” published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission to evaluate

the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Based on our evaluation under the framework in “Internal Control — Integrated Framework,” our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2004.

Our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 has been audited by our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as stated in their report which appears herein.

Respectfully,

Hamid R. Moghadam, Chairman and CEO

W. Blake Baird, President and Director

Michael A. Coke, CFO and Executive Vice President

Item 9B. Other Information

None.

PART III

Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

The information required by Items 10 through 14 will be contained in a definitive proxy statement for AMB Property Corporation’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which our general partner anticipates will be filed no later than 120 days after the end of our fiscal year pursuant to Regulation 14A and accordingly these items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K.

PART IV


Item 15.	*Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedule*

(a)(1) and (2) Financial Statements and Schedule:

The following consolidated financial information is included as a separate section of this report on Form 10-K.


	Page

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		F-1
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2004 and 2003		F-3
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002		F-4
Consolidated Statements of Partners’ Capital for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002		F-5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002		F-6
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		F-7
Schedule III — Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation		S-1

All other schedules are omitted since the required information is not present in amounts sufficient to require submission of the schedule or because the information required is included in the financial statements and notes thereto.

(a)(3) Exhibits:


Exhibit
Number			Description


	3	.1	Tenth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of AMB Property, L.P. dated as of November 26, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 26, 2003).

	4	.1	$30,000,000 7.925% Fixed Rate Note No. 1 dated August 18, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated August 18, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.2	$25,000,000,000 7.925% Fixed Rate Note No. 2 dated September 12, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated September 12, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.3	$50,000,000 8.00% Fixed Rate Note No. 3 dated October 26, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated October 26, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.4	$25,000,000 8.000% Fixed Rate Note No. 4 dated October 26, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated October 26, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.5	$50,000,000 7.20% Fixed Rate Note No. 5 dated December 19, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated December 19, 2000 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2001).

	4	.6	$50,000,000 7.20% Fixed Rate Note No. 6 dated December 19, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated December 19, 2000 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2001).

	4	.7	$50,000,000 7.20% Fixed Rate Note No. 7 dated December 19, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated December 19, 2000 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2001).

	4	.8	Specimen of 7.10% Notes due 2008 (included in the First Supplemental Indenture incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.9	Specimen of 7.50% Notes due 2018 (included in the Second Supplemental Indenture incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.10	Specimen of 6.90% Reset Put Securities due 2015 (included in the Third Supplemental Indenture incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.4 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.11	$25,000,000 6.90% Fixed Rate Note No. 8 dated January 9, 2001, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated January 9, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 31, 2001).

	4	.12	$50,000,000 7.00% Fixed Rate Note No. 9 dated March 7, 2001, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated March 7, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 16, 2001).

	4	.13	$25,000,000 6.75% Fixed Rate Note No. 10 dated September 6, 2001, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated September 6, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 18, 2001).

	4	.14	$20,000,000 5.90% Fixed Rate Note No. 11 dated January 17, 2002, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated January 17, 2002 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 23, 2002).


Exhibit
Number			Description

	4	.15	$75,000,000 5.53% Fixed Rate Note No. B-1 dated November 10, 2003, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated November 10, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003).

	4	.16	$50,000,000 Floating Rate Note No. B-1 dated November 21, 2003, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated November 21, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 21, 2003).

	4	.17	$100,000,000 Fixed Rate Note No. B-2 dated March 16, 2004, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated March 16, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 17, 2004).

	4	.18	Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.19	First Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998 by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.20	Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.21	Third Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.22	Fourth Supplemental Indenture, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K/ A filed on November 9, 2000).

	4	.23	Fifth Supplemental Indenture dated as of May 7, 2002, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.15 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002).

	10	.1	Distribution Agreement dated May 7, 2002, by and among AMB Property Corporation, AMB Property, L.P., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Commerzbank Capital Markets Corp., First Union Securities, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., and PNC Capital Markets, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003).

	*10	.2	Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).

	*10	.3	Amendment No. 1 to the Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).

	*10	.4	Amendment No. 2 to the Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P., dated September 23, 2004.

	*10	.5	2002 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).


Exhibit
Number			Description

	*10	.6	Amendment No. 1 to the 2002 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P., dated September 23, 2004.

	*10	.7	Form of Amended and Restated Change of Control and Noncompetition Agreement by and between AMB Property, L.P. and executive officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 15, 2004).

	*10	.8	Amended and Restated AMB Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.17 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-100214)).

	10	.9	Thirteenth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of AMB Property II, L.P., dated September 24, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2004).

	10	.10	Put Agreement, dated September 24, 2004, by and between Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc. and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2004).

	10	.11	Note Purchase Agreement dated as of November 5, 2003, by and between AMB Property, L.P. and Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 6, 2003).

	10	.12	Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2004 by and among AMB Property L.P., the banks listed therein, JPMorgan Chase Bank, as administrative agent, J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, as administrative agent for alternate currencies, Bank of America, N.A., as syndication agent, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Banc of America Securities LLC, as joint lead arrangers and joint bookrunners, Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft New York and Grand Cayman Branches, PNC Bank National Association and Wachovia Bank, N.A., as documentation agents, KeyBank National Association, The Bank of Nova Scotia, acting through its San Francisco Agency, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as managing agents, and ING Real Estate Finance (USA) LLC, Southtrust Bank and Union Bank of California, N.A., as co-agents (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004).

	10	.13	Guaranty of Payment, dated as of June 1, 2004 by AMB Property Corporation for the benefit of JPMorgan Chase Bank, as administrative agent, and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, as administrative agent for alternate currencies, for the banks listed on the signature page to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004).

	10	.14	Qualified Borrower Guaranty, dated as of June 1, 2004 by AMB Property, L.P. for the benefit of JPMorgan Chase Bank and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, as administrative agents for the banks listed on the signature page to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004).

	10	.15	Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2004, by and among AMB Japan Finance Y.K., as initial borrower, AMB Property, L.P., as guarantor, AMB Property Corporation, as guarantor, the banks listed on the signature pages thereof, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger and bookmanager (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 2, 2004).

	10	.16	Guaranty of Payment, dated as of June 29, 2004 by AMB Property, L.P. and AMB Property Corporation for the benefit of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger and bookmanager, for the banks that are from time to time parties to the Revolving Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 2, 2004).

*Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement


Exhibit
Number			Description


	10	.17	Credit Facility Agreement, dated as of November 24, 2004, by and among AMB Tokai TMK, as borrower, AMB Property, L.P., as guarantor, AMB Property Corporation, as guarantor, the banks listed on the signature pages thereof, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger an bookmanager (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 1, 2004).

	10	.18	Guaranty of Payment, dated as of November 24, 2004 by AMB Property, L.P. and AMB Property Corporation for the benefit of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger and bookmanager, for the banks that are from time to time parties to the Credit Facility Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 1, 2004).

	10	.19	Agreement of Sale made as of October 6, 2003, by and between AMB Property, L.P., International Airport Centers L.L.C. and certain affiliated entities (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 6, 2003).

	21	.1	Subsidiaries of AMB Property, L.P.

	23	.1	Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

	24	.1	Powers of Attorney (included in Part IV of this 10-K)

	31	.1	Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications dated March 14, 2005.

	32	.1	18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certifications dated March 14, 2005. The certifications in this exhibit are being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any of our filings, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

(b) Financial Statement Schedule:

See Item 15(a)(1) and (2) above.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, AMB Property, L.P. has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on March 14, 2005.


	AMB PROPERTY, L.P.
	By: AMB Property Corporation, its General Partner


	By:	/s/ HAMID R. MOGHADAM



	Hamid R. Moghadam
	Chairman of the Board and
	Chief Executive Officer

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the undersigned officers and directors of AMB Property Corporation, the general partner of AMB Property, L.P., hereby severally constitute Hamid R. Moghadam, W. Blake Baird, Michael A. Coke and Tamra D. Browne, and each of them singly, our true and lawful attorneys with full power to them, and each of them singly, to sign for us and in our names in the capacities indicated below, the Form 10-K filed herewith and any and all amendments to said Form 10-K, and generally to do all such things in our names and in our capacities as officers and directors to enable AMB Property Corporation, as general partner of AMB Property, L.P., to enable AMB Property, L.P. to comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming our signatures as they may be signed by our said attorneys, or any of them, to said Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of AMB Property Corporation, as general partner of AMB Property, L.P., and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


Name	Title	Date


/s/ HAMID R. MOGHADAM Hamid R. Moghadam	Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)	March 14, 2005

/s/ W. BLAKE BAIRD W. Blake Baird	President and Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ T. ROBERT BURKE T. Robert Burke	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ DAVID A. COLE David A. Cole	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ LYDIA H. KENNARD Lydia H. Kennard	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ J. MICHAEL LOSH J. Michael Losh	Director	March 14, 2005


Name	Title	Date


/s/ FREDERICK W. REID Frederick W. Reid	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ JEFFREY L. SKELTON Jeffrey L. Skelton	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ THOMAS W. TUSHER Thomas W. Tusher	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ CARYL B. WELBORN Caryl B. Welborn	Director	March 14, 2005

/s/ MICHAEL A. COKE Michael A. Coke	Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President (Duly Authorized Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)	March 14, 2005

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Partners of AMB Property, L.P.:

We have completed an integrated audit of AMB Property, L.P.’s 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and audits of its 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are presented below.

Consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)(1) present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of AMB Property, L.P. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)(2) presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and the financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Partnership adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity, in 2003.

Internal control over financial reporting

Also, in our opinion, management’s assessment, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A, that the Partnership maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on those criteria. Furthermore, in our opinion, the Partnership maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the COSO. The Partnership’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management’s assessment and on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in

F-1

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Francisco, California

February 28, 2005

F-2

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

As of December 31, 2004 and 2003


				December 31,		December 31,
				2004		2003

				(Dollars in thousands, except
				share amounts)
ASSETS
Investments in real estate:
	Land			$	1,509,145	$	1,403,807
	Buildings and improvements				4,305,622		3,888,272
	Construction in progress				711,377		199,628

		Total investments in properties			6,526,144		5,491,707
	Accumulated depreciation and amortization				(615,646)		(485,559)

		Net investments in properties			5,910,498		5,006,148
Investments in unconsolidated joint ventures					55,166		52,009
Properties held for divestiture, net					87,340		11,751

		Net investments in real estate			6,053,004		5,069,908
Cash and cash equivalents					109,392		127,678
Restricted cash					37,201		28,985
Mortgages receivable					13,738		43,145
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $5,755 and $6,581, respectively					109,028		88,452
Deferred financing costs, net					28,340		18,595
Other assets					36,240		32,796

		Total assets		$	6,386,943	$	5,409,559


LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
Debt:
	Secured debt			$	1,892,524	$	1,363,890
	Unsecured senior debt securities				1,003,940		925,000
	Unsecured debt				9,028		9,628
	Unsecured credit facilities				351,699		275,739

		Total debt			3,257,191		2,574,257
Security deposits					40,260		33,461
Distributions payable					41,103		39,076
Accounts payable and other liabilities					180,923		114,558

		Total liabilities			3,519,477		2,761,352
Commitments and contingencies (Note 14)
	Minority interests:
	Joint venture partners				828,622		658,723
	Preferred unitholders				203,302		166,865

		Total minority interests			1,031,924		825,588
Partners’ capital:
	General partner, 83,019,229 and 81,563,502 units outstanding, respectively; 2,000,000 Series L preferred units issued and outstanding with a $50,000 liquidation preference and 2,300,000 Series M preferred units issued and outstanding with a $57,500 liquidation preference				1,671,140		1,657,137
	Limited partners, 4,600,556 and 4,618,242 units, respectively; 800,000 Series J preferred units with a $40,000 liquidation preference, 800,000 Series K preferred units with a $40,000 liquidation preference				164,402		165,482

		Total partners’ capital			1,835,542		1,822,619

			Total liabilities and partners’ capital	$	6,386,943	$	5,409,559

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-3

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

For the Years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002


				2004		2003		2002

				(Dollars in thousands, except per unit and per
				unit amounts)
REVENUES
	Rental revenues			$	652,794	$	573,292	$	552,038
	Private capital income				12,895		13,337		11,193

			Total revenues		665,689		586,629		563,231
COSTS AND EXPENSES
	Property operating expenses				(94,667)		(84,653)		(72,561)
	Real estate taxes				(73,839)		(67,370)		(63,890)
	Depreciation and amortization				(160,026)		(132,167)		(121,069)
	Impairment losses				–		(5,251)		(2,846)
	General and administrative				(58,956)		(46,429)		(45,149)
	Fund costs				(1,741)		(825)		(1,051)

			Total costs and expenses		(389,229)		(336,695)		(306,566)

OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSES
	Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures, net				3,781		5,445		5,674
	Interest and other income				3,958		4,009		9,446
	Gains from dispositions of real estate interests				5,219		7,429		8,771
	Development profits, net of taxes				8,528		14,441		1,171
	Interest expense, including amortization				(157,852)		(146,230)		(142,918)

			Total other income and expenses, net		(136,366)		(114,906)		(117,856)

			Income before minority interests and discontinued operations		140,094		135,028		138,809

	Minority interests’ share of income:
		Joint venture partners’ share of operating income			(37,817)		(31,726)		(27,320)
		Joint venture partners’ share of development profits			(523)		(8,098)		(139)
		Preferred unitholders			(13,903)		(13,443)		(13,873)

			Total minority interests’ share of income		(52,243)		(53,267)		(41,332)

Income from continuing operations					87,851		81,761		97,477

Discontinued operations:
	Income attributable to discontinued operations, net of minority interests				5,949		19,969		30,037
	Gains from dispositions of real estate, net of minority interests				44,716		45,359		11,540

		Total discontinued operations			50,665		65,328		41,577

	Net income				138,516		147,089		139,054
Series A, L and M preferred unit distributions					(7,131)		(6,999)		(8,496)
Series B, J and K preferred unit distributions					(6,360)		(11,188)		(11,276)
Preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs or premium)					–		(5,413)		412

			Net income available to common unitholders	$	125,025	$	123,489	$	119,694

Income available to common unitholders attributable to:
	General partner			$	118,340	$	116,716	$	113,035
	Limited partners				6,685		6,773		6,659

			Net income available to common unitholders	$	125,025	$	123,489	$	119,694

Basic income per common unit
	Income from continuing operations (includes preferred unit distributions and preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs or premium))			$	0.86	$	0.68	$	0.89
	Discontinued operations				0.58		0.76		0.47

			Net income available to common unitholders	$	1.44	$	1.44	$	1.36

Diluted income per common unit
	Income from continuing operations (includes preferred unit distributions and preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs or premium)			$	0.83	$	0.66	$	0.87
	Discontinued operations				0.56		0.75		0.46

			Net income available to common unitholders	$	1.39	$	1.41	$	1.33

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON UNITS OUTSTANDING
	Basic				86,885,250		85,859,899		88,204,208

	Diluted				90,120,250		87,616,365		89,689,310

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-4

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

For the Years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002

General Partner

Limited Partners

Preferred Units

Common Units

Preferred Units

Common Units

Units

Amount

Units

Amount

Units

Amount

Units

Amount

Total

(Dollars in thousands, except unit amounts)

Balance as of December 31, 2001

4,000,000

96,100

83,592,418

1,651,289

2,100,000

101,225

4,969,027

98,673

1,947,287

Comprehensive income:

Net income

–

8,496

–

112,623

–

11,276

–

6,659

Unrealized gain on securities

–

412

–

Currency translation adjustment

–

Total comprehensive income

–

139,497

Contributions

–

800,000

38,932

–

38,932

Issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with the issuance of restricted stock and options

–

170,604

7,478

–

7,478

Issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with the exercise of stock options

–

565,976

14,830

–

14,830

Conversion of operating partnership units to common stock

–

122,640

2,309

–

2,309

Conversion of operating partnership units to cash

–

(122,640)

(2,309)

Retirement of units

(4,200)

(106)

(2,651,600)

(69,399)

–

(69,505)

Deferred compensation

–

(7,478)

–

(7,478)

Deferred compensation amortization

–

5,265

–

5,265

Reallocation of interests

–

(54)

–

946

–

(982)

(90)

Distributions

–

(8,496)

–

(137,221)

–

(11,276)

–

(7,963)

(164,956)

Balance as of December 31, 2002

3,995,800

95,994

81,800,038

1,580,085

2,900,000

141,103

4,846,387

94,078

1,911,260

Comprehensive income:

Net income

–

6,999

–

116,716

–

11,188

–

6,773

Unrealized gain on securities

–

812

–

Currency translation adjustment

–

662

–

Total comprehensive income

143,150

Contributions

4,300,000

103,373

–

103,373

Issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with the issuance of restricted stock and options

–

256,611

11,473

–

11,473

Issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with the exercise of stock options

–

317,753

6,947

–

6,947

Conversion of operating partnership units to common stock

–

2,000

–

(2,000)

(38)

Conversion of operating partnership units to cash

–

(226,145)

(4,340)

Retirement of units

(3,995,800)

(95,994)

(812,900)

(21,239)

(1,300,000)

(63,288)

–

(180,521)

Deferred compensation

–

(11,470)

–

(11,470)

Deferred compensation amortization

–

8,076

–

8,076

Reallocation of interests

–

(1,102)

–

(956)

(2,058)

Distributions

–

(6,999)

–

(137,254)

–

(11,188)

–

(7,850)

(163,291)

Balance as of December 31, 2003

4,300,000

103,373

81,563,502

1,553,764

1,600,000

77,815

4,618,242

87,667

1,822,619

Comprehensive income:

Net income

–

7,131

–

118,340

–

6,360

–

6,685

Unrealized loss on securities and derivatives

–

(2,058)

–

Currency translation adjustment

–

(438)

–

Total comprehensive income

–

136,020

Issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with the issuance of restricted stock and options

–

204,556

12,936

–

12,936

Issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with the exercise of stock options

–

1,233,485

27,721

–

27,721

Conversion of operating partnership units to common stock

–

17,686

618

–

(17,686)

(334)

284

Forfeiture of common limited partnership units in connection with the forfeiture of restricted stock

–

(646)

–

(646)

Deferred compensation

–

(12,936)

–

(12,936)

Deferred compensation amortization

–

10,444

–

10,444

Reallocation of interests

–

1,038

–

644

1,682

Issuance costs

–

(169)

–

(169)

Distributions

–

(7,131)

–

(140,847)

–

(6,360)

–

(8,075)

(162,413)

Balance as of December 31, 2004

4,300,000

103,204

83,019,229

1,567,936

1,600,000

77,815

4,600,556

86,587

1,835,542

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-5

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

For the Years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002


					2004		2003		2002

					(Dollars in thousands)
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income					$	138,516	$	147,089	$	139,054
Adjustments to net income:
	Straight-line rents and amortization of lease intangibles					(16,281)		(10,662)		(11,013)
	Depreciation and amortization					160,026		132,167		121,069
	Impairment losses					–		5,251		2,846
	Stock-based compensation amortization					10,444		8,075		5,265
	Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures					(3,781)		(5,445)		(5,674)
	Gains from dispositions of real estate interest					(5,219)		(7,429)		(8,771)
	Development profits, net of taxes					(8,528)		(14,441)		(1,171)
	Debt premiums, discounts and finance cost amortization, net					310		2,049		(58)
	Total minority interests’ share of net income					52,243		53,267		41,332
	Discontinued operations:
		Depreciation and amortization				7,324		10,170		15,434
		Joint venture partners’ share of net income				4,250		3,891		3,435
		Gains from dispositions of real estate, net of minority interests				(44,716)		(45,359)		(11,540)
	Changes in assets and liabilities:
		Accounts receivable and other assets				(1,154)		(7,771)		43
		Accounts payable and other liabilities				944		(6,389)		1,014

