East Las Vegas LDS temple faced similar opposition to Lone Mountain temple

Nearly 40 years after Clark County commissioners approved plans for a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple at the foot of Sunrise Mountain, the Las Vegas City Council on Wednesday approved plans for a second temple in the Las Vegas Valley near Lone Mountain.

But controversy surrounding plans for the new house of worship aren’t new.

Like many northwest valley residents, Sunrise Manor residents in 1984 also opposed plans to build an LDS temple in their neighborhood.

Northwest valley and Sunrise Manor residents both argued that a temple in their neighborhoods would be too disruptive to their rural communities — though the two are located on opposite ends of the valley.

Steeples steeped in controversy

Both the Lone Mountain and Sunrise Mountain temples faced backlash for their height, with many opponents arguing the tall buildings would block views of prominent Las Vegas mountains.

While the original proposal for the Lone Mountain temple included plans to make the structure 216 feet tall, the church agreed at Wednesday’s meeting to shorten the steeple to 196 feet to avoid requiring a red light at the top from the Federal Aviation Administration and appease local residents concerned that its height would disturb the rural nature of the area.

Attorney Frank Morton, who led a movement against the temple’s construction with the group Citizens for the Preservation of Sunrise Mountain, told the Review-Journal that he believed the then-proposed temple’s spires would block residents’ view of Sunrise Mountain.

“Right now we get to look at the beautiful mountain without having it obstructed by a high-rise structure,” Morton said in 1984.

The Sunrise Mountain temple, from its base to its tallest spire, is 137 feet tall, according to the church.

Traffic troubles

East valley and northwest valley residents also expressed concern that the temples would worsen traffic in their neighborhoods.

Morton argued that the temple would bring heavy traffic to his Sunrise Manor community that could endanger children and even result in a spike in crime.

Church officials argued that a temple would create less traffic than if homes were built in the area, and that a temple could even raise property values.

In the northwest valley, residents said they believed that increased traffic around the temple could be a hazard for the neighborhood’s equestrian community.

“We ride our horses on the streets. Cars and horses don’t mix,” resident Matt Hackley said in a planning commission meeting in May.

Move it west

For some, the best place for a temple to be is, simply, west of where the church wanted to build it.

Northwest association president Brigitte Solvie argued at the planning commission meeting that the temple should be located “further west” of the designated rural community next to the temple site.

“I would suggest something that hasn’t been done here, a proposal to relocate this to, and further west, an area that is not touched and you can build a master plan community with this temple in welcome arms,” Solvie said.

In 1984, former Commissioner Manuel Cortez said that the east valley temple would be a better fit for the Red Rock Canyon area not too far from the Lone Mountain temple site.

“I’m disappointed with the committee that chose this site,” Cortez said. “Disappointed because I wish they would have selected a site in the west end of town in my area.”

Commissioners’ beliefs seen as conflict of interest

But the approval process for the east valley temple faced one obstacle that the Lone Mountain temple did not: concerns over commissioners’ conflict of interest.

When the Sunrise Manor temple was up for a commission vote in December 1984, four of the commission’s seven members — Karen Hayes, Bruce Woodbury, Paul Christensen and Jay Bingham — were members of the faith, leading some community members to question if commissioners could vote objectively on the plans and put aside their religious bias.

Woodbury told the Review-Journal that if he chose not to vote, he believed it would set a precedent that religion could be dragged into almost any issue brought before the commission.

“Every time we’ll have to get into who on the board is affiliated with what religion,” he said.

Hayes concurred that abstaining from a vote on the temple would set a bad precedent.

“I have children, does that mean I can’t vote for schools?” Hayes said before the temple vote. “I’m really concerned about the long-range effect.”

Unanimous vote

Despite great debate on both temples’ plans, the commission and City Council both voted unanimously to approve the temples after hours of feedback from residents and church members in their respective meetings.

The Sunrise Mountain temple broke ground in November 1985 with 6,000 church members in attendance. The temple was completed in 1989.

The church has not yet received a building permit for the Lone Mountain temple, which was announced in 2022. The temple is slated to be 70,000 square feet with 514 parking spaces and a 16,000-square-foot meeting house.

Contact Taylor Lane at tlane@reviewjournal.com.