A Burlingame pricing discussion should begin with a property description the evidence can support. An existing house with later additions, a separately assessed shared-building unit and an approved condominium project are different comparison problems. Define the ownership, completed space, lot utility and current condition before choosing sales. The Burlingame guide introduces the importance of original space and later changes; this article develops the local comparable-selection method.
No permissioned closed-sale export or verified transaction sample was supplied for this research. This is a complete method and evidence worksheet, not an empirical CMA, appraisal or price opinion. It contains no invented sales, sample statistics, adjustment coefficients or broker-authorship claim. The local examples are real public records checked October 26, 2026, used to show which distinctions a later transaction analysis must resolve.
Define the completed subject property
Build a subject sheet that separates the main dwelling, later additions, converted space, parking, storage and outdoor rights. Identify the document behind each feature. A plan describes an intended arrangement, a final inspection addresses completion within its scope and a current inspection reports observed condition. A listing’s square-footage field should not silently settle a conflict among those records. Keep unresolved space out of a supposedly precise comparison until an appropriate reviewer explains it.
The 2 Kenmar Way planning file illustrates the distinction. File 20-0167 concerns first- and second-story additions and a hillside area construction permit, with a passed action dated April 27, 2020. That is a historical planning event, not a 2026 sale or proof of completed additional space. A later comparable using that property would need its own verified transaction and configuration evidence.
For another house with additions, compare the actual completed layout and the relationship of old and new areas. Two properties can show similar total floor area while offering different circulation, room utility or remaining outdoor space. Those differences need documentation and, when relevant, inspection. Do not assign a universal addition premium or multiply uncertain square footage by a neighborhood average and call the result a supported adjustment.
Keep the ownership comparison consistent
The County’s current record identifies 1427 Floribunda Avenue, unit 307, as account 105-660-200 with a unit-specific legal description. That is a different public-record identity from a detached lot description. For a shared-building subject, obtain the actual deed, condominium plan and governing packet before choosing comparable units. The tax record does not supply the complete parking, storage, maintenance or insurance allocation that may affect a buyer’s decision.
Compare ownership duties as well as the physical home. Record regular assessments, documented special assessments, maintenance allocation and shared systems from the actual packet. A private garage or entrance does not make two legal interests equivalent. If the marketing uses townhome terminology, verify the underlying arrangement. A defensible comparison explains the interest sold instead of treating an architectural label as a complete ownership definition.
The eventual primary sales group should reflect a similar purchase decision. Detached-house sales may provide wider context for a unit buyer’s alternatives, but they should not silently replace a unit-level comparison. Likewise, a unit with materially different shared responsibilities needs explanation before it supports a price conclusion. Document why each candidate competes and identify the evidence needed to interpret the difference.
Distinguish approved supply from closed-sale evidence
The City’s Ogden Drive project history reports that a May 27, 2025 amendment reduced the approved condominium project from 120 units to 86. An older inventory retaining 120 units describes a different project version. Keep the amendment date and approval stage visible when discussing potential housing supply, rather than counting every historical project number as the current proposal.
Neither approved units nor a rendering represents a verified transaction sample. Obtain actual current delivery information and the applicable ownership documents before treating a proposed home as a completed competitor. If a new unit is eventually offered for sale, distinguish the advertised terms from the verified closing. Included finishes, incentives, parking and completion conditions may matter, and the permissioned transaction evidence must establish what actually changed hands.
The City’s major-project index also separates approved projects from built projects. Its built residential examples include 1766 El Camino Real and 1875 California Drive. Those stage labels are useful local context, but they do not establish individual for-sale ownership or comparable closed prices. Keep project-status research in its own section until the intended sales dataset supplies the needed transaction and ownership evidence.
Select and verify the actual sales
Once a permitted dataset is available, record the source permission, closing date, price and relevant transaction terms for each candidate. Reconcile the subject and comparable descriptions to the same effective period. A current photograph may show work completed after a sale; an old floor plan may omit later work. The comparison should describe each property as it existed for the transaction being analyzed.