			Net cash provided by operating activities			294,378		264,463		291,265
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Change in restricted cash						(9,749)		1,103		(19,221)
Cash paid for property acquisitions						(415,034)		(470,188)		(358,428)
Additions to land, buildings, development costs, building improvements and lease costs						(581,168)		(283,878)		(207,127)
Net proceeds from divestiture of real estate						213,296		423,996		257,383
Additions to interests in unconsolidated joint ventures						(16,003)		(20,147)		–
Distributions received from unconsolidated joint ventures						50,820		38,196		6,458
Repayment/(issuance) of mortgage receivable						29,407		(30,012)		74,081

			Net cash used in investing activities			(728,431)		(340,930)		(246,854)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Issuance of common units						27,721		6,947		14,830
Repurchase and retirement of common and preferred units						–		(121,239)		(69,505)
Borrowings on secured debt						420,565		192,750		167,960
Payments on secured debt						(98,178)		(157,310)		(146,118)
Payments on unsecured debt						(600)
Borrowings on unsecured credit facilities						795,128		603,550		230,000
Payments on unsecured credit facilities						(747,432)		(431,000)		(147,000)
Borrowings on Alliance Fund II credit facility						–		8,000		67,250
Payments on Alliance Fund II credit facility						–		(53,500)		(145,250)
Payment of financing fees						(13,230)		(3,187)		(6,837)
Net proceeds from issuances of senior debt securities						99,067		124,566		19,883
Payments on senior debt securities						(21,060)		–		–
Net proceeds from issuances of preferred units						–		103,373		38,932
Issuance costs on preferred units						(169)		–		–
Repurchase of preferred units						–		(71,883)		(7,927)
Cash transferred to unconsolidated joint venture						(2,897)		–		–
Contributions from co-investment partners						192,956		171,042		146,572
Dividends paid to partners						(152,311)		(163,427)		(123,361)
Distributions to minority interests, including preferred units						(89,855)		(96,660)		(67,579)

			Net cash provided by/(used in) financing activities			409,705		112,022		(28,150)

				Net effect of exchange rate changes on cash		6,062		2,791		–

				Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		(24,348)		35,555		16,261
				Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		127,678		89,332		73,071

				Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	109,392	$	127,678	$	89,332

Supplemental Disclosures of Cash Flow Information
Cash paid for interest, net of capitalized interest					$	171,298	$	153,300	$	165,154
Non-cash transactions:
	Acquisition of properties				$	695,169	$	533,864	$	403,318
	Assumption of secured debt					(210,233)		(42,246)		(39,687)
	Assumption of other assets and liabilities					(59,970)		(7,073)		2,464
	Acquisition capital					(8,097)		(9,870)		(7,667)
	Minority interests’ contributions, including units issued					(1,835)		(4,487)		–

			Net cash paid		$	415,034	$	470,188	$	358,428

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-6

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 2004 and 2003


1.	Organization and Formation of the Operating Partnership

AMB Property Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), commenced operations as a fully integrated real estate company effective with the completion of its initial public offering on November 26, 1997. The Company elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), commencing with its taxable year ended December 31, 1997, and believes its current organization and method of operation will enable it to maintain its status as a REIT. The Company, through its controlling interest in its subsidiary, AMB Property, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”), is engaged in the acquisition, development and operation of primarily industrial properties in key distribution markets throughout North America, Europe and Asia. Unless the context otherwise requires, the “Company” means AMB Property Corporation, the Operating Partnership and their other controlled subsidiaries and the “Operating Partnership” means AMB Property, L.P. and its subsidiaries.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company owned an approximate 94.6% general partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, excluding preferred units. The remaining 5.4% limited partnership interests are owned by non-affiliated investors and certain current and former directors and officers of the Company. Certain properties are owned through limited partnerships, limited liability companies and other entities. The ownership of such properties through such entities does not materially affect the Operating Partnership’s overall ownership interests in the properties. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, the Company has full, exclusive and complete responsibility and discretion in the day-to-day management and control of the Operating Partnership. Net operating results of the Operating Partnership are allocated after preferred unit distributions based on the respective partners’ ownership interests.

The Operating Partnership enters into co-investment joint ventures with institutional investors. These co-investment joint ventures provide the Operating Partnership with an additional source of capital and income. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had investments in seven co-investment joint ventures, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.

AMB Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“AMB Capital Partners”), provides real estate investment services to clients on a fee basis. Headlands Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation, conducts a variety of businesses that include development projects available for sale to third parties and incremental income programs. IMD Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, also conducts a variety of businesses that include development projects available for sale to third parties. AMB Capital Partners and Headlands Realty Corporation are wholly-owned direct subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership.

Any references to the number of buildings, square footage, customers and occupancy data in the financial statement footnotes are unaudited.

As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership owned and operated (exclusive of properties that the Operating Partnership managed for third parties) 984 industrial buildings and four retail and other properties, aggregating approximately 90.8 million rentable square feet, located in 33 markets throughout the United States and in France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. The Operating Partnership’s strategy is to become a leading provider of distribution properties in supply-constrained submarkets located near key international passenger and cargo airports, highway systems and seaports in major metropolitan areas of North America, Europe and Asia. These markets are generally tied to global trade. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership’s industrial buildings, principally warehouse distribution buildings, encompassed approximately 90.3 million rentable square feet and were 94.8% leased. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership’s retail centers, principally grocer-anchored community shopping centers, and other properties encompassed approximately 0.5 million rentable square feet and were 71.4% leased.

F-7

As of December 31, 2004, through AMB Capital Partners, the Operating Partnership also managed, but did not have an ownership interest in, industrial buildings, totaling approximately 0.4 million rentable square feet. In addition, the Operating Partnership had investments in operating industrial buildings, totaling approximately 10.3 million rentable square feet, through investments in unconsolidated joint ventures. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership also had investments in industrial development projects throughout the United States and in Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Singapore and Spain, some of which are part of our development-for-sale or contribution program, totaling approximately 9.2 million square feet. Some of the development projects in the U.S. were available for sale.


2.	Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation. These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned taxable REIT subsidiaries and the joint ventures in which the Operating Partnership has a controlling interest. Third-party equity interests in the joint ventures are reflected as minority interests in the consolidated financial statements. The Operating Partnership also has non-controlling partnership interests in unconsolidated real estate joint ventures, which are accounted for under the equity method. All significant intercompany amounts have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Reclassifications. Certain items in the consolidated financial statements for prior periods have been reclassified to conform to current classifications.

Investments in Real Estate. Investments in real estate and leasehold interests are stated at cost unless circumstances indicate that cost cannot be recovered, in which case, the carrying value of the property is reduced to estimated fair value. The Operating Partnership also determines the impact of above or below-market leases, in-place leases and lease origination costs for all new acquisitions, and records intangible assets or liabilities accordingly. Carrying values for financial reporting purposes are reviewed for impairment on a property-by-property basis whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a property may not be recoverable. Impairment is recognized when estimated expected future cash flows (undiscounted and before interest charges) are less than the carrying value of the property. The estimation of expected future net cash flows is inherently uncertain and relies on assumptions regarding current and future economics and market conditions and the availability of capital. If impairment analysis assumptions change, then an adjustment to the carrying value of the Operating Partnership’s long-lived assets could occur in the future period in which the assumptions change. To the extent that a property is impaired, the excess of the carrying amount of the property over its estimated fair value is charged to earnings. As a result of leasing activity and the recent economic environment, the Operating Partnership re-evaluated the carrying value of its investments and recorded an impairment charge of $5.3 million and $2.9 million in 2003 and 2002, respectively, on certain of its investments. Also during the year ended December 31, 2003, the Operating Partnership recorded a reduction of depreciation expense of $2.1 million to reflect the recovery, through the settlement of a lawsuit, of capital expenditures paid in prior years. The Operating Partnership believes that there are no impairments of the carrying values of its investments in real estate as of December 31, 2004.

Depreciation and amortization are calculated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the real estate investments. Investments which are located on-tarmac, which is land owned by federal, state or local airport authorities, and subject to ground leases are depreciated over the lesser of 40 years or the contractual

F-8

term of the underlying ground lease. The estimated lives and components of depreciation and amortization expense for the years ended December 31 are as follows (dollars in thousands):


Depreciation and Amortization Expense				Estimated Lives		2004		2003		2002

Building costs					5-40 years	$	68,329	$	74,820	$	75,853
Building costs on ground leases					5-40 years		31,268		11,581		8,346
Buildings and improvements:
	Roof/ HVAC/parking lots				5-40 years		6,072		5,280		5,471
	Plumbing/signage				7-25 years		1,704		1,319		1,170
	Painting and other				5-40 years		13,516		10,696		13,370
Tenant improvements					Over lease term		20,246		16,026		13,762
Lease commissions					Over lease term		19,655		20,306		16,004

		Total real estate depreciation and amortization					160,790		140,028		133,976
Other depreciation and amortization					Various		6,560		2,309		2,527
Discontinued operations’ depreciation					Various		(7,324)		(10,170)		(15,434)

			Total depreciation and amortization from continuing operations			$	160,026	$	132,167	$	121,069

The cost of buildings and improvements includes the purchase price of the property or interest in property, including legal fees and acquisition costs. Project costs directly associated with the development and construction of a real estate project, which include interest and property taxes, are capitalized as construction in progress. Capitalized interest related to construction projects for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 was $18.7 million, $8.5 million and $6.9 million, respectively.

Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as incurred. Maintenance expenditures include painting and repair costs. The Operating Partnership expenses costs as incurred and does not accrue in advance of planned major maintenance activities. Significant renovations or betterments that extend the economic useful life of assets are capitalized and include parking lot, HVAC and roof replacement costs.

Investments in Consolidated and Unconsolidated Joint Ventures. Minority interests represent the limited partnership interests in AMB Property II, L.P. and interests held by certain third parties in several real estate joint ventures, which own properties aggregating approximately 44.1 million square feet, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes. Such investments are consolidated because the Operating Partnership exercises significant control over major operating decisions such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, asset management, investment activity and changes in financing. When the Operating Partnership contributes properties to its joint ventures, it recognizes a gain on the contributed properties acquired by the third-party co-investors.

In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity (“SFAS 150”). This Statement establishes standards for how an issuer classifies and measures certain financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity. It requires that an issuer classify a financial instrument that is within its scope as a liability (or an asset in some circumstances). SFAS 150 was effective beginning in the third quarter of 2003, however, the FASB deferred the implementation of SFAS 150 as it applied to certain minority interests in finite-lived entities indefinitely. The disclosure requirements for certain minority interests in finite-lived entities still apply. The Operating Partnership adopted the requirements of SFAS 150 in the third quarter of 2003, and, considering the aforementioned deferral, there was no impact on the Operating Partnership’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the minority interests associated with certain of the Operating Partnership’s consolidated joint ventures, those that have finite lives under the terms of the partnership agreements, represent mandatorily redeemable interests as defined in SFAS 150. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the aggregate book value of these minority

F-9

interests in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet was $828.6 million and $658.7 million, respectively, and the Operating Partnership believes that the aggregate settlement value of these interests was approximately $997.6 million and $729.2 million, respectively. This amount is based on the estimated liquidation values of the assets and liabilities and the resulting proceeds that the Operating Partnership would distribute to its joint venture partners upon dissolution, as required under the terms of the respective partnership agreements. Subsequent changes to the estimated fair values of the assets and liabilities of the consolidated joint ventures will affect the Operating Partnership’s estimate of the aggregate settlement value. The partnership agreements do not limit the amount that the minority partners would be entitled to in the event of liquidation of the assets and liabilities and dissolution of the respective partnerships.

The Operating Partnership holds interests in both consolidated and unconsolidated joint ventures. The Operating Partnership’s joint venture investments do not meet the variable interest entity criteria under FASB Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. Therefore, the Operating Partnership determines consolidation based on standards set forth in EITF 96-16, Investor’s Accounting for an Investee When the Investor Has a Majority of the Voting Interest but the Minority Shareholder or Shareholders Have Certain Approval or Veto Rights, and Statement of Position 78-9, Accounting for Investments in Real Estate Ventures. Based on the guidance set forth in these pronouncements, the Operating Partnership consolidates certain joint venture investments because it exercises significant control over major operating decisions, such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, asset management, investment activity and changes in financing. For joint ventures where the Operating Partnership does not exercise significant control over major operating and management decisions, but where it has significant influence, it uses the equity method of accounting and does not consolidate the joint venture for financial reporting purposes.

In December 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46R”) and the Operating Partnership adopted the consolidation requirements of FIN 46R in the first quarter of 2004. FIN 46R requires a variable interest entity to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the variable interest entity’s activities or entitled to receive a majority of the entity’s residual returns or both. FIN 46R requires disclosures about variable interest entities that a company is not required to consolidate, but in which it has a significant variable interest. The consolidation requirements apply to existing entities in the first reporting period that ended after March 15, 2004. The Operating Partnership does not believe that any of its consolidated or unconsolidated joint ventures are variable interest entities under the provisions of FIN 46R.

Cash and Cash Equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents include cash held in financial institutions and other highly liquid short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less.

Restricted Cash. Restricted cash includes cash held in escrow in connection with property purchases, Section 1031 exchange accounts and debt or real estate tax payments.

Mortgages Receivable. Through a wholly-owned subsidiary, the Operating Partnership holds a mortgage loan receivable of $12.9 million on AMB Pier One, LLC, an unconsolidated joint venture. The Operating Partnership also holds a short-term mortgage on a sold property totaling $0.8 million at December 31, 2004. The book value of the mortgages approximates fair value.

Accounts Receivable. Accounts receivable includes all current accounts receivable, net of allowances, other accruals and deferred rent receivable of $63.2 million and $50.4 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The Operating Partnership regularly reviews the credit worthiness of its customers and adjusts its allowance for doubtful accounts, straight-line rent receivable balance and tenant improvement and leasing costs amortization accordingly.

Concentration of Credit Risk. Other real estate companies compete with the Operating Partnership in its real estate markets. This results in competition for customers to occupy space. The existence of competing properties could have a material impact on the Operating Partnership’s ability to lease space and on the amount of rent

F-10

received. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership did not have any single tenant that accounted for greater than 3.4% of annualized base rental revenues.

Deferred Financing Costs. Costs incurred in connection with financings are capitalized and amortized to interest expense using the effective-interest method over the term of the related loan. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, deferred financing costs were $28.3 million and $18.6 million, respectively, net of accumulated amortization. Such amounts are included in other assets on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Financial Instruments. SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and for Hedging Activities, provides comprehensive guidelines for the recognition and measurement of derivatives and hedging activities and, specifically, requires all derivatives to be recorded on the balance sheet at fair value as an asset or liability, with an offset to accumulated other comprehensive income or income. For revenues or expenses denominated in nonfunctional currencies, the Operating Partnership may use derivative financial instruments to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk. The Operating Partnership’s derivative financial instruments in effect at December 31, 2004 included two put options (buy USD/sell MXN) hedging against adverse currency exchange fluctuations of the Mexican peso against the U.S. dollar. Adjustments to the fair value of these instruments for the year ended December 31, 2004 were immaterial. The Operating Partnership also held two interest rate swaps hedging cash flows of our variable rate borrowings based on Euribor (Europe) and Japanese TIBOR (Japan). Adjustments to the fair value of these instruments for the year ended December 31, 2004 resulted in a loss of $1.2 million. This loss is included in accounts payable and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet and accumulated other comprehensive loss in the consolidated statements of partners’ capital.

Debt. The Operating Partnership’s debt includes both fixed and variable rate secured debt, unsecured fixed rate debt, unsecured variable rate debt and credit facilities. Based on borrowing rates available to the Operating Partnership at December 31, 2004, the book value and the estimated fair value of the total debt (both secured and unsecured) was $3.3 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively. The carrying value of the variable rate debt approximates fair value.

Debt Premiums. Debt premiums represent the excess of the fair value of debt over the principal value of debt assumed in connection with the Company’s initial public offering and subsequent property acquisitions. The debt premiums are being amortized as an offset to interest expense over the term of the related debt instrument using the effective-interest method. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the net unamortized debt premium was $10.8 million for each year and are included as a component of secured debt on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Rental Revenues and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts. The Operating Partnership, as a lessor, retains substantially all of the benefits and risks of ownership of the properties and accounts for its leases as operating leases. Rental income is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases. Reimbursements from customers for real estate taxes and other recoverable operating expenses are recognized as revenue in the period the applicable expenses are incurred. The Operating Partnership also records lease termination fees when a customer terminates its lease by executing a definitive termination agreement with the Operating Partnership, vacates the premises and the payment of the termination fee is not subject to any conditions that must be met before the fee is due to the Operating Partnership. In addition, the Operating Partnership nets its allowance for doubtful accounts against rental income for financial reporting purposes. Such amounts totaled $1.8 million, $5.6 million and $1.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

Private Capital Income. Private capital income consists primarily of acquisition and development fees, asset management fees and priority distributions earned by AMB Capital Partners from joint ventures and clients. Private capital income also includes promoted interests and incentive fees from the Operating Partnership’s co-investment joint ventures.

Stock-Based Compensation Expense. In 2002, the Operating Partnership adopted the expense recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. The Operating Partnership values stock options issued by the Company, our general partner, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and

F-11

recognizes this value as an expense over the vesting periods. Under this standard, recognition of expense for stock options is applied to all options granted after the beginning of the year of adoption. Under SFAS No. 123, related stock option expense was $4.0 million, $2.4 million and $0.9 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Additionally, the Operating Partnership awards restricted stock and recognizes this value as an expense over the vesting periods. Related restricted stock compensation expense was $6.4 million, $5.7 million and $4.3 million for 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The expense is included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The Operating Partnership adopted SFAS No. 123 prospectively and the 2002 and 2003 expense relates only to stock options granted in 2002 and subsequent periods.

Had compensation cost for the Operating Partnership’s stock-based compensation plans been determined based on the fair value at the grant dates for awards prior to 2002 consistent with the method of SFAS No. 123, the Operating Partnership’s pro forma net income available to common unitholders would have been (dollars in thousands):


		2004		2003		2002

Reduction to net income		$	1,100	$	1,613	$	2,402
Adjusted earnings per common share:
	Basic	$	1.43	$	1.42	$	1.33
	Diluted	$	1.37	$	1.39	$	1.30

Interest and Other Income. Interest and other income consists primarily of interest income from mortgages receivable and on cash and cash equivalents.

Gains from Dispositions of Real Estate Interests. When the Operating Partnership disposes its real estate entities’ interests, gains reported from the sale of these interests represent either: (i) the sale of partial interests in consolidated co-investment joint ventures to third-party investors for cash or (ii) the sale of partial interests in properties to unconsolidated co-investment joint ventures with third-party investors for cash.

Gains from Dispositions of Real Estate. Gains and losses are recognized using the full accrual method. Gains related to transactions which do not meet the requirements of the full accrual method of accounting are deferred and recognized when the full accrual method of accounting criteria are met.

Discontinued Operations. The Operating Partnership reported real estate dispositions as discontinued operations separately as prescribed under the provisions of SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. The Operating Partnership separately reports as discontinued operations the historical operating results attributable to operating properties sold and held for disposition and the applicable gain or loss on the disposition of the properties. The consolidated statements of operations for prior periods are also adjusted to conform with this classification. There is no impact on the Operating Partnership’s previously reported consolidated financial position, net income or cash flows.

