Lumberyard’s Permits in Jeopardy : Southern Pacific: Los Angeles officials say the controversial project doesn’t conform to zoning and poses a danger to pupils at a nearby school.

City officials intend to revoke Southern Pacific’s permits to build a controversial lumberyard in Chatsworth that critics claim would pose a traffic hazard to students at a nearby elementary school, Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson announced Wednesday.

The city Building and Safety Department’s plan to revoke the permits is the third obstacle to the project to emanate from City Hall in recent weeks. “If they were smart, they’d go find another site,” Bernson, who represents the area, said in an interview.

In a letter dated Aug. 31, the building department warned Southern Pacific that it intended to revoke its permits in 30 days on the grounds that the project doesn’t conform with the zoning for the site.

In January, Southern Pacific received permits to build a lumber transfer station at its property at 21510 Devonshire St. The plan was to ship lumber by rail to the site and then transport the material by truck to its final destination. A Southern Pacific track runs into the property.

But local residents fought the project, claiming up to 70, heavily laden trucks per day driving past Chatsworth Park Elementary School would pose a hazard to students.

Since Bernson, chairman of the city’s planning committee, joined the fray, Southern Pacific has found itself facing three major obstacles. In two prior actions instigated by Bernson, the City Council voted to enact an ordinance temporarily prohibiting industrial projects in an area that included the Southern Pacific property, and the city’s Building and Safety Commission voted to require the railroad to undergo an environmental review before proceeding.

But the zoning consistency issue was the “basic number-one challenge” to the project, Bernson said. “It should be a done deal now.”

Southern Pacific executive Joseph Ellebracht said in an interview, “we haven’t changed our mind about the project, but we have to take into account the reality of the current situation.”

He said his company has not decided to appeal the planned revocation. But he said the proposed project is “a different kind of animal” that may not be precisely covered by existing city zoning laws.