This city council needs to think about the bigger picture. Would Mountain View be better served by replacing the builds with faceless glass and steel office builds?

Instead of moving the current buildings to another site, how about building the offices on another site?

Why do we need offices that close to Castro? Because Castro is a nice place to work. Why is it a nice place? It has the Tied House and Chez TJ. Irony.

Comeon Council members get some guts to preserve what's left of the heritage of this great city. Once these jewels are torn down, they'll be gone forever. Leave them where they are. The city should try and buy these properties. I grew up in Singapore. Yes its a gleaming prosperous city but Singaporeans yearn for the buildings that were such a fabric of Singapore life. Its not the same. One can se steel and glass structures anywhere but not buildings that are part of the history. Do the right thing. Save these awesome buildings. Thank you.

As our council weighs this, I hope they consider the balance of our city. Which do we need more of? More office space? Or more restaurants and relaxation spots? The Tied House is absolutely packed most of the time. Taking it away and replacing it with an office holding hundreds more employees looking for a place to eat and have happy hour would be tilting our balance even farther out of whack.

This is about more than saving historically significant buildings. This is about shrinking our vibrant downtown area, creating more office-jobs and losing our balance further. GO BACK - WRONG WAY!

I'm a huge proponent of historical preservation, but if you don't own it, it's not yours to decide upon. This comes down to basic property rights and the city would be doing a complete about face if they did not allow the owners to develop their land under the same guidelines as the building recently built next door. I don't understand how people don't get this simple concept.

It seems a lot of people missed what Mark wrote (and what was even more clear at the meeting):

the owners want to sell and retire and even make a profit from their hard work.

They own the property and will make a lucrative profit from their years of investment. If you invested time, money, sweat and equity into a property, shouldn't you get to cash that in at some point?

If the owners want to sell, we should let them sell. It belongs to them. If we tell the buyer they can have the property, but only if they don't change it?! who would want to buy that?

Good luck trying to preserve anything here any more. Anything and everybody has a price, and prices are pretty darn good. If you're selling, that is. And if you are, Google or the apartment bloc corporations are happy to pay because they're printing money anyway.

The orchards and all the other history of the forgotten Santa Clara Valley are gone, so what's another two stupid structures, amirite?

Face it, it's over. Google, Apple, and Facebook won. They control the valley. All they care about are their spaceship headquarters and places for the employees to live. Oh and Tesla dealerships so they can buy cars. Anything else is somebody else's problem.

It's getting to the point where if you're not involved in tech, why stay here?

@Ross Heitkamp

City Councils don't care about "balance". They don't care about enough retail, police/fire, road capacity, medical facilities, or even gas stations. They don't care about living quality for residents. They care about what brings in the big bucks and what personal perks they can get out of it. Office buildings and apartment blocs bring in the big bucks.

If the council wants to preserve the building, they need to buy the property and pay its fair market value, using eminent domain if necessary. If they can't come up with the money, tough luck; it just means that they don't want it enough. What is not acceptable is dumping this cost on the owner without proper compensation.

Rosenberg continues to be a huge disappointment. Let the owners make a reasonable profit from their years of hard work and investing in the community, provided the new project is reasonable. If our glorious mayor wants to retain the character of the existing buildings, let him buy them!

The buildings should stay, they are historic and important to the character of the city! I'm so sorry that developers will only be able to make $100,000,000,000 next year instead of $100,001,000,000, but the fact is the city is more important! Mountain View belongs to the people, not to developers!

Rosenberg is a terrible disappointment. Remember he's the one who lied about not supporting the dedicated VTA lane, and then turned his back on Mountain View.

It's easy to get nostalgic about a home when you don't have to maintain and repair it; if it's worth saving, then Rosenberg needs to pay fair market value for it. Otherwise let the property owner decide.

Same old story:
Developer want to tear down buildings to build whatever with zoning exemptions
Council debates proposed development.
Council approves development.

"I'm a huge proponent of historical preservation, but ...."

Rule #1: if someone says something followed by a "but" they didn't really mean what they just said.

Rule #2: for someone to be a "huge proponent" of something - that something must be ranked ahead of the something else.

Sounds like you are a HUGER fan of development.

"If the council wants to preserve the building, they need to buy the property".... not really. All they have to do is not approve the development.

