Kulana Knolls 2
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.
Kulana Knolls 2
Building Overview
Kulana Knolls 2 in Waipahu — built 1994; pets allowed; short-term rentals not permitted.
About Kulana Knolls 2
Based on MLS data, Kulana Knolls 2 is a residential building located in the Waipahu neighborhood, built in 1994. Specific details on building size (number of units) and construction type are not provided in the available MLS records.
According to available records, the property allows pets and does not permit short-term rentals. No additional amenities (such as a pool, gym, or community facilities) are listed in the MLS data supplied.
Additional details commonly important to buyers — including parking arrangements, HOA or maintenance fees, and the management company — are not specified in the MLS information (management company listed as Unknown). Prospective buyers should verify parking, fee, and policy information with the listing agent or association 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
No analysis available
No analysis available
I reviewed the remarks for explicit owner-occupancy clues like percentages, majority owner-occupied, or highly owner-occupied. The listings do not provide any owner-occupancy statistic or descriptive proxy. Since this is a numeric field and there is no evidence to infer a value, it remains unknown.
I searched the remarks for explicit elevator references such as a count ('1 elevator,' 'multiple elevators') or building-wide access descriptions. The only relevant language was a unit-level statement about not needing stairs or elevators, which does not confirm the building has any elevators. Keeping the current value of 0 because there is no remark evidence to override it.
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
Most current listings (14 of 19) include OTCOEX, which is commonly used for common-area electricity. The public remarks do not spell it out, so this appears to be an MLS-derived building feature rather than agent-described copy. Confidence is moderate because the remarks themselves do not confirm it.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No current listings include HOTWAT, and most list WTRHTR instead, which is a strong indicator that hot water is not part of the maintenance fee. Several remarks mention a new water heater or in-unit hot-water-heater type wording, reinforcing that the building is not supplying hot water as a common utility.
No analysis available
No analysis available
All current listings include SEWER in association fees, making this a highly consistent building-level feature. The public remarks do not explicitly mention sewer, but there is no evidence of any exceptions. This is strongly verified by MLS data across the building.
All current listings include WATER in association fees, indicating water is a building-wide standard. The remarks do not specifically mention water, but there are no conflicts across listings. This is one of the strongest verified features for the building.
Although 5/17 current MLS entries check a BBQ box, remarks do not describe any shared building BBQ or grilling station. Only one listing refers to a unit backyard for 'outdoor BBQs,' which is a private/unit-level note rather than a building amenity. Given lack of building-level mentions across listings and inconsistent MLS checks, we conclude the building does not offer a shared BBQ facility.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Across the listings provided, there is no explicit mention of any car wash facility. Historical data already indicated that checkboxes were present without supporting remarks, which is typical of copy/paste MLS errors. Based on the remarks alone, this feature should not be considered confirmed for the building.
There is direct current-remarks evidence for a clubhouse, plus related references to a recreation center/community gathering space. The historical data shows only a few MLS listings marked for this feature, so it is present but not uniformly emphasized across all remarks. Overall confidence is strong but not universal.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong evidence across many listings supports patio/deck features at this building. Multiple agents describe outdoor living areas with phrases like "covered porch," "covered lanai," "private lanai," and "private patio," indicating this is not a one-off mention. The consistency across listings suggests the feature is real rather than copied inaccurately.
No public remarks in the provided listings explicitly describe a jogging or walking path. The historical checkbox presence is not backed by remarks, so this looks like unverified MLS data rather than a confirmed building feature. Confidence is high that the feature should not be treated as established from these remarks.
No analysis available
Very strong evidence confirms private yard space is available in this building, with many listings explicitly mentioning it. At least several remarks independently cite "private yard," "private courtyard," "fenced back area," and "enclosed yard," which aligns with the prior MLS history. The repetition across multiple listings and agents makes this a high-confidence building feature.
No analysis available
Strong, repeated evidence across listings supports a shared recreation area. Remarks mention a "recreation center," playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts, and "open grassy spaces"/landscaped grounds, which is consistent with the historical high-confidence signal. This appears to be a real building/community amenity rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Storage appears to be a real building feature, though it is not mentioned in most public remarks. One listing explicitly says the unit has an "exterior storage space," while the MLS data also shows storage/additional storage marked in a minority of recent listings (5/19 amenities, 6/19 unit_features). This looks more like a selectively listed amenity than a copy-paste error.
No analysis available
MLS shows 4 of 16 listings with tennis court checked and public remarks include the phrase “recreation center, basketball, tennis courts and park.” Only one distinct remarks block explicitly names tennis courts, so evidence exists but is limited across agents and may reflect partial copy/paste.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
In-unit laundry is strongly supported for this building. Multiple listings explicitly mention 'in-unit washer and dryer,' 'in-unit laundry,' and 'Washer/Dryer' in the unit, showing consistent evidence across many remarks. This appears to be a stable building feature rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is strongly confirmed across the building: 18/18 current listings include a parking feature, and multiple remarks explicitly mention "two open parking stalls," "2 dedicated parking spaces," "two assigned parking stalls," and "2 reserved parking spaces." This is consistent across multiple agents and appears to be reliable, not a copy-paste error.
