Havens Of II Vistas
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.
Havens Of II Vistas
Building Overview
Havens Of II Vistas in Mililani Mauka-Launani Valley, built 2004. Pets allowed; short-term rentals not permitted.
About Havens Of II Vistas
Havens Of II Vistas is a residential building located in the Mililani Mauka–Launani Valley neighborhood. According to available MLS records, the building was constructed in 2004. Size (unit mix/square footage) and construction type are not specified in the MLS information provided.
Based on MLS data, key policies for the building include allowance of pets and a prohibition on short-term rentals. No additional amenity, common-area, or HOA service details are listed in the available records.
Management company information and specifics about parking, maintenance fees, or special assessments are shown as unknown or not provided in the MLS data. Buyers should verify all building details, rules, and fees with the listing agent or management prior to purchase.
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 percentages or phrases like 'majority owner occupied' or 'highly owner occupied.' The remarks do not mention owner-occupancy levels, so the percentage remains unknown.
I searched the public remarks for explicit elevator counts or wording like 'multiple elevators' and found nothing. The listings describe townhome/condo units, parking, and amenities, but do not mention elevators at all.
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
7 of 10 current listings have OTCOEX (common area electricity) checked in association_fee_includes. No public remarks explicitly state 'common electric' (suggesting some agent copy/paste), but the consistent MLS checkbox across multiple listings indicates the maintenance fee likely includes common area electricity.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The evidence does not support hot water being included in the HOA/maintenance fees. Across the current listings, 0/11 have HOTWAT checked, while 7/11 reference a water heater in the unit; remarks repeatedly mention a "new water heater" or "newer water heater" rather than building-provided hot water. This looks consistent across listings and agents, not like a copy-paste amenity checkbox.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sewer appears to be included at the building level. The current MLS data shows 9/11 listings with SEWER checked, and none of the public remarks contradict that. This is a fairly consistent checkbox pattern across multiple listings/agents.
Water appears to be included in the maintenance fees. The current MLS data shows 9/11 listings with WATER checked, and the public remarks are silent on the issue, which suggests the MLS pattern is likely reliable. There is no evidence of a recent change or correction in the 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
Five of eleven current MLS listings include WAJOPA, but none of the public remarks explicitly mention a jogging or walking path. This makes the feature plausible at the community level, but the evidence is weaker than an explicit remark and could reflect copy/paste MLS entries.
No analysis available
4 of 10 current public remarks explicitly mention private outdoor space: "your own private yard," "private front and back fenced lanais (with no rear neighbors!)," and "two private courtyards." Evidence comes from multiple different listings/agents and explicitly describes fenced/private yard areas, so the building does offer private yard space for some units.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No public remarks (0/10) mention 'storage', 'storage locker', or 'extra storage'. MLS building amenities checkbox for storage is unchecked across all 10 current listings; only 2/10 listings previously had a unit_features code STORAG. Given the lack of remarks and unchecked building-level checkbox, evidence strongly indicates the building does not offer storage lockers.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong building-level evidence supports a pool amenity. At least 2 separate remarks explicitly mention 'six pools' across seven recreation centers, and another notes Rec Center #7 includes 'a pool.' This appears consistent across multiple listings and agents, not a one-off copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
In-unit laundry is strongly supported across the dataset. At least 3 public remarks explicitly mention it, including "in-unit stackable washer and dryer" and "washer/dryer in unit," which aligns with the MLS inclusions showing WASHER/DRYER on all current listings. This looks like consistent building/unit feature data rather than copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong building-level evidence that the property has parking. Across the remarks, multiple listings mention “two parking stalls,” “2 parking stalls,” “1 covered and 1 open,” and “parking stalls right in front of your door.” This appears consistent across many agents rather than a one-off note.
Assigned/reserved parking is well supported. At least several remarks explicitly use terms like “assigned parking stalls,” “two dedicated parking stalls,” and “2 assigned parking stalls,” matching the strong MLS signal. The evidence is consistent across multiple listings.
Covered parking is clearly present at the building level. Multiple remarks explicitly mention a covered stall, including phrases like “one covered & one open” and “1 covered and 1 open parking stall.” This is consistent across the listing set and aligns with the MLS data.
