The proposed 365 by Whole Foods Market store on Polk Street is not on the ballot Tuesday — but you might not know that from a stroll down the spirited retail strip.

In a food fight that has the telltale signs of a campaign showdown — lobbyists and organizers, polls and posturing — Polk Street and its surrounding neighborhoods are bubbling with talk of whether Whole Foods should be allowed to open a 22,000-square-foot market at the old Lombardi Sports store that closed 18 months ago.

Whole Foods’ 365 store is a new concept from the natural food giant emphasizing its more affordable house brand.

On Thursday, the Planning Commission will vote on the first part of what is essentially a two-part referendum on the store.

First up is Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s effort to ban formula retail along Polk Street’s mile-long commercial district. While the chain-store ban was designed in part to kill the proposed 365 store, Peskin said the level of passion around the proposal convinced him to “grandfather” in the grocery store and protect it from the chain-store ban. The final verdict on the store itself will be heard in a separate hearing before the Planning Commission at a later date.

“Whole Foods has spent a ridiculous amount of money going door-to-door organizing residents and creating a huge astroturf movement in their favor,” said Peskin. “This is a major American corporation with money to burn and they will get their day at the Planning Commission.”

Peskin, who has championed similar formula retail bans in North Beach and Chinatown, said he still favors a chain-store ban on Polk Street whether or not Whole Foods is granted a conditional-use permit to occupy the Lombardi Sports building.

“I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater,” he said.

The issue has pit neighbor against neighbor, business owner against business owner. The anti-Whole Foods, pro-ban side includes groups like the Middle Polk Neighborhood Association, the Polk District Merchants Association, Folks for Polk and the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association. On the other side, all of the condominium associations surrounding the project — representing 284 units — have endorsed the store and opposed the formula retail ban.

Three polls — two informal and one by polling firm David Binder and Associates — found support for the store ranging from 70 to 80 percent.

“This issue has been the bane of my existence for the last three months,” said Moe Jamil, president of the Middle Polk Neighborhood Association, who argues that the Lombardi Sports store should be replaced with housing over ground-floor retail.

Variety of opinions

The question of what would ultimately happen to the building, one of Polk Street’s largest potential building sites, has inflamed neighborhood tensions since Lombardi announced its closure nearly two years ago. At first, Village Properties, which bought the site from the Lombardi family, proposed replacing it with housing over retail. That was quickly replaced with a proposed Target store, which was met with a chilly reception from residents, many of whom said they would prefer a grocery store at the site.

Whole Foods President Rob Twyman said a long-term lease was signed with Village Properties with the understanding that all his company would need is the conditional-use permit, a requirement for chain stores in most neighborhood districts. He called the formula retail ban “overkill.”

“I think the process works,” he said. “It allows the full participation from the community. That is what is at stake — the continuing ability of the community to determine the future.”

The Polk Street commercial district has 336 occupied retail storefronts, 7 percent of which are formula retail businesses. It has 123 eating and drinking establishments, six of which are chains. On Saturday, a walk through the neighborhood found a wide variety of opinion.

At Real Food Co., employees said that they have no doubt the arrival of the 365 store would mean certain death for their business.

“We don’t want anything corporate here — no Whole Foods, no Safeway. It’s all about independent businesses,” said Geno Lucas, who works in the meat department at Real Food Co., which was locally owned in San Francisco for three decades until some locations, including Polk Street, were sold to a company based in Utah in 2002.

Jena Hartman, who lives in the neighborhood and owns Glammic, a children’s clothing and toy store just off of Polk at 1488 Vallejo St., said she reluctantly supports the 365 store, although she would prefer a Sports Basement.

“I was absolutely against the Target,” she said. “Who else is big enough to take that spot? And the neighborhood needs a real grocery store.”

Michael Schoolnik, a 20-year Polk Street resident, went so far as to put up a poll on the NextDoor neighborhood website. So far 473 nearby residents have voted — 85 percent (402) in favor of the Whole Foods store and 15 percent (71) opposed. Schoolnik said he put the poll up because he felt “the local neighborhood group wasn’t reaching out well enough into the neighborhood.”

He called the results “eye-popping.”

Madeleine Savit, who started a group called Folks for Polk to work for bike lanes on the street, said the large site should be used for housing. She said that Whole Foods has not impressed her with its vows to be community-minded and partner with local businesses.

“They are a business — fair enough — but don’t tell us you are doing it out of the goodness of your heart,” she said. “The 365 model is about having less staff and saving money.”

Preserving current scale

Jamil called Polk Street “one of the few real authentic independent local neighborhood shopping corridors.” He compared it with North Beach, Chinatown and Hayes Valley, which ban formula retail. With a dozen housing developments in the pipeline in the greater neighborhood, some fear the 365 store could open the door to more chains.

The city’s planning staff has recommended that when the Planning Commission considers Peskin’s ban on formula retail on Polk Street Thursday it also amend the proposal to allow establishments of more than 5,000 square feet, but only if they are part of a mixed-use housing project with a 3-to-1 ratio of housing to retail.

Peskin said he would support the amendment because it would encourage the development of badly needed housing with retail on the ground floor, “As long as it preserves the current scale of neighborhood businesses and doesn’t turn it into an anywhere-in-U.S.A. shopping mall.”

J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: sfjkdineen