Cal. Food and Agricultural Code § 56185.5

(a) The Legislature finds there to be a substantial nexus between the conduct specified in Section 56185 and an applicant’s or holder’s fitness for licensure. (b) The department shall not dismiss an action where a violation, however minor, has been established. The department shall not dismiss an action because the applicant or holder establishes factors in mitigation. (c) However, the department may impose discipline other than denial or revocation of the license. As an alternative to revocation of a license, the department may stay a revocation subject to terms for a period of probation. As an alternative to denial the department may issue a license subject to conditions. Terms of probation or terms of conditional licensure may include, but are not limited to, a requirement of restitution, payment for extra audits, immediate revocation on a new violation, or any other terms that respond to the particular violations or circumstances found. (d) Once a finding of a violation has been made, the department may consider the following factors in assessing the appropriate level of discipline: (1) The relative isolation or infrequency of the conduct. (2) Whether the conduct was a part of a pattern or practice. (3) Whether the actor had been warned before. (4) Whether the actor considered the consequences of the conduct. (5) Whether the actor reasonably relied on others. (6) The severity of the consequences. (7) The mens rea of the actor. (8) In the case of a criminal conviction, evidence of rehabilitation. (9) The total licensing history. (e) The following factors shall not be considered in assessing the appropriate level of discipline: (1) The social or economic contributions of the applicant or holder. (2) General testimonials as to good character and worthiness to be licensed. (3) Economic hardship on the licensee. (4) “Mercy of the court” pleas in connection with criminal convictions, pattern or practice violations, or deception. (5) In the case of a felony criminal conviction, the department shall not consider rehabilitation unless the convicted person has a valid certificate of rehabilitation.