International Operations. The U.S. dollar is the functional currency for the Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries operating in the United States and Mexico. The functional currency for the Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries operating outside North America is generally the local currency of the country in which the entity is located, mitigating the effect of currency exchange gains and losses. The Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar translate their financial statements into U.S. dollars. Assets and liabilities are translated at the exchange rate in effect as of the financial statement date. The Operating Partnership translates income statement accounts using the average exchange rate for the period and significant nonrecurring transactions using the rate on the transaction date. For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, gains (losses) resulting from the translation were ($0.4) million, $0.7 million and $0.1 million, respectively. These gains (losses) are included in partners’ capital.

F-12

The Operating Partnership’s international subsidiaries may have transactions denominated in currencies other than their functional currency. In these instances, non-monetary assets and liabilities are reflected at the historical exchange rate, monetary assets and liabilities are remeasured at the exchange rate in effect at the end of the period and income statement accounts are remeasured at the average exchange rate for the period. Gains (losses) from remeasurement were $0.5 million, ($0.1) million and $0.2 million for the years ended 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. These gains (losses) are included in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Operating Partnership also records gains or losses in the income statement when a transaction with a third party, denominated in a currency other than the entity’s functional currency, is settled and the functional currency cash flows realized are more or less than expected based upon the exchange rate in effect when the transaction was initiated. These gains and losses are immaterial.

Share-Based Payment. In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, Share-Based Payment (“SFAS 123R”). This Statement is a revision of FASB Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. This Statement establishes standards for the accounting for transactions in which an entity exchanges its equity instruments for goods or services. It also addresses transactions in which an entity incurs liabilities in exchange for goods or services that are based on the fair value of the entity’s equity instruments or that may be settled by the issuance of those equity instruments. This Statement focuses primarily on accounting for transactions in which an entity obtains employee services in share-based payment transactions. SFAS 123R is effective for public companies for interim and annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS 123R will require the unamortized portion of any options issued prior to 2002 to be amortized over the remaining life of those options. The adoption of SFAS 123R will not impact the Operating Partnership’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


3.	Real Estate Acquisition and Development Activity

During the year ended December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership acquired 64 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square feet for a total expected investment of $695.2 million, of which the Operating Partnership acquired 48 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 4.2 million square feet through four of the Operating Partnership’s co-investment joint ventures, for a total expected investment of $261.0 million. During 2003, the Operating Partnership acquired 82 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet for a total expected investment of $533.9 million, of which the Operating Partnership acquired 43 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 3.7 million square feet through two of the Operating Partnership’s co-investment joint ventures, for a total expected investment of $238.3 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership initiated 14 new industrial development projects in North America with a total expected investment of $235.4 million, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet; four new industrial development projects in Japan and Singapore with a total expected investment of $368.8 million, aggregating approximately 2.7 million square feet; and one new industrial development in Europe with a total expected investment of $44.3 million, aggregating approximately 0.3 million square feet. During 2003, the Operating Partnership initiated 15 new industrial development projects in North America with a total expected investment of $200.3 million, aggregating approximately 4.5 million square feet, and one new industrial development project in Europe with a total expected investment of $26.1 million, aggregating approximately 0.4 million square feet.

During the year ended December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership completed seven industrial buildings with a total expected investment of $88.9 million, aggregating approximately 2.1 million square feet. During 2003, the Operating Partnership completed 14 industrial buildings with a total expected investment of $105.7 million, aggregating approximately 1.6 million square feet.

As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had in its development pipeline: (1) 30 industrial projects, which will total approximately 8.9 million square feet and will have an aggregate estimated investment of $828.7 million upon completion, of which four industrial projects with a total of 1.2 million square feet and an

F-13

aggregate estimated investment of $55.0 million upon completion are held in unconsolidated joint ventures, and (2) four development projects available for sale or contribution, which will total approximately 0.6 million square feet and will have an aggregate estimated investment of $29.2 million upon completion. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership and its Development Alliance Partners had funded an aggregate of $515.2 million and needed to fund an estimated additional $342.7 million in order to complete current and planned projects. The Operating Partnership’s development pipeline currently includes projects expected to be completed through the first quarter of 2008. Significant land acquisitions for the year ended December 31, 2004 included the purchase of 640 acres of land for industrial warehouse developments in various U.S. markets and Mexico City for $68.3 million.


4.	Gains from Dispositions of Real Estate Interests, Development Sales and Discontinued Operations

Gains from Dispositions of Real Estate Interests. On December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership contributed $71.5 million in operating properties, consisting of eight industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 1.3 million square feet, to its newly formed unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC. The Operating Partnership recognized a total gain of $7.2 million on the contribution, representing the partial sale of the Operating Partnership’s interests in the contributed properties acquired by the third-party investors for cash. Of this amount, the Operating Partnership recognized $2.0 million in development profits. This amount is classified under development profits, net of taxes on the consolidated statement of operations.

On February 19, 2003, the Operating Partnership contributed $94.0 million in operating properties, consisting of 24 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 2.4 million square feet, to its newly formed unconsolidated joint venture, Industrial Fund I, LLC. The Operating Partnership recognized a gain of $7.4 million on the contribution, representing the partial sale of the Operating Partnership’s interests in the contributed properties acquired by the third-party investors for cash.

In 2002, the Operating Partnership divested itself of two industrial buildings and one retail center, aggregating approximately 0.8 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $50.6 million, with a resulting loss of $0.8 million. The Operating Partnership accounted for the gain in continuing operations under the transition provisions of SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets (“SFAS No. 144”). In June 2002, the Operating Partnership also contributed $76.9 million in operating properties, consisting of 15 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 1.9 million square feet, to its consolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP, L.P. The Operating Partnership recognized a gain of $3.3 million, representing the partial sale of the Operating Partnership’s interests in the properties acquired by the third-party investors for cash.

Development Sales and Contributions. During 2004, the Operating Partnership sold seven land parcels and six development projects as part of our development-for-sale program, aggregating approximately 0.3 million square feet for an aggregate price of $40.4 million, resulting in an after-tax gain of $6.5 million. During 2004, the Operating Partnership also contributed one completed development project into a newly formed unconsolidated joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC. The Operating Partnership recognized an after-tax gain of $2.0 million, representing the partial sale of the Operating Partnership’s interest in the contributed property acquired by the third-party co-investor for cash.

During 2003, the Operating Partnership sold seven development-for-sale and other projects, aggregating approximately 0.5 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $74.8 million, resulting in an after-tax gain of $14.4 million.

During 2002, the Operating Partnership sold seven development-for-sale projects, aggregating approximately 0.2 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $17.0 million, resulting in an after-tax gain of $1.2 million.

F-14

Discontinued Operations. The Operating Partnership reported its property divestitures as discontinued operations separately as prescribed under the provisions of SFAS No. 144. Beginning in 2002, SFAS No. 144 requires the Operating Partnership to separately report as discontinued operations the historical operating results attributable to operating properties sold and held for disposition and the applicable gain or loss on the disposition of the properties. Although the application of SFAS No. 144 may affect the presentation of the Operating Partnership’s results of operations for the periods that it has already reported in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, there will be no effect on its previously reported financial position, net income or cash flows.

During 2004, the Operating Partnership divested itself of 21 industrial buildings, two retail centers and one office building, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $200.3 million, with a resulting net gain of $42.0 million.

During 2003, the Operating Partnership divested itself of 24 industrial buildings and two retail centers, aggregating approximately 2.8 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $272.3 million, with a resulting net gain of $42.9 million.

During 2002, the Operating Partnership divested itself of 56 industrial buildings, one retail center and an undeveloped land parcel, aggregating approximately 4.9 million square feet, for an aggregate price of $193.4 million, with a resulting net gain of $10.6 million. In November 2002, the Operating Partnership’s joint venture partner in AMB Partners II, L.P. (“Partners II”) increased its ownership from 50% to 80% by acquiring 30% of the Operating Partnership’s interest in Partners II. The Operating Partnership recognized a gain of $6.3 million on the sale of its 30% interest.

Properties Held for Divestiture. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had decided to divest itself of 25 industrial buildings and one undeveloped land parcel with a net book value of $87.3 million. The properties either are not in the Operating Partnership’s core markets or do not meet its current strategic objectives. The divestitures of the properties are subject to negotiation of acceptable terms and other customary conditions. Properties held for divestiture are stated at the lower of cost or estimated fair value less costs to sell. Depreciation on properties held for divestiture is discontinued at the time the asset is held for divestiture.

The following summarizes the condensed results of operations of the properties held for divestiture and sold under SFAS No. 144 for the years ended December 31 (dollars in thousands):


		2004		2003		2002

Rental revenues		$	27,212	$	47,646	$	73,273
Straight-line rents			742		370		3,542
Property operating expenses			(4,404)		(6,014)		(9,796)
Real estate taxes			(3,862)		(5,568)		(10,011)
Depreciation and amortization			(7,324)		(10,170)		(15,434)
Interest income and other, net			50		164		7
Interest, including amortization			(2,215)		(2,568)		(8,109)
Joint venture partners’ share of income			(4,250)		(3,891)		(3,435)

	Income attributable to discontinued operations	$	5,949	$	19,969	$	30,037

F-15

As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, assets and liabilities attributable to properties held for divestiture under the provisions of SFAS No. 144 consisted of the following (dollars in thousands):


	2004		2003

Accounts receivable, net	$	1,707	$	–
Other assets	$	130	$	–
Secured debt	$	–	$	–
Accounts payable and other liabilities	$	1,731	$	3


5.	Mortgages Receivable

Through a wholly-owned subsidiary, the Operating Partnership holds a mortgage loan receivable on AMB Pier One, LLC, an unconsolidated joint venture. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the outstanding balance on the note was $12.9 million and $13.0 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership also held a short-term mortgage on a sold property. The Operating Partnership’s mortgages receivable at December 31, 2004 and 2003 consisted of the following:


												Ownership
Mortgage Receivable		Market		Maturity		2004		2003		Rate		Percentage ⁽¹⁾

1. Pier 1			SF Bay Area		May 2026	$	12,938	$	13,042		13.0%		100%
2. Platinum Distribution Center			No. New Jersey		February 2004		–		19,500		6.0%		20%
3. Platinum Distribution Center			No. New Jersey		November 2006		800		1,300		12.0%		20%
4. North Bay Distribution Center/ BAB			San Francisco Bay Area		December 2004		–		7,040		5.5%		100%
5. North Bay Distribution Center/ Corovan			San Francisco Bay Area		December 2004		–		2,263		7.3%		100%

	Total Mortgages Receivable					$	13,738	$	43,145


(1)	Represents the Operating Partnership’s ownership percentage in the mortgage investment.

F-16


6.	Debt

As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, debt consisted of the following (dollars in thousands):


			2004		2003

Operating Partnership secured debt, varying interest rates from 0.7% to 10.4%, due April 2005 to October 2017 (weighted average interest rate of 5.3% and 7.3% at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively)			$	484,929	$	291,516
Consolidated joint venture secured debt, varying interest rates from 3.5% to 9.4%, due June 2005 to November 2022 (weighted average interest rates of 6.4% and 6.5% at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively)				1,396,829		1,061,585
Unsecured senior debt securities, varying interest rates from 3.0% to 8.0%, due June 2005 to June 2018 (weighted average interest rates of 6.6% and 6.5% at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively)				1,003,940		925,000
Unsecured debt, due June 2013 and November 2015, interest rate of 7.5%				9,028		9,628
Unsecured credit facilities, variable interest rate, due May 2006 to June 2007 (weighted average interest rates of 1.9% and 1.9% at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively)				351,699		275,739

	Total debt before unamortized premiums			3,246,425		2,563,468
	Unamortized premiums			10,766		10,789

		Total consolidated debt	$	3,257,191	$	2,574,257

Secured debt generally requires monthly principal and interest payments. The secured debt is secured by deeds of trust or mortgages on certain properties and is generally non-recourse. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the total gross investment book value of those properties securing the debt was $3.3 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, including $2.4 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively, in consolidated joint ventures. As of December 31, 2004, $1.8 billion of the secured debt obligations bear interest at fixed rates with a weighted average interest rate of 6.5% while the remaining $96.6 million bear interest at variable rates (with a weighted average interest rate of 2.5%). The secured debt has various covenants. Management believes that the Operating Partnership was in compliance with its financial covenants as of December 31, 2004 and 2003. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had certain non-recourse, secured loans, some of which are cross-collateralized by multiple properties.

As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had issued an aggregate of $1.0 billion in unsecured senior debt securities, which bore a weighted average interest rate of 6.6% and had an average term of 4.6 years. These unsecured senior debt securities include $100.0 million in notes due in 2015, which are putable and callable in September 2005, $400.0 million of medium-term notes, which were issued under the Operating Partnership’s 2000 medium-term note program, and $225.0 million of medium-term notes, which were issued under the Operating Partnership’s 2002 medium-term note program. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership’s 2002 medium-term note program had a remaining capacity of $175.0 million. The Operating Partnership intends to continue to issue medium-term notes, guaranteed by the Company, under its 2002 program from time to time and as market conditions permit. The unsecured senior debt securities are subject to various covenants. Management believes that the Operating Partnership was in compliance with its financial covenants as of December 31, 2004.

On March 16, 2004, the Operating Partnership issued $100.0 million aggregate principal amount of medium-term notes under its 2002 program. The Company guaranteed the principal amount and interest on the notes, which mature on March 1, 2009, and bear interest at 3.5% per annum.

On June 1, 2004, the Operating Partnership completed the early renewal of its senior unsecured revolving line of credit in the amount of $500.0 million. The Company remains a guarantor of the Operating Partnership’s

F-17

obligations under the credit facility. The three-year credit facility includes a multi-currency component under which up to $250.0 million can be drawn in Yen, Euros or British Pounds Sterling. The line, which matures in June 2007 and carries a one-year extension option, can be increased up to $700.0 million upon certain conditions, and replaces the Operating Partnership’s previous $500.0 million credit facility that was to mature in December 2005. The rate on the borrowings is generally LIBOR plus a margin, based on the Operating Partnership’s long-term debt rating, which is 60 basis points, with an annual facility fee of 20 basis points, based on the current credit rating of the Operating Partnership’s long-term debt. The Operating Partnership uses its unsecured credit facility principally for acquisitions, funding development activity and general working capital requirements. The total amount available under the credit facility fluctuates based upon the borrowing base, as defined in the agreement governing the credit facility, which is generally based upon the value of the Operating Partnership’s unencumbered properties. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on the credit facility was $235.1 million and the remaining amount available was $251.0 million, net of outstanding letters of credit of $13.9 million (excluding the additional $200.0 million of potential additional capacity). The outstanding balance included borrowings denominated in Euros and Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, would equal approximately $114.6 million and $92.5 million in U.S. dollars, respectively. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had an additional outstanding balance of $27.8 million on other credit facilities. The revolving credit facility contains customary and other affirmative covenants, including compliance with financial reporting requirements and maintenance of specified financial ratios and negative covenants, including limitations on the incurrence of liens and limitations on mergers or consolidations. Management believes that the Operating Partnership was in compliance with its financial covenants at December 31, 2004.

On June 29, 2004, AMB Japan Finance Y.K., a subsidiary of the Operating Partnership, entered into an unsecured revolving credit agreement providing for loans or letters of credit in a maximum principal amount outstanding at any time of up to 24 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, equaled approximately $233.8 million U.S. dollars. The Company and the Operating Partnership guarantee the obligations of AMB Japan Finance Y.K. under the revolving credit facility, as well as the obligations of any other entity in which the Operating Partnership directly or indirectly owns an ownership interest, and which is selected from time to time to be a borrower under and pursuant to the revolving credit agreement. The borrowers intend to use the proceeds from the facility to fund the acquisition and development of properties and for other real estate purposes in Japan. Generally, borrowers under the revolving credit facility have the option to secure all or a portion of the borrowings under the revolving credit facility with certain real estate assets or equity in entities holding such real estate assets. The revolving credit facility matures in June 2007 and has a one-year extension option, which is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions and the payment of an extension fee equal to 0.25% of the outstanding commitments under the facility at that time. The rate on the borrowings is generally TIBOR plus a margin, which is based on the current credit rating of the Operating Partnership’s long-term debt and is currently 60 basis points. In addition, there is an annual facility fee, payable in quarterly amounts, which is based on the credit rating of the Operating Partnership’s long-term debt, and is currently 20 basis points of the outstanding commitments under the facility. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on this credit facility, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, was $88.8 million in U.S. dollars. The revolving credit facility contains customary and other affirmative covenants, including financial reporting requirements and maintenance of specified financial ratios, and negative covenants, including limitations on the incurrence of liens and limitations on mergers or consolidations. Management believes that the Operating Partnership was in compliance with its financial covenants at December 31, 2004.

On November 24, 2004, AMB Tokai TMK, a Japanese subsidiary of the Operating Partnership, entered into a secured multi-advance project financing, providing for loans in a maximum principal amount outstanding at any time of up to 20 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, equaled approximately $194.9 million U.S. dollars. The financing agreement is among AMB Tokai TMK, the Company, the Operating Partnership, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (“Sumitomo”) and a syndicate of banks. The Company and the Operating Partnership jointly and severally guarantee AMB Tokai TMK’s obligations under the financing agreement, pursuant to a guaranty of payment executed in connection with the project financing. The financing is secured by a mortgage on certain real property located in Tokai, Tokyo, Japan, and matures on October 31, 2006 with a one-year extension option. The rate on the borrowings is generally TIBOR plus a

F-18

margin, which is based on the credit rating of the Operating Partnership’s long-term debt and is currently 60 basis points per annum, except that AMB Tokai TMK has purchased from Sumitomo an interest rate swap, which has fixed the interest rate payable on a principal amount equal to 13 billion Yen at 1.32% per annum plus the applicable margin. In addition, there is an annual commitment fee based on unused commitments, payable quarterly, which is based on the credit rating of the Operating Partnership’s long-term debt, and is currently 20 basis points of the amount of unused commitments. The financing agreement contains customary and other affirmative covenants, including financial reporting requirements and maintenance of specified financial ratios, and negative covenants, including limitations on the incurrence of liens and limitations on mergers or consolidations. In addition, Sumitomo, AMB Tokai TMK and the Operating Partnership signed a commitment letter on November 24, 2004, pursuant to which Sumitomo committed to purchase bonds that may be issued by AMB Tokai TMK in an amount between 10 billion Yen and 15 billion Yen (such amount to be determined by AMB Tokai TMK). The bonds would be secured by the AMB Ohta Distribution Center and would generally accrue interest at a rate of TIBOR plus 1.10% per annum; because the swap purchased by AMB Tokai TMK from Sumitomo is coterminous with the maturity date of the proposed bonds, AMB Tokai TMK will have fixed the interest rate payable on, in general, a principal amount equal to 13 billion Yen at 2.42% per annum. The bonds, if issued, would mature on October 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2004, the outstanding balance on this financing agreement was 14 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2004, equaled approximately $136.4 million U.S. dollars.

As of December 31, 2004, the scheduled maturities of the Operating Partnership’s total debt, excluding unamortized debt premiums, were as follows (dollars in thousands):


		Operating				Unsecured
		Partnership		Consolidated		Senior
		Secured		Joint Venture		Debt		Unsecured		Credit
		Debt		Secured Debt		Securities		Debt		Facilities		Total

2005		$	43,398	$	65,802	$	250,000	$	647	$	–	$	359,847
2006			80,641		72,184		75,000		698		27,826		256,349
2007			16,386		70,920		75,000		752		323,873		486,931
2008			42,091		174,431		175,000		810		–		392,332
2009			5,644		119,163		100,000		873		–		225,680
2010			71,471		149,960		75,000		941		–		297,372
2011			80,319		412,055		75,000		1,014		–		568,388
2012			133,781		177,833		–		1,093		–		312,707
2013			1,985		117,346		53,940		920		–		174,191
2014			2,105		3,777		–		616		–		6,498
Thereafter			7,108		33,358		125,000		664		–		166,130

	Total	$	484,929	$	1,396,829	$	1,003,940	$	9,028	$	351,699	$	3,246,425

F-19


7.	Leasing Activity

Future minimum base rental income due under non-cancelable leases with customers in effect as of December 31, 2004 was as follows (dollars in thousands):


2005		$	526,966
2006			446,462
2007			365,890
2008			281,143
2009			215,081
Thereafter			579,854

	Total	$	2,415,396

The schedule does not reflect future rental revenues from the renewal or replacement of existing leases and excludes property operating expense reimbursements. In addition to minimum rental payments, certain customers pay reimbursements for their pro rata share of specified operating expenses, which amounted to $134.1 million, $103.6 million and $108.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. These amounts are included as rental revenue and operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Some leases contain options to renew.


