I'm not a CPA, but I do know the depreciation rules.

Most properties around here that come up for sale on the MLS don't even get to the 1% rule.

I am still learning the art of evaluating the deal using things like COC return estimates, IRR estimates, 70& rule, 1% rule, etc. 

As a Southern California investor, keep in mind that properties are expensive in most areas that are desirable - you aren't likely to find the opportunities for properties that meet those "1% rule" or "2% rule" that you'll hear investors in some other states talking about.My personal preference would be to find a nearby property to start learning the ropes with before you go for something more distant, and that would help you draw a circle around your home to allow you to start digging into neighborhoods and getting a feel for prices. 

I'd like your guys' opinions on if this is a good rule of thumb or not.

@John Warren 10 years of cash flow is a great rule of thumb!

You'd be lucky to find something with positive cash flow at all, much less hit the 1% rule.

A quick rule of thumb: with the Purchase price being $220K and rent being $1800/month, it doesn't even meet the 1% rule , if it were to be rented for 1% (220K x 0.01= $2200/month), it would most likely work out for you but this doesn't seem like the numbers work.Long story short, no deal- unless you can raise the rent and/or lower your PITI.

But still simply exchanging into a property with identical cash flow and all would net you more each month.The key of course is that you do it without triggering a recognition of gain.

Some set rules of 20%, or 30% or a specific dollar amount such as $30,000.