Assigned/reserved parking is strongly supported across the building. Multiple listings explicitly mention '2 assigned parking stalls,' '2 dedicated parking spaces,' and '2 reserved parking spaces,' matching the current MLS pattern where 13/19 listings include assigned parking. This looks consistent across multiple agents rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
No analysis available
I looked for explicit deeded-parking language such as deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in deed, and found none. The remarks consistently describe assigned or dedicated stalls, which suggests parking is available but not clearly deeded.
No analysis available
I searched for any separate monthly parking charge, parking rental, or additional parking cost. The remarks only mention assigned/open stalls and do not state any parking fee.
Guest parking appears to be a real building-level amenity. Several current listings include GUEST in MLS parking features, and public remarks specifically mention 'guest parking' and 'visitor stalls,' supporting the checkbox data. The evidence is not as ubiquitous as assigned parking, but it is still strong and recurring.
Several listings describe the community as gated and one or more remarks explicitly note 'secured entry,' and MLS has 4/17 with secured-entry checked. This indicates moderate evidence that parking/access is in a secured/gated setting, though specifics (gate type, card access) are not extensively detailed across listings.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I checked for parking waitlist or waiting-list references and found none. The listings describe multiple assigned stalls and visitor parking, with no indication that parking is handled through a waitlist system.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Window air conditioning is strongly supported for this building. At least 3 listings explicitly reference it, including detailed remarks about 'new window AC' and 'new window air conditioners in both bedrooms,' which aligns with the MLS inclusions data showing ACWIUN in many listings. The evidence appears consistent across multiple remarks rather than a one-off copy-paste error.
No public remarks mention concrete or reinforced concrete. Only 4 of 17 current MLS listings have the CONCRE construction checkbox checked, while the majority do not; evidence is weak and inconsistent across agents, so concrete construction is not supported by the remarks.
Strong evidence supports double wall construction at Kulana Knolls. At least 1 current listing explicitly mentions 'double wall construction for added privacy and sound insulation,' and this matches the previously high-confidence MLS history. The support appears to be listing copy rather than a correction, so this feature should be included.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I did not find any public remarks explicitly describing wood frame or wood frame construction across the provided listings. Because the MLS checkbox appears in only 8 of 18 current entries and there is no prior confidence or corroborating text, the evidence is weak and looks like possible copy-paste data rather than verified construction.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for STR indicators such as short-term rental allowed, vacation rental, legal STR, NUC, or TVU, and found nothing. There is also no language suggesting hotel-style transient use, so the remarks do not support STR being allowed.
I looked for hotel rental pool references such as Hilton, Trump, Ritz, managed hotel programs, or any equivalent pool language. None were found, and because STR is not supported in the remarks, a hotel pool cannot apply here.
I searched for wording like mandatory pool, required participation, cannot opt out, or must rent through a program, and found none. Since the remarks do not support STR, mandatory rental-pool participation is also false.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for leasehold wording, ground lease references, lease expiry dates, and renewal language such as "lease expires" or "renewed through." Nothing in the remarks indicates a land lease or a specific expiration year.
Public remarks directly support VA loan eligibility for this building. The clearest evidence is the explicit VA-approved language, reinforced by multiple listings referencing VA assumption and VA financing.
I searched the remarks for insurance-related phrases such as fully insured, full insurance, comprehensive building insurance, or walls-in coverage. There were no such statements in any of the listings. Because the remarks do not address insurance coverage, this stays unconfirmed and is set to false by absence.
No analysis available
I looked for public-remark language indicating fire/life safety evaluation passage, including FLSE passed, fire safety certified, life safety compliant, or similar wording. Nothing in the listings references a safety evaluation or inspection outcome. With no evidence present, this remains unconfirmed and is treated as false by absence.
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
At least three separate listing remarks explicitly mention coastal/harbor/ocean views: "View of Pearl Harbor", "sweeping views of Honolulu and the coast", and "views of Diamond Head and the ocean." MLS checkbox data is inconsistent (2/17 COASTL, 7/17 NONE), but multiple agents explicitly describe coastline views for some units, so the building should be listed as offering coastline views.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sunset views appear to exist in a small minority of building listings based on MLS view data: 2 of 19 records are marked SUNSET. The public remarks do not directly confirm sunset exposure, so this looks more like limited unit-to-unit availability than a building-wide guarantee.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
MLS amenities indicate RESMAN on 11/17 current listings and public remarks across listings explicitly mention an "on-site office" and "resident manager." Evidence is present across multiple listings and agents (MLS checkbox support plus explicit remarks), so the building is reported as having a resident/on-site manager with fairly high confidence.
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.