Makakilo Gardens 1
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.
Makakilo Gardens 1
Building Overview
Makakilo Gardens 1 in Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale, built 1973; pets and short-term rentals are not allowed.
About Makakilo Gardens 1
Makakilo Gardens 1 is a residential building located in the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale neighborhood. According to available records, the building was built in 1973. The MLS data provided does not specify building size, unit mix, or construction type.
Key policies identified from MLS-derived data include that pets are not allowed and short-term rentals are not allowed. No specific amenities, common-area features, or HOA services are listed in the available MLS information. The management company is listed as unknown in the records provided.
Additional details such as parking arrangements, maintenance fees, insurance, and other rules are not included in the MLS data supplied. Based on MLS data, buyers should verify all building details, policies, fees, and management information with the seller, HOA, or property manager 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 any owner-occupancy indicators, including percentages like '80% owner occupied' or qualitative descriptions like 'highly owner occupied,' and found none. The remarks do not provide enough information to estimate owner occupancy.
I searched the remarks for any explicit elevator reference, including phrases like '4 elevators' or 'multiple elevators,' and found none. Since this is a townhome complex and no elevator information is stated, the elevator count remains unknown from the public remarks.
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
The MLS consistently indicates this building’s fees include common-area electricity (8 of 8 listings). None of the public remarks explicitly say "common area electricity" or similar, so this is supported primarily by the repeated MLS field rather than agent comments. Because the checkbox is unanimous across listings, it looks like building-level data rather than a one-off copy/paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The MLS consistently shows sewer included in the association fees across all 8 listings. Public remarks do not mention sewer directly, so this is based on the repeated MLS inclusion rather than descriptive text. The consistency across multiple listings suggests a building-level feature.
The MLS data indicates water is included in the association fees for all 8 listings. None of the remarks explicitly mention water, so the evidence comes from the consistent MLS field rather than listing text. Since the checkbox appears on every current listing, this looks like a shared building expense rather than an isolated agent entry.
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
Multiple listings mention private yard-type features, including "private outdoor space," "private patio area," "open private courtyard," "fenced yard," "fenced in lanai," and "enclosed back yard area." With 4/8 MLS listings also checked for PRIYAR, the evidence is consistent across several remarks and appears legitimate rather than an isolated MLS error.
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
The evidence strongly supports that Makakilo Gardens 1 has a shared swimming pool. Three separate listings explicitly mention a pool, including phrases like 'on-site swimming pool' and 'Amenities include a pool,' and the current MLS amenities are also mostly checked for pool-related codes. This looks consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Laundry in unit is strongly supported across the listings: the MLS inclusions show washer/dryer on 8 of 8 records, and the remarks also confirm it with phrases like "laundry facilities" and "laundry conveniently situated next to the 3 upstairs bedrooms." This looks consistent across multiple listings rather than a one-off agent copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is clearly available for the building. Across the remarks, several listings explicitly mention parking stalls/spots, including "a conveniently located parking spot near the unit" and "two side-by-side parking spots." The MLS data is consistent across all 8 listings, so this appears to be a stable building feature rather than a copy-paste error.
Assigned/reserved parking is supported by the MLS checkbox data in every listing. The remarks reinforce that these are dedicated stalls/spots rather than generic open parking. Evidence is strong and consistent across multiple listings.
No analysis available
I looked for phrases like deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in the deed, but none were found. The remarks describe parking availability, not deeded ownership, so there is no support for deeded parking.
No analysis available
I searched for parking fee language, including monthly charge, rental parking, or extra cost, but found nothing. The remarks mention stalls and proximity to the unit only.
Guest parking is available for the complex. At least one public remark explicitly confirms "two guest stalls," and the MLS data shows guest parking in most listings (6 of 8). This looks like a real shared amenity, not a one-off agent error.
No analysis available
Tandem parking appears to be available in some units/building configurations based on the MLS data (3 of 8 listings). However, the public remarks do not explicitly describe tandem stalls, so confidence is moderate rather than high. This is likely a unit-level option rather than a universal parking arrangement.
No analysis available
I looked for parking waitlist references such as join a waitlist or waiting list for stalls, but none were mentioned. Without any evidence, this cannot be confirmed from 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
There are 0 explicit mentions of double wall construction in the remarks. Since the descriptions repeatedly cover finishes, views, and amenities without any structural wording, this looks more like copied MLS data than verified construction information.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There are 0 explicit mentions of slab construction in the remarks. The listings describe the units as townhomes with courtyards, parking, and interior upgrades, but do not state the foundation type, so the slab claim remains unconfirmed.
No analysis available
Across the provided listings, there are 0 explicit mentions of wood frame construction. The remarks read like standard listing copy and do not describe the building's structural system, so the MLS construction checkbox looks unverified rather than confirmed.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
A 30-day minimum rental policy is direct evidence against short-term rentals. This is a strong indicator that STR is not allowed in the building.
I looked for hotel rental pool language, but the rental policy itself rules out short-term rental use. Since STR is not allowed, a hotel pool cannot be present.
I searched for mandatory pool language such as required participation or cannot opt out, but the 30-day minimum policy already indicates STR is disallowed. Therefore, mandatory hotel pool participation is not supported.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched the remarks for leasehold language such as lease expiry, ground lease, renewal, or an end year, but found nothing. There is no evidence here to determine a lease expiration date.
The listings explicitly reference VA financing/assumption, which is strong evidence that VA-related financing is available for this property. While this does not prove formal lender approval in every context, the public remarks clearly support VA use.
I searched the remarks for HOA insurance coverage language such as 'fully insured,' 'walls-in coverage,' or similar phrases and found none. The public remarks do not provide evidence that the building is fully insured.
No analysis available
I looked for explicit language indicating the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation, including FLSE, fire safety certified, or passed fire inspection, and found nothing. With no such mention in the remarks, there is no evidence to mark this as passed.
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
No analysis available
No analysis available
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.