Dear authors,
In order to finalize the resubmission you should provide a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf in the same document with you response. This is requirement in the guidelines and now it is very difficult to evaluate the manuscript and made changes and make my final decision.

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the revised manuscript. There are a few points that need to be addressed before the acceptance of the paper to GMD.

There seems to be some challenges with the language still (e.g. P1, L1, Model name written wrong). Already Reviewer 1 asked for editing the grammar and language so you should carefully revise the text.

-Introduction: Reviewer 2 also asked more detailed separation between resolved vegetation and urban canopy models. Text in the intro should be evaluated accordingly. Before UCM there is paragraph where generally the effect of trees is examined but resolved vegetation as such is not discusses. This would fit for example in the start of P2, L29.

P7, L13 (or P5, L30): Could you add reference to Lemonsu et al. (2012) for the turbulent fluxes of QH and QE to answer Reviewer1 .

Reviewer2 was asking how well the current model compares with other models . I see that some text on this should be provided in the Discussion as asked by the reviewer. This text should not empahasize results but rather advantages/differences/disadvatages to the current model compared to others used in the field.

Code and data availability: The code used in the calculations of the manuscript should be provided (for re-productivity of the results). Would this be possible to add e.g. as Supplementray material. In general urls should not be used to refer any code and data as they may change in time. The link to SURFEX website is not eg now working. Also the model input and output should be made available either as Supplementary material or under doi created e.g. with Zenodo. And finally also any postprocessing codes used to plot/make data analysis should be included in the same place where input and outputs are made available.

Dear authors,
Thank you for the modification and corrections. The only thing I'm still missing is the response and action to "Reviewer2 was asking how well the current model compares with other models. I see that some text on this should be provided in the Discussion as asked by the reviewer. This text should not empahasize results but rather advantages/differences/disadvatages to the current model compared to others used in the field." in English.