I give you that one based  on your definition. But as your article says: "Part of the answer lies in the vagaries of Census geography. Sprawl is a regional attribute, so when observers point out that LA is denser than New York, they are not talking about the cities of Los Angeles and New York...The LA region’s combination of high, evenly distributed density puts it in an unfortunate position: it suffers from many of the problems that accompany high population density, including extreme traffic congestion and poor air quality; but lacks many of the benefits that typically accompany more traditional versions of dense urban areas, including fast and effective public transit and a core with vibrant street life. "
I have a pretty good feeling for L.A. I rode a bicycle once from Inglewood to Pomona and recently from Union station to Santa Monica.  As the author notes, “dysfunctional density". 
But what was the point of comparing L.A. to Eugene/Spfd.? Just to counter buenhombre with a stat?