In Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1180, the petitioners filed a complaint 90 days after the meeting at which the city council granted an application for certification of an EIR, permit approvals, a zoning variance, and general plan amendments. That complaint was never served on the city. (Ibid.) The petitioners filed and served a first amended complaint 121 days after the city council meeting. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal concluded the claims relating to applications for conditional use permits and variances were barred because "the city was not served within 120 days of its ... decisions approving the permits and residential planned development variance ... , and establishing the conditions for such approval." ( Id. at p. 1186.) Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo interpreted former Government Code section 65907. In 1995, the 120-day limitations period in former section 65907 was reduced to 90 days. The limitations provisions of former section 65907 were later recodified in section 65009. (Stats. 1996, ch. 799, 2.) The San Mateo City Council approved a zoning variance, permits, and plans for constructing a senior citizen housing project. The Council's minutes stated in a footnote: " 'This is a final decision concluding all administrative proceedings. Judicial review may be had only if a petition is filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date the decision is made.' " (Beresford, supra, 207 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1185.) Plaintiffs sued to stop the project, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Former Government Code sections 65907, subdivision (a), and 65009, subdivision (c)(1), required that the action be served on the City within 120 days after the City Council's decision. (Id. at p. 1186.) Plaintiffs filed the action on the 90th day after the City Council's decision, but did not serve it on the City until the 121st day. (Id. at p. 1185.) The trial court sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiffs had not complied with former sections 65907 and 65009. (Id. at p. 1186.) On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the City was equitably estopped from relying on those statutes of limitations because the City Council's "notice stated that judicial review of decisions with respect to the senior housing project application would not be available unless a court petition was filed within 90 days." (Id. at p. 1186.) The court of appeal rejected the contention: "Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim that they failed to effect timely service because they were misled by this notice. The notice did not indicate that a timely filing would be sufficient to secure judicial review. It did not purport to address any other requirements for maintaining a legal action, nor did it state that failure to comply with such requirements would be excused. We therefore conclude that the city is not equitably estopped from invoking the applicable statutes of limitation." (Id. at pp. 1186-1187.) In Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) the allegedly misleading notice consisted of a footnote in the city council's meeting minutes stating that "judicial review may be had only if a petition is filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date the decision is made." (Id. at p. 1185.) The court found the city was not estopped from relying on section 65009 because "the notice did not indicate that a timely filing would be sufficient to secure judicial review. It did not purport to address any other requirements for maintaining a legal action, nor did it state that failure to comply with such requirements would be excused." (Id. at pp. 1186-1187.)