Plenty of cities have greenways that lead into parks considered "part of" the city. Such parkland might not feel like the inner city, indeed ideally it has minimal street intrusion, but still can be part of the fabric of good city living.

I think the sentence is best read as "a wild animal could not reach the city without crossing a road that is not considered part of vancouver proper". Seems clear that that's the intended meaning

When a premise leads to a false conclusion, you should reconsider your premise.