Translation:Tourists do not go to those beaches; there are few hotels.
Actually "kevés" is the predicate here. It describes the hotel. "A szálloda kevés." Only, the word order has been changed. So, since this is present tense, third person, making a statement about the subject, there is no "van".
Én kevés vagyok.
Te kevés vagy.
A szálloda kevés. - no "van" here
Mi kevesek vagyunk.
Ti kevesek vagytok.
A szállodák kevesek. - no "van". But this is not really used this way. One would rather say "Szállodából kevés van". It is because "kevés" denotes an amount/quantity, and that requires special handling.
If we used a "normal" adjective, it would be more regular:
Én piros vagyok. - "piros" = red
Te piros vagy.
A szálloda piros. - no "van" here.
Mi pirosak vagyunk.
Ti pirosak vagytok.
A szállodák pirosak. - no "vannak" here.
The above is not to be confused with "Kevés szálloda van." where "kevés" is only an adjective of the noun, it is not the predicate, so we need a predicate, a verb: "van".
For more information, check the discussion that was had in the reverse exercise:
Tourists are not going to those beaches; there are few hotels.
I don't understand why sometimes a simple present is accepted but not a present continuous, sometimes it is the opposite and sometimes both are accepted. OK, I know the british usage but here, the point is not on the congugation !