1426 Keeaumoku

No analysis available

I looked for explicit percentages or phrases such as '80% owner occupied', 'majority owner occupied', or similar in the remarks and found none. Because numeric owner-occupancy requires an explicit value and there is no prior/current value to retain, this field is unknown (null) with low confidence.

Multiple remarks market the unit as ground-floor and state 'no elevators to wait for', indicating the building has no elevators. This is direct language from the public remarks, so the value is set to 0 with high confidence.

Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.

Listings emphasize ceiling fans and explicitly say A/C is allowed, which implies no central system, and no MLS records list central A/C in the fees. Central air is therefore not included in the maintenance fee.

No listing mentions cable TV as part of the HOA fees, and the cable‑included code is missing across all MLS entries. Cable service is therefore very likely billed separately.

All 8 listings explicitly list OTCOEX (other common expenses/common area electricity) in association_fee_includes, indicating common area electricity is covered by the maintenance fee. Public remarks across listings do not mention any change or contradiction, and the evidence is consistent across multiple agents, suggesting this is a building-level included expense.

There is no indication this is a cooperative or that co‑op taxes are charged. Association fees do not list cooperative taxes, so this fee is not included.

Association fee descriptions include water, sewer, and common expenses but not electricity. This strongly suggests unit electricity is billed separately rather than included in the maintenance fees.

One unit has a gas range, but there is no indication that gas is included in maintenance fees. Since GAS is not selected in the HOA inclusions, gas service is almost certainly billed separately.

None of the 8 MLS entries list hot water as included, while 6 of 8 explicitly list WTRHTR (water heater) among unit inclusions—strong evidence that hot water is not supplied by the association. Public remarks do not indicate any recent change to association-provided hot water.

None of the listings claim that internet or Wi‑Fi is part of the maintenance fee, and the INTSER code is never selected. Internet service is therefore almost certainly paid separately by owners or tenants.

The building is not on a marina and no listings refer to marina access or fees. Association fees do not list marina charges, so marina fees are not included.

All 8 listings explicitly include SEWER in association_fee_includes, indicating sewer service is covered by the maintenance fee. The information is consistent across multiple MLS entries and not contradicted by public remarks.

All 8 MLS listings list WATER as included in the association fees, showing domestic water usage is covered by the maintenance fee. This is consistent across multiple agent-submitted listings and there are no remarks indicating a change.

Marketing remarks emphasize gated entry, guest parking, and private yards but never mention BBQ grills or a barbecue area. Given that BBQs are commonly advertised when present, it is very likely there is no shared BBQ amenity.

The remarks do not mention any bicycle room, racks, or storage area, and bicycle storage is not selected in MLS amenities. It is very likely there is no dedicated bike storage facility.

The property is described as near parks, schools, and shopping in Makiki, not on the waterfront. With no marina or dock references and no marina amenities in MLS, the building clearly does not have a boat dock.

None of the listings mention a car wash area, and 0/7 MLS entries have the car wash amenity selected. Given this would be a notable perk in a small Makiki complex, it is very likely no dedicated car wash facility exists.

The project is characterized as a small, gated condo complex without resort‑style amenities. Given no references to a clubhouse and no CLUHOU code, there is no on‑site clubhouse.

The project is a small gated walk‑up without any reference to staffed services beyond a resident manager. There is no concierge or front‑desk service indicated in any source.

Remarks call the building pet‑friendly but do not advertise any dedicated dog run or pet park. The absence of a dog‑park amenity code indicates there is no formal dog park on the property.

Security is described as gated, not staffed, and there is no central lobby typical of doorman buildings. The lack of DOORMA in MLS strongly indicates there is no doorman.

The building is marketed on location and basic conveniences, with no suggestion of an on‑site gym or fitness room. Given the absence of EXEROO in MLS, an exercise room is almost certainly not provided.

The building is a modest Makiki walk‑up, and luxury amenities like limousine or house car service are never mentioned. With no LIMSER code in MLS, limo service is clearly not provided.

The complex is portrayed as a modest, gated community without business or conference facilities. Since neither remarks nor MLS mark a meeting room, such a room almost certainly does not exist.

Remarks highlight “private lanai,” “small backyard,” and “spacious courtyard” attached to units. MLS amenity codes for patio/deck are also present on some records, confirming that units in this building commonly have patios, lanais, or deck‑like outdoor spaces.

While Makiki District Park nearby offers recreation, no listing suggests a dedicated jogging or walking path within the project itself. The absence of the WAJOPA amenity confirms there is no on‑site jogging path.

