In Olmstead v. City of San Diego (1932) 124 Cal.App. 14, the court (addressing a dispute over City's ability to construct a road through Torrey Pines Park) explained the historical genesis of City's ownership of, and powers over, pueblo lands: "The City of San Diego was originally a Spanish, and then a Mexican, pueblo. The lands in question were a portion of the 'Pueblo Lands' of the original town. Under the Spanish and Mexican law these 'pueblo lands' were held in trust by the pueblo for the benefit of the community and could only be used and disposed of in accordance with the order and direction of the king or sovereign power. The pueblo of San Diego was incorporated as the City of San Diego in 1850, the pueblo lands here involved being recognized as owned by the city ... . Thereafter they were held by the city under the trusts attaching to them as pueblo lands, their use and disposition being subject to the control of the legislature as successor to the sovereign power of the king , except the power of 'rent, sale or lease', which was expressly given to the city. In 1872 the legislature passed an act ... authorizing the city to 'provide for the use, care, custody and regulation of all the commons, parks, cemeteries and property, both real and personal, belonging to the city', restricting its power only as to the manner of sale and disposition. (Stats. 1871-72, p. 285.) It will thus be seen that as early as 1872 the legislature had delegated to the city the unrestricted power of determining how its real property should be used." (Olmstead, at p. 16.) In Olmstead, the court was first presented with the issue of whether the subject lands could be deemed a park. (Olmstead, supra, 124 Cal.App. at p. 16.) The appellant argued that, although a city ordinarily has the power to set aside lands for parks, the 1870 Statute showed the California Legislature intended to divest City of that power because the 1870 Statute provided that the pueblo lands were to be set aside as a park, "'and none others,'" would be set aside for park purposes. (124 Cal.App. at p. 18.) Olmstead rejected that argument, stating that even "conceding such effect at the date of the statute, the 1870 Statute could not in any way limit the authority given to the city by a later act of the legislature, and any such attempted limitation implied from the statute of 1869 was annulled by the charter of 1889." (Ibid.)