To anwser your question with another question, if I may:
How can the conservancy "Protect, preserve, and restore the region’s … resources", and not regulate land use, and regulate activities on land owned by others?
How can the conservancy reflect the will of the electorate, if more than half the board is appointed? They will always have the majority so the deck is stacked against any constitutionally correct representation.
If you lived in Santa Cruz County, you would know that however many "public hearings" conservancies undertake, they do not run them by Roberts Rules of Order, they facilitate them guaranteeing the predetermined outcome they sought.
Then, you might also ask, how does a "conservancy" do this:
Provide increased opportunities for tourism and recreation." ?
It reads like they can't do what SW says they are gonna do based on past practices.
In response I would say from personal experience one can protect land from negative events with restoration of resources, like planting riparian vegetation and stream bank stabilization to prevent cut downs from causing erosion etc.
Ranchers do this all the time, with no consideration or compensation for the water quality benefits they are bringing to downstream users.
One more than half of the board of this conservancy may be appointed, but they are appointed by elected representives. If one supports a republic as opposed to a direct democracy is this not consistent? You can't have it both ways...you can't say you support a republic instead of direct democracy if you like your representatives then support a direct democracy over a republic if you don't like them.
More than 100 million people a year visit the Sierra Nevada. They are not going there to open new mining claims, they are there to visit and recreate. By preserving histroic buildings and sites you are protecting the things they are going there to see and by improving recreational access you capture thier dollars and increase the economic contribution of those visitors.