When a traffic signal controller adjusts green phases and a grid manager curtails power on the same corridor, each system may comply with its own obligations. The resident who suffers the combined effect has no single authority to hold accountable and, under the EU AI Act, limited means to obtain an explanation. Annex III, point 2 excludes safety-component AI in critical infrastructure from Article 86 explanation rights and Article 27 fundamental-rights impact assessment. Provider and deployer duties under Articles 9-15 still apply, and residual pathways under the GDPR, NIS2, and tortious liability offer partial coverage. The Act's principal resident-facing accountability instruments are nonetheless narrowed for the autonomous infrastructure systems most likely to interact across agencies. The paper traces this accountability deficit through four residual pathways (GDPR Article 22, GDPR transparency obligations, tortious liability, and NIS2) and shows that each is structurally bounded by individual-controller, individual-decision scope. As a governance response, it presents AgentGov-SC, a three-layer architecture (Agent, Orchestration, City) specifying 25 governance measures with bidirectional traceability to the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Five conflict resolution rules and an autonomy-calibrated activation model complete the design. A scenario analysis traces governance activation through a multi-agent corridor cascade involving three documented UAE smart-city systems, with a contrasting single-system scenario confirming proportional activation. The paper contributes a regulatory gap analysis and governance architecture for an increasingly important class of urban AI deployment that existing frameworks treat as bounded and isolated.