I have provided a few thoughts below. By appearance, the site seems to have same direction traffic on both sides of the poles.
One option would be to utilize a thrie-beam bullnose guardrail envelope with the downstream end left open The upstream end would incorporate the rounded, slotted head with containment cables. This system would not require a concrete pad.
A second option would utilize the FLEAT median version that allows both rails to gradually spread apart such that the poles were adequately shielded from impacting vehicles with tolerable working width. This system would be long and not require a concrete pad.
A wide crash cushion with backup structure might be used here if backup structure is nearly touching poles. It is holed that the wider CC would protect against oblique impact near the downstream end of CC. However, the wide CC would need to be placed in CAD to determine if this solution is effective.
I do not like placement of PCBs on soil foundations. If PCBs were to be used, the ends of the PCBs would need to be treated with CC or sand barrels. The PCBs would also need to have sufficient clear area between poles and PCBs. The PCBs would need to have sufficient overlap of barriers past the poles as well per guidance. The upstream anchorage system would be needed on each column of PCBs. Asphalt should be under the PCBs too.
Overall, I like option 1 of 4 above the best.
Some parts of this site work best with JavaScript enabled.