Ewa Beach Townhouse
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Ewa Beach Townhouse
Building Overview
Ewa Beach Townhouse in Ewa — built 1972; pets and short-term rentals are not allowed.
About Ewa Beach Townhouse
Ewa Beach Townhouse is located in the Ewa neighborhood and, according to available records, was built in 1972. The MLS data provided does not include unit sizes or construction type, so those details are not available here.
Key policies noted in the MLS listing indicate that pets are not allowed and short-term rentals are not permitted. The listing shows the management company as unknown. No additional amenity or common-area information is included in the MLS data provided.
Additional specifics such as parking, maintenance or HOA fees, utility responsibilities, and other building rules are not listed in the available MLS information. Based on MLS data, buyers should verify all property details, policies, and fees with the listing agent or management before making decisions.
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
I looked for explicit owner-occupancy statements in the public remarks and found none. Because there is no current numeric value and no explicit information in the remarks, the owner-occupancy percentage is unknown.
I searched the public remarks for any reference to elevators (e.g., 'elevator', '4 elevators', 'multiple elevators') and found none. There is no current numeric value to retain, and the remarks provide no evidence to determine a number of elevators, so the value remains unknown.
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.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Evidence is strong: 2 of 3 MLS listings check OTCOEX and the public remarks state 'Maintenance fee ... covers common expenses.' Multiple agents/listings show the common expense inclusion and at least one listing explicitly mentions it, indicating the building's maintenance fee covers common-area expenses.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
All MLS data and remarks point to hot water not being included: 0 of 3 listings list HOTWAT, 2 of 3 list WTRHTR (water heater included in unit), and there are no remarks claiming hot water is covered by the association, so building hot water inclusion is very unlikely.
No analysis available
No analysis available
One of three current MLS listings has the sewer checkbox checked, but the provided public remarks explicitly state "Water & sewer are metered and billed separately," indicating sewer is not covered by maintenance. Evidence is conflicting across listings (possible agent checkbox inconsistency), and there is no prior confidence history, so current evidence leans toward sewer not being included but is not definitive.
Mixed evidence: 2 of 3 MLS listings indicate water is included in association fees, but at least one listing's remarks explicitly state 'Water & sewer are metered and billed separately.' Because MLS checkbox majority suggests inclusion but remarks directly contradict one listing, inclusion is possible but confidence is moderate.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
1 of 3 current listings includes the RECARE amenity checkbox, but none of the public remarks mention a recreation area (no phrases like 'recreation area', 'rec area', 'recreation deck' or 'amenity deck'). Evidence is inconsistent across agents and likely weak; include the feature for buyers but with low confidence because the only support is a single MLS checkbox without corroborating remarks.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
MLS data indicates 1/3 listings list 'WASHER/DRYER' as inclusions, suggesting some units may have in-unit laundry. However, none of the public remarks mention washer/dryer or 'in-unit laundry', and there is no prior historical confirmation—this appears to be limited evidence that could reflect agents checking the box for some units or copy/paste. Classified as probable (confidence 0.72) pending stronger explicit remarks or owner verification.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong evidence that the building offers parking: 3/3 current MLS listings include parking features and public remarks in at least two listings explicitly state '2 dedicated parking stalls and ample street parking.' Multiple listings/agents confirm dedicated stalls rather than a single, likely copy-paste checkbox, so confidence is high.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Listings mention '2 dedicated parking stalls' (assigned/dedicated) which suggests parking is provided, but there is no explicit language saying the stalls are deeded or owned. Without the explicit 'deeded' wording, I cannot mark this as deeded.
No analysis available
I looked for 'parking fee', 'monthly parking', or 'additional parking cost' and found no information. The remarks only reference dedicated stalls and street parking for guests.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for terms like 'parking waitlist' or 'waiting list for parking' and found none. There is no evidence of a parking waitlist system in these listings.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
One of three current listings lists ACSPL (split/mini-split) in inclusions, but none of the provided public remarks mention split/mini-split, ductless, or similar language. Evidence currently rests only on MLS checkbox data (1/3 listings) and appears inconsistent with agent remarks, so presence is possible but unconfirmed across units.
Two of three current listings list ACWIUN (window/wall AC units) in inclusions, but the public remarks provided contain no references to window air conditioners or wall units. The evidence is limited to MLS checkbox usage across listings and lacks corroborating agent remarks, so the feature is flagged as possible but not well supported.
None of the provided public remarks (0/3) mention concrete, reinforced concrete, or similar wording. MLS checkbox data is inconsistent (only 1 of 3 listings lists CONCRE), and there is no user verification or explicit renovation note indicating conversion to concrete, so evidence for concrete construction is weak and likely a checkbox error.
No listings explicitly describe 'double wall' or 'double-wall construction' (0/3). One remark notes 'only one shared wall,' which refers to the unit having a single adjoining wall rather than double-wall construction; MLS checkbox presence is inconsistent and not corroborated by wording in the public remarks.
Public remarks (0/3) do not mention 'hollow tile' or related terms. With only one listing checkboxing HOLTIL and no descriptive confirmation in agent remarks or owner verification, hollow-tile construction is not supported by the available textual evidence.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
None of the public remarks (0/3) reference 'wood frame' or 'wood frame construction.' Given the inconsistent MLS checkbox presence (1 of 3 listings) and absence of corroborating remarks or owner/site-verification, there is insufficient evidence to assert wood-frame construction.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for wording that would indicate short-term rentals are permitted and found none. The remarks reference an existing tenant lease (ending July 31, 2025), which suggests long-term tenancy rather than STRs; therefore STRs are not evidenced.
I looked for 'hotel rental pool', 'hotel rental program', or management by a hotel brand and found no references. Because there is no evidence STRs are allowed, hotel pool participation is not supported.
I searched for language like 'mandatory hotel pool' or 'required to participate' and found none. With no evidence that STRs or a hotel pool exist, a mandatory pool is not indicated.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for phrases such as 'lease expires', 'land lease to', 'leasehold expiring in', or any renewal language and found none. If the property is fee simple this field would not apply; otherwise no expiry year is provided.
I searched the remarks for phrases like 'VA approved', 'VA financing', or 'VA loans accepted' and found no references. There is no evidence in these listings that the building is VA loan approved.
I searched the public remarks for terms indicating the HOA provides full/walls-in insurance and found no references. With no explicit mention in the remarks and no current value to retain, this is set to false with medium confidence.
No analysis available
I reviewed the public remarks for explicit language indicating the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation (FLSE) and found none. In the absence of any mention and with no current value provided, the field is marked false with medium confidence (absence in remarks suggests it was not stated).
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
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
One of three current MLS listings lists SUNSET in the view_descriptions, but none of the public remarks mention 'sunset', 'evening sun', or 'western exposure'. Evidence is limited to the MLS view field (1/3) and may reflect some units having sunset views or inconsistent agent entry; remarks do not corroborate the feature across listings.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.