Ok Don, and tell us what that "city attorney" will base his answer on? He will base it on actual "law" right ? In other words, if he said "no you can't", he would be able to POINT to something that actually says that , right ? As opposed to his mere "whim", right ?
Then in that case, why can't the O.P. simply look up the laws for himself ? They're no secret after all, eh ? Because the problem with asking a desk-bound city person, is that all-too-often they just take the "safe/easy answer" out, and just say "no". Because of some ancillary verbiage (alter / disturb / take/ remove / cultural heritage, etc...) that they *think* applies to your "pressing question". When in fact, the topic probably never crossed their mind before. And that others (like a cop no less) have no problems md'ing.
I've seen this happen, where someone fetches a "no", at parks where ....quite frankly ... it was never a problem.
As for the OP's question: I too lived in a city for awhile (Pacific Grove, CA) where it has a "historic district" (all the old-town district buildings and houses have plaques on them, etc....). And I detected there all the time, no problem. A homeowner / private property owner can do whatever the heck he wants with his own property. If he elects to allow someone to m.d. in his yard, that's his business.
So unless the O.P. sees something in Muni. code that actually specifically says "no md'ing", fine then, it's not prohibited. Don't over-think things. Don't swat hornet's nests
