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