Listings mention Makiki District Park with pools and courts but never an on‑site children’s play area. With no playground amenity selected in MLS, the building does not have its own playground.

Several listings refer to a “private backyard,” “small backyard,” or “spacious courtyard perfect for kids, lounging, gardening and possible clothesline.” These descriptions show that some units, particularly ground‑floor ones, have truly private yard‑type outdoor areas.

The amenity package is basic, and golf or putting facilities are never discussed. The lack of a putting‑green code confirms there is no putting green on site.

Remarks focus on individual private backyards/courtyards for certain ground‑floor units, not on common recreation decks or shared rec spaces. With RECARE never checked in MLS amenities, a dedicated shared recreation area is unlikely.

Across all available remarks, there is no reference to a recreation, rec, or game room, and 0/7 MLS entries have RECROO checked. For a small Makiki walk‑up, such an amenity would typically be advertised if present, so it is very likely the building does not have a dedicated recreation room.

Agents speak of proximity to “top dining spots” and “variety of dining options,” meaning off‑site venues. There is no suggestion of a restaurant within the building, and MLS lacks a restaurant amenity.

The complex is described as a small walk‑up with focus on ground‑floor courtyards and lanais, not roof decks. Without any rooftop references or ROOFDCK code in MLS, rooftop amenities are very unlikely.

None of the remarks or MLS fields indicate any sauna or steam room at the property. Such an amenity would be prominently advertised if present, so it is almost certainly absent.

Several remarks reference a “storage area” or “big size outdoor storage” connected to units, especially ground‑floor ones. Even though the STORAG code is not checked in MLS, text remarks clearly show that some units offer additional storage space, so buyers can find units with storage in this building.

No analysis available

Agents mention nearby park tennis courts but do not claim any courts on the premises. With no tennis amenity selected in MLS, the building does not have its own tennis court.

Trash handling is not discussed, and typical trash chute language is missing from all records. In a low‑rise walk‑up, trash chutes are uncommon, so they are very likely not present.

Listings only reference regular assigned and guest parking with a gated driveway. Luxury services like valet are absent from both remarks and MLS checkboxes, so valet service is not offered.

The property is repeatedly referred to as a “gated community” with a “gated driveway,” implying perimeter fencing or walls. MLS amenity codes also include gating, confirming that the complex is enclosed by walls or fencing.

The amenity set is basic and focused on parking, gating, and laundry, with no spa‑type facilities discussed. The absence of a whirlpool code in MLS strongly indicates no hot tub or spa.

Remarks carefully say Makiki District Park has pools, indicating the amenity is off‑site. Since no MLS record shows a pool amenity, the building itself does not have a swimming pool.

Agents mention pools at nearby Makiki District Park but not within the complex, and MLS shows no pool or heated pool amenities. Without a pool, a heated pool is clearly not present.

No analysis available

Evidence that some units have in-unit laundry: 2 listings explicitly reference in-unit capability—one states the "option to install your own washer/dryer on the lanai" and another mentions a "washer hook-up." MLS inclusions also show WASHER/DRYER in 2 of 8 listings. Multiple agent remarks and prior high-confidence history indicate some units offer or allow in-unit laundry.

Strong building-level evidence: community/shared laundry is repeatedly mentioned across listings—phrases include "community laundry" and "community laundry facilities" in multiple agent remarks—and the MLS amenity COMLAU is checked for the building. This indicates reliable, building-wide shared laundry facilities.

No analysis available

No analysis available

Strong evidence across multiple listings: all 8 listings include parking in MLS data and the remarks repeatedly reference parking stalls and paved parking (quotes: '1 parking stall', 'Excellent Parking space located right in front of the unit', 'brand new Asphalt parking pavement done in 2024'). This is consistent across different agents and listing blocks, indicating building offers parking.

Multiple listings explicitly state assigned parking—remarks in several blocks read '1 assigned parking stall' and 'Your assigned parking stall is conveniently located directly outside the backyard entrance.' With 7/8 MLS entries checked ASSIGN and consistent agent remarks, assigned parking is well-supported.

Remarks emphasize open, convenient stalls (e.g., directly outside the backyard entrance) but never refer to covered parking, a garage, or carport. With no covered‑parking codes in MLS, parking is almost certainly uncovered.

Multiple listings reference '1 assigned parking stall' and guest stalls (and newly paved parking), which indicates assigned parking but no explicit statement that parking is deeded. No 'deeded' wording found, so deeded is not supported by the remarks.

Parking descriptions focus on basic assigned stalls and guest parking, with no indication of charging stations. For an older, modest building, the lack of EVCHRG in MLS suggests there are no dedicated EV charging spots.

