"The new lease and the old lease both encompassed the entire property and both restricted the use to parking only.

You say the above is "absolutely correct."

However, the prior lease, dated November 1, 2008 and signed by Dave Stevens makes absolutely no mention of the "entire property," none.

Here is the use clause from the contract itself (Item 1, page 1), and I quote:

"... the Lessee may use the parking area hereby leased..."

Seems rather clear the only use permitted/leased to Seacrets is for the "parking area."

However, if you choose to keep insisting the lease was for use of the "entire property," be my guest. No matter how many times you repeat the mantra, it will not change the actual words in the lease. How anyone can actually read the lease and come to the conclusion Seacrets has leased the entire property when the lease refers to "the parking area hereby leased," is beyond me.

Even more amazing would be any claim that the lease would prevent OPA from building a walkway/pier.

I also note the lease for the parking on the Ocean Side contains the same reference to use of the "parking area hereby leased."

However, just for the sake of discussion, if your contention were accurate, why on earth would OPA turn total control of the bayside property to Secrets, to the extent OPA would have to seek permission of Seacrets to build a walkway or anything else?

Frankly, looking at the leases from 2004 onward, all appear to have some questionable items .... shades of the YMCA contract.