Confusing and jargony "criteria" (as transparent as a bowl of sludge)

Delightfully clear

     Yesterday, denizens of Irvine Valley College received an email from campus leadership, announcing an “all-campus meeting to discuss [the] current status of the educational and facilities master plan” (i.e., the plan for, among other things, construction of new buildings on the campus).
     The meeting is scheduled for noon next Monday, in the middle of teaching “prime time” at the college.
     This means that many of us—including me—can’t attend or can only attend part of the meeting.
     The email came with two attachments, including “The 2011 Prioritization Criteria.”
     “These two documents,” we’re told, “are the result of numerous hours of interviews, open meetings and discussions, and significant amounts of data gathering and analysis.” How all this confabulation produced these documents is not explained. My guess: the gkk team relied heavily on intuition. And hallucinogens. And the Lexicon of Jackasses.
     “The goal of this open meeting,” we’re told, “is to enable faculty, staff and students to provide input prior to ‘pouring the concrete.’”
     Below are the “criteria.” Evidently, the author(s) of these criteria have not yet heard that, in written expression at the college level, clarity is a virtue and jargon should be kept to a minimum. An abundance of jargon usually indicates that the author has disguised from himself a failure to have anything to say.
     You try to make sense of this blather:

Click on graphic to enlarge it.

"Hey fellas, here's where they'll put that 'benefit to a student centered culture' and 'pedestrian orientation.'"