8.	Income Taxes

As a partnership, the allocated share of income of the Operating Partnership is included in the income tax returns of its partners. Accordingly, no accounting for income taxes is required in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The Operating Partnership may be subject to certain state, local and foreign taxes on its income and property. In addition, the Operating Partnership is required to pay federal and state income tax on its net taxable income, if any, from the activities conducted by the Operating Partnership’s taxable REIT subsidiaries. Where the Operating Partnership operates in countries other than the U.S. that do not recognize REITs under their respective tax laws, the Operating Partnership recognizes income taxes as necessary.

The following is a reconciliation of net income available to common unitholders attributable to the general partner to taxable income available to common unitholders for the years ended December 31 (dollars in thousands):


		2004		2003		2002

Net income available to common unitholders attributable to the general partner		$	118,340	$	116,716	$	113,035
Book depreciation and amortization			160,026		132,167		121,069
Book depreciation discontinued operations			7,324		10,170		15,434
Impairment losses			–		5,251		2,846
Tax depreciation and amortization			(141,368)		(129,608)		(125,888)
Book/tax difference on gain on divestitures of real estate			(7,409)		13,783		25,178
Book/tax difference in stock option expense			(15,069)		1,069		(2,543)
Other book/tax differences, net ⁽¹⁾			(14,786)		(6,576)		(37,496)

	Taxable income available to common unitholders	$	107,058	$	142,972	$	111,635


(1)	Primarily due to straight-line rent, prepaid rent, joint venture accounting and debt premium amortization timing differences.

F-20

For income tax purposes, distributions paid to common unitholders consist of ordinary income, capital gains, non-taxable return of capital or a combination thereof. For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Operating Partnership elected to distribute all of its taxable capital gain. The taxability of the Operating Partnership’s distributions to common unitholders’ was as follows:


		2004			2003			2002

Ordinary income		$	0.78	46.1%	$	1.07	64.5%	$	1.05	64.0%
Capital gains			0.37	21.9%		0.47	28.3%		–	–
Unrecaptured Section 1250 gain			0.15	8.9%		0.12	7.2%		0.18	11.0%
Dividends taxed in subsequent year			–	–		–	–		0.41	25.0%

	Dividends paid or payable		1.30	76.9%		1.66	100.0%		1.64	100.0%

Return of Capital			0.39	23.1%		–	–		–	–

	Total Distributions	$	1.69	100.0%	$	1.66	100.0%	$	1.64	100.0%


9.	Minority Interests in Consolidated Joint Ventures and Preferred Units

Minority interests in the Operating Partnership represent the limited partnership interests in AMB Property II, L.P. and interests held by certain third parties in several real estate joint ventures, aggregating approximately 44.1 million square feet, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes. Such investments are consolidated because the Operating Partnership exercises significant control over major operating decisions such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, asset management, investment activity and changes in financing. These joint venture investments do not meet the variable interest entity criteria under FASB Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.

The Operating Partnership enters into co-investment joint ventures with institutional investors. The Operating Partnership’s co-investment joint ventures are engaged in the acquisition, ownership, operation, management and, in some cases, the renovation, expansion and development of industrial buildings in target markets nationwide.

F-21

The Operating Partnership’s consolidated co-investment joint ventures’ total investment and property debt in properties at December 31, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in thousands) were:

Operating

Total Investment in Real

Partnership’s

Estate

Property Debt

Co-investment Joint

Ownership

Venture

Joint Venture Partner

Percentage

2004

2003

2004

2003

AMB/Erie, L.P.

Erie Insurance Company and affiliates

50%

149,244

156,174

50,338

57,115

AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P.

AMB Institutional Alliance REIT I, Inc. ⁽¹⁾

21%

415,191

417,902

223,704

214,538

AMB Partners II, L.P.

City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System

20%

516,200

428,837

264,315

253,942

AMB-SGP, L.P.

Industrial JV Pte Ltd ⁽²⁾

50%

418,129

408,507

245,454

249,861

AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P.

AMB Institutional Alliance REIT II, Inc. ⁽³⁾

20%

492,687

449,709

237,798

204,542

AMB-AMS, L.P. ⁽⁴⁾

PMT, SPW and TNO ⁽⁵⁾

39%

100,043

–

44,406

–

AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P.

AMB Institutional Alliance REIT III, Inc. ⁽⁶⁾

20%

523,037

–

258,164

–

Total

2,614,531

1,861,129

1,324,179

979,998


(1)	Comprised of 16 institutional investors as stockholders as of December 31, 2004.
(2)	A subsidiary of the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
(3)	Comprised of 13 institutional investors as stockholders and one third-party limited partner as of December 31, 2004.
(4)	AMB-AMS, L.P. is a co-investment partnership with three Dutch pension funds advised by Mn Services NV.
(5)	PMT is Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek, SPW is Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Woningcorporaties and TNO is Stichting Pensioenfonds TNO.
(6)	AMB Institutional Fund III, L.P. is an open-ended co-investment partnership formed in 2004 with institutional investors.

On November 26, 2003, the Operating Partnership redeemed all 1,300,000 of its outstanding 8⁵/8% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units, for an aggregate redemption price of $65.6 million, including accrued and unpaid dividends.

On July 14, 2003, AMB Property II, L.P., one of the Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries, repurchased 66,300 of its outstanding 7.95% Series F Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units from a single institutional investor. AMB Property II, L.P. repurchased the units for an aggregate cost of $3.3 million, including accrued and unpaid dividends.

F-22

The following table distinguishes the minority interest liability as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in thousands):


			2004		2003

Joint venture partners			$	828,622	$	658,723
Held through AMB Property II, L.P.:
	Class B Limited Partners			2,739		2,781
	Series D preferred units (liquidation preference of $79,767)			77,684		77,684
	Series E preferred units (liquidation preference of $11,022)			10,788		10,788
	Series F preferred units (liquidation preference of $10,057)			9,900		9,900
	Series H preferred units (liquidation preference of $42,000)			40,912		40,912
	Series I preferred units (liquidation preference of $25,500)			24,800		24,800
	Series N preferred units (liquidation preference of $36,479)			36,479		–

		Total minority interests	$	1,031,924	$	825,588

The following table distinguishes the minority interests’ share of income, including minority interests’ share of development profits, but excluding minority interests’ share of discontinued operations for the years ending December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 (dollars in thousands):


			2004		2003		2002

Joint Venture Partners			$	37,817	$	31,726	$	27,320
Joint Venture Partners’ share of development profits				523		8,098		139
Held through AMB Property II, L.P.:
	Class B common limited partnership units			102		24		–
	Series D preferred units (liquidation preference of $79,767)			6,182		6,182		6,182
	Series E preferred units (liquidation preference of $11,022)			854		854		854
	Series F preferred units (liquidation preference of $10,057)			800		931		1,342
	Series G preferred units (repurchased in July 2002)			–		–		43
	Series H preferred units (liquidation preference of $42,000)			3,413		3,412		3,412
	Series I preferred units (liquidation preference of $25,500)			2,040		2,040		2,040
	Series N preferred units (liquidation preference of $36,479)			512		–		–

		Total minority interests’ share of net income	$	52,243	$	53,267	$	41,332

F-23


10.	Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures

The Operating Partnership’s investment in unconsolidated joint ventures at December 31, 2004 and 2003 totaled $55.2 million and $52.0 million, respectively. The Operating Partnership’s unconsolidated joint ventures’ net equity investments at December 31, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in thousands) were:


						Square						Ownership
Unconsolidated Joint Ventures		Market		Alliance Partner		Feet		2004		2003		Percentage

Co-Investment Joint Ventures
1.	AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC		Various		–		1,256,165	$	9,467	$	–		20	%
Other Industrial Operating Joint Ventures
2.	Elk Grove Du Page		Chicago		Hamilton Partners		4,046,721		33,664		31,548		56	%
3.	Pico Rivera		Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		855,600		676		1,091		50	%
4.	Monte Vista Spectrum		Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		576,852		236		487		50	%
5.	Industrial Fund I, LLC		Various		Citigroup		2,326,334		3,612		4,173		15	%
6.	Singapore Airport Logistics Center Bldg 1		Singapore		Boustead Projects		230,432		2,633		2,067		50	%
7.	Sterling Distribution 1 & 2		Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		1,490,000		1,257		10,429		40	%
8.	Sterling Distribution 3		Los Angeles		Majestic Realty		390,000		620		2,214		50	%
9.	Nash Logistics Center		Los Angeles		AMB – IAC		75,000		1,412		–		50	%
10.	Singapore Airport Logistics Center Bldg 2		Singapore		Boustead Projects		254,267		1,589		–		50	%

	Total Unconsolidated Joint Ventures						11,501,371	$	55,166	$	52,009

On December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership formed AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC, a joint venture with Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte Ltd, a real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, in which the Operating Partnership retained a 20% interest. The Operating Partnership contributed $71.5 million in operating properties, consisting of eight industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 1.3 million square feet, to this fund. The Operating Partnership recognized a gain of $7.2 million on the contribution, representing the portion of its interest in the contributed properties acquired by the third-party investors for cash.

Under the agreements governing the joint ventures, the Operating Partnership and the other parties to the joint venture may be required to make additional capital contributions and, subject to certain limitations, the joint ventures may incur additional debt.

The Operating Partnership also has a 0.1% unconsolidated equity interest (with an approximate 33% economic interest) in AMB Pier One, LLC, a joint venture to redevelop the Operating Partnership’s office space in San Francisco. The investment is not consolidated because the Operating Partnership does not exercise significant control over major operating decisions such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, investment activity and changes in financing. The Operating Partnership has an option to purchase the remaining equity interest beginning January 1, 2007 and expiring December 31, 2009, based on the fair market value as stipulated in the operating agreement.


11.	Partners’ Capital

Holders of common limited partnership units of the Operating Partnership and class B common limited partnership units of AMB Property II, L.P. have the right, commencing generally on or after the first anniversary of the holder becoming a limited partner of the Operating Partnership or AMB Property II, L.P., as applicable (or such other date agreed to by the Operating Partnership or AMB Property II, L.P. and the applicable unit holders),

F-24

to require the Operating Partnership or AMB Property II, L.P., as applicable, to redeem part or all of their common units or class B common limited partnership units, as applicable, for cash (based upon the fair market value, as defined in the applicable partnership agreement, of an equivalent number of shares of common stock of the Company at the time of redemption) or the Operating Partnership or AMB Property II, L.P. may, in its respective sole and absolute discretion (subject to the limits on ownership and transfer of common stock set forth in the Company’s charter), elect to have the Company exchange those common units or class B common limited partnership units, as applicable, for shares of the Company’s common stock on a one-for-one basis, subject to adjustment in the event of stock splits, stock dividends, issuance of certain rights, certain extraordinary distributions and similar events. With each redemption or exchange of the Operating Partnership’s common units, the Company’s percentage ownership in the Operating Partnership will increase. Common limited partners and class B common limited partners may exercise this redemption right from time to time, in whole or in part, subject to certain limitations. During 2004, the Operating Partnership redeemed 17,686 of its common limited partnership units for an equivalent number of shares of the Company’s common stock.

During 2003, the Operating Partnership redeemed 226,145 of its common limited partnership units for cash and 2,000 of its common limited partnership units for shares of the Company’s common stock. In November 2003, AMB Property II, L.P. issued 145,548 of its class B common limited partnership units in connection with a property acquisition. During 2002, the Operating Partnership redeemed 122,640 of its common limited partnership units for shares of the Company’s common stock.

During 2003, the Company repurchased and retired 812,900 shares of its common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $21.2 million, including commissions, and the Operating Partnership retired the same number of common general partnership units. In December 2003, the Company’s board of directors approved a new two-year common stock repurchase program for the repurchase of up to $200.0 million worth of common stock.

On June 23, 2003, the Company issued and sold 2,000,000 shares of 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock for $25.00 per share. Dividends are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.625 per annum. The series L preferred stock is redeemable by the Company on or after June 23, 2008, subject to certain conditions, for cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the redemption date. The Company contributed the net proceeds of $48.0 million to the Operating Partnership, and in exchange, the Operating Partnership issued to the Company 2,000,000 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units. The Operating Partnership used the proceeds, in addition to proceeds previously contributed to the Operating Partnership from other equity issuances, to redeem all 3,995,800 shares of its 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units from the Company on July 28, 2003. The Company, in turn, used those proceeds to redeem all 3,995,800 shares of its 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock for $100.2 million, including accumulated and unpaid dividends through the redemption date. During 2003, the Operating Partnership recognized a reduction of net income available to common unitholders of $3.7 million for the original issuance costs. On November 26, 2003, the Operating Partnership redeemed all 1,300,000 of its outstanding 8⁵/8% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units and recognized a reduction of income available to common unitholders of $1.7 million for the original issuance costs.

On November 25, 2003, the Company issued and sold 2,300,000 shares of 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock for $25.00 per share. Dividends are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.6875 per annum. The series M preferred stock is redeemable by the Company on or after November 25, 2008, subject to certain conditions, for cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the redemption date. The Company contributed the net proceeds of $55.4 million to the Operating Partnership, and in exchange, the Operating Partnership issued to the Company 2,300,000 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units.

On September 24, 2004, AMB Property II, L.P., a partnership in which Texas AMB I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the Company’s indirect subsidiary, owns an approximate 1.0% general partnership interest and the Operating Partnership owns an approximate 99% common limited partnership interest, issued

F-25

729,582 5.0% Series N Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units at a price of $50.00 per unit. The series N preferred units were issued to Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc. in exchange for the contribution of certain parcels of land that are located in multiple markets to AMB Property II, L.P. Beginning September 25, 2006 and until and including September 25, 2009, the series N preferred units may be redeemed by AMB Property II, L.P. at a redemption price equal to 99.5% of the original $50.00 per unit capital contribution, plus all accrued and unpaid distributions to the date of redemption, which shall be paid solely out of capital contributed to AMB Property II, L.P. by Texas AMB I, LLC or the Operating Partnership (other than with respect to the accumulated but unpaid distributions). Pursuant to a Put Agreement, dated September 24, 2004, by and between Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc. and the Operating Partnership, beginning on June 1, 2005 and until January 15, 2006, the holders of the series N preferred units will have the right to sell all, but not less than all, of such units to the Operating Partnership (or to certain designees) at a price equal to $50.00 per unit, plus all accrued and unpaid distributions to the date of such sale.

As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had outstanding 83,019,229 common general partnership units; 4,600,556 common limited partnership units; 800,000 7.95% Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units; 800,000 7.95% Series K Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units; 2,000,000 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units; and 2,300,000 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Partnership Units.

The following table sets forth the distributions paid per unit:


Paying Entity	Security		2004		2003		2002

Operating Partnership		Common limited partnership units	$	1.70	$	1.66	$	1.64
Operating Partnership		Series B preferred units		n/a	$	3.71	$	4.31
Operating Partnership		Series J preferred units	$	3.98	$	3.98	$	3.98
Operating Partnership		Series K preferred units	$	3.98	$	3.98	$	2.96
AMB Property II, L.P.		Class B common limited partnership units	$	1.70	$	0.22		n/a
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series D preferred units	$	3.88	$	3.88	$	3.88
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series E preferred units	$	3.88	$	3.88	$	3.88
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series F preferred units	$	3.98	$	3.98	$	3.98
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series G preferred units		n/a		n/a	$	2.14
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series H preferred units	$	4.06	$	4.06	$	4.06
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series I preferred units	$	4.00	$	4.00	$	4.00
AMB Property II, L.P.		Series N preferred units	$	0.70		n/a		n/a


12.	Stock Incentive Plan, 401(k) Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan

Stock Incentive Plan. The Company and the Operating Partnership have Stock Option and Incentive Plans (“Stock Incentive Plans”) for the purpose of attracting and retaining eligible officers, directors and employees. When the Company issues stock options or restricted stock, the Operating Partnership issues corresponding general partnership units on a one-for-one basis. The Company has reserved for issuance 18,950,000 shares of common stock under its Stock Incentive Plans. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had 10,220,631 non-qualified options outstanding granted to certain directors, officers and employees. Each option is exchangeable for one share of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2004, the options had a weighted average exercise price of $25.40 and the exercise prices range from $19.50 to $36.92. Each option’s exercise price is equal to the Company’s market price on the date of grant. The options have an original ten-year term and generally vest pro rata in annual installments over a three to five-year period from the date of grant.

In 2002, the Operating Partnership adopted the expense recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. The Operating Partnership values stock options issued by the Company, its

F-26

general partner, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and recognizes this value as an expense over the vesting periods. Under this standard, recognition of expense for stock options is applied to all options granted after the beginning of the year of adoption. In accordance with SFAS No. 123, the Operating Partnership will recognize the associated expense over the three to five-year vesting periods. Under SFAS No. 123, related stock option expense was $4.0 million, $2.4 million and $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Additionally, the Operating Partnership awards restricted stock and recognizes this value as an expense over the vesting periods. Related restricted stock compensation expense was $6.4 million, $5.7 million and $4.3 million for 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The expense is included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The adoption of SFAS No. 123 is prospective and the 2002 and 2003 expense relates only to stock options granted in 2002 and subsequent periods. Prior to January 1, 2002, the Operating Partnership applied APB Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” and related interpretations in accounting for its Stock Incentive Plan. Opinion 25 measures compensation cost using the intrinsic value based method of accounting. Under this method, compensation cost is the excess, if any, of the quoted market price of the stock at the date of grant over the amount an employee must pay to acquire the stock. Accordingly, no compensation cost had been recognized for the Operating Partnership’s Stock Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2001.

As permitted by SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation — Transition and Disclosure — An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 123, the Operating Partnership has changed its method of accounting for stock options beginning January 1, 2002. The Operating Partnership has not retroactively changed its method of accounting for stock options but has provided additional required disclosures. Had compensation cost for the Operating Partnership’s stock-based compensation plans been determined based on the fair value at the grant dates for awards prior to 2002 consistent with the method of SFAS No. 123, the Operating Partnership’s pro forma net income available to common unitholders would have been reduced by $1.1 million, $1.6 million and $2.4 million and pro forma basic and diluted earnings per unit would have been reduced to $1.43 and $1.37; $1.42 and $1.39; and $1.33 and $1.30, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.

