FirstAlerts

La Quebrada #3 in Chicago Fails Inspection

Chicago's inspection record shows La Quebrada #3, Inc. failed its Aug. 17, 2026 inspection with multiple priority violations.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 21, 2026, 5:22 a.m. ET
, at in , on Aug. 17, 2026, according to the city's inspection record. The establishment was rated . The inspection recorded 12 violations, including two priority violations that resulted in citations: bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat food and improper sanitizing of the dish machine. The inspector observed a food handler using bare hands to place onions and cilantro into a bowl, which was corrected on site. The dish machine was initially sanitizing at 0 ppm chlorine but was repaired to 50 ppm before the inspection ended. Other violations included a missing consumer advisory for undercooked food, unsealed outer doors, food and single-use items stored under an unshielded waste water line, damaged gaskets and doors on cold holding units, a non-working wash gauge on the dish machine, no prep/dump sink in the bar, dust on hood and vent, and missing allergen training certificates.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 121 Aug 2026, 09:22current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.