Sorry man, it's true that significant minimum wage increases will have a negative effect on employment. (Why do you care anyway?) But that's a biased blog with an opinion column for its main citation with a hyperbolic headline based on numbers that could mean anything based on a sample size that's too small to say anything.
Restaurant jobs are way down for the whole country and state as well as San Diego, look at the charts in the opinion column that the blog cites. Down the most in San Diego? We don't even know. Is there another city in California that did not increase the minimum wage that performed even worse against that greater-California benchmark? If Bakersfield had even worse restaurant job growth in that time period then would that mean that not increasing the minimum wage causes a negative employment effect? Restaurant job growth is down nationally, so if it's down the most in Des Moines and they didn't increase their minimum wage then would you consider that statistically significant?
Maybe San Diego restaurant jobs were impacted by other factors? Some San Diego restaurants were corporatized in that time period (ahem) and some people lost their restaurant jobs in the process. I know a few of them. Why would anybody assume that the minimum wage increase is the only possible causal factor in San Diego's restaurant job growth rate slightly underperforming the state average?
It weakens our case when we cite biased sources. If your case is strong then you don't need to back it up with fake news and propaganda. Regurgitating thin evidence makes your case look weak. Citing real, defensible research is a lot better and there is plenty of that on this topic.