This doesn't really seems like a legally valid ordinance, you might be able to get a local REI group together and challenge it either in court or Board of Supervisors meeting. There are some constitutional challenges that might be effective; this really reminds me of exclusionary zoning laws that tried to keep out low-income housing. Also, it seems very much like it takes all economically viable use of the property if it really prohibits that the property be rented for 3 years.
"Any property which has been subject to revocation of a Residential Rental License Permit under this Ordinance shall not be eligible for a new or renewal Residential Rental License Permit for a period not less than three (3) years."
It REALLY doesn't seem appropriate to hit the landlord/owner so hard for the actions of a tenant. Restricting the sale of a property strikes me as problematic as well. Even worse is that the ordinance prohibits the landlord/owner from getting a "Residential Rental License Permit" for any new properties for 3 years.
"Further, any landlord who has been subject to revocation of a Residential Rental License Permit under this Ordinance shall be deemed ineligible to hold () a Residential Rental License Permit for any new or additional rental property for a period not less than three (3) years."
I get that they want to deal with nuisance, it really can be a huge problem. But what do they think is going to happen when the house sits vacant for 3 YEARS! It's only going to create more problems than it solves in my opinion.