So in the best case renting is cash flow neutral (or slightly positive, like $100/mo positive) after PM fees, and -$300/mo in the worst case.

I have a lot of "guidelines" in real estate investing yet only one unbreakable rule - "don't get into a negative cash flow situation, EVER". 

For your first one, get something turnkey that cash flows to start building your team/experince 

While this property is not acting as a cash flowing investment property, it has served the wonderful purpose of showing us how to navigate the real estate market at a base level.

By accelerating your depreciation schedules, you reduce your taxable income which in turn increases your operating cash flow.

Maybe leave some of the money "in there" to have some more cash flow to live on or just to make it easier to hold onto the property so it doesn't constrain your finances.There isn't really one "right" answer...

Personally I think I would enjoy living off the cash flow and let a PM run the properties but I'm not going to give him ideas.

Compared to the Bay area, Sacramento is more affordable and you can start to have minimal positive cash flow from the 1st year.

It is about building relationships and networking.I get why people will say invest in your own backyard but that is NOT the only way, investing where you live does not guarantee success, you can still buy bad deals that don't cash flow or won't appreciate right where you live!

Of course the time and monetary commitment would eliminate this from serious consideration for many people.