The decision [1] includes the court's full justification for setting aside ejusdem generis, starting at the bottom of page 20.

As I understand it: The short answer is the legislature changed the statutory definition on more than one occasion where it can be shown they were aware of the broader interpretation of that clause being in use and took no action to narrow it. This, according to the decision, establishes legislative intent for the broad interpretation, which supersedes ejusdem generis.

[1] https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C093542.PDF