The Cambridge City Council voiced unanimous support for a moratorium on development in the Cambridge Riverside neighborhood, potentially delaying Harvard's plans for an art museum on the Charles River.

At an ordinance committee meeting Wednesday night, Cambridge residents spoke in favor of the Loose Moratorium--authored by Cambridge resident Jack P. Loose--which proposes halting all development on the southern edge of the campus for 18 months.

"This area is under a tremendous amount of development pressure," said Cambridge resident Phyllis Baumann of the land bordered by Memorial Drive, DeWolfe Street, Mt. Auburn Street, Putnam Avenue and River Street. "We need some breathing space to figure out what is happening in this area."

Baumann said the moratorium was not directed towards Harvard's proposal for a modern art museum at the current site of the Mahoney's Garden Center on Memorial Drive, but was intended instead to allow the neighborhood to evaluate what they want in the entire area.

"At the end of the moratorium, we may decide that a museum is exactly what we need," Baumann said. "But we don't want to be bulldozed into a decision that will be irreversible."

Some residents said issues such as traffic and ecological impacts from continued development in the area have to be studied before future plans are made.

"Everyone knows that traffic is unbearable in this neighborhood," said resident John O'Connor.

And almost all residents at the meeting said that continued open access to the Charles River is one of their main concerns with Harvard building in Riverside.

"They own practically all of the Charles River," said resident Marvin Gilmore. "This is the last open space in the neighborhood."

According to Cambridge resident Cob Carlson, residents' distrust of the University is also a major reason for his support of the moratorium.

"As a community, we don't trust that institution," Carlson said. "They have given us no reason to."

He cited Harvard's construction of Mather House and Peabody Terrace nearly 30 years ago as the beginning of hostilities between the Riverside neighborhood and the University, saying the large buildings crowded the small-scale neighborhood.

Only one resident at the meeting spoke out against the moratorium, saying it would create a barrier to discussions between Harvard and the community. The University last met with Riverside residents to discuss the museum proposal in late June.

"I think that Harvard is genuine in its interest to listen to neighborhood interests," the resident said. "If we put up this wall, it will stifle the communication that is going on."

Associate Vice President of Planning and Real Estate Kathy A. Spiegelman and Senior Director of Community Relations Mary H. Power took a similar position in a letter written to the council.

"From our perspective, the introduction of a building moratorium at this moment can only serve to undermine the openness of a collaborative dialogue," the letter read.

Travis McCready, Harvard's director of community relations for Cambridge, said yesterday that a moratorium is unneeded because no development will occur in Riverside in the next 18 months anyway.

"Even if we got the green light to develop from residents tomorrow, it would take two years before we got a shovel in the ground," McCready said.

But councilors said that there were no negative consequences to passing the moratorium.

"The only time negotiations are successful is when the playing field is level," said councilor Jim Braude, who agreed with residents that the neighborhood needed time to evaluate the area. "All this moratorium does is level the playing field."

"It buys time for an overburdened neighborhood," said councilor David P. Maher, who co-chaired the ordinance committee meeting.

The proposed moratorium will now go to Cambridge's planning board for discussion Aug. 8 before it is brought before the entire council in September.

While the moratorium will most likely pass easily, McCready said he hopes it does not stifle discussions with the community.

"I should hope this does not change our ability to engage our neighbors," McCready said.

Fanning the Flames

Several councilors took the opportunity to voice their opinions about Harvard on Monday at the council's only full meeting of the summer, continuing the council's vocal stance against the University in the last few months.

While an extensive portion of the six-hour meeting was devoted to public comment and zoning matters, discussion over Harvard's proposals for development in Allston quickly led to a free-for-all discussion that touched on issues ranging from Harvard's relationship with city officials to University employees not receiving a living wage.

Councilors said that Harvard has a master plan for development in the Allston area, but that they continue to grow in Cambridge in a piecemeal fashion.

"Where is their Cambridge institutional master plan?" questioned councilor Kenneth E. Reeves '72.

Councilor Marjorie C. Decker said she believes the University is not adequately addressing current concerns of residents and city officials.

"All of these time bombs are going off at different places," Decker said. With relations at a low point, Mayor Anthony D. Galluccio wrote in an op-ed in The Boston Globe this week that the successor to Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstine must be the leader in forming better relations between the University and city on all issues.

"The next president should serve as its single voice on issues like housing, employment, educational services, community relations and development," Galluccio wrote. "Harvard's relationship with the community must be centralized in the president's office."

And Reeves said the current period will be critical in shaping future town-gown relations.

"We are at a moment in the history of Cambridge and Harvard to assess where we are," he said.