A burned-out structure that has been an eyesore for San Francisco’s iconic North Beach neighborhood is set to be demolished — even after a tenant rights group blocked that effort at the last minute, trying to extend the years-long saga to fix the blighted property.

Still, the saga is not fully over yet, the building’s developer told The California Post. The Verdi Building at 659 Union Street has been sitting empty since two fires ravaged it in 2013 and 2018.

All that’s left of it now is a brick exterior and temporary shoring holding it up.

In 2023, real estate firm Red Bridge Partners filed to redevelop the building, but attempts have been met with fierce opposition from neighborhood groups such as the North Beach Tenants Committee.

Since then, the building has been a dead zone amid an otherwise active neighborhood. The city’s Department of Building Inspection called the structure dangerous, too, saying there’s an risk of collapse in a March report.

Red Bridge through Powell Partners LLC filed for an emergency permit late March to remove a 50-foot section of the wall to reduce risk. The city’s deputy director of historic preservation gave the green light.

Then, an individual with ties to neighborhood groups filed an appeal. Some work began but all had to come to a halt pending the appeal, said city supervisor Danny Sauter.

One group, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, claims the demolition would bypass requirements for housing tenants displaced by the fires to be able to return and incorrectly promised just minor repairs.

Preservationists like the Dwellers have been in battle with Red Bridge over the building, and they want to stick to a 2023 plan to build a 23-unit apartment building with ground-floor retail that preserves the brick facade.

But Jeff Jurow, who leads Red Bridge, submitted plans last year instead to build an eight-story building on the site that would include 89 apartments, a rooftop restaurant and retail space that would rid of the facade.

Some neighborhood groups feared the demolition would give an excuse for Jurow to pursue his plans, though Jurow said for the emergency permit, he was first and foremost concerned about safety.

Jurow said in a May 20 meeting that there is no way to redevelop the property with the dangerous wall in place but he is still in discussions about maintaining some historical features. He told The Post his firm would be looking to incorporate some of the old brick into the new project.

He also said at the meeting that the right for tenants to move back from the fire has long expired.

“We are committed to finding a path to return these tenants to the building,” Jurow said. “Regardless if there is a legal right to return, we want to find a path.”

Sauter told the San Francisco Chronicle he understood concerns from preservationists, but the safety issue had to be dealt with immediately.

“When we have experts telling us something is an imminent hazard to the public, it is our responsibility as a city to take action,” Sauter said.

In a meeting in April, the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted to study the matter more instead of approving or rejecting the appeal. The board requested more legal analysis and time for Red Bridge to provide more information on its plans for the building. They also gave time to the tenants group to hire an expert to evaluate the building’s condition.

Finally, on May 20, the appeals board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the permit, saying it was properly issued. The broader fight over how the structure will be redeveloped is still in progress.

However, even that denial can still be appealed, Jurow told The Post, so he’s still holding off on demolition.

Once it’s clear to go, his company can turn its attention to an interim plan to activate a corner of the site for public assembly while longer-term plans are underway.

Jurow said he has been worried about a collapse for years.

“After having started partial demolition, we are in a far worse position. This building is far more dangerous to the public than it was a couple weeks ago,” he said.