Nobody came out and said “Amazon.” But that certainly sounds like the tenant for a proposed warehouse for Upland that was discussed Monday evening, Oct. 21, in the council chambers.

“The plans are for a specific tenant. The tenant is in the e-commerce delivery sector,” Bob Dalquest, the city’s development services director, said.

“This tenant wants to be able to deliver gifts for the next Christmas season,” Brendan Kotler, vice president of development for the applicant, Bridge Development Partners, said. “There is no company more technically advanced than this company. This is a Fortune 10 company.”

Hmmm. Unless Exxon Mobil (at No. 2) is giving up on service stations to ship gas to your door in inflammable boxes, I’m thinking it’s Amazon (No. 5).

Kotler said because no lease is signed, good manners preclude him from identifying the possible tenant. So at this point it’s like Voldemort or Yahweh, or the love that dare not speak its name.

For our purposes, let’s just call the tenant Rainforest.

I was at a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Committee. It was déjà vu from last June, when Bridge Development pitched its first plan at a workshop before the same array of bigwigs.

Monday, the dais was again crowded with 10 mighty officials, elbow to elbow. It was as if, superhero-like, someone had shouted “Uplanders Assemble!”

In June, for vacant, rocky land north of Foothill Boulevard and west of Benson Avenue, Bridge was laying out a plan for three warehouses totaling 977,000 square feet. They got a cool reception from speakers and officials alike.

Now Bridge is back with a plan for a single building of 276,000 square feet, described as a retail and logistics center. It would have 20 loading docks, down from 150 in the first plan. It would see 25 truck trips per day, down from 263. And none of that truck traffic, unlike before, would use 13th Street, a sore point with neighbors.

The building would be set back from Foothill by 200 feet and would be surrounded by 9 acres of native landscaping and 1,000 trees.

Development would also clean up a scrubby, sloping piece of property notable for homeless camps, large piles of dirt and a small mountain of construction debris.

“It would be huge for this city,” Bob Cable, president of neighboring Cable Airport, told me. “To bring 200 jobs to a condensed area, that’s huge. That could be the second-largest employer in the city.”

I asked Cable, who had met with Bridge officials, if he knew who the tenant was. He smiled. “I have an idea,” he said.

It was hard to know what the public might think of the proposal. Some 75 people were at the meeting, but it was set up in such a way that people were commenting first, before they knew what the proposal was.

This being Upland, most were against it. Which isn’t to say they might not have a point, or might not be right.

Some said the project should get an environmental impact report, which might take a year to complete. One said Upland is the city of gracious living, not Commerce or Vernon. Another said Upland should focus on needs like a cultural center or a food hall with farm to table restaurants.

Shannan Maust said that while she approved of the developers scaling back the project after concerns from residents, she thinks the site is better situated for more shops and a hotel.

Jim McJoynt said Upland should model itself on Claremont and Rancho Cucamonga, which use Foothill as “a demarcation line” between commercial and residential uses. I’m sure Claremont in particular will be pleased to be held up as a model.

That said, the Bridge project complies with zoning for that site.

My favorite speaker wasn’t notable for what he said but for what he did: He laid his cell phone down near the lectern before speaking. He happened to place it on the overhead projector. So for a couple of minutes, the image of his darkened cell phone was projected on the room’s screens. It was like a particularly static episode of “Black Mirror.”

There are good questions still to be answered about traffic generated by, er, Rainforest.

Kotler said trucks would arrive with boxes of goods to load the facility. Workers would reduce the boxed goods and package them individually for delivery, which would be done by “car or van.”

The number of daily trips wasn’t revealed. The site would have 1,400 parking stalls.

“There will be a tremendous amount of traffic,” Councilman Bill Velto said.

True, Kotler said, but there would be fewer car trips than at a shopping center.

There are also questions about how much Upland would benefit financially from the project, which would not generate sales taxes.

Kotler said his company would pay $2.2 million in onetime fees and is willing to pay a “sales tax in-lieu fee” to make up for what Upland might net if the land were a retail center. Upland should hold out for a “Rancho Cucamonga in-lieu fee” to make up for how successful the retail center might be if it were in a different city.

The next steps? A workshop to unveil the impact study and seek comment is likely in November.

The study and project would need approval by the Airport Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission. The City Council would only play a role if the Planning Commission decision, whichever way it went, were appealed.

Heather Crossner, a senior vice president of Bridge, said the tenant “needs this building to be constructed by August,” which means Bridge would have to get started “by January, February at the latest.”

If Upland fumbles, boy, will Rainforest be burning!

David Allen delivers Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Email dallen@scng.com, phone 909-483-9339, visit insidesocal.com/davidallen, like davidallencolumnist on Facebook and follow @davidallen909 on Twitter.