I looked for explicit wording such as deeded parking, owned stall, parking included in the deed, or stall included with title. The listings only describe two assigned/dedicated stalls and parking in front of the unit, which is not enough to पुष्टि deeded parking.
No analysis available
I searched for parking fee, monthly parking cost, rental charge, or additional parking expense language. The remarks mention assigned and guest parking, but no monthly fee or parking rental is stated.
Guest parking appears to be available for the building. The strongest direct evidence is the remark stating “Lots of guest parking,” supported by the MLS data showing guest parking on a majority of current listings. This is moderately strong and likely reflects a shared complex amenity.
There is some evidence for secured entry related to parking/access, but it is more implied than explicit. Several remarks call the community “gated” or “secure, gated,” and the MLS has a small number of SECENT flags. This supports inclusion with moderate confidence, but it is weaker than the other parking features.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for parking waitlist, parking waiting list, and join the waitlist for parking. The public remarks do not mention any parking waitlist system, so there is no evidence for this feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Window AC is strongly supported by the current remarks and MLS data. At least 2 listings explicitly describe A/C units in units, and the current MLS checkbox ACWIUN appears in 8 of 11 listings. The evidence looks consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off copy/paste.
No analysis available
Double wall construction is listed in 10 of 11 current MLS records, making it the strongest construction signal for the building. The public remarks do not spell out 'double wall' or 'two walls,' but the MLS data is highly consistent across listings. This looks like a reliable building-level feature rather than a one-off agent entry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Only one of ten MLS listings lists STEFRA (steel frame) and none of the public remarks reference steel framing. This low and isolated checkbox is likely an agent outlier or copy/paste error, so steel frame construction is not supported by the available public-remark evidence.
Two of ten MLS listings list SLAB (concrete slab) in construction materials, but none of the public remarks reference a concrete slab foundation. The limited MLS presence suggests at least some units or portions of the building may be on slab, but the evidence is modest and not confirmed in remarks.
No analysis available
Wood frame construction appears in 6 of 11 current MLS listings via the WOOFRA code. None of the public remarks explicitly mention 'wood frame,' so this is supported mainly by the MLS material field rather than copy/pasted narrative text. The signal is moderate and consistent enough to keep as true.
Four of ten current MLS listings indicate above-ground construction (ABOGRO), but none of the public remarks reference above-ground materials or construction. The MLS entries suggest some above-ground construction elements exist, but the evidence is implied and not corroborated in agent remarks.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for explicit STR language such as short-term rental allowed, STR permitted, legal vacation rental, NUC, TVU, or minimum-stay exceptions. Nothing in the listings indicates that short-term rentals are allowed, so this is treated as not allowed based on the available remarks.
I searched for hotel rental pool references like Hilton, Ritz, Trump pool, managed hotel operations, or rental program language. No such references appear in the remarks, and because STR is not indicated, hotel-pool participation must be false.
I looked for wording such as mandatory pool, required participation, cannot opt out, or must rent through a program. The remarks contain none of that language, so there is no evidence of a mandatory hotel pool.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for leasehold, ground lease, lease expires, lease ends, renewed through, and extended to language. Nothing in the public remarks states a lease tenure or a specific expiry year, so this remains unknown.
The public remarks directly say the building/home is VA-approved, which strongly indicates VA financing is accepted. I looked for VA-approved, VA financing, and VA loans accepted language and found a clear explicit mention.
I searched the remarks for insurance wording such as 'fully insured,' 'full insurance,' or 'walls-in coverage.' There were no references to building insurance coverage, so this cannot be confirmed from the listings.
No analysis available
I looked for any reference to a fire/life safety evaluation passing, FLSE compliance, or fire safety certification. None of the public remarks included that kind of building-wide safety language, so there is no evidence to mark it true.
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
Across 11 current listings, none mention sunset or western-facing views, and most list the view as NONE. Public remarks repeatedly describe the building as breezy or offer Waianae Range views, but there are no agent remarks indicating sunset views. This is strong negative evidence that the building should not be flagged for sunset views.
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.