I definitely side with don. 210.11(C)(2) references outlet(s) and 210.52(F) states "at least one" meaning there can be more
I do agree that 210.11(C)(2) clearly references multiple
"outlet
(s)"... but, it also says "...outlet
(s) required by 210.52(F)."
In what case would 210.52(F)
require more than one? Couldn't you argue that any outlet beyond the
"at least one" would be a non-required outlet? So if every additional outlet beyond the
"at least one" is an elective outlet, how can 210.11(C)(2) reference multiple
required outlet
(s)???
Which forces me to look more closely at the wording of 210.52(F) and discover that it is referring to "dwelling unit
s," plural... and a dwelling unit by definition in 100 is a singular living space.
Therefore, the only way I can make sense of this is that 210.52(F) is talking about MULTIPLE dwelling units and a single receptacle required in each individual laundry area of each individual unit.
Ergo (haha), I still think my interpretation carries weight... that the wording in 210.52(F) of "at least one" is requiring a minimum of one receptacle in the space, as opposed to giving permission to install multiple receptacles.
Ergo some more (heh)... 210.11(C)(2) it is requiring that minimum of a single receptacle required by 210.52(F) to be on that dedicated 20A circuit w/ no other outlets... and that the plurality of 210.11(C)(2) you all are referencing is referring to the "dwelling unit
s" of 210.52(F).
To back that up even further, 210.52(F) also references "[laundry] area
s" and in what case would you have multiple areas for laundry in a single unit? It has to be referring back to the multiple dwelling unit
s.
Either way, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the safe interpretation is dedicated 20A ckt. feeding one receptacle outlet.