Don't read too much into this.  The court didn't say that auto seizure is illegal.  It only said that the particular city ordinance (from Stockton) which was being challenged conflicted with state laws and with the state and federal constitutions, all of which take priority over conflicting municipal code provisions.

California has state laws about when and how a car can be seized and the decision leaves those laws intact.  There may be different ordinances in different cities which are different from the Stockton ordinance and which the court would have upheld, though the case seems to almost rule out that possibility.

The decision conflicts with a 2000 decision from a different appellate court about an Oakland ordinance.  The state supreme court may end up resolving the conflict.