The fair value of each option grant was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following assumptions used for grants in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively: dividend yields of 4.8%, 6.1% and 5.9%; expected volatility of 18.6%, 17.7% and 13.3%; risk-free interest rates of 3.6%, 3.4% and

F-27

4.0%; and expected lives of seven years for each year. Following is a summary of the option activity for the years ended December 31 (options in thousands):


			Weighted		Options
	Shares		Average		Exercisable
	Under		Exercise		at Year
	Option		Price		End

Outstanding as of December 31, 2000		5,767	$	20.83		3,326

Granted		1,924		24.61
Exercised		(202)		21.15
Forfeited		(52)		22.45

Outstanding as of December 31, 2001		7,437		22.16		4,623

Granted		1,990		26.48
Exercised		(566)		21.41
Forfeited		(96)		24.48

Outstanding as of December 31, 2002		8,765		23.16		5,526

Granted		1,854		27.18
Exercised		(318)		21.94
Forfeited		(15)		25.67

Outstanding as of December 31, 2003		10,286		23.92		7,210

Granted		1,253		34.88
Exercised		(1,233)		22.45
Forfeited		(85)		29.43

Outstanding as of December 31, 2004		10,221	$	25.40		7,841

Remaining average contractual life		6.3 years

Fair value of options granted during the year	$	4.12

In 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company issued 227,609, 272,620 and 204,072 restricted shares, respectively, to certain officers of the Company as part of the performance pay program and in connection with employment with the Company. As of December 31, 2004, 75,988 shares of restricted stock have been forfeited. The 1,178,052 outstanding restricted shares are subject to repurchase rights, which generally lapse over a period from three to five years.

401(k) Plan. In November 1997, the Company and the Operating Partnership established a Section 401(k) Savings/ Retirement Plan (the “401(k) Plan”), which is a continuation of the 401(k) Plan of the predecessor, to cover eligible employees of the Operating Partnership and any designated affiliates. During 2004 and 2003, the 401(k) Plan permitted eligible employees of the Operating Partnership to defer up to 20% of their annual compensation, subject to certain limitations imposed by the Code. The employees’ elective deferrals are immediately vested and non-forfeitable upon contribution to the 401(k) Plan. During 2004 and 2003, the Operating Partnership matched employee contributions to the 401(k) Plan in an amount equal to 50% of the first 5.5% of annual compensation deferred by each employee. The Operating Partnership may also make discretionary contributions to the 401(k) Plan. In 2004 and 2003, the Operating Partnership paid $0.5 million and $0.4 million, respectively, for its 401(k) match. No discretionary contributions were made by the Operating Partnership to the 401(k) Plan in 2004, 2003 and 2002.

F-28

Deferred Compensation Plan. The Company and the Operating Partnership have established a non-qualified deferred compensation plan for officers of the Company and certain of its affiliates, which enables participants to defer income up to 100% of annual base pay and up to 100% of annual bonuses on a pre-tax basis. The Operating Partnership may make discretionary matching contributions to participant accounts at any time. The Operating Partnership made no such discretionary matching contributions in 2004, 2003 or 2002. The participant’s elective deferrals and any matching contributions are immediately 100% vested. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the total fair value of compensation deferred was $15.4 million and $7.1 million, respectively.


13.	Income Per Unit

When the Company issues stock options or restricted stock, the Operating Partnership issues corresponding general partnership units on a one-for-one basis. The Operating Partnership’s only dilutive securities outstanding for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were stock options and restricted stock granted under its stock incentive plans. The effect on income per unit was to increase weighted average units outstanding. Such dilution was computed using the treasury stock method.


			2004		2003		2002

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON UNITS
	Basic			86,885,250		85,859,899		88,204,208
	Stock options and restricted stock			3,235,000		1,756,466		1,485,102

		Diluted weighted average common units		90,120,250		87,616,365		89,689,310


14.	Commitments and Contingencies


	*Commitments*

Lease Commitments. The Operating Partnership holds operating ground leases on land parcels at its on-tarmac facilities, leases on office spaces for corporate use, and a leasehold interest that it holds for investment purposes. The remaining lease terms are from two to 58 years. Operating lease payments are being amortized ratably over the terms of the related leases. Future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable operating leases in effect as of December 31, 2004 were as follows (dollars in thousands):


2005		$	10,810
2006			11,320
2007			11,280
2008			11,310
2009			11,169
Thereafter			222,437

	Total	$	278,326

Standby Letters of Credit. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had provided approximately $33.6 million in letters of credit, of which $13.9 million was provided under the Operating Partnership’s $500.0 million unsecured credit facility. The letters of credit were required to be issued under certain ground lease provisions, bank guarantees and other commitments.

Guarantees. Other than parent guarantees associated with the unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership, as of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had outstanding guarantees in the aggregate amount of $34.7 million in connection with certain acquisitions and lease obligations of which $8.3 million was backed by

F-29

standby letters of credit. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership guaranteed $4.8 million on outstanding construction loans for two of its unconsolidated joint ventures. Additionally, the Operating Partnership provided a take out guarantee after the completion of construction on the aggregate construction loan amount of $30.2 million for another of its unconsolidated joint ventures, of which $20.9 million was outstanding as of December 31, 2004. In connection with this construction loan, the Operating Partnership’s joint venture partner provides an underlying construction loan guarantee up to the completion of construction.

Performance and Surety Bonds. As of December 31, 2004, the Operating Partnership had outstanding performance and surety bonds in an aggregate amount of $1.2 million. These bonds were issued in connection with certain of its development projects and were posted to guarantee certain tax obligations and the construction of certain real property improvements and infrastructure, such as grading, sewers and streets. Performance and surety bonds are commonly required by public agencies from real estate developers. Performance and surety bonds are renewable and expire upon the payment of the taxes due or the completion of the improvements and infrastructure.

Promoted Interests and Other Contractual Obligations. Upon the achievement of certain return thresholds and the occurrence of certain events, the Operating Partnership may be obligated to make payments to certain of joint venture partners pursuant to the terms and provisions of their contractual agreements with the Operating Partnership. From time to time in the normal course of the Operating Partnership’s business, the Operating Partnership enters into various contracts with third parties that may obligate it to make payments or perform other obligations upon the occurrence of certain events.

Contingencies

Litigation. In the normal course of business, from time to time, the Operating Partnership may be involved in legal actions relating to the ownership and operations of its properties. Management does not expect that the liabilities, if any, that may ultimately result from such legal actions will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Operating Partnership.

Environmental Matters. The Operating Partnership monitors its properties for the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. The Operating Partnership is not aware of any environmental liability with respect to the properties that would have a material adverse effect on the Operating Partnership’s business, assets or results of operations. However, there can be no assurance that such a material environmental liability does not exist. The existence of any such material environmental liability would have an adverse effect on the Operating Partnership’s results of operations and cash flow. The Operating Partnership carries environmental insurance and believes that the policy terms, conditions, limits and deductibles are adequate and appropriate under the circumstances, given the relative risk of loss, the cost of such coverage and current industry practice.

General Uninsured Losses. The Operating Partnership carries property and rental loss, liability, flood and terrorism insurance. The Operating Partnership believes that the policy terms, conditions, limits and deductibles are adequate and appropriate under the circumstances, given the relative risk of loss, the cost of such coverage and current industry practice. In addition, certain of the Operating Partnership’s properties are located in areas that are subject to earthquake activity; therefore, the Operating Partnership has obtained limited earthquake insurance on those properties. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses, such as those due to acts of war that may be either uninsurable or not economically insurable. Although the Operating Partnership has obtained coverage for certain acts of terrorism, with policy specifications and insured limits that it believes are commercially reasonable, there can be no assurance that the Operating Partnership will be able to collect under such policies. Should an uninsured loss occur, the Operating Partnership could lose its investment in, and anticipated profits and cash flows from, a property.

Captive Insurance Company. In December 2001, the Operating Partnership formed a wholly-owned captive insurance company, Arcata National Insurance Ltd. (“Arcata”), which provides insurance coverage for all or a portion of losses below the deductible under the Operating Partnership’s third-party policies. The Operating

F-30

Partnership capitalized Arcata in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Arcata established annual premiums based on projections derived from the past loss experience at the Operating Partnership’s properties. Annually, the Operating Partnership engages an independent third party to perform an actuarial estimate of future projected claims, related deductibles and projected expenses necessary to fund associated risk management programs. Premiums paid to Arcata may be adjusted based on this estimate. Premiums paid to Arcata have a retrospective component, so that if expenses, including losses, deductibles and reserves, are less than premiums collected, the excess may be returned to the property owners (and, in turn, as appropriate, to the customers) and conversely, subject to certain limitations, if expenses, including losses, deductibles and reserves, are greater than premiums collected, an additional premium will be charged. As with all recoverable expenses, differences between estimated and actual insurance premiums will be recognized in the subsequent year. Through this structure, the Operating Partnership believes that it has more comprehensive insurance coverage at an overall lower cost than would otherwise be available in the market.

F-31


15.	Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

Selected quarterly financial results for 2004 and 2003 were as follows (dollars in thousands, except unit and per unit amounts):


			Quarter (unaudited) ⁽¹⁾
2004

			March 31		June 30		September 30		December 31		Year

Total revenues			$	159,619	$	159,750	$	171,952	$	174,368	$	665,689
Income before minority interests and discontinued operations				29,541		31,082		35,896		43,575		140,094
Total minority interests’ share of income				(11,941)		(13,229)		(13,395)		(13,678)		(52,243)
Income from continuing operations				17,600		17,853		22,501		29,897		87,851
Total discontinued operations				1,396		3,602		12,814		32,853		50,665

	Net income			18,996		21,455		35,315		62,750		138,516
Preferred unit distributions				(3,373)		(3,373)		(3,373)		(3,372)		(13,491)

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	15,623	$	18,082	$	31,942	$	59,378	$	125,025

Basic income per common unit ⁽²⁾
	Income from continuing operations		$	0.16	$	0.17	$	0.22	$	0.30	$	0.86
	Discontinued operations			0.02		0.04		0.15		0.38		0.58

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	0.18	$	0.21	$	0.37	$	0.68	$	1.44

Diluted income per common unit ⁽²⁾
	Income from continuing operations		$	0.15	$	0.16	$	0.21	$	0.29	$	0.83
	Discontinued operations			0.02		0.04		0.14		0.36		0.56

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	0.17	$	0.20	$	0.35	$	0.65	$	1.39

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON UNITS OUTSTANDING
	Basic			86,447,303		86,824,795		86,943,931		87,277,240		86,885,250

	Diluted			89,617,834		89,288,954		90,146,245		91,003,313		90,120,250


(1)	Certain reclassifications have been made to the quarterly data to conform with the annual presentation with no net effect to net income or net income available to common unitholders.
(2)	The sum of quarterly financial data may vary from the annual data due to rounding.

F-32


			Quarter (unaudited) ⁽¹⁾
2003

			March 31		June 30		September 30		December 31		Year

Total revenues			$	143,795	$	143,051	$	143,048	$	156,735	$	586,629
Income before minority interests and discontinued operations				34,525		24,492		33,738		42,273		135,028
Total minority interests’ share of income				(10,182)		(11,194)		(15,807)		(16,084)		(53,267)
Income from continuing operations				24,343		13,298		17,931		26,189		81,761
Total discontinued operations				40,211		7,495		11,913		5,709		65,328

	Net income			64,554		20,793		29,844		31,898		147,089
Preferred unit distributions				(5,115)		(5,186)		(4,462)		(3,424)		(18,187)
Preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs)				–		–		(3,671)		(1,742)		(5,413)

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	59,439	$	15,607	$	21,711	$	26,732	$	123,489

Basic income per common unit ⁽²⁾
	Income from continuing operations		$	0.22	$	0.09	$	0.11	$	0.24	$	0.68
	Discontinued operations			0.47		0.09		0.14		0.07		0.76

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	0.69	$	0.18	$	0.25	$	0.31	$	1.44

Diluted income per common unit ⁽²⁾
	Income from continuing operations		$	0.22	$	0.09	$	0.11	$	0.24	$	0.66
	Discontinued operations			0.46		0.09		0.14		0.06		0.75

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	0.68	$	0.18	$	0.25	$	0.30	$	1.41

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON UNITS OUTSTANDING
	Basic			85,944,112		85,852,418		85,776,261		85,858,038		85,859,899

	Diluted			87,360,543		87,302,896		87,399,544		88,360,432		87,616,365


(1)	Certain reclassifications have been made to the quarterly data to conform with the annual presentation with no net effect to net income or net income available to common unitholders.
(2)	The sum of quarterly financial data may vary from the annual data due to rounding.


16.	Segment Information

The Operating Partnership mainly operates industrial properties and manages its business by markets. Industrial properties represent more than 99.5% of the Operating Partnership’s portfolio by rentable square feet and consist primarily of warehouse distribution facilities suitable for single or multiple customers, and are typically comprised of multiple buildings that are leased to customers engaged in various types of businesses. The Operating Partnership’s geographic markets for industrial properties are managed separately because each market requires different operating, pricing and leasing strategies. The remaining 0.5% of the Operating Partnership’s portfolio is comprised of retail and other properties located in Southeast Florida and Atlanta. The Operating Partnership does not separately manage its retail operations by market. Retail properties are generally leased to one or more anchor customers, such as grocery and drug stores, and various retail businesses. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies (See

F-33

footnote 2). The Operating Partnership evaluates performance based upon property net operating income of the combined properties in each segment.

The other domestic target markets category includes Austin, Baltimore/ Washington D.C., Boston and Minneapolis. The other domestic non-target markets category captures all of the Operating Partnership’s other U.S. markets, except for those markets listed individually in the table. The international target markets category includes France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands.

Summary information for the reportable segments is as follows (dollars in thousands):


			Rental Revenues						Property NOI ⁽¹⁾

			2004		2003		2002		2004		2003		2002
Segments
Industrial domestic hub and gateway markets:
	Atlanta		$	30,411	$	29,080	$	30,444	$	23,765	$	23,048	$	23,970
	Chicago			44,991		43,837		45,114		31,378		29,934		31,446
	Dallas / Fort Worth			16,551		17,015		26,697		11,218		11,457		18,915
	Los Angeles			103,438		94,025		77,700		80,960		74,633		61,250
	Northern New Jersey/ New York			64,686		52,709		47,422		45,046		34,735		31,845
	San Francisco Bay Area			98,885		109,819		129,858		79,429		90,008		109,000
	Miami			33,821		32,902		35,164		23,027		23,308		25,516
	Seattle			41,675		31,813		25,656		32,539		24,863		20,394
	On-Tarmac			54,425		48,909		30,617		30,623		26,639		17,161

		Total industrial domestic hub markets		488,883		460,109		448,672		357,985		338,625		339,497
Other domestic target markets				109,474		103,070		104,565		80,084		74,178		75,567
Other domestic non-target markets				34,066		28,976		46,968		25,387		21,000		35,235
International target markets				25,641		6,101		739		20,694		5,697		686
Straight-line rents and amortization of lease intangibles				16,281		10,662		11,013		16,281		10,662		11,013
Total retail and other markets				6,403		12,390		16,896		3,545		7,541		10,597
Discontinued operations				(27,954)		(48,016)		(76,815)		(19,688)		(36,434)		(57,008)

	Total		$	652,794	$	573,292	$	552,038	$	484,288	$	421,269	$	415,587


(1)	Property net operating income (“NOI”) is defined as rental revenue, including reimbursements, less property operating expenses, which excludes depreciation, amortization, general and administrative expenses and interest expense. For a reconciliation of NOI to net income, see the table below.

The Operating Partnership considers NOI to be an appropriate supplemental performance measure because NOI reflects the operating performance of the Operating Partnership’s real estate portfolio on a segment basis, and the Operating Partnership uses NOI to make decisions about resource allocations and to assess regional property level performance. However, NOI should not be viewed as an alternative measure of the Operating Partnership’s financial performance since it does not reflect general and administrative expenses, interest expense, depreciation and amortization costs, capital expenditures and leasing costs, or trends in development and construction activities that could materially impact the Operating Partnership’s results from operations. Further, the Operating Partnership’s NOI may not be comparable to that of other real estate companies, as they may use

F-34

different methodologies for calculating NOI. The following table is a reconciliation from NOI to reported net income, a financial measure under GAAP:


		2004		2003		2002

Property NOI		$	484,288	$	421,269	$	415,587
Private capital income			12,895		13,337		11,193
Depreciation and amortization			(160,026)		(132,167)		(121,069)
Impairment losses			–		(5,251)		(2,846)
General and administrative			(58,956)		(46,429)		(45,149)
Fund costs			(1,741)		(825)		(1,051)
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures			3,781		5,445		5,674
Interest and other income			3,958		4,009		9,446
Gains from dispositions of real estate			5,219		7,429		8,771
Development profits, net of taxes			8,528		14,441		1,171
Interest, including amortization			(157,852)		(146,230)		(142,918)
Total minority interests’ share of income			(52,243)		(53,267)		(41,332)
Total discontinued operations			50,665		65,328		41,577

	Net income	$	138,516	$	147,089	$	139,054

The Operating Partnership’s total assets by market were:


			Total Assets as of

			December 31, 2004		December 31, 2003

Industrial domestic hub and gateway markets:
	Atlanta		$	204,554	$	256,304
	Chicago			479,919		365,019
	Dallas/ Fort Worth			143,953		137,367
	Los Angeles			922,401		851,630
	Northern New Jersey/ New York			775,784		488,998
	San Francisco Bay Area			788,120		792,012
	Miami			363,694		350,872
	Seattle			377,142		374,136
	On-Tarmac			239,377		260,099

		Total industrial domestic hub markets		4,294,944		3,876,437
Other domestic target markets				825,930		705,724
Other non-target markets and other				308,428		268,064
International target markets				684,184		199,824
Total retail and other markets				15,915		41,967
Non-segment assets ⁽¹⁾				257,542		317,543

		Total assets	$	6,386,943	$	5,409,559


(1)	Non-segment assets consist of corporate assets including cash, investments in unconsolidated joint ventures and mortgages receivable.

F-35


17.	Pro Forma Financial Information (Unaudited)

The following unaudited pro forma information for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 have been prepared to reflect the incremental effect of the acquisition of properties during 2004 by the Operating Partnership as if such transactions and adjustments had occurred at the beginning of each year and were carried forward through their issuance dates.


			2004		2003

			(in thousands, except unit and per
			unit amounts)
Rental revenues			$	683,692	$	624,650
Income from continuing operations			$	93,113	$	84,388
Total discontinued operations			$	50,665	$	65,328
Net income			$	143,778	$	149,716
Net income available to common unitholders			$	130,287	$	126,116
Basic income per common unit
	Income from continuing operations (includes preferred unit distributions and preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs or premium))		$	0.92	$	0.71
	Discontinued operations			0.58		0.76

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	1.50	$	1.47

Diluted income per common unit
	Income from continuing operations (includes preferred unit distributions and preferred unit redemption discount/(issuance costs or premium))		$	0.88	$	0.69
	Discontinued operations			0.56		0.75

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	1.44	$	1.44

Weighted Average Common Units Outstanding
	Basic			86,885,250		85,859,899

	Diluted			90,120,250		87,616,365

During the year ended December 31, 2003, the Operating Partnership acquired 82 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 6.5 million square feet for a total expected investment of $533.9 million.

F-36

The following unaudited pro forma consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 have been prepared to reflect the acquisitions of properties during 2003 by the Operating Partnership, the issuance of unsecured senior debt securities in November 2003 related to property acquisitions and the issuance of common limited partnership units in connection with a 2003 acquisition, as if such transactions and adjustments had occurred at the beginning of each year and were carried forward through their issuance dates.


