Kealakai at Kapolei I
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.
Kealakai at Kapolei I
Building Overview
Kealakai at Kapolei I in Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale — built 2010; pets and short-term rentals not allowed.
About Kealakai at Kapolei I
Kealakai at Kapolei I is a residential building located in the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale neighborhood. According to available records, the building was built in 2010. MLS-derived data does not include specific information on unit sizes or the construction type for this property.
Based on MLS data, building policies include no pets and no short-term rentals. Specific common-area amenities, utility arrangements, and on-site facilities are not listed in the available MLS information.
Management company information is recorded as unknown in the MLS. Buyers should verify details such as parking, maintenance fees, association rules, and any additional amenities or restrictions with listing agents or the association. This description is based on MLS data and should be independently confirmed.
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 owner-occupancy indicators like '80% owner occupied,' 'majority owner occupied,' or 'highly owner occupied.' The remarks do not provide any owner-occupancy figure or descriptive statement, so this remains unknown.
I searched the public remarks for explicit elevator references such as '4 elevators,' 'multiple elevators,' or similar wording, but found none. Because the listings are townhomes/ground-floor units and do not mention elevators at all, there is no basis to assign a number.
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
All 7 listings have the OTCOEX checkbox checked in the MLS, but 0/7 public remarks mention common area electricity (no phrases like 'common area electricity' or 'building power included'). No owner/manager verifications or explicit remarks confirm this; evidence suggests checkbox was likely copied into listings without verification.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Evidence points away from maintenance fees including hot water. Across the remarks, there are no explicit mentions of hot water included, while one listing specifically notes a solar water heater and the MLS shows WTRHTR in 4/8 listings. This looks more like individual-unit water heating than a building-paid hot water service.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sewer is consistently checked in the MLS across all 8 listings. There are no contrary public remarks, so this appears to be a reliable building-level inclusion rather than a one-off agent entry.
Water is checked in the MLS for all 8 listings, giving strong building-level support. No public remarks explicitly restate it, but the full MLS consistency makes this highly reliable.
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
4+ listings mention outdoor space, including phrases like "outdoor covered lanai," "private yard," and "enclosed yard." This appears to be a real building feature rather than a copy-paste MLS checkbox issue because multiple agents describe it in remarks. Buyers looking for patio/deck or similar outdoor amenity access would reasonably be interested in this building.
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
Storage is indicated in the current MLS data for this building, with 5 of 8 listings referencing it either as an amenity or unit feature. None of the public remarks explicitly mention a storage locker or extra storage, so the evidence is MLS-based and not reinforced by agent comments, but it is present often enough to include for buyer searches.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Pool is strongly supported by both MLS amenity data and public remarks. At least 3 listings explicitly mention a community/association pool or recreation center, including "community swimming pool" and "offers its residents...pools." The repeated references across multiple listings suggest this is a real shared amenity, not a copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
In-unit laundry is supported by the MLS inclusions in 7 of 8 current listings, all showing WASHER/DRYER. None of the public remarks explicitly mention laundry, so the evidence is mainly from repeated MLS data rather than descriptive copy, but it is still strong enough to indicate the building offers units with in-unit laundry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is clearly available for this building. Multiple listings mention it directly, with phrases like "2 assigned open parking stalls," "2 assigned parking stalls," and "THREE PARKING STALLS!" The evidence is consistent across several remarks and matches the MLS parking flags.
Assigned parking is strongly confirmed. Several listings explicitly say "assigned parking stalls" and one calls out "THREE assigned parking stalls," which is more than enough to validate the feature. This appears consistent across multiple agents and not like a one-off copy-paste error.
No analysis available
The listings consistently mention assigned parking stalls, guest parking, and additional street parking. However, they never explicitly state that parking is deeded or owned, so this cannot be confirmed from the remarks.
No analysis available
I looked for any monthly parking charge, rental fee, or additional parking cost language, but none was present. The remarks only discuss assigned stalls and guest parking.
Guest parking is present at the building. At least three remarks explicitly reference it with phrases like "15+ guest parking spaces," "lots of guest parking," and "ample guest parking." The repeated references across listings make this a strong building-level amenity.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The public remarks describe multiple assigned stalls and guest parking availability. There is no indication of a waitlist process for parking.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong evidence the building offers window air conditioning units. Across the provided remarks, 2 listings explicitly mention window A/C or AC in each room, and the current MLS data supports this with ACWIUN checked in 7 of 8 listings. This appears consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off copy-paste error.
Only 2 of 7 MLS listings include 'CONCRE' in construction_materials and none of the public remarks mention concrete or reinforced concrete. There is no prior verification and agent remarks are silent, so there is insufficient evidence to mark the building as concrete construction.
Double wall construction is strongly supported by the MLS data: 8 out of 8 current listings include the DOUWAL flag. None of the remarks explicitly confirm it, but the consistency across all listings indicates this is a stable building feature rather than a one-off agent error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Concrete slab construction is not confirmed by the remarks. The feature appears in only 4 of 8 current MLS listings, and there are 0 explicit references to a slab or concrete foundation, so the evidence is too weak to treat it as a reliable building attribute.
No analysis available
Wood frame construction is not supported by the public remarks. Across the listings provided, there are 0 explicit mentions of "wood frame" or similar language, while the current MLS checkbox appears only in half of the listings, suggesting possible copy/paste or inconsistent data entry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for short-term rental indicators such as STR allowed, NUC, TVU, vacation rental, or minimum-stay rules, but found no relevant remarks. With no evidence that STR is permitted, this is treated as not allowed based on the listing remarks.
I looked for hotel rental pool language such as hotel-managed, rental program, Hilton pool, Trump pool, or Ritz pool, but found none. Since there is no evidence STR is allowed, hotel pool participation is not supported.
I searched for mandatory pool wording such as required participation, cannot opt out, or must be in the rental program, and found nothing. The remarks also do not indicate STR is allowed, so mandatory pool participation is not supported.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for leasehold language such as "lease expires," "ground lease," "leasehold," and any 4-digit expiration year, but found nothing. There is no public remark evidence to identify a lease expiry year.
The remarks explicitly reference VA buyers and an assumable loan opportunity, which is strong evidence of VA financing compatibility. No contrary information was found.
I searched the remarks for insurance-related wording such as 'fully insured,' 'full insurance,' 'walls-in coverage,' or similar phrases. None were present, so there is no evidence that the HOA provides full building insurance.
Fire sprinklers are explicitly mentioned in 2 of the current remarks, and the prior MLS history already had high-confidence evidence for this feature. The wording is consistent across listings and does not look like a one-off or a correction, so this appears to be a real building/unit safety feature.
I looked for phrases like 'fire life safety evaluation passed,' 'FLSE passed,' 'fire safety certified,' and 'passed fire inspection.' The remarks only reference a fire sprinkler system, which suggests fire protection but is not the same as an explicit pass statement. No direct FLSE/pass language was found.
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
There is limited evidence that some units may have sunset views: 1 of 8 current listings includes "SUNSET" in the view description. However, none of the public remarks mention sunset views, evening sun, western exposure, or similar phrasing, so this does not appear strongly corroborated across multiple agents.
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.