(dissenting)—I dissent for I believe that a portion of section 1.10(c)1 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1961 Edition, promulgated by the Western Plumbing Officials Association and adopted by Snohomish County, violates the equal protection clause of our state constitution, article *4431, section 12, and the due process provision of article 1, section 3, as well as the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
Class legislation must apply alike to all persons within a class, and reasonable grounds must exist for making a distinction between those within, and those without, a designated class. Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wn.2d 425, 435, 353 P.2d 941 (1960).
Under the police power exercised for the protection of the public health and safety five of the six conditions for the issuance of a plumbing permit to one not a licensed plumber are reasonable grounds defining a permissible class. The conditions are: (1) the plumbing must be done in a single family dwelling; (2) the dwelling must be used exclusively for living purposes; (3) the person doing the work must be the bona fide owner thereof; (4) the owner must personally purchase all materials and (5) personally perform all labor in connection therewith. The work done by one within the class is subject to the strict standards of the plumbing code.
The sixth condition for the issuance of a plumbing permit to one not a licensed plumber—“that the same [premises] are occupied by or designed to be occupied by said owner” —is an alien among the other conditions. It does not, to my mind, meet the test that there must be some logical connection between the object sought to be accomplished by the legislation and the means prescribed to achieve it. Brown v. Seattle, 150 Wash. 203, 211, 272 Pac. 517 (1928); Seattle v. Ford, 144 Wash. 107, 110-11, 257 Pac. 243 (1927); Spokane v. Latham, 181 Wash. 161, 164, 42 P.2d 427 (1935); State v. Spino, 61 Wn.2d 246, 377 P.2d 868 (1963).
The trial court based its conclusion, in the main, upon a finding that the condition under attack
prevents subterfuge and provides protection from a person taking ownership of property for the purpose of being able to plumb it himself without having to meet the licensing requirements of the Code for persons doing plumbing for others, ....
*444It should be observed that the ordinance contains no requirement that a resident owner continue to live in his house for any particular length of time. An owner may obtain a permit, do his plumbing work in compliance with the code, live in the house for a time, be it ever so short, and then sell or lease it to others. In no material respect would such an owner differ from one who, from the beginning, plans to rent his house to others and who personally performs identical work with full code compliance. In each case there is the possibility of evasion of the law insofar as bona fide ownership is concerned. In each case the public health and safety is protected by exacting full compliance with code requirements. I fail to see that the requirement that the owner live in the house, or intend to live in it, has any logical bearing on whether the work will pass inspection, nor will the requirement prevent attempted evasion of bona fide ownership. Neither does residency have any logical connection with the object sought to be accomplished by the ordinance—the protection of public health and safety.
The majority opinion does not adopt the trial court’s rationale; its main thrust is that the requirement of residency will result in a more careful and professional job of plumbing. The conclusion does not follow. All of the evidence indicates that the plumbing inspector can insure compliance with the technical requirements of the code, whether the work be done by a resident or a nonresident. When these requirements have been met and approved, there is no threat to public health and safety.
Some concern has been expressed that if appellant, as the owner, is issued a permit to plumb his house without a plumber’s license, it will be necessary to permit a person who owns two or more houses, or who is a “speculative builder of single dwelling homes,” to do likewise.
Although this question is not before us in the instant case, it is my present thinking—dicta that binds no one— that this conclusion does not follow. A permit might be refused, not upon the basis of nonresidency, but because *445the owner is “engaged in the business of plumbing or laboring at the trade of plumbing” as described in the preamble of the code (quoted in the majority opinion). The owner’s work would, in these circumstances, have an impact upon the public similar to that of a licensed plumber. The owner would then be engaged in a commercial activity that requires a plumber’s license for the protection of the public health and safety, but these are not the facts before us.
I would hold that the requirement of section 1.10 (c) of the Uniform Plumbing Code of Snohomish County that an owner of a single family dwelling occupy or intend to occupy the dwelling in order to obtain a permit to do plumbing or drainage work upon it is arbitrary and violates Const, art. 1, § 3 and § 12, and the due process clause of the United States Constitution, amendment 14. I would reverse the judgment with direction to issue the writ of mandate.
Hill and Rosellini, JJ., concur with Weaver, J.
January 3, 1968. Petition for rehearing denied.
(c) Any permit required by this code may be issued to any person to do any plumbing or drainage work regulated by this code in a single family dwelling used exclusively for living purposes, including the usual accessory buildings and quarters in connection with such buildings in the event that any such person is the bona fide owner of any such dwelling and accessory buildings and quarters, and that the same are occupied by or designed to be occupied by said owner, provided, that said owner shall personally purchase all material and shall personally perform all labor in connection therewith.