I was interesting in this, since the postulated earthquake would be so destructive that nobody would be around to surf the tsunami. Think of something like the Armenia earthquake and then add the tsunami. And I don't even think this would be a big one, since the faulting is strike-slip. I think this is a waste of thinking. I got one word for you "Who cares?"
Subduction tsunamis matter since they are huge and the seismic shaking is low. Therefore it becomes the predominant hazard and you can plan for it. This whole thing is just ugly, but I wouldn't want to be there. :)
Addition: Everybody plans for the 1 in 100 per year earthquake, but the 1 in 500 gobsmacks them. An M7.7 with tsunami is 1 in 1000 or rarer. This is in the area of beach terrace-raising M9 which probably happens every 1000 years or so in California.