			2003		2002

			(in thousands, except unit and per
			unit amounts)
Rental revenues			$	602,090	$	586,067
Income from continuing operations			$	84,312	$	98,136
Total discontinued operations			$	65,328	$	41,577
Net income			$	149,640	$	139,713
Net income available to common unitholders			$	126,040	$	120,353
Basic income per common unit
	Income from continuing operations (includes preferred unit distributions and preferred unit redemption discount/ (issuance costs or premium))		$	0.71	$	0.89
	Discontinued operations			0.76		0.47

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	1.47	$	1.36

Diluted income per common unit
	Income from continuing operations (includes preferred unit distributions and preferred unit redemption discount/ (issuance costs or premium))		$	0.70	$	0.88
	Discontinued operations			0.74		0.46

		Net income available to common unitholders	$	1.44	$	1.34

Weighted Average Common Units Outstanding
	Basic			85,986,705		88,349,756

	Diluted			87,743,171		89,834,858

F-37

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to
									Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Atlanta
Airport Plaza		3		GA		IND	$	4,392	$	1,811	$	5,093	$	548
Airport South Business Park		7		GA		IND		16,770		10,035		16,436		6,648
Atlanta South Business Park		9		GA		IND		–		8,047		24,180		2,419
AMB Garden City Industrial		1		GA		IND		–		441		2,604		6
AMB South Davis Industrial		1		GA		IND		–		78		713		–
South Ridge at Hartsfield		1		GA		IND		3,991		2,096		4,008		137
Southfield Logistics Center		2		GA		IND		10,950		3,200		10,012		5,907
Southfield/ KRDC Industrial SG		13		GA		IND		33,495		13,585		35,730		8,371
Southside Distribution Center		1		GA		IND		1,064		766		2,480		105
Sylvan Industrial		1		GA		IND		–		1,946		5,905		596
Chicago
Addison Business Center		1		IL		IND		–		1,060		3,228		267
Alsip Industrial		1		IL		IND		–		1,200		3,744		263
Bedford Warehouse		1		IL		IND		2,742		1,354		3,225		7
Belden Avenue SGP		3		IL		IND		9,853		5,491		13,655		433
Bensenville Ind Park		13		IL		IND		–		20,799		62,438		15,031
Bridgeview Industrial		1		IL		IND		–		1,332		3,996		547
Chancellory Warehouse		1		IL		IND		2,532		1,566		2,006		835
Chicago Industrial Portfolio		1		IL		IND		1,500		762		2,285		505
Chicago Ridge Freight Terminal		1		IL		IND		–		3,705		3,576		73
Chicago/ O’Hare IP Alliance I		5		IL		IND		8,819		4,816		9,603		1,214
AMB District Industrial		1		IL		IND		–		703		1,339		(1	)
Elk Grove Village SG		10		IL		IND		16,565		7,060		21,739		4,569
Executive Drive		1		IL		IND		–		1,399		4,236		1,125
Hamilton Parkway		1		IL		IND		–		1,554		4,703		261
Hintz Building		1		IL		IND		–		420		1,259		309
Itasca Industrial Portfolio		6		IL		IND		–		6,416		19,289		4,206
Melrose Park Distribution Ctr.		1		IL		IND		–		2,936		9,190		2,133
NDP — Chicago		3		IL		IND		–		1,496		4,487		1,022
AMB O’Hare		14		IL		IND		9,348		3,197		8,995		1,930
O’Hare Industrial Portfolio (DEV) Nicholas Warehouse		13		IL		IND		–		6,248		18,778		1,583

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at

12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

Atlanta

Airport Plaza
$ 1,811 $ 5,641 $ 7,452 $ 206 2003 5-40

Airport South Business Park
10,035 23,084 33,119 2,837 2001 5-40

Atlanta South Business Park
8,047 26,599 34,646 5,788 1997 5-40

AMB Garden City Industrial
441 2,610 3,051 21 2004 5-40

AMB South Davis Industrial
78 713 791 5 2004 5-40

South Ridge at Hartsfield
2,096 4,145 6,241 406 2001 5-40

Southfield Logistics Center
3,200 15,919 19,119 2,351 2002 5-40

Southfield/ KRDC Industrial SG
13,585 44,101 57,686 4,799 1997 5-40

Southside Distribution Center
766 2,585 3,351 239 2001 5-40

Sylvan Industrial
1,946 6,501 8,447 926 1999 5-40

Chicago

Addison Business Center
1,060 3,495 4,555 465 2000 5-40

Alsip Industrial
1,200 4,007 5,207 749 1998 5-40

Bedford Warehouse
1,354 3,232 4,586 258 2001 5-40

Belden Avenue SGP
5,491 14,088 19,579 2,054 1997 5-40

Bensenville Ind Park
20,799 77,469 98,268 17,796 1997 5-40

Bridgeview Industrial
1,332 4,543 5,875 748 1997 5-40

Chancellory Warehouse
1,566 2,841 4,407 247 2002 5-40

Chicago Industrial Portfolio
762 2,790 3,552 497 1997 5-40

Chicago Ridge Freight Terminal
3,705 3,649 7,354 356 2001 5-40

Chicago/ O’Hare IP Alliance I
4,816 10,817 15,633 1,081 2001 5-40

AMB District Industrial
703 1,338 2,041 4 2004 5-40

Elk Grove Village SG
7,060 26,308 33,368 3,302 1997 5-40

Executive Drive
1,399 5,361 6,760 1,268 1997 5-40

Hamilton Parkway
1,554 4,964 6,518 961 1997 5-40

Hintz Building
420 1,568 1,988 318 1998 5-40

Itasca Industrial Portfolio
6,416 23,495 29,911 5,513 1997 5-40

Melrose Park Distribution Ctr.
2,936 11,323 14,259 2,806 1997 5-40

NDP — Chicago
1,496 5,509 7,005 1,270 1998 5-40

AMB O’Hare
3,197 10,925 14,122 1,516 1999 5-40

O’Hare Industrial Portfolio (DEV) Nicholas Warehouse
6,248 20,361 26,609 4,800 1997 5.40

S-1

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Poplar Gateway Truck Terminal		1		IL		IND		–		4,551		3,152		1
AMB Port O’Hare		2		IL		IND		5,975		4,913		5,761		1,157
AMB Sivert Distribution		1		IL		IND		–		857		1,377		–
Stone Distribution Center		1		IL		IND		2,932		2,242		3,266		11
Thorndale Distribution		1		IL		IND		5,454		4,130		4,216		325
Touhy Cargo Terminal		1		IL		IND		5,303		2,800		110		4,550
AMB Turnberry Distribution		5		IL		IND		48,500		19,112		78,361		–
Windsor Court		1		IL		IND		–		766		2,338		102
Wood Dale Industrial SG		5		IL		IND		8,582		2,869		9,166		952
Yohan Industrial		3		IL		IND		4,582		5,904		7,323		1,079
Dallas/ Ft. Worth
Addison Technology Center		1		TX		IND		–		899		2,696		1,254
Dallas Industrial		12		TX		IND		–		5,938		17,836		4,880
DFW Airfreight Seefried		3		TX		IND		2,375		950		1,374		700
Greater Dallas Industrial Port		5		TX		IND		–		5,633		18,414		1,682
Lincoln Industrial Center		1		TX		IND		–		671		2,052		303
Lonestar Portfolio		6		TX		IND		16,323		6,280		19,917		2,944
Northfield Dist. Center		6		TX		IND		22,257		6,446		20,087		6,472
Richardson Tech Center SGP		2		TX		IND		5,008		1,524		5,887		2,331
Valwood Industrial		2		TX		IND		3,413		1,983		5,989		2,182
West North Carrier Parkway		1		TX		IND		2,763		1,375		4,165		1,267
Los Angeles
Anaheim Industrial Property		1		CA		IND		–		1,457		4,341		760
Artesia Industrial		24		CA		IND		46,315		22,238		66,692		16,154
Aviation Logistics Center A-L		8		CA		IND		32,000		22,141		19,178		2,767
Bell Ranch Distribution		5		CA		IND		–		6,904		12,915		728
Cabrillo Distribution Center		1		CA		IND		12,449		7,563		11,177		25
Carson Industrial		12		CA		IND		–		4,231		10,418		4,087
Carson Town Center		2		CA		IND		–		6,565		3,210		14,529
Chartwell Distribution Center		1		CA		IND		–		2,711		8,191		163
Del Amo Industrial Center		1		CA		IND		–		2,529		7,651		31
Eaves Distribution Center		3		CA		IND		14,880		11,893		12,708		2,387
Fordyce Distribution Center		1		CA		IND		7,351		4,340		8,335		806
Ford Distribution Cntr		7		CA		IND		–		24,557		22,046		3,144
Harris Bus Ctr Alliance I		10		CA		IND		26,346		19,273		26,288		2,906

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

Poplar Gateway Truck Terminal
4,551 3,153 7,704 158 2002 5-40

AMB Port O’Hare
4,913 6,918 11,831 827 2001 5-40

AMB Sivert Distribution
857 1,377 2,234 13 2004 5-40

Stone Distribution Center
2,242 3,277 5,519 142 2003 5-40

Thorndale Distribution
4,130 4,541 8,671 365 2002 5-40

Touhy Cargo Terminal
2,800 4,660 7,460 162 2002 5-40

AMB Turnberry Distribution
19,112 78,361 97,473 113 2004 5-40

Windsor Court
766 2,440 3,206 468 1997 5-40

Wood Dale Industrial SG
2,869 10,118 12,987 1,116 1999 5-40

Yohan Industrial
5,904 8,402 14,306 491 2003 5-40

Dallas/ Ft. Worth

Addison Technology Center
899 3,950 4,849 859 1998 5-40

Dallas Industrial
5,938 22,716 28,654 5,825 1997 5-40

DFW Airfreight Seefried
950 2,074 3,024 460 2000 5-40

Greater Dallas Industrial Port
5,633 20,096 25,729 4,911 1997 5-40

Lincoln Industrial Center
671 2,355 3,026 565 1997 5-40

Lonestar Portfolio
6,280 22,861 29,141 1,767 1997 5-40

Northfield Dist. Center
6,446 26,559 33,005 1,532 2002 5-40

Richardson Tech Center SGP
1,524 8,218 9,742 554 1997 5-40

Valwood Industrial
1,983 8,171 10,154 2,021 1997 5-40

West North Carrier Parkway
1,375 5,432 6,807 1,111 1997 5-40

Los Angeles

Anaheim Industrial Property
1,457 5,101 6,558 1,107 1997 5-40

Artesia Industrial
22,238 80,771 103,009 16,717 1997 5-40

Aviation Logistics Center A-L
22,141 21,945 44,086 787 2003 5-40

Bell Ranch Distribution
6,904 13,643 20,547 1,321 2001 5-40

Cabrillo Distribution Center
7,563 11,202 18,765 564 2002 5-40

Carson Industrial
4,231 15,284 19,515 2,447 1999 5-40

Carson Town Center
6,565 18,517 25,082 1,368 2000 5-40

Chartwell Distribution Center
2,711 8,613 11,324 976 2000 5-40

Del Amo Industrial Center
2,529 7,941 10,470 820 2000 5-40

Eaves Distribution Center
11,893 15,095 26,988 1,727 2001 5-40

Fordyce Distribution Center
4,340 9,141 13,481 900 2001 5-40

Ford Distribution Cntr
24,557 25,190 49,747 2,582 2001 5-40

Harris Bus Ctr Alliance I
19,273 29,194 48,467 3,577 2000 5-40

S-2

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Harris Bus Ctr Alliance II		9		CA		IND		32,401		20,772		31,050		3,043
Hawthorne LAX Cargo AMBPTNII		1		CA		IND		8,275		2,775		8,377		512
LA Co Industrial Port SGP		6		CA		IND		22,432		9,430		29,242		4,126
LAX Gateway		1		CA		IND		16,275		–		26,734		103
LAX Logistics Center 1		2		CA		IND		31,857		29,622		25,913		61
Los Nietos Business Center SG		4		CA		IND		7,828		2,488		7,751		706
International Multifoods		1		CA		IND		–		1,613		4,879		1,290
NDP — Los Angeles		6		CA		IND		–		5,948		17,844		2,775
Normandie Industrial		1		CA		IND		–		2,398		7,491		1,733
Northpointe Commerce		2		CA		IND		–		1,773		5,358		544
Pioneer-Alburtis		5		CA		IND		8,131		2,482		7,166		922
Park One at LAX, LLC		–		CA		IND		–		75,000		431		67
Slauson Dist. Ctr. AMBPTNII		8		CA		IND		25,737		7,806		23,552		4,079
Stadium Business Park		9		CA		IND		–		3,768		11,345		1,372
Sunset Dist. Center		3		CA		IND		6,883		6,718		2,765		16,317
Systematics		1		CA		IND		–		911		2,773		620
Torrance Commerce Center		6		CA		IND		–		2,046		6,136		1,082
Van Nuys Airport Industrial		4		CA		IND		–		9,393		8,641		15,025
Walnut Drive		1		CA		IND		–		964		2,918		744
Watson Industrial Center AFdII		1		CA		IND		4,449		1,713		5,321		1,325
Wilmington Avenue Warehouse		2		CA		IND		–		3,849		11,605		3,318
Miami
Beacon Centre — Alliance Fund		4		FL		IND		16,762		7,229		22,238		1,902
Beacon Centre		18		FL		IND		65,798		31,704		96,681		17,213
Beacon Industrial Park		8		FL		IND		–		10,105		31,437		6,384
Blue Lagoon Business Park		2		FL		IND		–		4,945		14,875		1,246
Cobia Distribution Center		2		FL		IND		–		1,792		5,950		872
Dolphin Distribution Center		1		FL		IND		1,414		1,581		3,602		519
Gratigny Distribution Center		1		FL		IND		–		1,551		2,380		587
Marlin Distribution Center		1		FL		IND		–		1,076		2,169		659
Miami Airport Business Center		6		FL		IND		–		6,400		19,634		3,501
Panther Distribution Center		1		FL		IND		–		1,840		3,252		632
Sunrise Industrial		4		FL		IND		11,140		6,266		18,798		4,007

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

Harris Bus Ctr Alliance II
20,772 34,093 54,865 4,443 2000 5-40

Hawthorne LAX Cargo AMBPTNII
2,775 8,889 11,664 901 2000 5-40

LA Co Industrial Port SGP
9,430 33,368 42,798 3,339 1997 5-40

LAX Gateway
– 26,837 26,837 823 2004 5-40

LAX Logistics Center 1
29,622 25,974 55,596 978 2003 5-40

Los Nietos Business Center SG
2,488 8,457 10,945 922 1999 5-40

International Multifoods
1,613 6,169 7,782 1,249 1997 5-40

NDP — Los Angeles
5,948 20,619 26,567 3,965 1998 5-40

Normandie Industrial
2,398 9,224 11,622 1,401 2000 5-40

Northpointe Commerce
1,773 5,902 7,675 1,242 1997 5-40

Pioneer-Alburtis
2,482 8,088 10,570 978 1999 5-40

Park One at LAX, LLC
75,000 498 75,498 29 2002 5-40

Slauson Dist. Ctr. AMBPTNII
7,806 27,631 35,437 3,096 2000 5-40

Stadium Business Park
3,768 12,717 16,485 2,759 1997 5-40

Sunset Dist. Center
6,718 19,082 25,800 425 2002 5-40

Systematics
911 3,393 4,304 805 1997 5-40

Torrance Commerce Center
2,046 7,218 9,264 1,616 1998 5-40

Van Nuys Airport Industrial
9,393 23,666 33,059 3,505 2000 5-40

Walnut Drive
964 3,662 4,626 751 1997 5-40

Watson Industrial Center AFdII
1,713 6,646 8,359 683 2001 5-40

Wilmington Avenue Warehouse
3,849 14,923 18,772 2,998 1999 5-40

Miami

Beacon Centre — Alliance Fund
7,229 24,140 31,369 2,800 2000 5-40

Beacon Centre
31,704 113,894 145,598 16,230 2000 5-40

Beacon Industrial Park
10,105 37,821 47,926 7,642 1997 5-40

Blue Lagoon Business Park
4,945 16,121 21,066 3,357 1997 5-40

Cobia Distribution Center
1,792 6,822 8,614 75 2004 5-40

Dolphin Distribution Center
1,581 4,121 5,702 153 2003 5-40

Gratigny Distribution Center
1,551 2,967 4,518 237 2003 5-40

Marlin Distribution Center
1,076 2,828 3,904 165 2003 5-40

Miami Airport Business Center
6,400 23,135 29,535 3,889 1999 5-40

Panther Distribution Center
1,840 3,884 5,724 153 2003 5-40

Sunrise Industrial
6,266 22,805 29,071 3,612 1998 5-40

S-3

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Tarpon Distribution Center		1		FL		IND		1,509		884		3,914		124
No. New Jersey/ New York City
AMB Meadowlands Park		8		NJ		IND		–		5,449		14,458		4,175
Dellamor		8		NJ		IND		14,176		12,061		11,577		1,713
Docks Corner SG (Phase II)		1		NJ		IND		35,133		5,125		22,516		28,738
Fairfalls Portfolio		28		NJ		IND		34,641		20,380		45,038		467
Fairmeadows Portfolio (1-18, except 14)		17		NJ		IND		31,585		18,615		27,901		3,088
Fairmeadows Portfolio (19-21)		3		NJ		IND		–		4,317		8,836		5
Jamesburg Road Corporate Park		3		NJ		IND		21,658		11,700		35,101		4,659
JFK Air Cargo		15		NY		IND		–		15,834		45,694		5,952
JFK Air Cargo — Alliance Fund		13		NY		IND		18,468		10,095		29,258		4,794
JFK Airport Park		1		NY		IND		–		2,350		7,251		924
JFK Logistics Center Bldgs A-D		4		NY		IND		35,349		57,534		96,593		55
Linden Industrial		1		NJ		IND		–		900		2,753		503
Mahwah Corporate Center		4		NJ		IND		–		7,212		22,086		878
Mooncreek Distribution Center		1		NJ		IND		–		2,958		7,924		–
Meadowlands ALFII		4		NJ		IND		11,993		6,755		13,093		1,928
Meadowlands Cross Dock		1		NJ		IND		–		1,110		3,485		1,004
Meadow Lane		1		NJ		IND		–		838		2,594		283
Moonachie Industrial		2		NJ		IND		5,356		2,731		5,228		335
Murray Hill Parkway		2		NJ		IND		–		1,670		2,568		5,181
Newark Airport I & II		2		NJ		IND		3,534		1,755		5,400		511
Orchard Hill		1		NJ		IND		754		1,212		1,411		8
Porete Avenue Warehouse		1		NJ		IND		–		4,067		12,202		4,709
Skyland Crossdock		1		NJ		IND		–		–		7,250		255
Teterboro Meadowlands 15		1		NJ		IND		9,575		4,961		9,618		1,353
AMB Tri-Port Distribution Ctr		1		NJ		IND		–		25,656		19,853		1
Two South Middlesex		1		NJ		IND		–		2,247		6,781		1,379
On-Tarmac
AMB BWI Cargo Center E		1		MD		IND		2,585		–		6,367		87
AMB DFW Cargo Center East		3		TX		IND		5,933		–		20,632		1,067

