In Tilem v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 694, the court rejected the argument that Tilem could not assert an inverse condemnation claim because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies by seeking a building permit. The court in Tilem concluded that a permit would likely have been denied, and that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply when it is established that an attempt to exhaust remedies would be futile. (Id. at p. 704.) Exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, is a doctrine unrelated to the statutory requirements for filing claims with public entities prior to suit. The appellate court stated: "we have no way of determining how the trial court arrived at the figure of $ 15,000 for attorney fees in the state actions as against a total undifferentiated claim of $ 70,000. Since the Court concluded that the matter must be returned to the trial court to redetermine the issue of damages, we think it appropriate to also provide the trial court an opportunity to redetermine the amount of litigation costs and set forth the reasons therefor." (Id. at pp. 711-712.) This reversal was not predicated on the absence of an explanation for the attorney fee award nor did the decision purport to establish a general rule requiring an explanation of all awards of attorney fees.