It helps to have some personal experience with a different climatic zone and its plants/trees when discussing the pros and cons of how to use them and the extent of maintenance one is contemplating. I'm 100% in agreement with Maria on the preference to work with nature and choose plants that can be left to do their thing rather than fight them constantly by trimming and pruning. It helps to know that low dense canopies for desert trees are a natural response to conserve soil moisture and a reaction to climate and periodic strong winds. Limbing up such trees would require annual thinning, and may also destabilize them in high wind situations if the additional height catches the wind more. I fully realize that Yardvaark has a preference for limbing up all trees as well as controlling for height, but most homeowners don't want the work or expense, and should appreciate comments from someone who knows the trees and their habits, and points out the pros and cons. Other posters like to dig their heels in and make the case for why they are right, or how their approach works well if one is willing to do the constant ongoing maintenance. A difference in philosophy about gardening with nature or preferring to subjugate it... If one is going to propose higher canopy shade trees for such a garden, it would seem to make much more sense to suggest taller growing trees with higher canopies that wouldn't require the constant pruning. Trees such as Ulmus parvifolia might be one alternative, or an evergreen such as Pinus eldarica, or palms such as Brahea 'Clara' or Brahea armata. Some of the evergreen Sonoran/Chihuahuan desert species of Acacias might also be worth looking into for narrower canopies and taller habits. Ultimately I'd agree with Maria that the amount/type of trees as shown in the plan would completely obscure the view of the house from the street, and could be cut by half. If the OP wants full shade across the whole yard at maturity, all those full sun plant choices will need to be replaced with shade tolerant plants at 5 to 10 years out. I'd think the OP would appreciate these sorts of comments on their design as presented and come to their own conclusions about degree os shade/coverage desired and amount of maintenance required before they finalize their design. From people who have actual experience growing the plants in question in a similar environment, rather than a discussion about semantics and discussion about how trees and plants are meant to be subjugated to design philosophy of man over nature. It's one thing to do that for yourself, another thing altogether to recommend it as an approach for others to follow. It takes time or money and certainly extra sweat and fuel and dump fees to constantly trim trees and prune back too fast growing shrubs that the design improperly spaced. More economical and sustainable to pick the right plant for the right spot, and minimize the maintenance to keep it all looking good...

For the benefit of lurkers who might be future posters in a similar situation, it should be mentioned that you have actually already made the most significant landscaping decisions in the design of your sidewalk, driveway, and steps. I don't mean to say there is anything wrong with the decisions you made - in fact you've left yourself a nice big bed near the house in the contrast to some I've seen, and there is a pleasant curve on your driveway - but just to say that the plants are the flexible, temporary, personal, and occasional features of your landscape while the hardscape is permanent, full time, and will go from owner to owner unchanged. If, for example, you want to place trees to shade the house or the driveway or to provide privacy, that is often best decided before concrete is poured. Even, in some cases, before a house is built. Incidentally, you have not mentioned what direction the house faces, which will help with suggestions. Karin L

thanks alice and everyone here that have been so helpful. I'm up again after 4 hours of sleep but this time because of middle child throwing up... another thought since extending into the family room even by a few feels too cramped i think. what if i left the peninsula one level but put my prep sink towards the window and had my main sink on the center island? on the peninsula, people could still sit and not be too concerned of splashing- kids could sit and finish up homework and not have to clean up since we have the kitchen nook- i could prep and still talk to people and rhome , the fridge would be just a few more inches right although not inbetween? i could also use the main to prep if it is clear of dishes i could have my cleanup sink with the dishdrawers right behind me and above that I was planning to have glass doors anyhow to house glasses and glassware- this way i keep all everyday servingware close at hand. if i extend that island a little bit i could also fit my prep stuff at the end of the run next to the stove so i can still access this if there were dirty dishes and i wanted to prep in the prep sink.- kids could wash hands in the prep sink or fruit and the bev center would be at the end of that run. then, because i don't have to hide a cleanup sink, or be worried too much about splashing, i won't have to extend too far into the family room? does that make sense.

With the redbud there and your preference for minimal planting you don't need an additional tree. Otherwise apart from their current size the main issue with the existing shrubs is that they have been formally sheared to all have generally the same size and shape, more or less. And since over around the garage an exposed foundation isn't visible you may not need to have any shrubs in front of the left part of the house at all. Due to the implication being that the foundation is not exposed there either. Maybe it would even be to your taste to have a bed of shrubs around the redbud and nothing but lawn and paving around the house.