The Chez TJ house (historically known as the Weilheimer House) used to be on the City's register as a historical building. In 2003 the City's preservation consultant (Carey & Company) found it was eligible to be a landmark at the local level based on both its architecture and association with people important to the City's past. Mountain View's City Council, as you may know, adopted a controversial "voluntary" historic preservation ordinance back in the early 2000s. The voluntary ordinance allowed the property owner to remove the Weilheimer House from the register. From looking at the Chez TJ website George Aviet and Thomas J. McCombie acquired the property and served their first dinner on November 26th, 1982. This is copied from the Chez TJ website "...Chez TJ is a contemporary french cuisine restaurant that is uniquely located in one of the most historic Victorian homes in Mountain View, CA. Originally built circa 1894, the structure was home to Julius and Fanny Weilheimer. Julius was a Vice President of the Mountain View Farmers and Merchant’s Bank and a town Council member." All this time they have used these facts to promote their setting and yet they had it removed from the historic register and are now content to having it be destroyed.

Let me add several things the Voice article doesn't say. First, the vast majority of the public at the meeting spoke in favor of saving both buildings. Second, the staff report presented at the meeting states that both buildings qualify as historic resources according to CA law. Third, as historic resources they are subject to CEQA protections, like any other environmental resource. Fourth, the owners are free to sell their property and retire without tearing down the buildings.

Only several decades ago the city owned the Tied House building and sold it to the current owner so that the historic building would benefit the people of Mountain View. I hope the city was wise enough to get some agreement about how it would be used in perpetuity when they made that sale. Smart city leaders would do just that.

There's no reason that both businesses can't continue on the bottom floors of a new, taller building if the owners choose to do so. Chez TJ doesn't have to be a house. I can't imagine how content certain residents of Mountain View must be to feel that their energies would be well-spent worrying about a building being replaced with a taller one.

@Frank:
Not cited but certainly among the perks you cite are the campaign contributions from developers. History's shown that it's common for city council candidates to receive such funding from developers -- we're looking at you, Prometheus -- with vested interest in a pro-building council.

Yup, here's YIMBY again with the "build up, up, UP" argument.

Sure, Chez TJ doesn't have to be in a historic house that has charm and ambience and character and all the things that made it so special. Just stick it on the bottom floor of an office high-rise, same difference, right? That excellent cuisine tastes just as good under efficient, cost-effective fluorescent tube lighting.

After all, a large, historic home is such a waste of space on such valuable, fertile, high-tech land, right?

YIMBY seems to be missing the point. It's not a matter of what restaurant or gastro-pub would go into a new, personality-less office building on the site; the developers and property owners have already said they're considering that as an option, and have even given details on it. No. This is a matter of preserving what's left of the precious few structural examples of Mountain View's past -- in other words, history! -- while also maintaining a balance of old and new, ensuring the visual relief derived from blending "mature" structures in with newer ones, that's helped make downtown so appealing and vibrant.

Let's all think long and hard about the consequences of removing some of the last tangible examples of the city's history, which can never be recaptured.

It appears that lots of people want to save Chez TJs, but most of those people want to save it legislative fiat instead of, say, buying out the current owners or otherwise compensating them for their many years of having invested in Mountain View. My suggestion? Set up a GoFundMe or have city use tax revenue to purchase the house.

Also, I don't understand the desire to preserve the Tied House. It's a pastiche of actual colonial Spanish architecture, and frankly the atmosphere in there is on par with a Gordon Biersch (while the beer, improbably, is worse).

@Frank

I can't even begin to understand how you would think that a section of a large building can only have the aethestics​ of what sounds like a Walmart. Have you really never eaten at a nice restaurant in a multi-story building?

Historic buildings are a protected resource under the California Environmental Quality Act. Business people who set up business there should understand that the public has an interest in preserving the city's historic resources, and what they can do with the property is limited by whether the council believes that building yet another office building on the site of these historic buildings is in the public interest.

If Ron Manabe and George Aviant want to sell their businesses and retire, so be it. I'm sure they can find someone else willing to invest in and continue these popular restaurants. But if Mountain View wants to retain its vibrant downtown, it needs to retain its historic core. If the council doesn't step up and protect it, it won't be a vibrant, interesting destination any more.

We don't need more office space. We do need more housing.

