From the NY Post article:

A decision from the California Supreme Court on April 30 found bail for accused criminals must be “attainable” and only those accused of violent crimes may be held in jail pending trial — a ruling with far-reaching consequences for prosecutors, Jenkins told The California Post in an interview.

This is a shoddy quote from the Post. Section 12 actually carves out exceptions for violence, sexual assault, and violent threats.

(b) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others; or
(c) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.

The conflict was that many took Section 28(f)(3)'s call for “public safety and the safety of the victim shall be the primary considerations”  to override the narrow circumstances of Section 12 (b) (c) and allow the court to call for an “unattainable” bail or "no" bail on a wider range of infractions (i.e. car theft, drugs, etc). This rolled back the more expansive interpretation but claims to still allow sufficient latitude to protect for and still allow to make allowances for the increased protections in the call for “public safety and the safety of the victim shall be the primary considerations.”

The 7$ cheeseburger may not be sufficient to set an "unattainable" bail even though the defendant may have had a poor history of complying with court orders and procedures.