Month-to-month tenants in Oakland, CA triplex

[Justin Mancherje]

Currently there are two units occupied both paying well below market value in rent. The rental contracts are stated as month-to-month.

The lease has the phrasing : " the term of this agreement is for Month-to-Month, beginning on (beginning of the month) and ending on (end of the month) , at which time tis lease shall terminate without further notice. Any holding over thereafter shall result in Resident being liable to Owner/Agent for daily rental damages equal to the current market value of the unit, divided by 30. A "Month-to-month" tenancy subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement shall be created only if Owner/Agent accepts rent from the Resident thereafter, and if so accepted, tenancy may be terminated by Resident after service upon the Owner/Agent of a written 30-day Notice of Termination. Except as prohibited by law, that month-to-month tenancy may be terminated by the Owner/Agent by service upon the Resident of a written 60-day notice of termination of tenancy. However, Civil code section 1946.1 provides that "if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than a year", the Owner/Agent may terminate the tenancy by service upon the Resident of a written 30-day notice"

Do month-to-month tenants have the same protection as tenants with a regular lease? It appears to say that the Onwer/Agent can terminate the lease agreement with 60 days notice, however that is following "except as prohibited by law". 

Is it possible to terminate the lease agreement with appropriate notice? and if not, how does a month-to-month agreement differ at all from a year lease?