Chez TJ is a house converted to a restaurant. Convert it back to a house and sell at market value which should be well north of a million. The city can kick in some dollars to make up the difference.

If we're going to demand that it be more housing, then the owners should be allowed to develop it into a multi-story housing complex. We don't need any more detached single-family homes, especially not right in the middle of downtown walking distance from Caltrain.

I live in Los Altos. Another area going (slowly, yet quickly) toward build baby build. A couple of points. The rent on the next restaurant in any space (current historical or new high rise) will make it prohibitive to almost any small business owner to survive, unless alcohol is heavily featured. Also, the current owners bought the buildings knowing their historic value. They are now choosing to ignore the responsibility they took on when they bought the property. All for the almighty dollar. Same old story all through history. Greed wins.

The Chez TJ house only has historic value to a small subset of residents who resent any change or urbanization in Mountain View. No one outside of them is going to look at Historic Chez TJ and marvel at how there once was a nice restaurant in this house. It's worth taking photos of and documenting, not completely preserving the state of the land and freezing it in time. No one in 50 years is going to care about this.

Save the history of Mtn View, a lot of us like to travel to Europe to see and vacation in all the cities with historical buildings. Why can't we have our history saved. How come this is possible in east coast cities, but not in Mtn View.

@YIMBY:
You continue to miss the point many residents of -- and likely visitors to -- Mountain View make in support the preservation of the two properties and who, by the way, you *incorrectly* say "resent any change or urbanization in Mountain View." We don't! Trust me.

Sure, you can argue that neither building has true historic significance -- no, George Washington didn't stay at the Weilheimer House, and no, the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed at the Tied House building -- but preserving old buildings and blending them in with newer structures (and heaven knows downtown's got enough of those) adds appeal that yet another office building comes nowhere close to delivering.

I commented on another post about this development, but I think my words have equal relevance here so I thought I would share.
Chez TJ and The Tied House are significant historical resources that help make Mountain View the lovely place it is.
I am only 21 years old and have already seen so many buildings/houses that I love demolished and it upsets me every time. I have spent my entire life growing up walking past these two buildings in particular. I would be beyond sad to see them torn down (or even moved for that matter because it is simply not the same).
I made so many memories in the Tied House and have been waiting for a day special enough to have dinner at Chez TJ. I won't be able to do this if it is demolished by developers to make room for more office buildings.
It is not acceptable to allow developers to destroy historic buildings simply because they have the financial capital to do so.
In the state our world is in right now, it is important to take a step back and evaluate how to plan with a clear vision of what the community needs and desires.
This step back starts with SAVING these two buildings from becoming unneeded office space.

@YIMBY

You clearly don't understand the significance of these buildings. To say that no one will care about this in 50 years is down right repulsive. People have cared about these buildings for more than a century which is why they still stand today. Pro-development commenters need to understand that there are plenty of sites in downtown that can be re-developed appropriately. These two sites carry significant weight in a historical sense to the downtown, so any type of removal or disposal would be detrimental. The property owners knew damn well that they were buying a historical building/site and they actually marketed their business to that advantage, yet now they are done with their respective businesses so the property that's bigger than them or their business needs to go as well? Find another site Dan Minkoff, there's plenty to choose from.

@Frank

Yeah, the same thing happens in SF. Every parking lot and abandoned warehouse is claimed to be historic by the NIMBY residents so that nothing can get built. Tell you what, if you want to claim that Chez TJ is historic, and that it should be preserved at the expense of more jobs or housing, why don't you go ahead and buy the property from the owners and then do what you will with it?

Not to "harsh" on here, @YIMBY; you appear to have a strong opinion -- uninformed and narrow-minded, obviously, but strong. But c'mon! Comparing a parking lot or rundown building in San Francisco to a truly historic local structure -- one that provides an unmatched aesthetic and much-needed relief from the oversized, unwelcoming, cold sameness of office buildings? Really??

Let me suggest you take a minute to ponder a city, state or country that doesn't protect its historic resources -- leaving nothing to see, nothing to learn from, nothing that connects us to our important pasts. Maybe you're okay with that world but, as you can see from the comments here and expressed directly to the city, you're in the minority.