Searched remarks for 'parking fee', 'monthly parking charge', and similar terms; none found. Parking fee information is not available in these remarks.

Guest parking is mentioned across the listing remarks—phrases include '1 Assigned Parking Stall + 2 Guest Spots', 'two guest stalls', and 'guest parking'—and 7/8 MLS entries have GUEST checked. The repeated, specific mentions across listings provide strong evidence the building offers guest parking.

Listings describe the property as a “gated community” with a “gated driveway,” and at least one MLS entry marks secured entry for parking. This indicates that vehicle access to the parking area is controlled by a gate or similar security feature.

Remarks highlight that one stall is a “standalone without any adjacent neighbors,” indicating non‑tandem stalls. Coupled with 0/7 MLS records using the TANDEM code, tandem parking is very unlikely to be a feature here.

Listings repeatedly mention assigned stalls directly in front of units and guest stalls, without any reference to valet services. With 0/7 MLS entries showing valet parking, the building clearly does not offer valet parking.

Looked for 'parking waitlist', 'waiting list', or similar phrasing; the remarks instead describe assigned and guest stalls with newly paved parking but no waitlist information.

One remark contrasts this ground‑floor unit with buildings where “no elevators to wait for” suggests this project has no elevator at all. Without elevators, there can be no keyed elevator security system.

No analysis available

Remarks describe a “gated community” and “gated driveway” but never mention on‑site security guards or 24‑hour security personnel. With 0/7 MLS listings checking SECGUA, the building almost certainly does not provide a security guard service.

No analysis available

Listings emphasize a gated driveway/community but are silent on surveillance cameras or CCTV. Since MLS does not mark any video security system, video surveillance does not appear to be a formal amenity.

If the building had central air, it would be a key selling point; instead, listings stress ceiling fans and optional A/C. Combined with the absence of central A/C codes in MLS, the building clearly does not have central air conditioning.

Agents highlight ceiling fans and note that “a/c [is] allowed” but do not describe any existing split systems in these units. With 0/7 listings including split A/C in inclusions, split A/C systems are not a known building feature, even if owners may be allowed to add them.

If units commonly came with window A/C units, agents would usually note them, but the remarks instead focus on ceiling fans and permission to add A/C. With zero MLS inclusions for window A/C, existing window units are not a known, advertised feature of this building.

6 of 8 current MLS records include CONCRE (concrete) as a construction material; none of the public remarks explicitly state 'concrete' or 'reinforced concrete'. Given the prior high-confidence assessment and the majority of current MLS entries still listing concrete, the building is most likely concrete construction, though agent copy/paste cannot be ruled out.

Some MLS records mark double‑wall construction, and none indicate single‑wall construction. This suggests the building uses double‑wall construction in at least a substantial portion of its structure.

None of the listings report hollow tile construction; they consistently reference masonry/stucco and concrete instead. This makes hollow tile construction unlikely as a defining material.

6 of 8 current MLS records include MASSTU (masonry and stucco) as a construction material; none of the public remarks explicitly mention 'masonry' or 'stucco'. Because prior assessments were high-confidence and the majority of current MLS entries still indicate masonry/stucco, the building is retained as masonry and stucco construction (with moderate caution for possible agent copy/paste).

Listings that specify construction materials point to concrete and masonry rather than steel framing. The absence of the STEFRA code makes steel‑frame construction unlikely as the main system.

Although many Hawaii buildings do sit on slabs, MLS data for this project specify concrete, masonry, and double‑wall but not slab as a distinct construction feature. In the absence of explicit slab references, we cannot treat slab construction as a defined, advertised attribute here.

No analysis available

The building’s reported materials are concrete and masonry/stucco, not wood frame. With no WOOFRA code, wood frame is unlikely to be the primary structural system.

One MLS record marks Above Ground construction (ABOGRO), and the building is described as a small Makiki walk‑up with parking at grade. This supports that the structure is standard above‑ground construction.

MLS construction fields consistently reference concrete and masonry/stucco but never brick. This indicates brick is not a primary construction material of the building.

MLS construction fields point to double‑wall, concrete, and masonry/stucco construction, with no hint of old single‑wall construction. It is therefore very unlikely that single‑wall construction characterizes this building.

Searched for 'short-term rental', 'STR', 'vacation rental', 'NUC', 'TVU', or minimum-night language; none appeared. Absence of STR mentions suggests STR is not allowed or not advertised, but cannot be confirmed beyond the remarks.

Looked for 'hotel rental pool', 'hotel rental program', and hotel-managed wording; none found. Because STR is not documented as allowed in the remarks, hotel pool participation is not indicated.