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

Tarpon Distribution Center
884 4,038 4,922 161 2004 5-40

No. New Jersey/ New York City

AMB Meadowlands Park
5,449 18,633 24,082 2,742 2000 5-40

Dellamor
12,061 13,290 25,351 893 2002 5-40

Docks Corner SG (Phase II)
5,125 51,254 56,379 4,859 1997 5-40

Fairfalls Portfolio
20,380 45,505 65,885 1,005 2004 5-40

Fairmeadows Portfolio (1-18, except 14)
18,615 30,989 49,604 1,130 2003 5-40

Fairmeadows Portfolio (19-21)
4,317 8,841 13,158 174 2004 5-40

Jamesburg Road Corporate Park
11,700 39,760 51,460 7,469 1998 5-40

JFK Air Cargo
15,834 51,646 67,480 7,479 2000 5-40

JFK Air Cargo — Alliance Fund
10,095 34,052 44,147 5,541 2000 5-40

JFK Airport Park
2,350 8,175 10,525 1,152 2000 5-40

JFK Logistics Center Bldgs A-D
57,534 96,648 154,182 1,533 2004 5-40

Linden Industrial
900 3,256 4,156 618 1999 5-40

Mahwah Corporate Center
7,212 22,964 30,176 3,586 1998 5-40

Mooncreek Distribution Center
2,958 7,924 10,882 220 2004 5-40

Meadowlands ALFII
6,755 15,021 21,776 1,825 2001 5-40

Meadowlands Cross Dock
1,110 4,489 5,599 824 2000 5-40

Meadow Lane
838 2,877 3,715 491 1999 5-40

Moonachie Industrial
2,731 5,563 8,294 626 2001 5-40

Murray Hill Parkway
1,670 7,749 9,419 2,153 1999 5-40

Newark Airport I & II
1,755 5,911 7,666 928 2000 5-40

Orchard Hill
1,212 1,419 2,631 83 2002 5-40

Porete Avenue Warehouse
4,067 16,911 20,978 3,061 1998 5-40

Skyland Crossdock
– 7,505 7,505 499 2002 5-40

Teterboro Meadowlands 15
4,961 10,971 15,932 1,549 2001 5-40

AMB Tri-Port Distribution Ctr
25,656 19,854 45,510 173 2004 5-40

Two South Middlesex
2,247 8,160 10,407 1,999 1997 5-40

On-Tarmac

AMB BWI Cargo Center E
– 6,454 6,454 1,448 2000 5-19

AMB DFW Cargo Center East
– 21,699 21,699 3,381 2000 5-26

S-4

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

AMB DAY Cargo Center		5		OH		IND		6,515		–		7,163		459
AMB DFW Cargo Center 1		1		TX		IND		15,566		–		19,683		4,123
DFW Airfreight		3		TX		IND		5,000		–		7,117		496
AMB DFW Cargo Center 2		1		TX		IND		–		–		4,286		13,952
AMB IAH Cargo Center		1		TX		IND		7,117		–		339		9,915
AMB IAD Cargo Center 5		1		VA		IND		11,025		–		38,840		63
AMB JAX Cargo Center		1		FL		IND		–		–		3,029		87
AMB JFK Cargo Center 75 77		2		NJ		IND		–		–		30,965		3,554
AMB LAS Cargo Center 1 5		5		NV		IND		–		–		24,072		640
AMB LAX Cargo Center		3		CA		IND		7,066		–		13,445		141
AMB MCI Cargo Center 1		1		MO		IND		4,790		–		5,793		226
AMB MCI Cargo Center 2		1		MO		IND		8,935		–		8,134		–
AMB PHL Cargo Center C2		1		PA		IND		–		–		9,716		1,978
AMB PDX Cargo Center Airtrans		2		OR		IND		–		–		26		10,558
AMB RNO Cargo Center 10 11		2		NV		IND		–		–		6,014		202
AMB SEA Air Cargo Center 314		1		WA		IND		2,673		–		2,939		1,428
AMB SEA Cargo Center North		2		WA		IND		4,358		–		15,594		203
AMB SEA Cargo Center South		1		WA		IND		–		–		3,056		239
San Francisco Bay Area
Acer Distribution Center		1		CA		IND		–		3,146		9,479		2,608
Albrae Business Center		1		CA		IND		7,606		6,299		6,227		1,055
Alvarado Business Center SG		5		CA		IND		23,434		6,342		26,671		9,659
Brennan Distribution		1		CA		IND		4,079		3,683		3,022		2,193
Central Bay		2		CA		IND		6,833		3,896		7,400		1,437
Component Drive Ind Port		3		CA		IND		–		12,688		6,974		841
Concord Industrial Portfolio		10		CA		IND		10,223		3,872		11,647		3,576
Dado Distribution		1		CA		IND		–		7,221		3,739		2,844
Diablo Industrial Park		12		CA		IND		8,829		3,379		10,489		1,252
Doolittle Distribution Center		1		CA		IND		–		2,644		8,014		1,006
Dowe Industrial Center		2		CA		IND		–		2,665		8,034		2,023
Dublin Industrial Portfolio		1		CA		IND		–		2,980		9,042		1,588
East Bay Whipple		1		CA		IND		6,771		5,333		8,126		1,643

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

AMB DAY Cargo Center
– 7,622 7,622 1,555 2000 5-23

AMB DFW Cargo Center 1
– 23,806 23,806 4,393 2000 5-38

DFW Airfreight
– 7,613 7,613 1,525 2000 5-26

AMB DFW Cargo Center 2
– 18,238 18,238 2,654 1999 5-39

AMB IAH Cargo Center
– 10,254 10,254 772 2000 5-36

AMB IAD Cargo Center 5
– 38,903 38,903 6,510 2002 5-15

AMB JAX Cargo Center
– 3,116 3,116 573 2000 5-22

AMB JFK Cargo Center 75 77
– 34,519 34,519 6,790 2002 5-13

AMB LAS Cargo Center 1 5
– 24,712 24,712 1,603 2003 5-33

AMB LAX Cargo Center
– 13,586 13,586 2,633 2000 5-22

AMB MCI Cargo Center 1
– 6,019 6,019 1,426 2000 5-18

AMB MCI Cargo Center 2
– 8,134 8,134 1,237 2000 5-27

AMB PHL Cargo Center C2
– 11,694 11,694 2,282 2000 5-27

AMB PDX Cargo Center Airtrans
– 10,584 10,584 1,277 2002 5-28

AMB RNO Cargo Center 10 11
– 6,216 6,216 515 2003 5-23

AMB SEA Air Cargo Center 314
– 4,367 4,367 1,126 2003 5-15

AMB SEA Cargo Center North
– 15,797 15,797 2,469 2000 5-27

AMB SEA Cargo Center South
– 3,295 3,295 1,009 2000 5-14

San Francisco Bay Area

Acer Distribution Center
3,146 12,087 15,233 2,913 1997 5-40

Albrae Business Center
6,299 7,282 13,581 653 2001 5-40

Alvarado Business Center SG
6,342 36,330 42,672 3,993 1997 5-40

Brennan Distribution
3,683 5,215 8,898 824 2001 5-40

Central Bay
3,896 8,837 12,733 1,199 2001 5-40

Component Drive Ind Port
12,688 7,815 20,503 968 2001 5-40

Concord Industrial Portfolio
3,872 15,223 19,095 3,136 1999 5-40

Dado Distribution
7,221 6,583 13,804 722 2001 5-40

Diablo Industrial Park
3,379 11,741 15,120 2,030 1999 5-40

Doolittle Distribution Center
2,644 9,020 11,664 1,303 2000 5-40

Dowe Industrial Center
2,665 10,057 12,722 2,214 1997 5-40

Dublin Industrial Portfolio
2,980 10,630 13,610 1,337 2000 5-40

East Bay Whipple
5,333 9,769 15,102 1,018 2001 5-40

S-5

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

East Bay Doolittle		1		CA		IND		–		7,128		11,023		2,028
Edgewater Industrial Center		1		CA		IND		–		4,038		15,113		4,914
East Grand Airfreight		2		CA		IND		4,089		5,093		4,190		160
Fairway Drive Ind SGP		4		CA		IND		11,993		4,214		13,949		3,046
Hayward Industrial — Hathaway		2		CA		IND		–		4,473		13,546		568
Junction Industrial Park		4		CA		IND		–		7,875		23,975		2,271
Laurelwood Drive		2		CA		IND		–		2,750		8,538		608
Lawrence SSF		1		CA		IND		–		2,870		5,521		1,124
Marina Business Park		2		CA		IND		4,232		3,280		4,316		132
Martin/ Scott Ind Port		2		CA		IND		–		9,052		5,309		336
MBC Industrial		4		CA		IND		–		5,892		17,716		3,281
Milmont Page SGP		3		CA		IND		11,198		3,422		10,600		3,153
Moffett Distribution		7		CA		IND		18,738		26,916		11,277		1,813
Moffett Park R&D Portfolio		14		CA		IND		–		14,805		44,462		11,823
Pacific Business Center		2		CA		IND		8,371		5,417		16,291		3,198
Pardee Drive SG		1		CA		IND		1,505		619		1,880		283
South Bay Industrial		8		CA		IND		17,445		14,992		45,016		6,061
Silicon Valley R&D		5		CA		IND		–		6,700		20,186		7,823
Utah Airfreight		1		CA		IND		17,025		18,753		8,381		1,683
Wiegman Road		1		CA		IND		–		1,563		4,688		1,550
Willow Park Industrial		21		CA		IND		–		25,590		76,771		15,059
Williams & Burroughs AMB PrtII		4		CA		IND		7,765		2,382		6,981		3,267
Yosemite Drive		1		CA		IND		–		2,350		7,051		904
Zanker/ Charcot Industrial		5		CA		IND		–		5,282		15,887		3,079
Seattle
Black River		1		WA		IND		3,349		1,845		3,559		338
Earlington Business Park		1		WA		IND		4,151		2,766		3,234		751
East Valley Warehouse		1		WA		IND		–		6,813		20,511		5,726
Gateway North		6		WA		IND		14,000		5,270		16,296		1,850
Gateway Corporate Center		9		WA		IND		27,000		10,643		32,908		4,879
Harvest Business Park		3		WA		IND		–		2,371		7,153		1,244
Kent Centre Corporate Park		4		WA		IND		–		3,042		9,165		1,523
Kingsport Industrial Park		7		WA		IND		–		8,101		23,812		5,476
NDP — Seattle		4		WA		IND		11,653		3,993		11,773		1,138
Northwest Distribution Center		3		WA		IND		–		3,533		10,751		1,158
Puget Sound Airfreight		1		WA		IND		–		1,329		1,830		303

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

East Bay Doolittle
7,128 13,051 20,179 1,603 2001 5-40

Edgewater Industrial Center
4,038 20,027 24,065 2,901 2000 5-40

East Grand Airfreight
5,093 4,350 9,443 167 2003 5-40

Fairway Drive Ind SGP
4,214 16,995 21,209 1,796 1997 5-40

Hayward Industrial — Hathaway
4,473 14,114 18,587 1,507 2000 5-40

Junction Industrial Park
7,875 26,246 34,121 4,602 1999 5-40

Laurelwood Drive
2,750 9,146 11,896 1,684 1997 5-40

Lawrence SSF
2,870 6,645 9,515 945 2001 5-40

Marina Business Park
3,280 4,448 7,728 274 2002 5-40

Martin/ Scott Ind Port
9,052 5,645 14,697 567 2001 5-40

MBC Industrial
5,892 20,997 26,889 4,607 1997 5-40

Milmont Page SGP
3,422 13,753 17,175 1,444 1997 5-40

Moffett Distribution
26,916 13,090 40,006 1,419 2001 5-40

Moffett Park R&D Portfolio
14,805 56,285 71,090 16,001 1997 5-40

Pacific Business Center
5,417 19,489 24,906 4,093 1997 5-40

Pardee Drive SG
619 2,163 2,782 221 1999 5-40

South Bay Industrial
14,992 51,077 66,069 11,365 1997 5-40

Silicon Valley R&D
6,700 28,009 34,709 7,014 1997 5-40

Utah Airfreight
18,753 10,064 28,817 609 2003 5-40

Wiegman Road
1,563 6,238 7,801 1,336 1997 5-40

Willow Park Industrial
25,590 91,830 117,420 18,220 1998 5-40

Williams & Burroughs AMB PrtII
2,382 10,248 12,630 1,822 1999 5-40

Yosemite Drive
2,350 7,955 10,305 1,527 1997 5-40

Zanker/ Charcot Industrial
5,282 18,966 24,248 4,121 1997 5-40

Seattle

Black River
1,845 3,897 5,742 493 2001 5-40

Earlington Business Park
2,766 3,985 6,751 312 2002 5-40

East Valley Warehouse
6,813 26,237 33,050 5,532 1999 5-40

Gateway North
5,270 18,146 23,416 2,814 1999 5-40

Gateway Corporate Center
10,643 37,787 48,430 6,331 1999 5-40

Harvest Business Park
2,371 8,397 10,768 2,021 1997 5-40

Kent Centre Corporate Park
3,042 10,688 13,730 2,478 1997 5-40

Kingsport Industrial Park
8,101 29,288 37,389 6,244 1997 5-40

NDP — Seattle
3,993 12,911 16,904 974 1998 5-40

Northwest Distribution Center
3,533 11,909 15,442 2,706 1997 5-40

Puget Sound Airfreight
1,329 2,133 3,462 221 2002 5-40

S-6

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Renton Northwest Corp. Park		6		WA		IND		23,855		25,959		14,792		855
Seattle Airport Industrial		1		WA		IND		1,012		619		1,923		236
SEA Logistics Center 1		3		WA		IND		17,689		9,218		18,968		222
SEA Logistics Center 2		3		WA		IND		14,351		11,535		24,601		1,379
Trans-Pacific Industrial Park		11		WA		IND		48,600		31,675		42,210		3,050
Other Industrial Markets
Activity Distribution Center		4		CA		IND		–		3,736		11,248		2,607
AMB Capronilaan		1		The Netherlands		IND		–		8,769		14,675		2,884
AMB CDG Cargo Center SAS		1		France		IND		25,183		–		38,870		3,607
AMB Industrial Park Bus. Ctr		1		MN		IND		–		1,648		4,187		3
AMB Northpoint Indust. Center		3		MN		IND		–		2,769		8,087		7
AMB Schiphol Dist Center		1		The Netherlands		IND		10,437		6,322		9,490		684
AMB Shady Oak Indust. Center		1		MN		IND		–		897		1,795		38
B.W.I.P		2		MD		IND		–		2,258		5,149		562
Beltway Distribution		1		VA		IND		–		4,800		15,159		5,874
Bennington Corporate Center		2		MD		IND		5,781		2,671		8,181		962
Boston Industrial		18		MA		IND		8,956		16,707		52,013		16,923
Boston Marine Industrial Park		1		MA		IND		50,168		–		69,135		782
Bourget Industrial		1		France		IND		24,668		10,058		23,843		4,420
Braemar Business Center		2		MN		IND		–		1,566		4,613		1,260
Burnsville Business Center		1		MN		IND		–		932		2,796		1,263
Cabot BP Land (KYDJ)		2		MA		IND		–		1,474		14,353		9,901
Cabot Business Park		12		MA		IND		–		14,353		43,609		4,826
Cabot Business Park SGP		3		MA		IND		16,145		5,499		16,969		2,531
Cascade Business Center		4		OR		IND		–		2,825		7,860		3,197
Chancellor		1		FL		IND		–		1,587		3,759		3,397
Chancellor Square		3		FL		IND		14,691		2,009		6,106		4,282
Chemway Industrial Portfolio		5		NC		IND		–		2,875		8,625		1,599
CLT Logistics Center 1		11		NC		IND		20,946		5,443		22,818		1,376
Columbia Business Center		9		MD		IND		3,497		3,856		11,736		3,593
Corporate Park/ Hickory Hill		7		TN		IND		11,572		6,789		20,366		3,878
Corporate Square Industrial		6		MN		IND		–		4,024		12,113		2,815

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

Renton Northwest Corp. Park
25,959 15,647 41,606 1,135 2002 5-40

Seattle Airport Industrial
619 2,159 2,778 308 2000 5-40

SEA Logistics Center 1
9,218 19,190 28,408 736 2003 5-40

SEA Logistics Center 2
11,535 25,980 37,515 775 2003 5-40

Trans-Pacific Industrial Park
31,675 45,260 76,935 1,792 2003 5-40

Other Industrial Markets

Activity Distribution Center
3,736 13,855 17,591 2,979 1997 5-40

AMB Capronilaan
8,769 17,559 26,328 325 2004 5-40

AMB CDG Cargo Center SAS
– 42,477 42,477 214 2004 5-37

AMB Industrial Park Bus. Ctr
1,648 4,190 5,838 12 2004 5-40

AMB Northpoint Indust. Center
2,769 8,094 10,863 30 2004 5-40

AMB Schiphol Dist Center
6,322 10,174 16,496 15 2004 5-40

AMB Shady Oak Indust. Center
897 1,833 2,730 6 2004 5-40

B.W.I.P
2,258 5,711 7,969 426 2002 5-40

Beltway Distribution
4,800 21,033 25,833 4,395 1999 5-40

Bennington Corporate Center
2,671 9,143 11,814 1,376 2000 5-40

Boston Industrial
16,707 68,936 85,643 15,691 1998 5-40

Boston Marine Industrial Park
– 69,917 69,917 2,055 2004 5-40

Bourget Industrial
10,058 28,263 38,321 732 2003 5-40

Braemar Business Center
1,566 5,873 7,439 1,349 1998 5-40

Burnsville Business Center
932 4,059 4,991 1,168 1998 5-40

Cabot BP Land (KYDJ)
1,474 24,254 25,728 4,026 1998 5-40

Cabot Business Park
14,353 48,435 62,788 10,535 1998 5-40

Cabot Business Park SGP
5,499 19,500 24,999 1,217 2002 5-40

Cascade Business Center
2,825 11,057 13,882 2,262 1998 5-40

Chancellor
1,587 7,156 8,743 855 1996 5-40

Chancellor Square
2,009 10,388 12,397 2,819 1998 5-40

Chemway Industrial Portfolio
2,875 10,224 13,099 2,101 1998 5-40

CLT Logistics Center 1
5,443 24,194 29,637 788 2003 5-40

Columbia Business Center
3,856 15,329 19,185 3,017 1999 5-40

Corporate Park/ Hickory Hill
6,789 24,244 31,033 4,899 1998 5-40

Corporate Square Industrial
4,024 14,928 18,952 3,752 1997 5-40

S-7

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Corridor Industrial		1		MD		IND		2,337		996		3,019		270
Crysen Industrial		1		MD		IND		2,400		1,425		4,275		1,162
Dulles Airport Alliance		5		VA		IND		20,544		3,656		6,930		18,355
Edenvale Business Center		1		MN		IND		–		775		2,412		983
Elmwood Distribution		5		LA		IND		–		4,163		12,488		2,244
Ferrocaril		1		Mexico		IND		–		2,230		2,087		186
Frankfurt Logistic Center		1		Germany		IND		14,039		–		19,875		2,414
Funabashi Distribution Center		4		Japan		IND		195,167		8,843		34,633		137
Gateway 58		3		MD		IND		3,019		3,256		9,940		364
Gateway Commerce Center		5		MD		IND		–		4,083		12,336		1,290
Greenwood Industrial		3		MD		IND		–		4,729		14,188		2,570
IAH Logistics Center		1		TX		IND		17,513		6,582		21,251		–
Janitrol		1		OH		IND		–		1,797		5,390		363
Meadowridge Industrial		3		MD		IND		–		3,716		11,147		397
Mendota Heights Gateway Common		1		MN		IND		–		1,367		4,565		2,514
MET PHASE 1 95, LTD		5		TX		IND		–		10,968		32,944		1,894
Minneapolis Distribution Port		3		MN		IND		–		4,052		13,375		3,719
Minneapolis Industrial Port IV		4		MN		IND		7,068		4,938		14,854		2,492
Oakland Ridge Ind Ctr 4		1		MD		IND		2,842		–		2,259		217
Oakland Ridge Ind Ctr 6		4		MD		IND		808		–		5,042		4,562
Oakland Ridge Industrial		6		MD		IND		4,175		3,297		11,906		2,944
Paris Nord Distribution I		1		France		IND		–		2,864		4,723		2,813
Paris Nord Distribution II		1		France		IND		–		1,697		5,127		4,159
Patuxent Alliance 8280		1		MD		IND		943		887		1,706		266
Patuxent Range Road		2		MD		IND		–		1,696		5,127		805
Peninsula Business Ctr III		1		VA		IND		–		992		2,976		500
Penn James Warehouse		2		MN		IND		–		1,991		6,013		1,338
Presidents Drive		6		FL		IND		–		5,770		17,655		2,393
Preston Court		1		MD		IND		–		2,313		7,192		545
Round Lake Business Center		1		MN		IND		–		875		2,625		618
Saitama Distribution Center		2		Japan		IND		–		8,143		28,503		1,639
Sand Lake Service Center		6		FL		IND		–		3,483		10,585		3,300
Santa Barbara Court		1		MD		IND		–		1,617		5,029		881
Scripps Sorrento		1		CA		IND		–		1,110		3,330		101
South Point Business Park		5		NC		IND		8,166		3,130		10,452		1,867