Choose an initial search boundary around similar use, ownership and physical utility, then expand it deliberately if evidence is scarce. Record the expansion and its reason. A small number of strong matches may be more informative than a larger set mixing detached lots, shared units and unfinished projects. The analysis should show the actual sample size and selection rules once the sales are verified; none is invented in this draft.
The State Board of Equalization’s 2014 sales-comparison guidance provides dated methodological context about similarity and legally permitted uses. It does not supply a current private Burlingame CMA or a mandatory adjustment schedule. Use it as background while requiring real market evidence for any monetary treatment. A numerical adjustment needs support beyond the fact that two properties look different.
| Comparison issue | Local evidence anchor | Evidence required before pricing reliance | Unsupported shortcut to avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Later additions | 2 Kenmar Way, 20-0167: historical 2020 planning action. | Verified transaction plus approved scope, completion and sale-date condition. | Calling planning approval completed saleable area or a recent sale. |
| Shared-building interest | Floribunda unit 307: separate County account 105-660-200. | Actual deed, plan, parking/storage rights, duties and financial packet. | Treating street address, tax value or architecture as complete ownership evidence. |
| Approved condominium project | Ogden amendment: 120 to 86 units in May 2025. | Current stage, actual selected unit, delivered scope and verified closing terms. | Counting approved units, renderings or asking prices as closed transactions. |
| Historic-resource questions | City resource program distinguishes designation and potential eligibility. | Subject-specific status, intended work and appropriate review. | Inventing a universal historic premium, discount or unrestricted expansion assumption. |
| Carrying charges | Current County bills and actual service-account route. | Relevant current/future budget evidence, distinct from sales. | Turning assessed value or annual tax differences into sale prices or automatic adjustments. |
Complete for each eventual sale: permissioned source / verified close date and price / terms / ownership / completed configuration / condition at sale / lot and access utility / source conflict / inclusion or exclusion reason / market support for any adjustment / reviewer. No monetary adjustment is supplied without that evidence.
Document condition and alteration constraints
Use appropriate inspection and improvement records to distinguish current condition from visual presentation. Fresh finishes can coexist with older systems or unresolved project questions; an older interior can coexist with documented system work. Neither pattern should be assumed at a named example here. Record the actual evidence, then determine whether the candidate’s condition is sufficiently comparable or requires further review.
Preservation status can also affect the intended property decision. The City’s current resource page identifies designated properties and notes gaps in past surveys. It names the William A. Whifler House at 1544 Drake Avenue as a designated resource. That does not establish another home’s designation or dictate a price effect. Obtain the actual subject’s status before pricing a purchase around a presumed alteration or redevelopment path.
Future expansion and completed utility should remain separate fields. A buyer may value the possibility of a change, but the relevant zoning, project conditions and appropriate review need to support the assumption. The City’s Planning route provides the current starting point. An approved addition elsewhere is useful evidence of that property’s history, not a transferable entitlement for the subject.
Keep public carrying costs in the budget context
The current Kenmar and Floribunda unit bills provide actual annual charge evidence, but their assessed values are not market price opinions. Differences in tax totals do not establish adjustments between the properties. A buyer’s future assessment also requires separate transaction-specific information. Keep the public-bill research with the ownership budget and use verified sales for the transaction comparison.
Service boundaries reinforce the distinction. The City’s utility page separates County-operated unincorporated Burlingame Hills sewer from City billing. A mailing name should not decide which budget inputs or responsibility assumptions apply to a candidate. Confirm the actual parcel and service records, then explain any relevant difference without inventing a price coefficient for it.
Explain the conclusion and its limits
A completed analysis should identify its primary matches, explain exclusions and show how unresolved facts affect confidence. If the result changes materially when uncertain added space or a different ownership type is removed, disclose that sensitivity in plain language. Resolve important conflicts before presenting a narrow range. The final price discussion should follow the evidence rather than force every available record to support a preselected number.
Use the selling process guide to organize preparation and marketing timing, with wider context in the San Mateo County guide. Before a property-specific pricing decision, obtain the actual transaction file and appropriate professional review. The local method here supplies a clear starting point: match the interest, completed property and effective date, then require evidence for the differences that matter.