Searched for 'mandatory hotel pool', 'required to participate', or 'must be in rental program' and found nothing. With no evidence of STR or hotel pool, mandatory pool participation is not supported by the remarks.

Across all remarks there is no reference to lease rent, lease expiration, or converting to fee, which are usually emphasized in leasehold listings. This pattern strongly suggests the available units are Fee Simple and that the building offers Fee Simple ownership, with no evidence of any leasehold units.

Across all remarks, there is no reference to leasehold terms, lease rent, or lease expiration dates, which are normally highlighted for LH properties. This, combined with the absence of LH in the provided MLS summary, makes it likely that there are no leasehold units in this building.

Searched for phrases like 'lease expires', 'land lease to', 'leasehold expiring in', and specific years; found no references. Lease expiry year is unknown from these remarks.

One listing explicitly notes "VA approved!", indicating the project accepts VA financing. This is direct evidence from the public remarks.

I searched the remarks for insurance-related phrases indicating HOA provides full/walls-in coverage and found none. With no explicit statement and no prior data, the field is set to false with medium confidence.

Neither the marketing remarks nor the MLS amenity checkboxes indicate the presence of a fire sprinkler system. For an older, small walk‑up in Makiki this amenity would be unusual and likely to be advertised if present, so it is very likely not available.

I searched the public remarks for terms like 'fire life safety evaluation', 'FLSE passed', 'fire safety certified', and 'passed fire inspection' and found no references. Because there is no current value and no explicit mention, the default assumption is false with medium confidence.

Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.

No analysis available

Multiple listings describe “skyline views” from the lanai but do not mention any ocean or water views. Combined with 0/7 MLS records having an ocean view selected and the Makiki inland location, it is very likely no units in this building have a true ocean view.

No listings mention mountains—0 references to mountain/Koolau/mauka in the current remarks. Historical MLS data showed 0/8 listings with MOUNTA and prior high confidence that mountain views were not a feature. Multiple agent remarks describe skyline views rather than mountains, so evidence strongly indicates the building does not offer mountain views.

Listings only reference skyline views and proximity to Makiki Park, with no mention of Diamond Head. The lack of DIAHEA in MLS view descriptions supports that Diamond Head views are not a feature here.

Multiple listings (at least 3 separate public-remarks entries) explicitly describe 'skyline views' or 'view of the skyline' from the lanai, e.g., 'Private Lanai– Unwind with skyline views' and 'Relax on the lanai with a refreshing breeze and view of the skyline.' Although MLS view_descriptions lacked CITY codes, repeated agent remarks across different listings provide consistent evidence that the building offers city/skyline views.

The building is inland in Makiki and views are described only as skyline. With no coastline view codes in MLS, coastline views are not a feature here.

Remarks highlight private yards and courtyards for some ground‑floor units but do not characterize them as garden views. Since MLS view codes never include GARDEN, garden view is not a marketed building feature.

The location is promoted for parks, schools, and shopping rather than golf courses. With no golf‑course view codes, the building does not offer golf course views.

None of the marketing mentions harbor, canal, or marina vistas. With no marina view codes, the building clearly does not offer marina views.

None of the marketing materials mention sunrise, eastern exposure, or morning sun as a selling point. With SUNRIS absent from MLS views, sunrise views are unlikely to be a defining feature.

Views are described generically as skyline views without mention of sunsets or western exposure. The absence of a SUNSET view code suggests sunset views are not a distinctive feature.

View descriptions focus on skyline only, with no reference to cemeteries. The CEMETA view code is never used, so cemetery views are not a noted characteristic.

No analysis available

Several listings call the project “pet-friendly” or “pet friendly (please verify),” indicating pets are allowed subject to house rules. The absence of a no‑pets restriction in MLS supports that pets are permitted in this building.

Six of eight current MLS listings include the RESMAN amenity (previously assessed with High confidence). None of the public remarks explicitly mention a resident or on-site manager, but the consistent MLS checkbox across multiple listings from different agents suggests an on-site/resident manager is a building feature. Evidence is fairly strong across listings, though absence from remarks could indicate agents copied amenities; still, the historical and current MLS consistency supports listing this as present.

All remarks position this as a residential starter condo with long‑term occupants and VA approval, not a short‑term hotel‑style property. With 0/7 MLS entries labeled as a condotel, the building is not operating as a condotel.

Listings treat the property as a standard condo and mention VA approval, which is inconsistent with co‑op structures. The absence of coop tax codes in the fees confirms this is not a cooperative building.