[Additional columns below]

[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]

Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04

Year of

Building & Total Accumulated Construction/ Depreciable

Property Land Improvements Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾ Acquisition Life (Years)

Corridor Industrial
996 3,289 4,285 548 1999 5-40

Crysen Industrial
1,425 5,437 6,862 1,235 1998 5-40

Dulles Airport Alliance
3,656 25,285 28,941 1,436 2000 5-40

Edenvale Business Center
775 3,395 4,170 994 1998 5-40

Elmwood Distribution
4,163 14,732 18,895 3,004 1998 5-40

Ferrocaril
2,230 2,273 4,503 46 2004 5-40

Frankfurt Logistic Center
– 22,289 22,289 595 2003 5-40

Funabashi Distribution Center
8,843 34,770 43,613 644 2004 5-40

Gateway 58
3,256 10,304 13,560 1,192 2000 5-40

Gateway Commerce Center
4,083 13,626 17,709 2,665 1999 5-40

Greenwood Industrial
4,729 16,758 21,487 3,335 1998 5-40

IAH Logistics Center
6,582 21,251 27,833 340 2004 5-40

Janitrol
1,797 5,753 7,550 1,114 1997 5-40

Meadowridge Industrial
3,716 11,544 15,260 2,081 1998 5-40

Mendota Heights Gateway Common
1,367 7,079 8,446 2,803 1998 5-40

MET PHASE 1 95, LTD
10,968 34,838 45,806 6,741 1997 5-40

Minneapolis Distribution Port
4,052 17,094 21,146 3,627 1997 5-40

Minneapolis Industrial Port IV
4,938 17,346 22,284 4,132 1997 5-40

Oakland Ridge Ind Ctr 4
– 2,476 2,476 457 1999 5-40

Oakland Ridge Ind Ctr 6
– 9,604 9,604 1,463 1999 5-40

Oakland Ridge Industrial
3,297 14,850 18,147 4,106 1999 5-40

Paris Nord Distribution I
2,864 7,536 10,400 360 2002 5-40

Paris Nord Distribution II
1,697 9,286 10,983 411 2002 5-40

Patuxent Alliance 8280
887 1,972 2,859 170 2001 5-40

Patuxent Range Road
1,696 5,932 7,628 1,305 1997 5-40

Peninsula Business Ctr III
992 3,476 4,468 613 1998 5-40

Penn James Warehouse
1,991 7,351 9,342 1,711 1997 5-40

Presidents Drive
5,770 20,048 25,818 4,499 1997 5-40

Preston Court
2,313 7,737 10,050 1,579 1997 5-40

Round Lake Business Center
875 3,243 4,118 788 1998 5-40

Saitama Distribution Center
8,143 30,142 38,285 865 2003 5-40

Sand Lake Service Center
3,483 13,885 17,368 3,403 1998 5-40

Santa Barbara Court
1,617 5,910 7,527 1,513 1997 5-40

Scripps Sorrento
1,110 3,431 4,541 610 1998 5-40

South Point Business Park
3,130 12,319 15,449 2,411 1998 5-40

S-8

AMB PROPERTY, L.P.

SCHEDULE III

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION

As of December 31, 2004

(in thousands, except number of buildings)


									Initial Cost to Company
													Costs Capitalized
	No of										Building &		Subsequent to
Property	Bldgs		Location		Type		Encumbrances ⁽³⁾		Land		Improvements		Acquisition

Technology Park I		2		MD		IND		–		1,657		5,049		396
Technology Park II		9		MD		IND		–		10,206		3,761		30,319
TechRidge Phase I		3		TX		IND		14,557		7,132		21,396		485
TechRidge Phase II		1		TX		IND		11,063		7,261		13,484		233
TechRidge Phase IIIA Bldg. 4.1		1		TX		IND		9,200		3,143		12,328		–
The Rotunda		2		MD		IND		–		4,400		17,736		4,606
Twin Cities		2		MN		IND		–		4,873		14,638		7,197
Willow Lake Business Park		10		TN		IND		18,945		12,415		35,990		14,859
Wilsonville Dist. Center		1		OR		IND		–		3,407		13,493		52
Other Retail Markets
Around Lenox		1		GA		RET		8,733		3,462		13,848		4,963
Beacon Centre — Headlands		1		FL		RET		–		2,523		7,669		979

Total		968					$	1,828,864	$	1,486,241	$	3,609,393	$	719,133

[Additional columns below]

S-9


(1)	Reconciliation of total cost to consolidated balance sheet caption as of December 31, 2004:


Total per Schedule III ⁽⁵⁾		$	5,814,767
Construction in process ⁽⁶⁾			711,377

	Total investments in properties	$	6,526,144


(2)	As of December 31, 2004, the aggregate cost for federal income tax purposes of investments in real estate was $6,263,171.

(3)	Reconciliation of total debt to consolidated balance sheet caption as of December 31, 2004:


Total per Schedule III		$	1,828,864
Debt on properties held for divestiture			27,481
Debt on development properties			25,413
Unamortized premiums			10,766

	Total debt	$	1,892,524


(4)	Reconciliation of accumulated depreciation to consolidated balance sheet caption as of December 31, 2004:


Total per Schedule III		$	614,084
Accumulated depreciation on properties under renovation			1,562

	Total accumulated depreciation	$	615,646


(5)	A summary of activity for real estate and accumulated depreciation for the year ended December 31, 2004 is as follows:


Investments in Properties:
	Balance at beginning of year	$	5,491,707
	Acquisition of properties		687,072
	Improvements, including development properties		618,188
	Divestiture of properties		(185,564)
	Adjustment for properties held for divestiture		(85,259)

	Balance at end of year	$	6,526,144

Accumulated Depreciation:
	Balance at beginning of year	$	485,559
	Depreciation expense, including discontinued operations		163,316
	Properties divested		(23,559)
	Adjustment for properties held for divestiture		(9,670)

	Balance at end of year	$	615,646


(6)	Includes $515.2 million of fundings for development projects as of December 31, 2004.

S-10

EXHIBIT INDEX


Exhibit
Number			Description

	3	.1	Tenth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of AMB Property, L.P. dated as of November 26, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 26, 2003).

	4	.1	$30,000,000 7.925% Fixed Rate Note No. 1 dated August 18, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated August 18, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.2	$25,000,000,000 7.925% Fixed Rate Note No. 2 dated September 12, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated September 12, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.3	$50,000,000 8.00% Fixed Rate Note No. 3 dated October 26, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated October 26, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.4	$25,000,000 8.000% Fixed Rate Note No. 4 dated October 26, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated October 26, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

	4	.5	$50,000,000 7.20% Fixed Rate Note No. 5 dated December 19, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated December 19, 2000 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2001).

	4	.6	$50,000,000 7.20% Fixed Rate Note No. 6 dated December 19, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated December 19, 2000 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2001).

	4	.7	$50,000,000 7.20% Fixed Rate Note No. 7 dated December 19, 2000, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated December 19, 2000 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2001).

	4	.8	Specimen of 7.10% Notes due 2008 (included in the First Supplemental Indenture incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.9	Specimen of 7.50% Notes due 2018 (included in the Second Supplemental Indenture incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.10	Specimen of 6.90% Reset Put Securities due 2015 (included in the Third Supplemental Indenture incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.4 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.11	$25,000,000 6.90% Fixed Rate Note No. 8 dated January 9, 2001, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated January 9, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 31, 2001).

	4	.12	$50,000,000 7.00% Fixed Rate Note No. 9 dated March 7, 2001, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated March 7, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 16, 2001).

	4	.13	$25,000,000 6.75% Fixed Rate Note No. 10 dated September 6, 2001, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated September 6, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 18, 2001).

	4	.14	$20,000,000 5.90% Fixed Rate Note No. 11 dated January 17, 2002, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated January 17, 2002 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 23, 2002).


Exhibit
Number			Description

	4	.15	$75,000,000 5.53% Fixed Rate Note No. B-1 dated November 10, 2003, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated November 10, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003).

	4	.16	$50,000,000 Floating Rate Note No. B-1 dated November 21, 2003, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated November 21, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 21, 2003).
	4	.17	$100,000,000 Fixed Rate Note No. B-2 dated March 16, 2004, attaching the Parent Guarantee dated March 16, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 17, 2004).

	4	.18	Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.19	First Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998 by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.20	Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.21	Third Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 1998, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (No. 333-49163)).

	4	.22	Fourth Supplemental Indenture, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on November 9, 2000).

	4	.23	Fifth Supplemental Indenture dated as of May 7, 2002, by and among AMB Property, L.P., AMB Property Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.15 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002).

	10	.1	Distribution Agreement dated May 7, 2002, by and among AMB Property Corporation, AMB Property, L.P., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Commerzbank Capital Markets Corp., First Union Securities, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., and PNC Capital Markets, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003).

	*10	.2	Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).

	*10	.3	Amendment No. 1 to the Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).

	*10	.4	Amendment No. 2 to the Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P., dated September 23, 2004.

	*10	.5	2002 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).

	*10	.6	Amendment No. 1 to the 2002 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P., dated September 23, 2004.


Exhibit
Number			Description

	*10	.7	Form of Amended and Restated Change of Control and Noncompetition Agreement by and between AMB Property, L.P. and executive officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 15, 2004).

	*10	.8	Amended and Restated AMB Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.17 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-100214)).

	10	.9	Thirteenth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of AMB Property II, L.P., dated September 24, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2004).

	10	.10	Put Agreement, dated September 24, 2004, by and between Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc. and AMB Property, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2004).

	10	.11	Note Purchase Agreement dated as of November 5, 2003, by and between AMB Property, L.P. and Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 6, 2003).

	10	.12	Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2004 by and among AMB Property L.P., the banks listed therein, JPMorgan Chase Bank, as administrative agent, J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, as administrative agent for alternate currencies, Bank of America, N.A., as syndication agent, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Banc of America Securities LLC, as joint lead arrangers and joint bookrunners, Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft New York and Grand Cayman Branches, PNC Bank National Association and Wachovia Bank, N.A., as documentation agents, KeyBank National Association, The Bank of Nova Scotia, acting through its San Francisco Agency, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as managing agents, and ING Real Estate Finance (USA) LLC, Southtrust Bank and Union Bank of California, N.A., as co-agents (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004).

	10	.13	Guaranty of Payment, dated as of June 1, 2004 by AMB Property Corporation for the benefit of JPMorgan Chase Bank, as administrative agent, and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, as administrative agent for alternate currencies, for the banks listed on the signature page to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004).

	10	.14	Qualified Borrower Guaranty, dated as of June 1, 2004 by AMB Property, L.P. for the benefit of JPMorgan Chase Bank and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, as administrative agents for the banks listed on the signature page to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004).

	10	.15	Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2004, by and among AMB Japan Finance Y.K., as initial borrower, AMB Property, L.P., as guarantor, AMB Property Corporation, as guarantor, the banks listed on the signature pages thereof, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger and bookmanager (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 2, 2004).

	10	.16	Guaranty of Payment, dated as of June 29, 2004 by AMB Property, L.P. and AMB Property Corporation for the benefit of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger and bookmanager, for the banks that are from time to time parties to the Revolving Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 2, 2004).

	10	.17	Credit Facility Agreement, dated as of November 24, 2004, by and among AMB Tokai TMK, as borrower, AMB Property, L.P., as guarantor, AMB Property Corporation, as guarantor, the banks listed on the signature pages thereof, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger an bookmanager (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 1, 2004).

*Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement


Exhibit
Number			Description


	10	.18	Guaranty of Payment, dated as of November 24, 2004 by AMB Property, L.P. and AMB Property Corporation for the benefit of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as administrative agent and sole lead arranger and bookmanager, for the banks that are from time to time parties to the Credit Facility Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 1, 2004).

	10	.19	Agreement of Sale made as of October 6, 2003, by and between AMB Property, L.P., International Airport Centers L.L.C. and certain affiliated entities (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 of AMB Property, L.P.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 6, 2003).

	21	.1	Subsidiaries of AMB Property, L.P.

	23	.1	Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

	24	.1	Powers of Attorney (included in Part IV of this 10-K)

	31	.1	Rule 13a-14 (a)/15d-14 (a) Certifications dated March 14, 2005.

	32	.1	18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certifications dated March 14, 2005. The certifications in this exhibit are being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any of our filings, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.


(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, a real estate investment subsidiary of the government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
(7)	AMB-AMS, L.P. is a co-investment partnership with three Dutch pension funds advised by Mn Services NV.
(8)	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.


(4)	Our secured debt and joint venture debt include debt related to international assets in the amount of $269.5 million. Of this, $195.2 million is associated with assets located in Asia and the remaining $74.3 million is related to assets located in Europe.


(2)	Our share of total debt is the pro rata portion of the total debt based on our percentage of equity interest in each of the consolidated ventures holding the debt. We believe that our share of total debt is a meaningful supplemental measure, which enables both management and investors to analyze our leverage and to compare our leverage to that of other companies. In addition, it allows for a more meaningful comparison of our debt to that of other companies that do not consolidate their joint ventures. Our share of total debt is not intended to reflect our actual liability should there be a default under any or all of such loans or a liquidation of the joint ventures. For a reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure, please see the table of debt maturities and capitalization on the preceding page in “— Liquidity and Capital Resources — Capital Resources.”
(3)	Our definition of “preferred” is preferred equity liquidation preferences.
(4)	Our share of total book capitalization is defined as our share of total debt plus minority interests to preferred unitholders and limited partnership unitholders plus partners’ capital.


	Gross Amount Carried at
	12/31/04
									Year of
			Building &		Total		Accumulated		Construction/		Depreciable
Property	Land		Improvements		Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾		Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾		Acquisition		Life (Years)

Atlanta
Airport Plaza	$	1,811	$	5,641	$	7,452	$	206		2003		5-40
Airport South Business Park		10,035		23,084		33,119		2,837		2001		5-40
Atlanta South Business Park		8,047		26,599		34,646		5,788		1997		5-40
AMB Garden City Industrial		441		2,610		3,051		21		2004		5-40
AMB South Davis Industrial		78		713		791		5		2004		5-40
South Ridge at Hartsfield		2,096		4,145		6,241		406		2001		5-40
Southfield Logistics Center		3,200		15,919		19,119		2,351		2002		5-40
Southfield/ KRDC Industrial SG		13,585		44,101		57,686		4,799		1997		5-40
Southside Distribution Center		766		2,585		3,351		239		2001		5-40
Sylvan Industrial		1,946		6,501		8,447		926		1999		5-40
Chicago
Addison Business Center		1,060		3,495		4,555		465		2000		5-40
Alsip Industrial		1,200		4,007		5,207		749		1998		5-40
Bedford Warehouse		1,354		3,232		4,586		258		2001		5-40
Belden Avenue SGP		5,491		14,088		19,579		2,054		1997		5-40
Bensenville Ind Park		20,799		77,469		98,268		17,796		1997		5-40
Bridgeview Industrial		1,332		4,543		5,875		748		1997		5-40
Chancellory Warehouse		1,566		2,841		4,407		247		2002		5-40
Chicago Industrial Portfolio		762		2,790		3,552		497		1997		5-40
Chicago Ridge Freight Terminal		3,705		3,649		7,354		356		2001		5-40
Chicago/ O’Hare IP Alliance I		4,816		10,817		15,633		1,081		2001		5-40
AMB District Industrial		703		1,338		2,041		4		2004		5-40
Elk Grove Village SG		7,060		26,308		33,368		3,302		1997		5-40
Executive Drive		1,399		5,361		6,760		1,268		1997		5-40
Hamilton Parkway		1,554		4,964		6,518		961		1997		5-40
Hintz Building		420		1,568		1,988		318		1998		5-40
Itasca Industrial Portfolio		6,416		23,495		29,911		5,513		1997		5-40
Melrose Park Distribution Ctr.		2,936		11,323		14,259		2,806		1997		5-40
NDP — Chicago		1,496		5,509		7,005		1,270		1998		5-40
AMB O’Hare		3,197		10,925		14,122		1,516		1999		5-40
O’Hare Industrial Portfolio (DEV) Nicholas Warehouse		6,248		20,361		26,609		4,800		1997		5.40


	Gross Amount Carried at 12/31/04
									Year of
			Building &		Total		Accumulated		Construction/		Depreciable
Property	Land		Improvements		Costs ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾		Depreciation ⁽⁴⁾		Acquisition		Life (Years)

Poplar Gateway Truck Terminal		4,551		3,153		7,704		158		2002		5-40
AMB Port O’Hare		4,913		6,918		11,831		827		2001		5-40
AMB Sivert Distribution		857		1,377		2,234		13		2004		5-40
Stone Distribution Center		2,242		3,277		5,519		142		2003		5-40
Thorndale Distribution		4,130		4,541		8,671		365		2002		5-40
Touhy Cargo Terminal		2,800		4,660		7,460		162		2002		5-40
AMB Turnberry Distribution		19,112		78,361		97,473		113		2004		5-40
Windsor Court		766		2,440		3,206		468		1997		5-40
Wood Dale Industrial SG		2,869		10,118		12,987		1,116		1999		5-40
Yohan Industrial		5,904		8,402		14,306		491		2003		5-40
Dallas/ Ft. Worth
Addison Technology Center		899		3,950		4,849		859		1998		5-40
Dallas Industrial		5,938		22,716		28,654		5,825		1997		5-40
DFW Airfreight Seefried		950		2,074		3,024		460		2000		5-40
Greater Dallas Industrial Port		5,633		20,096		25,729		4,911		1997		5-40
Lincoln Industrial Center		671		2,355		3,026		565		1997		5-40
Lonestar Portfolio		6,280		22,861		29,141		1,767		1997		5-40
Northfield Dist. Center		6,446		26,559		33,005		1,532		2002		5-40
Richardson Tech Center SGP		1,524		8,218		9,742		554		1997		5-40
Valwood Industrial		1,983		8,171		10,154		2,021		1997		5-40
West North Carrier Parkway		1,375		5,432		6,807		1,111		1997		5-40
Los Angeles
Anaheim Industrial Property		1,457		5,101		6,558		1,107		1997		5-40
Artesia Industrial		22,238		80,771		103,009		16,717		1997		5-40
Aviation Logistics Center A-L		22,141		21,945		44,086		787		2003		5-40
Bell Ranch Distribution		6,904		13,643		20,547		1,321		2001		5-40
Cabrillo Distribution Center		7,563		11,202		18,765		564		2002		5-40
Carson Industrial		4,231		15,284		19,515		2,447		1999		5-40
Carson Town Center		6,565		18,517		25,082		1,368		2000		5-40
Chartwell Distribution Center		2,711		8,613		11,324		976		2000		5-40
Del Amo Industrial Center		2,529		7,941		10,470		820		2000		5-40
Eaves Distribution Center		11,893		15,095		26,988		1,727		2001		5-40
Fordyce Distribution Center		4,340		9,141		13,481		900		2001		5-40
Ford Distribution Cntr		24,557		25,190		49,747		2,582		2001		5-40
Harris Bus Ctr Alliance I		19,273		29,194		48,467		3,577		2000		5-40