Source: informal hearing brief of the Defendant, CCSF, May 21, 2019, page 7, where the defense says we plaintiffs have made a claim regarding "the alleged harm". 
Listed are two court rulings and a Judicial Council of California regulation re: "harm" that shows yes, we have been harmed.
 
  1.     "The first additional requirement for recovery of damages on a nuisance                            theory is proof that the invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the use and                            enjoyment of the land was substantial, i.e., that it caused the plaintiff to                            suffer 'substantial actual damage'. The Restatement recognizes the same                          requirement as the need for proof of 'significant harm', which it variously                          defines as 'harm of importance' and a 'real and appreciable innovations of the                    plaintiff's interests' and an invasion that is 'definitely offensive, seriously                            annoying or intolerable'.

             San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court 1996
             13 Cal.4th at p. 938

   2
.    "We acknowledge that to recover on a nuisance claim, the harm the plaintiff
           suffered need not be a physical injury."


           Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co.  2015
           234 Cal.App 4th at p. 159

   
3.    Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions  No.  2022

         To determine the seriousness of the harm suffered, you should consider the
         following: the extent of the harm (means) how much the (noise) caused  
         interference with plaintiff's use of his/her property, and how long that
         interference lasted.