Since no one has apparently seen the lease, what is the factual basis for this comment?

The factual basis in context is confirmation from Bill Rakow that the lease is for the entire property, not just parking rights.

Is it possible the lease was improved for OPA?

The monetary value was improved for OPA, according to Rakow, but that amount is also top secret. However, the issue of money and land use are two different aspects. OPA's consultant told us we were collecting well below market value for the prior five-year lease.... doesn't anyone wonder why? There is, at a minimum, circumstantial evidence of a cozy relationship between someone at Seacrets and someone in OPA management at the time of the prior lease signing.

Seacrets NEEDS our parking more than we need their money. So, rather than use our bargaining advantage, the board not only gives them parking rights but essentially total control of the property for five years. I suppose that might be construed by some as a "improved" lease for OPA, but I don't.

What else is in the otherwise top-secret document remains to be seen.