@NIMBY

I don't think you're getting it, which means nothing to me now because you clearly don't care about the historical significance to this city. Your comments carry no weight or argument whatsoever, btw. Like I said in my previous post, the owners knew when they purchased initially the properties were historic. I'm sure there is someone out there willing to fix these buildings if need be and lease them appropriately. Find another site for you project, we are more than welcome to it anywhere else that doesn't impact our cities historic sites.

^^^^

@YIMBY*

@anoymous Rex Manor

"Sounds like you are a HUGER fan of development."

Nope. Just a huge fan of property rights.

If you dismiss offhand Greg David's mention of being a "huge proponent of historical preservation" then you clearly haven't spent any time talking to him, nor know his own involvement in local history.

Anyway, bottom line: the answer to the question in this article's title is, definitively, No -- Chez TJ and Tied House are on the way out (whatever the fate of their buildings and future construction). In local presentations, some of which I attended, owners of those businesses and the new proposal's developer made clear that they want to retire, and sell the properties.

@Common sense:
Thanks for making that distinction between the future of the two restaurants and that of the buildings in which they operate. Yes, George and Ron have worked hard and been successful in their respective businesses, and if they choose to retire and enjoy the fruits of their success, more power to them. What they can't do, however, is determine how the properties are used once sold -- nor does the developer who's proposing the bulldozing of the two historic buildings on those properties for (gulp!) yet another office building. It's the city -- planning and council -- that will determine if Mountain View is able to preserve one or both buildings, which are among last architectural vestiges of the city's 19th- and early-20th-centuries past.

As one of the many city residents who advocate for the buildings' preservation, I:
1) wish Ron and George well in their retirements;
2) appeal to the city's planning and council members' good sense and logic to find mutually beneficial alternative, e.g., a land exchange that would provide Ron and George a comparable-value property to sell/develop on, while allowing the city to take ownership of the land and historic buildings for city use; and
3) encourage all city residents to contact the city council to express support for such an alternative. See: Web Link

Seriously, a Quonset hut (Tied House) with a stucco facade? And, an old house (Chez TJ), so horribly disfigured, that the kitchen is "now commercial" and the bedrooms are missing. Holy cow, the Tied House use to be a "dry cleaning" plant with lots of icky chemicals. The "historic" definition needs to be revisited.

I get people don't like new glassy things, but to pull the "historic" card is ridiculous and a waste of time for these non interesting and heavily modified buildings. There is nothing historic about a tin can resting on its side and what use to be an old residential house that is no longer a home. Next on the list will be saving an old shoe store bathed in asbestos. Maybe we should save a few old dive bars too, let homeowners park on their front yards, get more chickens running around, bring back tanning salons and motels paid by the hour. Head to Moffett to see Quonset huts or MCRD in San Diego if Quonset huts are a thing to see. Palo Alto found nothing significant in saving the "Old Pro Quonset hut" on the El Camino.

Please stop telling people how they should behave and lives their lives.
That's why we have a new regime in Washington:)

I don't like eating in Quonset huts or old homes, apparently no else does either. City council got it right. Time to move on.

The city should spend taxpayer money on more immediate/important issues-- mental health services supporting CHAC or homeless programs that offer folks a leg up. Maybe take a look at the RV situation. No city park needs our scarce tax dollars to move an old house that needs to be remodeled to actually become historic.

FWIW, the Tied House is not in an old quonset hut. I do agree it has little architectural merit though, other than the Spanish facade.

@Moveon:
It's not clear which buildings you're talking about, but from your descriptions -- "Quonset hut"..."tin can"...really?? -- they're not the same ones we're working to preserve. (Maybe it was those residual "icky chemicals" I took in while tipping pint at the Tied House that somehow impaired my judgment of the buildings' value to the community.) Your cynicism and dismissiveness aside, the argument you attempt to make stands out not so much for the veracity it so lacks but for your apparent detachment from understanding what truly gives a neighborhood -- a downtown! -- its character and appeal.

Also, any locale's or structure's historic designation, official or otherwise, always has been and always will be relative to its environs. So, the two buildings at the heart of this matter -- one 85 years old, the other 120 -- wouldn't be historic in, say, Madrid or Tokyo, but are indeed that in comparatively young Mountain View's bustling and rapidly modernizing downtown.

And by the way, what, exactly, did the city council get right? To date, the extent of its action has been merely to not nix the proposal.